Talk:Leopard 2/Archive 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)

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


 * 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)

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. 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.


 * Just to add- any armoured core member knows instantly those shots didn'come from the L2 AA gun, as some had stated already. So the statement "A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video" should be erased or corrected coz theres no video link so no reference and if someone finds the video on some other site he will notice that soldiers fire at yellow Lada- but you wont find in Lada page that she had a battle history just it was used as a cover like Leo was in this case. And you can see the injuries on those men inside the car later-consistant with small arms fire. The thing i find disturbing, and has no connection with L2, is Germans once again killing people in the Balkans Jarovid (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2010 (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)
 * Comparing what theoritical advantages? According to literature I've read the M1 has greater armor protection along the frontal arc than the Leopard 2, but even this doesn't mean anything - those values are estimates.  There's no point in comparing the tanks; besides, the M1A2 is sure superior to the Leopard 2A4, while the Leopard 2A56 is surely superior to the M1A1HA - these comparisons are of no value and detract from the article.  JonCatalán (talk) 10:20, 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)

Debates that try to corelate minor technical improvements and actual tank supperiority like this one really get under my skin. The Leopard 2A6 and M1A2 Abrams are practically identical, sans a few improvements here and there for both vehicles. In the end, it all comes down to the ability and experience of the crew at hand; not the vehicle itself. And so far, American crews have seen the highest intensity tank-to-tank conflict, which has to count for something in the 'experience' department. 75.149.203.222 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to finalize something before I get mercilessly attacked by everyone; by 'tank-to-tank' conflict, I refer to modern (within the last 20 years) conflict; not World War II or something that would be irrelevent to mention like that, as I'm sure there isn't a single World War II tanker in Germany or America that's still serving in an active-duty combat role, if there's one serving at all (unlikely if I must say so). 99.173.63.46 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2008 (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)

Qatar as well, I have removed it, Germany won't be selling armaments of any kind to regimes it deems repressive and undemocratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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 --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 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 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.

J IM ptalk·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. J IM ptalk·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 hp vs 1.5 PS distinction. I'm refering to the 1.5 PS vs 1.500 PS distinction. The correct conversion for 1.500 PS certainy is 1.103 MW but we're converting 1.5 PS. The correct conversion for 1.5 PS is 1.1 MW. J IM ptalk·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. J IM ptalk·cont 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Superlatives
Why should we state superlatives? What makes the Leopard 2 the best tank in the world? What hard facts can you give me? Absolutely none - which is why superlatives should be avoided at all costs. One of Wikipedia's policies is no point of view. The Leopard 2 is a great tank, surely, and it has had combat experience, but there's no worth in comparing it with other tanks - this is especially true because nobody can really make true comparisons between tanks which have half of their hardware classified. Whick tank really has greater armor protection? Leopard 2, M1A2, T-90, et cetera? Nobody knows. Why mention it? Which tank has a better fire control system? How would one know which one is better? To be honest, apparently tanks like the Leclerc and the K1A2 have greater fire control systems according to some sources - so they receive the title for best tanks in the world? Surely, we can all agree that the statement is ridiculous. This article should focus on the tank and what can be proven, not what is theoritically true. JonCatalán (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "jerchel" :

Weight
Leopard 2A4, Weight: 55.15 metric tons (60.62 tons U.S.)

Pz 87, Weight: 56.5 metric tons (61.73 tons U.S.)

Leopard 2A5, Weight: 59.7 metric tons (65.04 tons U.S.)

Leopard 2A6, Weight: 60.1 metric tons (66.14 tons U.S.)

Leopard 2A6M, Weight: 62 metric tons (68.34 tons U.S.)

Leopard 2A6EX, Weight: 62.4 metric tons (68.78 tons U.S.)

Strv 122, Weight: 62.5 metric tons (68.89 tons U.S.)

Leopard 2E, Weight: 63 metric tons (69.45 tons U.S.)

any links I can use to verify this ??? cheers Mic of orion (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifications
Performance Leopard 2A6 EX

maximum speed: 72 km/h

maximum speed in reverse: 31 km/h

road range: 450 km

fuel capacity: 1200 l

front slope: 60 %

side slope: 30 %

obstacle capability – vertical 1.1 m

obstacle capability – trench: 3.0 m

fording – unprepared: 1.0 m

deep fording – prepared: 2.35 m

submerge operations – prepared: 4.0 m

crew: 4 members

combat weight: 62.4 metric tons

military load class: MLC 70

length (gun 12): 10.97 m

length (gun 6): 9.79 m

height above turret roof: 2.64 m

height above the commander periscope: 3.00 m

width over skirts: 3.74 m

ground clearance: 0.53 m

tracks – length on ground: 4.95 m

tracks – width: 0.635 m

http://www.kmweg.de/administration/media/temp/kmw-008-leopard2_eng.pdf

Combat Experience
Hasn´the Leopard 2 meanwhile seen some action in Afghanistan?--85.180.32.169 (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It has fired its main gun at least once, anyway: http://www.amblondon.um.dk/en/menu/TheEmbassy/DefenceSection/Defence+News/British+commander+commends+combat+support.htm //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.11.150 (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Map
A map would be helpful to shwo the users cause these are--84.161.85.95 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) several one.

Leopard 2A7 and title photo
Hey, I came onto to the page and saw a photo by the title with a caption reading "Leopard 2A7 at it's release". There was no article on the Leo2A7, so I decided to do some research on YouTube, and KMW's site. A new Leopard has been released under the name Lopard 2A7, and it's really only a production version of the PSO at most. Coud some body explain why we've changed the photo back to a 2A5, which is not the newest Leopard 2?

Also, I'd like to add the record speed is 45 mp/h, as is the Abrams (But only the M1 could really go this fast). Later versions of the Leopard 2 are only a few mph slower, so just to clarify, I've heard the speed is somewhere around 42 or 43 mph for the new versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.56.32.175 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.56.32.175 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read up on No original research, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the Leopard 2A7 is original research, photos have been released, and KMW has released news on it. Thank you for the improvement of my article also, at the time my computer was having trouble with internet connection, so it was hard to cite and get facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.61.98 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Image pushing in user country main articles
Someone seems to be POVishly pushing images of Leopard 2 in main articles of the operator countries. There is no picture of a Leopard 2 in the article on Germany. I cannot see why there needs to be one in Finland, Sweden and Chile. I have removed all three. I remember doing the same a year or two ago. Who ever is doing the advertising, please do not do it again. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Many countries acquire and use imported equipment. Free photos taken in those respective countries should be appropriate if they are in proper context. Regarding POVs, your recent edit notes indicate that you may have a POV issue with this tank. KimChee (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the POV being used with the Leopard 2 images. The Chile article also posts an image of a F-16 that is produced in the United States. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Petri, you seem to be implying that all three images were added by the same person, or by related IPs. Have you actually checked the history to see if this is so, and do you have the diffs for those edits? If you've not checked the history, you should be careful with claims such as POV. While the Military sections in those articles are probably too small for 3 images, I see no problem with the tank images being there, provided the images are of actual tanks used by those countries, and not photos of tanks in the German Army, for example. In most cases, those articles had 3 images, one each of an army, air force, and navy vehicle/aircraft/ship. As to the German article not having a photo of the Leopard 2 tank, why not add one? It has a ship and an aircraft photo, but not an army vehicle. I also note that the Germany article has a photo/video of the Eurofighter Typhoon, as does the Italy article, but the United Kingdom and Spain articles do not. Should we remove the Typhoon photos from the German and Italian articles then? I think that would be taking things way too far, and I think the same thing about your removal of the tank photos. You seem to be being disruptive to make a point. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the underlying "POV" here seems to be that every country article should have an image of its fighter jet, its largest naval vessel and its main battle tank. I do not think this is appropriate. Unless the foreign made weapons are shown in some particular national context they give no value to the articles and are needles clutter. The ugly-ass tank in the Chile article is a primary example of such non-value image. –– Petri Krohn (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While you're entitled to your opinion, no one else appears to hold it, which means you have no consensus to support the removal of the images. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Petri, the harsh position you have regarding posting LEO2 in user countries does not make it better, while describing it with weasel words like "ugly-ass-tank". From my point of view, its a very "pretty-ass-tank", but I would never use that as an argument to remove or push a relevant photo. Neither does the argument count, that the german Wiki page does not show Leo2 Tanks. If there is a consensus, that this is not relevant for Germany (probably due to its broad spectrum of other armament), it does not mean it's not relevant for other countries. In Chile, the LEO2 is one of the main backing material of the army, and in the regional southamerican context, it's very significative. Regarding your posts in the Chilean page, it seems that the main motivation you have, is that you wish to have that LEO2 on the german page, but the majority over there does not agree. So apparently your attitude is like "if the german page is not entitled to show them, no other country should be able to. Don't think this is the right way to do. ". --194.203.215.254 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Operators" section pruned
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. 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.175.140 (talk • contribs)  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)

2A7+
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
SA asked about 200 A7+, already 44 are bought. --78.43.39.10 (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 2.25.205.206 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Turkey
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 78.170.77.68 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the reliable source:http://www.savunmasanayi.net/rheinmetallden-leopard-2a7-plus-atagi/rheinmetallden-leopard-2a7-plus-atagi/


 * FWIW, what we really need right here is an English language source since this is English Wikipedia. Might I suggest Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's website for their established database of international arms transfer/transaction~? SIPRI states that a EUR365 m deal (incl EUR70 m for FRG and EUR295 m for FRG industry for technology transfers) deal was finalised in 2005 between Germany and Turkey, 298 ex-FRG Leo-2A4s were delivered to Turkey between 2006-2010 and no other follow-up deals were reported thereafter. That is all. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

http://rewreward.blogspot.com/2012/01/savunma-havaclk-dergisi-say-146-ozetler.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.10.207 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As another general rule, blogs are not considered as reliable source on English Wikipedia (per WP:BLOGS). As for me, I would rather go with the secondary source that has been verified by professionals than from one which is not. Nuff said~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Leopard 2A6
I deleted the part with the Dutch operational tanks. There are no operational Dutch Leopard 2 anymore. 90.186.166.220 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Variants
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? --178.10.111.200 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sale of 2A7+ by KMW to Saudi Arabia
Hello!

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)