The truth about the overpriced and inferior Leopard 2 Tank

[flamer84]

Here the actual results achieved at Greek tank tender.

Daytime fire:

10 rounds from 2000 m stationary, 10 rounds from 2000 m while on move. 2.3 x 2.3 m target.

M1A2 - 17 hits out of 20
Leclerc- 20 hits out of 20
Leopard 2A5 - 19 hits out of 20
T-84 - 11 hits out of 20
T-80U - 11 hits out of 20

Night fire:

10 rounds from 1500 m stationary, 10 rounds from 1500 m while on move. 2.3 x 2.3 m target.

M1A2 - 20 hits out of 20
Leclerc- 19 hits out of 20
Leopard 2A5 - 20 hits out of 20
T-80U - 13 hits out of 20

Rate of fire:

Two 2.3x2.3 m targets at 1500 m.

M1A2 - 8 rounds a min
Leclerc- 9 rounds a min
Leopard 2A5 - 9 rounds a min
T-84 - 7 rounds a min
T-80U - 6 rounds a min

---------------------------------------------------

Note, T-84 and T-80U use the same 1A45 FCS as T-90.

Leclerc seems a beast,i always loved that tank.I wondered why it's always ignored as a top machine when it comes to tanks...I think maybe because it's even more expensive than the Leo,or it could just be rumours.

Do you have any information on how it rates as MBT ?

 

[IND151]

Russians need 3 tanks to destroy 1 German tank.

And Russians need 5 men to kill 1 German.

It is historical fact.

The western and Russian tanks are developed according to different doctrines.

The Russian tanks are designed as mobile bunker destroyers which are to be used en mass.

@Capt.Popeye :Am I right?

 

[Koovie]

Russians need 3 tanks to destroy 1 German tank.

And Russians need 5 men to kill 1 German.

It is historical fact.

And this "fact" is based on which evidence?

 

[500]

Leclerc seems a beast,i always loved that tank.I wondered why it's always ignored as a top machine when it comes to tanks...I think maybe because it's even more expensive than the Leo,or it could just be rumours.

Do you have any information on how it rates as MBT ?

You are right Leclerc is excellent tank which is underrated and ignored. The reason is that it appeared late, was produced in low numbers and had reliability issues in the beginning.

Mobility:

Leopard 2A5 has problems with high slopes.
M1A2 has minor issues with high slopes.
Russian tanks performed very well except low backward speed (12 km/h vs 30 km/h for western).
Lerclerc performed well but had engine cooling problems during long marches.

Range:

M1A2 - 365 km
Leclerc - 500 km
Leopard 2A5 - 375 km
T-84 - 450 km
T-80U - 350 km

 

[waz]

You are right Leclerc is excellent tank which is underrated and ignored. The reason is that it appeared late, was produced in low numbers and had reliability issues in the beginning.

Mobility:

Leopard 2A5 has problems with high slopes.
M1A2 has minor issues with high slopes.
Russian tanks performed very well except low backward speed (12 km/h vs 30 km/h for western).
Lerclerc performed well but had engine cooling problems during long marches.

Range:

M1A2 - 365 km
Leclerc - 500 km
Leopard 2A5 - 375 km
T-84 - 450 km
T-80U - 350 km

The Leclerc is very impressive and you are right about it being ignored with people looking at the big three (Abrams, Leo, Challenger.)

It's just sad that the only country to operate them outside France is the UAE, 388 tanks I believe.

 

[Black Widow]

Russians need 3 tanks to destroy 1 German tank.

And Russians need 5 men to kill 1 German.

It is historical fact.

This is too much...

 

[500]

Russians need 3 tanks to destroy 1 German tank.

And Russians need 5 men to kill 1 German.

It is historical fact.

The ratio of destroyed tanks we know quite well.

USSR lost 97 K , while Germans lost about 35 K on East Front. Thus ratio is 1 to 2.8.

But the biggest loses Soviets had in first year of the war (1941 and first half of 1942). Later tank loses were about 1:2.

The ratio of killed men is much more obscure. My estimate is that USSR lost 13 mln, while Germans and allies lost 4 + 0.6 mln = 4.6 mln. Thus ratio is again 1 to 2.8. This ratio gradually decreased from about 1:10 in first year to about 1:1 in last year.

 

[atatwolf]

The ratio of destroyed tanks we know quite well.

USSR lost 97 K , while Germans lost about 35 K on East Front. Thus ratio is 1 to 2.8.

But the biggest loses Soviets had in first year of the war (1941 and first half of 1942). Later tank loses were about 1:2.

The ratio of killed men is much more obscure. My estimate is that USSR lost 13 mln, while Germans and allies lost 4 + 0.6 mln = 4.6 mln. Thus ratio is again 1 to 2.8. This ratio gradually decreased from about 1:10 in first year to about 1:1 in last year.

But you have to make difference between German soldiers being killed by the cold and German soldiers being killed by Russians. Germans weren't prepared for winter. While Russians were. Also if you take out Turkic and Mongol fighters who were the best fighters in USSR. You will probably get 1 German equal to 6 Russian soldiers.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

2011 article. and have we any? the t90ms is now vastly supirior to the leopard and costs less, no need at all.
We soon will also introduce t99
joke operations, they didnt invade only peace keeping there

What is the production rate of the T-90MS compared to the production rate of the Tiger I ?

The US has built around 8000 Abrams tanks. Russia has 5-600 T-90 with very few T-90MS,
rest is obsolete.

NATO seems to have more Leopard 2A6 than Russias total number of T-90.

BTW, A tank which has the effect that everyone else buys into the concept of peace,
as soon as it arrives seems quite nice. .

The ratio of destroyed tanks we know quite well.

USSR lost 97 K , while Germans lost about 35 K on East Front. Thus ratio is 1 to 2.8.

But the biggest loses Soviets had in first year of the war (1941 and first half of 1942). Later tank loses were about 1:2.

The ratio of killed men is much more obscure. My estimate is that USSR lost 13 mln, while Germans and allies lost 4 + 0.6 mln = 4.6 mln. Thus ratio is again 1 to 2.8. This ratio gradually decreased from about 1:10 in first year to about 1:1 in last year.

What is interesting also is the cause of loss.
In France, many German tanks were destroyed by fighter-bombers and artillery, and not by allied tanks.
A number were blown up by their crew, due to lack of fuel, or other problems.

Russia had zillions of Sturmovik fighter bombers, and there was probably a reason for it.

 

[500]

The US has built around 8000 Abrams tanks.

Soon only 2000 will remain: 1000 M1A2 SEP and 1000 M1A1 AIP.

Russia has 5-600 T-90 with very few T-90MS,

Russia has 380 T-90 total. Including 248 T-90A with thermal sights.

What is interesting also is the cause of loss.
In France, many German tanks were destroyed by fighter-bombers and artillery, and not by allied tanks.
A number were blown up by their crew, due to lack of fuel, or other problems.

Russia had zillions of Sturmovik fighter bombers, and there was probably a reason for it.

I guess most of the German tanks were destroyed by anti tank artillery and mines.

German Ju-87 were very effective against tanks too.

 

[Black Eagle 90]

I would say that KSA, UAE, Oman and Jordan inlcuding Yemen should try to do R&D with Japan, Korea and especially with China on Automobile which can help them develop Tanks and other military equipment in a JV.

 

[nForce]

Just because something is more expensive does not make it inferior.

ahh well..that line of thought cost the germans the tank war against the soviets in second world war..

 

[Penguin]

I agree that dollar for dollar, German equipment is way overpriced and performs below expectations as compared with the Russian Arsenal.

Unit costs:

M1A2 $6.2 million FY99, est 2012 $8.58 million (inflation adjusted)
Challenger 2: £4,217,000, about $7.1 million
Leclercq: $6.55 million in 2001
Merkava : est $6 million
2A6: US$5.74 million in 2007
Arjun: ₹172 million (US$2.9 million)
T-90:$2.77-4.25 million in 2011
Type 99 ¥ 16,000,000 Renminbi (approx $2,6 million)
T-80U: $2.2 million export 1994
T-72: 30,962,000–61,924,000 rubles (US$1–2 million) (in 2009)

 

[truthseeker2010]

Unit costs:

M1A2 $6.2 million FY99, est 2012 $8.58 million (inflation adjusted)
Challenger 2: £4,217,000, about $7.1 million
Leclercq: $6.55 million in 2001
Merkava : est $6 million
2A6: US$5.74 million in 2007
Arjun: ₹172 million (US$2.9 million)
T-90:$2.77-4.25 million in 2011
Type 99 ¥ 16,000,000 Renminbi (approx $2,6 million)
T-80U: $2.2 million export 1994
T-72: 30,962,000–61,924,000 rubles (US$1–2 million) (in 2009)

Leclerc is the most expensive tank in history with current estimated price at around $20 million

Which tank is this in front?

 

[Penguin]

its canon has a higher range

Really?

The T-90 main battle tank is a armed with a fully-stabilized 2A46M 125-mm smoothbore gun. This gun is also used to launch 9K119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missies, in the same manner, as ordinary munitions. The AT-11 missile has a range of 4 -5 km and can also engage low-flying helicopters. Main gun of the T-90 is completed with a carousel-type autoloader. 22 rounds are carried in the autoloader. However it's spare ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than a separate compartment with a blow-out panels. This drawback was common to all Cold War era Soviet main battle tanks. Effective range of fire with APFSDS round is 2 000 - 3 000 m day and 2 000 - 2 600 at night.

T-90 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The T-90MS is armed with new 125-mm high-accuracy smoothbore gun. This gun has increased range of fire over the previous weapon. It fires APFSDS, HE and HE-Frag rounds. The Tagil also fires 9K119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary munitions. These missiles have a range of 4-5 km and can also engage low-flying helicopters. A total of 40 rounds a carried for the main gun.

T-90MS Tagil Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The Leopard 2 main battle tank is armed with a fully-stabilized Rheinmetall RH-M-120 120-mm smoothbore gun.

Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The Leopard 2A5 also received a more powerful armament. It is fitted with improved 120-mm / L44 smoothbore gun.

Leopard 2A5 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

The Leopard 2A6 tank is armed with the Rheinmetall 120-mm L55 smoothbore gun, which is longer version of the L44, used on the Leopard 2A5. It has better fire accuracy and longer range, comparing with the 2A5 tank. It is worth mentioning that the L55 gun can be fitted on any Leopard 2 MBT without any significant changes.

Leopard 2A6 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

One of the most important improvement over the M1 is the M256 120-mm smoothbore gun, originally developed by Rheinmetall and produced in USA under license. The same gun is fitted on the Leopard 2 up to the version of the 2A5. This gun is loaded manually. Ammunition load was decreased to 40 rounds due to larger projectile size. The M1A1 Abrams has a range of effective fire in excess of 4 km.

M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

Vehicle is armed with the M256 120-mm smoothbore gun, originally developed by Rheinmetall and manufactured under license in USA. This gun is loaded manually. The M1A2 has an improved fire control system and it's components. Range of effective fire in excess of 4 km. The M1A2 has a target acquisition system with hunter-killer capability.

M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

Israëli Merkava's have a similar 120mm, from which they fire te 8km range Lahat anti tank missile. If need be, I'm sure Leo 2 could use that to, if it needed to outrange the AT-11 missile capability of the 125mm gun.

Leclerc is the most expensive tank in history with current estimated price at around $20 million

No doubt the result of the relatively small production run (fewer mbts to spread the development cost over)

Which tank is this in front?

Japanese Type 90