Singapore to acquire Leopard 2A4 tanks! WOO!
My friend just rang me and told me to visit the Mindef site. According to a Mindef report:
"The acquisition package will consist of 66 refurbished Leopard 2A4 tanks together with 30 spare tanks and supporting equipment. Training on the Leopard tanks will be provided by the German Army."
Factsheet: Capabilities and Specifications of the Leopard 2A4
13 comments:
SM1 isn't that AMX-13?
75mm good grief! What can you kill with that peashooter? An anti tank missile would probably do a much better job.
Leopard 2? So... that means it'll take at least 2 modern ATGMs to kill one of our tanks now? ;-)
I wonder if a 'better protected' MBT like the Merkava would be better suited to Singapore? Of course, openly buying Isreali armour would be extremely taboo.
How does the Leopard II measure up to the PT-91?
Yes, the SM1 is a modified AMX-13 with diesel instead of petrol engines. Most newer models of the AMX-13 (all were retired by their respective armies years ago) had either 90mm or 105mm guns. Some had SS-12 ATGWs mounted on rails on the turret.
The role was obviously not anti-tank. Besides, most of the armour in the region were light with the exception of the Malaysian PT-91 and Vietnamese T-54/T-55s.
Yes, however the AMX-13 had two revolver cartriges that allowed rapid fire of 12 rounds. I think a rpm of 8 is easily possible whereas for a ATGW, the rate of fire can barely be more than 1 or 2 per minute.
Hahahah. Well observed Drifand. The Leopard 2A5 / 2A6 now has a pointed turret bulge to account for the lightness in armour of the Leopard 2A4. I have always wondered about the Leopard's level of protection. That the Germans upgraded it simply proved the suspicion.
I think the ground pressure matters. I wonder as to the ground pressure for the Merkava.
The ground pressure of the Leopard 2A4 is lower than the AMX-13!
Besides, the Merkava I, II are very different from III and also IV. IV is practically a new tank. So is III.
There are other points to be made. We are practically the first tropical nation to be adopting this. Germany has been 'donating' their 2A4s to many countries. Poland for instance...
MG Mountings. It won't be the MG3. Probably the vehicle version of the GPMG I guess?
Another issue. Chobham. I understand the armour is some form of laminate not unlike the Chobham. The current generation of Chobham is 3rd generation or more.
The Leopard 2 entered service in the 70s being essentially a seventies tank. The M1 entered service in the mid-80s, being the first or one of the first production tanks with secret British Chobham armour. This was followed by the Challenger I. The Shir I was supposed carrying Chobham too and could have been first. In other words, it is likely that early Leopard IIs had spaced-armour but not necessarily ceramic Chobham.
What else?
Zero, the PT91 is a derivative of the low-end T-72, not T-80, with reactive armour. The version of the PT-91 sold to Malaysia, I understand, is an enhanced version. Let me find the details.
In the meantime, the Poles have adopted refurbished, used German Leopard 2A4s... (probably discarding their PT91s)...
Additional note:
The Leopard 2 does have a form of Chobham armour. It was built in eight production batches since 1978. So, the protection can vary.
The 2A5 has significantly more armour than the earlier ones.
Another important note. Switzerland, Sweden and a few other nations did hold competitions for MBTs. And based on their requirements, the Leopard 2 won rather than the Challenger or M1...
In Desert Storm, M1 tanks with the M256 gun (US version of the Rheinmetall 120mm gun), shot through packed sandbeams, hitting hidden T-72s and penetrating the glacis, blowing the turret off.
There were instances of the round from the 120mm gun going through one end of the T-72 to the engine block and exiting!
The T-72s were known for blowing up with very fatal consequences for the crew. ie no survivors.
The PT91 are enhanced versions of the same tank with reactive armour to stop essentially HEAT rounds.
If I were a crew member of a tank from the T-72 family, I would certainly have extremely low morale. Seriously, who would even get on board those deathtraps? The way the fuel and ammunition are packed closely together... The level of protection...
In addition, in the war in Croatia in 91-92, the Serbs were using M84 tanks, essentially their version of the T-72. That did not stop the Croats from destroying those T-72s with their Armbrust LAWs.
Still... the weight of the L2A4 could turn out to be a limiting factor in our kind of terrain. Not much space for a lightning war. I wonder if modern tanks can do the equivalent of a 'double tap' - Fire 2 shots in relatively quick succession at a single target?
Also, more interesting would be any development of counter ATGM measures. I wonder if our Spike operators have trained under situations where their SACLOS guidance was jammed.
Drifand, like you have mentioned, the size and the weight will certainly be limitations.
The one thing that works in the Leopard 2A4's favour is that it has a lower ground pressure than the AMX-13! The weight is more spread out over wider tracks. Greater surface area that is.
Like you said, the role could be limited. Fire support?
Still, the North Vietnamese did use armour effectively in 1974-75. They were only stopped in 1972 through the use of TOW-firing Cobras. The North Vietnamese eventually victory was due to conventional means. Armour supported by infantry rather than guerilla warfare. Historically, heavy armour including M48s were used too. You read your Vietnam War history.
If by tap, you mean burst fire, well, I think only if it is an auto-canon. The OTO-Melera 76mm gun has been mounted on trials on a OF-40 chasiss. It can do a 60 rpm rate or more. It's devastating.
The rpm for a modern 4-crew tank assuming good training is between 6-8.
The two revolvers of the AMX-13 could presumably give such a figure or higher?
The tanks with autoloaders will give a rate like 8 I think or more, assuming that the autoloaders work...
" SACLOS guidance jammed"
You mean jammed by dazzlers and other countermeasures?
I understand that the Iraqis were using Chinese dazzlers and jammers against TOWs mounted in HMMV and M2 Bradleys in 2003. It didn't exactly help them...
IDF operates no light tank. In fact, both India and Israel gave away their light tanks to us after real combat experience.
IDF would use the heavy weight Merkavas even in the narrow streets of Beirut.
And IDF had been using HAPC made with Centurion, Merkava or Russian MBT chassis in FIBUA.
A light vehicle like AMX13, Bionix or even a wheeled Stryker can only go so fast in a rubble strewn BUA or jungle track. So speed is sometimes no substitute for protection in AFV. Good thick armour is still the best bet for survivability.
Post a Comment