I`ve driven this tank when i did the military service in sweden. Its fucking amazing.. thats all i can say... Just the gyro that keeps the canon fixed on its target is awsome.. if the tank bounces too much, you can just hold the trigger, and when the system is stabil enought it fires it self, as long as you hold the trigger... just amazing.. What a machine..
I was a leopard 2a4 gunner (finnish defence forces) and we bought our leopards from german. They were used, but in fairly good shape. They had all the systems, rangefinder and the gunner main sight was the standard 12x EMES which there is supposed to be. I cant think of anything which could've been changed from the tank... everything was in place :P
Remember when the Russian Federation took a still image from this at 8:22 and overlaid the HUD from a lancet and claimed they destroyed a Leopard 2 in Ukraine? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.
I´ve sat in a Leopard2 A6 while in basic training in Munster, and it is quite a beast, and i was impressed how small it looks when you are further away, but when you stand ontop of it, it´s friggin huge. Oh and the mobility part, the official HP of the engine is listed with 1500...but with a little tweaking, they can press the engine too unknown heights... 90mph on a highway is much for an MBT. And the A6 finaly got a generator powering the turret while the motor is off...mandatory
@ajazaad: Sorry, thats WRONG! The Leopard 2 use's the 120mm Smoothboregun Length 55 from Rheinmetall. I think you mean Krauss Maffei Wegmann with Kruass. They've designed the Leopard 2. The M1A2 use's the 120mm Smoothboregun Length 44 from General Dynamic's. It's basically the same Gun ( licensed ) build in the US.
leopard 2 has a blast door for ammunition. If the storage room is hit, the roof panels are being ripped off by the pressure and most of the pressure is directed upwards. There is some ammunition in the hull aswell, but it is less likely to take hit than the tower. Besides, all ammunition is placed in the tank the way that if they do explode, the projectile parts are fired towards outer walls.
@creshal Not all rounds are fin stabilised. The Challenger 2 has a rifled barrell so that it can fire HESH rounds. Also the Challenger 2 uses 3 part ammo which is much lighter than single piece, and can be loaded faster.
"The latest version of Chobham armour is used on the Challenger 2 (called Dorchester armour), and (though the composition most probably differs) the M1 Abrams series of tanks, which according to official sources is currently protected by silicon carbide tiles. Though it is often claimed to be otherwise, the Leopard 2 in fact does not use Chobham armour, but pure perforated armour, avoiding the very large procurement, maintenance and replacement costs of those ceramic armor systems."
to puncru: most of the technology in tanks is at least 10 years old, because of the time taken to adjust them for the battle conditions. If you looks at Leopard 2 for exaple, it was made 20 years ago and most of the systems are still used in modern tanks today.
Canadian army has Leopard C2. It´s based on the Leopard 1A3 . Since the year 2000 improved by A5 towers. 20 Leopard 2A6M were borrowed from the Bundeswehr for two years. M stands for Mineprotection and is regarded the best protected Battletank in the world today ; )
This is the Leopard2A2 or 3. This one here misses the Field-Adjustment-Collimator and there is an opening on the left side for ammo. You see it right in the beginning. If I remember correctly, with the A3 this weak point in the side armor was closed. The actual Tank in use is the A6M for the Out-of_Area troops.(M for additional protection from AT.Mines) The other in use are the normal A6 and the A5KWS (Kampwertgesteigert = Combat-Value-Enhanced)
@kuyaTanY on top of what Khristophoros said, the Leo 2 uses standard engine parts that are commonly used... the cost of maintenance for the Leo 2 is far less then the M1A2.
Leopard 2 is the logical successor to the Leo 1 with a larger 120mm gun and Chobam style armour, it evolved from talks with America in the 1970s aimed at jointly producing a new NATO tank but these eventually floundered so the Germans went ahead with their own design. The Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun developed for the Leopard 2 is extremely accurate it can kill enemy tanks at ranges of up to 4000 yards by day or night. The gun, which is also fitted in the American M1A1, fires fin stabilised ammunition. Two types of anti-tank rounds are available, APDS and HEAT or high explosive anti-tank. The cartridge cases are semi-combustible to reduce clutter in the fighting compartment. The gun sights are fully stablised. On the left an unstablised view, on the right the gunner's view. A thermal image intensifier picks up the infrared signature of a target vehicle so the gunner can lock on in all weather conditions, in daylight or darkness. If there is a failure in the main integrated firing system the gunner has an auxiliary sight. A panoramic periscope in the turret roof gives the commander all round vision. He can also override the gunner and can himself lock onto and engage a target. The integrated fire control computer automatically processes all necessary data. This includes range, type of ammunition selected, cant angle of own vehicle, movement of target, and movement of own vehicle. The gun can fire with equal accuracy whether the tank is moving or stationary. Auxiliary armament includes a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun for use against enemy infantry, there is also an anti-aircraft machine gun on the turret roof. For protection against both solid armour piercing and hollow charge rounds, Leopard 2's upper hull and turret feature layered the ceramic armour developed by the British Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment at Chobam. The tank's floorplates are specially shaped to diminish the effect of mine explosions. Leopard 2's exceptional mobility is generated by its 1500 horsepower turbocharged diesel engine which gives the 55-ton vehicle an exceptionally high power to weight ratio. Turret mounted smoke grenade dischargers allow it to escape if attacked in an unfavorable position. Filters to protect the crew from nuclear, biological, and chemical contamination can be changed from outside the tank. Leopard 2 is thus a very elusive target to hit and difficult to destroy, while itself being able to deliver devastating firepower. For speed, it can accelerate from a standing start to 32 kilometers or 20 miles per hour in 6 seconds. Leo 2 has a top speed of 72 kilometers or 45 miles per hour. Braking distance from top speed is only 35 meters or 38 yards. Essentially the lower hull and running gear are virtually unchanged from the Leopard 1, the hydro-pneumatic suspension gives infinitely variable steering. The tank can turn on its own axis in a mere 5 seconds. Leopard 2 can easily cross a 10-foot trench, it can also climb anti-tank obstacles over 3 feet high. Even sets of road obstacles do not interrupt the smooth ride. Like the Leopard 1, Leo 2 can quickly fitted with deep wading equipment allowing it to cross rivers up to 13 feet deep. The commander directs the driver from his conning tower while the vehicle is submerged. The driver has exceptionally good visibility through wide vision blocks. Ease of maintenance is a major feature of both Leo 1 and 2. With the help of a Bergepanzer's crane the entire engine pack can be changed in the field in only 15 minutes. With some 1800 tanks in German army service alone and others built for Belgium and in Switzerland, Leopard 2 is one of the most important vehicles in the NATO armoury. Its exceptional firepower, mobility, and cross-country performance will certainly enable it to give a good account of itself if ever called upon to do so.
@ibm0026 The Challanger does NOT use a copy of the 120mm smoothbore; it uses a rifled cannon!!! Its the L-30 if I'm not mistaken and the Brits use it because they wished to retain the ability to fire HESH warheads.
@Vykuk123: The XM1111 System is in development, the MRM-KE is in commissioning since 2004. It was sucessfully used in Afghanistan. Okay, i've understand, the Challenger 2 is your favourite Tank, however. It hasn't killed so much tanks as the Abrams, it has lower electronics, older Cannon, lower High Speed, higher Cost, less Units ( 300 Challenger 2 - 7500 Abrams )
I didn't quite understand your question. Abrams indeed has gas engine, leopard 2 has diesel engine. However, they both have about the same power output... and diesel if of course better in battle field, as it isnt as flammable as gas...
Only thing that could really improve this tank would be to give it the same "Dorchester" armor as the Challenger 2. Get that on there, and not only will you have a masterpiece of a tank, but you'll have a damn near indestructible masterpiece at that.
Later versions upgrade the armour, the Leopard 2 was first put in service in 1979 about the same time as the M1 Abrams. At that time, Chobam was the cutting edge but newer model Leopard 2s have more modern armour.
The ammo storage is indeed a bit of a weakness, but usually you can't even see the hull of the tank in combat, only the turret... Besides, does it matter whether the hit comes through the driver or the ammo storage, it kills everyone in the tank either way :P Oh and the "windows" are actually periscopes, so they are not really a weakness...
A lot of countries have Leopard 2s, Germany (nowadays only something like 400 active, a lot were scrapped or sold after Cold War), Austria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.
This tank is pretty bad ass, on paper. It has performed exceptionally well, in practice. It has a very high kill rate, in simulations. It's armor can withstand anything, from controlled explosions to controlled "enemy" fire. It has extensive "combat" experience, patrolling the streets of kosovo and the "very dangerous" anti-taliban north in afghanistan. Oh, I forgot. It also survived a very, very, very scary uncontrolled explosion from a tiny ied. Wow, what a tank.
The Leopard 2 is used in Austria, Chile, Canada, Denmark, Finnland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Swiss, Turkey and of course germany. All in all 3480 Leopard 2 tanks were manufactured.
One of my great grandfathers was in German Infantry in WW2 and another of my great grandfathers was in the American Merchant Marines. in WW2 and even he was of German blood. I take pride in my German heritage regardless of what side they fought for.
good news... this tank will now finally be battle tested, after everybody thought they would be designed to rot away not being used. canada has recieved the first of its leopard 2 A6M CAN (can unofficaly being the term for the slat armor package) and they are going straight to afhanistan
Hi. I`m a a german commander of 4 leo2 a5 tanks.In fact, our young men who do their country duty (sry, my english is not that good) in our battalion win nearly all shootings against the abrams.Our weapon technology in tanks always had to be the best one since the 2nd world war.Just because we must have been the first wall against a soviet landstrike.I think germany tank technology is maybe the best worldwide.Maybe thats the only weapon-technology-field, in addition to uboats.Greetings!
It can only pierce the armour on the top of the turret. But the newest Leopard 2 tanks have extra armour for more protection against anti-tank missiles and 30 mm projectiles.
@TheCFarmy the leopard can stay for hours underwater and the tower will be requiered, you can it disguise. the motor and the hole tank is fully functional underwater. you can wait with 6 tanks in a river or a lake underwater between the reed and strike from the back when the enemy is surprised. the idea was, that you can cross a river without a bridge.
When I was i the Army we had a little "shootout" against two squads of M1. Both sides had their Training-Equipment mounted. (For Leo2 it'S called AGDUS - a kind of MILES for Tanks) We fought 7 Duells an won 5 Times...
I was a gunner for Leopard 2a4 in finnish armed forces... that's why I like the leopard so much :P I'd love to get to try abrams too, so I could say which one really is better... I have a feeling though that they don't have that much difference in performance...
@m16a4ish The A5/6 variants support armour superior to that of the M1(and all it's variants) despite being lighter. The L55 cannon in the A6 and "+" variants is more powerful than the M1A1/2's L44. The speed and power are near identical. And the Leopard 2's engine is a million times better in a combat situation because it's engine is deisel. The gasoline engine in the M1 is a logistics nightmare, it is a gas guzzler and damn near needs a fleet of soft fuel trucks following it (ideal targets)
@Leathlord: i can hear you have no idea. I've already said, that the M256 120mm Length 44 Smoothbore Gun of the Abrams is the same Gun, like the German, but from General Dynamics. It's a license build. The Performance of the M256 is the same like from the german L/44. The L/55 was adopted because the Abrams was used to have the 105mm Gun. Now it has a 120mm Gun, the turret can't take a longer 120mm. The Turret of the Leopard is longer & higher than Abrams' Turret.
@USparatroopersurgeon To be perfectly honest, American tanks were also named after consecutive numbers, in fact, most tanks are, they just get nicknames, and most American tanks during WW2 got their names from the British, like the M4 Sherman or the M3 Lee. The British was naming American built tanks after famous American Civil war generals. The russians also gave nicknames to their tanks, Like the KV and IS tanks.
I'm a big M1A2 fan so it goes without saying I still like the Abrams. Witht that being said I am very impressed with the Leo2, nice looking also. :p Kudos to german engineering1 nice going fellas!
agreed. beautiful tank. but im American so ill take my proven Abrams. now I would love to see the army adopt a couple hundred of these bad boys. if not the Leo, we definitely need the puma IFV.
L55 has a longer barrel not a bigger round/kaliber (55*120mm), which means increased velocity which gives longer range (+1500m) and increased penetration (+25%). These numbers where floating around - have no idea if they are correct :-)
you dont want to start mounting a tube in the middle of combat, i'd imagine it's more likely to be used for transport. for instance, crossing a river when bridges have been knocked out etc.
there are couple of mistakes in this video... (I dont know which version this tank is in this video, but the 2A4 has a laser range finder up to 4000 meters, not 4000 yards. Also, the tank gunner doesnt use infrared, but thermal camera... other than that I think the video is correct :)
but it has never had a tank on tank engagement or a tank kill. sure on paper it looks good. but the combat history is nothing compared to the Abrams.. not knocking the Leo. it looks good with excellent protection and a great gun. I love the Leo. not the best tho. top 3 tank for sure
well... it doesnt really pour inside the tank, if the hit is delivered with kinetic penetrator as you probably meant, the fragments will do the job just as well... if it's a HEAT round (explosive round) then the pressure does the thing more effectively. There isnt really burning happening there as much as fragments and pressure... :)
Next:25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.
I got out from army 9 months ago, so I remember those things quite clearly :) From what I have seen from pictures and video files, I've noticed the gunner's controls and other stuff is pretty much the same, just positioned differently... It would still be awesome to test abrams's gunner controls :D
targeting on a specific part on a tank is very difficult, taking advantage of such a small area in combat is not very easy. Even if the ammonition would explode, the rounds are placed in the way that the warheads are fired away from the crew... of course the tank shells would fly backwards and break some equipment or knock down the crew... but still :P I give credit to abrams about this, they have all their ammonition in the rear of the turret.
Probably not. A hybrid sabot/HEAT wouldn't be effective as you would either need to make the warhead too small for the shaped charge to be useful, or the shell too large to have the velocity needed.
there is a modification made of Challenger 2, which has a new Rheinmetall L55 cannon (same as in Leo 2a6) and a new engine, which has 1500 hp (same as in leopard) briging the both tanks quite close to each other in performance :)
The leapard 2 keeps getting upgraded like a gaming PC. Canada purchased used Leapard 2s for Afganastan because they did not want to modify a brand new tank. There are a lot of hidden upgrades against new threats.
No, British use rifled gun which fires separate ammunition while German gun is smoothbore and fires one piece ammunition. Only the caliber is the same, their ammunition is not interchangeable.
the underwater function is a good idea, i think. the leopard 1 cold diving, too. you can't shoot underwater, that's clear. it's simply the diving function. you need no bridges, no little ships or ferries. you can stay underwater and undetected.
Leo2a6 has extreme firepower, able to engage moving vs moving target at up to 4km with unnerring accuracy. T-90 doesn't even come close to it, even with AT-11 missiles. Doesn't anyone wonder why the M1A2's gun is based on the german L44, the CH2 is currently developing a gun after the L55 german gun, the K2 has the L55 gun itself and the list goes on and on and on...
...yes, you're right...that is why the modern versions solve this problem by using different updates...the bundeswehr is today equipped with the leopard up to version 2A6...
i have somewhere seen on internet that leopard 2 tanks are also very easy to drive. they are the worls most easiest tanks to drive. they can be driven like a normal heavy suv. very easy to drive and fun. not like a heavy and bulky tank. leopard 2 is a nice tank though
yeah... well the only thing our leo2a4 was missing was the wind sensor, but I heard they dropped that out anyway so it doesnt even belong in the 2a4 model. (not sure tho)
True. Personally I still prefer the Abrams, not because I'm American but just because I feel it's best adapted to the type of combat it is used in. It's often used more like a StuG anymore, as are most tanks, and the Leo2 is a bit more "traditional tank". Still, it's no bad vehicle.
redreaper2020 but the abrahams is gasturbine driven (!!!??? real noicie and very very thursty ... slower as the leo) a mix of a chalanger and leopard parts/technolegy ... only assembled in u.s. (gun : german . armor : uk . electronics : dutch) and you use delited uranium (!!!??? why ??? wolfram is ass good but no radiation) so i don't understand ??? the m1 only saw more action but it's defently NOT a better tank
i know they have the same sized gun and same caliber but what i mean is it looked like they moved the barrel back into the turret more, like the barrel is the same length but not as much of it is on the outside.
actually abrams is about the same as this one, as they used to be the same project... weapon is the same, and optics are almost identical. Abrams is the same size too. Leopard is indeed a big tank, but it's very accurate and powerful. :)
@USparatroopersurgeon Actually the Russian numbers on the Ts are supposed to be the years the first time the design was finalized and accepted by passing the military acceptance trials.
still the size of an IED and the chance of killing a vehicle plays in. The Leo2 has a lot of other issues, too. Like compare even ultramodern versions of Leo2 versus, for instance, TUSK II, which can reliably take even the heaviest antitank missiles to the side, not just front. Or how while leo2 has some containment of explosion, the Abrams has full turret containment + full hull containment.
correct me if im wrong but the leo seems to have a shorter cannon than the abrams but it also smes like the germans were able to do this without sacrificing shell velocity. if so that could means the germans finally made a tank that can both kill other tanks and support infantry
HK only exists since roughly 50-60 years. It was founded by former Chief Engineers from Mauser, who, after the German disarmament and the preceding destruction of all Mauser military factories, chose to found their own arms manufacture.
I see the Leopard tank perform. outstanding. T-90 is also another stronge tank. another outstanding. I guess that the winner is up to the ability of the driver and cammander. Who ever get the better army win.
When i see the leopard tank. I remember the Tiger tank. They even put that Cross sign just like the Tigers back in WW2. German made tanks are really Powerful. Back then no allied tanks would engage a Tiger on open field.
actually the depleted uranium doesnt really have much radiation left... it's very similar to lead. Hard and heavy... Besides... Abrams uses the same ammonition as Leopard 2, so there's really no point arguing about it...
danthebold: what's the effective firing range abrams has? I'm a finnish leopard 2a4 gunner, and I'm kinda interested about abrams... I just wish I could someday get to try abrams too :)
Next:War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles -- all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles
The Abrams is older and unlike the Leopard is purely western which can be considered a disadvantage in some occasions cause of the long maintenance needed on daily basis. Where the leo2 does not have this impairment due to a more simplistic design. About speed I am not sure, but I know that the Abrams is not the fastest or most maneuverable tank in the world beaten by Russian and Western European counterparts. The Abrams only advantage is the guidance and electronic systems.
No it's not. First off, it depends which Leopard 2 you are talking about. If it's the A6, it does NOT have the same cannon. Second, they use different types of ammo, Leopard uses titanium, the Abrams DU. Believe it or not, the choice of munition can effect the range. And just because the L.55 on the Leopard 2 is better than the L.44 doesn't mean the same for the Abrams. Hence the fact the US Army is testing the L.55 to see if it's better than the L.44 for the Abrams.
Quit argueing over which one is better, it's just opinions. I was born in Germany raised halfway there then raised the other half in America, so I have no sides.
The music at 1:01 just makes the Leopard II even more awesome.
Track title is Rocks Away, Composed by Tim Souster
www.dewolfemusic.com/search.php?id=16764805&code=lc1yjL
I`ve driven this tank when i did the military service in sweden. Its fucking amazing.. thats all i can say... Just the gyro that keeps the canon fixed on its target is awsome.. if the tank bounces too much, you can just hold the trigger, and when the system is stabil enought it fires it self, as long as you hold the trigger... just amazing.. What a machine..
I was a leopard 2a4 gunner (finnish defence forces) and we bought our leopards from german. They were used, but in fairly good shape. They had all the systems, rangefinder and the gunner main sight was the standard 12x EMES which there is supposed to be. I cant think of anything which could've been changed from the tank... everything was in place :P
Who makes these films? They seem to be closely attributed with videos produced for SAAB Bofors / BAE Bofors.
Remember when the Russian Federation took a still image from this at 8:22 and overlaid the HUD from a lancet and claimed they destroyed a Leopard 2 in Ukraine? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.
here for the same XD
Anyone else from the H.Feels company?
I´ve sat in a Leopard2 A6 while in basic training in Munster, and it is quite a beast, and i was impressed how small it looks when you are further away, but when you stand ontop of it, it´s friggin huge.
Oh and the mobility part, the official HP of the engine is listed with 1500...but with a little tweaking, they can press the engine too unknown heights...
90mph on a highway is much for an MBT.
And the A6 finaly got a generator powering the turret while the motor is off...mandatory
@ajazaad: Sorry, thats WRONG!
The Leopard 2 use's the 120mm Smoothboregun Length 55 from Rheinmetall.
I think you mean Krauss Maffei Wegmann with Kruass. They've designed the Leopard 2.
The M1A2 use's the 120mm Smoothboregun Length 44 from General Dynamic's.
It's basically the same Gun ( licensed ) build in the US.
Absolutely mouth watering
The first Leo 2's entered service with Germany in 79/80. It has been significantly updated since into the Leo 2A6M.
Love the muzak in the background
thanks for uploading
That tank driving underwater is so surreal...
leopard 2 has a blast door for ammunition. If the storage room is hit, the roof panels are being ripped off by the pressure and most of the pressure is directed upwards. There is some ammunition in the hull aswell, but it is less likely to take hit than the tower. Besides, all ammunition is placed in the tank the way that if they do explode, the projectile parts are fired towards outer walls.
This is one of the early Leopard 2 - there are several improvements made, the actual version is the 2 A6 - which means it is the 6. update made.
@creshal Not all rounds are fin stabilised. The Challenger 2 has a rifled barrell so that it can fire HESH rounds. Also the Challenger 2 uses 3 part ammo which is much lighter than single piece, and can be loaded faster.
I'm falling in love with this tank
A 120mm Smoothbore is the gun on the Abrams, a discarding sabot round is a shell or round. The M1 Abrams has different types of shells too.
"The latest version of Chobham armour is used on the Challenger 2 (called Dorchester armour), and (though the composition most probably differs) the M1 Abrams series of tanks, which according to official sources is currently protected by silicon carbide tiles.
Though it is often claimed to be otherwise, the Leopard 2 in fact does not use Chobham armour, but pure perforated armour, avoiding the very large procurement, maintenance and replacement costs of those ceramic armor systems."
to puncru: most of the technology in tanks is at least 10 years old, because of the time taken to adjust them for the battle conditions. If you looks at Leopard 2 for exaple, it was made 20 years ago and most of the systems are still used in modern tanks today.
0:49
Kurt Knispel, is that you?? 😂
What a piece of engineering? I'm in love.
Canadian army has Leopard C2. It´s based on the Leopard 1A3 . Since the year 2000 improved by A5 towers.
20 Leopard 2A6M were borrowed from the Bundeswehr for two years. M stands for Mineprotection and is regarded the best protected Battletank in the world today ; )
This is the Leopard2A2 or 3. This one here misses the Field-Adjustment-Collimator and there is an opening on the left side for ammo. You see it right in the beginning. If I remember correctly, with the A3 this weak point in the side armor was closed.
The actual Tank in use is the A6M for the Out-of_Area troops.(M for additional protection from AT.Mines)
The other in use are the normal A6 and the A5KWS (Kampwertgesteigert = Combat-Value-Enhanced)
@kuyaTanY on top of what Khristophoros said, the Leo 2 uses standard engine parts that are commonly used... the cost of maintenance for the Leo 2 is far less then the M1A2.
Leopard 2 is the logical successor to the Leo 1 with a larger 120mm gun and Chobam style armour, it evolved from talks with America in the 1970s aimed at jointly producing a new NATO tank but these eventually floundered so the Germans went ahead with their own design. The Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun developed for the Leopard 2 is extremely accurate it can kill enemy tanks at ranges of up to 4000 yards by day or night. The gun, which is also fitted in the American M1A1, fires fin stabilised ammunition. Two types of anti-tank rounds are available, APDS and HEAT or high explosive anti-tank. The cartridge cases are semi-combustible to reduce clutter in the fighting compartment. The gun sights are fully stablised. On the left an unstablised view, on the right the gunner's view. A thermal image intensifier picks up the infrared signature of a target vehicle so the gunner can lock on in all weather conditions, in daylight or darkness. If there is a failure in the main integrated firing system the gunner has an auxiliary sight. A panoramic periscope in the turret roof gives the commander all round vision. He can also override the gunner and can himself lock onto and engage a target. The integrated fire control computer automatically processes all necessary data. This includes range, type of ammunition selected, cant angle of own vehicle, movement of target, and movement of own vehicle. The gun can fire with equal accuracy whether the tank is moving or stationary. Auxiliary armament includes a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun for use against enemy infantry, there is also an anti-aircraft machine gun on the turret roof. For protection against both solid armour piercing and hollow charge rounds, Leopard 2's upper hull and turret feature layered the ceramic armour developed by the British Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment at Chobam. The tank's floorplates are specially shaped to diminish the effect of mine explosions. Leopard 2's exceptional mobility is generated by its 1500 horsepower turbocharged diesel engine which gives the 55-ton vehicle an exceptionally high power to weight ratio. Turret mounted smoke grenade dischargers allow it to escape if attacked in an unfavorable position. Filters to protect the crew from nuclear, biological, and chemical contamination can be changed from outside the tank. Leopard 2 is thus a very elusive target to hit and difficult to destroy, while itself being able to deliver devastating firepower. For speed, it can accelerate from a standing start to 32 kilometers or 20 miles per hour in 6 seconds. Leo 2 has a top speed of 72 kilometers or 45 miles per hour. Braking distance from top speed is only 35 meters or 38 yards. Essentially the lower hull and running gear are virtually unchanged from the Leopard 1, the hydro-pneumatic suspension gives infinitely variable steering. The tank can turn on its own axis in a mere 5 seconds. Leopard 2 can easily cross a 10-foot trench, it can also climb anti-tank obstacles over 3 feet high. Even sets of road obstacles do not interrupt the smooth ride. Like the Leopard 1, Leo 2 can quickly fitted with deep wading equipment allowing it to cross rivers up to 13 feet deep. The commander directs the driver from his conning tower while the vehicle is submerged. The driver has exceptionally good visibility through wide vision blocks. Ease of maintenance is a major feature of both Leo 1 and 2. With the help of a Bergepanzer's crane the entire engine pack can be changed in the field in only 15 minutes. With some 1800 tanks in German army service alone and others built for Belgium and in Switzerland, Leopard 2 is one of the most important vehicles in the NATO armoury. Its exceptional firepower, mobility, and cross-country performance will certainly enable it to give a good account of itself if ever called upon to do so.
thank you sir.
@ibm0026
The Challanger does NOT use a copy of the 120mm smoothbore; it uses a rifled cannon!!! Its the L-30 if I'm not mistaken and the Brits use it because they wished to retain the ability to fire HESH warheads.
@Vykuk123: The XM1111 System is in development, the MRM-KE is in commissioning since 2004.
It was sucessfully used in Afghanistan. Okay, i've understand, the Challenger 2 is your favourite Tank, however.
It hasn't killed so much tanks as the Abrams, it has lower electronics, older Cannon, lower High Speed,
higher Cost, less Units ( 300 Challenger 2 - 7500 Abrams )
I didn't quite understand your question. Abrams indeed has gas engine, leopard 2 has diesel engine. However, they both have about the same power output... and diesel if of course better in battle field, as it isnt as flammable as gas...
Only thing that could really improve this tank would be to give it the same "Dorchester" armor as the Challenger 2. Get that on there, and not only will you have a masterpiece of a tank, but you'll have a damn near indestructible masterpiece at that.
Later versions upgrade the armour, the Leopard 2 was first put in service in 1979 about the same time as the M1 Abrams. At that time, Chobam was the cutting edge but newer model Leopard 2s have more modern armour.
Composite armor plays by different rules than rolled homogenous steel. It functions best when hit directly, thanks to the ceramics fracture patterns.
Great video and tank.
The ammo storage is indeed a bit of a weakness, but usually you can't even see the hull of the tank in combat, only the turret... Besides, does it matter whether the hit comes through the driver or the ammo storage, it kills everyone in the tank either way :P
Oh and the "windows" are actually periscopes, so they are not really a weakness...
A lot of countries have Leopard 2s, Germany (nowadays only something like 400 active, a lot were scrapped or sold after Cold War), Austria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.
rheinmetall L44 isnt a machine gun, it's the main antitank cannon (120 mm smoothbore) used both in abrams and leopard 2
This tank is pretty bad ass, on paper. It has performed exceptionally well, in practice. It has a very high kill rate, in simulations. It's armor can withstand anything, from controlled explosions to controlled "enemy" fire. It has extensive "combat" experience, patrolling the streets of kosovo and the "very dangerous" anti-taliban north in afghanistan. Oh, I forgot. It also survived a very, very, very scary uncontrolled explosion from a tiny ied. Wow, what a tank.
The Leopard 2 is used in Austria, Chile, Canada, Denmark, Finnland, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Swiss, Turkey and of course germany.
All in all 3480 Leopard 2 tanks were manufactured.
One of my great grandfathers was in German Infantry in WW2 and another of my great grandfathers was in the American Merchant Marines. in WW2 and even he was of German blood. I take pride in my German heritage regardless of what side they fought for.
Hayup tlga. The best mbt for me. Love the name, design, capabilities and very destructive fire power.
@shadowdancerRFW and the sound of the Leo is bad ass!
good news... this tank will now finally be battle tested, after everybody thought they would be designed to rot away not being used. canada has recieved the first of its leopard 2 A6M CAN (can unofficaly being the term for the slat armor package) and they are going straight to afhanistan
Hi. I`m a a german commander of 4 leo2 a5 tanks.In fact, our young men who do their country duty (sry, my english is not that good) in our battalion win nearly all shootings against the abrams.Our weapon technology in tanks always had to be the best one since the 2nd world war.Just because we must have been the first wall against a soviet landstrike.I think germany tank technology is maybe the best worldwide.Maybe thats the only weapon-technology-field, in addition to uboats.Greetings!
It can only pierce the armour on the top of the turret. But the newest Leopard 2 tanks have extra armour for more protection against anti-tank missiles and 30 mm projectiles.
@TheCFarmy the leopard can stay for hours underwater and the tower will be requiered, you can it disguise. the motor and the hole tank is fully functional underwater. you can wait with 6 tanks in a river or a lake underwater between the reed and strike from the back when the enemy is surprised. the idea was, that you can cross a river without a bridge.
Something not many people know, is that the barrel life on the Leopard 2 main gun can be as low as 50 rounds, and 150 to 200 on average.
Adrien Perié L44 or L55?
When I was i the Army we had a little "shootout" against two squads of M1. Both sides had their Training-Equipment mounted. (For Leo2 it'S called AGDUS - a kind of MILES for Tanks)
We fought 7 Duells an won 5 Times...
an amazing tank!
I was a gunner for Leopard 2a4 in finnish armed forces... that's why I like the leopard so much :P I'd love to get to try abrams too, so I could say which one really is better... I have a feeling though that they don't have that much difference in performance...
@m16a4ish The A5/6 variants support armour superior to that of the M1(and all it's variants) despite being lighter. The L55 cannon in the A6 and "+" variants is more powerful than the M1A1/2's L44. The speed and power are near identical.
And the Leopard 2's engine is a million times better in a combat situation because it's engine is deisel. The gasoline engine in the M1 is a logistics nightmare, it is a gas guzzler and damn near needs a fleet of soft fuel trucks following it (ideal targets)
@Leathlord: i can hear you have no idea.
I've already said, that the M256 120mm Length 44 Smoothbore Gun of the Abrams
is the same Gun, like the German, but from General Dynamics. It's a license build.
The Performance of the M256 is the same like from the german L/44.
The L/55 was adopted because the Abrams was used to have the 105mm Gun.
Now it has a 120mm Gun, the turret can't take a longer 120mm.
The Turret of the Leopard is longer & higher than Abrams' Turret.
@USparatroopersurgeon To be perfectly honest, American tanks were also named after consecutive numbers, in fact, most tanks are, they just get nicknames, and most American tanks during WW2 got their names from the British, like the M4 Sherman or the M3 Lee.
The British was naming American built tanks after famous American Civil war generals.
The russians also gave nicknames to their tanks, Like the KV and IS tanks.
I'm a big M1A2 fan so it goes without saying I still like the Abrams. Witht that being said I am very impressed with the Leo2, nice looking also. :p Kudos to german engineering1 nice going fellas!
agreed. beautiful tank. but im American so ill take my proven Abrams. now I would love to see the army adopt a couple hundred of these bad boys. if not the Leo, we definitely need the puma IFV.
L55 has a longer barrel not a bigger round/kaliber (55*120mm), which means increased velocity which gives longer range (+1500m) and increased penetration (+25%). These numbers where floating around - have no idea if they are correct :-)
It went... underwater...that's epic.
@creshal No it doesn't. A smoothbore was tested but they stuck with the rifled gun.
The gas slippage is strong enough to blow any mud out of the way of the projectile. Accurracy is affected, but the projectile won't stick.
you dont want to start mounting a tube in the middle of combat, i'd imagine it's more likely to be used for transport. for instance, crossing a river when bridges have been knocked out etc.
The Leclerc has the best autoloader which is pretty cool too.
there are couple of mistakes in this video... (I dont know which version this tank is in this video, but the 2A4 has a laser range finder up to 4000 meters, not 4000 yards. Also, the tank gunner doesnt use infrared, but thermal camera... other than that I think the video is correct :)
This is considered by many the best tank in the world!
but it has never had a tank on tank engagement or a tank kill. sure on paper it looks good. but the combat history is nothing compared to the Abrams.. not knocking the Leo. it looks good with excellent protection and a great gun. I love the Leo. not the best tho. top 3 tank for sure
¡Que buen documental!
well... it doesnt really pour inside the tank, if the hit is delivered with kinetic penetrator as you probably meant, the fragments will do the job just as well... if it's a HEAT round (explosive round) then the pressure does the thing more effectively. There isnt really burning happening there as much as fragments and pressure... :)
Next:25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.
I got out from army 9 months ago, so I remember those things quite clearly :) From what I have seen from pictures and video files, I've noticed the gunner's controls and other stuff is pretty much the same, just positioned differently... It would still be awesome to test abrams's gunner controls :D
targeting on a specific part on a tank is very difficult, taking advantage of such a small area in combat is not very easy. Even if the ammonition would explode, the rounds are placed in the way that the warheads are fired away from the crew... of course the tank shells would fly backwards and break some equipment or knock down the crew... but still :P
I give credit to abrams about this, they have all their ammonition in the rear of the turret.
Probably not. A hybrid sabot/HEAT wouldn't be effective as you would either need to make the warhead too small for the shaped charge to be useful, or the shell too large to have the velocity needed.
there is a modification made of Challenger 2, which has a new Rheinmetall L55 cannon (same as in Leo 2a6) and a new engine, which has 1500 hp (same as in leopard) briging the both tanks quite close to each other in performance :)
The leapard 2 keeps getting upgraded like a gaming PC. Canada purchased used Leapard 2s for Afganastan because they did not want to modify a brand new tank. There are a lot of hidden upgrades against new threats.
No, British use rifled gun which fires separate ammunition while German gun is smoothbore and fires one piece ammunition. Only the caliber is the same, their ammunition is not interchangeable.
the underwater function is a good idea, i think.
the leopard 1 cold diving, too. you can't shoot underwater, that's clear. it's simply the diving function. you need no bridges, no little ships or ferries. you can stay underwater and undetected.
Leo2a6 has extreme firepower, able to engage moving vs moving target at up to 4km with unnerring accuracy. T-90 doesn't even come close to it, even with AT-11 missiles. Doesn't anyone wonder why the M1A2's gun is based on the german L44, the CH2 is currently developing a gun after the L55 german gun, the K2 has the L55 gun itself and the list goes on and on and on...
Leopard 2 and Leclerc are really the most impressive tanks .
(Jagdpanther is still my favourite all-time design :p)
...yes, you're right...that is why the modern versions solve this problem by using different updates...the bundeswehr is today equipped with the leopard up to version 2A6...
i have somewhere seen on internet that leopard 2 tanks are also very easy to drive. they are the worls most easiest tanks to drive. they can be driven like a normal heavy suv. very easy to drive and fun. not like a heavy and bulky tank. leopard 2 is a nice tank though
yeah... well the only thing our leo2a4 was missing was the wind sensor, but I heard they dropped that out anyway so it doesnt even belong in the 2a4 model. (not sure tho)
True. Personally I still prefer the Abrams, not because I'm American but just because I feel it's best adapted to the type of combat it is used in. It's often used more like a StuG anymore, as are most tanks, and the Leo2 is a bit more "traditional tank". Still, it's no bad vehicle.
redreaper2020 but the abrahams is gasturbine driven (!!!??? real noicie and very very thursty ... slower as the leo) a mix of a chalanger and leopard parts/technolegy ... only assembled in u.s. (gun : german . armor : uk . electronics : dutch) and you use delited uranium (!!!??? why ??? wolfram is ass good but no radiation) so i don't understand ??? the m1 only saw more action but it's defently NOT a better tank
i love this tank It has the most powerful canon in the world the Rheimental L55.
i know they have the same sized gun and same caliber but what i mean is it looked like they moved the barrel back into the turret more, like the barrel is the same length but not as much of it is on the outside.
actually abrams is about the same as this one, as they used to be the same project... weapon is the same, and optics are almost identical. Abrams is the same size too. Leopard is indeed a big tank, but it's very accurate and powerful. :)
@USparatroopersurgeon
Actually the Russian numbers on the Ts are supposed to be the years the first time the design was finalized and accepted by passing the military acceptance trials.
still the size of an IED and the chance of killing a vehicle plays in. The Leo2 has a lot of other issues, too. Like compare even ultramodern versions of Leo2 versus, for instance, TUSK II, which can reliably take even the heaviest antitank missiles to the side, not just front. Or how while leo2 has some containment of explosion, the Abrams has full turret containment + full hull containment.
correct me if im wrong but the leo seems to have a shorter cannon than the abrams but it also smes like the germans were able to do this without sacrificing shell velocity. if so that could means the germans finally made a tank that can both kill other tanks and support infantry
As an American, if could choose to serve on any tank other than the Abrams, it'd be this fine machine.
I swear somewhere else on youtube someone said this was the best tank in the world, it was like some top ten tanks video or something,
They did. The latest results are that the newest Leo2 version is a little better than the current Abrams version and equal to the Russian T99
HK only exists since roughly 50-60 years. It was founded by former Chief Engineers from Mauser, who, after the German disarmament and the preceding destruction of all Mauser military factories, chose to found their own arms manufacture.
I see the Leopard tank perform. outstanding.
T-90 is also another stronge tank. another outstanding.
I guess that the winner is up to the ability of the driver and cammander.
Who ever get the better army win.
@Vykuk123: The MRM-KE is already in use, it has killed an driving T-72 at a Range of 8.600m.
When i see the leopard tank. I remember the Tiger tank. They even put that Cross sign just like the Tigers back in WW2. German made tanks are really Powerful. Back then no allied tanks would engage a Tiger on open field.
So awesome that it looks like a modernized tiger
@m16a4ish Do you think a hit in battle is more destructive due to the "wow, battle feeling"-factor than the same hit in a test?
what is the stronger in terms of fire power ? the m1a2 or the leopard 2 ?
actually the depleted uranium doesnt really have much radiation left... it's very similar to lead. Hard and heavy... Besides... Abrams uses the same ammonition as Leopard 2, so there's really no point arguing about it...
Sloping is still effective against KE rounds, the shape of the shell doesn't cancel the laws of physics. Just not so much with HEAT warheads.
danthebold: what's the effective firing range abrams has? I'm a finnish leopard 2a4 gunner, and I'm kinda interested about abrams... I just wish I could someday get to try abrams too :)
Next:War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles -- all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles
The Abrams is older and unlike the Leopard is purely western which can be considered a disadvantage in some occasions cause of the long maintenance needed on daily basis. Where the leo2 does not have this impairment due to a more simplistic design. About speed I am not sure, but I know that the Abrams is not the fastest or most maneuverable tank in the world beaten by Russian and Western European counterparts. The Abrams only advantage is the guidance and electronic systems.
Interesting stuff.. looks more like a promotional video than a documentary to me though.. :D
No it's not. First off, it depends which Leopard 2 you are talking about. If it's the A6, it does NOT have the same cannon. Second, they use different types of ammo, Leopard uses titanium, the Abrams DU. Believe it or not, the choice of munition can effect the range. And just because the L.55 on the Leopard 2 is better than the L.44 doesn't mean the same for the Abrams. Hence the fact the US Army is testing the L.55 to see if it's better than the L.44 for the Abrams.
Quit argueing over which one is better, it's just opinions. I was born in Germany raised halfway there then raised the other half in America, so I have no sides.