Canadians to get new leopard tanks

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2007-02-23 08:13pm

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-afghan.htm

Looks nice.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2007-02-23 08:16pm

looks like i hit the wrong key, can a mod kindly delete this thread as it's aready posted by me?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2007-02-23 08:16pm

Lisa wrote:looks like i hit the wrong key, can a mod kindly delete this thread as it's aready posted by me?

No, but I can delete that other thread, in fact, I already did.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-02-23 08:59pm

Isn't that angled area on the front of the turret nothing but a huge shot trap? I've always wondered about that with later model Leopards.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2007-02-23 09:48pm

Ooh, Leopard 2. Zee Germans still know how to build a panzer.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2007-02-24 01:05am

LordShaithis wrote:Ooh, Leopard 2. Zee Germans still know how to build a panzer.

They didn't even bother discontinuing their naming convention after WWII: Panther, Tiger....Leopard. I wonder if Leopards I and II are officially Panzerkampfwagen VII and VIII respectively.

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2007-02-24 02:22am

Sweet, finally an upgrade for the armored forces of the true north strong and free.

Zor

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2007-02-24 03:19am

I thought Canada was having trouble finding man power. Are tanks really necessary?

Sephirius · Post by **Sephirius** » 2007-02-24 04:21am

Zed Snardbody wrote:I thought Canada was having trouble finding man power. Are tanks really necessary?

Last I checked, we had enough volunteers for the next roto..

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2007-02-24 10:20am

Zed Snardbody wrote:I thought Canada was having trouble finding man power. Are tanks really necessary?

Manpower shouldn't be a problem if the "new" Leopard 2A4s are used to replace our fleet of worn-out Leopard 1s, which appears to be the plan. It shouldn't hurt our treasury too much either, as the Germans have so many surplus Leo 2A4s they want to get rid of, they're selling them for as low as $400K a pop.

FSTargetdrone wrote:Isn't that angled area on the front of the turret nothing but a huge shot trap? I've always wondered about that with later model Leopards.

Not really. Modern sabot rounds do not bounce the way WWII era full-bore AP rounds did, and at the speeds APFSDS projectiles travel at, if they were to bounce, the shearing forces from the sudden change in direction would cause the penetrator to immediately disintegrate. I suppose it's possible for a HEAT round such as an RPG projectile, but I would say it's very unlikely the round would be still be in good enough condition to detonate properly if it bounced without going off.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-02-24 11:10am

Zed Snardbody wrote:I thought Canada was having trouble finding man power. Are tanks really necessary?

We are having a recruiting problem but we are also trying to expand by 15,000 troops as well. We're also having a retention problem as a lot of old-timers are geting oiut as the constant tours wear them out.

As for tanks being necessary, they are vital. The Taliban are trying to hit our convoys with both suicide bombers and IEDs as well as traditional ambush and the tanks provide a valuable direct fire role as well as scaring the crap out of them. We're the only country that employs thanks in Afghanistan and they have already proved there worth in responding to rocket attacks on the camp. Hopefully if this deal goes through we'll be seeing Leo 2's in combat.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-02-24 02:18pm

Ma Deuce wrote:Not really. Modern sabot rounds do not bounce the way WWII era full-bore AP rounds did, and at the speeds APFSDS projectiles travel at, if they were to bounce, the shearing forces from the sudden change in direction would cause the penetrator to immediately disintegrate. I suppose it's possible for a HEAT round such as an RPG projectile, but I would say it's very unlikely the round would be still be in good enough condition to detonate properly if it bounced without going off.

Ah, I see. I'm unclear on this but, do you know if the 2A6's turret is similar to the 2A4's turret, but with the angled armor added to the vertically oriented turret face of the old turret (as seen below)?

Or is it a brand new turret design entirely?

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2007-02-24 02:24pm

The turret of the Leopard II reminds me somewhat of the Israeli Merkava with the rest of it resembling the French LeClerc (especially the camouflage paint scheme).

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2007-02-24 06:42pm

Big Orange wrote:The turret of the Leopard II reminds me somewhat of the Israeli Merkava with the rest of it resembling the French LeClerc (especially the camouflage paint scheme).

How?

Leo:

Leclerc:

Mekava:

I suppose it's the "they all have a big gun on it" than makes you think they are similar.

Pelranius · Post by **Pelranius** » 2007-02-24 06:48pm

The frontal turret armor actually reminds me of the Chinese Type 99G, but I think the Chinese one is either solid composite armor or reactive.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2007-02-24 07:32pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:Ah, I see. I'm unclear on this but, do you know if the 2A6's turret is similar to the 2A4's turret, but with the angled armor added to the vertically oriented turret face of the old turret (as seen below)?

The angled armor is an appliqué package attached to the original turret, although the new armor did require some modification to the gun mantlet.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-02-24 08:39pm

You lot north o' the border used to use an upgraded Leopard 1, right? Nice to see our northern neighbors buying the world's best tanks.

I'm actually fairly surprised that tanks are useful in Afghanistan. What with the huge mountains and rugged terrain, I'd have thought that tanks, with their inability to traverse the barrel up to high angles, would be at a significant disadvantage. Would the Cpl or anyone else enlighten me?

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2007-02-24 08:54pm

Feil wrote:You lot north o' the border used to use an upgraded Leopard 1, right? Nice to see our northern neighbors buying the world's best tanks.

I'm actually fairly surprised that tanks are useful in Afghanistan. What with the huge mountains and rugged terrain, I'd have thought that tanks, with their inability to traverse the barrel up to high angles, would be at a significant disadvantage. Would the Cpl or anyone else enlighten me?

the Giant Marijuana Forests(tm) that the Taliban hide in are impassable to wheeled vehicles.

You think I am joking.

I am not

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-02-24 09:09pm

Lonestar wrote:the Giant Marijuana Forests(tm) that the Taliban hide in are impassable to wheeled vehicles.

You think I am joking.

I am not

Isn't that what fire is for?

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-02-24 09:11pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Lonestar wrote:the Giant Marijuana Forests(tm) that the Taliban hide in are impassable to wheeled vehicles.

You think I am joking.

I am not
Isn't that what fire is for?

Tried it, IIRC. Some troops down wind reported that this was not the best way to do it.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2007-02-24 09:29pm

Uraniun235 wrote: Isn't that what fire is for?

The, uh, obvious reason aside, a more effective thing would be something like Agent Orange. It's hard to burn shit down.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2007-02-24 11:38pm

As I was deployed to Iraq, I can't really vouch for Afghanistan's terrain, but tanks are generally quite maneuverable, even in rough terrain.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2007-02-25 03:58am

darthbob88 wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:
Lonestar wrote:the Giant Marijuana Forests(tm) that the Taliban hide in are impassable to wheeled vehicles.

You think I am joking.

I am not
Isn't that what fire is for?
Tried it, IIRC. Some troops down wind reported that this was not the best way to do it.

Others we're pleased and went through a weeks worth of MRE's in a day.

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2007-02-25 04:13am

Feil wrote:You lot north o' the border used to use an upgraded Leopard 1, right? Nice to see our northern neighbors buying the world's best tanks.

I'm actually fairly surprised that tanks are useful in Afghanistan. What with the huge mountains and rugged terrain, I'd have thought that tanks, with their inability to traverse the barrel up to high angles, would be at a significant disadvantage. Would the Cpl or anyone else enlighten me?

The primary roles for the tanks are as shock troops (ie scaring the shit out of the enemy and keeping them from advancing at all) and as a glorified bulldozer to knock down mud walls. They work exceptionally well at both these tasks, despite the terrain.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2007-02-25 04:25am

Lonestar wrote:
Big Orange wrote:The turret of the Leopard II reminds me somewhat of the Israeli Merkava with the rest of it resembling the French LeClerc (especially the camouflage paint scheme).
How?

[snip pics]

I'm guessing he's thinking of the way both the Leopard 2 and Merkava have the previously mentioned 'shot trap' where the turret meets the body, whereas the Abrams and Leclerc just go straight down. Then the camouflage of the OP is similar to that of the Leclerc you posted. Also the front of both the Leclerc and Leopard 2 are made up of three planes intersecting, unlike the Merkava and Abrams which have only two.