Talk:Leopard 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Operators" section pruned[edit]

The Canadian section under "Operators" was way too long in relation to that of other countries. Readers don't need to know all the minutiae of the Canadian procurement and upgrade process. Plus some of the info is already located elsewhere in the article. I removed the following from the "Operators" section, but it needs to be cut down further. What I removed is below:

Current plans are to upgrade the ex-Dutch A6's to German A6M specifications and use them as restitution for the current loaned tanks being used in Afghanistan, while another 20 of the ex-Dutch A4's will be upgraded (configuration yet unknown). Another 40 A4's will be upgraded with the 120 mm L55 gun as found in the A6 and be designated Leopard 2A4+, while another 6 will be converted into armoured recovery vehicles and the remaining 12 will be used for parts.[1] The Canadian forces will receive 20 Leopard 2A4M CAN which was specially designed for operations in Afghanistan. This new variant focus on the crews protection. Like the Leopard 2A6M CAN, the Leopard 2A4M CAN use mine and IED protection. The new Leopard 2A4M CAN is based on experience gained by Leopard 2 operators in Afghanistan.[2][3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 6 February 2011, 21:33 (UTC)

This seems fine. The operator entries can't cover every detail like this. -fnlayson (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Was there a 2A7 that was developed before the 2A7+? I cannot find any reference to it online. If there was not, then why is the + part of the designation? Axeman (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume the designation is due to the interim PSO demonstrator with its Demo 2 hull and 2A5 turret (L/44 gun), which is in a way "2A7", while the new tank has yet again the 2A6 turret and additional bling-bling, thus plus. --MoRsE (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Afaik the "+" is more or less part of the designation because it is somehow derived from the TVM 2 (max) (maybe only in theory). This vehicle was the most sophisticated/best protected 2A5 field-testbed of all three designed [TVM (min), TVM 1 (max) and TVM 2 (max)]. Germany didn't have the budget to field it and therefore chose a reduced variant lacking the upgraded hull and roof armourm (Sweden later fielded it in a slightly modified form as Strv 122). You could call this vehicle Leopard 2A5+, because it got the same stuff as the 2A5 plus some extras. Later the Leopard 2A6 entered service and KMW produced the Leopard 2A6Ex (which sometimes is also called 2A6+), which includes the bomblet protection and the superior hull/glacis armour. The Leopard 2A7+ as seen on the Eurosatory and on the IDEX also has this parts. It is worth mentioning that there are several versions of the current 2A7/2A7+, one was seen on ILÜ lacking the roof-mounted bomblet protection and a part of the glacis armour (see here). Due to some error it was also introduced as "2A7+" :/ --Tim.vogt (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The 2A7+ is the KMW designation for the PSO-Tanks. Currently there are two names for two variants. Leopard 2A7+ Urban Operations (improved Armor 360° protection, FLW, Zeiss Virtus for Driver, new PERI, MiniSight ... ) and Leopard 2A7+ Duel Operations (improved Front Armor only, FLW 200, Zeiss Virtus for Driver, new PERI ...). Like the Canadavariants A6M CAN (Duel) and A4M CAN (Urban Ops). Germanys Config has not yet decided. btw. The HE ammunition can use any Leopard 2, not only the A7+! --Sonaz (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia[edit]

SA asked about 200 A7+, already 44 are bought. [1] -- (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sale of tanks to Saudi regime is least likely considering public outcry in Germany and court challenges from various parties in Germany. And German made no such sales of leopard 2 tanks to Saudis, where you got figures of 44 tanks is beyond me.

NO sale of tanks to Saudi, German MOD won't be selling any arms to Saudi regime, or any other military gear for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


In the year 2009, Chile bought 60 aditional tanks from the german army surplus[2], for a total of 200 Leopard 2A4(CHL) Nelson Burgos (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picked statistics[edit]

The Leopard II has a speed of 39 MPH with the L/55 gun, and 44MPH with the L/44. Yet the information panel places the Leopard II with the L/55 gun, and 45 MPH. The only model that uses the L/55 gun is the A6 and that particular model comprises less than 1/10th of the Leopard II German fleet. So unless the panel specifies what equipment belongs to what model, we must select one and represent it well, not cherry pick the most favorable statistics from each model. (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Jade rat

Super Cherry Picking: Official top-speed record for the Leo 2A4 is 116 Km/h, or 73 mph. HTH, greetz from Germany -- (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reference is when the inhibitors are unshackled, a practice avoided because of the damage the suspensions suffer. The American M1 has a similar issue and also requires shackles to prevent it from destroying parts sooner than was acceptable. The M1 has been clocked at 122km during tests, and I belive the T-90 has similar restraints placed upon it for reliability sake.

122 Km/h is not possible with standard gear box, you´d overspeed the n2 to about 180%. Impossible. (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Turkey has bought 298 and later 41 + 15 (for spare parts) additional Leopard 2 from Germany by the protocols signed between Germany and Turkey in 2005 and 2010. The 41 + 15 (for spare parts) additional Leopard 2's of Turkey are delivered in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. (Hohum @) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reliable source:

SIPRI doesn't give the number of new supply.It is the last updated on 2010. Currently Turkey delivered (298+ 56)354 Leo 2a4 tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Leopard 2A6[edit]

I deleted the part with the Dutch operational tanks. There are no operational Dutch Leopard 2 anymore. (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


It is better to rename the subsection "Variants" in "Leopard 2 models". Comparable MBT do use this structure as e.g. "T-80 models" there. Opinions? -- (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sale of 2A7+ by KMW to Saudi Arabia[edit]


The article currently says this about the potential sale of 2A7+ tanks to Saudi Arabia: "On 2 July 2011 the Bundessicherheitsrat (Federal Security Council) announced that Germany wants to sell 200 Leopard 2A7+ to Saudi-Arabia. The intention encountered criticism in the Cabinet of Germany as well as the foreign media.[49][50] The deal was approved on 6 July 2011.[51]"

Both the first and the third phrase are, in my opinion, incorrect. First of all, it's not Germany that wants to sell tanks to Saudi Arabie, but the private defence company KMW. By German law, the government institution 'Bundessicherheitsrat' has to approve arms sales to foreign countries, but the government is not the actual seller of Leopard 2 tanks. Furthermore, the deal is far from being approved. The Bundessicherheitsrat statement was a first "green light" as a precondition to further talks regarding arms sales. There is considerable debate in parliament as well as within the government coalition as to whether the sale of tanks to Saudi Arabia should take place or not. No decision has been made yet. The source 51 is no longer online, but the headline "germany-defends-arms-exports-to-saudi-citing-iran" sounds like everything but a done deal.

I will try to get some more sources and then edit the section, unless anyone disagrees? C.d.rose (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Any comments by anyone? C.d.rose (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Quatar will buy up to 200 Leopard 2s. [3] (in german).-- (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Added under 'Operators' (Future/Pending). C.d.rose (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Saudi deal in doubt[edit]

My reference says the Saudis may drop the proposed deal to buy Leopard 2s because it is taking too long to get approved. Why is it being deleted? America789 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. It looks like that info should be in the article to me. People are citing WP:NOTNEWS, but I honestly can't figure out about how that policy is violated by the content. Can someone please say why it violates NOTNEWS instead of just saying over and over that it does violate it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not cover current events, unless it's an article that is specifically about a current event. And we don't add mere speculations, which is what this is. What more reasons for not adding it do you need? Thomas.W talk to me 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I would contest even though the event is currently happening it is not a "current event" in the way intended by WP:NOTNEWS, The question of whether the Saudi Arabian government will (be able to?) purchase Leopard 2's is of importance to this article. As for the speculation claim, the source does seem somewhat speculative so that might be a reason not to include it, but it is referencing another news source (Handelsblatt) that might provide more insight, if I read german. Could the insert be rephrased to say something different, like: "Saudi Arabia has started negotiations with to purchase M1A1's and may be dropping its attempts to purchase the Leopard 1"?CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's still just a speculation ("may be dropping its attempts"). And negotations about buying the M1A1 belong on M1 Abrams, not here. Thomas.W talk to me 17:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Dave1185, I can't speak for America789, but your way of saying that is rather rude. It implies that there is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS that should be obvious to even the dumbest editor, and like I said above I'm still not quite clear on how it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe next time say something like "Can you please confirm you have read WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper? I believe it violates that policy in the following ways: ...". CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
First question: No it's a talk page and I was offering helpful advice. Second question: No.CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Many of the people attracted to writing an encyclopedia tend to enjoy mulling and deliberating on a variety of topics, and do not mind weighing in with their opinions when not asked. Involving yourself in a discussion over a political, social or cultural issue as it relates to articles is encouraged.

What is not encouraged is involving yourself in disputes or contentious issues that occur between editors themselves, unless it directly relates to you. Sometimes you may have information that is helpful in sorting out a dispute between editors. You should exercise caution and adhere to strict standards of civility when you attempt to enlighten a contentious discussion between editors. There is rarely a reason to jump into an argument, and doing so often ends up fanning the flames of the dispute, making resolution of the conflict less likely and damaging your own reputation in the process.

Usually, it is better just to butt out and let the editors resolve the problem between themselves."

Lastly and in future, please clarify with your fellow editors if you're not sure of their intentions. When in doubt, always assume the assumption of good faith by others. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Third question: No CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In addition to that it's just a speculation. If/when the Saudis decide not to go through with the deal a short mention of it can be added to the article, but not while it's just a speculation. Thomas.W talk to me 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "pending" section of the article be considered speculation? It shows those who are interested but haven't decided formally to buy. The Saudis have shown their interest, and the possible dropping of the deal in favor of working with General Dynamics is stated, not guessed. The section as it is says nothing is finalized, and is being debated. Wouldn't something like this show the progression of trying to pass the deal, whether it goes through or not? America789 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In short: Wikipedia is not a news reporting source, so WP:NOTNEWS, it also doesn't include speculation so WP:CRYSTALBALL, nor should it document controversy as it happens, instead taking a longer term view per WP:RECENTISM. When and if the deal is reliably reported as *actually* fallen through, it's a solid issue and should be included. This may only be in a few days time - or never. The pending section would be for future events which are certain / already scheduled.
I would just like to add that I recognise America789 is editing in good faith, and hope he doesn't feel too set upon. (Hohum @) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
My text about the deal being dropped has been undone from the Leopard 2 page several times. That text put into the M1 Abrams page has been undone. This is information about a major development in a multi-billion dollar/euro arms deal that has been in the works for two years possibly being redirected to a different recipient. Everyone is clarifying WP: sources, but I cannot understand how this information isn't seen as relevant enough to be included in either Wikipedia article that it concerns. America789 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been explained clearly by several editors why. I cannot see how it can be explained any more clearly. (Hohum @) 17:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Highly unlikely he's from America (as he claims) or anywhere near it. Also, Republicans are not a country either. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop it, Dave. That kind of comment only makes you look sillier than him. Everyone's allowed to edit here no matter where they come from. Thomas.W talk to me 18:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Silly but not stupid, think about it... everything's in plain English and yet he still doesn't get it. What? Are we speaking Jamaican/Martian English here? Even a wee scrubber can do better than that! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yesirree but everybody has their limit, especially after some nosy body come meddling while we're trying to talk to the native confuser. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WP:CIVIL is not optional. Discuss how to improve the article, how wiki rules apply, etc, but not other editors - that is never fruitful. (Hohum @) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Indonesian Leopards[edit]

It was previously reported that the Defense Ministry had bought 153 tanks worth US$280 million from the German government, comprising 61 Leopard Ri tanks, 42 Leopard 2A4 tanks and 50 Marder tanks. The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | National | Mon, September 23 2013, 8:52 PM

So, what are the Leopard Ri?Crock81 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha Ha, the Indonesian press seems to think the Leopard 2A4 Evolution armour upgrade is a different tank, and for some reason christened it Revolution. Lets hope its not an omen. Crock81 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Faulty Map[edit]

I removed a map (an image file depicting countries where Leopard 2 is in use) on account that it is no longer accurate and therefore contradicts the written information (and therefore goes against the WP:Rules). Apparently some editors think that the article should be used as a notice board and that the wrong map should remain in place, supposedly so that it is easy or convenient for future replacement. I don't see anywhere in WP:rules that makes an allowance for an error image file to remain on an article indefinitely until an updated image shows up. —Loginnigol (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The image caption clearly said that the map showed Leopard 2 operators as of 2009. I have updated the image/map, adding Indonesia as an operator (using a very simple freeware image editor), and uploaded the new version to Commons, and also changed the image caption in the article to read status as of April 2014. Which took me about five minutes in total, that is far less time than you have spent on edit-warring over it. Thomas.W talk 09:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Germany receives first Leopard 2A7 MBT[edit]

Ex-A6NL converted to A7. UrbOp-Program canceled! -- (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Army vehicles[edit]

Hi Denniss, as you can see below, the "Turkish Army vehicles" category includes the Leopard 2, as well as dozens of other foreign-sourced vehicles. The category is not military vehicles produced by Turkey, but vehicles used by the Turkish Army. You can either add that category to the Leopard 2 page, or remove all those vehicles from that category.

Best, UCaetano (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Than add every single county that uses leopard 2 tanks, clearly this tab is unnecessary and mainly there to promote nationalistic agenda among nationalistic dick waving Turks. It is silly, nationalistic and stupid and totally unnecessary, if wiki can't see this than this encyclopedia might as well stop being encyclopedia and turn in to a nationalistic propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This page belongs in that category, as it is a vehicle used by the Turkish Army. Please be polite when discussing here. UCaetano (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
No, this template does not belong to the Leo 2 page for exactly the reason the IP stated. If everyone tags their vehicles this way we would have several tank articles plastered with user/usage templates. That's why we only accept templates from the original user or by-type or by timeframe templates. --Denniss (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It makes no sense to add templates to articles based on marginal relevance. The Turkish military uses the Leo 2, so what? Many other countries do so as well. The connection between the two is marginal and does not warrant a navigational template. --benlisquareTCE 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The previous standing consensus was WITH the category, for many months. Don't make an edit away from a previous consensus and comment saying "do not revert until new consensus is reached". That is exactly the opposite of how it should be done. Anyway, if you guys feel strongly about it, leave it off, don't really care as long as several editors support this change. UCaetano (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Benlisquare. This article should probably be included in Category:Main battle tanks of Turkey, but adding the Turkish vehicle template is not at all desirable or useful. We are not going to add a template for all countries that operate/d the Leopard 2, otherwise we could have 17 templates one on top of the other at the bottom of this article. I fail to see how that might be useful for the encyclopedia. It already has two useful templates. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Category ≠ template. You're moving the goal posts here, UCaetano, since I never made a single mention about the category. --benlisquareTCE 10:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the initial comment by the IP mentioned "category", though it appears they "meant" template. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed - the template has no place on this page. Imagine the size of the mess applying the practice to widely used weapons like the T-54/55 or the M1911. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there was a mix-up between category and template here, don't worry. I was just reverting an unexplained edit away from a previous consensus, not edit warring here folks :) UCaetano (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


The text says: "The A5 introduced a wedge-shaped, spaced add-on armour to the turret front and the frontal area of the sides. [...] it does not form a shot-trap since it doesn't deflect the penetrators outwards to hit the hull or turret ring."

It isn't obvious why the wedge-shaped armour doesn't form a shot-trap; is it because the spaced add-on armour is penetrated by all shots hitting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Fuel consumption[edit]

The stated fuel consumption doesn't really sums up. It is stated, that the tanks needs 300 l/100km, yet it reaches with about 1200l of fuel 500km of range. With my maths this it should be about 400km. So either the stated range is wrong or the stated fuel consumption. Wurelbum (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)