Leopard 2AV

This page is about the German medium tank Leopard 2AV. For other versions, see Leopard 2 (Family).

Leopard 2AV

Leopard 2AV

Germany

VII Rank

Battle rating:

AB	RB	SB
10.0	10.0	10.0

Class:

Medium tank

Purchase:Bundle or Gift

MARKET

Description

The KPz Leopard 2AV, PT-19/T19-AV is a gift rank VII German medium tank with a battle rating of 10.0 (AB/RB/SB). It was introduced during Update "Danger Zone" as a reward for the 2022 Summer Quest event.

General info

Survivability and armour

Composite armour

Balanced protection against all types of ammunition

Smoke grenades

Creation of a smoke screen in front of the vehicle

Armourfront / side / back

Hull105 / 30 / 20

Turret145 / 70 / 28

Crew4 people

Visibility95 %

Describe armour protection. Note the most well protected and key weak areas. Appreciate the layout of modules as well as the number and location of crew members. Is the level of armour protection sufficient, is the placement of modules helpful for survival in combat? If necessary use a visual template to indicate the most secure and weak zones of the armour.

Armour type:

Armour	Front (Slope angle)	Sides	Rear	Roof
Hull	___ mm	___ mm Top ___ mm Bottom	___ mm	___ - ___ mm
Turret	___ - ___ mm Turret front ___ mm Gun mantlet	___ - ___ mm	___ - ___ mm	___ - ___ mm
Cupola	___ mm	___ mm	___ mm	___ mm

Notes:

Mobility

Speedforward / back

AB76 / 35 km/h

RB and SB69 / 31 km/h

Number of gears8 forward

4 back

Weight57.7 t

Engine power

AB2 862 hp

RB and SB1 500 hp

Power-to-weight ratio

AB49.6 hp/t

RB and SB26.0 hp/t

Game Mode	Max Speed (km/h)		Weight (tons)	Engine power (horsepower)		Power-to-weight ratio (hp/ton)
	Forward	Reverse		Stock	Upgraded	Stock	Upgraded
Arcade	76	35	57.7	2,032	2,862	35.22	49.6
Realistic	69	31		1,327	1,500	23	26

Modifications and economy

Repair costBasic → Reference

AB4 770 → 6 582

RB4 621 → 6 376

SB5 639 → 7 781

Total cost of modifications211 000

354 000

Talisman cost2 800

Crew training200 000

Experts710 000

Aces2 100

Research Aces1 080 000

Reward for battleAB / RB / SB

160 / 200 / 250 %

232 / 232 / 232 %

Modifications

Mobility	Protection	Firepower
Tracks Research: 9 100 Cost: 14 000 270 Suspension Research: 13 000 Cost: 20 000 390 Brake System Research: 13 000 Cost: 20 000 390 Filters Research: 19 000 Cost: 30 000 560 Transmission Research: 12 000 Cost: 19 000 360 Engine Research: 12 000 Cost: 19 000 360	Improved Parts Research: 2 700 Cost: 14 000 270 Improved FPE Research: 3 900 Cost: 20 000 390 Crew Replenishment Research: 19 000 Cost: 30 000 560 Smoke grenade Research: 12 000 Cost: 19 000 360	Horizontal Drive Research: 9 100 Cost: 14 000 270 105mm_usa_HESH_ammo_pack Research: 9 100 Cost: 14 000 270 105mm_NATO_APDS_FS_ammo_pack Research: 9 100 Cost: 14 000 270 Adjustment of Fire Research: 13 000 Cost: 20 000 390 Elevation Mechanism Research: 19 000 Cost: 30 000 560 Artillery Support Research: 12 000 Cost: 19 000 360 Laser rangefinder Research: 12 000 Cost: 19 000 360 105mm_DM33_APDS_FS_ammo_pack Research: 12 000 Cost: 19 000 360

Armaments

Laser rangefinder

Reduces the error and increases the maximum measurable distance of the rangefinder

Main armament

105 mm L7A3 cannon

Two-plane stabilizer

Reduces the swing of the gun in two planes while moving

Ammunition40 rounds

First-order12 rounds

Reloadbasic crew → aces

7.8 → 6.0 s

Vertical guidance-9° / 20°

105 mm L7A3					Turret rotation speed (°/s)					Reloading rate (seconds)
Mode	Capacity	Vertical	Horizontal	Stabilizer	Stock	Upgraded	Full	Expert	Aced	Stock	Full	Expert	Aced
Arcade	40	-9°/+20°	±180°	Two-plane	38.1	52.7	64.0	70.8	75.3	8.71	7.70	7.10	6.70
Realistic					23.8	28.0	34.0	37.6	40.0

Ammunition

Penetration statistics
Ammunition	Type of warhead	Penetration @ 0° Angle of Attack (mm)
		10 m	100 m	500 m	1,000 m	1,500 m	2,000 m
DM12	HEATFS	400	400	400	400	400	400
DM512	HESH	127	127	127	127	127	127
DM23	APFSDS	337	335	330	322	314	306
DM33	APFSDS	408	405	398	389	379	370

Shell details
Ammunition	Type of warhead	Velocity (m/s)	Projectile mass (kg)	Fuse delay (m)	Fuse sensitivity (mm)	Explosive mass (TNT equivalent) (g)	Ricochet
							0%	50%	100%
DM12	HEATFS	1,173	10.5	0.05	0.1	1,270	65°	72°	77°
DM512	HESH	732	14.85	0.1	4	4,310	73°	77°	80°
DM23	APFSDS	1,455	3.79	N/A	N/A	N/A	78°	80°	81°
DM33	APFSDS	1,455	3.79	N/A	N/A	N/A	78°	80°	81°

Ammo racks

Full ammo	1st rack empty	2nd rack empty	Visual discrepancy
40	13 (+27)	1 (+39)	No

Machine guns

7.62 mm MG3A1 machine gun (coaxial)

Ammunition4 600 rounds

Belt capacity200 rounds

Reloadbasic crew → aces

10.4 → 8.0 s

Fire rate1 200 shots/min

2 x 7.62 mm MG3A1 machine gun

Ammunition4 000 rounds

Belt capacity200 rounds

Reloadbasic crew → aces

10.4 → 8.0 s

Fire rate1 200 shots/min

7.62 mm MG3A1
Mount	Capacity (Belt)	Fire rate	Vertical	Horizontal
Pintle (loader)	2,000 (200)	1,200	-10°/+75°	±180°
Pintle (commander)	2,000 (200)	1,200	-10°/+75°	±180°
Coaxial	4,600 (200)	1,200	N/A	N/A

Usage in battles

Describe the tactics of playing in the vehicle, the features of using vehicles in the team and advice on tactics. Refrain from creating a "guide" - do not impose a single point of view but instead give the reader food for thought. Describe the most dangerous enemies and give recommendations on fighting them. If necessary, note the specifics of the game in different modes (AB, RB, SB).

Pros and cons

Summarise and briefly evaluate the vehicle in terms of its characteristics and combat effectiveness. Mark its pros and cons in a bulleted list. Try not to use more than 6 points for each of the characteristics. Avoid using categorical definitions such as "bad", "good" and the like - use substitutions with softer forms such as "inadequate" and "effective".

Pros:

• Basically a better armoured TTD
  • Hull can block at least one HE hit from late game tanks without consequences (unless it was an SPG)
  • NERA placement is more solid and turret front is actually almost HEAT-FS proof, can survive some ATGMs
  • The ammo rack is more compact
  • 8 smoke groups
  • Has 3 MGs with focused fire to get rid of slow ATGM
• Slightly faster than similar tanks

Cons:

• Final ammunition has worse angled penetration than TTD or TAM 2C
• No thermal scope at rank VI
• If ammo rack is hit directly through the tank, it is likely that the tank simply explodes; a penetrating hit on either side can render the tank unable to fight regardless
• The turret roof is not HE proof and it is reasonably easy to hit machine guns above it
• Autocannon tanks and even .50 cal HMGs can easily bully it even from the front if they see the turret ring or the hull bottom

History

In July 1973 German Federal Minister of Defence Georg Leber and his US counterpart James R. Schlesinger agreed upon a higher degree of standardization in main battle tanks being favourable to NATO. By integrating components already fully developed by German companies for the Leopard 2, the costs of the XM1 Abrams, U.S. prototype tank developed after the MBT-70, should be reduced. A German commission was sent to the US to evaluate the harmonisation of components between the XM1 and Leopard 2.However, by American law it was not possible for a public bidder to interfere in a procurement tender after a contract with intention of profits and deadline was awarded to companies of the private industry.

As a result, the modification of the Leopard 2 prototypes in order to meet the US Army requirements was investigated. Following a number of further talks, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed on 11 December 1974 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America, which declared that a modified version of the Leopard 2 should be trialled by the US against their XM1 prototypes,after the Americans had bought and investigated prototype PT07 in 1973.The MOU obligated the Federal Republic of Germany to send a complete prototype, a hull, a vehicle for ballistic tests and a number of special ballistic parts to the US, where they would be put through US testing procedures for no additional costs.

The Leopard 2AV (austere version) was based on the experiences of the previous Leopard 2 development. It was created in order to meet the US requirements and the latest protection requirements of the German MoD. The turret T14 mod was used as the base for the Leopard 2AV's turret, but meeting the required level of protection for the hull required several attempts until the final ballistic trials on 23 to 26 June 1976.Following the US' preference of laser rangefinders, the turret of prototype PT19 was fitted with a laser rangefinder developed together with the American company Hughes.In comparison with the earlier Leopard 2 prototypes, the fire control system was simplified by replacing the EMES-12 optical rangefinder and removing the crosswind sensor, the air-pressure and temperature sensors, the powder temperature sensor, the PERI R12 commander sight with IR searchlight, the short-range grenade launcher for use against infantry, the retractable search-light, the spotlight, the retractable passive night vision sight, the APU and the mechanical loading assistant.

Due to the design and production of the Leopard 2AV taking more time than expected, the shipment to the US and the US evaluation was delayed. It was not possible to test the Leopard 2AV before 1 September 1976.Despite the German wish that the Leopard 2AV and the XM1 prototypes would be evaluated at the same time, the US Army decided not to wait for the Leopard 2AV and tested the XM1 prototypes from Chrysler and General Motors beforehand.

Two new prototype hulls and three turrets were shipped to the US: PT20 mounting a 105 mm rifled L7 gun and a Hughes fire control system, PT19 with the same fire control system but able to swap out the gun for the 120 mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, and the PT21 fitted with the Krupp Atlas Elektronik EMES-13 fire control system and the 120 mm Rheinmetall gun.The Leopard 2AV fully met the US requirements.A study made by the American FMC Corporation showed that it was possible to produce the Leopard 2AV under licence in America without exceeding the cost limits set by the US Army.But already before the trials were finished, it was decided that instead of the US Army possibly adopting the Leopard 2AV, the focus was shifted to the possibilities of common components between the two tanks. FMC, after having acquired the licenses for the production of the Leopard 2AV, decided not to submit a technical proposal, as they saw little to no chance for the US Army adopting a vehicle not developed in the US.

The US Army evaluation showed that on the XM1 a larger portion of the tank's surface was covered by special armour than on the Leopard 2AV.Differences in armour protection were attributed to the different perceptions on the expected threats and the haste in which the Leopard 2AV was designed to accommodate special armour.On mobility trials the Leopard 2AV performed equal to better than the XM1 prototypes. The AGT-1500 gas turbine proved to consume about 50% more fuel[28] and the Diehl tracks had a higher endurance, while the tracks used on the XM1 prototypes failed to meet the Army's requirements. The heat signature of the MTU diesel engine was much lower.The fire control system and the sights of the Leopard 2 were considered to be better and the 120 mm gun proved to be superior. The projected production costs for one XM1 tank were $728,000 in 1976, the costs for one Leopard 2AV were $56,000 higher.

Media

Skins

• Skins and camouflages for the Leopard 2AV from live.warthunder.com.

See also

Links to the articles on the War Thunder Wiki that you think will be useful for the reader, for example:

• reference to the series of the vehicles;
• links to approximate analogues of other nations and research trees.

External links

• [Devblog] Leopard 2AV