The L1 was used in combat in Bosnia before, and also supposedly fired a couple times in self-defense in Kosovo.
The Leo 1 battles in Bosnia have gotten a Wiki entry!!
From one chronic mispeller to another, that should read
- An APU.Ok, I try to address the questions.
What is needed for the german Leos is:
Ah, got it, the EMES-15 (which is x12).
Standard A6 has the same armour as A5, afaik. A6M adds the increased belly armour, but that's it. Leo 2E (A6 variant) has some additional frontal armour.
Many thanks Waylander:Ok, I try to address the questions.
1. I would defenitely prefer the A5/A6 set up. The A4 has a ballistic hole where the optic is. It is not that there is no armor protection, in fact there is a big block of armor behind the optic, but the channel were the gunners sight is connected to the optic is a weakpoint.
2. The advantages are not only the improved turret armor (BTW I would prefer the added hull and turret armor like on Leos of other nations) but also that the new optic, besides closing the ballistic hole, gives you the ability to not only use the TCs periscope but also the gunners sight when standing in a hull and turret down position.
3. Ok, I see I answered this in nr.2...
4. Parts of the pocket are filled with the cables and optical connections to the new positioned optic. Tests with Greek Leopard IIHEL showed that a round fired in a very limited angle can still enter the combat rom via the weak point if the add-on armor is penetrated. IIRC one out of more than 30 rounds penetrated. Still very good but the problem was adressed and seems to be solved now.
5. I think I adressed it in 1.
In the end I think the upgrade from A4 to A5/A6 (Especially A6) adressed a good portion of the needed upgrades. But I think it is a shame that other countries went the whole way and nearly added all the available upgrades.
What is needed for the german Leos is:
- An APU. Don't having an APU is insane these days.
- Increased hull armor. Especially when one thinks about the unprotected ammo in the frontal hull.
- Battlefield management system. This is defenitely needed and should be integrated into the already established management system in use with the Bundeswehr.
- Increased top attack armor. One of the minor points but would still be nice if one has to cope with enemy bomblet arty threat.
- New sight. Also a minor point. And more important than a new TI (The old is still good) but a new daylight channel which allows for something like x4 and x12 instead of x12 only.
In the end the Strv122(123) as everything I want to see except the L/66. And adding it is not a problem and not that expensive.
I also like the PSO ideas and IMHO the Bundeswehr needs a pool of these vehicles which are not in use with a unit but are deployed to oversea missions if needed.
: Yes. I did actually do a cursory search, but all I fund was this:
Thank you - is it a safe assumption that you are getting about the same amount of recoil clearance with the recoil mechanism improvements.@Wooki
@Kato
Jup I meant the HZF (EMES-15). The upgraded persicope is fine.
And I know that they envisioned all this for the PSO (BTW, If one looks at the released pictures the PSO seems to have less armor added to the hull than normal).
But this is not enough (If we even get some PSOs).
The things I listed are essential for a modern MBT and not only for a MOUT upgrade which will be procured in limited numbers.
We need a battlefield system and that MoD can't get it done that the tiny rest of our combat forces is networked properly is a shame.
The unincreased hull armor is dangerous and can cost lives if ever tested in combat.
And an APU should also be standard these days. Especially the long observation periodes of armoured vehicles occuring the oversea mission these days should be reason enough. That the turret shuts down and has to be rebooted if one starts the engine while the turret is running on batteries should be another obvious reason...
I forgot to list air condition. A-stan and Iraq should have teached us the importance an A/C can have on combat effectiveness.
The Barracuda camo system in use for example with the Danish Leos is also very nice and shouldn't be that expensive (GD, do you have an idea about the price?)
I admit that increased top attack armor is a nice have to but not as much needed like the other ones
As for the armor.
The upgrade from A4 to A5/A6 only includes the turret armor and is the same on A5 and A6.
But other versions in service feature the increased hull armor (Leopard II HEL/E/DK and Strv122[123])
@Eckherl
The recoil mechanism has been strengthened from A4 to A5/A6 but it is just nice to have as it improves lifetime of the system. Without these improvements it is still possible to fire the new DM53/63 ammo.
Again - many thanks.@Eckherl
Jup, should be the same.
@Kato and GD
Thanks for the effort.
I also try to find some numbers.
The Barracuda is said to be very effective in minimizing the heat signature of an AFV with the bonus of keeping the vehicle cool in hot environments.
If it is not that expensive it isvIMHO defenitely a must.
US rounds should work: http://www.armedforces-int.com/cate...munition-demonstration-in-leopard-2-tanks.asp (Denmark also uses the M1028 iirc)