Very recently the proposal of the EODH company – which has a lot of experience in the production of armor for the Leopard family tanks – was presented to the GES for a radically upgraded Greek Leopard 1A5, of which the Greek Army has around 500.
A “brand new” Leopard 1A5 is proposed by EODH to the Greek Army
The proposal talks about a lot of changes, with a new engine, suspensions, electronics and aiming systems, hydraulics, electricals, fire control system, interior configuration, telecommunications, various layers of armor, network-centric operation and several more. All of the above, however, with the indication that the new Leo 1A5 will weigh 46 tons, probably describes what is called “modern medium or even light battle tank”.
A choice with many parameters
The idea of a lighter chariot is of course nothing new, we find it as a categorization since the appearance of the first chariots in the First World War and it was comparative: that is, the “big one” of each country, era, faction, set the limit and the smaller ones could to be characterized as “medium” or even “light” (with the variety of types that appeared, mainly during the Second World War, offering a large field of further classifications). But we emphasize that there is no very strict limit for the similar characterization: where e.g. the Soviet T-62, at the time it appeared (1960s) was a “main battle tank”, but today in Ukraine where it fights it is considered “medium”, compared to the most modern Russian ones, such as the T-90 or the Western Leopard 2/Abrams/Challenger that have arrived.
However, the advantages of such designs are obvious: Lower costs and faster construction (something that was important in long-term conflicts, where the flow of new tanks at the front could decide the course of operations), with lower weight and volume, thus greater agility and ability to fight in confined environments (narrow country roads, urban areas, forested, muddy, etc.), while the vehicle generally offers a smaller target. Usually with a smaller crew thus with lower manning requirements. Also in modern times light can to be airlifted more easily, but also more generally to be moved by roads and trains. They also show lower fuel and oil consumption, have lighter ammunition (they usually have a 105 mm gun instead of the heavy 120), so their supply chain works more easily.
The problems or more correctly their weak elements are also known. Their armor is by definition less durable, their cannon does not have the performance of the “bigger” ones in range and piercing/destructive ability, so they are significantly behind if they find themselves in a tank battle with “heavies”. Whereas if at some point they are loaded with extra armor (which is now provided for in all of them as a stage of their reinforcement), with self-protection systems and with advanced electronics, then their cost, weight and maintenance approach that of a “heavy”, so the whole idea begins to make no sense.
Despite this, the “light” and “medium” can be said to be returning as an option in modern armies, as complementary to the heavy ones, which are constantly “climbing” in size and weight, e.g. with the future Franco-German MGCS estimated at 60+ tons with a 130 or 140mm gun, while the current Leopard 2A8 has reached 67 tons. So here we have the following -indicative- examples of smaller tanks, where they have also increased in volume/weight compared to older post-war designs:
USA: M10 Booker
It is the newest example of the class, a General Dynamics Land Systems design (evolution of the armored ASCOD), with a 105 mm gun, a 1,070 hp MTU engine, a weight of 42+ tons with modern electronics and a crew of 4. The combat system and main gun are from the Abrams SEP V3, so some uniformity is maintained, while 2 of these may be carried over from a C-17 Globemaster transport instead of an Abrams. It is half the price of a new Abrams, as it is estimated at $14 million.
The US Army plans to procure 504 of these, and deliveries to the 82nd Airborne Division have begun. The interesting thing is that in the American doctrine the Booker is presented as an “infantry support combat vehicle”, with an emphasis on its speed of presence in the field with the light brigades of the US Army. That is, as an “intermediate vehicle-unit”, which will provide firepower until the heavy motorized divisions arrive.
China: Norinco Type 15
It is already serving in the Chinese Army and also in Bangladesh where it has been exported as VT-5. At 36 tons, with a 105 mm gun and automatic loader, a crew of three, a 1,000 hp engine, modern electronics and partially active armor, it can also take a self-protection system, also manufactured by Norinco. Its turret only reaches 2.5 meters high (without the machine gun on the roof), so here it shows another advantage of the class, as -almost always- it can hide the tank more easily than those 60+ tons.
In China, it mainly equips airborne and marine units, as a “first response” tank and easy to transport. The Type 15 is perhaps today the class standard, combining a complete package with a very good price that is estimated well under $10 million, for export.
Turkey: Kaplan MT
An FNSS design, the 35-ton Kaplan has not been adopted by the Turkish Army but has been exported to Indonesia (18 vehicles under the name Harimau). With a 105mm gun in a Cockerill turret, 700hp commercial diesel engine, crew of three, Turkish electronics, light armour, although advertised as being able to take Aselsan’s PULAT self-protection system.
The cost to Indonesia has been reported at 7.5 million each with deliveries already underway.
Israel: Sabrah
Although created by Israel’s Elbit, it is more of a “synthesis” of elements than a complete design. It is based on the armored ASCOD from the Spanish factory of GDLS, to which a 105mm gun turret with Elbit sights and electronics has been added, weighing up to 30 tons. The entire order came from the Philippines which awarded the project to the Israeli company, for a total of 18 tanks.
Looking for a role
One of the peculiarities of the lighter tanks is that their role, mainly as support, initial intervention, but also as a solution for countries with limited finances, overlapped to some extent by modern Armored Fighting Vehicles (AVMs). Which are offered at relatively close prices, have gone up significantly in weight/volume, have the same quality electronics and additionally can carry a 7-8 man battle group. Obviously the TOMAs are short on firepower since they only have a 40mm gun at most, but most come with the ability to fire anti-tank missiles, with a range of 6-8km, so that balances things out. Also, their lighter armor is accompanied by higher speeds and agility, so here we might have a similar “equation”.
However, we can point out that the “light/medium tank” today claims space and market share, as despite its competition with TOMAs, it offers a power solution on the front line, especially if we are talking about fast-moving units and a combat environment with special requirements. E.g. in the Greek landscape, an upgraded Leopard 1A5 can “stand” with high mobility and performance in our insular area, as well as better serve the needs of the Marine Brigade (where the old model already serves). Especially if it is accompanied by the extra provisions mentioned in the EODH proposal, i.e. with an anti-tank missile launcher and drone control. As a stronger strike unit, with a network-centric role and long-range detection capability.
But that is not the issue. The main issue for an upgraded Leopard 1A5, in general for a “collected tank” in Greece, it is which doctrine he will serve. In other words, we should not see the upgrade as an evolution of capabilities, but mainly as a tool in a renewed operational doctrine, which will measure the Turkish threat, its new aspects, how they change the battlefield, as well as the set of Greek capabilities resistance and reaction.
So if there is such a new doctrine, it will be examined how a specific instrument (a Leo 1A5 Advanced) will be able to offer. So the first picture from the EODH proposal shows good elements, i.e. a significant improvement of an old tank, with a great extension of life and supply, with considerable domestic added value, but much remains to be completed, in a complex and ever-growing deterrence “puzzle” . And above all we need to know the cost of such a major retrofit, as well as its operation and maintenance, over time, so that a complete evaluation can be made.
In any case, the EODH proposal for the Leopard 1A5, as well as those for the upgrade of the “Leonidas” and M113 submachine guns, in our opinion, should be financed for the creation of a prototype. In other words, to make “the plan a reality”, to test the offered vehicles in order to help the rapid development of new scenarios and defense doctrine. That is, should we see a serious domestic effort of industrial investment in defense, which also has a serious business footprint.
Tags: Leopard #1A5 refreshed return lightmedium tanks Greece
-
