YHR

Found this on you tube. Some really nice audio of tanks comes along with the video

[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rab8cxw1YfM&feature=related]Canadian Leopards on Patrol [/link]

Mr Terminator

Very nice indeed...

Elwarpo

I did not know the Canadian Armed Forces had that many working tanks, before you flame me, I spent 15 years in the Forces (Infantry)

thomasjohnmurphy

Nice to see our taxpayer's $$ hard at work

wackywheelz

Nice Leopard C2's, very nice to see someone else making use of the Leopard 1's still out there, like we do here with our [link=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Australian_Leopard_AS1_tank_forest.jpg]AS1[/link].



Pity we went with the [link=http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/Abrams-06.jpg]Abrams[/link] this time around, we choose the Leopard 1 over the M60 so many years ago for the same reasons we should have went with the Leopard 2 (over the Abrams)

googlydoogly

The Abrams is good choice for Australia. Without add-on armor, The Abrams and the Leopard 2 have almost the exact same protection levels. Of course, those protection levels are classified, but I haven't heard or read anything about the Leopard 2 having better armor and better protected (without the add-on armor like belly plates, RA blocks, etc).

And the current-generation DU SABOT rounds have higher penetrating power than the Leopard 2A6 L55 gun, firing tungsten SABOT rounds, so the Abrams edged out Leo in that regard.

Plus, combat have shown that even the length of the main gun of the Abrams can be a hindrance in close-quarters/MOUT combat environment. So imagine how much of a hindrance the L55 gun could be in close-quarters combat.

Plus the M1A1 AIM has better fire control system than the Leopard 2.

The Abrams is a bit of a gas-guzzler though.

googlydoogly

Pics of the Canadian Leopard 2A6M tanks in Afghanistan.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.php?t=123451

I bet those guys are itching to find a Taliban T-54/55.

wackywheelz

A good choice? You're forgetting that DU is non-export! So we get all the other "less deadly" non-DU shells, whereas we would have gotten everything with the Leopard 2's, for about 3+ times less. Then theres fuelling the Abrams (seperate convoys etc) and the price of fuel here - much more than in the US.

The Leo 2 also runs on diesel (like all our other stuff), has a great track record for reliability and easy of maintenance/engine change (the reason we picked the Leopard 1 over the M60).... price/fuel/reliability/maintenance = Leo 2

googlydoogly

Well, the Australian Abrams uses diesel fuel.
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Arm...s/m1a1ph_1.htm

And in regards to maintanance/engine change, or reliability, I believe the Leopard 2 and the Abrams are pretty much equal in that regard. There's no real data on Leopard 2s, seeing they haven't really seen heavy combat, and long deployments..

But if you think back in 2003, when Abrams tanks where racing from Kuwait to Baghdad, fighting through enemy resistence and a few serious sandstorms....how many stalled? How many broke down along the way? Maybe a few. But that fast, long dash through the desert pretty much shows the reliability of the Abrams.

As for the DU not being available, you're right. But considering that the L44 M256 120mm gun, even firing just tungsten rounds can still defeat any enemy tank it might face in the near future, what would be the need for the extra penetration power?

Tanks these days are used mainly for infantry support now. And like I said, the L55 gun could be a hindrance in MOUT settings. I can just see the difficulty of a Leopard tank crew in traversing their turret while they're in a small third-world country street.

But in the future, if it's really needed, the L55 is pretty easy to install on the Abrams. At least that's what I've read.

As for the cost... yeah the Abrams cost more...but not by much. $416 USD for 66 Abrams/M88s, vs Canada getting 100 Leopard 2A5/6 for $574.

Like I said, it's a good choice. And I believe part of the reason why Australia wanted the Abrams is the fact that it's better "internally" meaning better computers, fire controls, etc etc. I read that part of the deal with the Abrams is that Australia will have access to US "technology" in the future.

wackywheelz

We paid something like $9 million PER Abrams, whereas Leopard 2's are $3-4m each... would you want 59 tanks or 150 tanks for the same price....

googlydoogly

You're forgetting that that cost isn't just for tanks. It's also for:
spares, training, support vehicles, Armoured Recovery Vehicles, simulation systems, radios and ancillary equipment as part of the overall package.

And I think like the US, The Australian military is going digital.
The M1A1 AIM has the best potential to support network centric warfare. It offers a proven integrated and highly capable radio and battlespace management system.

http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/H...CurrentId=3643

wackywheelz

Yeah, and that was factored into my (Leopard 2) quoting too. Also, what you're quoting above is the ADF trying to defend its purchase (since there was an outcry that they'd spent so much and got so little in return)

googlydoogly

Probably, but the Abrams is a well-proven combat vehicle, so it's not exactly a bad choice. So the Aussies had a choice between an unproven tank, versus a veteran. Plus, the fact that Australia seemed to be focusing more on integrating their armed forces digitally like the US Army, probably contributed to the reason why they went for the Abrams.

I just realized that despite that there are dozens of countries that has Leopards 1s and 2s in all variation, not one has ever seen tank-vs-tank combat.

Heck, even Chieftains had seen some action.

Another pic of a Canadian Leopard 2A6M in Afghanistan.


It's a shame no one really make aftermarket parts for the 1/16th Leopard tanks (Tamiya or Hobby Engine's). That slat add-on armor would be a great addition to a 1/16th Leopard tank.

Darksheer

breathing new life into a old thread
a few of your statements are kinda incorrect the leopard has seen action quite alot of it actually
in bosnia in the 90's there are several instance of leopards engaging in direct fire battles against beligerant "thats what we called them" armor and it always resulted in the leopard crews filling out a mountain of paperwork explaining why they blew the hell out of a another tank. going forward to nato in bosnia and again the leopards were there and again blew the heck out of alot of armored vehicles again resulting in mountains of paperwork. Fast forward again new mission, new name same area this time more things getting killed by leopards but without the paperwork being done because they are using ammo that fell off the books
not to belittle the M1 in any shape or form it is truly a fantastic tank

but i dont count gulf war 1 or 2 as real combat experiance against tanks it was more of a 6 day live fire exercise against living targets
the enemy vehicles either didnt shoot back, couldnt shoot back or didnt have the range to engage
how the M1 would fare against T90's with well trained crews remains to be seen. The same can be said about the leopard mind you but to say the leopard is a unProven weapon system is wrong Dead wrong
they both have thier strong points
but in the end its the weaknesses that set them apart
the M1 is a fuel pig it doesnt matter what you put in the tank it chugs it down like a freshman at rush week that fuel consumption gives it incredibly short range coupled with a huge Vunerable supple chain behind it. I know your going to mention air support and a million other things but 5 guys with Rpg's can stop a fuel convoy dead in its tracks for about 12 hours
the real thing that kills the abrams is cost and the fact that the US is very picky about who it will sell the abrams too not every nato country is even allowed to purchase them or the specialized ammo that makes it so deadly the same cannot be said about the leopard if you look to a governement and tell them we have 2 nearly identical tanks but the M1 comes with a better stereo plus a free cruise and delux seats and cost 100 dollars or we can offer you this tank over here which is almost identical but costs less to operate is cheaper on fuel and costs half as much
and its a no brainer what they usually buy
unless politics gets involved where other factors get involved which end up with countries buying things they dont need to get something else they really want as a bonus
think Bomarc Missles think m247 Sgt York

Bottom line is
both are fantastic tanks
both have 2 main qualities we need in a tank
1 ability to kill what it shoots at
2 ability to keep the guys inside alive
everything else is gravy

and on a side note

the leopards engine sounds so bad ass compared to a whistling little turbine it wins on that alone

Bill Rademacher

My Feedback: (77)

I agree with most points...I served on the M1, the M1A1, M60 RISE Passive, M48A5, and the M551 Sheridan, across a long armor career. I was even on a few XM1s briefly. Haven't been on the M1A2.

I also have experience along side and in multiple LEO variants, Marder, etc. Just saying this so you'll know I'm not just woofing.

Both great tanks, undeniably. I can say that in training a gunner and commander combination, the M1 is a little easier. Laze and blaze, as we say. Also, the Leo is one of the reasons the M1 is so good. We watched, and learned, i.e. the CITV on the A2 as an example.

You cannot beat the horses the turbine provides. We used to look for small berms, to get our tanks airborne. I still miss those days! and moving from a dead stop is instantaneous. The M1 speed is meant for getting from battle position to battle position quickly, and pursuit.

The turbine drinks fuel, but we were organized for that, so unless there was a shortage, it wasn't a problem.
Yes, an RPG can do damage to a convoy, but ever see a .50 cal or MK 19 suppress bad guys? An RPG has to get close.

I would say the big big deficiency everyone is missing, is WEIGHT with both vehicles. Know how many bridges there are in the mountain passes to get to Bosnia? Guess how many are rated for 70 tons...it's not pretty.

br

googlydoogly

Whoa, really? Against who? If there's a lot of paper work, then can you show proof? Because that would be FANTASTIC reading!

Ah...ehhh....well if you're gonna go with the "Oh, the Leopard is so awesome in combat, since it killed a lot of armor, but it was all in secret" then, I can do that too.

Did you know that the U.S. Army quietly sent in a platoon of Abrams in Georgia recently, and it's been destroying Russian armor left and right!!! In fact, an old M1A1 HC Abrams went against the Russian latest Black Eagle battle tank, and the Abrams blew its turret off with a 10,000-km hit with a super-secret, "fell-off-the-books" round!!!

Of course, this is all hush-hush...too much paper work to deal with.

Two words: 73 Eastings. Oh, and another two words: Thunder Run.

I guess you're right. All those Iraqi armor are empty. In fact, the reason of couple of Abrams were hit by several 125mm AP rounds was because some U.S. soldiers went inside some abandoned Iraqi T-72s, and fired several rounds against Abrams for fun.

It's just funny that you would dismiss actions seen in the two Gulf Wars, yet seem to extol the virtues of the Leopard with action that noone knows about...except by you.

I'd love to hear more about those "actions". Truly I do. I have a 1/16 Leopard 2A6 and would LOVE to have a little bit of history behind my tank. The only actions I know that the Leopard has been in was a German Leopard 2A5 engaging a hostile car with its coax in the Balkans. And some Canadian-borrowed 2A6s used their main gun against Taliban-strong points, like buildings in Afghanistan. And oh, for convoy escort duties, where a Leopard was knocked out by an IED. The tank and all the crew survived, but the Leopard was a mobility kill. So I hope you reply back.

Um...you do realize that the Germans were looking for ways to minimize that noise, right? Loud engine noise is awesome when you're showing off, but in actual combat, that's kind of a hindrance. In fact, that's one of the few gripes about the Leopards in Afghanistan. The Taliban doesn't need to post lookouts to see if the Leopards are coming out of their base...they could hear them coming miles away.

googlydoogly

[quote]ORIGINAL: Bill Rademacher


Both great tanks, undeniably. I can say that in training a gunner and commander combination, the M1 is a little easier. Laze and blaze, as we say. Also, the Leo is one of the reasons the M1 is so good. We watched, and learned, i.e. the CITV on the A2 as an example.[quote]

Agreed. And the Germans are also learning from the Abrams' combat experience. For example, that awesome looking slat armor.

You're right, but the new versions of the Leopard 2s weigh the same as the Abrams now.

Darksheer

crud i had the huge tom clancy sized reply for you but just my luck my crappy work computer barfed sending it
ill give you the coles notes version

most of the bosnia crap never made the papers it wasnt news and wouldnt have been "politically correct" to report during all the negotiations
announcing that UN forces had engaged armor in the area would have been a big problem "umm isnt that stuff supposed to be locked in compounds according to the ceasefire yadda yadda "

for the ammo that "fell off the books" ill be a little more specific
i had 90 rounds 5.56mm over there each round was serialzied
yes some poor chump had to engrave serial numbers on every hunk of ammo we had over there
so god help you if you fired off a round we had so much ammo that didnt exist over there it wasnt funny most of it provided by the brits and the french who did not have the restrictions we did
off the books ammo saved so many lives over there its not funny I personally cranked off about 30 rounds in one night while being shelled by invisible mortars and watching invisible rockets inpact into the compound since no beligerants in the area had any heavy weapons left they were all in compound with the tanks
that never made the papers either and when asked how many rounds i fired i replied "zero" and they had me do a round check

at the same time the 18 Unarmed UN observers being slaughtered when a certain faction rolled into the Bihac pocket also never made the news till years later
or 4 canadians being blown up because a certain football player was driving a white bronco at the time it happened
if you really want the reports im sure they are there someplace try asking the UN for them you might get a answer in 15 20 years if your lucky

not everything makes the news
im not saying the leopard is the end all be all of tanks it isnt
but calling the leopard 1 and 2 untested is still wrong
we know it can hit what it shoots at
we know it can survive IEDS
we know it has seen combat
that doesnt sound like untested to me
and correct me if im wrong do the canadian leopards not have acess to the special rounds the US abrams fires ?

anyhow
for your humorous comment ill adress them last
the super secret mission with the 10k hit
your kinda wrong it was actually chuck norris in a leopard 2 that did all that
combing chuck norris with the leopard 2 made a unbeatable weapons platform every target that came in range either instantly surrendered to the awesomeness of chuck or burst into flames

they tried it with a M1 abrams but the turbine was too afraid to start

back home now
ill give you this
for tank on tank combat the M1 has done it
the leo1 has engaged everything from armored dump trucks to APC's and 1 t55 not really much to brag about but it has engaged targets and hit them
the leo2 has engaged mud huts infantry and a heavily armed goat
the taliban have tanks and one day they will be stupid enough to try and use one but it has been shot at and lived been rpg'd and lived and ied'd just like the M1
i call that a proven weapon system

playing devils advocate you can call the seawolf a untested untried weapons system or the US navy ballistic missile sub that i cant name off hand because they have never seen combat either but I would damned if i would want to be attacked by one


and for GW1 and 2 it was a one sided battle for the most part yes some units did take direct fire but it was a turkey shoot
in no uncertain terms it was a one sided battle anything that resisted was either bombed by the airforce shot by a M1 or tow2'd by a bradley

killick64

......"Count the Brass"...!!

I'm sure some of you had to, at one time or another, "Count Your Brass". If you fired 5 shots, you had better have 5 empty casings ! WE had to - or thosee mountains of paperwork followed. And the bigger the round, the higher the mountain. I didn't personally have to engrave a "number" on any of my rounds but the fact that it happened doesn't surprise me a bit....

All I can say to any Canadian Serviceman, past or present, at home or overseas, is just the two words:

WELL DONE!!

(Aren't we getting some surplus Leos from the Netherlands? I just hope that deal isn't being handled by the same guys who bought us our "newest" submarines..... )

Darksheer

we have them the deal is done and finalized thanks to Mr harper the bill is paid in full they belong to us now which is good in case someone tries to cancel them

we have 20 odd german 2a6m something in theater that we leased its a special anti mine version with a big slab of something attatched to the lower hull to make it safer against ieds and stuff
we purchased 100 "new" 2a4's that are being upgraded with the fancy armor package i think those are also going into theater
and by "new" we were told they came off the assembly line got put someplace got sealed up in silver foil and sat for a bunch of years untill we bought them
plus the usual recovery/engineer versions came with the deal i dont know how many total are coming and the fate of the leased ones is still up in the air as germany has refused to accept payment for the lease and did not ask us to pay for the one that got ied'd since someone accused them of war profiteering or some such political thing

there are video's of both around including pics of the "bar" armor they carry

googlydoogly

Wait, let me get this straight.....it's quite alright to use airstrikes on a number of Serbian targets, including tanks (And NATO had done so...repeatedly)....but it's a political no-no to engage Serb tanks with NATO/UNPROFOR tanks...because it might derail negotiations?

I don't quite follow the logic on that one. So I hope you understand my skepticism to your story.

That's the first I've heard of anything of the sort. You have to account for almost EVERYTHING in the military, whether it be spent brass, to your socks, but to actually hand-engrave serial numbers on ammo..on the field?

And it's kind of a moot point if your commanders let you use borrowed ammo.

If your compound was being harassed by indirect fire from mortars and rocket artillery....who were you shooting at? I doubt those weapons would have been in sight for you to engage. And I doubt your compound had been rushed by a direct assault, since you only fired 30 rounds of your rifle. So who/what/were you firing at?

Actually, the Bihac Pocket fiasco was amply covered by the press.

Actually, we don't know. The Leopard is designed to kill tanks. So far, nothing has been proven to show otherwise. It's funny that with all the members of the Canadian armed forces, all the members of the Canadian armored forces...no one has uttered a peep about these so-called Leopard engagements except you. Either it never happened, or the Canadian Government and the military had strict orders not to reveal any of these because it's top secret....so that pose the question why are you talking about it.

Since the Canadian government bans the use of DU ammo, then no, they do not have access to 105mm DU rounds.

AHHHH! So a Leopard 1 has indeed killed 1 T-55. That's a tank-vs-tank engagement! That IS something to brag about. Because it means whoever killed that T-55 is the first crew of a Leopard to kill any tank WITH a Leopard. I hope one day, I'll find the after-action reports detailing the engagement. Because even if the military hid it from the media for some reason, they would STILL would have filed a report about it.

But the Leopard was designed and built in order to engage other tanks, and survive the fire of another tank. Not to kill mud huts, and suicide goats (although it's nice to hear a Leopard can survive a direct assault by a goat who's after 72 virgin goats).

So if the best you can do is to say that a Leopard 1 killed a T-55...then no, it's not a proven system yet. Abrams tanks were hit several times by a number of different anti-tank weapons over the years. Hell.....one even got hit by two SABOT rounds and a Maverick missile...and those still failed to completely destroy the tank.

But the Leopard is one of my faves as well.

killick64

Thanks for the info on our new Leopards.... I got some of the story from the guys over at Fedorowicz/Tiger Hobbies last time I was there. Heard something about that "Anti-IED" armour too. I hope messes with the idea of fitting out the new tanks with it our guys need all the protection they can get !

(For those who don't know .... Our new ex-"Upholder" Class Subs, bought to replace our ancient Oberon Diesel Boats, were supposed to "submerge" not "sink"...! [>:] )

Chally2

Where have we got thus far? As an impartial viewer of this part of the thread (being English, not simply British you should note) I don't see where this is going, to be honest.

Is the Leo as good as the Abrams? Come on, let's stop messing about here. They are both modern and capable tanks and have strengths and weaknesses, but numbers dictate the outcome, if WW2 is an example.

My dad was rescued from Brest harbour after spending three days at Dunkirk with no hope of being taken off. A forced march behind enemy lines got him to Brest and a place on an old Canadian coal tanker, thanks to the bravery and audacity of the captain and crew, he got back to Blighty. In North Africa my father got malaria three times and it was a Canadian field hospital that managed to save his life during his last affliction.

I don't know if Canadian tanks are better than Yankee tanks, but I'm certainly glad that Canucks have bollocks as big as footballs.

I wouldn't have been born, otherwise.

Darksheer

removed last post

this is getting out of hand
we do know you yourself admitted to the tank taking a IED hit and surviving and to it shooting at the taliban now your saying the opposite ? the M1 and the leo2 can fire the same rounds so by assumption if the gun in a M1 can kill such and such a vehicle then if the leopard 2 can shoot at a hut and hit it with the same type of round then its assumed the gun works
Playing devils advocate here one can also state that the M1 cannot kill the newest soviet tank since it has yet to do so
Also I talk about it because its public knowledge it was never classified canada is very open with its information regarding military operations

this is my final post on this matter you can believe what i have said or not most everything is have stated is public it matters little to me
the stuff involving the UN leopards is from conversations with people involved and going to the places personally i will however find out what country those leopards belonged too and let you know
the canadian leopards is public news including the engagements and if you know anything about canadians we dont really put the forces in the news everytime a leopard blasts a mud hut or a armed goat
our news usually reports a big firefight and that no canadians were killed
we dont report body counts usually or anything canada is there because a nato ally was attacked we also didnt go into Iraq for the same reasons


if you wish to continue this I am more than happy to take it too private messages as i do not wish to have this turn into a flame fest


PS nice leopard love the paint job

Bill Rademacher

My Feedback: (77)

I trained with the German Army, went all through their Armor School in Munster. I had M1s right along side Leo 2s (literally drag racing each other on the range roads, I might add)

I was in many M1 gunnery rotations at Grafenwohr and in the US.

All I can say is, if it gets in front of the M1A1 or A2, or any version of the LEO, it will die.

An Israeli general was once asked, what he thought the best tank was.

"the one with the best crew" was his reply

billrad