Singaporean Leopard 2A4s debut in Australia

[winnyfield]

Should be interesting to see a comparison between the Abrams and Leo2 in a tropical environment.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_295632.html

Leopard tanks in Australia
By Jermyn Chow

ROCKHAMPTON (Australia) - THE Singapore military's latest battle tank, the Leopard 2A4, provides a smoother ride than a car over Australia's rugged outback.

Weighing in at 55 tonnes, this German-made tank seems to iron out the gullies, potholes and humps with its torsion-bar suspension system as it tears across the scrubland at 60kmh.

Six of these tanks, shipped over from Singapore, are now being put through their paces in Rockhampton in Australia's Queensland state by the 64 men of the 48th Battalion of the Singapore Armour Regiment (SAR).

Men and machines are just getting to know each other. The troops, who learnt how to operate the four-men tanks only last month, will carry out a combination of armour group manoeuvres for the next three weeks.

Out there in the Shoalwater Bay training area, which is four times the size of Singapore, they are also having a go at firing the tank's range of armaments - a fully stabilised 120mm cannon, two 7.62mm machine guns and 16 smoke launchers.

These guns have more lethal firepower than those in the ageing SM1 tank, which will be phased out.

The 9.7m-long battle heavyweight, powered by a turbo-charged diesel engine, also out-manoeuvres similar tanks in tight spaces.

Second Lieutenant Vinoth Pannivsilvam, a tank commander, said of its nimbleness: 'We don't have to bash through thick vegetation or areas that have many trees and deadfall.'

The Leopards also trump the SM1 tanks with their ability to pick up hostile targets faster. This comes from the tank commander acting as the gunner's extra pair of eyes in scanning for enemy forces. Enemy targets are no longer taken down one by one, but en masse, and in near real-time, noted Private Dominic Tan, a full-time national serviceman and tank gunner.

When fitted with a battlefield management system, tank crews can exchange information with other SAF units to hunt down and destroy enemy forces highlighted on a digital map.

All this mobility and precision firepower come wrapped in a multi-layered armour that gives better protection from anti-tank weapons - all the better to close in on the enemy 'with greater impugnity', said Lieutenant-Colonel Ng Chia Yong, 32, the commanding officer of 48 SAR.

This means the army can hone its 'see first, see more and strike first' capability, a key feature of the Singapore Armed Forces' plan to transform itself into a third-generation fighting force.

LTC Ng said: 'We'll have the upper hand in a duel with our aggressors as we have the precise information, can manoeuvre swiftly and precisely and can deliver quicker and precise fire.'

He added, however, that any tank is only as good as its crew. 'Otherwise, it will just be a sitting duck.'

 

[OPSSG]

There is some online information on the Leopard 2. This website also provides information on the M1. So you can use that as a starting point to draw your own conclusions.

In tank design, there is often is a trade off between protection and speed. I'll just briefly touch on the levels of protection. Singapore's tanks are the Leopard 2-A4 model. It has not been up-armoured (as compared to the Leopard 2-A6 or Leopard 2E). Therefore, a generic Leopard 2-A4 cannot compare in terms of protection provided to the M1.

It has been suggested that Leopard 2-A6 is comparable to an M1. However, you should also note that each tank type has a different design philosophy and type of amour used. You should also read the report by ANAO report on the Acquisition of the Abrams MBT.

The Americans have solved the problem of the compromise between protection and speed by putting in a turbine engine to a very well protected tank. This design comes with higher fuel consumption and possibly the need for a more sophisticated logistic supply system.

For the US, the M1 must be able to defeat all armour threats worldwide. Hence, no expense is spared. For the ADF, the M1 is a better choice for them, as it offers interoperability with the US.

A factor to consider in a MBT's ability to operate jungle terrain (with soft under growth) is the ground pressure it asserts. Other factors to consider include:
(i) how dense are the trees (ie. How far apart do they grow? In relation to the width of the tank);
(ii) other terrain effects and logistic support;
(iii) how well armed is the enemy (ie. Do they have modern anti-tank weapons? Are you going to face another MBT?); and
(iv) bridge loading (the heaver the tank - the more likely that you will need to employ combat bridging - to overcome obstacles).

I'll just end by saying both MBTs can be employed in jungle terrain. However, it is necessary take into account the general bridge loading capacity in any area of operations, the area of operation's terrain effects and the logistics support available.

Edit: I've included 2 pictures showing:

(i) a Bionix vehicle launched bridge; and
(ii) a Bronco support and resupply vehicle (with its own crane).

Besides the POL tankers, the 2 types of vehicles shown in the pixs below need to follow Singapore's advancing tanks, amoured infantry and SPHs.

 

[OPSSG]

The defence ministers of Singapore and Australia, Mr Teo Chee Hean and Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, visited SAF troops participating in Exercise Wallaby on 25 Oct 2008. There is also a series of RazerTV videos on the tanks and troops at Exercise Wallaby, if you are interested.

Singapore's tanks operate alongside amoured infantry (carried in either Bionix II or M113 Ultras), supported by the Super Rapid 120MM Mortar mounted on a Bronco, the 155mm/39 calibre Primus SPH, artillery hunting radar, Apache helicopters and UAVs.

Singapore's military has different concerns. It has a different concept of operations and faces a different threat matrix (we only need to be concerned with regional threads).

Our total defence budget is lower than ADF. At the same time, we need a larger number of tanks, as we need to provide each of our combined arms divisions (capable of forward defence) with its own organic amoured element.

The Leopard 2-A4 meets our needs. We are not adverse to buying second hand (we bought our AMX13 light second hand too). Since it was available for sale by the Germans, as excess to their requirement, we were more happy to acquire them.

 

[Red]

The SAF will upgrade the 132-160(from the two recent batches of purchases)plus Leo 2s along the way like practically all the other equipment the SAF has. Afterall, Im expecting the Leos to be in service for the next 2-3 decades or perhaps more. Currently, the SAF doesnt really need to upgrade the Leos to the 2A6 standard. The threat environment does not justify it at all. But I do expect some additional add-on armour; especially for fibua.

 

[OPSSG]

Sorry, what is the 132-160? Can you also direct me to the source (if its from mil-nuts please PM me the page.)

Many thanks.

 

[tatra]

Sorry, what is the 132-160? Can you also direct me to the source (if its from mil-nuts please PM me the page.)

Many thanks.

The number of tanks: 132 to 160 units

 

[Red]

I am surprised you dont know this. They bought them in two batches remember. The 1st one is 66 tanks with 30 more spare tanks. That is 96 tanks.

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2006/dec/11dec06_nr2.html


The 2nd one is 36 tanks with an unspecified number of spare tanks. That is at least 132 Leo 2A4s with some more spare tanks.

http://http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7619/36moreleopardforsafka4.jpg

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/719/dealnota1waystreetgh2.jpg

A safe bet would be around 140-160 Leo 2s in SAF`s stocks currently. Remember the Leo 2s are supposedly replacing the 350 AMX-13 tanks. I would expect perhaps a 3rd batch of Leo 2s as well.

 

[der_Master]

I think this is a very good choice for the SAF. Leopard 2 tanks are in my opinion the best tanks in the world (M1A2 Abrams need to much logistical support for most countries imo and overall are just not worth it). Also I think Canada is among the 12 countries operating the Leopard 2 tank and they have been doing a great job for us in Afghanistan (they have saved a few Canadian lives).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The difference in logistical support between the Leopard 2 and the M1 are mariginal. Well under 50%. The difference in capability differs between the various models. But the M1 as an inherent design feature has all of its fast burning, sensitive 120mm ammunition compartmentalised where the Leopard 2 only has half of it compartmentalised. Its still an awesome tank and Singapore have a very good vehicle that they can get more of and upgrade to their own spec (which they love to do!).

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think this is a very good choice for the SAF. Leopard 2 tanks are in my opinion the best tanks in the world (M1A2 Abrams need to much logistical support for most countries imo and overall are just not worth it). Also I think Canada is among the 12 countries operating the Leopard 2 tank and they have been doing a great job for us in Afghanistan (they have saved a few Canadian lives).

there is no comparison - and hence why we avoid the "this is the best (insert favourite widget) in the world"

a few small things to consider

• the Leo2 has never been in an armoured "hot" battle - ever
• the Leo2 is a fine tank

cost is relative to a nations military requirement. it's irrelevant how much it costs. 2nd hand T-72's can be purchased in the UK for approx $90,000 AUD each. By extrapolation you could buy more T-72's bang for buck - and then it would get down to actual capability and training. (the thunder run is a good example of how M1A's fared in an armoured engagement)

 

[Red]

Its still an awesome tank and Singapore have a very good vehicle that they can get more of and upgrade to their own spec (which they love to do!).

I won`t be surprised if they call it Leo2SG or something similar when they are finally done.

Anyway, I just remembered. In a Strait Times(Razor TV)interview with the commanding officer of 48 SAR, LTC Ng Chia Yong, it is mentioned that SAF will be looking at upgrading the tank`s protection, maneuverability and internal systems(incorporation of SAF`s battlefield management system,),etc. The interview took place just after the recent Exercise Wallaby 08.

Looks like the Leo 2A4s will be upgraded sooner rather than later.

 

[Bewolf]

there is no comparison - and hence why we avoid the "this is the best (insert favourite widget) in the world"

a few small things to consider

• the Leo2 has never been in an armoured "hot" battle - ever
• the Leo2 is a fine tank

cost is relative to a nations military requirement. it's irrelevant how much it costs. 2nd hand T-72's can be purchased in the UK for approx $90,000 AUD each. By extrapolation you could buy more T-72's bang for buck - and then it would get down to actual capability and training. (the thunder run is a good example of how M1A's fared in an armoured engagement)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

KFOR

The German contingent of the Kosovo Force operated a number of Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s in Kosovo. A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video.

ISAF/OEF

Canada has borrowed 20 Leopard 2A6M CAN from the German Army for use in combat operations in Afghanistan. In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: “My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should.” wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hiller denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. “The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes” and that as a result the Taliban “learned some very harsh lessons” and lost the battle in question “very quickly and very violently.”

Denmark has also deployed its Leopard 2s in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions. On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.

The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.

The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been removed by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

 

[OPSSG]

... M1A2 Abrams need to much logistical support for most countries imo and overall are just not worth it...

I agree with gf0012-aust that der_Master cannot make such sweeping and unsubstantiated comparisons (on the issue of logistics) and I also agree that "cost is relative to a nations military requirement."

der_Master, I would hesitate to make such sweeping comments about the M1A2 Abrams tank compared to the Leopard 2 tank. I'm sorry for not making it clearer in my earlier posts.

The majority of the Singapore army comprises of an active component and NSmen (former conscripts who have moved onto civilian careers and go back for reserve training/refresher courses every year). Unless there is an international / national crisis that threatens the existence of Singapore - the full might of the SAF will not be mobilized.

However, if the SAF's total armoured force is fully mobilized - it would mean the deployment of over 1,000 armoured vehicles (including tanks, APCs, SPHs and so on). As such, I have specific Singapore army logistics/deployment constraints in mind.

That is the logistics required to re-supply over a 1,000 armoured vehicles in forward areas in a high tempo move to neutralize the threat to the survival of Singapore. As such, these constraints faced by the SAF, are not applicable to Australia.

As military service is required by all male Singaporeans, we are very excited about Singapore's acquisition of the Leopard 2A4 tank - as it would enhance the fire power available and increase the likelihood of the survival of our NSmen.

SAF will be looking at upgrading the tank`s protection, maneuverability and internal systems(incorporation of SAF`s battlefield management system,),etc. The interview took place just after the recent Exercise Wallaby 08.

Looks like the Leo 2A4s will be upgraded sooner rather than later.

On a side note, Red, on the "132-160" question: I thought you were talking about a new type of turret (don't know what I was thinking).

Red, yup at the minimum the SAF will have to install a battlefield management system to enable the Leopard 2A4 to effectively integrate with other air and land elements.

From the SAF news announcements and the RazerTV interview - it is clear that the key area of focus for the SAF is greater and greater air-land integration.

The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been removed by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

I hope that the SAF will invest more in such lifesaving technology - despite the obvious cost implications.

 

[Chino]

Knowing STK, they'd be thinking $$$.

If they can come up with a good affordable upgrade package for the Leo 2, they might be able to interest other users to buy the upgrade.

Maybe some of the spare tanks are for demo purpose as targets to show how effective the new protection level is?

 

[Chino]

• the Leo2 has never been in an armoured "hot" battle - ever

Too bad the Israelis don't buy German stuff (to my knowledge). Otherwise we would've seen them in a lot more action.

 

[Red]

Maybe some of the spare tanks are for demo purpose as targets to show how effective the new protection level is?

I also think they are for some demo stuffs; as in ST will probably use them as testbeds for new versions of Leos; Singapore version. I doubt they will be using perfectly good MBTs as targets though. More likely, they are simply combat attrition spares and reserves for an unlikely future war. I think Singapore should expect and is expecting losses in the event of any combat given the current threat scenario.

However, if the SAF's total armoured force is fully mobilized - it would mean the deployment of over 1,000 armoured vehicles (including tanks, APCs, SPHs and so on)

It should be about 1000 plus IFVs(Bionix 1/2s, Bionix 25s, Bionix 40/50, Terrex?) and another 1000 plus APCs(M113A2 ULTRA 40/50, M113A2 ULTRA OWS , Cadillac Gage V-200). The numbers could be different now. Could someone help with the actual figures if you have them?

 

[Red]

On a side note, Red, on the "132-160" question: I thought you were talking about a new type of turret (don't know what I was thinking).

I would not know anything about a new really large turret for any existing SAf platform now would I ?

 

[winnyfield]

.... There is also a series of RazerTV videos on the tanks and troops at Exercise Wallaby, if you are interested .....

Re part 2: there is no air conditioning? Bit of an oversight considering the expected operating environment.

As a comparison, in addition to a climate control system, the Aussie MBTs have a bar fridge (for drinks and ... ice cream) and they're looking to fit a heat reducing camo system. Could be something the that could be looked at by the Singaporeans.

 

[Falstaff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

KFOR

The German contingent of the Kosovo Force operated a number of Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s in Kosovo. A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video.

ISAF/OEF

Canada has borrowed 20 Leopard 2A6M CAN from the German Army for use in combat operations in Afghanistan. In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: “My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should.” wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hiller denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. “The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes” and that as a result the Taliban “learned some very harsh lessons” and lost the battle in question “very quickly and very violently.”

Denmark has also deployed its Leopard 2s in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions. On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.

The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.

The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been removed by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" , which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

gf was talking about "armoured battle"- mechanized troops vs. mechanized troops or MBT vs. MBT.

That the Leo 2 is a "fine tank" is about as much as you'll get for stuff Australia didn't buy, so don't bother

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf was talking about "armoured battle"- mechanized troops vs. mechanized troops or MBT vs. MBT.

correct

That the Leo 2 is a "fine tank" is about as much as you'll get for stuff Australia didn't buy, so don't bother

incorrect. People aware of my posting history on a few other sites will know that I much preferred the Leo2A4 - for a number of reasons. However, I'm also of the view that people in the armoured corp know far more about heavy armour than I do.