Voennoe Delo: "Leopard" - grandson of "Tiger"! German main battle tank. (English subtitles).

[mauricioalfredo83]

+ 1 whit Leo A7 look absolutly cool whit all it features ...T90 was my choise until I saw the new Leo last year...those must be my favorite tank

[BitnikGr]

@mauricioalfredo83 Leopard 2A7+ is still in form of prototype... Just like T-90MS for example. Despite there were news about Saudi Arabia buying those 200 2A7+, it is not known yet if contract is really signed and if any 2A7+ are actually built for service.

I mean, if we want to have some tank as our favorite we probably have to choose among those which are actually in armies around the world. Choosing a single prototype is meaningless I guess.

[mauricioalfredo83]

@BitnikGr yep U must be right (Im not tank expert)...BUT I havent seen any bad leopard tank...like the leclerck or abrams trubles......anyway what about tanks like atlay??

[BitnikGr]

@mauricioalfredo83 I would call a Leopard 1 as a bad tank, but if we are talking strictly about Leopard 2 then you are right. The first Leopards up to 2A2 version may were only on par with the best T-80BV and T-72B in Soviet Army, bun in from 2nd part of 80s Soviet economy went into stagnation, while Leopard was contentiously becoming better and better. All versions since 2A4 are absolutely great.

...

[mauricioalfredo83]

@BitnikGr ...thnk for your answers man ;)

[BitnikGr]

@mauricioalfredo83 ...

...

Altay is a good attempt to support local industry, MIC and economy. It will be a good tank equal to modern 3rd generation tanks today. Maybe to the level of Leopard 2A5 or 2A6... and maybe with even better electronics in cooperation with Koreans.

However, when it will come into service it will be already behind from leading tank building countries as USA, France, Germany, Israel, Russia and even Korea, Japan and China.

...

[BitnikGr]

@mauricioalfredo83 ...

...

Still it will give 4 great advantages:

1) It will be combat effective against any possible rivals in the area.

2) It supports local economy and scientific research projects

3) Combined with good price it has good chances for a commercial success in non NATO and non tank-building countries.

4) It introduces the country to club of modern tank building countries.

[kaynie143]

very wise americans :)

[TrangleC]

For the USA it makes sense to use a gas turbine in their tanks instead of a diesel engine. The US Army deploys a lot of helicopters and aircraft wherever it goes, so having a tank that uses the same fuel as those helicopters and aircraft is a logistical advantage.

For Germany a diesel engine made more sense. The Leopard 2 was never supposed to be deployed far away from Germany, starting oversea campaigns from airbases somewhere in the desert.

It was best for both sides to do their own thing.

[khmerog1]

so basically usa teamed up with germany to steal some of the german engineers ideas on how to build a great MBT. Does anyone know if Leopard 2 can or uses depleted uranium on their armour? and one thing i didnt get about the early-Leopard tanks is why they had a flat front turret rather than a sloped turret? i know they have it now.

[BitnikGr]

@khmerog1 I don't know thoughts of designers behind creating of Leopard 1's turret.

All major tank building countries have also access to depleted uranium and nuclear power. Germany, UK, France, India, China... but no one have chosen DU neither for protection, neither for ammo (except some sabots for trials). This technology and material is well-known and available to any tank building country... including Germany of course.

[Magni56]

@BitnikGr

DU is a waste product of nuclear enrichment via a breeder reactor or gas turbines. Germany doesn''t do enrichment, so they have next to no access to DU. ;)

[BitnikGr]

@Magni56 Nuclear reactors need uranium to be enriched to 20%. Germany has nuclear powerplants.

Furthermore, since someone obtain technology to enrich uranium to 20% for peaceful needs, there is no barriers to enrich same uranium to 90% for nuclear bomb. That's all the fuzz about Iran. They enrich their uranium to 20% since last year and everyone now worry, because they easily can go for 90%.

So, Germany has access to this technology. Except if nuclear fuel for German plants is 100% imported.

[Magni56]

@BitnikGr

Hokey, you're right, partially. While Germany does do limited enrichment, it's in quantities not suitable to use DU in a weaponised fashion on the large scale. (There's all of one enrichment facility in the entire country. And even that's about to be closed.)

[BitnikGr]

@Magni56 Point is that in 30 years they sure had enough time to research and evaluate this material. Since they decided to not use it, it is logical that they don't have facilities for DU production for wide scale military use. And that's was my point from the start. They had enough time and access to DU in order to make up their minds about it.

[Magni56]

@BitnikGr

They had it, but they never had access to it in the quantities necessary to make military use feasible, no matter what the evaluation results would have been.

[TrangleC]

@khmerog1

Part 1of2:

The Leo2 has a socalled "Chobham" style armor. It is composed of ceramic tiles that are embedded in a steel matrix. Because of the positions of those tiles to each other, this kind of armor works best when it is hit at an 90° angle. If it would be hit at an very flat angle, it could happen that the penetrator (a KE sabot rod or a HEAT gas jet) passes trough the steel matrix without hitting the ceramic tiles, which would reduce the effectiveness of the armor drastically.

[TrangleC]

@khmerog1

Part 2of2:

The new, additional sloped armour is not a solid block, as you might think. It is just put on to the normal armor which is still flat, as you called it. There is emty space between the sloped armor and the solid Chobham style armor and the sloped armor isn't even meant to stop a penetrator, but just to break or diffuse it, so it hits the real armor behind it with less force.

And no, Germany refuses to use Uranium for any military application for moral reasons.

[redreaper2020]

Leo2 was turned down infavor of the Abrams not for ideological or political or economic reasons. It was pure and simple that the Leo2 lacked the AP protection of hte Abrams. The US designers, rather correctly, assumed that AP protection would stay relevant, despite the prevalance of HEAT warheads in those times. And nowadays most tanks use longrod penetrators, not HEAT.

[BitnikGr]

@jgtheman84 Like what? Which German stuff would make US look bad?

[jgtheman84]

@BitnikGr actually come to think of it, the US does use a lot of German stuff because its the best but i think the US should make their own stuff. i think its good that the US made abrams instead of buying leopard even though imo leopard is way better. its good to make ur own.

[BitnikGr]

@jgtheman84 I agree with you. Production lines in your own country make jobs for many people, instead of giving money to foreign supplier.

[jgtheman84]

@BitnikGr exactly

[TrangleC]

@redreaper2020

If that is so then the Americans did not realize the Leo 2s extraordinary adaptability. The "lightweight with powerful engine and modular armor"-concept of the Leo 2 makes it possible to slap all sorts of additional armor on to it without bogging it down.

The newest version, the Leo2 A7+ is better protected than either the M1A2 or the Challenger 2 and still faster than both of them. It has the newest ceramic armor modules now that did not exist back when it first was designed.

[redreaper2020]

@TrangleC "light with powerful engine and modular armor"? What about the suspension, final drive, hydrostatics, track loading...remember` the Tiger II?

The Leo2 is a good tank, but it isn't faster than the M1A2. Speed limits are based on track life, and they use the same tracks. It's just that we run ours more often, so we limit the speed lower. Tweak a governor and either will do a higher speed (M1s turbine can sustain 70mph)

And M1 & Chal2s armor is still heavier.

[TrangleC]

@redreaper2020

Part 1 of my answer:

Since a few years there was a lot of buzz in the military technology media about ceramic armour finally catching up or even surpassing conventional armor. The modular concept of the Leo2 enables it to be the first MBT of the current generation to utilize the advances they made with ceramic armor and with active protection systems. Other MBTs like the M1 or the Leclerc have the same engine power as the Leo2, but they are either heavier and/or bulkier which...

[TrangleC]

@redreaper2020

Part 2:

...wich makes it harder to put additional armor modules on them. It is not just the lower weight of the Leo2 compared to the Challenger and the M1, but also the relatively small turret (a feature the equally lightweight Leclerc does not share) that allows the addition of armor packs and other stuff (like active protection).

A pity you can't post links in Youtube comments or else I could give you a link with some information on the Leo2A7+.

[redreaper2020]

@TrangleC I'm well aware of the Leo2A7. Turret size doesn't really mean a whole lot, though...you can just add the applique armor packages after being transported. It makes more sense to have a larger turret anyway, since you have more room for the loader so he can work better, and/or have more room for an autoloader or bigger gun later on. Besides, Chobham + DU mesh is superior to perforated steel by a huge margin. If you ignore "RHAe estimates" and go on actual design , this is obvious.

[blackeagle681]

@redreaper2020 the same with leopard 2. it is limited to 70+ km/h but he can also drive on a highway or street with about 100 - 110 km/h.

[BitnikGr]

@blackeagle681 Speeds of 70, 75, 80km/h achieved by MBT are documented. Maybe there is a room to 85 and 90km/h. But no way 100. Max speed of tank is not determined only by its engine and its mass. Transmission and especially tracks will not sustain such speeds. Tanks can't drive at 100km/h. At such speed they become uncontrollable.

[blackeagle681]

@BitnikGr thats right, ofc he isn´t controllable at speed of 100 km/h but he can drive it. thats it what i mean.^^

[BitnikGr]

@blackeagle681 Which then means that it is irrelevant. MBT is not a dragracer, neither it is a train. Max speed beyond maneuvering abilities shouldn't been even considered.

With same design, dimensions, mass and HP, wheeled tank will always have bigger max speed than a tracked one. In 30s there were built tanks both with tracks and with wheels for different terrains. But this idea was abandoned soon enough. Passability won vs max speed on roads.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr M1928. 104mph. America. Fuck yeah. :D

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Max. Speed: 67-112 km/h

Suspension: Christie Convertible Tracks or Wheels

67 on tracks, 112km/h (not mp/h) on wheels. :)))

Saint-Chamond, T2, KH-50, WB-10, La-30, Medium Mark 1 - prototypes with tracks-or-wheels movement. BT-2 the first combat tank with Christie Convertible Tracks or Wheels suspension.

T-34 had 2 protorypes. A20 and A32. A20 also had such convertible track-or-wheel suspension, while A32 was only tracked.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr still, fastest tank in the world :P

It was a joke.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 No problem. :) It just shows that speeds over 80 are practical only for wheeled tanks.

AMX-10RC - 85km/h

M1128MGS - 96km/h

B1 Centauro - 110km/h

These are some, which can be called a "wheeled tank". They exchange a max speed with off-road abilities. Wheels = higher speed = higher ground pressure = bad performance on soft terrain

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr "wheeled tanks" are a very bad idea. Their mobility is very poor and their center of gravity is a huge issue--no good having a 105 on a fast mobile chassis if it's upside down in a ditch.

[BitnikGr]

@redreaper2020 Well, there are some terrains on which a wheeled tank could justify its existence. Convertible wheeled-or-track suspension is a REALLY bad idea :))) Theoretically they combine advantages both of tracks and wheels. In reality their mobility is below average, construction is much more complex and more expensive and maintenance and repairs are a nightmare.

[redreaper2020]

@BitnikGr Yeah. I'm fairly sure a simpler system for wheel+track is possible too. I think all-rubber track is the future myself, that or tracks like the "ripsaw" uses.

Also 3:07--the reasons were totally practical, as Chobham armor was about 30% more effective against HEAT, at a time when AP was not common. However early chobham wasn't good against AP, why they used DU mesh later.

[redreaper2020]

@blackeagle681 no he can't. Reciprocating engines have a much tighter redline than turbines, due to the changing of momentum of hte pistons. It makes the engine die real real fast if they do. A turbine's RPM is limited more by temperature, but has no limitation really on the rotational force.

[lepricoun]

LEOPARD 2 Best tank in the world

[ponti117]

@lepricoun Not the best, T 90 beat it by 1 target. One of the best.

[ace5566]

One of my favorite tanks after the M1A1Abrams, Singapore army has the Leopard 2A4 tanks (though I prefer the A6 version).

[BitnikGr]

@ace5566 Second hand Leo 2A4 is a great value for money deal! Anyone who can't afford the best (A6) or if A6 version is not available at any given moment for sell, they buy A4 with half-a-million a piece. And it is indeed a great deal!

Many European countries chase every such opportunity when any other country operator wants to sell their A4s. For example, right now Austria is planning to cut it armored forces to half. And they have A4s. Many countries are already expressed their interest.

[ace5566]

@BitnikGr Hence, which main battle tank is your favorite?

[BitnikGr]

@ace5566 "Experts and military press many times tried to make direct comparison of MBT. Most of the times results are based on personal preferences. Independent tenders by third countries could be considered as more reliable sources, because any country conducts thorough military trials, before they buy any tank. But most of the times decision for purchase of any tank are political or/and economical. Winner of the tender many times is not the best tank in performance.

-

Comparison of modern...

[BitnikGr]

@ace5566 ... MBT is not possible and even a real battles don't give clear answer. Because most of the times things like tactics, crew training and maintenance have been proved more important than technical properties of the vehicles themselves."

-

So, if we take into consideration all the above, the correct and objective answer to your question is "There is no such thing as the best MBT!" It is relatively is to make a TOP-5, where any tank in the list could be the best or 5th in the list.

...

[BitnikGr]

@ace5566 ...

But since you are asking my personal, subjective opinion, which tank I like most, I'll answer Leopard 2A6... or even Leopard 2A6HEL to be more specific! :)

[AV7Volhv]

А ДАВАЙТЕ МОДЕРАТЕРА ПЕРЕДАЧИ В ЧЕЧНЮ ПОШЛЁМ - И ОН БУДЕТ ВЫПОЛНЯТь БОЕВЫЕ ЗАДАЧИ ?! ; )

[BitnikGr]

@AV7Volhv А что такое "модератор передачи"?

А давайте называть вещи своими именами и правильными терминами.

И давайте каждый будет заниматься своим делом... Кому-то на телевидении работать, а кому-то в Чечне боевые задачи выполнять.

[AV7Volhv]

@BitnikGr Кому-то на телевидении хуйню нести и быдлу лапшу на уши вешать - а кому-то идти "выполнять боевые задачи"? В нашей стране достаточно профессиональных военных которые как профессионалы могли бы рассказать об представленным оружии, а не как клоуны-актёры издающие какие-то смешные звуки. Модератора в армию! Пускай наберотся опыту, а потом открывает варежку.

[BitnikGr]

@AV7Volhv А никогда пропагандисты хорошими военными не были! Это другая профессия!

Я просто отметил, что нет такого как "модератор передачи"... Ты ведущего имеешь в виду? Или режисера? Или кто сценарий и тексты пишет?

Да и наверняка они как положено срочную службу отслужили...

-

А что именно тебе в этом эпизоде не понравилось если не секрет?

[BitnikGr]

@AV7Volhv А... наверное считаете не правильным характеристику Леопарда как "второго" танка после Российских, да?

[CCCPXEPO]

Thank you for the uploads and translation = its a lovely series. I would not worry about Westerners, they will ALWAYS whine and complain about some thing or other = and yes, Westerners are quick to criticize, but they cannot accept criticism themselves. Sad.

[armatus99]

@CCCPXEPO well thats not true, since the only thing we do all day is argue, we e.g. dont infringe on the freedom of the press, like good ol putin is doing ;) we sure can take criticism. but youre right, thx for upload and translations, its funny to see other perspectives

[CCCPXEPO]

@armatus99 Hah. I will take a check on that : I have friends in America and UK and I keep myself informed, and am definitely not going to accept CNN's version of "truth" (or any other Western media, for that) just on your say so, thank you very much. 2 words about your "freedoms" : Guantanamo Bay.

[armatus99]

@CCCPXEPO touche :D,there is still a difference between how "the west" runs and how russia does things right now. and even knowing all our faults , i prefer "our" way of democracy.

[CCCPXEPO]

@armatus99 Of course. Thank you for the chat, it's refreshing to talk to someone who has the dignity to talk, and still keep a civil tone. Salut!

[BitnikGr]

@armatus99 And where exactly is the difference between Corporate Controlled Mass Media in the West and State Controlled Media in Russia? Are not their news both not objective and filtered?

[armatus99]

@BitnikGr well if u take the american media, its either very conservative, or very liberal, cnn, which i would count to the objective stations, looses ratings all the time...whereas russian media try to portrait only the good things/developments, critical views are harshly fought. my german stations, although i have my issueas there too, are, compared to us/ru media, WAY more objective and neutral."the west" doesnt mean only us, it means europe too, and yes, i think news wise, we are the best.

[BitnikGr]

@armatus99 I don't know about US, but most of countries have state television and radio channels and private ones. It is here in Greece, same in Italy, France and I think it is the same in Germany.

Well, state channels do present good things/developments etc...

Russia's the most popular channels ORT and RTR are actually state ones.

The difference is that in EU countries I mentioned state channels are not popular and ppl watch more private tv, while there it is opposite.

[BitnikGr]

@armatus99 I don't know exactly about German channels. I have a sat tv, but I don't understand German... I thaught that Greek media is the most objective one considering international relations. If I am not wrong, Greek TV channels (governam and private) were the only one who had sent crews of reportes both in S. Ossetia and Georgia. Meanwhile all other reports I could understand were covering things only from one side.

From the other side, from 9-10 national-wide tv stations in Greece I can...

[BitnikGr]

@armatus99 ... say that only two have professional news reports. NET (state) and SKY (the newest of private channels). All others instead of News make something like street screaming bazaar. After presenting the title of some new, they call 4-6 guests to discuss this issue and they become arguing loud all together, interrupting and some times insulting each other. Real mess! I am greek, but when they speek all together like that I don't get a clue! :)

If you will be in Greece, you can see ...

[BitnikGr]

@armatus99 ... happenning in Greek TV from 20:00 till 21:00 when all major stations broadcast news. :)))

[BitnikGr]

@krazzed101 Бля буду монтана!

Причем тут Русские? Причем тут холодная война? Здесь история происхождения танка Леопарда.

Where did you see propaganda in history of creation Leopard II.

С вашей головой что-то не в порядке. Наверняка это объяснимо, но я не врач.

[krazzed101]

@BitnikGr if your stupid brain hasnt picked up on it yet..voennoe delo always finds something to criticize about NATO stuff. They make Russian equipment look like its the best in the world. Cold War is over...Soviet Union lost..stop with the propoganda bullshit.

[BitnikGr]

@krazzed101 Usually person who call others stupid is the one with low IQ.

Yes cold war is over. Yes Soviet Union lost it... But somehow Western propaganda haven't stop since then.... it became even bigger, wider and more ridiculous. So who says that there must be only one side propaganda? Do you find it fair?

[vograd]

@krazzed101 and how did soviet lose??

[MrPopular22]

@krazzed101 Vo pervih pishi ili na odnom ili na drugom jazike. Vo vtorih: Gde zdesi propaganda? To cto nemeckaia tehnologija vsegda bila lu4shaia v mire, eto ne propaganda a fakt. I to cto amerikosi ei polizovalisi i polizuiutsa, toje fakt. Lu4shii mashini v mire nemeckie, odni iz lu4shih tankov v mire- nemeckie- polet na lunu, atomnaia bomba i voobshe vsea amerikanskaia raketnaia programma bez nemeckoi tehnologii i samih nemcov ne bila bi vozmojna. Toliko odno imie:WERNHER VON BRAUN....

[MrPopular22]

@krazzed101 A cto kasaetsa holodnuiu "vojnu": Eto nikogda ne bil voorujenij konflikt, pricem tut odno k drugomu? Pricem tut tanki???

Esle necego skazati, tak pukni, no derji govno svoje pri sebe.