Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
Some people I know who would slightly disagree with you. Its armour is lighter, the firepower seems to be weaker (the French ammo seems to not hold up with the standards set by the German conventional and US uran-ammunition), it consumes almost twice as much fuel as the Leopard (A Norwegian or Swedish field evaluation against the Leopard showed that), is slightly slower in terrain, has lesser acceleration, and there are quite some design decisions on how systems are arranged and where, that are not generally liked - lets put it this way. It'S lighter than the Leopard, and France managed to sell it to just one other country (UAE). It has an auto-loader and so a crew of just 3. Also, it is a design that is completely unproven under combat conditions. Several Western nations tested it, the Swedes for example, and dismissed it in favour of the Leopard 2. The tactical multiple targets-firefight control system is stgate of the art - on paper. In practice it is said to be extremely complex and prone to provoking human error.
But sure, KWM needs Nexter to win UAE as a customer.  If German laws would even allow to deliver into that region any shooting stuff.
Leopard 2s are operated in 19 countries. Abrams has 6 user countries, Challenger 2 is used only by Britain and Oman. |
Armor protection is around the same for the smaller mass (due to the smaller armoured volume, which is the result of the autolader usage). Leclerc has superior survivability (neither tank was actually combat proven and no, what they do in Afghanistan does not count as real combat) due to the ammo placement.
The only reason why anyone would buy Leopard II is the price - if I remember it right most of the Leopards IIs exported were the used ones. That said most of the arms sales are politicised anyway, so if the item has superior quality/price doesn't really matter, as far as if that country is who you want to be friend - especially true when talking about US weapons sales.