Talk:Leopard tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force

From a dup, possibly useful text:

"The Leopard 2 is Germany's main battle tank. It has a 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, an EMES-15 gunners sight, with 3X and 12X thermal sight, and a 12X daysight, as well as a fero-Z auxilary sight. The gun is stabilized in both the vertical and horizontal direction, and the tank has full fire on the move capability. The gun can operate in 3 separate modes, normal, emergency, and manual. In normal mode, the gun is fully stabilized, and laser range finder, dynamic lead all works. In emergency mode, the gun and EMES-15 sighting picture is not stabilized, but the laser range finder still works. In manual mode, the gun is completely unpowered, and is moved with hand cranks. In the Leopard 2a5, this operation is done with a small powered stick."

Stan 03:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Leo in Sweden 2 Title 3 National naming 3.1 Australian Leopards 3.2 Canadian Leopards 4 Armor 5 58 or 66 in Canada? 6 Confusing statement in 1A3 section?

[edit] Leo in Sweden

Sweden has never used the original Leopard tank. Leopard 2 however is currently in use by the Swedish army, where it replaced Centurion and Strv 103. I'm removing the reference to Sweden in the first paragraph.

[edit] Title

Should this page not be moved to Leopard 1 and make Leopard tank a disamiguation page, because there are at least two other German tanks referred to as Leopard, obviously the Leopard 2 as well as a WWII tank.

[edit] National naming

[edit] Australian Leopards

The Australian Leopard was designated the Leopard 1 AS4. It had a V10 MTU multi-fuel engine. Capable of producing 985 BHP at 2200 rpm. The loaded combat weight of this varient was 42.4 Tons. It carried three MG3 AA/U machine guns in addition to the 105mm main armament.

I have my original driver training and gunnery wing books if anyone just needs the hell out of some more info on the Aussie Leopards.

Should it be doubted that the Australian Leopard was called AS1 from the very beginning see: http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/leopardph_1.htm --MWAK 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Leopards

I believe the Canadian Leopards were designated "Leopard C2". They underwent a modernization and turret replacement in the '90s, but have been recently retired. Can someone more familiar with the subject elucidate? —Michael Z. 2005-09-26 14:09 Z

I've uploaded a few photos of Canadian Leopards, made available by DND. —Michael Z. 2005-10-2 05:23 Z

I have changed the news report that the tanks would be brought by ships (it's a landlocked country!) to airlifted by American forces, and added a citation - hope I didn't screw up!

[edit] Armor

Found that the Leopard 1 has 70mm rolled armor, from Modern Tanks and Fighting Vehicles (3rd Edition) by Christopher Foss. Ctifumdope 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 58 or 66 in Canada?

According to Wiki, it says that 58 remain in service, but the official Canadian Army site referenced says that 66 Leopards remain in service. Which might it be? Petercorless 12:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know for sure. I just found that 58 figure last month, and it seems to have been updated to 66, and the statement that they were intended to serve until 2011 removed. Apparently the tanks were all in the process of being liquidated in favour of the Mobile Gun System, which plans were halted suddenly. Some recent news articles also say that the arsenal is 66 in the process of being reduced to 44. Historically, there's usually been a specific number in service in the field, plus several vehicles used for training and as replacements, and it's sometimes hard to say which of these figures is being cited.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-14 19:22 Z

The number of 66 was intended to be the vehicles that would be replaced by the MGS (Mobile Gun System). With that program cancelled, the remainder were in the progress of being towed out to ranges to be used as targets, or having their barrels filled with cement to be used as monuments. The word on deploying tanks to Afghanistan came as this process was underway, meaning that currently more than 66 exist, but how many are servicable is unclear. The original intent in cancelling MGS would have seen Leopard C2s continue in service until 2015. With the additional wear and tear of an operational deployment, this date may be optimistic.131.137.245.199 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The CF currently page says:[1]

• Number in Service: 66
• Sold to companies in North America: 23
• In museums or used as monuments: 4
• Used as hard targets on ranges: 21

 —Michael Z. 2006-11-01 15:13 Z

[edit] Confusing statement in 1A3 section?

"Although the level of armor area density was equivalent to the A2's new welded version, the internal volume was increased by 1.2 m³ and the effective protection level by half."

If I am reading this correctly, it states that the 1A3 had as much armor as the 1A2, but nevertheless had half as much protection. This seems odd, can someone expand on this a bit? Or is it wrong? I found the identical wording on another site, although lacking the last bit about the protection level.

Maury 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the prototype phase suggested that the armor could stop a 20 mm round. I assume the real armor is much thicker. This should be included. Maury 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)