Canada to buy Leopard-2 from the Dutch

[Skybird]

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/LF/Engl..._1.asp?id=2392

I can't say though if it is just the official signing of the deal they had decided last year and that was already reported - or if it is a NEW and additional deal now.

With this latest deal, the Netherlands will now have sold out half or even some more of their former tank fleet.

[CCIP]

Pretty sure it'd be the old deal. Haven't seen anything about more new (old) tanks in the media here :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Pretty sure it'd be the old deal. Haven't seen anything about more new (old) tanks in the media here :hmm:

That smells like a conspiracy. are you sure your government tells you everything...? :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Weird that they would do that when they have their clamps, I mean fingers, in the very businesses that create tanks over here! Doesn't make sense really.

To each his own I guess.

An M1 probably costs considerably more, so I bet that had something to do with it.

-S

[fatty]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Weird that they would do that when they have their clamps, I mean fingers, in the very businesses that create tanks over here! Doesn't make sense really.

To each his own I guess.

An M1 probably costs considerably more, so I bet that had something to do with it.

-S

No. We have been using Leopards for a long time. To switch to M1s a good deal of time and money would have to go into retraining tankers to operate them. Seeing as we need the tanks in action now and not in four years, it is better to go with the more efficient and familiar choice, even if it may not be the best platform.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by fatty

No. We have been using Leopards for a long time. To switch to M1s a good deal of time and money would have to go into retraining tankers to operate them. Seeing as we need the tanks in action now and not in four years, it is better to go with the more efficient and familiar choice, even if it may not be the best platform.

Evaluations also showed that the Canadian military as well as other nations rank the Leo-2 and especially the A6-variant slightly better than the Abrams. Additionally, there is a logistics factor, and Leos 2s are slightly easier to maintain and consume far lesser fuel than M1s. And finally, the later Leo-2 models can be equipped with the new to-come-soon 125mm gun with longer barrel (or was it 140 mm, maybe I mix it up), which gives a.) higher precision, b.) greater penetration and c.) greater range than the 120mm. this is not the already new, longer L55 120 mm that the A6 already is equipped with. A deal on this gun with the americans, like it was done for the Rheinmetall 120mm, has not yet been made official. I do not know if it is even planned.

tjhat is my pori9vate and subjective view, but I think TC has better SA in the Leo2 than with the M1, sinc ehe has more options. the Swedes have equipped their Leos with a digital network link similiar in function and capacity to the American system in the M1A2s. Germany also has introduced such a system.

On the mine-protected A6M which is alreayd run by Canada in Afghanistan, leased from Germany.

The Canadians seem to be impressed. I know from a German soldier that the feedback from Afghanistan regarding the Candians and their German-leased Leo-2A6 already there is "rundum zufrieden" (totally satisfied), he said.

Abrams and Leo2 are in the same range regarding a lot of specifications. I would be very hesitent to say the one is "superior" to the other. Note that if you want to do something like that nevertheless, the Leo2 often is rated as "slightly better", and/or "best-balanced package there is". Beside slightly lower costs, that'S the reason why Leopard-2s are operated by 15 countries (additonally to european countries: Chile, Canada) , the Abrams by 5 (USA, Kuwait (around 200), Saudi Arabia (around 200), Egypt (around 1000), australia (50)). In total, the Leo2 also got sold in higher numbers to exterior customers, than the Abrams. Political reasons att he time of deal, and relations also play a major role in "who buys what". also, some foreign customers have positive previous experiences with the Leopard 1 and the support by the manufcturer, which helped them to decide in favour of Leo-2 again.

"Which tanks is the better" often is discussed, and usually leads nowhere. there are so many other factors to be considered: doctrine, logistics, and crew quality: a superior tank with a bad crew still gets the crew killed.

[Heibges]

The major hindrance to exporting the M-1 is the engine. Just too difficult to maintain from a pmcs point of view.

The US Army is studying a plan to put English V-12 in the M-1 to improve exports.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Heibges

The major hindrance to exporting the M-1 is the engine. Just too difficult to maintain from a pmcs point of view.

The US Army is studying a plan to put English V-12 in the M-1 to improve exports.

Many advantages to a turbine, but yes, harder to maintain. Its main advantages is light weight, major higher horsepower, higher top speeds, and can run on pretty much anything flammable.

Its disadvatages include longer spool up time - like 5 to 10 seconds before the tank can even move (seen it done myself with an M1A1) where a diesel can just turn on and go. I buttoned down alone in an M1 once. You definetly wear that tank. It is also a lot smaller and lower profile than it looks in pictures - most people can see above the top of it standing right next to it. It defintely is lower to the ground and lower profile than a Leo.

The Leo 2 is a great tank. Its simple costs less and works. It is still not up to par with an M1 however in many respects. Its a different design philosophy - An M1 is a brute force, expensive, fast moving machine. The Leo 2 is probably a better balance between economy and capability. I guess Canadians would be better served with the Leo 2 given the current situation.

-S