Turkish Aselsan upgraded the Leopard 2A4 and named as Leopard 2 NG ( Next Generasion) . What do you think about this upgrading? After these changes, leopard 2NG can be compared with Leopard 2-A6, Merkava or Abram ??
.youtube.com/watch?v=4frziRdqN6o
You can allways compare tanks, the result will only differ. The Leopard 2 NG uses add-on armour modules from the German company IBD Deisenroth, which featured the applique armour already in different concepts (Leopard 2 Evolution, Leopard 2 Revoultion). The armour was also fielded by the Singaporean Army.
The question is how good is the armour? First of all the main armour seems to be unchanged, which means that the hull and turret armour is probably on the 1980s level of technology - the turrets feature the welded ammunition resupply hatch, which shows that this are not the 1990s Leopard 2A4s with improved armour protection. While the applique covers pretty much of the frontal profie it leaves a gap at the location of the gunner's sight - formerly the EMES-15, but Aselsan replaced it - at this place the tank armour is very likely weak enough to be penetrated by most modern types of ammunition.
The applique armour is very thick, but also very low-weight. If we compare the Leopard 2 with AMAP applique to the Leopard 2A5 we will notice that both tanks will roughly weigh the same, but the AMAP armour covers much more of the tank (sides, roof, hull) - while it probably has increased weight efficiency, the Leopard 2A5 is at the turret front probably better protected. The hull front armour of the Leopard 2A5 is thinner, but the basic armour is more modern. Hull front armour could be similar or better on the Leopard 2NG. Side armour and roof armour is stronger than on the Leopard 2A5, however the Strv 122/Leopardo 2E/Leopard 2HEL have better roof armour.
In terms of firepower the Leopard 2NG has a less effective gun, but it has the advantage of a newer FCS. How good the FCS performs compared to the Leopard 2 FCS or the M1A2 SEP FCS is not known, however the main sight of the Leopard 2 is pretty old and has undergone nearly no changes. Replacing it is a very good idea, still the Aselsan sight is not much better. It has at advantages a CCD camera and probably a newer thermal sight, but magnification of the day sight is unchanged, so is the maximum range of the LRF. The advantage here is very small only. Maybe the stabilization/drives are better than the of the Leopard 2A6/M1A2, but I couldn't find any data regarding this.
The commander's sight is an advantage when compared to the Leopard 2A4, but the Leopard 2A5 and the M1A2 feature also pretty good sight, with pretty modern thermal sights. The new commander's sight has the same level of stabilization as the German PERI R17A2 and has less elevation (-9 to +20° instead of -13 to +20°). Magnification and field of view of both sights are about the same, but maybe the new Turkish thermal sight supports higher resolutions (no data given)? The Germans have fitted their Leopard 2A7 prototypes with a new PERI RWTL-B, which is better than the PERI R17A2 and probably also better than the Aselsan Commander's Panoramic Periscope.
The new controll handles and the User Interface of the Aselsan FCS are probably an advantage over the Leopard 2A5, but I don't now anything about the M1A2 here. The main advantage of the Leopard 2NG are the new laser warner and the remote weapon station, but this is not very combat determining.
The Greek Leopard 2HEL has better front and roof armour, slightly inferior FCS, but better armour penetration. The Leopard 2HEL features also laser warners (at least some tanks) and an APU. Not fitting the long L/55 gun or an APU into the Leopard 2NG is a very curios decision, but in the end the Leopard 2NG is made by a company and not by the government. If the government wants to buy it has still to be decided.