The Ultimate Tank?

[Warspite]

I do like how their #1 choice hasn't really seen combat.

[Syt]

I do like how their #1 choice hasn't really seen combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Combat_history

KFOR
The German contingent of the Kosovo Force operated a number of Leopard 2A4s and 2A5s in Kosovo. A German Leopard 2 also took part in a fire fight that was caught on video


[edit] ISAF/OEF
In October 2003, Canada was planning to replace its Leopard C2s with wheeled Stryker Mobile Gun Systems. However, operational experience in Afghanistan, and in particular during Operation Medusa, convinced the Canadian military of the usefulness of maintaining a tank fleet.[4] Leopard C2s were deployed to Kandahar in December 2006[5], but they were by then almost 30 years old, and were nearing the end of their operational life. The Canadian government decided to borrow 20 Leopard 2A6s and three armoured recovery vehicles from Germany for rapid deployment to Afghanistan. In late August 2007, the first Leopard 2s were airlifted into Afghanistan to equip the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians).[6]

In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: "My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should." wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.[citation needed] Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. "The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes" and that as a result the Taliban "learned some very harsh lessons" and lost the battle in question "very quickly and very violently."[7]

In October 2007, Denmark also deployed its Leopard 2A5 DKs in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. The Danish tank unit, drawn from the first battalion of the Jydske Dragonregiment (Jutland Dragoons Regiment)[8], was equipped with three tanks and one M113 armoured personnel carrier, with an armoured recovery vehicle and another tank kept in reserve.[9] The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with Swedish-made Barracuda camouflage mats, that serve to limit the absorption of solar heat, thus reducing infrared signature and interior temperature.[8] It also has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been replaced by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" [10], which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. In this way, the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs. [11]

In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions.[12] On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.[13] The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand Province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.[14] Beginning on December 7, 2008, Leopard 2 tanks took part in Operation Red Dagger, firing 31 rounds in support of Coalition troops as they recaptured Nad Ali District. A press release from the British ministry of defence claimed the tanks were a decisive factor in the Coalitions success, and praised the accuracy of their fire and their mobility.[15]

[Lettow77]

Picking on third world folk doesnt really seem like combat to me. Most tanks would look good fighting irregulars without them.

[Berkut]

Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.

The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.

[Mr.Penguin]

Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.

The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.

What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...

[Malthus]

B/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel,  and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.

It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.

An argument could be made for mass produce simple, easily maintained tanks (T-34, Sherman) vs. marvels of engineering that were expensive and difficult to keep running without highly specialized personnel (though engineering more intricate parts saved weight/raw material). Still I doubt that Germany could have outproduced the Allies unless they had gone that route already in 1935.

I suppose the counter-argument would be that the Germans did not have to out-produce the Allies, merely make war so prohibitively difficult and dangerous so as to deter or intimidate the Western allies into possibly making a seperate peace - the addition of the US to the list of their enemies pretty well doomed Germany no matter what tank it had, if the US remained wedded to its defeat. US productivity in the '40s dwarfed anything the German empire could reasonably be expected to achieve, and of course the US was totally secure from bombing and the like.

The German solution to this problem seems to have been to pin their hopes on ever more sophisticated weapon design - which did produce some good tanks, but also some clunkers; the multiplication of designs did them no good at all, and the search for ever-better designs left them at even more of a numerical disadvantage than would otherwise have been the case.

[Berkut]

Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.

The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.

What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...

Some of those Abrams shooting up those tanks are 20 years old themselves you know.

But you do have a point - its not like the Abrams has *much* combat experience in taking on the type of armor it was designed to handle - although it has some.

[KRonn]

B/c if your biggest strategic problems inlcude: shortages of oil, shortages of transport, shortages of steel,  and shortages of spare parts - basing your operational strategy on a machine that guzzles gas, is relatively mechanically unreliable, and requires a lot of servicing and maintenance is perhaps not the best idea.

It's not like there was a viable alternative to combined arms warfare. They needed tanks, no matter how expensive or unreliable they were.

An argument could be made for mass produce simple, easily maintained tanks (T-34, Sherman) vs. marvels of engineering that were expensive and difficult to keep running without highly specialized personnel (though engineering more intricate parts saved weight/raw material). Still I doubt that Germany could have outproduced the Allies unless they had gone that route already in 1935.

I tend to go with this idea, the ability to mass produce effective tanks. Though the original Shermans after about 1942 were a liability; the US and UK had better armored and up-gunned versions of it, which I think were very effective. Equal at least to German MK IVs and maybe the MK V Panthers to some extent. And the allies were able to produce huge numbers of them. But to lose so many tank crews is a morale buster and tragedy of losses, so the early Shermans needed the upgrades.

I go with the German Panther as the best WW2 tank, after its early mechanical problems were fixed. With the Russian T34/85, or the 76 gun version, also strong contenders. Especially since the T34s were more plentiful and probably played a larger role early in the war.

Current times, I'll go with the US Abrams. Partly because it's so effective and partly because it's been upgraded through use and experience on the battlefield. Though the German and UK tanks are pretty much equal to it, so are on a par with it. Israel's Merkava is a unique design, and I think very effective and survivable, maybe more so than other tanks in urban settings?

[KRonn]

I'm amazed that no  one sneaked a mmo reference into this topic yet.

Well, during the American Civil War, the first experimental tank used was by the....   

[Berkut]

The German solution to this problem seems to have been to pin their hopes on ever more sophisticated weapon design - which did produce some good tanks, but also some clunkers; the multiplication of designs did them no good at all, and the search for ever-better designs left them at even more of a numerical disadvantage than would otherwise have been the case.

Indeed. The German tank production in WW2 was a little microcosm of their failings in the war in general.

Excellent technical competence coupled with a disaster of a strategic system. They could produce these incredible tanks, but could not recognize what was good enough and focus on it. They could create the Panther, for example, which was technically outstanding, relatively easy to produce (actually easier than the PZIV in many ways) but could not NOT go and waste resources on a myriad of other crap, or even organize their system well enough to STOP building old stuff and focus on the good stuff! They were still building PzIVs at the end of the war! That says at least as much as their mess of a procurement system as all the resources wasted on crap like King Tigers and Porsche maus type bullshit.

Interesting that the Soviets had almost exactly the opposite problem - an incredibly competent strategic organization coupled with horrendously bad operational management. STAVKA could basically rebuild the entire Red Army from scratch, twice in one summer, get it into position, build a shitload of tanks/planes/supplies, and yet they fail at the middle management level to use it all very well at all.

[Razgovory]

Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.

The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.

What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...

The M1 did destroy quite a few T-72's, T-62's and T-55/54 which made up almost the whole of the Soviet arsenal when the M1 was produced.  Granted the Iraqi tanks were export models and inferior and were not being used according to the doctrine they were designed for but still it's a worthy test.

[Ape]

Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.

Pic or link ?

[Mr.Penguin]

Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.

The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.

What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...

The M1 did destroy quite a few T-72's, T-62's and T-55/54 which made up almost the whole of the Soviet arsenal when the M1 was produced.  Granted the Iraqi tanks were export models and inferior and were not being used according to the doctrine they were designed for but still it's a worthy test.

Yes, when the basic M1 was produced, but the M1A1's used by the US doing Desert Storm was atleast 20 years ahead of any Tank the Iraqies could field. The iraqies didnt even posses a tank round that had any chance of defeat the front armor of the M1A1, The Iraqi T-72's had to be with in a range of 1200m even to stand chance of hitting a M1A1, while the M1A1's could take out any Iraqi tank at as much as 4000m with out any problem. So a insurgent with a rusty AK-47 is infact just as likely to take out a M1A1 or a Leo2 for that matter, as any Iraqi Tank was doing Desert Storm. The iraqi armor was far from any worthy test of the M1A1 Abrams strengh... 

[HisMajestyBOB]

According to Wiki, 487 King Tigers.

And according to tactical WWII sims, they were present at every low-level engagement from their introduction till the end of the war.

[Berkut]

According to Wiki, 487 King Tigers.

And according to tactical WWII sims, they were present at every low-level engagement from their introduction till the end of the war.

Really?

I've played a huge number of tactical sims, from SL to ASL to PanzerGrenadier to hundreds of CM scnearios and hundreds of Steel Panthers games from 1 to N. I almost never see King Tigers in them.