A veteran Leopard 2 tanker from The Netherlands has kindly accepted an interview for the blog. L. served in all 3 Leopard 2 variants operated by the Koninklijke Landmacht, so he can provice an excellent overview of how this tank is operated, together with it's strengths and weaknesses.
Hello L., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the Koninklijke Landmacht (Royal Netherlands Army)?
Joined the Air Force in 1988 and went to the army in 1996 when I had the opportunity to rise to the rank of sergeant with a lifelong contract. I had three options, Artillery, Infantry and heavy Cavalry. Artillery fell off because I didn’t have mathematics, Infantry, I liked, but when orientating myself at the tank school I was impressed by the 55 ton steel beasts also known as Leopard 2A4. What also influenced my choice was an old warrant officer who told ‘’Why carry a gun in the field when we have a gun that carries you in the field. Wise words and I never regretted my choice for heavy cavalry and the Leopard 2.
What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Leopard 2 versions you used?
Leopard 2A4
Strong points: the speed and manoeuvrability, the rate of fire, the reliability of the tank.
Weak point: the ammo storage in the left forward hull. Probably the best achievable solution in a defensive war, delaying the enemy from hull down positions. Later on in Afghanistan scenarios it was in my opinion a weak point.
Leopard 2A5
Strong points: the extra armour on the turret and forward turret sides. For safety and fire risk the replacement of the hydraulic system with an electrical system. As sideeffect it created some room in the turret for some more (personal) equipment, water and or luxuries.
Weak points: it accelerated slower and when driving in loose sand it was not that fast anymore as the Leopard 2A4. Ammo in hull still a weak point
Leopard 2A6
Strong points, the same as above, the biggest change was the L55 guntube in combination with the DM53 LKE round which was said enough to penetrate all known T-tanks with ERA. If I remember correctly the instalment of the longer guntube needed a extra sensor on the guncradle to get the stabilisation on the same or better level.
Weak point: The glass MRS mirror (in German the Feld Justier Anlage – FJA). This was on the A4 and A5 a polished metal mirror which never broke. Around September 2007, during the Bult Francis Cup (a Dutch tank gunnery competition) it was ‘’found out’’ that the glass one, which was said by the could not break… well it broke almost immediately after the first few rounds creating several reflections or no reflection at all. An still the ammo storage in the hull.
Leopard 2A5 and A6 had extra armour among other improvements. Did it affect the chassis or suspension in any way? What about the mobility?
As mentioned above, the acceleration of the tank was less than with the A4 and in loose sand it was slower. A short period the army tried the single fuel concept replacing the diesel fuel with kerosene. In that period the opinion of us as users was that it was even slower than before and we experienced more leaks in the fuel system. According to higher level this had nothing to do with the kerosene. If this is true I don’t know , I’am not a expert on fuel and seals. After several months they changed back from kerosene to diesel. We were happy when we could refuel by our German colleagues during gunnery training in Bergen because they still had diesel. After several months the Dutch army changed back from kerosene to diesel.
When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?
During training at Bergen, Germany, tank and non-tank targets (which were engaged with HEAT above 800 metres) were normally engaged between 1200 and 2500 meter, the shorter distances a nr.58 target and the longer distances a nr.59 or nr.60 target. Dismounted infantry or soft –skin vehicles like UaZ and trucks below 800 meters were engaged with the coax machine gun. Sometimes long range firing with HEAT-TP was practised at ranges up to 3800 meter. When doing that you could see the tracer leaving the field of view and coming back and hit the target .This because the MZ was relatively slow comparing to the KE. Also, on a regularly base firing HEAT-T on a hard target was practised. Most of the time an old former East German T-72 at range 6 or 9 was used. Unfortunately this was never done with the DM33 which had to do with range safety. Only at range 19 or 20 (IIRC) it was allowed to fire DM33. This was always done before deployment
Leopard 2 uses a human autoloader. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved?
It was illegal, but one time in our battalion we managed a round every three seconds in a static situation at Bergen training area. The loader was a plasterer who was strong like an ox. He had one in the tube, the second one he held above the breech, the third was between his legs and the fourth was unlocked in the open bunker. All illegal as hell……but is was a nice sight. Unfortunately the officer of the Leopard 2 gunnery advice team was using a stopwatch to check the time between firing. He stopped the exercise, called the battalion master gunner on the range tower and the crew and they had some explaining to do. The normal time (no round in the arms, rounds locked in the ready racks and bunker door closed, which was trained was 6 seconds between each round which was manageable. One of the other positives about a human loader was that he could stand guard and help with maintenance.
What was the typical ammunition configuration (% APFSDS and HEAT)?
For the great game at the North German plain the load was 25% HEAT-T and 75% KE which is about 10 MZ (MehrZweck – Multifunctional) the German name for the HEAT-T)) and 32 KE rounds. When I joined the battalion in 1996 it was the DM33 KE round and the DM12 round. When deployed to Bosnia in 1997 with the Leopard 2A4 the tanks were 24/7 loaded with 21 HEAT rounds and 21 KE rounds, the complete load of 7,62mm ammunition for the coax and loaders machine gun, 4 fragmentation hand grenades, 4 blast hand grenades, 2 WP hand grenades for destroying the tank in emergency (one in the breach and one in the turret with all ammo exposed (if one had time therefore), green, red and yellow smoke hand grenades, the standard load of 9mm for the Glock 17, ammo for the C8 of the loader and for Bosnia the rest of the crew got a C7 rifle which was a pain in the … in the turret. Several were bend…… The load out on the Leopard 2A5 during SFOR-13 was the same with the difference that the team (A-team in Bugojno and FOB Suica) I was in had everything combat loaded in the tanks and that the team in Novi Travnik had the main gun ammo in the ammo bunkers at the base. It was just a difference in opinion of the platoon Sergeants. My colleague’s opinion was ‘’time enough when something happens’’ and my opinion was ‘’I don’t have to carry them on my back, better safe than sorry’’ and loaded everything in the tank.
The Netherlands is a country with a high population density where combat distances are likely to be small. Was this taken into account during training? Do you think the longer 120mm gun could have been a problem when manoeuvring?
For training there were tactical exercises without troop where the officers and NCOs were given a tactical situation (sometimes an historical example from WO 2) which they had to solve. This was done in the Netherlands. During this training the field of view was always hindered with fields of corn which were a little bit taller than the optics. The PRAT (an tracked AT-vehicle) had difficulties with the roads lined with trees and the endless fences with barbed wire. The farmland in the Netherlands is also riddled with small drainage ditches and small waterways. But the main task was on the North German plain. The countryside there is , I think, comparable with maybe less drainage ditches. In my time it was not allowed anymore to drive through farming fields and take up position in a village or cornfield. So training was limited to the various training areas such as Bergen, Klietz, Altmark, Drawsko and Zagan in Poland or Varpalota in Hungary. The longer gun gave in the beginning some problems on small forest roads or junctions. Later on, when the driver, gunner and commander got some experience in to when to steer in the hull and traverse the turret it was not a problem anymore. Of course sometimes with a inexperienced crew it still went wrong.
In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?
Not really, when there was something broken you knew why, you did hit something very hard like a ditch or some rocks. Sometimes a malfunction of some sensor in which case a warning popped up and you had to act according to the checklist. Most of the maintenance was regular and planned.
In the end of the Leopard 2 career we had some issues with spare parts. It had more to do with that the higher up powers didn’t see the need any more to keep large stocks of spare parts and ammo. At that moment it was peace keeping all over the place and more with the absence of money and that they didn’t see the need to keep a large stock of spare parts because the cold war was over
KMW has established an operators club for Leopard 2 users. Did you ever come across it? Did you find it useful?
No, I never seen it.
Leopard 2 is equipped with thermal sights. Can you comment on the use, especially in night conditions? What is the maximum range at which you can identify vehicles/personnel in the different versions? Did you also use them during the day?
The thermal image for the gunner on the Dutch A4, A5 and A6 was the same and it was a good thermal in my opinion. You could identify a person at least 2 km away, see the engine heat of an Apache hiding behind the trees on at least 3000 meter (this although the exhaust was blown upwards and dispersed by the rotor, it was still observable) vehicles were no problem to identify, maybe not the exact type but it was more than enough. Problem was when a vehicle/launcher was camouflaged with hessian and sometimes wetted with water. Especially a problem during exercises was the YPR-765PRAT. They took position reverse slope and raised the launcher just above the surface level. The launcher itself radiated no heat and they camouflaged it with a sort of ghilly suit. Nasty….. and very difficult to find with thermal. Same with the small anti-tank LSVs of the Dutch air mobile brigade. They camouflaged their vehicles with a ghilly suit made of hessian, wetted it, and hide in the undergrowth. They waited until you passed them, they popped out and fired their AT missile in your back…… And yes it was always used during the day, the gunner was trained to search with thermal and daylight optics during daylight operations. A lot of gunners in the battalion I served in had one hand of the switch TI/daylight and one hand on the gunners steer.
What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?
It’s a long time ago but back in Bosnia-Hercegovina we did patrols lasting a day driving up and down hills and sometimes mountains without any problem. The rubber on the road wheels , top roller and the rubber pads suffered more on the rocky unpaved roads but not that it caused maintenance problems. Sometimes when driving in very dusty conditions (last tank in a column through the dry sand….) the engine management gave a signal that you had to clean the engine air filters. You had a little less power when the warning light went on but not troublesome. You had time to go to a safe place or assembly area and clean them.
Leopard 2A5 received a thermal sight for commander, improving the hunter-killer capability. Do you think it was worth the cost? A few years ago there was some debate about it because some thought that commander could be overwhelmed (he also has to control the tank and keep an eye on the BMS (Battlefield Management System).
The Leopard 2A4 had a daylight PERI for the commander and could use this for hunter killer operations or aiming and firing the main gun . On the A5 and A6 the PERI was modified and had a TI integrated. I personally found the quality disappointing. On closer ranges the picture was very clear and sharp, on greater ranges the quality of the image was not great. A larger magnification was just blowing up the pixels and the image was not getting that better. I found it useful during the night when in position to scan the surroundings of the tank for infantry sneaking up to your tank. The gunner was scanning his sector and I was scanning the surroundings of the tank.
Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach/procedure in these situations?
Yes, it was a standard drill which was practised regularly. Most of the times it was about a strike warning (or paddestoelbericht –Mushroom message in Dutch) that a NATO nuclear weapon was deployed in our sector or it was an enemy chemical attack with persistent and non-persistent chemical weapons.
Did you have the opportunity to train with other countries (NATO for example)? What was your impression about their training and equipment? Any tank (or other weapon) you liked or disliked?
With the Germans it was mostly against them because the were the trainings adversary during exercises at, for example GuZ (Gefechts Ubungs Zentrum – Combat Training Centre) Altmark. Between the Germans and Dutch there were a lot of similarities in training. As Dutch we participated in the German tactics course at GuZ Altmark which gave no problems because of the similarity. The only thing we noticed that during training they were less afraid for damaging the tank (light units, light armour plates etc) and that a Dutch gunner had a little bit more freedom in engaging enemy tanks without waiting for the ‘’fire’’ order from the commander. We liked their MG3 turret- and coaxial machinegun for the higher rate of fire. In Bosnia we had a gunnery demonstration at Glamoc together with a British Challenger 1 platoon. Didn’t see any difference in the accuracy only a slower rate of fire which is probably due to the separate loading of the round and the charge and that they were slower off road. Both German and British crews were trained well. Of course each country had its own way of operating.
Did you receive intelligence on potential threats (T-72, AT missiles, IEDs)? If so, how accurate was it once you got access to the weapon?
They told us they would come in masse but that our gun, armour and ammunition was superior. After the wall fell I did see some tests with, if I remember correctly DM33 ammunition. It was capable of penetrating but apparently not satisfactory enough for the Germans.
When you were deployed in Yugoslavia, did you receive any specific training or intelligence (on M-84 tanks for example)?
No, we received a little country book with language, customs, plants and animal life and the basics of material what was used in former Yugoslavia. Of course also briefings (with the old fashioned overhead projector) about rules of engagement, basics of equipment, various uniforms and ranks.
During the first deployment we encountered only T-35/85, M18 and M36 and during the second deployment there was an unit with one T-54 and about 12 T-55s near our base of which we had a good relationship. According to the rules we had to do site inspections but this always happened in good corporation, most of the times ending in drinking the local spirits and telling (exaggerated) tank adventures to each other.
Did the tanks receive any extra equipment for these missions (in Yugoslavia)? What about extra spare parts?
During SFOR-2 we got a short wave radio in the tank, so we could talk to each other in mountainous terrain. Personally I heard a lot of people from distant countries on that radio but never our own tanks, but that had probably more to do with my/our lack of knowledge about radio waves bouncing around in the atmosphere. Also the sergeant major of the technical troops did some changes to the engine settings so we had more engine power. This caused the engine to smoke like an old coal fired ship. Same was done with the A5s which were heavier during deployment with my battalion.
During your spell in the Koninklijke Landmacht conscription was abolished in the Netherlands. Did this have any effect on your unit? Do you think it was a good decision?
I only experienced conscription when in the air force. Some conscript were motivated but a lot of them only saw it as a hindrance of their work career and a reduction in income or a hindrance of their study. Personally I find a volunteer army a big improvement. With a volunteer army you can invest in training and people don’t leave after 14 or 16 months. Later on conscription was even shorter. Also, conscript could only send voluntarily abroad on missions. Now you have motivated people for longer a time which you can deploy around the world without problems. And I hope we never go back to a conscript army with unmotivated people who have to do their time. Go to the boy scouts when you want to teach time discipline but not in the armed forces. A waste of time for instructors and cadre. But that my opinion.
What is your opinion on turbines and autoloaders?
Only seen the turbine in action on a M1A1(HA) on a mobilisation complex in the Netherlands. It sounded great (like a jet fighter) and it moved the tank with the same speed as our MTU diesel. But for what I’ am been told it required more maintenance than our thrusted diesel. The autoloader, my only experience is sitting in a PT-91 Twardy at the commanders place and got an demonstration of the autoloader. I was afraid that thing was loading my left arm. I ‘am sure it has its benefits, but I’m used to a human loader who can act as extra pair of eyes on the lookout when driving from A to B. He can do (emergency) repairs and handle malfunctions of the gun and or coax, he can do maintenance or pull security with the turret machine gun when the rest of the crew is working at the tracks in an emergency. Then, unofficially, he was the cook on board of the tank. He had easy access on the unofficial box on the turret with eggs, ground coffee, hamburgers, mayonnaise, sausages, bread, frying pan etc. When the rest of the crew needed a sandwich, coffee or something else he was the man (no women on the tanks in my time) who provided it. So I prefer a human loader…….
What was your impression about Turkish Leo-A4 performance in Syria?
I have seen the pictures and for what I have read about it they were operating without, or with very little, infantry support. As with most tanks, the sides of the hull are on certain locations not very heavy armoured so a hit with a modern anti-tank missile system together with the rather unprotected ammunition storage in the left forward hull could result in the damage you see on the pictures. But I have never seen official after action reports about this battle.
Photos
L. has shared a number of photos he took during his career. They were taken with an analogic camera Canon ae-1 and Kodachrome 64 film.
 |
In Novi Travnik with a MZ round (Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1998).
|
.jpg) |
| Livno pass (Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2003). |
 |
Transporting Leopard in Bergen-Belsen.
|
 |
With a Leopard 2A4 in Bergen.
|
 |
Leopard 2A4 in Bergen (7/1994).
|
 |
Train Leopard 2A4s in Bergen.
|
 |
| Leopard 2A4 in Novi Travnik next to a bunker (Bosnia-Herzegovina, 05/1998). |
.jpg) |
| Leopard 2A4 in Vogelsang (2/1999). |
.jpg) |
| At Drawsko Pomorskie (6/2002). |
.jpg) |
| At Drawsko Pomorskie (6/2002). |
 |
At Drawsko Pomorskie (6/2002).
|
 |
| T-55 inspection in Drawsko Pomorskie, Polan (6/2002). |
 |
Stuck in a ditch, Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland (6/2002).
|
 |
| Leopard 2A5 at Suica FOB, Bosnia-Herzegovina (03/2003). |
 |
| Maintenance of a Leopard 2A5 in FOB at Suica, Bosnia-Herzegovina (03/2003). |
 |
Next to my loader, Bosnia-Herzegovina (1/1998).
|
.jpg) |
| Leopard 2A4 in Vogelsang (12/1998). |
 |
| Leopard 2A4 in Vogelsang (12/1998). |
.jpg) |
| Leopard 2A6 in Vogelsang (9/2004). |
 |
Leopard 2A6 in Vogelsang (9/2004).
|
 |
Exercises at Belsen (1/2006).
|
 |
| Leopard 2A6 in Bergen. |
 |
| Leopard 2A6 in Bergen. |
 |
Leopard 2A6 in Bergen.
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment