Portugal buys leopard MBT from netherlands

[.pt]

Hi all,

Just saw in a newspaper an article regarding planned military expenditures for Portugal, wich stated plans in a advanced stage to buy about 36 leopard A6 from netherlands stock. Considering that currently the Portuguese army can field about 100 M60 MBT, quite old and worn out, this will be a big step in modernising mechanised forces in our country. Not knowing the numbers, what is your opinion, is this a good buy, in terms of MBT for a modern Army? Also some information on the state of these MBT and what variations they have from the "standard" version would be helpful. Guess we are going the same way as our spanish neighbours...

 

[swerve]

Hi all,

Just saw in a newspaper an article regarding planned military expenditures for Portugal, wich stated plans in a advanced stage to buy about 36 leopard A6 from netherlands stock. Considering that currently the Portuguese army can field about 100 M60 MBT, quite old and worn out, this will be a big step in modernising mechanised forces in our country. Not knowing the numbers, what is your opinion, is this a good buy, in terms of MBT for a modern Army? Also some information on the state of these MBT and what variations they have from the "standard" version would be helpful. Guess we are going the same way as our spanish neighbours...

Leopard A6? I presume that's Leopard 2A6. About bloody time! Everyone else west of the old Iron Curtain except Belgium has retired old MBTs in favour of Leopard 2 or their own equivalents, & at least the Belgians have made a decision & announced it - even though in their case the decision was to give up tanks in favour of wheeled AFVs.

The Leopard 2A6 is more or less what the Spanish are building for themselves. It has the L/55 120mm gun, allowing a higher m/v & thus greater penetration than can be achieved from the L/44 gun of the original Leo 2, additional armour, & improved FCS. The Dutch Leo 2A6 are not new-built as A6, but upgraded from the early model Leo 2s originally bought by the Netherlands. I believe Spain intends to upgrade the Leo 2A4 it leased from Germany to A6 standard, & keep them when the lease expires.

The additional armour varies a bit, depending on which batch. The Dutch & German A6 conversions aren't identical to the Spanish & Greek new-build. I don't know enough to describe the differences in detail.

Interesting they've decided to go the whole hog & buy the only secondhand A6 on the market, instead of A4, which is what the rest of the surplus stock consists of. 36 isn't many. Even Norway & Denmark have bought more. Maybe they'll get some A4 as well, & bring them up to the same standard.

Thanks for posting that. Interesting to hear.

 

[.pt]

leoparrd 2A6

You presume right, its the 2A6 variant.As far as the news went, i think its a done deal, because they already are setting up technical exchange officers, etc.
And right now that, and some other expenditures are on the parliament for discussion and aproval. As for the quantity, well...Portugal is a small and poor country(compare GDP with norway and see...), wich is experiencing a very tough economical crisis, so just the fact that they bought some armour at all is very relevant, besides, since 1992, when we received the last M60A3(by then already obsolete), and for the last 30 years the investment in new armour has benn almost zero, so yes for the Portuguese Army its a big step.The news also stated that these would be integrated in 3 12 MBT squadron. Financial details and formation, spare parts etc. were not disclosed.
Also please remember that lately the Portuguese Army only invested in wheeled light vehicles, and even that after very lengthy talks, so this buy is something to celebrate. Any more info on these MBT would be wellcome.

 

[Waylander]

Good decision. It is a very big step from M60A3 to Leopard IIA6.

The differences between the Spanish Leopard IIE and your Leopard IIA6:
- Spanish Leos have improved armor at the front hull.
- Spanish Leos have new TI/Optic system.
- Spanish Leos have a battlefield management system
- Spanish Leos have an integrated APU

That's nearly everything I would like to see at the Leo IIA6 .
Besides thisthe Leo IIA6 is a formidable first class tank.


Which type of coax/AA MG do you use in Portugal? Instead of using the MG3 like most of the Leo II users the Netherlands use a FN MG n their Leos. So you are also going to use them on the Leos or you implement your own MG.

 

[swerve]

More about Leopard 2 here -

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/leo2.htm

And plenty of links to other relevant sites.

 

[.pt]

Leopard 2

Thanks for the link Swerve.

About the coax mg, dont know, reports are still very vague, we´ll just have to wait and see, but for now i supose they will retain their current mg, that would be the FN. But we were always in love of german designs, so...
And just because of that, wonder what will happen in the next few years, because we really are in in need of a new rifle, if the funding becames available.
Currently several batches of H&K G3 are used all around in army and police, but their operationality is something else. Was real sad to me seeing the Portuguese plant for these and other weapons dismantled and sold.At the auction still had the oportunity to grab some "recuerdos", but everything went either to civilian or foreign arms/ammo dealers.

 

[Waylander]

The G3 is not a bad rifle and if you upgrade it like the Swedish did (With new optics, grenade launcher, etc) it becomes a really good weapon again.

 

[.pt]

rifle

Yes the G-3 is not a bad rifle, but the problem here is that many of these rifles in use or storage have gone trough extensive use (back in the 60´s and early 70´s in Africa), as well as normal use over 40 years in our armed forces, so they real are worn out, at least most batches. Wonder what would be the cost of refurbishing and upgrading them?? Perhaps it would make more sense to buy a new weapon, the Army sure thinks that way. Also they are chambered to 7,62 not NATO 5,56.The H&K G36 would be nice..or some other modern assault rifle i guess.

 

[contedicavour]

The L2A6 buy is certainly a huge improvement.
The only remark I have is that , as an alternative, it might have been even better to equip reco/cavalry squadrons with 8-wheel armored fighting vehicles such as the Centauro in service in Italy and Spain. Reason why is that wheeled vehicles are lighter, faster, easier to deploy in overseas missions, and can be operated on more terrains than tracked vehicles.
I understand your L2A6 are second-hand from the Netherlands, but if it came to a new buy, it would be more efficient to buy 100+ Centauros for the same cost of 35-40 L2 approx.

cheers

 

[.pt]

Apc

Contedicavour,

That part is already covered, the Portuguese MoD has already signed a contract with Steyr-Daimler-Puch to purchase some 260 units of the Pandur family of wheelhed armoured vehicles. These will be assembled locally, originating some 15(!!) subtypes as this vehicle will equip not only the army, but also the navy.
some variants will include 12.7mm MG up to 120 mm mortar, all based around the steyr SP 30 turret.
I do remember that in 2004/5 we also bought some italian wheeled vehicles in a hurry for the deployment of our Police in Iraq, dont know numbers, type or company. But these were an interim need, by special agreement, so not to be included in regular buys.
The reason the Portuguese army is buying those Leopard MBT, is that it wants to retain some heavy firepower in armoured terms, for possible deployments in a UN frame or Nato. Nothing to do with our spanish neighbours.

 

[contedicavour]

Contedicavour,

That part is already covered, the Portuguese MoD has already signed a contract with Steyr-Daimler-Puch to purchase some 260 units of the Pandur family of wheelhed armoured vehicles. These will be assembled locally, originating some 15(!!) subtypes as this vehicle will equip not only the army, but also the navy.
some variants will include 12.7mm MG up to 120 mm mortar, all based around the steyr SP 30 turret.
I do remember that in 2004/5 we also bought some italian wheeled vehicles in a hurry for the deployment of our Police in Iraq, dont know numbers, type or company. But these were an interim need, by special agreement, so not to be included in regular buys.
The reason the Portuguese army is buying those Leopard MBT, is that it wants to retain some heavy firepower in armoured terms, for possible deployments in a UN frame or Nato. Nothing to do with our spanish neighbours.

I understand the logic behind L2A6 acquisition.
The wheeled fighting vehicles I was talking about wasn't AIFVs but 105- or 120-mm gun 8x8 vehicles, real tank busters if needed, though lighter and faster than MBTs.
Several armies are considering replacing part or all of their MBTs with these vehicles (such as the Centauro, but also like the French AMX-10RC) which are better suited to overseas deployment than 60-ton behemoths.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

Maybe Portugal is forced by NATO to do so. For example Germany is committed to have one fully operational tank division ready for NATO use if NATO is under attack.
Could be the same with Portugal only in smaller numbers.

 

[.pt]

armoured vehicles

I can also see your logic behind that type of vehicles, i looked them up, and indeed they seem to be a very good option if you need some very mobile antitank guns, for the type of deployment we are talking about. Certainly in terms of cost, mobility, and i think maintenance they are good options.I think the problem here is funding and the army probably made an option, because right now, Navy is getting the lion share in investments. But considering that right now deployments are being made to East timor(police), afghanistan and Bosnia or Kosovo (all very small detachments) certainly that would be my choice. My question is, and what about survivability against modern MBT, such as Abrams, Leopard and challenger? these beasts can also drive fast, shoot far aaccurately and fast? If we are talking about old soviet designs that are current in almost every 3rd world country, with zero maintenance, outdated armour, guns and ammo, not very sofisticated FCS, and poorly trained crews, ok.
Waylander, about that dont know, perhaps so. My guess is they thought, well, instead of having 100 M60A3 MBT wich are obsolete, for the wich we cannot provid crews with apropriate training(funding, too many MBT), why dont we buy a decently modern MBT in small number, fund maintenance,crew training and ordnance properly, and have a small, but efective force? it all falls in line with the recent change from a conscript army to a professional army, smaller, but more efective, or so they think.Also the mission wich the Army is likely to be charged nowadays is not traditional defense warfare against our esteemed tradional neighbours and enemy, the spanish but rather international deployments in suport of Nato or UN, or whatever peacekeeping missions apear (just like East timor), so theres a need for smaller but more modern forces, instead of sending our soldiers with little less tha slingshwell

 

[contedicavour]

I can also see your logic behind that type of vehicles, i looked them up, and indeed they seem to be a very good option if you need some very mobile antitank guns, for the type of deployment we are talking about. Certainly in terms of cost, mobility, and i think maintenance they are good options.I think the problem here is funding and the army probably made an option, because right now, Navy is getting the lion share in investments. But considering that right now deployments are being made to East timor(police), afghanistan and Bosnia or Kosovo (all very small detachments) certainly that would be my choice. My question is, and what about survivability against modern MBT, such as Abrams, Leopard and challenger? these beasts can also drive fast, shoot far aaccurately and fast? If we are talking about old soviet designs that are current in almost every 3rd world country, with zero maintenance, outdated armour, guns and ammo, not very sofisticated FCS, and poorly trained crews, ok.
Waylander, about that dont know, perhaps so. My guess is they thought, well, instead of having 100 M60A3 MBT wich are obsolete, for the wich we cannot provid crews with apropriate training(funding, too many MBT), why dont we buy a decently modern MBT in small number, fund maintenance,crew training and ordnance properly, and have a small, but efective force? it all falls in line with the recent change from a conscript army to a professional army, smaller, but more efective, or so they think.Also the mission wich the Army is likely to be charged nowadays is not traditional defense warfare against our esteemed tradional neighbours and enemy, the spanish but rather international deployments in suport of Nato or UN, or whatever peacekeeping missions apear (just like East timor), so theres a need for smaller but more modern forces, instead of sending our soldiers with little less tha slingshwell

If a L2A6 or M1A2 were facing a Centauro or AMX-10RC, these wheeled tank busters would have to rely on shooting first and leveraging higher speed to run away (hopefully using the terrain's features to hide as soon as possible). The Centauro exists with 120-mm gun (though the regular Centauros equipping 9 Italian cavalry regiments have 105-mm) which is comparable to the MBTs' main gun, so it does have good chances of destroying a MBT if it shoots first.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

The problem in this thoughts is that everywhere else than flat terrain and streets the normal MBT is faster and more maneuverable. And he is also able of using the terrain.
One of the main problems of these vehicles is that there are much more weapons which are able to destroy them, especially by infantry.
So they are lacking the punch for a powerfull offensive and the steadtfastness o hold out in the defense against a major enemy.
I would not bet my live on being always the first to hit the opponent.

But as said before for missions in Africa, etc. they are wonderfull.

 

[contedicavour]

The problem in this thoughts is that everywhere else than flat terrain and streets the normal MBT is faster and more maneuverable. And he is also able of using the terrain.
One of the main problems of these vehicles is that there are much more weapons which are able to destroy them, especially by infantry.
So they are lacking the punch for a powerfull offensive and the steadtfastness o hold out in the defense against a major enemy.
I would not bet my live on being always the first to hit the opponent.

But as said before for missions in Africa, etc. they are wonderfull.

I agree the Centauros' (or similar vehicles) purpose is not to go dead against MBTs in a classical showdown, because they would suffer many more hits than the more armored opponents.
The one thing I disagree with is manoevrability : Centauros are faster and more at ease in more than flat terrain and urban environment. With their all-terrain 8 wheels they are perfectly fine in mountaineous areas for example. Actually the Centauros were built for the rugged terrains of the Appenines and the Alpine valleys in Italy. I've seen them climbing 30+° up rocky hillsides... the only terrain where I'm pretty sure the MBT is unbeatable is the type of desert that has high sand dunes.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

A tracked vehicle is definitely more manueverable than a wheeled one in every harder terrain. For example the Leopard II is able to climb a 60% grade.

Only size could become a problem in mountaineous areas but for real mountain troops there are other vehicles like BV-290, Wiesel, Mules.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A tracked vehicle is definitely more manueverable than a wheeled one in every harder terrain. For example the Leopard II is able to climb a 60% grade.

Only size could become a problem in mountaineous areas but for real mountain troops there are other vehicles like BV-290, Wiesel, Mules.

agree. ADF's experience with wheeled armoured in East Timor hilighted the fact that tracks were also better in boggy terrain. Also Aust Centurions were able to negotiate Vietnamese jungle where its debatable that even current wheeled armour would get through.

the advantage of tracks over wheels in those environments is that the ground pressure is distributed for the vehicle unoiformly - whereas wheels create multiple points of potential friction and inertia.

 

[Big-E]

How can Holland afford to give up 1/3 of her MBTs?

 

[Waylander]

1/3 is not that much. There is no red army trying to push right to the channel. The target is to be able to do oversea missions together with allies and to conserve the armored warfare knowledge and capabilities.
For example during cold war we had thousands of tanks in Germany. Next year there will be round about 350 remaining MBTs.