Talk:Leopard 2

Return paragraph on lack of combat experience?

Danzig removed the following paragraph:

The recent wins for the Leopard 2 (such as Greece choosing the Leopard 2 over the M1 Abrams and the Leclerc) are strong evidence that it is one of the best tanks in the world. However, it is still untested in actual combat. No Leopard 2 has fired a shot in war.

Should we put it back in or leave it be? Edward Sandstig 09:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• There is a link http://www.milhist.dk/post45/boellebank/boellebank_uk.htm

that describes the Danish Leopard in battle against Serb T-55s and APCs in Tuzla, Bosnia & Herzegovina, late April 1994. This is another link http://digilander.libero.it/limesclub/border/3,04.htm about the same battle, but it's in Italian. DagosNavy 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Leo1 but not Leo2 --Denniss 12:57, 19 July 2006

(UTC)

OK, they were upgraded Leo1s, so the confusion. Thanks. DagosNavy 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is a fair guess that a Leo2 is outclassing an upgraded Leo1?

This depends on the various types you compare. The Danish tanks weren't upgraded in the strict sense, just of an improved variant. In the early eighties, in case of international tension prepared special upgrade programmes would have been initiated that would have brought the A1A1's and A5's to (then current) Leopard 2 level as regards the armour (about 600 mm KE equivalence protection). Even then they would have been vastly inferior to the present 2A6. And there's the inherent problem of the 105 mm gun (upgunning is possible but impractical) and there would obviously be serious reliability concerns. It was very often suggested the money had been better spent on new Leopard 2 production.--MWAK 09:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure, but there are German Soldiers/Police in Afganistan, I find it hard to belive they havn't brought their tanks with them... -Van —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.89.75 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the source below, the german army does not operate modern battle tanks in Afghanistan, however, they borrowed 20 of their Leopard 2A6M to the canadian Afghanistan-troup. Here's a link, but in german: http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/leih-leopard_aid_57703.html --Supersymetrie (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Both the Canadians and the Danes have brought Leo2's to Afghanistan; the canadians are using Leo2A6 while the Danes are using Leo2A5. Both nations have used them successfully in combat.Andrimner (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Armour again

No official German source has ever stated that the Leopard 2 have Chobham armour, and for a good reason: it doesn't. :o)

--MWAK 08:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IIRC Jane's Armored Fighting Vehicles describes Leo2's armor as "Third-generation laminate (equivalent to Chobham)". I assume they mean that the armor package is speculated to have Chobham-like resistance to HEAT penetrators. Jasonfahy 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all Jane's has no need to speculate; its editors know bloody well what the real situation is ;o). Let me explain the term "third-generation laminate armour": first generation = real laminate; second generation = perforated steel; third generation = titanium-tungsten system. Yes, it is "Chobham-like" in its resistance, but only quantitatively so, not qualitatively: the mechanisms are in some respect very different. The Leopard 2 mainly relies on the fact that anything that will make a tank immune to a modern penetrator will also stop an average hollow charge jet.--MWAK 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"it is mainly the smaller countries that have adopted it."

Barely Spain is a small country. Holland, Swede, Denmark and others has choosed the Leopard2 as well.

To be precisely there are 15 countries that have the Leopard 2 in use: Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Greece, Italy, Canada, Netherland, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Swiss, Spain, Turkey. 84.172.254.146 8 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Those are all the countries that use the Leopard 2 or the Leopard 1: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Italy and Turkey do not use the Leopard 2!--MWAK 9 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Canada does use the Leopard 2 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_5.asp?Offset=3&cat=1 see for yourself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benji101 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

No, this is the Leopard 1 C2; some people can't bother to insert the "1" :o).--MWAK 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Afghanistan, they are operating Leo2A6's they borrowed from Germany, doesn't this qualify them as "users"? Edit: Please disregard my VERY late entry, I just re-checked the article and found them listed....Andrimner (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In November 2005 Germany sold 298 used Leopard 2 to Turkey, and because Turkey gets the Leopard 2, Greece also gets 170 tanks.

It should of course be noted that western MBT's of the latest generation have hardly been really successful export products. The reason why generally the Leopard 2 is favoured, is precisely its lack of Chobham armour, leading to much lower maintenance costs. Also it neither has a hydraulic suspension (like the Challenger 2) nor an autoloader (like the Leclerc), both of which are maintenance nightmares. And its conventional diesel uses less fuel than a turbine (which the M1 Abrams has). A tank that has less is often more of a tank. ;o)

--MWAK 07:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it has an all-electric traverse system for the gun (since 2A5). You can actually sit on the gun while the tank drives over rough terrain, the guns relative position doesnt change. As far as I know this system is leading in the world.. Or it was when it was introduced. :) And the tank is capable of automatically firing back when hit by another tank or rpg within a second. --82.83.71.217 18:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"automatically firing back" is absolutely not true, the Leopard 2 has no such device. It doesn't even has an LASER detector. Peter --172.201.179.143 15:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)--

Even "A0" had that. You can sit on the barrel while the tank makes a full turn and you won't noticably change position. Remaining on the barrel while the tank drives in a straight line is pretty safe too, just up to the moment the driver instinctively makes a turn to avoid an obstacle and you slide off and die rather horribly. Gun stabilisation is one of the fields in which there actually is, for once, a lot of cooperation between NATO-members. There are a number of passive and semi-active protection measures that are automatically activated when the tank is (about to be) hit. Some of them provide little more than the illusion of protection. The present state of technology allows a tank with an autoloader to automatically fire a special round to destroy an incoming low level missile. Depending on threat level this capacity might outweigh the inherent unreliability.--MWAK 07:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've read in The Encylopedia Of Tanks And Armoured Fighting Vehicles(Found Here: http://www.netstoreusa.com/hjbooks/186/1862271887.shtml) that the Leopard 2 uses chobham. Dudtz 12/30/05 7:21 PM EST

Which only goes to show...:o) The book simply reflects the fact that "Chobham" has become a generic term for "special armour" of any kind.--MWAK 20:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Driving a Leopard 2, we reached about 100 km/h on the road. But it was extremly loud inside the tank.

Most modern MBT's are a lot swifter than their rated speed. Bur rated speeds exist for a reason: the noise you heard was the entire system protesting against it being mistreated. ;o)--MWAK 08:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

the fastest one which get caught by a Feldjäger (MP) speedtrap was abou 120km/h. But they are verry variouse in speed, some of ours could hardly reach 70km/h but other ones reached easyly 100km/h. I commanded my Leo2 never faster then 75km/h but only to ensure the savety of my crew, I don't whant to know what happens if you have an svere accident and they can prrove you that you have been ways to fast, as the Limit is 50km/h if I remeber right. Peter --172.201.179.143 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)--

---

well, now it is official. i send a mail to the press bureau of the bundeswehr concerning the question, if the leo2a6 has chobham like armor or not. this is what i got as a reply: Sehr geehrter [name deleted],

haben Sie vielen Dank für Ihre freundliche Anfrage, die ich Ihnen gerne beantworte. Der Leopard2 (A1-A6) verfügt im Prinzip über eine Chobham-Panzerung. Wie Sie richtig geschrieben haben, handelt es sich dabei um eine Mehrschichtpanzerung, die aus unterschiedlichen Werkstoffen besteht. Ein charakteristisches Merkmal dieser Panzerung ist ihr kastenförmiges aussehen (vgl. Leopard2A4). Die Version A6 verfügt über eine zusätzliche Modulpanzerung (keilförmige Elemente am Turm). Diese sind aber nicht Bestandteil der Mehrschichtpanzerung.

In der Hoffnung hinreichend geantwortet zu haben, stehe ich für weitere Fragen gerne zur Verfügung und verbleibe,

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Im Auftrag

[name deleted] Oberleutnant und Presseoffizier Diplom-Kaufmann

Streitkräfteamt InfoService Bürgeranfragen, Bearbeiter: OLt Schubert, Rochusstraße 32, 53123 Bonn, Telefon: 0228/52 03-206 // Fax: 0228/52 03-282

translation: "in principle, the leopard 2a6 has a chobham(-like)armor. as you noticed correctly this is a multilayer armor" don´t know if i translated "mehrschichtschott panzerung" correctly, but well, bottom line: it has a chobham-like armor (officialy) now, will someone pls edit the entry User:80.129.149.12

Chobham-like armor is not Chobham armour. AFAIK Chobham is a specific type of multilayer armor and the Leo does not use this specific version. --Denniss 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

1. Note the use of "in principle". This means: "Not really, but we still like to call it that way to avoid giving the impression the Leopard 2 would in any way be inferior to other tanks without disclosing the real nature of its armour".
2. Mehrschichtschottpanzerung, the word typically used in German publications, means "multi-layered laminate armour". This doesn't indicate what these layers consist of; but it is interesting to note that it is a derivation of Schottpanzer, the German equivalent of "spaced armour".
3. The unterschiedliche Werkstoffe could again be any materials. E.g. ceramic foam — which in the seventies was still openly claimed to be used in the Leopard 1A3 — and steel for "A0"; tungsten and steel for A4.
4. Of course "Chobham" in the wide sense simply is a synonym of "special armour", which the Leopard of course has. Whether it has "Chobham" in the narrow sense is the relevant question.
5. So ask that question: "Does the armour of the Leopard 2 has as one of its components ceramic tiles? And if you are not at liberty to answer this, why is that, when the USA and Britain openly claim that their tanks do have ceramic tiles?"
6. A more interesting part of the reply is that it again points out that the A6 module is a pure spaced armour construction.

--MWAK 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Chobham Armour-Advanced laminated armour first developed at theFighting Vehicle Research Establishment,Chobham,England. Dudtz 5/21/06 12:16 PM EST

Armour

I wouldn't just use steel in the armour I would throw on some reactive armour and some slat arour to protect against RPGs Dudtz

July 29th 5:11 PM EST

What makes you think they use just steel?

They certainly don't use "just" steel :o); but they don't use Ceramic Matrix Composites. Nor have "they" ever claimed they did. But they didn't care whether people made the wrong assumptions either. Defence against RPG's, not very relevant in the Central European Theatre, didn't have priority for the original Leopard 2; its armour was optimised to defeat KE-penetrators — and that made it very different from the original M1's. ERA and slat armour are still useful but somewhat outdated. ERA was considered for the Leopard 2 as a cheap "upgrade" in the eighties, but rejected. Today what we, for want of a more common acronym, may call EIR (explosion induced resonance) is most promising but still can't solve the problem of heavy EFP top attack.--MWAK 07:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

MWAK, reactive armor is not entirely out-dated. The Russian made Kontakt-5 reactive armor can effectively defeat 120mm DM-53 penetrators. Any other composite armor would be left with a relatively nasty scar. It's understandable though why the Leopard focuses on KE protection rather than HEAT rounds, since most modern MBTs can defeat them, I believe. New armor researches by the British are focusing on defending more effectively against HEAT rounds with electronic charged armor; looks very promising.--Hellogoodsir 19:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

True of course; that's why I said "somewhat" ;o).--MWAK 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the point was that reactive armor has made vast improvements. So what's so special about the Leopard? It's turret is essentialy a shell trap with the large overhand, and can possible jam in place if hit at a certain angle.--Hellogoodsir 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The last is a point of concern, but there is a severe weight penalty for protecting the entire turret ring. Many have claimed the A5 configuration forms a shot trap, but the spaced armour in front (also using perforated armour sections and many other deformation tricks) will break and/or hold the penetrator, not simply deflect it intact to the turret ring or the hull roof. So it's a real shot trap ;o)--MWAK 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the additional modules of the A5/6 were too thin to deflect a kinetic round anyhow; that they were meant to put penetrators just slightly off-axis (i.e. to create a small gap between the central axis of the penetrator and the axis of its forward flight) so they don't work against the main armor. (and to stop HEATs of course) 82.135.87.71 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. It doesn't deflect the penetrator but yaws and erodes it, thus reducing its ability to penetrate the main armor. Exel 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, we aren't talking about a Sherman trying to jam up the turret of a Tiger by hitting it "under the chin" - modern kinetic penetrators don't ricochet easily at all. If they come in ten degrees (sometimes as little as five) off the plane of the armor plate, they'll "dig in" rather than glance off. Jasonfahy 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Defence against RPG's, not very relevant in the Central European Theatre" what about the Soviets in the 70's and 80's they had plenty of RPGs Dudtz 8/23/05 4:51 PM EST

They sure had the RPG's, just not the chance to use them. Survivability of attacking foot soldiers on the modern battlefield is very, very poor. Infantry only has a serious opportunity to use RPG's when defending a fortified position. Germany's official strategy would have been strictly defensive in contrast to the US favourite strategy of the time which involved Theatre Denial to the Soviet second echelon by FOFA, while smashing the entire first echelon and driving the remnants into Moravia and Poland. Hence the difference in specifications. Of course I should have added "not relevant to the Germans" :o)--MWAK 08:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Soviets/Russians would let their army get crushed. The Soviets/Russians have more tanks than anyone else. USSR/Russia would use their most powerful nukes on US missile silos and NORAD all at once. the Russians could do this while the US president is chopping lumber and away from his nuke arming suitcase. Russian attack subs could head for US and British SLBMs the Russians would only have to worry about a few stray subs and bombers. Russia can then move deeper into Europe Dudtz 9/1/05 3:58 PM EST

Well, this would have been an option for the Soviets. However we know now, as we knew then, they were in fact not planning (for) a nuclear surprise attack. Or a conventional one for that matter. All those people writing alarmist scenario's did so to serve their political goals (worthy or unworthy), not truth (apart from the delusional type :o). It's very true though the Soviets planned to use nuclear weapons from the onset of any armed conflict. They themselves didn't believe in the myth of their conventional superiority. Yes, the Red Army alone possessed twice the tank fleet of the whole of NATO combined: about 70,000 strong. But even that would not have been enough (apart from the fact it was highly unlikely they would have concentrated them all in Central Europe). Including materiel reserves, some 17,000 NATO tanks were dedicated to the IGB (primary mobilisation). Modelling clearly shows the typical theatre loss ratio in case of a WP attack would have been about five (of theirs) to one (of ours). Even slowing their offensive to fight a more oldfashioned Methodical Battle (i.e. to ensure constant optimal deployment concentration) wouldn't have improved the ratio beyond four to one — and could only have worked under the, again very unlikely, assumption NATO wouldn't have gained air superiority west of the IGB. Of course this is why there would have been 17,000 NATO tanks available in the first place: we didn't pick that number by chance! :o) Both sides correctly assumed WP allied troops were so politically unreliable, they would have been worse than useless. Of course grave strategic errors could have led to a NATO defeat. But in a normal scenario with at most 50,000 Soviet tanks, those mistakes would have to have been pretty silly indeed to ensure a Soviet victory. Something like trying to save Vienna and Belgrade at the same time (which was unlikely to be relevant anyway as the Soviets firmly intended to respect the neutrality of these states, Austria and Yugoslavia, if possible).

So they would have used nuclear weapons. But tactical only. Both sides were extremely careful in avoiding strategic nuclear conflict. And both sides knew this of each other, so they didn't feel the urge for any pre-emptive strike. But if the Soviets were going to use tactical nuclear weapons from the beginning and we knew this, how could US strategy have been relevant? Well, that's where all those cruise missiles would have come in. Literally: the USA intended to strike first on the tactical nuclear level.

--MWAK 07:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"In a German test in which a Leopard 2A4 still fitted with the earlier armor configuration was shot at by a T-80, the T-80 could only penetrate its armor at ranges shorter than 1200 m." - Could the person who wrote that give some more info and data about the said tests? A loose bit on information like that without any backing isn't very credible on its own.

Agreed, meaningless. What was the T-80 firing? Training rounds? First-generation HEAT? BM42? Jasonfahy 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"In a test in which a Leopard 2 A5 was shot at by another Leopard 2 A5 only one out of eight hits on the turret front reached the main armour." - I'd like to know the source of that information as well. I have very hard time believing that for a fact, since the add-on armor really isn't thick enough to stop sabot penetrators, and even against HEAT it would only provide stand-off. The angle there is to redirect and erode the penetrator more so than to deflect them (deflection doesn't really occur much with long-rod penetrators).

Removed these for now, if you can provide some proof to back those claims up, feel free to re-enter them. Exel 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you removed them as there are no referable sources. To understand how the spaced armour nevertheless might be succesfull in rendering harmless the penetrators before they reach the main armour, you might want to consider the possibility that breakage is more important than deflection and that the internal struts are so cunningly placed that the penetrator pieces tend to end up anywhere but their intended destination. BTW, you just described in the box the armour composition as having a ceramic component: do you have any official sources for that? :o) --MWAK 07:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The spacing and angle in the "arrow head" armor array may indeed cause the penetrator to break and change it's angle-of-attack (indeed that is the point of it) but unless it ricochets outwards (up or sides) it will reach the main armor. The add-on armor is there to increase the ability of the main armor to stop the penetrator, not to be a sufficient protection on its own.

Ceramics are part of the armor configuration of any modern MBT, and Leopard 2 is no exception. It's there to reduce the effectiveness of shaped-charge weapons (HEAT) together with armor spacing. Exel 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you dodge my main points. Struts? Official sources? :o)--MWAK 07:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no secret that Leopard 2 has ceramic components in its armor array. I have my sources (military) for stating it as true but I can't go into any details other than saying that I have served in a Leopard 2A4. Exel 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wedge-shaped armor addons for A5 and following

Above you describe the function of and idea behind this rather unique feature of the Leo2A5 and A6, which is also their most distinct difference from earlier versions... Why not describe it in the article itself? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this armor, in paricular, many seem to think it is solid and the word "shot-trap" pops up every now and then when the A5 is discussed. Regards --84.152.104.91 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article already desribes this as "spaced armour", implying it isn't solid. But it can't hurt to be more explicit, I guess..--MWAK 14:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

minor edit BPz version

changed Bergepanzer 2 to BPz3; BPz 2 was based on the Leopard 1 model

70, 000 tanks?

70,000 tanks??? huh?. Are you talking about MBT's here? I've NEVER heard that figure. The most I've heard at the end of the cold war was about twenty something thousand. 68.237.98.55 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about MBT's :o) (well, including the PT-76...). This was roughly the official number given by the Soviets at the CFE-treaty negotiations (including 41,580 Soviet MBT's for the area west of the Urals in July 1988). Total tank production of all Russian types by all countries since WWII is about a full order of magnitude larger than the 20,000 you mention. That number and the often stated number of 7,000 tanks for NATO are seventies estimates of the organic strength of the NATO forces (without France) in Germany pitted against the Soviet first and second echelon. But no worries: as I stated we should have been able to withstand the full number (and remember I claimed it was unlikely they would concentrate them all in Germany). Of course, I can't guarantee that for the whole of the multiverse ;o). Or alternatively you have been confused by the number at the time the CFE-treaty was signed: 20.694 for that part of the Soviet-Union located in the treaty area. But then they had already transported 16,400 tanks to the east, transferred 933 to non-army units and destroyed, converted or exported another 4,000.

Also note that this refers to modern tanks only. Soviet writers estimated the number of those at about 68,000 in 1988; including vehicles of an obsolete type (T-34, T-44, IS-2, IS-3, T-10) still in running condition brought the number up to about 82,000.

--MWAK 11:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The IS-2 + IS-3 are a good match for the US's reserve tank(M-60) and some AFVs,Dudtz 11/30/05 7:25 PM EST

If by "M60" you mean indeed the M60 or M48 (preferably with reserve ammo also) and not the M60A3, then yes, the IS-series could still have been of some marginal use, despite the lack of a rangefinder, poor ergonomics and structural maintenance problems. And the T-10 was certainly difficult to kill in the Sixties, always an important asset in a battle of attrition. Of course any direct comparison is flawed by the fact that the Soviet heavies had a completely different function from the older American MBT's: the former were optimised for massive frontal assault on fortified positions, the latter for defence and the encounter fight. The main reason for the Soviets to consider their heavy tanks obsolete was that their strategic and tactical mobility was severely substandard in the Eighties.--MWAK 10:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Photos

Gallery Images Leopard 2 Krauss Maffei Wegmann

Gallery Image Panzerschnellbrücke 2 Krauss Maffei Wegmann

Gallery Images Rheinmetall-DeTec AG

Image Leopard 2 Rheinmetall-DeTec AG

MWAK

Mwak, since you seem to be knowlegeable in this area (and Im sure other areas as well). Can you tell me the proportion of tanks the US had in Germany(Europe) to those they retained in the states or other theatres. And also how fast would it have taken them to deploy them to Europe. You talk about this first eschelon second eschelon stuff and air/land doctrine, but I think you (and not just you but the ex nato planners as well) are failing to keep in mind that the soviets also had a large numerical superiority in tactical aircraft. Basically anything the west could do the ruskies could do on a larger scale.

Also while you're at it can you give me the same proportion of tactical aircraft the US had in Europe to those in other theatres, I figure the deployment speed would be alot faster than the tanks.

You seem to be still in a state of shock about those 70,000 MBT's! :o) But there's no reason to mistrust the NATO guys who kept you safe for so long. But let me first oblige your request by the simple expedient of opening the 1990 World Defence Almanac. This publication estimates the USA tank fleet of that year at about 18,000. The USA stated at the CFE-treaty negotiations to have stationed and stocked in Germany and The Netherlands the total of 6,681 MBT's in 1990. So that's about a third. Of the about 4,800 tactical combat aircraft the USA possessed, again according to the almanac, the USA stated to have stationed 716 in Europe. So that's a much smaller portion. This of course reflects, as you correctly assumed, the relative speed of deployment between the two categories of equipment. In case of war no less than 2,000 aircraft would have reinforced Europe, where they would have joined the 6,080 NATO planes already present. This combined NATO airforce of 8,000 would have faced a WP force of 10,067 tactical planes, 7,660 of which Soviet (CFE-numbers of 1990). So even if we take these numbers with a pinch of salt — there were many thousands of planes east of the Urals — the disparity wasn't alarming, especially as it would have been logistically very difficult for the WP to concentrate an overwhelming number at the Inner German Border.

In the case of the tanks the situation is different. Within a month the ten USA divisions dedicated to the IGB could have been ready: they were already there or their heavy equipment was stocked. But these represented basically all the USA had to offer (without abandoning Korea and committing the few strategic reserve units). In a country without conscription there simply is no trained manpower reserve. So those 11,000 other tanks weren't going to be shipped to Europe anytime soon: first new units had to be built from scratch, which would have taken at least 18 months. This would not have mattered though. The 17,000 tanks at the IGB would have sufficed. In the case of land forces the tactical advantage of the defender is much larger. Of course the Soviet-Union could have accelerated the growth of its tank production. But we could have matched that, partly by increasing our own production, partly by raising secondary mobilisation units using older equipment and, if needs be, by using the USA tanks to raise European units.--MWAK 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Where on Earth have you come up with the ideas that any Leopard 2 would have instruments to track incoming threats, let alone any active protection suite to engage them or their source automatically? I don't know what kind of systems the factory is testing with their 2A6EX - which is a DEMO MODEL and NOT a production model - but I'm certainly not aware of any such systems being installed on any in-service variants of the tank. Exel 10:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Read page four of http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja03/4BridgesEvans03web.pdf closely and then extrapolate. :o)--MWAK 11:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't see a mention of Leopard 2 anywhere on that article, and second, no matter what any source claims, no existing production variant of Leopard 2 has active detection or protection systems. Period. Exel 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that's settled. I got me worried for a moment. Now for the next question in the category "non-existing Leopard 2 accessories": which country has a Leopard 2 with an autoloader?--MWAK 08:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

None. Exel 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Leopard 2PSO

Leopard 2 PSO - (Peace Support Operations). Version for the urban combat

http://www2.janes.com/janesdata/mags/jdw/history/jdw2006/images/p1132141.jpg

Land battleship

I heard the L-2S swedish version is so heavy 72 tons due to excessive armour add-ons at the top. Is that 72 long, short or metric tons? Anyhow sounds terrible, as the WWII KingTiger was 70 metric tons and a lot them were left behind by the nazis here in Hungary as they were trapped in the mud.

I see no reason in making land battleships, just like sea battleships are obsolete. The twin-head RPG-7 warhead did penetrate the M1 in Iraq. Foot soldiers who are entirely dedicated to the cause at all cost will always be able to destroy tanks. Anything beyond 40 tons is a waste of money and mobility. 195.70.32.136 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that above 70 tons mechanical reliability decreases rapidly, so the Swedish variant is at the edge. Comparisons to the Königstiger should take into account however that the older German vehicle was grossly underpowered; the Leopard 2 isn't. Also there have been all kinds of technical improvements since 1945 resulting in tanks that are, even at 70 tons, in practice far more reliable than any tank in WWII, whatever its weight. Yes, modern tanks have their weak spots that even a RPG-7 — preferably not with a tandem charge: that's really only useful for defeating ERA — can exploit. Protecting them completely would make them too expensive. Is that a serious liability? The answer depends on what you want to use them for. If you desire to defeat a technologically advanced enemy, heavy tanks are still very useful. Other tanks are then the main opponents. If you expect to wage urban warfare only, tanks should be a great deal lighter. But not so light as a LAV: light armour is much too vulnerable to serious resistance. So the 40 ton class would indeed be best. However both the M1 and the Leopard 2 can easily be turned into 45 ton RPG-proof vehicles by simply replacing the heavy armour modules with a configuration consisting only of two silicon carbide layers or something equivalent. In fact Australia apparently plans to do just that with its M1's. And in case of real war they are just as easily made real tanks again. --MWAK 06:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Strv 122 (Leopard 2S) does not weight 72 tons. It's combat weight is 62.5 metric tons. The add-on armor package weights "only" some 3 tons extra compared to Leopard 2A5. M1A2 weights just a tad less than 70 tons and it is afaik the heaviest MBT in use today. Both the M1A2 and Leopard 2 have engines generating up to 1500 hp and have excellent mobility. For comparison, the Tiger II, weighting a ton less than the Abrams, had a maximum output of 750 hp. Like MWAK pointed out, it's mechanical reliability was also subpar. Exel 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

M1A2 SEP = 69.5 short tons = 63 Metric tons. So only 500 kg heavier than the swedish Leo2. --Denniss 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle history

Does Leopard 2 have any battle history? If it has, could someone write about it.

Up till now no Leopard 2 ever fired its guns in anger: that's the sign of a really successful tank :o).--MWAK 06:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an incident where a Leopard 2 on a peacekeeping mission fired it's AA machinegun while guarding a checkpoint, but that's pretty much it I think. Certainly never engaged in any major battle. Exel 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the guys in the receiving end of 72 105mm rounds would consider it as being shot at by a single AA machinegun. [1] Lmoelleb 10:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As the calibre alone shows, this incident involved the Leopard 1.--MWAK 11:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

the incident definitely involved a leopard 2. but the caliber was 7.65 mm. the attackers were fought with the tanks machinegun and infantry with g36.--Tresckow 13:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The incident Lmoelleb referred to involved the Leopard 1, the incident Exel referred to the Leopard 2.--MWAK 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, never in anger, exept perhaps in Kosovo, but I dont think its engaged any other significant armored vehicles. However a Swedish Tanker I knew who commanded a Leopard 2 stated that the Leopard 2's always beat M1A2 Abrams at gunnery contests, could be false though, thats just what he told me.

It is probably this incident that is referred to: youtube video of incident (WARNING, some people might find the images quite gruesome)--MoRsE 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweden tested Leclerc, M1A2 and Leo2A5 for a whole year before deciding on what to get. The Leo2A5 had better gunnery effectivity then, so one can asume that the improved Strv122 (and later LeoA6) would be even more superior.

Type 99 140mm

The article mentions that the Chinese are/were looking at a 140mm gun for their Type 99 MBT. Is there a cite for this? The Type 99 currently has a 125mm smoothbore, and I haven't seen anything to indicate they're upgunning it. -- Hongooi 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There were pictures of a Chinese Type 98/99 mounted with a 140mm gun that were released on some Chinese news network. I have one uploaded to my server: http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/china/140mm.jpg . That was rumoured to be a 140mm gun. It's not, nor has a 140mm gun been mounted on a Type 99, AFAIK. JonCatalan 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Leopard 2A6 vs Leopard 2A6EX

I thought only the 2A6EXs were equipped with the L55? What other differences are there between the 2A6EX and the vanilla 2A6? --Edward Sandstig 22:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me you are confused between the A5, the A6 and the A6EX. On the A6, including the newly built vehicles of Sweden, Greece and Spain, the Kampfwertsteigerung I has been implemented and it thus has the longer gun. "EX" means experimental (the German word is identical to the English in written form) and not, as some presume, "export". It's a developing technology demonstrator project and has no fixed standard against which the A6 could be compared, especially as sufficiently developed components are made available to the costumer in the form of modular upgrades.--MWAK 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but do you have a source for the Strv 122s getting the L55? My understanding was that it was decided to stick with the L44 due to the costs of upgrading to L55. --Edward Sandstig 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're completely correct: the Strv 122 is an A5, not an A6 type.--MWAK 05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The differences between the A6 and the A6EX are greater shield in the EX- ones as much in the hull as in the superior part of the tower. The hatchways have changed are of the type tracks in seeing of being raised due to the increase of weight of these when being but being protected that those of the A6. etc.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.50.112.142 (talk • contribs) October 4, 2006 04:27 (UCT).

Directing

Can we please have 'L2A6' and other abbreviations direct to this article?--Hellogoodsir 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

350 Tanks for Turkey?!

Yes, I know that the two countries were talking about a deal for Leopard tanks but it is really a new event. I'm not sure Turkey has 350 new tanks today because it is an important decision for the military (For example, Turkey going to buy 20-30 new F-16 jets to close the gap -actually we have 240 something F-16s and I don't understand what the military mentions by "gap"- until our new F-35 jets arrival at 2013 and we know all those). Can someone confirm that Turkey has 350 Leopards? With respect, Deliogul 15:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The last tanks were to be delivered only in 2007.--MWAK 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pure speculation but it could be that some (all?) F-16 airframes are approaching the end of their useful life. It can become very expensive very quickly to keep fighter planes flying (compared to bombers or other planes with a more benign flight profile), so it could be cheaper to close the gap with a bunch of new airframes that can absorb a majority of the flight hours until the F-35 goes operational. 82.135.94.205 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity?

Quote:

However, it is still untested in actual tank-to-tank combat as Leopard 2 only fired shots against unarmoured targets in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo.

/end of quote.

The point is irrelevant, not only has the Leopard 2 better firecontrol and protection (armor) than M1 (any model) it also mounts a cannon which the Americans copied and have proven to be the best there is for tank to tank combat (with advanced sabots and firecontrol and thermal vison) but many of the Leopard 2's infact mount even more powerful and evolved version of the gun, the kind of American tankers can dream of so stupid comments like this only make the article a statement of personal bias of the writer and reveals his ignorance.

Yes, in theory the Leopard 2A6 is superior to the M1A2. However, whether in practice these theoretical advantages would result in a more effective or efficient tank, is still unproven. It's good to keep that in mind and avoid complacency.--MWAK 12:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the F22 article, and keep in mind that the F22 never was enganged in combat. Still, the article sounds like an advertisment of the manufacturer. So I think it can be said that the Leopard is better than M1, simply comparing those theoretical advantages. --Supersymetrie (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, all too often comments like this are made by "Abrams Apologists" in an attempt to denigrate the opposition. I really don't see how the fact that the Leopard 2 has not (yet) been used in a shooting war is of any relevance to it's combat capability. These things can be assessed without resort to shipping a Platoon off to the nearest political hotspot... Getztashida 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant to its true capability, but very pertinent to the question whether we have assessed that capability correctly :o). We have good data on mechanical reliability and general "workability", but poor data as regards the protection. Then again the M1's Chobham isn't all that it's cracked up to be ;<). --MWAK 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well i guess some people first need to shot someone in the head before they can start to believe, that a gun is deadly. :o)

The Leopard gun is indeed very lethal...--MWAK 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are seven instances of the word "Abrams" in the main body of this article alone. The Abrams itself, lending several characteristics from the Leo, has five instances of the word "Leopard" in its article. So yes, it looks like "Abrams apologetics" are indeed overly busy being patriotic and whatnot. As for the Discovery program mentioned in the intro, IIRC - though as there are no references to back any side up I can't tell - the Russian T-34 came out as the best MBT in history, with the Leo and Abrams, respectively, at something like 3rd and 5th.--80.212.161.149 06:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between five and seven isn't statistically signicant ;o). There were several Discovery programmes in which comparisons were made, which causes all the confusion. Obviously as such the matter is of little importance; but if we don't mention it, it is bound to pop up again and most probably in a more incorrect form, so it's best to keep it as it is.--MWAK 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While not an Abrams apologist, the development section reads to me like a screed against the M1. This section does not so much talk about the capabilities for the Leopard but about how superior the Leopard is to the Abrams. I am not questioning the data, just the purpose of mentioning a tank other than the subject of the article so often. Additionally, can anyone offer citations for any or all of the information in this article.--Man Servant Hecubus 22:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the Leopard 2 was developed in competition with the M1 and there was an agreement between the USA and the GFR to build the best of the two, a comparision of the two types is inevitable and this should also give the reader some indications as to why the Germans thought the entire selection process was unfair. I'll add some citations.--MWAK 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. There are very few citations in this article. I would recommend adding as many as possible. This makes for a more credible entry. There are a lot of claims made in this section and with nothing to back them up it is easy to suspect bias. While I don't doubt the Leopard is all the things mentioned, I must say the tone reads more like "Ha! In your face, M1 Abrams!" Perhaps all the areas where the Leopard is superior should be combined into a separate section about the competition between to the vehicles, making it clear why there is so much comparison. As it is now, about 80% of the text in the "development" section speaks of the trials between to two tanks. The reader stands to learn very little of the development of the tank but a lot about the comparison between the M1 and the Leopard. --Man Servant Hecubus 08:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions inconsistency?

A minor observation. The height of a Leopard 2A6 to the turret top is (I believe) around 2.64m, whereas the 3.0m given is the overall height. The height of the M1A1 is listed under wikipedia as 2.43m, which is the height to the turret top. I think the dimensions given in these articles should be consistent, in which case either the M1A1 height should be 2.92m or the Leopard 2A6 height should be listed as 2.64m. Does anyone agree? Lokster 10:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems desirable. It would be even better if two numbers are given, both roof height and total height.--MWAK 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela

Why is Venezuela listed as an operator of the Leopard II when they do not operate it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.28.141.220 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

In this article?--MWAK 07:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada to purchase/lease Leopard 2?

It appears that Canada may purchase/lease a number of Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A6M's[2]. Right now Canada has a number of older Leopard 1s serving in combat in Afghanistan and may be looking to replace them with the newer and more survivable Leo 2s.

L.J. Brooks 09:14, 14 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Here is an update [3] on Canada's plan to lease 20 Bundeswehr Leopard 2 A6M. According to various reports the lease has been approved by cabinet and is just awaiting the Prime Minister's approval.

L.J. Brooks 11:44, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated the page with the latest announcement that Canada is acquiring 120 Leopard 2s from the Netherlands and Germany.

L.J. Brooks 23:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no reference that gives the breakdown of the number of 2A4s and 2A6s that Canada is purchasing. In fact, the only references I have seen suggest that all the ones we are purchasing (as opposed to the 20 we are leasing from Germany) are 2A4s. None of the references given in the article give the breakdown of models, only the breakdown of how many and what their general purpose will be (operational vs. training vs. support). I would like to know where people are getting the information that we are getting 40 2A4s & 40 2A6s. If there are no references to this breakdown, I intend to remove this info from the article.

Kurt 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown here: [4] Those more informed (i.e. the people in the military) quote the latter of 40 Leopard 2A6's (20 of them upgraded from the Leopard 2A4's), and 40 Leopard 2A4's. ThePointblank 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another source here: [5] The people operating the blog are CF military personnel who are in the know. ThePointblank 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit: The tanks are from the Dutch, as stated in this press release[6]:

12-04-2007 22:34 NEDERLAND VERKOOPT LEOPARD TANKS AAN CANADA Defensie heeft honderd Leopard gevechtstanks verkocht aan Canada. De overeenkomst werd bekend gemaakt tijdens het bezoek van minister van Defensie, Eimert van Middelkoop, aan Canada. Het gaat om twintig Leopard’s 2 A6 en tachtig Leopard’s 2 A4.

Het afstoten van de tanks is onderdeel van de reductie van gevechtstanks waartoe Defensie al eerder besloot. Nederland houdt honderdtien Leopard’s 2 A6 tanks operationeel.

De aan Canada verkochte Leopard’s 2 A6 zijn vorig jaar volledig bijgewerkt. Defensie gaat als onderdeel van de overeenkomst de scholing van Canadese instructeurs verzorgen. De trainingen beginnen in mei.

Minister van Defensie Eimert van Middelkoop woont in Canada de ministeriële "Regional Command South" bijeenkomst in Quebec bij. Zie onderstaande link voor meer info over het bezoek.

Rough translation:

"The Ministry of Defence has sold a hundred Leopard Main Battle Tanks to Canada. De agreement was made public during the visit of Minister of Defence, Eimert van Middelkoop, to Canada. It concerns twenty Leopard 2 A6's and eighty Leopard 2 A4's.

The disposal of the tanks is part of the reduction of Main Battle Tanks to which the Ministry had already previously planned. The Netherlands will keep a hundred and ten operational Leopard 2 A6's.

The Leopard 2 A6 now sold to Canada were completely refurbished/overhauled last year. The Ministry will as part of the agreement take care of the training of Canadian instructors. Thise will start in May.

Minister of Defence Eimert van Middelkoop is currently active at the ministerial "Regional Command South" meeting in Quebec."

ThePointblank 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I misunderstood. I didn't realize that this paragraph was saying these tanks were bought by the Netherlands, then resold to three other countries. I'll try to add a few words where it was easy to miss a semicolon in reading. Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-06-19 06:19 Z

Cost?

Does anybody know how much this or any of ther other main battle tanks cost?

To give an indication: Spain in 1998 bought 219 new vehicles for €1,940,000,000 all in. The unit price would today be about nine million euro. Perhaps eight if you'r e willing to take a thousand at once :o).--MWAK 06:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Variant re-org

I re-organized the variants based on which German variant the foreign variants were derived from. Is this acceptable, or would you guys rather have the old way of listing things? (A1 to A6, then A6M and then national variants, then engineering variants) --Edward Sandstig 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It still need some major tweaking. All info on purchases should be as footnotes to the operators section. The variants should only contain info about the versions. --MoRsE 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada does not have any Leopard 2 tanks

The acquisition of Leopard 2 tanks by Canada is vapourware. The intention to make the deal has been announced, but there is no official word that any tanks have been transferred. Please don't list Canada as having 100 or 20 Leopard 2 tanks, because as far as we know, it doesn't have them. Please don't change the facts for the sake of format.

Regarding status and timings, the CF backgrounder only says "Canada is negotiating government-to-government agreements for both borrowing and acquiring the Leopard 2 tanks. ... The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer."[7] So it sounds like neither deal is finalized, but the 20 German tanks are expected to be in Canadian hands and in the field very soon. —Michael Z. 2007-07-09 05:56 Z

The Danish MOD press release has indicated that the deal was indeed finalized for the 100 Leopard 2's. It indicates that a government to government sale was finalized and agreed to by both parties. ThePointblank 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then that is another step on the path. Next we wait for a source to indicate that tanks have been delivered. The DnD backgrounder implies that the German tanks are ready to go into combat, but haven't gone yet, and that the Danish tanks are expected to arrive somewhat later. The information in the article should be based on what is confirmed to have happened and what has been announced, but not our predictions. —Michael Z. 2007-07-09 17:58 Z

Apparently, Canadian troops are already training in the Netherlands, from media reports: [8] ThePointblank 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Armytechnology.com also states that the purchase has gone through. [9] ThePointblank 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The CBC article looks great.

Note that armytechnology.com got it wrong: the borrowed tanks are from Germany and not Holland. I'd be cautious about citing such careless reporting which doesn't cite its sources. It seems neither reliable nor verifiable. —Michael Z. 2007-07-10 00:58 Z

I don't know why people keep changing the section where it states that the 20 German Leopard 2's are loaned, not leased so that it states that the tanks are leased. Keep the facts straight and consistent throughout the article; the 20 Leopard 2A6M's are LOANED. Not LEASED. According to CTV, Germany, which has “ been criticized for not allowing [its] troops to take part in the fighting in southern Afghanistan, have refused to take any money for the tanks Canadians have borrowed”.[10] The section stating that the Germans are not accepting any money from Canada for borrowing its tanks implies LOANED. Not LEASED. Period. ThePointblank 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because the information is quite well hidden, and overshadowed by contradictions.

The reference you point to uses the word "lease" six times, and "loan" only once—the final footnote about Germany not taking money is added as an afterthought, with the admission that the authors had thought that the loan was a paid arrangement. Other information on the subject is also unclear. For example, the DND's own backgrounder says "negotiate a short-term loan arrangement with Germany to borrow 20 combat-ready Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks", and doesn't make it quite clear whether this will involve money. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 14:46 Z

Bundeswehrplan 2008

408 Leopard 2s are planned to remain in service by 2008, 395 Leopard 2s are planned to remain in service by 2012 BundeswehrPlan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.152.185 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

924 Leopard 2 (2003), 852 Leopard 2 (2004), 472 Leopard 2 (2006), 458 Leopard 2 (2007), 408 Leopard 2 (2008), 395 Leopard 2 (2012)

Danish tanks

Under the "user nations", Danish Leo2A5DK are listed as "Leo2A6 equivalent". The source listed says nothing of the sort, and to my recollection, the Leo2A5DK still is equipped with the L44. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.77.240 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Netherlands

So 444 or 445? What is the source for 445?Geni 18:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

this website seems quite reliable [11] --MoRsE 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

self published. Problematical. Unfortunetly I don't have any other paper soucres to hand that give an export total.Geni 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct number is 445. The 444 mistake was perhaps caused by the fact one vehicle is today split: the turret is in Austrian hands, the damaged hull in The Netherlands. I'll give a better, more specialised, reference.--MWAK 07:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leopard2trainer.jpg

Image:Leopard2trainer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos of socalled polish Leo2s

I´m not that convinced that any of both pictures shows a polish tank. The tank in the first picture shows a Leo2 in typical german camouflage pattern. The soldier on the right, the vehicles and soldiers in the background are all german. In the second picture there is a machinegun MG3 applied, which is uncommon for the polish army. 84.138.44.234 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I withdraw this partially! Polish Leo2s DO carry german machineguns (according to the homepage of the polish army). Yet, the first picture still looks like a german Leo2 to me. The tiny flag on the antenna could be a unit sign rather than a national flag.84.138.44.234 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did some searchings and found out, that the first picture shows also a german Leopard II, for the following reasins:

On the right forward corner there´s a MLC-sign (Military Loading Class)in grey color, which is typical for german vehicles. The camo pattern is nothing else but german (see: http://www.panzerbaer.de/colours/a_relaunch/bw_kpz_leopard_2a5.htm). It might be a german tank that´s been sold to Poland and isn´t repainted yet, but this is unlikely. Whether sold or not, the figured painting is german style. I´ll change it. 84.138.21.188 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong on both images. These are Leo 2 sold to the polish army, they both lack german insignia on the rear turret and/or a german license plate on the front. The MLC-sign is probably also weared in the polish army. The image of the moving Leo2 was uploaded by a polish citizen and he should know it for sure, maybe it was taken during the transfer ceremony (licene plate on nthe front looks like Bundeswehr style but german cross is missing). --Denniss (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, got your point on both issues. The missing cross is convincing. They can only be former german tanks on or after transfer to poland. Don´t you think, this is a fact remarkable enough to take it into the article, since it might be irritating, seeing polish tanks with german patterns. Are there actual pictures of them with genuine polish patterns? (darn, I´d like to discuss this in our both mothertongue) 84.138.17.183 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pionierpanzer-kodiak.jpg

Image:Pionierpanzer-kodiak.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy with data mentioned on the Abrams page and Leopard 2 (Armor)

In the Leopard 2 page it states the following: Today we know this was true as regards a hit by a hollow charge; but against KE-attack the Leopard 2 was almost twice as well protected as the original M1 (650 mm to 350 mm). Yet on the Abrams page it states this: Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1320-1620 millimeters of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940-960 mm versus kinetic energy penetrators, and then there is the information about the upgraded Abrams, which is not relavetn to this situation b/c the text in questions is about the original Abrams and not the one that followed. Please take a look and let me know what you think. It is possible that some how I misunderstood the text. Please advise, thank you and take it light --KB 76.111.95.9 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)kb0001@comcast.net

Well, the text in M1 Abrams is indeed rather deceptive. The (probably too low) 940-960 mm estimate means to refer to the situation in the nineties, not to the original M1. I can understand that mentioning only the Chobham in relation to the estimate and then letting this follow by a mention of the DU package suggests otherwise.--MWAK (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding the Leopard 2A5's wedge appliqué; the article mentions that these are MEXAS inserts. Unless this can be backed with a reference, I think this should be eliminated because I haven't heard of this before. I've heard of it being 'triple hardness steel', 'bulging armor' (I guess similar to MEXAS) or even just monolithic steel. Here are images of these appliqué turret additions; they seem hollow, but nobody really knows for sure if there are inserts which are also applied, from the looks of it. In any case, I don't think any thing as defnitive as stating what kind of armor it's made up of is veriefiable, unless a reference can be found. JonCatalán (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct: my original description was changed on 11 August 2007, but I didn't notice it. The pictures clearly show what kind of system it is: one aimed at breaking the penetrator by forcing it to hit several plates in succession at a differential angle. The large hollow spaces are not filled with inserts as this would be counterproductive. So it's basically a "spaced armour" and space again is a main factor in defeating hollow charge attack.--MWAK (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Leopard 2E

Shouldn't the article of the Leopard 2E be merged into this one? It's just a variant like the A5, the PSO or any other Leopard 2 variant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.138.99.134 (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, and if you are capable of writing separate articles for these versions that are of the same length as this new article, you're heartily invited to do so :o). So: no merge is indicated.--MWAK (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I justify its existance mostly by the length; if we were to merge the two this article would be longer than what the Manual of Style suggests (50kB, right?). In any case, the Spanish Leopard 2E is actually based on the Leopard 2A6 (originally Leopard 2A5, but since the program began so late it was just decided to base it on the 2A6 - well, to be honest, they are almost the same thing anyways, except for the longer gun). In any case, in my opinion, it would be like suggesting to merge the article on a World War II battle into the World War II article. JonCatalán (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They most definitely should be merged. The 2E is merely a variant. Koalorka (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not relevant. Relevant is merely whether the subarticle has a subject able to be separately treated in more detail — this condition is clearly met — and whether it has a length disproportionate to the main article — and this also is the case.--MWAK (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if we had the sources we could have separate articles on the Leopard 2A1 through 2A4, and then the 2A5 and the 2A6, and then the different non-main battle tank variants, not to mention the major national variants (apart from the 2E, the 2HEL). Although, I'd like to begin some sort of cooperation to get this article to GA once I get back to San Diego, California though! JonCatalán (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong PS/hp/kW conversion

Denniss,

Your edit summary says "fixed wrong PS/hp/kW conversion". Actually, Denniss, you've introduced false precision. The conversion was correct. When converting a value you should take account of the precision of the original measurement and ensure that the conversion is of similar precision. 1500 PS is precise only to the nearest 100 PS it should therefore be converted to the nearest 100 kW (since metric horsepower and the kilowatt are of similar order of magnitude). Your "correction" has introduced a hundred-fold increase in precision.

JIMp _talk·cont 07:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Denniss is correct. The original conversion to kW was probably done from the figure 1,500hp, where in fact it should have been 1,500PS. JonCatalán (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the point I'm making it doesn't make grain of difference whether you're converting foot-pound-second based horsepower or metric horsepower, what matters is that you're converting fifteen hundred of them—not 1,497, not 1,512, an even 1,500. The appropriate way to convert 1,500 is to read it as 1,500 ± 50. Therefore the actual power output could be anywhere from 1,140 to 1,070 kilowatts. Denniss' 1,103 kilowatts is far too precise. The correct conversion would be 1,100 kilowatts any greater precision is false. JIMp _talk·cont 05:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the only correct conversion is 1103 kW, all others would be plain wrong. There's already enough BS in the military literature using wrong PS/hp conversion and we don't need to introduce it here. Way too often english language literature used PS as hp (without converting) and sometimes converting these wrong hp back to kW or PS --Denniss (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that my point is being missed. I'm not refering to the 1.5×10³ hp vs 1.5×10³ PS distinction. I'm refering to the 1.5×10³ PS vs 1.500×10³ PS distinction. The correct conversion for 1.500×10³ PS certainy is 1.103 MW but we're converting 1.5×10³ PS. The correct conversion for 1.5×10³ PS is 1.1 MW. JIMp _talk·cont 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimp is correct in his claim that an approximate value should only be converted into an value of similar precision. E.g. "a 100 hp engine, should and could also be read as "a 75 kW engine", not "a 74.5699872 kW engine". As Jimp points out, there is a false increase in precision. However, Catalan is also correct in a way, as it is quite probable that the original value has been converted and converted again. But in that case, the original value should be added (including sources). --MoRsE (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Osprey book states 1,500 PS, and since this can be cited, IMO we should stick with this figure and convert from it. JonCatalán (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that the conversion the book offers is 1,104kW. JonCatalán (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding as if I think I know better than the author of the book ... at least with respect to conversions from approximate measurements ... it seems I might. JIMp _talk·cont 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)