Leopard 2 A6 Tank

[DavidDCM]

That is probably not true because the "unprotected" ammo of the Leo is stored in the otherwise best protetected part of the tank, meaning that if something penetrates badly enough to make that ammo go off, the tank is almost guaranteed to be dead anyway so it doesnt matter.
Its a design tradeoff, not bad protection. Personally i prefer the M1 design choice in this but i cant say the Leo is truly worse.

The crew operating the tank at the moment of penetration is probably dead anyway, no matter if it is a Leopard or Abrams.
But the unprotected ammo can cause a penetrated Leo 2 to be fully destroyed by that explosion where without that ammo it could possibly be repaired and returned into service.

 

[OPSSG]

So, the M1 CAN be less fuel thirsty than the Leo-2, but usually isnt. The really big difference however is while standing still with main engine running, this is when the real downside of turbine engines rears its very ugly head, lousy low RPM fuel efficiency, Abrams vs Leo2 ready to move but standing still, the former will use several times more fuel over time.

@DIREWOLF75, please note that eckherl, DavidDCM, and Waylander are good sources of info on the Abrams and the Leopards, given their prior experience in operating them. They have access to actual operation POL usage data. So think of them as an expert resources - they are well aware on the fuel consumption issues having served on tanks. Frankly, if you look at American logistics (they really have a fantastic system), they don't have a problem with POL resupply for the Abrams and fundamentally MBTs need support. So the fuel consumption is not an issue at an operational level. As as Singaporean, I constantly stand in awe of American logistics capabilities - it is way ahead of my country's army.

One of the benefits of taking part here is that I can turn around and ask someone who knows more than me. Good opportunity for me to learn.

Kindly note that there's something called an APU. It enables US Abrams tankers to turn off their turbine engine (if they are stationary) to conserve fuel and I also note that Singapore's Leopard 2A4s also have an APU on each. In fact, quite a few Leopards have APUs. IIRC, the Leopard 2A6 also uses a 20 kW APU (not really sure on this point). So what I'm saying is that fuel consumption is affected by other features and the nature of operational demands.

Cheers and enjoy learning from these guys.

 

[Waylander]

No APU on German Leopards so far but it is going to be implemented in the next upgrade.
Nevertheless the Strv122, Leopard IIE, Leopard IIHEL and Leopard IIA5DK feature an APU.

Well I think not putting an APU into our Leopard IIA6M is one of the biggest mistakes of the whole German tank upgrade programme.

 

[OPSSG]

No APU on German Leopards so far but it is going to be implemented in the next upgrade.
Nevertheless the Strv122, Leopard IIE, Leopard IIHEL and Leopard IIA5DK feature an APU.

Well I think not putting an APU into our Leopard IIA6M is one of the biggest mistakes of the whole German tank upgrade programme.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[kato]

But the unprotected ammo can cause a penetrated Leo 2 to be fully destroyed by that explosion where without that ammo it could possibly be repaired and returned into service.

Matter of doctrine.

Any war in Germany would have turned nuclear or been over anyway before any salvaged tanks could have returned to the battlefield. There are other fields where this also shows, e.g. in that the Bundeswehr has never had official guidelines for defining who deals with POWs (they're iirc still working on one for Afghanistan).
Also there were only a handful (six?) major maintenance/repair plants for tanks in Cold War Germany anyway, since then reduced to iirc only two.

Regarding fuel usage, similar things apply. Considering the CEPS network (which is still active with pipelines and fuel depots being maintained by a state-owned company, in peacetime mostly supplying airports) the moment a tank in Germany would run out of fuel would be the same point at which the entire military would have run out of fuel.

 

[DIREWOLF75]

@DIREWOLF75, please note that eckherl, DavidDCM, and Waylander are good sources of info on the Abrams and the Leopards, given their prior experience in operating them. They have access to actual operation POL usage data. So think of them as an expert resources - they are well aware on the fuel consumption issues having served on tanks. Frankly, if you look at American logistics (they really have a fantastic system), they don't have a problem with POL resupply for the Abrams and fundamentally MBTs need support. So the fuel consumption is not an issue at an operational level. As as Singaporean, I constantly stand in awe of American logistics capabilities - it is way ahead of my country's army.

USAs logistics are great yes, but obviously not great enough, in 1991 the original plan was to encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican guard units moving out of Kuwait, this however could not be completed because of fuel shortages.
This despite having spent 6 months stocking up 39.000.000 gallons of fuel and continually delivering more.
("On armour" B.I. Gudmundsson and "Final report to congress: Conduct of the Persian Gulf War)

An M1 uses around 2 gallons per mile travelled(up to 6 have been recorded but this is likely while running the turbine engine suboptimally), and uses 10-12 gallons per hour being immobile but combat and movement ready.
And please DO note that i didnt contradict Waylander when responding, i ADDED additional information to his. [Mod Edit: Rude text deleted. I see you discovered the joys of Google. Dial down your attitude and no further response is necessary.

Comparative fuel consumption has been subject to prior discussions in other threads in the forum. See here for the responses by eckherl at posts #80 & #86 and Abraham Gubler at posts #76 and #83. Feel free to have a look.

No need to take this attitude and such a response is a little bit over the top and not necessary.]

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours
"On armour" states a similar figure, 500 gallons per day.

Kindly note that there's something called an APU

Kindly note that this was added in the M1A2 upgrade and that M1A1 outnumber -A2s by around 4 or 5 to 1. (although there are notes about it being added to -A1s as well i am unable to find specific information on wether this has happened at all or not)
Also kindly note that the APU replaces crew stowage space which could not be replaced elsewhere.
Also kindly note that running on APU does not mean combat readiness, because it still takes a bit of extra time to get the tank moving if main engine is turned off.

[Mod Edit: The part of your response that was deleted is a little bit over the top. Read the Forum Rules, in particular about respecting other forum members before posting again. Learn to engage in a discussion rather than attempting to trade insults.]

 

[eckherl]

From what i hear, no. They keep improving their ERA as well, but even against earlier types, the new KEs are not supposed to be so much improved.
Note that this is not reliable information however.


So what do you hear, I think with advancements in Tungsten, Poly type alloys that they have advanced alot more than what some folks may realize.

 

[STURM]

Gentleman, excuse me for butting in.

Can 20mm and 30mm AP rounds penetrate the rear turret on the Leopard 2A5/A6, Challenger 2 and M1A2? Is the German army taking any steps to better protect its Leopards against top attack missiles? Thank you.

 

[eckherl]

Gentleman, excuse me for butting in.

Can 20mm and 30mm AP rounds penetrate the rear turret on the Leopard 2A5/A6, Challenger 2 and M1A2? Is the German army taking any steps to better protect its Leopards against top attack missiles? Thank you.

All I will say is that a 25mm DU projectile is quite impressive. As far as Leo 2 goes yes they have packages that offer protection from top attack but I will let one of our German contributors to this site answer that question, its their sun shine and I do not want to steal it.

 

[Waylander]

Aaah, gratefull as always...

Yes, as Eckherl said there are armor packages available which increase the top protection of the turret.

I doubt that they prevent something like a Spike or Javelin from penetrating but older RPGs in an Urban environment as well as AT-bomblets should be taken care of.

Right now they are in service with the Strv122, Leopard 2E and Leopard 2HEL.

 

[STURM]

Appreciate the feed back. Thank you.

 

[Warwiz]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

No matter which tank is better, in the end its the German gun thats the best, since they both use the same 120mm canon.

 

[Go229]

Donsen't the Leopard II have Chobham too? as well as Challenger II? And AFAIK the Leo 2A6's computers are as high tech as the latest american stuff.

 

[kato]

No matter which tank is better, in the end its the German gun thats the best, since they both use the same 120mm canon.

The A6 does not use the same cannon as the Abrams but an improved version.

 

[DIREWOLF75]

Gentleman, excuse me for butting in.

Can 20mm and 30mm AP rounds penetrate the rear turret on the Leopard 2A5/A6, Challenger 2 and M1A2?

Not under any normal conditions. Not even the best sabot rounds from the 40mm gun on the CV90 can usually do this.

Is the German army taking any steps to better protect its Leopards against top attack missiles?

Yes they are, although i dont know how far they´ve gotten with it. I know the Swedish army has "taken measures" in this area already and is working to greatly improve the top attack protection within the not too distant future.

Yes, as Eckherl said there are armor packages available which increase the top protection of the turret.

I doubt that they prevent something like a Spike or Javelin from penetrating but older RPGs in an Urban environment as well as AT-bomblets should be taken care of.

Right now they are in service with the Strv122, Leopard 2E and Leopard 2HEL.

The next generation stuff is whats looking alot more interesting.

Donsen't the Leopard II have Chobham too? as well as Challenger II?

Not exactly. Neither M1 nor Leo 2 actually has "Chobham". Both use armour based on the predecessor to the armour used on the Challenger 2, but both have been locally developed away from the original at the time direct cooperation ended or the basic specs finalised.
You could say that the M1 uses a local development based on Chobham version 1.3, Leo 2 the same but based on Chobham version 1.6 while the Challenger 2 uses the "real" Chobham version 2.0.
This was also one of the reasons for the changes brought in by the -A1 package for the M1.

And AFAIK the Leo 2A6's computers are as high tech as the latest american stuff.

And unless the current political idiots in charge here goes on yet another defence spending cutting spree, Sweden will keep its edge in the electronics package the Strv-122 has over the regular Leo 2A6... Of course, some of the differences to M1 is as much a matter of preference as anything that can be called "better" or "worse".

 

[DIREWOLF75]

Mod Edit: Rude text deleted. I see you discovered the joys of Google. Dial down your attitude and no further response is necessary.

Further response is certainly necessary. You mod a reply to yourself? Gives me alot of confidence indeed...

More importantly however, you post a rude and highly condescending reply to what is simply pure facts and expect me to be all flowers back?
And then you add ANOTHER insult in the mod editing berating MY "rudeness"? Marvelous.

Comparative fuel consumption has been subject to prior discussions in other threads in the forum. See here for the responses by eckherl at posts #80 & #86 and Abraham Gubler at posts #76 and #83. Feel free to have a look.

Do you even realise that much of what those posts say actually supports what i said?

And the rest is a matter of being considered unimportant or being ignored, neither of which i can agree with.
And arguing that the size of the supply chain is irrelevant, its just appallingly ignorant.

As to the M1's IR signature I've seen it through thermal cameras and while the exhaust plume is strong it is not bigger than the actual vehicle. The thing about any exhaust plume is it is rapidly 'consumed' by the air around it and with the engine off doesn't exist.
Perhaps you should instead see how that plume looks in a cold environment? Certainly a lot bigger than the vehicle.
More relevantly however in this case, is its difference to looking at a Leo2 with thermal reduction gear like the Strv-122 has and an M1, whose turbine engine means it CANT mount such gear for the engine(which means its almost useless to mount it for anything else either)...
And the difference is extreme to say the least. Under otherwise equal conditions, the M1 can be seen at least twice as far away as the Leo. Without thermal control gear the difference is much less, its visible somewhere a bit beyond the middle between the other two.

I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.
It seems the world overall doesnt agree. Noone else uses turbine, except the Russian T-80s, and they very markedly prefer NOT to use them and are even switching the turbines for diesels, despite the negative impact that has on the tank. In Georgia they even rather used T-62s instead of T-80s! Turbine engines are great, but not for tanks.


In another comparison, on the old Strv-103 here, the only tank ever used with BOTH diesel and turbine, it was not unheard of for the turbine engine to draw well over 10 times as much fuel over time as the diesel. While the turbine produced more power, that had little to do with the massive difference...

Mod edit: The point of contention, and the reason for the editing of the prior post, was that the response was felt to be uncalled for. One can disagree with someone else, but still response in a respectful manner which is a requirement of DefenceTalk, hence the reference to the forum rules. This is also why the reference was made to different poster backgrounds, i.e. Defence Professional, Senior Member, as such indicators can serve to let others know that the poster in question might have more familiarity than a regular person would with the topic in question. As a last note, the Mod team communicates with each other to resolve issues and act in concert. If a poster feels there is a problem with a particular Mod, please contact that Mod, another member of the Mod team, or Webmaster to get the issue resolved.
-Preceptor

 

[Palnatoke]

Just my 5 cents

Engineering science offers the following rules of thumb:

A turbine delivers very good power to weight/size or just "foot print".ratio.

A turbine not running at optimal rpm (which translates into to power output unless very complex geering is used, which defeats the original advantage of turbines) is inherritly fuel inefficient.

A two stroke engine (a diesel) offers very good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power output,

A two stroke engine (a diesel) is a complex and large machine compared to power output.

One sees this in warships:
Ships that need to have a good "stamnia" but with the ability to make short bursts of speed are usually equiped with a CODAG (combined diesel and gas). In this setting the ship usually runs on it's diesel machinery offering adequate power and good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power outputs(or speeds). When high speed is needed, the gas turbine is engaged.
The trick of the arrangement is that the turbine has a smal footprint (compared to power output) and hence, it's not infeasable to include it compared to including an extra diesel machinery to deliver the same power output (because the diesel has a larger footprint).

A ship that only needs good stamnia is usually diesel only.

A small ship that doesen't need good stamnia, but is likely to operate at high speeds can be COGAG (Combined gas and gas), here you exploit the fact that a turbine arangement has a small footprint, a design parameter for a small ship. You (always) have a dual configuration of one turbine optimized for one power output and another turbine optimized for another (higher) power output. this is f.ex. because the low output turbine can sustain normal operating speed at accetable fuel efficiency and have the high output turbine kick in when high speed is needed. (In fact the dual configuration offers 3 optimal speeds: two speeds with one of the turbines turned off and one with both turned on).

As I understand it, what I have learned about engines surport what DIREWOLF75 is saying. though I don't know much about tanks.

 

[Feanor]

It seems the world overall doesnt agree. Noone else uses turbine, except the Russian T-80s, and they very markedly prefer NOT to use them and are even switching the turbines for diesels, despite the negative impact that has on the tank. In Georgia they even rather used T-62s instead of T-80s! Turbine engines are great, but not for tanks.


In another comparison, on the old Strv-103 here, the only tank ever used with BOTH diesel and turbine, it was not unheard of for the turbine engine to draw well over 10 times as much fuel over time as the diesel. While the turbine produced more power, that had little to do with the massive difference...

Rubbish. The T-80 is being phased out for the T-90 only because OTM is bankrupt, and the only factory for the T-80 left is in Ukraine. This includes their engine production. If the Indians had chosen a T-80 derivative in the late 90s (and saved OTM from bankrupcy), then the Russian Army would be getting new T-80 variants right now. The T-62s were used not because they didin't want to use the T-80s, but because before 2009 the former 42nd MRD was equipped with T-62s as their standard equipment. When the unit was formed in iirc the early 2000s it was activated from a storage base, rather then formed from existing units, and got subpar equipment as a result. This has nothing to do with the engines.

The T-90 doesn't feature the turbines, because once again design and production is in Ukraine.

 

[OPSSG]

Just my 5 cents

Engineering science offers the following rules of thumb:

A turbine delivers very good power to weight/size or just "foot print".ratio.

A turbine not running at optimal rpm (which translates into to power output unless very complex geering is used, which defeats the original advantage of turbines) is inherritly fuel inefficient.

A two stroke engine (a diesel) offers very good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power output,

A two stroke engine (a diesel) is a complex and large machine compared to power output.

One sees this in warships:
Ships that need to have a good "stamnia" but with the ability to make short bursts of speed are usually equiped with a CODAG (combined diesel and gas). In this setting the ship usually runs on it's diesel machinery offering adequate power and good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power outputs(or speeds). When high speed is needed, the gas turbine is engaged.
The trick of the arrangement is that the turbine has a smal footprint (compared to power output) and hence, it's not infeasable to include it compared to including an extra diesel machinery to deliver the same power output (because the diesel has a larger footprint).

A ship that only needs good stamnia is usually diesel only.

A small ship that doesen't need good stamnia, but is likely to operate at high speeds can be COGAG (Combined gas and gas), here you exploit the fact that a turbine arrangement has a small footprint, a design parameter for a small ship. You (always) have a dual configuration of one turbine optimized for one power output and another turbine optimized for another (higher) power output. this is f.ex. because the low output turbine can sustain normal operating speed at acceptable fuel efficiency and have the high output turbine kick in when high speed is needed. (In fact the dual configuration offers 3 optimal speeds: two speeds with one of the turbines turned off and one with both turned on).

As I understand it, what I have learned about engines surport what DIREWOLF75 is saying. though I don't know much about tanks.

Can you please explain why some fast ferries run on turbines and some on diesels? Are you aware that while many ships use two stroke engines for main propulsion but some use four stroke engines for main propulsion too?

Palnatoke, please look up the difference between four stroke diesel engines and two stroke diesel engines (see this link for some basics - please read up first before starting your lecture). There are some differences between them in different applications. Both types are used in many ships but only one of the two engine types are used to drive the Leopard 2 series. If you are interested in naval propulsion have a look here too. Generalizations are just that. BTW, long ago, I used to work for a company that at that time sold four stroke diesel engines and it had a subsidiary that also sold turbines. On occasion visited a ship yard or two with our application and failure analysis engineers.

Can you go back to the topic, which is the 2A6? I know you love to stir things up (as is consistent with your persona) but let us not confuse the issue as we are not even talking about the same type of diesel engine across the same application. Why are you using a two stroke engine as an example to compare in a tank's four stroke diesel engine?

 

[OPSSG]

Do you know that I moderated at the request of other members? They felt you were offensive and reported your post.

Further response is certainly necessary. You mod a reply to yourself? Gives me alot of confidence indeed...

More importantly however, you post a rude and highly condescending reply to what is simply pure facts and expect me to be all flowers back?
And then you add ANOTHER insult in the mod editing berating MY "rudeness"? Marvelous.

Right now you are just throwing another tantrum.

The discussion in the previous thread was pretty heated basically because some forum members were perceived to be inaccurately disparaging the capabilities and choices of other nations. One of my friends felt quite bruised after the exchange. The main reason I did an initial quick post in reply because I was worried that this thread would likewise become heated given your style of writing and wanted you to avoid the same experience. In this forum, you can either post 'information' or ask questions - which was the point of my initial post. There will be others to interact with you. How you choose to respond is up to you.

Let me quote my former post in full here again (there is no malice in that first post to you), so that the other members can clearly see how badly you over reacted:

@DIREWOLF75, please note that eckherl, DavidDCM, and Waylander are good sources of info on the Abrams and the Leopards, given their prior experience in operating them. They have access to actual operation POL usage data. So think of them as an expert resources - they are well aware on the fuel consumption issues having served on tanks. Frankly, if you look at American logistics (they really have a fantastic system), they don't have a problem with POL resupply for the Abrams and fundamentally MBTs need support. So the fuel consumption is not an issue at an operational level. As as Singaporean, I constantly stand in awe of American logistics capabilities - it is way ahead of my country's army.

One of the benefits of taking part here is that I can turn around and ask someone who knows more than me. Good opportunity for me to learn.

Kindly note that there's something called an APU. It enables US Abrams tankers to turn off their turbine engine (if they are stationary) to conserve fuel and I also note that Singapore's Leopard 2A4s also have an APU on each. In fact, quite a few Leopards have APUs. IIRC, the Leopard 2A6 also uses a 20 kW APU* (not really sure on this point). So what I'm saying is that fuel consumption is affected by other features and the nature of operational demands.

Cheers and enjoy learning from these guys.

A mature critique on US logistics during the Gulf War would take the trouble to describe the concept of logistics support, the five phases of the CSS plan, the role of LTG Pagonis as theatre logistic commander and explain where the gaps occurred.

An accurate description of American CSS efforts would set the ground work for analysis and critique - this of course would have to include the acknowledgment that LTG Pagonis went beyond the doctrine at that time and constructed logistic bases in front of advancing troops so that supplies would be available as the forces advanced. Mobile supply points meant that logisticians could travel with combat forces; expendable assets meant that securing the bases was not an issue. LTG Pagonis assigned a specific CSS unit to run each logistic base and charged them with destroying the base if the enemy threatened to overrun it. However, IMO, you are not trying to conduct a mature critique in a constructive matter. Let me quote what you said:

USAs logistics are great yes, but obviously not great enough, in 1991 the original plan was to encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican guard units moving out of Kuwait, this however could not be completed because of fuel shortages.

This despite having spent 6 months stocking up 39.000.000 gallons of fuel and continually delivering more.
("On armour" B.I. Gudmundsson and "Final report to congress: Conduct of the Persian Gulf War)

You provide a sole source and disingenuously assert a point rather than present a case to support your point. I am not persuaded by your flimsy assertion which does not even even bother to 'quote' relevant sections from your source. In fact, taking a look at Gudmundsson's book that you cited, and I quote:

Page 216 -

"2. Logistics units were hard-pressed to keep the rapid pace of maneuver units. Both logistics structure and doctrine was found wanting in the high tempo offensive operation... and MSRs into Iraq few and constricted..."

If you had bothered to present the information fairly via a quote of Gudmundsson's conclusions, it would be clear that the logistics units were hard-pressed but did not fail in their mission to keep up with the troops. In fact, if you bothered to read with more care, Gudmundsson was talking about the issue with limited MSRs. These are terrain driven constraints that any army would face in those specific sent of circumstances. Even a quick examination of your source shows your sloppy thinking and intellectual dishonesty - drawing an invalid conclusion from a limited set of facts without regard for real world constraints.

Further, you fail to connect the past to the present (ie. show that the current US logistics system has the same weakness). And finally unlike you, I provide a link so that others can draw their own conclusions from the source data.

Since this is not a thread on the US Army Logistics, your by the way comment on the M1's fuel consumption is really a barbed comment to troll for a response. If you have a genuine interest, feel free to start a thread looking at how logistics work for the US Army and in there you can also discuss its limitations. I see you have persisted with the same problematic behaviour in your last post that I would like to quote below:

DIREWOLF75 responding to a post made by eckherl in the 'Singaporean Leopard 2A4s debut in Australia' thread.

I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.

It seems the world overall doesnt agree. Noone else uses turbine, except the Russian T-80s, and they very markedly prefer NOT to use them and are even switching the turbines for diesels, despite the negative impact that has on the tank. In Georgia they even rather used T-62s instead of T-80s! Turbine engines are great, but not for tanks.

However, Feanor has pointed out that your above point is rubbish in post #58.

I'm glad that I intervened and discovered that it is the other forum members that need to be shielded from your toxic persona. Evidently you do not need the Mods to look kindly on your posts, given that you have revealed your persona and agenda.

-------------------------
* Note: This is a factual mistake and Waylander has kindly pointed out that the German Leopard IIA6M does not come with an APU.