I don’t know the ins and out of the Turkish testing. As for Greece and Sweden, both were pre series tanks that were also refused to enter service in the French army due to substantial issues in three main points :
Engine reliability
Suspension issues
Armor (and more probably the turret because the hull armor doesn’t seem to have improved as far as the albeit unreliable evidences show)
edit : Greek testing also seem to indicate some autoloader issue (US very biased assessment of the trials), but that hasn’t been officially confirmed
All in service Leclerc are S1OP (or later) standard which entered service in 1998, while the greek and Swedish testing were using earlier variants.
It is to note that Greece didn’t have any clue on the armor of the Leclerc because GIAT refused to give any information, which makes it impossible to juge the vehicle fairly. Although it’s most likely that its armor is at best equivalent to the 2A5, the greeks have considered that the Leclerc was armored to the level of the AMX30 because of the lack of infos.
The Swedish trials show the armor scheme of the hull of the Leclerc without any form of protection in a picture, and the turret protection that was leaked showed an overall inferior armor compared to in service Leclerc. This is probably explained by the fact that the S1OP has the same armor layout as the S2, with visibly thicker armor on the front of the turret, although this is not represented in game, because the S2 addition was one of the laziest addition ever
Edit : As for the Turkish trial, while I do not know much about them, seeing as they finally bought 2A4 after the German parliament blocked the 2A6 purchase seem to indicated they were going for more sensible and economical solutions compared to the Leclerc. I have not seen any actual data from the testings tho so that’s my personal speculation
Even funnier is that the Americans claimed that GPS jamming was the reason they did worse than the other on static test firing.
Both countries were coping during these testings
IIRC, that was planned for the SEP v4 which ended up being cancelled.
The M1E3 is stated to incorporate features which were initially planned to be added for the SEP v4.
DU armour has been present on M1’s since the late '80s, this isn’t something noteworthy or new for the SEP v3.
Not guaranteed for the SEP v3, the SEP v2 could just as easily be equipped with M829A4.
M1A2 SEP already had an UAAPU, again, not unique to the SEP v3.
You already said that, you’re just repeating yourself here.
Again, not a guarantee and the SEP v2 could just as easily mount Trophy APS.
Mate, you can see it in the very picture you posted:
That’s where the APU is located.
That’s a literal cardboard mock-up.
SEP v3 uses a modified M1 Abrams (1980) hull too, what’s your point?
Several vehicles are carboard mockups in warthunder
Not true, the original hull from the 1980s is entirely different, its more close to the SEP V2 hull with all the internal armor upgrades. Even then SEP V3 isn’t even comparable except for maybe the same gun and engine from before but besides that nothing is the “same”.
as for my comments on the 2A8, i mainly was speculating and wasnt sure on most of the info. If anyone here claims they know anything about this BRAND new vehicle take it with a grain of salt.
Where do you think the hulls of SEP v3’s come from then?
The various upgraded variants of M1’s re-use hulls of previous models. These hulls are modified to the new standard but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re still usually the hulls of very early M1 production runs (M1 1980 - M1A1 1985).
How’s that any different from the Leopard 2A7V/2A8 which has underwent significant interior upgrades as well?
And as far as I’m aware, Leopard 2A8’s are fully new-built from the ground up and do not contain modified/re-used hulls of previous models.
Assuming they fixed the flaws of later leopards, like the ridiculous lower ammo rack. Like i did say though it is nice to see the commander sight get a needed upgrade.
Wouldn’t be the first time, Germany sent leopards to the U.S to compete against the first Abrams models 2 weeks late and Germany even said it had armor when in fact it didn’t. Then they sent people out to look at the prototypes then claimed it was a “shipping issue” and that they sent the wrong vehicles. The main reason was because it wouldn’t have fit the weight requirements with the armor installed.
Im waiting for field tests for most of this doesn’t matter who makes the vehicle or were its sourced until its actually been used for training.
Literaly all already done.
Its still an leopard upgrade. Its just a new generation name.
APS, lws, roof armor etc all already exists on the 2a7a1 as example. There is gap protection now as well. But it doesnt do to much different.
You are making a joke out of yourself. In its essence its still a leopard and we know most of all its performance metrics outside the new ammunition thats already in testing progress with 2a7V. Potentiell new armor which will be classified either way as well.
I honestly dont know what you are expecting to be different that we dont know about the leopard that should be taken with a grain of salt.
When all main advertised features, are already in use somewhere
Well the new APU is something to be skeptical of, for example on the SEPV2s early on they had electrical issues working with all the new additions on the old legacy batteries. Which they then came in and upgraded, what im saying is there could be issues with adding all this stress on a battery for LWS, upgraded digital thermals, APS, APU, etc.
You said it here too, sure there may be more armor who knows until they come out about it. One things for sure smacking a bunch of composite over a massive bomb of an ammo rack isn’t going to solve the issue for horrific ammo placement. I would share images but im not sure if gaijin would allow it on this forum but leopards in turkey ran into this issue with the ammo racks.
This isn’t necessarily a good thing, like i said sure its still a leopard and sure maybe its better than 90% of eastern vehicles if you want to consider that, but ammo placement is still an issue. Along with new technology which im sure is good, but can the systems sustain themselves reliably in combat and more importantly can it compare to other western vehicles optics and survivability for foreign sale.
buddy, the APU is a thing since years, only cause the americans had problems with it doesnt means anything
german ammunition is stable to not explode when hit,
Considering leopards all things considered are the prefered mbt in a certain conflict right now i am not worried.
The 2a8 already has more orders from EU nations again compared to most other stuff.
KF51 in its essence is a leopard hull as well. Its a proven concept with a great hull
Since 2021, which doesn’t mean anything because with APS and LWS adding on it can affect the performance and life time of the battery and APU.
Again i cant really reply to this on the forum because they have been really hammering down on combat images or footage so, im gonna leave it at that.
This is purely political, many nations like Poland are looking everywhere for new vehicles not just Germany. There’s also more to this regarding logistics and parts availability not just the vehicle itself.
