Leopard 2 thread

Friendly reminder that the Krauts thought it was a good idea to put ammo in a spot that gets hit the most.

Attached: downloadfile-4.png (1197x776, 537K)

Modern Leopards are, in theory, as capable as any other modernized 3rd generation MBT. But it's only a matter of theory and conjecture, as is the discussion of all combat untested hardware. We can argue statistics all day, throw around "muh monkey models!", blame the black hole of tactical intelligence that is the middle east, etc. It's all just guess work at this point.

Yeah, because nobody's giving them parts for the Leopard you idiot. Roach Leos will go until they run out of whatever spare parts the have, then that's the end of it. Doesn't really make sense to give them out to conscripts for doing the sort of retarded shit Turks do with tanks when you have a fuckhuge reserve of aging armor to throw out there; not like you need a 3rd generation MBT to do what a 1st or 2nd gen model would be just as good (or bad) for.

>Yeah, because nobody's giving them parts for the Leopard you idiot. Roach Leos will go until they run out of whatever spare parts the have, then that's the end of it. Doesn't really make sense to give them out to conscripts for doing the sort of retarded shit Turks do with tanks when you have a fuckhuge reserve of aging armor to throw out there; not like you need a 3rd generation MBT to do what a 1st or 2nd gen model would be just as good (or bad) for.

Source for everything: my ass
You do realize conscripts don't crew tanks right?

It's pretty much the golden standard of tanks.

Turkey is paying half a billion to upgrade their A4 tanks.

You know nothing of mbts

That's sure an argument.

>A tank which has spent its entire combat career sitting around guarding UN outposts and getting blown up by arab mud farmers is the "golden standard"
kek

Attached: M1A2 Abrams Storng Tank Challenge 2018 Paint(1).jpg (2996x2000, 1.3M)

Are they?
>dw.com/en/germany-halts-plans-to-upgrade-turkeys-leopard-tanks/a-42305167

>Roaches can't park an M60 on a hill and get shot at any better than with a Leopard 2
If you say so

>t. mad roach

>putting the ammo rack at the best protected place is somehow worse than putting at a barely armored place

Attached: 38341_tank-leopard-ambles.jpg (700x465, 133K)

its german, so its wehraboo shit by default

>Penetrated through the frontal armor to crew KIA

Yeah no.

By what? How is that even possible

T. Warthunder expert

>I was speaking with friend who was German tanker and he told me that Leo's have one weak pot that you can pen with high caliber gun and kill crew

>Classic OD green and white star
Nice.

If the Centurion is the Western T-55, then the Leopard 2... is the Western T-72. A monkey model that is made widely available to third world Western allies but is inferior to other Western MBTs

Oh god, the absolute state of this board.

This tank looks like it got gangfucked by a bunch of Merkavas and an Abrams which would make sense because it's German.

I don't think so, it's been repeatedly fucked while some tanks have been without combat losses.

>one of the best
>Challenger 2

Never mention again that name again.

Konkurs-M, just below the driver's periscope.

Attached: tropicalized Leclerc upgrade meme.png (2118x1636, 2.46M)

You dont need a modern MBT to sit alone in a field and sling HE and coax rounds for hours until the other goatfuckers get around to flinging an ATGM at it. Which is exactly how they were using their Leos anyways.

Come to think of it I dont think Ive ever seen a video of a mudslime MBT that was accompanied by infantry that wasnt ISIS climbing on top.

To be fair, the US has sold plenty of monkey model Abrams' to monkey-users

What do you think anti-tank missiles do?

Greece has 2A6, the Turks have just basic 2A4

greeks have both

their a6 is called leo2HEL
the rest simply as 2a4

How many nations even use the Revolution?
Hell, how many nations even use the Evolution kit outside of Singapore?

Except for that it actually happened in reality.

Yea, nah

>Best protected
Wrong. A hit in the lower glacis who's is the weakest part of the tank from the front, would trigger a ammo rack detonation.

Also, they've been designing tanks with ammo in the front since the leopard 1. And it was made out of fucking paper.

The Leopard 2 never lost an evaluation against the Abrams.

Leopard tanks also won the overwhelming amount of Canadian Tank Trophies and is also dominating the modern Strong Tank Contest.

Excellent tank.

It's also never been fairly evaluated, but whatever

Yeah, sure.

In the Swedish trials (and all the other trials) the Leopard 2 showed to have twice the range in rough terrain for example.
This is such a crucial adventage that no one is putting turbines in tanks anymore.

To be fair Germany's diesel engines were second to no one, no one else was capable of building such an excellent 1500HP tank engine
in the 70s.
The Americans were forced to use a rejected helicopter engine to provide their tanks with similiar performance stats, despite paying for it with high consumption and a large heat signature.

>In the Swedish trials
Not relevant, Sweden already decided on the Leopard 2 before the "contest" even began.
>This is such a crucial adventage that no one is putting turbines in tanks anymore
The LV100-5 is vastly superior to any tank engine today, and it's a turbine.
>The Americans were forced to use a rejected helicopter engine to provide their tanks with similiar performance stats
That's not why the AGT-1500 was chosen, the engine options for the Abrams were the AVCR1360 and the AGT-1500, the turbine was quieter, better at acceleration and had more available torque.

Attached: rm0001.png (921x510, 88K)

>Not relevant, Sweden already decided on the Leopard 2 before the "contest" even began.

Being that butthurt

>The LV100-5 is vastly superior to any tank engine today, and it's a turbine.

(canceled)

Tanks with turbines were designed and produced for decades. Tank engineers are pretty clear about it.

>picture

I love how that picture makes no sense.

The gas turbines of the M1 leads to following problems

>twice the fuel consumption
>way larger and complex logstic footprint (which is an instant ko argument if you actually wants to fight a line of communication attacking enemy)
>higher fuel prices
>the turbine engine of the M1 are making 50% of the maintenance costs for the American M1 tanks
>The AGT1500 powerpack is actually bigger than the MTU diesel engine (2680mm x 1575mm x 970mm vs. 2270mm, 1660mm, 820mm)

>50% of the Abrams maintenance cost
that sounds absolutely fucking awful

It is, but the M1 is still better than the Challenger II. Which is maybe the worst western tank in service.

I am certain, that Honeywell was gifted the contract to keep the company afloat. Weird, huh.

How much pain can a combined force of 12 Leo2A4's and 44 Leo2A7+'s bring? Especially if they are supported by Airbus H145's and Puma IFV's.

Attached: leopard2a7+.jpg (920x563, 102K)

>Being that butthurt
Not butthurt, just acknowledging facts.
>canceled
Because of budgetary concerns, idiot.
>twice the fuel consumption
The M1A2 has a range of 425km and a fuel tank of 500 gallons, the Leopard 2A7 has a range of 450km and a fuel tank of 300 gallons. That isn't 2x.
>way larger and complex logstic footprint
Turbines are not complicated to fix.
>higher fuel prices
The AGT1500 will burn whatever's put in it with a few part changes, including diesel.
>The AGT1500 powerpack is actually bigger than the MTU diesel engine
Your numbers for the AGT1500 are wrong. In summation, You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

>and a large heat signature.

Nope

Attached: Abrams turbine exhaust prejudices.png (1090x496, 241K)

globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch7.htm#par11

Guy even gave you an example of the twice as high fuel consumption. Google it before doing your butthurt spiel.

No one right in their minds will ever put a turbine engine into a tank anymore for good reasons.

>Guy even gave you an example of the twice as high fuel consumption
No he didn't. The "guy" (totally not you I'm sure) said something about the Swedish so called trials which he failed to back up.
>No one right in their minds will ever put a turbine engine into a tank anymore for good reasons
Turbines are superior to diesels nowadays, and the 1 modern tank turbine (LV100-5) is at the top of the heap. Cope more.

The Leopard 2A4M CAN has the most aesthetic Armor package in the leopard family. Shame it doesn't have NBC air conditioning.

Attached: Leopard 2A4M CAN water.jpg (731x1024, 201K)

Oh look, there is this idot again.

>showing the ever same old picture of abandoned and then air strike'd Leo2's
When will vatniks learn?

a lot of pain

I want to join the Bundeswehr and serve in a Leo.
Should I? Is german basic training as harsh as american basic?

Attached: 31266880072_b639e141f5_b.jpg (1024x683, 277K)

They are seeking pretty desperately for people joining the army atm, so there is a good chance that they are more "friendly" than usual.

And if you add 24 PzH 2000 howitzers to this formation? Also, the panzergrenadiers escorting the formation are equipped witz CZ Bren 2's.

Attached: pzh 2000.jpg (640x427, 219K)

Enough to take a small country

how long do you think this will last?
I'd like to wait until Flinten-uschi is gone

stop, i can only get so erect
God i hope we get into it against the russians again at some point

>PzH 2000
Reminder that this beast can shot Italian Volcano rounds. Probably the best howitzer currently deployable

Look up the Population pyramid of germany, we will have this problem continuing in the future, specially with tensions rising in the world and germany planing to expand its military budget. Only god knows when von der Leine is going to fuck off, probaly going to happen with the next vote.

In the middle east they do. Lord knows nobody sane signs up for an enlisted position there.

There is no stopping. Also, the men are wearing this camo pattern.

Choo choo motherfuckers. All aboard the Pain Train. Next stop: Holywarsville.

Attached: 2016m.jpg (590x885, 601K)

>Leopard 2
>Best tank
Even a T-62 is far better, desu

youtube.com/watch?v=YafzmkvVRiI

Attached: bait 1.jpg (756x1100, 209K)

If you're referring to the ammo storage, then no, the T-62 is not better- it's got the same arrangement.

Yeah no.
It did not penetrate. Only the driver died, from spalling.

We do not know for sure what hit it.

Except for that it actually did not.

Are you the real Frenchfag?

>bait 1.jpg
>Even a T-62 is far better

Pretty much Desert Storm 2.0

Desert Storm 2.0 with a smaller logistical footprint. Enviroment friendly basically.

What exactly stopped you to google "Sweden trial Leopard 2 M1A2 range" before looking like a retard here?

>Turbines are superior to diesels nowadays

Tell that all the tank engineers.

Why is there ammo in the hull if they already figured out blowout panels?
The turret is big enough to store all the ammo in blowout panels in the back, just move some of the shit in the back of the turret to the hull.

Because every tank has ammo in the hull. And putting it at the best armored place makes more sense than at a lesser armored place.

>putting it at the best armored place makes more sense than at a lesser armored place.
Except there's a difference between "best armored" and "safest for the crew". I'm not saying you're wrong; tanks tend to take hits to the turret more often than the hull, and the hull is easier to conceal, so there is sound logic to the idea. However, when more modern anti-tank munitions can punch through your best armor as easily as it could punch through the door of a sedan, you look back with the benefit of hindsight and wonder if "safer for the crew" may have been a better option than "safer for the ammo"

Realistically, Germany will never face a near-peer in a tank battle, not in the life of a Leopard 2 anyway. Maybe the EMBT will be different

If the hull ammo rack explodes it doesn't matter where it was located.

So putting it somewhere at the most protected place where it can only be hit by the most powerful anti tank weapons it's clearly better than at the side like the Abrams where even a 30mm gun is a potential threat.
Another advantage is that reloading the turrent rack from hull takes less time than it takes for the M1.

The main difference between the L2 and M1 is that the Leopard 2 is actually designed for war. Everything is so perfectly streamlined that there is a reason why Leopard 2 tanks always dominate the Strong Tank Competition, because everything takes less time with the L2.

>It did not penetrate. Only the driver died, from spalling.

The jet from a shaped charge is basically a stream of hypersonic fragments.

>We do not know for sure what hit it.

ultimaratio-blog.org/archives/8148

Attached: 1487630719871.jpg (1920x1152, 305K)

Attached: LV 100-5 vs MT-883.png (631x483, 14K)

Sweden conducted comparative tests of the Leopard 2 and the M1A1 Abrams during the MBT 2000 program in 1984. During those tests, the M1A1 had a fuel consumption of 14.7 l/km (3,820km traveled at the cost of 56,488 litres of fuel). Meanwhile, the Leopard 2 had a fuel consumption of barely 7.2 l/km (3,730km traveled at the cost of 26,874 litres of fuel). In other words, the Abrams consumed twice as much fuel as the Leopard 2 to cover the same distance.

The MTU powerpack is actually smaller than the m1 powerpack otherwise there wouldn't be the M1 variant with diesel engine.

Attached: main-qimg-2a3d8d798ff27fd569f611a3cacf7cb2.jpg (602x310, 70K)

>otherwise there wouldn't be the M1 variant with diesel engine
Are you unaware of how retarded you sound? The Abrams diesel variant had a large amount of modification to the rear of the hull, and didn't use the Leopard's engine.

Attached: abramsdiesel.jpg (1600x1200, 297K)

That’s not even the powerpack.

It’s just a picture of the engine, without the transmission, the air filters, the cooling fans, ...

most abhorrent looking device ever produced

The engine of a powerpack is only a part of the complete powerpack.

The airfilter and shit of a turbine powerpack is what makes the M1 powerpack larger than the L2 one.

Attached: main-qimg-266f1f6be5bca224f0a33074d54e543d.jpg (602x319, 77K)

>maybe the worst western tank in service.
AHEM

Attached: Strong-Europe-Tank-Challenge_C1_Ariete_Italia_Foto_12.jpg (1600x1068, 541K)

The problem with diesel engine and the USA is that there is no know how left regarding compact diesel engines.
The stuff Caterpillar produces is not competive.

As long the USA doesn't license MTU engines, they will forever be stuck with turbines in tanks, despite the rest of the word uses diesel engines.

You retarded conjecture has no relevance to the real world.
youtube.com/watch?v=Mfy05zqn324

How does it feel to be wrong at everything? Does it hurt?

MTU is pretty much the golden standard for compact tank diesel power packs.

Attached: csm_Defense_Referenzen_Gesamt_1600p_56bcd7aa9c.jpg (1500x786, 215K)

>OF 40 MK III
what?

Italian main battle tank which was only produced in small numbers with the Emirates being the only customer.