- Leopard II is a good tank but has no fetures that stand out except german engineering
You are forgetting the gun, which apparently is standing out, otherwise the Abrams most likely wouldnt use it. The newest of the series with its L/55-calibre length using conventional rounds achieves results supposedly similar to that of DU rounds used with the Abrams.
You are forgetting the engine technology as well, which in the form of the Euro Power Pack is a considerable export success on its own, besides being used in the various Euro-Leos around.
Therefore the fact that single features of the Leo 2 are not so much discussed, different than with the russian MBT's, is actually proof of the system itself being outstanding as a package. German engineering isnt an isolated feature, it means, that every single aspect, protection, attack and propulsion are all elements that should be taken into consideration when judging the tank.
The only points of critic are therefore the system not having been in combat (which seems to be some kind of killer argument, omitting the various trials between MBTs in procurement decisions completely) and, more problematic, at least from the perspective of german tankers, the weight issue, since over its evolution the Leo 2 rose considerably in that respect. But the same holds true for other MBTs, most importantly the Abrams and Merkava.
I agree with KGB on the T-90-issue. All these active and semi-active (ERA) defence systems may suggest a weakness in Russia on the part of composite armor plates technology. Of course another explanation would be that its simply a different approach on order to keep the combat weight of the MBT down, which grows to be a critical issue with current western designs.
This showed up quite uncomfortable when in Kosovo german Leo 2s had a hard time operating in an environment where various streets and esp. bridges where off limits.