Singaporean Leopard 2A4s debut in Australia

[Waylander]

Hmm, wonder if SG'll use their own Leos on their next training deployment soon, which will be ... a bit farther away.

* makes note to ask someone in the know *

Mmmh, GÜZ?
Maybe they could get some A4s from depot. Give them some of the A4s fresh out of the disbanded units.
They can come a week earlier than planned and get a week of training in how to get 2 coys of Leopards running for a 2 week GÜZ party.
At least they don't have to install the AGDUS by themselves.
Can be a bitch when done for the first time...

 

[Firn]

No there isn't. The Swedish Army trial found that the M1A1 consumed around 20% more fuel than the Leopard 2A5 which itself consumed about 10% more than the Leclerc (from memory). The M1A1 AIM in Australian service has an auxiliary power unit which means in overwatch it does not need to run the main engine - unlike SAF Leopard 2A4s - so will actually consume less fuel overall

I just googled the Swedish Army trial and found different numbers. Mind that this was a M1A1 without APU and it is questionable how trustworthy the numbers are.

The greatest advantage over the Abrams is in the Leopard 's relative fuel economy. According to manufacturer's figures, the Abrams turbine's fuel consumption at best speed for maximum range is 0.58 miles per gallon (0.25 km per liter); the Leopard 's 1.08 miles per gallon (0.46 km per liter) is nearly twice as good. More practically stated, the Leopard travels 56 mi (90 km) farther on 57 percent less fuel. Fuel consumption while idling is the turbine's weakest point, consumption at idle being perhaps three times as much as the diesel. On the other hand, the German engine weighs more than twice as much as the AGT-1500 turbine and occupies more volume.

So the APU makes clearly far more sense for the Abrams and is key to narrow the huge consumption gap down. Meanwhile even without an APU the ever more efficient diesels are far better suited to cruise long distances and for therefor for mobile warfare on a grand scale. By consuming far less - the numbers say almost half - the burden for the logistic is immensly lessened. This is a huge asset in expeditionary warfare, where every gallon fuel must brought forward at great prize and effort.

The U.S ability to supply Armor units with logistical support is by far one of the most sophisticated systems currently in use world wide, I have never run out out beans, bullets or diesel in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, the vehicles used in supply trains are designed specifically to keep pace with forward attack elements when they are called upon, I should also add that heavy and medium airborne assetts in terms of helicopters also do a good job of dropping off fuel bladders and projectile bins if needed.

I know of the ability of the USA to supply its troops, but as I said before a gas guzzler on the frontline means a lot more effort from the tail to supply them. BTW: Was it I or II?

As to your other points about ADF operational deployment you are totally wrong about Australia defending its coastline. You are also wrong about comparative weight and mobility. The M1A1 AIM weighs in at 62 tonnes only a few more than the Leopard 2A4 and both have similar ground pressure (weight divided by the area of the track on the ground) which is the most important feature for anything other than bridge crossing.

I never said that the Leo was more deployable as one before was my first post, because it would be nonsense.

Don't be fooled that your intuition from a very limited information point of view enables you to know more about weapons and warfighting than the actual people designing and using these weapons.

I freely confess that having been part of the light infantry in Italy (Alpini) I'm more than happy to stay out of a tanks way. So while I'm out of my lane when it comes to the specifics I can vouch how important it is to keep fuel consumption (water) from the logistics low.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The MTU MB973 engine in the Leopard 2 will burn 275 kg of diesel fuel at 1,100 kW (1,500 hp) while the AGT-1500 in the M1 Abrams will burn 305 kg at the same power. The difference in fuel consumption comes in the way the gas turbine AGT-1500 provides power output compared to a piston driven engine that is not just determined by fuel consumption. At partial power loads the AGT-1500 can be burning just as much fuel as at full power whereas the MB973’s fuel consumption lowers with its power output. This means in typical combat movement the Leopard 2 will burn less fuel than the Abrams (up to half as much) because at all those times the tank in battle is not providing maximum torque to the tracks it is burning less fuel.

However when travelling from A to B on its own tracks in operational manoeuvre that Finn seems to be so upset about the difference in consumption between the two can be a lot less. At top speed the M1 will consume only 11% more fuel than the Leopard 2.

However it is reasonable to assume as much as twice fuel consumption for an M1 tank compared to a Leopard 2. But is this so bad? As long as you provide twice the fuel personnel in your units and have a ready supply it’s not going to matter anyway. Using pipelines it’s not real difference for long distance supply. No one is talking about any M1 tank users being the next Nazi Germany in 1944 without any access to fuel supplies so who cares?

Then of course there are all the advantages of the turbine engine. Stealth through lower acoustic signature. Much better torque response for rapid acceleration (avoiding getting blown up). More internal space consumed by fuel tanks which provides better protection for things inboard of the tanks. These are significant three combat advantages over diesel engines.

Gas turbines work and work well. With the advent of electric transmission in the XM1200 they are redundant but a reasonable idea for the time.

 

[kato]

Mmmh, GÜZ?

Nah, 'bout 100-150 km northwest. Don't think they store Leos around there...

 

[eckherl]

I just googled the Swedish Army trial and found different numbers. Mind that this was a M1A1 without APU and it is questionable how trustworthy the numbers are.



So the APU makes clearly far more sense for the Abrams and is key to narrow the huge consumption gap down. Meanwhile even without an APU the ever more efficient diesels are far better suited to cruise long distances and for therefor for mobile warfare on a grand scale. By consuming far less - the numbers say almost half - the burden for the logistic is immensly lessened. This is a huge asset in expeditionary warfare, where every gallon fuel must brought forward at great prize and effort.


I know of the ability of the USA to supply its troops, but as I said before a gas guzzler on the frontline means a lot more effort from the tail to supply them. BTW: Was it I or II?



I never said that the Leo was more deployable as one before was my first post, because it would be nonsense.



I freely confess that having been part of the light infantry in Italy (Alpini) I'm more than happy to stay out of a tanks way. So while I'm out of my lane when it comes to the specifics I can vouch how important it is to keep fuel consumption (water) from the logistics low.

Who cares about the tail section as you and some others like to state, if you have the ability to safe guard them then what is the issue, the numbers given to you by Abraham Gubler are in fact pretty close to the testing results, the Greek trial numbers also compared close to this, for a smaller less advanced/equipped military force structure those numbers can be a breaking point and have been for some M1 series sales, even with Australia`s recent purchase the U.S added fuel and transport vehicles to the package with a few other goodies. Also there is not that much effort to hot fuel a tank company, things move rather post haste. And yes I do have experience in regards to Iraq and few other spots on the world atlas.

 

[eckherl]

The MTU MB973 engine in the Leopard 2 will burn 275 kg of diesel fuel at 1,100 kW (1,500 hp) while the AGT-1500 in the M1 Abrams will burn 305 kg at the same power. The difference in fuel consumption comes in the way the gas turbine AGT-1500 provides power output compared to a piston driven engine that is not just determined by fuel consumption. At partial power loads the AGT-1500 can be burning just as much fuel as at full power whereas the MB973’s fuel consumption lowers with its power output. This means in typical combat movement the Leopard 2 will burn less fuel than the Abrams (up to half as much) because at all those times the tank in battle is not providing maximum torque to the tracks it is burning less fuel.

However when travelling from A to B on its own tracks in operational manoeuvre that Finn seems to be so upset about the difference in consumption between the two can be a lot less. At top speed the M1 will consume only 11% more fuel than the Leopard 2.

However it is reasonable to assume as much as twice fuel consumption for an M1 tank compared to a Leopard 2. But is this so bad? As long as you provide twice the fuel personnel in your units and have a ready supply it’s not going to matter anyway. Using pipelines it’s not real difference for long distance supply. No one is talking about any M1 tank users being the next Nazi Germany in 1944 without any access to fuel supplies so who cares?

Then of course there are all the advantages of the turbine engine. Stealth through lower acoustic signature. Much better torque response for rapid acceleration (avoiding getting blown up). More internal space consumed by fuel tanks which provides better protection for things inboard of the tanks. These are significant three combat advantages over diesel engines.

Gas turbines work and work well. With the advent of electric transmission in the XM1200 they are redundant but a reasonable idea for the time.

The U.S Army learned a important lesson during the ETO operations during WW2, how many times did the Allies have to stop so that their supply lines could catch up, not a good situation to be in, they designed their logistical support system to assist in preventing this issue from happening again.

Even though they are designed to be multi fuel do not put Mogas or JP 4 or 7 into them, emergency use only means emergency use only. I would also like to add that the fuel cells are designed with purpose to add to the protection value of M1 series tanks, they are designed with baffels and of honeycomb structure, I believe that the Merkava series also benefits from this fuel cell design also.

 

[the road runner]

If I could also add that the U.S has equipment pre staged in different regions and will more than likely expand on this.

The U.S ability to supply Armor units with logistical support is by far one of the most sophisticated systems currently in use world wide, I have never run out out beans, bullets or diesel in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, the vehicles used in supply trains are designed specifically to keep pace with forward attack elements when they are called upon, I should also add that heavy and medium airborne assetts in terms of helicopters also do a good job of dropping off fuel bladders and projectile bins if needed.

I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.

Lucky that Australia,with its M1A1 is also able to tap into the US logistics support,in my opinion this is a major bonus for Australia.I also read about the US marines in Iraq using C-130s to replenish there Armoured units with fuel bladders.Also heard about a few M1's pulling up to iraq petrol stations.Fill her up please

Considering Singapore a very close Allie of Australia,i am wondering if Australia C-17 would be used to help Singapore deploy its Leo2 in dealing in a certain task when Time is an issue?(Great pic Aussie Digger)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia can supply its M1A1. We only have 60 of them, with less than that deployable at anyone time. We have trucks, Chinooks, C-17, hercs and two of the biggest LHD's avalible outside of the US Marines. The supply issue would be a more valid argument if we had 200+ tanks. Any overseas deployments would almost certainly use existing US logistics (which we would have even with the lepoards).

I remember the cries when we first got them, oh they were going to destroy the harbour bridge with their weight and empty bass straight oil fields when used. Please, its just 60 tanks, with fuel consumption inline of a helicopter.

I don't think there would be a major issue with Australia airlifting Singapores tanks. There is a increasingly strong defence links between the two countries. But it would have to be a very specific situation. Australia would most likely use its renewed M1A1's, and any additional lift would quiet likely use the american heavy lifters.

Certainly regionally Australia seems to hold much of the heavy strategic lift (air and sea). It would certainly underpin any mass multinational regional deployment.

 

[winnyfield]

I also read about the US marines in Iraq using C-130s to replenish there Armoured units with fuel bladders.Also heard about a few M1's pulling up to iraq petrol stations.Fill her up please

One consideration is that the US Army/MC operates a lot of helicopters. In the early days of A'stan, C-17s would air refuel then offload the fuel on the ground. There's an effort to make all US military vehicles compatible with JP-8 (jet fuel).

Regarding the gas turbine, useful read: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64444 Most who have used it, like it.

PS: there a video out there (I saw it ages ago) of US Marines doing some deep water crossings with the Abrams. Anyone have it?

Found it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eko1rxeoybA"]YouTube - m1a1 tank[/ame]

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think most of the vechicals are aren't they? Even the diesel powered bikes?

Certainly the logistics of moving different fuels around would be a massive head ache.

 

[Firn]

We should open a specific topic devoted to the supply issues especially concerning fuel.

Eckherl and Gubler rightly point out that the US army was able to support the Abrams in Iraq. But when you say that as long as the (huge) tail is safeguarded it doesn't quite matter if one tank needs more than another than you are in stark contrast to US department of defense. For the specifics go to More capable warfighting through reduced fuel burden. It is needless to add that the wars in Iraq and especially Afghanistan have made an even stronger case to reduced the fuel consumption of the teeth.

Said that it is obvious that the M1 is a great choice for the defense of Australia and makes sense because of the deep cooperation between the USA and Australia. Although more than 70% of the supply of an armored division consists of fuel, making other things as spars seem less important a shared vehicle pool eases mantainence greatly.

 

[Waylander]

Nah, 'bout 100-150 km northwest. Don't think they store Leos around there...

Ah, RÜZ.

Makes sense if one wants to alo of serious live firing in addition to some nice AGDUS runs.

Only running A4s over there should be the ones of the Panzertruppenschule.
But I have no idea where the BW stores it's surplus Leos anyway...

 

[eckherl]

Lucky that Australia,with its M1A1 is also able to tap into the US logistics support,in my opinion this is a major bonus for Australia.I also read about the US marines in Iraq using C-130s to replenish there Armoured units with fuel bladders.Also heard about a few M1's pulling up to iraq petrol stations.Fill her up please

Considering Singapore a very close Allie of Australia,i am wondering if Australia C-17 would be used to help Singapore deploy its Leo2 in dealing in a certain task when Time is an issue?(Great pic Aussie Digger)

Not only would they not get logistical support when needed, but they also get to tap into some of the technology and research packages for the M1 series tank, there is still plenty of upgrade packages that will keep this beast on the battlefield for quite some time.

 

[the road runner]

Not only would they not get logistical support when needed, but they also get to tap into some of the technology and research packages for the M1 series tank, there is still plenty of upgrade packages that will keep this beast on the battlefield for quite some time.

Another point i would like to add is that we will also have a pool of (Aussie)mechanics/engineers,ect,who could be used to work on US Abrams fleet and vice versa.
Im not sure if this is practiced.....but would like to know if anyone has any info?

OFF TOPIC=Is the Saudi Arabian Abrams of a less armour/capability than US and Aussie M1s?

 

[riksavage]

Slightly off topic but the recent SOND CHARA operation in Afghanistan fought over the Christmas period involving over 1200 British, Danish and Estonian troops of Task Force Helmand was supported by Leopard II's manned by the Danes. The attached photo shows a Danish Leopard fitted out with additional bar armour - nice looking bit of kit.

The following action report provides an overview of the contribution they made during the operation:

"Afghan and British reconnaissance elements, supported by Danish Leopard tanks then began forays into areas south of Nad E'Ali. The enemy was not at his strongest here, but these manoeuvres were designed to confuse and dislodge him. Under the cover of darkness, the Task Force tanks advanced from deep in the desert towards enemy positions. A battle ensued with the tanks and light reconnaissance vehicles being engaged with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The long range and high precision of the tank fire, however, together with the speed with which they could appear unexpectedly caught the enemy by surprise and in a final assault the enemy fired 107mm rockets at the tanks and recce vehicles, only to be met by return fire from the tank guns, mortars and missiles. In total, 31 tank rounds were fired onto the enemy positions and this dealt the enemy a final, deadly blow."

A Danish Officer said:

"Although tanks are big and heavy, the precise fire they delivered proved to be perfect close support to light reconnaissance troops on the ground. The Taliban were dealt a stinging defeat by a well-prepared force consisting of Afghan, British and Danish elements."

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/T...=400&imgHeight=250&alt=Danish Leopard II tank

The Leopard II must now be the heaviest piece of armour operated in the Afghanistan theatre (Denmark and possibly Canada moving forward). The US and UK are not currently operating M1's or Chally II as far as I'm aware?

 

[eckherl]

Another point i would like to add is that we will also have a pool of (Aussie)mechanics/engineers,ect,who could be used to work on US Abrams fleet and vice versa.
Im not sure if this is practiced.....but would like to know if anyone has any info?

OFF TOPIC=Is the Saudi Arabian Abrams of a less armour/capability than US and Aussie M1s?

Cooperation between countries during time of war is a important factor in a successful fight outcome that spells out a victory, I do not see why different countries militaries could not offer a helping hand to each other, especially getting battle damaged equipment back to the fight. I have relied on different countries providing some logistical support with some of the units that I have served with.

PS. Its a long story but do not ever depend on a U.S Marine unit promise to deliver chow or anything else for that matter to your unit (U.S Army) because you are land locked from flooding caused during Monsoon season.

As far as the Saudi M1 series goes I am sorry to say that mums the word on my part, meaning that it is classified.

 

[eckherl]

Slightly off topic but the recent SOND CHARA operation in Afghanistan fought over the Christmas period involving over 1200 British, Danish and Estonian troops of Task Force Helmand was supported by Leopard II's manned by the Danes. The attached photo shows a Danish Leopard fitted out with additional bar armour - nice looking bit of kit.

The following action report provides an overview of the contribution they made during the operation:

"Afghan and British reconnaissance elements, supported by Danish Leopard tanks then began forays into areas south of Nad E'Ali. The enemy was not at his strongest here, but these manoeuvres were designed to confuse and dislodge him. Under the cover of darkness, the Task Force tanks advanced from deep in the desert towards enemy positions. A battle ensued with the tanks and light reconnaissance vehicles being engaged with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The long range and high precision of the tank fire, however, together with the speed with which they could appear unexpectedly caught the enemy by surprise and in a final assault the enemy fired 107mm rockets at the tanks and recce vehicles, only to be met by return fire from the tank guns, mortars and missiles. In total, 31 tank rounds were fired onto the enemy positions and this dealt the enemy a final, deadly blow."

A Danish Officer said:

"Although tanks are big and heavy, the precise fire they delivered proved to be perfect close support to light reconnaissance troops on the ground. The Taliban were dealt a stinging defeat by a well-prepared force consisting of Afghan, British and Danish elements."

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/T...=400&imgHeight=250&alt=Danish Leopard II tank

The Leopard II must now be the heaviest piece of armour operated in the Afghanistan theatre (Denmark and possibly Canada moving forward). The US and UK are not currently operating M1's or Chally II as far as I'm aware?

You are correct, no U.S or UK heavies currently in Afghanistan, hopefully this will not change due to other firepower assets that we can depend on.

 

[riksavage]

You are correct, no U.S or UK heavies currently in Afghanistan, hopefully this will not change due to other firepower assets that we can depend on.

The Danes must be the first nation to use Leopard II's in a shooting war? I know the Canadians have being using Leopard I's in A-Stan but as yet I'm not aware of them bringing Leopard II's to the field.

Is the Danish Leopard the same version the Singaporeans have invested in?

 

[kato]

Erm, Canada leased those 20 A6M from Germany explicitly for Afghanistan and immediately deployed some of them there.

---

By rumours some Scandinavian Leo 2 fired a single round at a Serbian emplacement during the invasion of Kosovo. A German Leo 2 was hit by small arms fire in Kosovo. Germany averted the Macedonian city of Tetovo - ie. the KFOR base there - being taken by Albanian separatists in 2001 (under siege with snipers firing into the city) by moving Leo 2s into the city, however supposedly no shots were fired.

 

[eckherl]

The Danes must be the first nation to use Leopard II's in a shooting war? I know the Canadians have being using Leopard I's in A-Stan but as yet I'm not aware of them bringing Leopard II's to the field.

Is the Danish Leopard the same version the Singaporeans have invested in?

No, the Germans used them during the Balkan conflict. The Dane version is a Leo 2 A5 series while the Singaporeans use the Leo 2 A4 series. The Canadians are actually using Leo 2 A6 at the present moment.

Sorry Kato that I stepped on your toes.