German Tank sales

[gf0012-aust]

my bad on the FCS , it's using savan-15 FCS from france.
Maybe the reason for the leopard

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4104
post 15

that may well be so - but across a number of fronts, the Leo2A4 is the superior weapons system.

again it gets back to the malays being happy with the 91 within their battleorder and their armour doctrine. the sings obviously have a different view and requirement.

 

[eckherl]

It's PT-91 and it's newly built. Poland received 128 Leopard 2A4 from German Army reserve stocks as military assistance and only paying for the transportation costs , as far as know they put the FCS of the leopard into pt-91 < can someone confirm all of these

Poland in the early nineties developed the PT-91 (tough) to give the locally manufactured T-72`s the same performance as the Russian T-80U, all FCS was locally manufactured, due to cost only about 60 were produced before they decided to go to a less expensive model called T-72MIZ, this model does use some of the turret components of PT-91.

They were also working on a T-72 version called Gorilla that would of placed a L-44 gun into the tank, this has been placed on hold due to costs, they were working with Ukraine on this model.

 

[spectre69]

spore acquisition of leopard mbt will make it land forces more formidable,no match for msia pt76 tank except the abrams of the aussie.

PT76? That's an IFV....u must be referring to the PT91.....which would be inferior to a L2A4, especially when they decide to upgrade it

 

[swerve]

PT76? That's an IFV....u must be referring to the PT91.....which would be inferior to a L2A4, especially when they decide to upgrade it

No, the PT-76 is an old (1950s design) Soviet light tank, not an IFV. Amphibious, very low ground pressure, only light armour. Indonesia has some, which I think were modernised some time ago.

 

[oskarm]

More about Polish PT-91 you can find in this post: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37660&postcount=97

About PT-91M:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=47126&postcount=1

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=52330&postcount=18

Polish PT-91 is quite different to PT-91M.

By 2009-2011 Polish Army is planning to keep only 128 Leo 2A4 and 233 PT-91 tanks in service. And there are no plans to by new ones to replace something like 5XX T-72. :drunk1

 

[eckherl]

More about Polish PT-91 you can find in this post: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37660&postcount=97

About PT-91M:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=47126&postcount=1

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=52330&postcount=18

Polish PT-91 is quite different to PT-91M.

By 2009-2011 Polish Army is planning to keep only 128 Leo 2A4 and 233 PT-91 tanks in service. And there are no plans to by new ones to replace something like 5XX T-72. :drunk1

Good Post - PT-91 is a good upgrade designed tank, with a properly trained crew and with the environment that it will operate in, it will not have a issue taking on LEO2A4 tanks.

 

[Ths]

Before lamenting the diemise of the MBT - which I don't see - there are a few factors to considerate - especially as Germany and its tanks are in the dead center of it:

1. Nato and Germany has over the past 10-15 years gained strategic depth. During the cold war the operational maneuvre aspect was done on the Atlantic Ocean with the reinforcements from the USA.
In the event of an outbreak of hostilities there would be a massive tactical situation with little leeway for buying time with territory. This meant that heavy tanks was the decisive weapon.
Now the the tactical maneuvre scenario is getting its proper place - as one of many elements. Thus a reduced emphasis on the tank.

2. The conversion of the former Soviet satelites to allies enter the bookkeeping as both a reduction of liabilities and an increase in assets.
In this connection there is quite a financial benefit in giving away the expensive heavy equipment. This is because according to the threat assesment there is a need for that number of unit placed there. So it is cheaper to let f.i. the Poles train, man and maintain those units.

3. Not only the strategic depth, but also out of theater engements tend to favourise lighter forces.

In summery: the German sales of their surplus tanks has been an example really intelligent defence policy.

 

[eckherl]

Before lamenting the diemise of the MBT - which I don't see - there are a few factors to considerate - especially as Germany and its tanks are in the dead center of it:

1. Nato and Germany has over the past 10-15 years gained strategic depth. During the cold war the operational maneuvre aspect was done on the Atlantic Ocean with the reinforcements from the USA.
In the event of an outbreak of hostilities there would be a massive tactical situation with little leeway for buying time with territory. This meant that heavy tanks was the decisive weapon.
Now the the tactical maneuvre scenario is getting its proper place - as one of many elements. Thus a reduced emphasis on the tank.

2. The conversion of the former Soviet satelites to allies enter the bookkeeping as both a reduction of liabilities and an increase in assets.
In this connection there is quite a financial benefit in giving away the expensive heavy equipment. This is because according to the threat assesment there is a need for that number of unit placed there. So it is cheaper to let f.i. the Poles train, man and maintain those units.

3. Not only the strategic depth, but also out of theater engements tend to favourise lighter forces.

In summery: the German sales of their surplus tanks has been an example really intelligent defence policy.

One thing is for sure, out of all the NATO Alliance countries, Germany has had the greatest success in selling tanks.

 

[turin]

Because we 1. had massive numbers, 2. apparently a good tank design, and last but definately not least 3. we tend to give them away for little (sometimes no) money.

Generally speaking I agree with Ths assessment. For germans interested in the matter its a bit tragic to see this stuff going away with so little in return, when our budget looks as sad as it does. However the red storm rising seems to be a matter of the past and our theoretical front lines were put away from the german borders anyway.

Still its a rather two-edged issue for the german MBT industry. The market is flooded now with tanks and I just dont see bigger orders for new-build MBT in the future. But thats the way it just goes I guess.

 

[Ths]

Turin: Good post.

Ad 3) possibly; but think of the spares deliviries!!!! That is where the money is made.

Tank industry: What the world needs now is a good MEDIUM tank to replace the Leo 1.

As to being sad for the Germans: What do You mean???? GErmany won!!!!!!

 

[turin]

Regarding the political situation you are absolutely right of course. I was more thinking about the very difficult (and at times disappointing) way the german forces are heading in terms of transformation and modernisation.

Ad 3) possibly; but think of the spares deliviries!!!! That is where the money is made.

Thats the major official/public argument for giving away our tanks like that. It remains to be seen wether all these expectations will hold true though. Most countries that buy Leos now, buy some more in order to have spares right on the spot (Singapore is a good example), so their need for additional spares delivered by the german industry is comparably low. Mostly these purchases come with very little in terms of long-term maintenance contracts, so all you got there is hope and good faith for the customer to come back for more (or different) stuff.

Tank industry: What the world needs now is a good MEDIUM tank to replace the Leo 1.

I guess right now the focus is more with IFVs and APCs. The german industry has up-to-date offers in both fields, so I guess we can still look forward.
As for the Leo-1, most countries seem to replace them with heavy MBT, mostly refurbished Leo-2 or competitors like Abrams etc. The Russians are in for the cheaper or politically motivated offers. Although they are a primary example of a military force emphasizing lighter tank designs, this doesnt seem to be a decisive issue in evaluations.

 

[Ths]

I agree the Leo 1 is a difficult medium tank to topple.

The infantry stuff is long overdue, some are driving veteran M113 still.

Honestly I think with updating the need for MBT is filled for the moment. I for one have for quite some time thought the market suffers from the "dinosaur" syndrome: They are too big to argue against, while at the same time you know they are doing things in an uneconomical way (logistic footprint).

 

[swerve]

Tank industry: What the world needs now is a good MEDIUM tank to replace the Leo 1.

What about a Puma-based tank?

 

[eckherl]

Because we 1. had massive numbers, 2. apparently a good tank design, and last but definately not least 3. we tend to give them away for little (sometimes no) money.

Generally speaking I agree with Ths assessment. For germans interested in the matter its a bit tragic to see this stuff going away with so little in return, when our budget looks as sad as it does. However the red storm rising seems to be a matter of the past and our theoretical front lines were put away from the german borders anyway.

Still its a rather two-edged issue for the german MBT industry. The market is flooded now with tanks and I just dont see bigger orders for new-build MBT in the future. But thats the way it just goes I guess.

Yes - maybe sad for the fact of having new tanks rolling off the assembly lines, but just think of all the upgrade kits and ammunition sales.

 

[Waylander]

I also think that with all those A4s rolling in many countries there is a big chance for KMW and Rheinmetall to upgrade them because I really doubt that many customers are going do buy new tanks instead of choosing upgrades out of the product range.

BTW. 10 days in Asia and I have to read thousands of new posts.
And this in christmas time. :shudder

 

[tankee1981]

spore acquisition of leopard mbt will make it land forces more formidable,no match for msia pt76 tank except the abrams of the aussie.

Malaysia do not have the PT-76 as far as i know, they will be getting the PT-91M soon though.

Indonesia operates some PT-76 amphibous light tanks.

 

[Waylander]

And if you look at the experience Poland has with their mixed force of Leopard IIA4, PT-91 and T-72M1 it looks like the Leopard IIA4 is good enough to hold its own against them.