1/ 2024 is shaping up to be a bit of a year of the Leopard, a brief summary of plans afoot to make even more Leopard 2 users and variants a reality, which is always a good thing.
An open-ended, non-exhaustive list of actual & speculative users going on as of February 2024:
2/ 🇮🇹 Italy: Leopard 2A8
The Italians are looking at a medium-term successor to the Ariete (pictured), despite that tank still being in the midst of an MLU, with long term aspirations to join MGCS (or whatever emerges when it finally gives up).
3/ They plan to do a lot of the work domestically, building at a Leonardo production line in La Spezia and fitting with Italian industry components including sights, radios, C2 suite and potentially domestic manufactured barrel for L55A1 gun.
Anticipated production run: 130x 2A8.
4/ 🇱🇹 Lithuania: Leopard 2A7/2A8
Lithuania is after a modest batch of 2A7 or 2A8 standard Leopard 2, adding a punchier capability to its Army that currently has nothing heavier than the Vilkas Boxer IFV fleet.
5/ Selection was based on a few variables including value of the LEOBEN user community for collaborative support and cost sharing, that they already operate German AFVs and have good arrangements for support, as well as fast delivery.
Anticipated production run: 50x tanks.
6/ 🇨🇿 Czechia: Leopard 2A7, 2A4, ARV
14x 2A4 and a Buffel ARV requested to get moving with the platform, meanwhile negotiations in progress to possibly order new 2A7 or 2A8-series tanks.
Anticipated Production run: c.50x 2A7.
7/ 🇭🇺 Hungary: Leopard 2A7HU, 2A4, AVLB, ARV
Deliveries are underway and first vehicles are in user's hands, arriving alongside a sizeable 209-vehicle order for KF-41 Lynx IFVs. It also has a natty camouflage to differentiate nicely from all the other 2A7 knocking about.
8/ The 2A7HU are replacing legacy T-72 tanks obtained from the Soviet Union, though only c.30 T-72M1 remain in service with 130 more optimistically described as in reserve.
Production run: 44x 2A7HU, with second hand vehicles: 12x 2A4, 9x AVLB and 9x Buffel
9/ 🇳🇴 Norway: Leopard 2A8NO
Ordered in 2023 as 2A7NO but later upgraded the order to 2A8NOs, selected over the K2NO in competitive tender, Norway’s newest Leopards will replace 28 rather old 2A4NO that are well past their best.
Production run: 54 2A8NO + option for 18 more
10/ 🇸🇰 Slovakia: Leopard 2A8
Slovakia bought 15 2A4 in 2022, all of which have been delivered, and are now showing interest in new build 2A8 to significantly uplift their capabilities.
Production run: 45-50 2A8.
11/ 🇪🇸 Spain: Leopardo 2E M2/M2+
Spain operates a mixed fleet of 2A4 and 2E (the latter a 2A6 derivative), and are looking at a pathway to upgrade to a 2A7/2A8 analogue called the 2E M2+.
12/ Previous twitter thread on this upgrade plan:
Production run: not stated yet, likely in the 50-120 range.
13/ 🇭🇷 Croatia: Leopard 2A8
Possible replacement for the very old M-84, reportedly in competition with K2 and possibly Leclerc XLR.
Production run: not stated yet, likely c.50.
14/ 🇬🇷 Greece: Leopard 2A7HEL
Discussions underway to upgrade a sizeable portion of the 170x 2HEL (2A6 analogue) to the 2A7 standard, doubtless this would be uplifted to 2A8 in any contractual agreement that may emerge.
Production run: not stated yet, likely in the 120-150 range.
15/ 🇩🇪 Germany: Leopard 2A7V/2A7A1/2A8
A sizeable upgrade was completed in late 2023 to deliver 104x 2A7V, upgraded from a mix of 2A4/2A6-derivatives/2A7 (obtained from the Dutch). 2A7A1 was then developed, featuring Trophy integration...
16/ ..., and in 2023 a (first?) batch of 18 2A8 with option for 105 more was placed.
Production run: 104x 2A7V, 17x 2A7A1, 18x 2A8
17/ 🇵🇱 Poland: Leopard 2A4, 2A5, 2PL
As part of the most eclectic tank fleet in the world, Poland ordered a range of Leopard 2 from 2002 with as-is tanks and a bespoke national configuration, the 2PL. They've also bought Abrams, ordered K2 and have a myriad of old T-72 and PT-91s
Long term Poland plans to settle on fewer tank types, operating twin fleets of US-sourced M1 Abrams and Korean K2PL, eventually retiring the Leopard 2 fleets.
Production run: 86x 2A4, 105x 2A5, 62x 2PL
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#1 Another wave of Ajax noise & vibration (N&V) chatter has followed IOC. I’m not going to weigh in on either side, but here’s how we might spot if N&V issues are real or rumour – an off-the-cuff thread.
#2 If a platform exhibits N&V that is excessive, it will generally manifest most evidently in two places: people and systems.
#3 People means safety limits on time in vehicle or injury patterns. If one AFV’s usage limits are significantly lower than similar AFVs, that’s a red flag.
It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why us it a serious problem area for the UK?
I’ve broken into a few parts; on to part 3 – Why is Titan a serious problem area? This one is the grim bit of the series, but to be clear the intent is to show plainly the criticality of TYRO and back it as an essential requirement that must be delivered, not just bash on Titan.
As explained in part 1, Titan is a great capability, but it is a bespoke small fleet and consequently has some very significant problems that critically impact the Army as a whole, and the bad news is they can't really be solved in practical terms.
(1/19) With DSEi around the corner, expect Ajax chatter on the topic of IFVs to crop up again, as it has this week. Here’s a thread on IFV options, facts, and my usual ramblings from recent developments.
(2/19) As usual I’m going to try to stick to the kit, I’m not a doctrine or strategy pro on wider force design. Just here to give some facts for others to be informed and make use of as they wish.
(3/19) Ajax is itself a (heavily) modified derivative of ASCOD 2. IFV Ajax would likely take one of 2 paths – remote turret on Ares with lower dismount capacity (aka Ares IFV) or new longer Ajax with traditional IFV config.
As Ajax comes online, a living thread of real and proposed (physical and hypothetical) variants that could expand the capabilities whilst sticking to a single core family for UK medium weight.
The original Ajax requirement, FRES SV, had a range of variants beyond the six the Army is presently buying, and returning to these (and a few more, like IFV) in pursuit of a common medium platform would be a good approach.
I've mixed in ASCOD/ASCOD2 variants as the lineage of Ajax means ASCOD variants are relatively straightforward to share across the ASCOD/ASCOD2/Ajax base platforms, moreso if Ajax does see a stretched IFV hull later this year.
(Part 2) It started as a thread on the UK's Titan AVLB and Project TYRO, but got so unwieldy I’ve made it a mini series. What is Titan and TYRO; why is it one of, if not the, most important requirements in the British Army (or any army); and why is it a critical requirement?
I’ve broken into a few parts; (1) What is Titan and Project TYRO; (2) Why is combat bridging important anyway; (3) Why is Titan a serious problem area; (4) Whats the plan for TYRO CSB; and (5) What are the other options and the implications?
So, Part 2 – Why is combat bridging important anyway?
The UK was the birthplace of the tank and though today it has only a single upgrade programme to show for heavy tracked armour, it was the origin of many key technologies and capabilities used by tanks the world over. A🧵of a few highlights of the glory days of British armour R&D
The first practical gas turbine powered vehicle, the FV200 Turbine Test Vehicle, a Conqueror. 'Practical' is a caveat - the Germans actually had the first gas turbine tank, a Jagdtiger in WW2, but it had a problematic habit of setting trees and other nearby objects on fire.
FV4211 (initially the Chieftain Mk5/2), an all-aluminium tank that was the first with composite armour, initially called Burlington but renamed to Chobham, based around the concept of composite materials under permanent compression, laid in a matrix with additional materials...