A recent Russian military report compares the Leopard 2 A5 and T-90M tanks, highlighting differences in firepower, engine performance, and technological capabilities. The analysis reveals strengths and weaknesses of both tanks, with the T-90M showing advantages in fire rate and protection systems, while the Leopard 2 A5 is noted for its historical significance and design.
In the spring of 2022, the 38th Research and Testing Institute of Armored Armament and Equipment, Russia's sole testing organization within its Ministry of Defense, released a bulletin detailing their analysis of several tanks captured during the conflict in Ukraine. Among these, the Leopard 2 A5 stood out as a high-profile subject of evaluation. This report not only assessed the Leopard 2 A5 but also provided a brief comparison with the Russian T-90M tank, one of the most modern tanks in the Russian arsenal. This blog post will delve into the key findings of the report, focusing on the comparative aspects of both tanks.
The Leopard 2 A5, which entered service with the German army in 1995, is a variant known for its wedge-shaped armor and various modifications over the years. The specific tank analyzed in the report was captured in 2024 after being disabled by a mine and a heat warhead. Interestingly, the images included in the report appear to show a Leopard 2 A6 rather than the A5, raising questions about the accuracy of the captured model's identification.
The T-90M, accepted into Russian service in 2021, represents one of the latest advancements in Russian tank technology. The report highlights several features of the T-90M that are compared directly with those of the Leopard 2 A5.
The Leopard 2 A5 has a main gun ammunition load of 42 rounds, divided into sections for immediate use and longer-term storage, requiring a crew of four for manual loading. In contrast, the T-90M carries 43 rounds, utilizing an autoloader that reduces the crew size. The report notes a discrepancy in the reported fire rates, with the T-90M achieving eight rounds per minute due to its autoloader, while the Leopard 2 A5 is cited with a lower rate of six rounds per minute. However, training videos suggest that the Leopard 2 A5 can achieve a fire rate of 12 to 15 rounds per minute under optimal conditions.
The effective firing range of the Leopard 2 A5's armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds is reported at 2200 meters, compared to 2500 meters for the T-90M. The T-90M also has the capability to remotely detonate high explosive rounds, a feature not available on the Leopard 2 A5.
Both tanks utilize ballistic computers for fire control, calculating various factors when firing at moving targets. The Leopard 2 A5 features a thermal imaging system with a limited range of just under 10 km, while the T-90M's system reportedly allows for detection and identification at 3,300 meters. The Leopard 2 A5's thermal imager requires a cooling period of 15 minutes, which could impact its operational readiness in combat situations.
The Leopard 2 A5 is equipped with a 12-cylinder diesel engine that produces 1,500 horsepower at 2600 RPM. The report claims that the Leopard 2 A5 has a power-to-weight ratio of 23 horsepower per ton, compared to the T-90M's 22 horsepower per ton. However, the Leopard 2 A5's combat weight is listed as 65 metric tons, which is higher than the manufacturer's cited weight of 62 metric tons, raising questions about the accuracy of the figures.
The Leopard 2 A5 boasts a maximum forward speed of 70 km/h and a reverse speed of 30 km/h, while the T-90M has a maximum forward speed of 62 km/h and a significantly lower reverse speed of 5 to 10 km/h. This capability for rapid retreat while maintaining a defensive posture is a critical advantage in combat scenarios.
The report notes that the Leopard 2 A5 has a limited operational range of 400 kilometers, which is less than the T-90M's range of 550 kilometers. This difference highlights the Leopard 2 A5's fuel efficiency challenges, which could impact its operational deployment.
The report provides limited details on the protection capabilities of both tanks. It does mention that the T-90M outperforms the Leopard 2 A5 in frontal protection against tandem warhead anti-tank missiles, attributed to its relic dynamic protection system. Additionally, the T-90M has options for installing active protection systems, which the Leopard 2 A5 lacks.
The comparative analysis of the Leopard 2 A5 and T-90M tanks reveals significant differences in firepower, engine performance, and technological capabilities. While the Leopard 2 A5 has historical significance and a robust design, the T-90M demonstrates advantages in fire rate, protection systems, and overall operational efficiency. The insights from this Russian military report provide valuable information for understanding the evolving landscape of armored warfare and the capabilities of modern tanks.
