The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei in the 1970s for the West German Army. The tank first entered service in 1979. Various versions have served in the armed forces of Germany and 12 other European countries, as well as several non-European nations.
All modern models feature digital fire control systems with laser rangefinders, a fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machine gun, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment. The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain.
1 Kornet and bye bye. just like the INVINCIBLE JEWISH merkava xD
that goes for every tank because all tanks have soft zone!
Tanks are looking more and more expendable. I think that’s why the Russians put so much emphasis on T72s… anything newer isn’t necessarily better!
I respectfully disagree, as the Russian military for a long time just did not have the cash, and still doesn’t, to replace their entire tank fleet, not even with T-90, which is to T-72 what the US M-60 was to the M-48. Let alone Armata. There is just too much inventory in the Russian army to replace and upgrade on the current budget and too much neglect of the Yeltsin years to make up for. The nuclear forces and air forces seem to have taken priority over the army and navy. Upgrading T-72’s in active duty formations seems to be the most the Russian military can afford right now. And besides, nuclear armed powers will not go to war with each other, despite what the hysterics in the MSM continue to write. So the chances of Russian T-72á going up against US Abrams and NATO Leo 2’s are slim if non-existent at all.
New versions of T-72, T-80 and T-90 have much better equipment and armor than their versions from 1970-80s. They can all fire ATGMs from their barrels. More over there are several times more Russian tanks than NATO has. Turkey and Greece will not join the party in the north east Europe. Germany overhauled only some 20-25 Leo 2 to A7 standard. On this picture is older Leo 2 A5/6 with short barrel.
Your infomations about Nato is totally biased or under informaed.
You also seemes to ignore Your tanks dont start from Beling and Poland but Russia.
And quite funny You say Russia actually has many more tanks even Putin and Lavrov aleays say Nato are the artticing agressive ones.
Yeah, but the Russians have only a handful of the latest production and upgrade models as well. I reckon these programs, like the German ones for the Leo 2 exist more to keep their respective tank industries in business then to upgrade their whole tank fleet up to modern specs.
I agree. Its correct for the rest as well. Russians nd others also have to esucate their soldiers different and somtimes ´from the start again.
So what we see is, what they wish for the future but realisme is amny upgradings and relative few new things.
I think I see it all the time here in the comments. People dont see Russians hardly can effort to pay for many Armatas, so those are not the ones winning fx against Abrams and Leopolds even the few ones can do an eminent job.
I hve written here seveal times, that Russians and Assads many times has declared ceasfire, and I think I see they do that because they have no grenades and bombs. Fast enough supply of even relative cheep things is very important too. Tansk are knocked out, if they have no fuel as well.
So what you’re saying is that tanks are obsolete? :)
No, because sending in tanks without infantry and combined arms support has never EVER worked. It didn’t work when the British did it at Cambrai in 1917, it didn’t when the British did it again and again against Rommel in WW2, it didn’t for the Israeli’s in 1973 and 2006, it didn’t for the SAA throughout the Syrian war and it didn’t for the Turks against ISIS.
In the minds of the uninformed tanks are some sort of superweapon that can win anything. Only for them to do a 180 when tanks do get sent in unsupported, get shot to pieces and then they start a litany of op ed pieces declaring the end of tank. And the funny thing is these people don’t even the know the difference between a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier, or other kind of tracked support vehicle. *
Those who know their things know that what wins wars are not weapons by themselves, but combined arms warfare. Tanks, infantry, artillery, support systems, close air support, all working together like a well oiled machine. The English did not win the battle of Agincourt because of the long bow, but because they occupied a superior defensive position and had their shit in order, unlike the attacking French. The Germans did not blitzkrieg France because of tanks, but because they had combined arms warfare. If your shit is not working together then having the best shit will not give you victory. Case in point, Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
* To illustrate the public ignorance about everything with tracks being tanks, in 1981 there were protests in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, at homes being torn down to make room for a parking garage. Barricades were being created and manned by protesters. The government then sent in armored vehicles. To this day (somebody told me this story again yesterday, which is why I mention this) public memory has it that they sent in tanks to take down the barricades. Whereas every picture of that event shows Dutch Army armored recovery vehicles, not tanks. They look like tanks because they are based on the Leopard 1 chassis, but they are not tanks by any definition except those who are clueless as to what a tank really is. And what makes more sense? That you send in vehicles with 105mm guns in a 360 degree traversing turret, or a vehicle designed for engineers under combat conditions, standard equipped with a hoisting crane to lift heavy tank engines and a BULLDOZER to remove obstructions?
Its like for anything else. The winner often is best to the price. Price also is, what You can effort.
The brittish Churchill tank not named after Winston was an example of Britts did not have enough steal. It did very well compared to the low price and production time.
The german famous 88 canon in mpst versions was iplemented in very cheep equipment with low weight. By that they could deploy faster as well as move it on one truck only.
They will if you send them in unsupported without infantry. Which the IDF did in 2006, the SAA often did in Syria and the Turks did against ISIS. Which is super stupid as the Germans proved in 1940 already that tanks alone will not win any engagement, that’s why they used combined arms formations. And the IDF should have learned that lesson as well, as the Syrians and Egyptians taught them that exact same lesson in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Which makes it all the stranger that they did it again in 2006. I reckon they got lazy again after having become used to roll over Palestinian youths with rocks in their tanks and they believed their own propaganda on the Merkava being the invincible moving bunker. Nope, still needs combined arms support.
I agree. As a former PNINF/MECHINF aka panzer grenadier in the Royal Danish Army, i can confirm that tanks, danish at least, DO NOT want to go into or within 500m of a build up area, without proper infantry support.
We did train with our Leopards in Germany (not allowed to do the combined livefire shooting with them back home at that time), where they would stay behind in overwatch and pour canister and MG rounds on a trench, with us on the stormline, ready to go in when the signal came. They would NOT go near the trenches without it being cleared, there is just to much to watch, and a few kilos of explosive or even a handgrenade and boom; the track is done or vital sensors are destroyed. All you need to hit on a tank is the pin holding the track together; a tank without tracks is like a ship with a broken rudder; it can be the biggest and baddest in the world with the best crew around, but if you cant move, your dead. *hint*Bismarck*hint*
Infantry and tank combined, with mutual support and proper training is a very dangerous mix for the enemy. Ill bet you that such a mix can take and hold almost any position that is worth it.
Any time a tank unit gets the order to attack an objective without support they should basically turn their guns on the officer giving them that order. I reckon court martials will be much better for their health then carrying out that order.
I can confirm that. SAA and Syrians are only learned the Sovjet weapons are best because they have good steal and a good canon and most of them still believe that. They not even know what the enemy has.
Most of them never has heard or has learned anything about modern tankfire and cant even llok up, that a german tank divison og 17.000 in its best days had more artillery and other canons as well as infantery to protect them.
They most of the time operated in fighting groups and even small, the tanks were covered some by infatery with heavy machineguns as well as mobil armed canons.
Interestingly German WW2 panzer divisions had less and less tanks and more and more infantry as the war progressed, and so did British armored divisions by the way, because they always ran out of infantry first when in combat. By modern standards the allied tank divisions at WW2’s end were mechanized divisions, about 50/50 in tanks and infantry battalions, and German panzer divisions motorized, as in 1/3 tank and 2/3 infantry.
And for all the love most of us have for the SAA here on SF, most of them do tend to forget that the SAA used to rank among Saddam’s Iraqi army and the Saudi army as among the worst armies in the world. Its not for nothing that almost all of the successful major SAA offensives in this war have been spearheaded by the Tiger Forces, as the regular SAA divisions just weren’t that good. And probably why the Russians have taken first hand control in training, maintaining and commanding SAA units, to at least bring them up to decent fighting conditions. And have overall been reasonably successful at that. Certainly better then NATO has been at training the Iraqi and Afghan armies. But it comes at the cost of Russians having to be present at way too many levels throughout the SAA.
I’ve read that in general Arabs are culturally not compatible with modern conventional warfare as devised by the West. It just doesn’t play to their strengths, which is hit and run attacks. Which is why Arabs do well in insurgent warfare against the West but get hammered when fighting a conventional war against the West. There’s also the whole dictator thing where El Presidente for Life fears competent generals and a competent army more then generals who are more busy lining their own pockets. Down to the lower levels, where junior officers prefer to keep their troops stupid and incompetent, because knowledge gives them power.
Thats goes for all tanks. A clever or a lucky shot does it.
So one big diifference is to keep Your tank protected by clever develloped methods.
One is heavy armed infanterists in a circle around them fx knocking out Kornets, another is good hiding, another fast moveable ad by speed, a thirs is being armed itself by countermissieles and they see, whats comming.
A tank often has more protection outside such a net catching fx kornets, steel plates as well as counter exploders.
A very good idea also is only to use tanks, where they can be dominant as well as giving them airprotection. Its normal procedure tanks only are a part of a tankdivison or battalion and sometimes are a minority if You compare with several kinds of artilley in them.
So bye bye is not always bye bye. Tanks almost always are in systems where they protect each other.
The Leopard A6 is equipped with the long barreled version of the 120 mm gun, this Leopard 2 is equipped with the standard version 120 mm gun, which makes it the A5 version or one of the other locally upgraded A4 variants.