Jump to content

Talk:Leopard 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cherry picked statistics

[edit]

The Leopard II has a speed of 39 MPH with the L/55 gun, and 44MPH with the L/44. Yet the information panel places the Leopard II with the L/55 gun, and 45 MPH. The only model that uses the L/55 gun is the A6 and that particular model comprises less than 1/10th of the Leopard II German fleet. So unless the panel specifies what equipment belongs to what model, we must select one and represent it well, not cherry pick the most favorable statistics from each model. 65.24.242.242 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Jade rat[reply]

Super Cherry Picking: Official top-speed record for the Leo 2A4 is 116 Km/h, or 73 mph. http://www.whq-forum.de/cms/27.0.html HTH, greetz from Germany --212.23.103.47 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference is when the inhibitors are unshackled, a practice avoided because of the damage the suspensions suffer. The American M1 has a similar issue and also requires shackles to prevent it from destroying parts sooner than was acceptable. The M1 has been clocked at 122km during tests, and I belive the T-90 has similar restraints placed upon it for reliability sake.

122 Km/h is not possible with standard gear box, you´d overspeed the n2 to about 180%. Impossible. 89.204.139.32 (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quatar

[edit]

Quatar will buy up to 200 Leopard 2s. [1] (in german).--78.43.36.236 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Added under 'Operators' (Future/Pending). C.d.rose (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi deal in doubt

[edit]

My reference says the Saudis may drop the proposed deal to buy Leopard 2s because it is taking too long to get approved. Why is it being deleted? America789 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you. It looks like that info should be in the article to me. People are citing WP:NOTNEWS, but I honestly can't figure out about how that policy is violated by the content. Can someone please say why it violates NOTNEWS instead of just saying over and over that it does violate it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not cover current events, unless it's an article that is specifically about a current event. And we don't add mere speculations, which is what this is. What more reasons for not adding it do you need? Thomas.W talk to me 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would contest even though the event is currently happening it is not a "current event" in the way intended by WP:NOTNEWS, The question of whether the Saudi Arabian government will (be able to?) purchase Leopard 2's is of importance to this article. As for the speculation claim, the source does seem somewhat speculative so that might be a reason not to include it, but it is referencing another news source (Handelsblatt) that might provide more insight, if I read german. Could the insert be rephrased to say something different, like: "Saudi Arabia has started negotiations with to purchase M1A1's and may be dropping its attempts to purchase the Leopard 1"?CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still just a speculation ("may be dropping its attempts"). And negotations about buying the M1A1 belong on M1 Abrams, not here. Thomas.W talk to me 17:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dave1185, I can't speak for America789, but your way of saying that is rather rude. It implies that there is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS that should be obvious to even the dumbest editor, and like I said above I'm still not quite clear on how it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe next time say something like "Can you please confirm you have read WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper? I believe it violates that policy in the following ways: ...". CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First question: No it's a talk page and I was offering helpful advice. Second question: No.CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third question: are you familiar with WP:Mind your own business? It reads:

"Many of the people attracted to writing an encyclopedia tend to enjoy mulling and deliberating on a variety of topics, and do not mind weighing in with their opinions when not asked. Involving yourself in a discussion over a political, social or cultural issue as it relates to articles is encouraged.

What is not encouraged is involving yourself in disputes or contentious issues that occur between editors themselves, unless it directly relates to you. Sometimes you may have information that is helpful in sorting out a dispute between editors. You should exercise caution and adhere to strict standards of civility when you attempt to enlighten a contentious discussion between editors. There is rarely a reason to jump into an argument, and doing so often ends up fanning the flames of the dispute, making resolution of the conflict less likely and damaging your own reputation in the process.

Usually, it is better just to butt out and let the editors resolve the problem between themselves."

Lastly and in future, please clarify with your fellow editors if you're not sure of their intentions. When in doubt, always assume the assumption of good faith by others. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third question: No CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to that it's just a speculation. If/when the Saudis decide not to go through with the deal a short mention of it can be added to the article, but not while it's just a speculation. Thomas.W talk to me 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the "pending" section of the article be considered speculation? It shows those who are interested but haven't decided formally to buy. The Saudis have shown their interest, and the possible dropping of the deal in favor of working with General Dynamics is stated, not guessed. The section as it is says nothing is finalized, and is being debated. Wouldn't something like this show the progression of trying to pass the deal, whether it goes through or not? America789 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short: Wikipedia is not a news reporting source, so WP:NOTNEWS, it also doesn't include speculation so WP:CRYSTALBALL, nor should it document controversy as it happens, instead taking a longer term view per WP:RECENTISM. When and if the deal is reliably reported as *actually* fallen through, it's a solid issue and should be included. This may only be in a few days time - or never. The pending section would be for future events which are certain / already scheduled.
I would just like to add that I recognise America789 is editing in good faith, and hope he doesn't feel too set upon. (Hohum @) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My text about the deal being dropped has been undone from the Leopard 2 page several times. That text put into the M1 Abrams page has been undone. This is information about a major development in a multi-billion dollar/euro arms deal that has been in the works for two years possibly being redirected to a different recipient. Everyone is clarifying WP: sources, but I cannot understand how this information isn't seen as relevant enough to be included in either Wikipedia article that it concerns. America789 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained clearly by several editors why. I cannot see how it can be explained any more clearly. (Hohum @) 17:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is not optional. Discuss how to improve the article, how wiki rules apply, etc, but not other editors - that is never fruitful. (Hohum @) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Leopards

[edit]

It was previously reported that the Defense Ministry had bought 153 tanks worth US$280 million from the German government, comprising 61 Leopard Ri tanks, 42 Leopard 2A4 tanks and 50 Marder tanks. The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | National | Mon, September 23 2013, 8:52 PM

So, what are the Leopard Ri?Crock81 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha, the Indonesian press seems to think the Leopard 2A4 Evolution armour upgrade is a different tank, and for some reason christened it Revolution. Lets hope its not an omen. Crock81 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty Map

[edit]

I removed a map (an image file depicting countries where Leopard 2 is in use) on account that it is no longer accurate and therefore contradicts the written information (and therefore goes against the WP:Rules). Apparently some editors think that the article should be used as a notice board and that the wrong map should remain in place, supposedly so that it is easy or convenient for future replacement. I don't see anywhere in WP:rules that makes an allowance for an error image file to remain on an article indefinitely until an updated image shows up. —Loginnigol (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image caption clearly said that the map showed Leopard 2 operators as of 2009. I have updated the image/map, adding Indonesia as an operator (using a very simple freeware image editor), and uploaded the new version to Commons, and also changed the image caption in the article to read status as of April 2014. Which took me about five minutes in total, that is far less time than you have spent on edit-warring over it. Thomas.W talk 09:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germany receives first Leopard 2A7 MBT

[edit]

Ex-A6NL converted to A7. UrbOp-Program canceled! http://www.janes.com/article/46904/germany-receives-first-leopard-2a7-mbt --178.24.63.207 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Army vehicles

[edit]

Hi Denniss, as you can see below, the "Turkish Army vehicles" category includes the Leopard 2, as well as dozens of other foreign-sourced vehicles. The category is not military vehicles produced by Turkey, but vehicles used by the Turkish Army. You can either add that category to the Leopard 2 page, or remove all those vehicles from that category.

Best, UCaetano (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Than add every single county that uses leopard 2 tanks, clearly this tab is unnecessary and mainly there to promote nationalistic agenda among nationalistic dick waving Turks. It is silly, nationalistic and stupid and totally unnecessary, if wiki can't see this than this encyclopedia might as well stop being encyclopedia and turn in to a nationalistic propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.171.98 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page belongs in that category, as it is a vehicle used by the Turkish Army. Please be polite when discussing here. UCaetano (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this template does not belong to the Leo 2 page for exactly the reason the IP stated. If everyone tags their vehicles this way we would have several tank articles plastered with user/usage templates. That's why we only accept templates from the original user or by-type or by timeframe templates. --Denniss (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to add templates to articles based on marginal relevance. The Turkish military uses the Leo 2, so what? Many other countries do so as well. The connection between the two is marginal and does not warrant a navigational template. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous standing consensus was WITH the category, for many months. Don't make an edit away from a previous consensus and comment saying "do not revert until new consensus is reached". That is exactly the opposite of how it should be done. Anyway, if you guys feel strongly about it, leave it off, don't really care as long as several editors support this change. UCaetano (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Benlisquare. This article should probably be included in Category:Main battle tanks of Turkey, but adding the Turkish vehicle template is not at all desirable or useful. We are not going to add a template for all countries that operate/d the Leopard 2, otherwise we could have 17 templates one on top of the other at the bottom of this article. I fail to see how that might be useful for the encyclopedia. It already has two useful templates. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category ≠ template. You're moving the goal posts here, UCaetano, since I never made a single mention about the category. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the initial comment by the IP mentioned "category", though it appears they "meant" template. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the template has no place on this page. Imagine the size of the mess applying the practice to widely used weapons like the T-54/55 or the M1911. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was a mix-up between category and template here, don't worry. I was just reverting an unexplained edit away from a previous consensus, not edit warring here folks :) UCaetano (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

shot-trap?

[edit]

The text says: "The A5 introduced a wedge-shaped, spaced add-on armour to the turret front and the frontal area of the sides. [...] it does not form a shot-trap since it doesn't deflect the penetrators outwards to hit the hull or turret ring."

It isn't obvious why the wedge-shaped armour doesn't form a shot-trap; is it because the spaced add-on armour is penetrated by all shots hitting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.232.253 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the text also mentions "deflect", shot-trap concerns are reasonable to address, no? BP OMowe (talk)
It is indeed reasonable to address. The reason is twofold. First, modern anti-tank rounds (AFSDS) do not ricochet in the same way that conventional AP rounds did. Second, the wedge on the Leopard 2A5 onward is not solid armor. It's multilayer composite, that absorbs and then internally destabilizes the APFSDS rod before it reaches the final armor plates of the turret front. The shell is meant to penetrate the outermost wedge portion and then be stopped inside it. — Red XIV (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)`[reply]

Fuel consumption

[edit]

The stated fuel consumption doesn't really sums up. It is stated, that the tanks needs 300 l/100km, yet it reaches with about 1200l of fuel 500km of range. With my maths this it should be about 400km. So either the stated range is wrong or the stated fuel consumption. Wurelbum (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel consumption is given here, or here as :
  • Road: 340 l/100 km, ie 340 km range ;
  • Offroad: 530 l/100 km, ie 220 km range ;
  • Mixed: 410 l/100 km, ie 280 km range.
  • Even the German's article reported it, before it was removed since it should be even worse now (7t more weight).
  • Bundeswehr confirms (page 7) 414 l/ 100 km, ie 280 km range on road/offroad (mixed) for Leopard 2A5/A6M.
Seems that the data reported in this article are wrong.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement : "more importance is being placed on direct fire guns"

[edit]

Huh ? please explain for civilians. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey/Syria

[edit]

I'm just trying to provide more references to this section. In December 2016, in the Al Bab offensive, IS have knocked out 10 Leopard 2 tanks (2A4s), and captured 2... it would seem to me, this would appear to be the most amount of action the Leo 2s have seen. If you have better references than I have put in there, please feel free to add. Also odd to see IS as owners of Leo 2s!. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


One should point out that the 2A4 lacks side, front and turret armory compared to YTD 2A6 and 2A7. 2A4 is basically 30 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.156.143 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only were they incredibly obsolete and unfit for the rolling hills of Germany let alone urban combat, and even worse was that they were sent in without infantry support. A2Bros (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leopard 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore numbers discrepancy

[edit]

New research does not match old figured whose sources have unfortunately expired. https://www.janes.com/article/86746/idex-2019-calidus-aims-b-250-at-middle-east-north-african-market --Jurryaany (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you listed covers the Calidus B-250 light attack aircraft. This article and this one from 2018 were the only ones from Jane's site covering Singapore denies Leopard 2 tanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the same gun currently used on the M1 Abrams"

[edit]

lol This sounds as if the Leopard 2 used the M1 Abrams gun. But it's the other way round: The Abrams use the german Rheinmetall Leopard 2 gun. To be more precise: to be able to fire our caseless ammunition, invented by German Rheinmetall chief engineer Dr. Stefan Thießen. How come that you can wager your boots that English Wiki articles are always full of this sort of subtle, manipulating U.S. propaganda and jingoism, how great they were. Unbefuckinglievable.

I second this. Ever since I joined this community, my stance is always to shoot people like this. The M256, the gun used on the Abrams, is based on the Rh L/44 gun, but there are several differences, the most important being the bore evacuator and the muzzle reference system being changed to fit the Abrams. Thank you for bringing this up, and I will be searching for whoever wrote that. A2Bros (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the actual article text and not assume. The full text actually says "The primary armament for production versions of the Leopard 2 is the Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun—the same gun later adapted for use on the M1 Abrams.." now. This is clear that the Leopard 2 had it first. This wording has been in the article for at least 3 years. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo 2 Imp

[edit]

I put it back as a separate variant as it is the missing link between the A4 and the forked development of the A5 and strv 122. The alternative, while keeping the time line intact, would be to insert it at the end of the A4 section, but that too has its problems. BP OMowe (talk)

Unit cost

[edit]

The unit cost is stated to be 5.74 million USD but the source says that these units were surplus , thus, the actual production cost will be higher. Also, the units were both the leopard 2A5 and the 2A6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DillieKoe (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Scandinavia(Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark)

[edit]

I saw a lot of sources on the use of the leopard in the nordic contries, but no discussion on it yet. How come? PisaTesting (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Produced: 1979–present

[edit]

Is there any source for that they are still being produced? I never heard about any new units expect upgrading older versions. Eurohunter (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian operation

[edit]

With the announcement by the German government of their intention to send Leo 2's, in addition to allowing other nations like Poland and Finland to do so as well, Ukraine should be moved to the list of active operators of the type. Their crews are already training on the tanks in Poland. Brett6781 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deliveries of Leopard 2 have not yet begun to AFU either in Ukraine or Poland. Ukraine will be moved to active operators when there is verifiable evidence of Ukranian possession and use. Reports at time of writing suggest that training is to be arranged. Atomix330 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is still current at time of posting. Atomix330 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With Polish delivery, Ukraine is now an operator. Atomix330 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sections/Pages

[edit]

Should longer sections about exports, variants, and operators be 'pruned' and spun off into their own individual pages? Atomix330 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Please, do not use the picture of 2A7+ with Trophy as the primary picture. The picture should represent the topic. Using a picture of the single-made technology demostrator is incorrect, as it doesn't represent this particular tank family. It's a very ambiguous image. Why not using AbramsX pic for M1 Abrams? Why not Panther KF51 for Leopard 2? RajatonRakkaus (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomix330 sorry, didn't manage to tag. I understand that quality matters. There are okay pictures of Leo 2 in Commons, it's not needed to use the photo of the tank which doesn't even look like Leo 2. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other photos of the 2A7 on Commons but the one of the demonstrator is visually the clearest - a little further research shows that it is equivalent to the Leopard 2A7+ ordered by Qatar and Hungary. I have found a replacement image of a German 2A7 and I have updated the caption. Atomix330 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About that picture, it is labelled as a German 2A7 , but the front of the hull looks a lot more like a 2A5, also owned by Germany. Are you sure that it is labelled correctly? Gianfilippo96 (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for choosing a different photo is that the uploader of this particular photo has a history of uploading photos to wikimedia in violation of our WP:COPYVIO policies. Lklundin (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page is atrocious, needs to be tidied up

[edit]

There's no logical flow to this entire article. Just looking at it gives me a headache. The order of topics covered starts promisingly with the development, some very precise information about the pre-series and prototypes, and then the quality of the page drops off rapidly, with cobbled together pieces of commercial marketing information from vendors proposing upgrades, to a unreasonably exhaustive coverage of ALL news related to Ukraine in the MIDDLE of the page, which then resumes with the technical details of the vehicle. Just a MESS. The layout I propose: 1. History/development 2. Technical description of vehicle/armament 3. Variants 4. Service history 5. Users, former and current. Podlesok86 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a photo to the Ukranian section of the article

[edit]

I think it would be useful to add photos to the ukranian section of the combat history. These two photos especially i would like to add: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4wa8CaXkAAAn3-?format=jpg&name=large and this https://newsyou.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/zsu-tank-leopard.jpg , as far as i know the author of both photos is wm_blood, i think an attempt should be made at contacting him for permission to use them D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pz 87–140

[edit]

The page mentions the Pz 87–140 as a Swiss prototype and the source is only one single image. I found a potential source from the Military Museum Full, which says it has the prototype as an exhibit. NiciBozz (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove a paragraph

[edit]

> According to Ukrainian soldier Oleksandr Solonko, their ability to withstand damage is superior to Soviet tanks due to its design that stores ammunition separately from the crew to explode outward if struck, enabling crewmembers to survive hits that would be fatal in a T-72 that stows ammunition under the turret. Damaged Leopard 2s can be repaired in Poland or Germany


I think this paragraph should be removed, i don't think Ukrainian soldiers talking about western tech in western interviews are a source reliable enough that it doesn't warrant scrutiny (and i think this statement warrants scrutiny), since the interviewed soldier could be kiss assing western tech, or they could just be plain wrong (soldiers can still be very wrong, just look at all the negative sherman reviews despite it being a great tank)


There is several reasons i am doubting this statement as being credible, first of all what does it mean by "withstand damage"? Because the wording implies not just crew survivability but armor in general, and there are many soviet build (even if modernized) tanks in Ukrainian service like the T-64BV zr 2017 that as far as i am aware of have better armor then the Leopard 2A4, off course there is the Leopard 2A6 but the 2A4 makes up the majority of leopards in UA service


And also the wording implies that the T-72 is a death trap, which it isn't, the CIA actually praised it's crew survivability during the cold war, it's certainly not as survivable as, for example, the abrams with it's blow out panels and more spread apart crew, but the T-72 is still an upgrade over previous generation tanks like the M60, T-62, Chieftain and etc crew survivability wise. That's because as long as the spare turret racks aren't filled the T-72 can't be ammoracked by a hit to the turret (due to the ammo being deep in the hull), making it basically un-explodable if it is hulldown D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard 2A4HU camouflage pattern.

[edit]

I think we should add this little detail when it comes to the RAL codes for the pattern.

https://forum.htka.hu/threads/hun-harci-eszkoezoek-uj-alcazo-festese.2425/page-9

The person arcas has posted on 2022. July. 29. the following:


Nem is értem, hogy eddig egy újságirónak sem jutott eszébe, hogy a eleresszen egy e-mailt a HM-nek, hogy a sok bemutatott szinváltozat közül végül melyik lesz az, amelyet a MH hivatalos mintájának tekinthetünk ill. hogy hivatalosan miért is ilyen nagy a szórás, ha már milliárdokat ölünk "High-Tech Force"-ra.

Hozzáteszem, Tata adta meg korábban -mondhatjuk hivatalosan- a Leo2A4-ek szinkódjait egyedül:

"A festésminta hivatalos, gyári színkódjai:

1. alapszín (40-50%) a NATO-zöld (RAL 6031);

2. mellékszín (20-25%) a barnásszürke (RAL 7013);

3. első kiegészítő szín (5-10%) az antracitszürke (RAL 7016);

4. második kiegészítő szín (5-10%) a bézs (RAL 1001)."


Briefly, he states he had shot an message to the HDF with question regarding the RAL codes for the leopards and supposedly responded with this.

We have received Gidrán's with the wrong colors, when the lynx was finally put on showcase it was using Rheinmetal's camouflage, etc. This is why it became a discussion and email sent.


I aswell seen a post older than this with the same RAL codes stated, i will try my best to find it again to cite source.


Whoever could provide some useful insight / cite source is more than welcome ^^ Shotya (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the variants section of the article to a separate article.

[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the article for Leopard 2 is marked as "Too long to read and navigate comfortably" earlier when I was reading through the article. I suggest we can take the "Variants" segment of the article and make it it's entirely own article, as this would cut down quite a huge chunk of the words on the page. Trashpanda115 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and created a quick draft article of what the Leopard 2 Variants page should look like. It can be found at Draft:List of Leopard 2 Variants. Please consider checking this draft out, and contributing a few necessary edits to it if you wish. As of the time of posting this reply, a few citations on the draft page are broken, and I do not know how to fix them. Trashpanda115 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a T-54/T-55 operators and variants article since 2007. The variants and operators portion of the Leopard 2 article is of similar scale, so splitting the article in a similar fashion would certainly be reasonable. — Red XIV (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the reason I believe the Leopard 2 should have an article similar to this. Not only would it make this article more readable, but it would make it easier to read and access the list of variants, and the list of operators, IF that is added to the article in the end. Trashpanda115 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the article was denied, Ironically with the comment "Most claims are unsourced." Which means the original variants section in this article is A, not fit for Wikipedia standards, and B, too long for the original article. Not sure what to do moving forwards since I no longer have the time to bother with any of this. Trashpanda115 (talk) Trashpanda115 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the user who declined that draft article was herself indefinitely blocked 2 weeks later for harassment and trolling, I would take that with a grain of salt. While there would certainly be room for more citations to be added, IMO your draft seems worthy of splitting off from this article. — Red XIV (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing me back to this! I kind of forgot about this after getting busy with my own life. If you wish to help to get this back up for creation I would be glad to co-operate with you. Trashpanda115 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the transfer to Ukraine section should also be its own section as its so large as it stands UnfairWoodPecker (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia as operator

[edit]

Russia has captured some leopard 2s and from what I have seen of some of captured leopards they are in no condition for operation. Additinally why would Russia operate them as they have no spare parts for them. So i suggest removing them from the operators sections and into a separate one UnfairWoodPecker (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and removed. Capture is not operation, and the source didn't support operation. (Hohum @) 14:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In Under One Minute"

[edit]

There is this statement on the Combat History section:

"On 22 October 2024, Leopard 2A4 of the 33rd Mechanized Brigade successfully engaged and destroyed two Russian Armoured Personnel Carriers in less than one minute"

The article in the linked source

https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/russia-ukraine-war-2022/exclusive-ukrainian-leopard-2a4-destroys-two-russian-apcs-in-under-a-minute-showcasing-precision-and-power

does state the same, but the linked video shows only 1 hit APC. Additionally, the video is cut every couple seconds, with at least 10 shots from different angles by the Leopard without showing the impact. In my opinion the phrasing "in under one minute" should be removed as it is unclear how much time passes between the countless jump cuts in the video. Additionally, the video does not clearly indicate 2 APC losses. Definetly 1 hit but unclear to what extent damaged or destroyed, while the other APC retreats before the video ends. 2A02:8108:8A80:753A:A108:B47C:F2AD:F3B9 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leopard_2&oldid=1257864878"