瑞典当年采购豹II的测试过程，有点意思。。。

图一左边那架是什麽？

贴了张很有趣的图，显示了瑞典的自产坦克
其实为何当年不继续发展UDES XX20铰接式坦克？
这明显是最适合瑞典的坦克
放在今天看，还有很高前瞻性

最左边那辆没见过，竟然有炮口制退器

WALTZ 发表于 2014-8-1 12:28
图一左边那架是什麽？

贴了张很有趣的图，显示了瑞典的自产坦克
那个是Strv-2000吧

测试对比的结果呢？

poxic 发表于 2014-8-1 12:35
那个是Strv-2000吧
谢过，贴一下Strv-2000的资料
http://www.ointres.se/strv_2000.htm

坦克不错  工业美学啊

poxic 发表于 2014-8-1 14:48
结果就是法国佬最高分 跟着瑞典很欣慰，很喜欢很想买 最后买了喵2~
那个数字应该是各测试子项排名

喵2    拿了3个第一，2个第二
M1A2 拿了2个第一，2个第二，1个第三
leclerc 除了机动性拿个第二，其他全部垫底

so...瑞典人选了分最高的喵2

那都被豹2完爆了

zantedes 发表于 2014-8-1 15:08
那个数字应该是各测试子项排名

喵2    拿了3个第一，2个第二

那都被豹2完爆了

poxic 发表于 2014-8-1 15:24
哦，MD应该是拿的M1A1去的。。。。还以为被豹2完爆了
表格左边的测试项目能否翻译一下？谢谢。

2014-8-1 15:47 上传

poxic 发表于 2014-8-1 15:24
那都被豹2完爆了
我脚的。。。。别的都是借口，其实喵二胜在省油了

喵二 72L/百公里
leclerc 138L/百公里
M1A2 148L/百公里

省油才是真理，而且能看出柴油机、混合动力跟汽轮机油耗区别的具体数值。

zantedes 发表于 2014-8-1 16:02
我脚的。。。。别的都是借口，其实喵二胜在省油了

喵二 72L/百公里

省油才是真理，而且能看出柴油机、混合动力跟汽轮机油耗区别的具体数值。

poxic 发表于 2014-8-1 16:24
省油才是真理，而且能看出柴油机、混合动力跟汽轮机油耗区别的具体数值。
混合动力这个词用在勒克莱尔上不合适

豹二在生存性上第一（没有没用贫铀装甲的M1A2不是？）而在维护性上落后于M1A2

这排名简直令我等屁民“大吃一斤”

cooleye 发表于 2014-8-1 18:41
豹二在生存性上第一（没有没用贫铀装甲的M1A2不是？）而在维护性上落后于M1A2

这排名简直令我等 ...
一斤不小了哈

豹二在生存性上第一（没有没用贫铀装甲的M1A2不是？）而在维护性上落后于M1A2

这排名简直令我等 ...
那个文章里说m1a2外贸型的装甲不如猫2，做了抗打击测试得出的结论

表格左边的测试项目能否翻译一下？谢谢。
机动力，效率，生存能力，火控观察能力，操控和维护性

Zysandcx 发表于 2014-8-1 20:10
那个文章里说m1a2外贸型的装甲不如猫2，做了抗打击测试得出的结论
没有贫油装甲的M1真心不靠谱。

M1坦克发动机可以像抽屉一样抽出来维护，豹2得把炮塔转向侧面，才可以维护。燃气轮机可靠性和维护性的确强于柴油机，M1在这点上得分第一不奇怪。

cooleye 发表于 2014-8-1 18:41
豹二在生存性上第一（没有没用贫铀装甲的M1A2不是？）而在维护性上落后于M1A2

这排名简直令我等 ...

M1坦克发动机可以像抽屉一样抽出来维护，豹2得把炮塔转向侧面，才可以维护。燃气轮机可靠性和维护性的确强于柴油机，M1在这点上得分第一不奇怪。

y123456y 发表于 2014-8-1 20:38
M1坦克发动机可以像抽屉一样抽出来，豹2得把炮塔转向侧面，才可以吊装。燃气轮机可靠性和维护性的确强于 ...
但是燃气轮机的耗油量太大了，在停止的时候，必须开动的，保障电力供应，瑞典购买的豹2，里头还装了一个小柴油机，发电用的。

大家说防护的时候注意看是l2 imp，不是猫2a5本身啊，瑞典人还要自己加一堆装甲，据说是多了3吨的样子，如果比m1a2什么的防护好也没什么奇怪的吧

zantedes 发表于 2014-8-1 15:08
那个数字应该是各测试子项排名

喵2    拿了3个第一，2个第二
不可能是排名
如果数字代表排名
不会有个TOTAL结论，  总14名 总7名啥意思。。。

有个TOTAL结论一般来说是代表得分。。。

total也解释得通，如果这个是排名，那total就是越少越好，不管是排名还是得分，肯定是要有个汇总的。

kakeru1215 发表于 2014-8-2 10:34
total也解释得通，如果这个是排名，那total就是越少越好，不管是排名还是得分，肯定是要有个汇总的。
如果是排名 汇总用的也会是1 2 3形势
不会用这么奇怪的格式。。。
而且如果是排名的话机动性 武器这俩选项根本说不通。。
同样1500马力
猫2的机动性会比得上燃气轮机的M1A2？和只有50多吨的勒克莱尔？ 勒克莱尔一贯是以高推比高机动著名的

火力上恐怕L44+DM43也是比不过法国佬的L52 （对了法国还有自动装填机 射速占优）

法国佬的120炮虽然不出彩  OFL120弹也不算强
但是压过L44和DM43还是没问题的.....
美国佬的M829系列根本不外贸...用L44+北约标准弹比不过法国佬也是正常

2014-8-2 11:25 上传

品天里炎 发表于 2014-8-2 11:26
这个应该是说瑞典的要求是炮塔正面+-35度50%防700吧

Kompositmaterial, kombinationer av stål och främst keramiska material, ger ett skydd som vid beskjutning med pilammunition motsvarar mer än 600 mm homogent pansarstål. För att nå verkan i sådana mål krävs en kanon med minst 120 mm kaliber. Men med fortsatt utveckling av skyddet räcker emellertid inte dessa pjäsprestanda. Vid bibehållen konventionell vapenteknik ‒ med krutdriven projektil ‒ måste kalibern alternativt eldrörslängden kunna ökas. Möjlighet till byte av kanon är den utvecklingspotential en ny modern stridsvagn måste ha.

品天里炎 发表于 2014-8-2 11:27
这个应该是说瑞典的要求是炮塔正面+-35度50%防700吧
火力要求是穿600

豹2还是很靠谱的！来克莱尔我不认为靠谱

品天里炎 发表于 2014-8-2 11:33
火力要求是穿600
还有瑞典地形比较复杂,
强调维护性

zantedes 发表于 2014-8-1 16:02
我脚的。。。。别的都是借口，其实喵二胜在省油了

喵二 72L/百公里
然后柴油机比燃气轮机省油,
但燃气轮机维护可能更好

实车是豹2a4和M1A1,怎么回事？

cooleye 发表于 2014-8-1 18:41
豹二在生存性上第一（没有没用贫铀装甲的M1A2不是？）而在维护性上落后于M1A2

这排名简直令我等 ...
没用贫铀装甲的M1A1防御力不过500

知道勒克莱尔三代中算一般，没想到这么一般。。

给您贴上英译版本吧（也是用谷歌翻得，就是比直接译为中文的话错误率小点，另外就是看您连接的这个网页，特别是使用CHROME内核浏览器时需将编码调至北欧语言（ISO-8859-10）这样才不会出现乱码）
========================================================
This page was last updated 2013-10-04. Responsible for this page is Richard O. Lindstrom.

background

The issue of a new Swedish tank the replacement of the tanks that were acquired during the 1950s and 1960s (Centurion and S-basket) was discussed for many years. During the 1970s, conducted the so-called udes studies (Surface Direct Fire Combat Vehicle) with a focus to start development of a new Swedish tank at the end of the decade. The defense in 1977 shot, however the issue of a new tank on the future, which meant that the older cars - Strv 101/102 and 103 Strv - instead underwent renovation and modification in the 1980s in order to better meet the 1990s threat. At the same time began the study of a new lightweight combat vehicle family with the goal of achieving "a broad mechanization of the Army" it was later to result in Combat 90th

In the mid-1980s began, however, the FMV on its own initiative technical studies for a future acquisition of new tanks projects Tank 2000th Along with the Swedish defense was conducted extensive studies in the latter half of the 1980s, both the whole concept of component solutions with new technologies. The 1987 defense (Prop. 1986/87: 95) found that issues associated with the continued mechanization of the army, armored brigades and the future and the need for new tanks should be studied further. Meanwhile, also stressed that "the battle for variable - mostly attack - required anti-tank system that has good mobility and armor protection."

This led to the parallel development of the Tank in 2000, attempts were made with borrowed foreign tanks Leopard 2 A4 from Germany and M1A1 Abrams from USA in order to build the knowledge of modern coaches to set proper requirement Strv 2000. experiments in northern Norrland, however, came to be a epiphany when the 55-ton tanks were shown to have significantly better traction ability in snow and soft ground than what the army leadership had previously provided. The cars were simply so heavy that they pushed their way through the deep snow and got contact with the ground, allowing surprisingly good combat technology movement in the terrain. Furthermore, the hit probability when shooting over time much better than expected.

Decisions on direct acquisition of new tanks

With this insight and with newfound American and British experiences of the war in Kuwait in early 1991, it soon became clear that Sweden's old tanks did not meet the 90 first century. To continue the development of a new Swedish tank was judged to be too expensive and take too long. The operational slump discovered meant that it was not possible to wait with a purchase of new tanks to after 2000, this meant that the government of the special defense bill in spring 1991 (Prop. 1990/91: 102) stated that a possible acquisition of new tanks should be carried out as direct acquisition abroad which latter, the defense the following year (1991/92 Defence Committee: FöU12). In this says:

"The Committee, for its part noted that the tanks that are currently in use in the Swedish troops to its basic design is 30-40 years old. Successive modifications have allowed them to remain in the war organization, but the data for the units in which they are received restricted. It should be obvious attde current battle wagons quality weapon and survival are insufficient against an opponent most modern dressing. "

Defence Committee's majority concluded his argument by stating that it is necessary to begin sales of existing tanks during the defense period.

The decision was a turning point in that long tradition of developing its own tanks were no longer relevant. A project Strv New created in September 1991 at FMV and immediately began the work of preparing a purchase from abroad.

Requirements for a new Swedish tank

What requirements were then on a new modern tank system?

The design for a tank system is primarily the threat, it thought the attacker's tanks and their technical development. Tank system must also be designed against the environment where it is intended to occur, the joint where it intended to be included and the other resources that it will interact with. The tank system is a capital-intensive investment that renewal can only occur with intervals. The equipment must therefore be dimensioned for long life. Some requirements will be constant over the lifetime, while others claim - dictated by technology and hotutvekling - may change. To fend off these requirements must also have a certain capacity for future development accommodated, ie development potential.

Defence is to meet an attack both on land border by air, requiring flexibility for different types of combat; ward Airborne assault, arrest / beat the advancing enemy and attack into the enemy beachhead. The ability of the defense to react quickly reflected in the requirement that units and materiel must be operational at short notice, after long storage position and without additional training. With a dwindling number of qualified brigades (as well as mechanized armor) increases the demand for the few units that can occur throughout the country. Thus specifies a number of requirements to be able to occur during the country's different climate types and in all the country terrains. This was accentuated during the trials 1989-1990 when they borrowed the tanks showed that they could operate even in soft ground, something that had not previously been considered mökligt. The ability to quickly implement the movement of tank connections between different areas of operation in the country was therefore of great importance.

Other factors that influenced our choice of the new tank system was our general conscription and related systems for basic and repetionsutbildning: selection of crews, available training time and thus the ability for staff to utilize the technical potential that is built into a modern tank systems. A new tank must be designed to suit the Swedish Armed Forces' maintenance concept. It should be easy to diagnose even at the incident site. Repair to be carried out quickly with so-called utbytensenheter, which are managed in units' maintenance chain. In time, the tanks must be maintained at defense workshops and face lifetime extension renovations / modifications at these or civil industries.

The ability of various stridsfordonsytper to perform together or interact in armored or mechanized brigade is essential. That means that other types of vehicle by hand may be adapted to the new tank.

These overarching framework, however, overshadowed by the main requirement - the ability to fight other tanks. This ability must be exercised for a long time, ie, the tank must survive in order to be able to repeatedly fight the attacker's tanks. At the time of acquisition of new Swedish tank could be seen that the most modern hotstridsvagnen have:

  Good weapons effects, with the cannon> 120 mm and projecting pilprojektiler as principal ammunition

  High level of protection, composite armor, have little vulnerable target surface

  Good observation of light and darkness

  good mobility

Composite materials, combinations of steel and foremost ceramic materials, the protection afforded by the bombardment with pilammunition equivalent of more than 600 mm homogeneous armor steel. To achieve the effect of such goals requires a cannon with a minimum of 120 mm caliber. However, with the continued development of protection is not sufficient these play performance. When maintaining conventional weapons technology - with gunpowder-driven projectiles - have the caliber alternatively eldrörslängden be increased. Possibility of changing the cannon is the development of a new modern tank must have.

The most important selection criteria for a new tank system came to be summarized in:

  Firepower at least equal to 120 mm

  Firing the cannon during the time

  Shooting and sighting in darkness or reduced visibility

  A level of protection that resists modern pilammunition

  A total weight of less than 65 tons

  Fod accessibility

From the System Plan C for stridsvagnsfunktionm 2000 / Tank Dressings, head of the Army 1993:

"Tank system is an assault weapon with great flexibility and good with both the tactical and operational mobility., It creates offensive ability with the ability to quickly make determinations and take back and hold terrain.

The tank will initially provide both high firepower somgod endurance in combat with the ability to run around the clock and in any väderfärhållanden.

Through good management opportunities and limited requirements on preparation for battle can gynnnsamma time relationships can be achieved, among other things to meet the enemy's hair growth.

Dressings with modern tanks should have a strong war deterrent effect. "

Many potential foreign candidates tank

An analysis of the market made ​​a theoretical evaluation of 14 potential candidates:

Leopard 2 A4

Leopard 2 "Improved"

M1A1 "Abrams"

M1A2 "Abrams"

Challenger 1

Challenger 2

Challenger 2 chassis with Leopard 2 turret (concepts that were considered by the UK)

AMX Leclerc

Merkava

Ariete

M-84 (a quote sent to us spontaneously from Yugoslavia in the early 90's)

T-72

T-80

T-80U

In autumn 1991, the FMV prepare loan of tanks to carry out testing and trials in Sweden. Parallel with the activities of this work began with tillsasmmans The head of the Army develop a test and trial plan.

Request for Information

After completing the theoretical evaluation was served four potential suppliers an RFI (Request For Information). This was done on November 11 1991 and March 1, 1992 responses were received on the Challenger 2 tanks (Vickers Defence, UK), Leclerc (GIAT, France), the Leopard 2 Improved (Krauss-Maffei, Germany) and M1A2 Abrams (General Dynamics, USA) were considered to meet the requirements of the specifications. In this context it should be noted that the RFI responses submitted by Krauss-Maffei did not keep the same quality level as the responses from the other three suppliers. Within the project team asked whether the Germans really were interested in being involved in the procurement process - perhaps they had just sent a standard based on "information brochure"? But we were soon clear to us that their interest was serious ...

The purpose of the RFI was among others to obtain sufficient good knowledge in order to design a good invitation to tender. One challenge was that the Army establish a foreign-developed tank, tailored to their specific requirements, without changing the cart more than absolutely necessary. To this should also be factored in all fully developed support system.

Prior efforts to develop an RFI was decided that the FMV would use the principle of a primary supplier of a complete tank systems. This system consisted of the addition of tank ammunition, documentation, training, training equipment, spare equipment, maintenance equipment, and coordination of interfaces to existing equipment in Sweden.

Another important decision was to follow international military standards when developing specifications and more. In addition to these demands would be looked into the possibility of counter-trade or industrisambverkan.

Common to the four cars were arming with 12 cm high-pressure cannon otherwise, they differed to a considerable degree. Parable with traditional passenger cars produced in those countries were not entirely far-fetched - in the USA we had to drive a wagon type Chevrolet Impala experienced big and rocking with a good rumble, in England we were treated to a pretty spirited Jaguar who had consumed for some horsepower to and where he pulled hoses and wires in the engine compartment had been given free play space to the tune of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". In France it is not feasible with a simple solution that works but it will be a bit special and "space: at" and their digital mix of Citroën / Renault / Peugeot did not disappoint when it came to satisfying the "Star Wars vein." Germany fielded a Mercedes, everything clicked perfectly - almost on Gansen to splendidly when we got a 2hr lesson how relationships between different track shoes at its best right ...

British Challenger 2 was an improved version of Challenger 1, including a brand new tower

American M1A2 was a vidraeutvecklad version of the M1A1 that includes management, periscope with IRV to the commander as well as the caravan electrical system was equipped with a data bus

German Leopard 2 Improved was significantly improved in the tank else compares with the previous version, A4; mainly regarding the carriage and ballistic protection to wagon boss periscope fitted with IRV

French Leclercv was a tank still under utvecklibng; three-man crew, ATMs and with a hyper barbarian engine and a total weight of 8 tons lögre than competitors

Overall data for the competing tanks

	Leclerc	Leopard 2 Imp	M1A2
crew	3	4	4
weight （ton）	54.5	62.5	62.5
charge	Machine	manual	manual
sight	IR / BF	2 x IR	2 x IR
laser	Director / Shooter	Sagittarius	Sagittarius
Management	coordinates	map	map
Engine (1500 hp)	Hyberbar	diesel	turbine

As part of the RFI was also attached draft agreement text for the loan of tank for tests in Sweden. From the Swedish side was considered to be of great importance that the cars could be tested in Swedish terrain with Swedish crews and under Swedish control. Therefore rejected propositions that instead follow the manufacturer's own effort or to perform the tests at the manufacturer.

Negotiations began in the spring and summer on loan by tanks comparative trials in Sweden. The negotiations resulted in an agreement that included loans of tanks from each country, technical support, and training of Army personnel and FMV. The intention was that the officers who were trained in each country would conduct crew training in Sweden in autumn 1992 Furthermore Swedish technicians to maintain and repair cars in Sweden. The experiments were planned to be conducted during January - June 1993, a period of training for conscripts herds in Sweden in November and December, 1992.

It turned out afterwards that all countries had problems fulfilling FMV's wishes. Vickers was involved in the testing of the Challenger 2 and in June forced Englishmen renounce continued participation on the grounds that they needed their carriages for this testing because they had obligations to its clients throughout 1993 Circumstances, however, spoke against the British Royalty was rifled barrel (others had smooth bore barrel and could shoot the same type of ammunition), the lower the engine power (1200 HP in the Challenger compared with 1500 hp at the other contestants) and the crew compartment centrally located ammunition storage (strange that they had not pulled deeper conclusions from the experience with Sherman in World War II). Taken together, these facts have contributed to the ignominious retreat.

Before the test was sent Swedish personnel for training on the remaining candidates in the respective countries. During the fall of 1992 the Army was trained and FMV's staff on the three carriages. FMV ruled during this period training with approximately 150 participants abroad. Both civilian and military personnel, both officers conscripts participated in the training. After this training took additional training in Sweden with Leopard 2 Improved and M1A2 - who arrived in Sweden in late 1992, it took until January 1993 before the French could connect to the trials. They then came by plane with two (!) Carts from pilot series to the Leclerc tank - just right in time for the trials that would start in Boden. With PAC responsible for the violation of technical trials began an intensive trial period.

Request For Quotation and the testing of the borrowed tanks

On 1 February 1993 was broadcast RFP (Request For Quotation - RFQ) to Krauss Maffei Wehrtechnik, General Dynamic Land Systems and GIAT Industries. Replies were due by 1 June 1993.

Parallel to the potential suppliers of New Strv worked on getting a competitive tender was conducted trials in a number of stages, essentially comprising the following:
stage 1

Winter Trial in Upper Norrland (traction in snowy, 48-hour stridsdyng, passage of northern rivers and snow blocks, and cold start)

  stage 2

BT shootings in Skövde (shooting simulator, with stationary and moving carriage against stationary and moving targets during daylight and in the dark)

  stage 3

Observation Trial in Skövde (observation from stationary and moving carriage against different types of targets during dagskjus and in the dark)

  stage 4

Firing with exercise and combat gear on Ravlunda (shooting with stationary and moving carriage against stationary and moving targets during daylight and in the dark)

  stage 5

Lead Testing on Revinge (comparative trials with and without management support in daylight and in darkness, accuracy, target identifica- tion) 48-hour battle day in Rinkaby and road march to Skovde

  stage 6

Dryland Try Skövde (traction on various types of surfaces, rear, steeplechase and trench-climbing ability)

  stage 7

Maintenance Functional analysis of Skövde and in France (measuring times to conduct repairs and requirements for maintenance and test equipment)

The technical tests included the shootings against each wagon protection modules, avviknings- and angular displacement, measurement of IR signature under snow and snow-free conditions (elimination of heat radiation in the infrared wavelength range), radar cross section measurement, presents tooth measurement of infrared vision, measurement of acoustic signature, vibration measurement , kölsprov and measurement of the ABC system overpressure (protection against atomic, biological and chemical weapons).

A total of 151 completed various tests and trials. They aimed to provide answers to questions relating to the following subsystems / features:

  Vehicle / mobility

  Weapon / effect

  Protection / survival

  Leadership / management

  Reliability / availability / maintenance

  ergonomics

  Education

Availability means how much of example, a vehicle can be misused. The degree of availability is thus affected by downtime for repair, service and maintenance.

Where possible, a tank 104 (Centurion) as compared wagon. The reason for this was that a trial report would be sent to each supplier with the results for self-carriage and wagon for comparison. Below is an idea of ​​the scope of the experiments:

	Leclerc	Leopard 2 Imp	M1A2
distance traveled	3000 km	3730 km	3800 km
spent fuel	41,400 liters	26,874 liters	56,488 liters
Fuel	138 liters / 10 km	72 liters / 10 km	148 liters / 10 km
shots fired	235	271	289

Results from testing

The experimental results showed that two of the cars in general compliance was in PTTFO (Provisional Tactical Technical Economic Mission), while the third, Leclerc, substantially did not. The reason was partly that this stroller at the time attempts were not fully developed and that some design solutions from a Swedish point of view was not entirely successful.

All experimental results, detailed in the values ​​obtained, is at the supplier's request secret. Below are the results at a inbördesi form of level indication for each wagon and sub / function. In some cases, the differences between the cars small, in others larger. It should be noted that the results and conclusions are based on the configuration and the experimental carriage had during the trials in Sweden. For example, the M1A2 was not tried in workmanship provided with guard, but can relatively easily be equipped with such.

	Leclerc	Leopard 2 Imp	M1A2
mobility	2	1	3
effect	3	1	2
survivability	3	1	2
line	3	2	1
Operations & Maintenance	3	2	1
TOTAL:	14	7	9

All the vehicles were essentially equivalent for mobility, with an advantage for Leclerc's acceleration due to its high specific power output. Surprisingly not affected traction in other of the big weight difference. Leclerc weighed 7 tons less than the other vehicles.

Leopard 2 Improved had the best accuracy results with training ammunition ochde shortest times to shot. With combat gear fired M1A2 best. Trolley manager's observation opportunities were the best in M1A2. However, the cart is not equipped with light sight for wagon boss.

Leopard 2 Improved front had the best ballistic protection, protection from enemy fire, and was also equipped with a certificate on the tower roof. M1A2 had a ballistic protection in the export version. Slide attempt against the best ballistic protection made ​​in the USA. Otherwise, the survivability of the M1A2 good as the ammunition stored separate from the herd.

M1A2 was the only one of the tested cars that had an operational management system. M1A2's management was able to buy relatively easily adapted to Swedish standards. A Leopard 2 Improved management systems in prototype design was borrowed specifically for management efforts. This management system was also assessed after some modifications correspond to the Swedish requirements and this system therefore came to be the basis for the management who later came with Strv 122.

Improved Leopard 2 and M1A2 had the highest availability and a minimum number of errors during the trial period. It appeared that Leclerc was not fully developed, but was marred by a number of teething problems of a more or less serious nature.



In parallel with the para-cal experiments with the tanks carried FMV technical tests and analyzes. Especially battle wagons survival ability came to be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Slide test was conducted in the respective countries against delskrov of the various battle wagons protection modules in the chassis and turret. Corresponding shooting tests were also made with relevant hotammunition (slightly lower threat levels for the chassis) on FFK Karlsborg against all tanks alternatively provided with a Swedish designed protection from Akers Krutbruk and the German partner of IBD (engineering office Deisenroth). Since we have not got enough material from the supplier, we let build delskrov his own way to perform the shooting test against the various tanks with the Swedish-developed protection - something that particularly surprised the French ...



This was a ballistic protection as in many attitudes increased protection with 50-100%, primarily on the French but also the American tank (something like a four-star American general astonishment became aware that, in their study). Of tanks signatures in different wavelength regions were also mapped something that is also needed to help with FOA.

All the surveyed industries submitted bids in June 1st 1993 It was a sizable amount of covers that arrived at FMV and approximately 3,000 additional written questions were asked bidders. After the tender is submitted, it commenced formal evaluation. This evaluation did tactically, technically, and financially. More than 2000 different parameters were evaluated in a computational model.

Example shows no actual requirement for Strv New

Negotiation with suppliers was carried out in the latter half of the year. This work was structured so that the first order draft was drawn up in collaboration with the bidders. Then requested additional quotes in with regard to the changes made. The third drew up the draft order was the basis for final negotiations and provided input to the government request. This was submitted to the Government on 22 December 1993.

The completed preparation and negotiation process was at times very intense and dramatic. The short span of time put great pressure on both the bidders and the FMV. Throughout this period was held the Ministry of Defence, Commander in Chief and Head of Arménväl informed about the situation.

The differences between the tanks were large and the French were forced to conclude that their 7 tons lighter tank Leclerc was still an immature product in comparison to competitors. It was soon clear that the French Royalty did not measure, but the FMV informal thrust to the Defense Department to segregate early GIAT's tender from further evaluation and negotiation did not meet the ear.

Evaluation document was on 100's of pages and contained a lot of information that is impossible to reproduce here. The final report with the results of the comparative analyzes presented in December 1993 and could be summarized in the following ranking matrix:

	Leclerc	Leopard 2 In	M1A2
Vehicle / Mobility	2	1	3
Weapon / Effect	3	1	2
Safety / Survival	3	1	2
Management / Management	3	2	1
Reliability / Availability / Maintenance	3	2	1
Total	14	7	9

As the time drew near for the government to implement the parliamentary decision on the purchase of new tanks, there was a very substantial debate. Observations of very different nature were made in different places - some examples:

  Tank acquisition should stop

  Easier combat vehicles should be chosen instead

  Attack helicopters are better

  The Russian tank T-80 should be purchased

  Used Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands or Germany should be purchased instead

  The number of tanks should be limited

Also discussed the tank that should be selected and which so-called counter-trade package that could be considered gynsam mast.

When it became clear to the Americans that the M1-ball probably would not get elected, they made one last thrust with an unsolicited offer where the price has been reduced by one billion. They offered even to the U.S. President, on his way home from a visit to Moscow, could stop over for deeper discussion with the Swedish Prime Minister in the tank issue. FMV received the offer but declined to Clinton. Instead, filed a petition to the government days before Christmas in December 1993, where the German Leopard 2 advocated.

Decisions on the purchase of the Leopard 2

After a sensitivity analysis in the days where the American M1-ball was considered one last time, took the government 20 January 1994 decision to procure 120 newly Leopard 2 S ?? a further development of the Leopard 2 A5 and with an option for a further 90 cars in a later step.

At a press conference Defence Minister informed that the government in the selection of tank primarily took into account three different criteria:

  The tank's technical performance

  price

  The so-called counter-trade offered the Swedish defense

While the decision to procure 120 new carriages, the Government also decided to purchase 160 pieces of used Leopard 2 in an older version Leopard 2 A4 (all trolleys were upgraded to this version). In parallel with the testing of the most modern tanks to armored brigades had tank namely simpler alternative is evaluated as a solution to the need for the mechanized brigades this instead of another lifetime extension of the Centurion tank (where a prototype Strv 105 had been produced).

In addition to second-hand Leopard 2 from Germany also had older M1: or by 10.5 cm gun offered by the Americans, but the most spectacular was that two Russian tanks of the latest model T80U had been borrowed for both combat technical experiments as a technical test for half a year 1993/94. Because of the government's swift announcement that Leopard 2 also was our choice for the mechanized brigades were forced trials stopped early, but they still gave their contribution to Sweden's unique knowledge about the world's most modern tanks.

After a spring of final negotiations could enter into a contract June 20, 1994 by Krauss-Maffei Wehrtechnik for purchase and licensed production of tank Leopard 2 S. The contract also included the purchase of maintenance and education. At the same time signed an offset agreement on counter-trade agreements to a contract value equivalent to the order. In parallel, an agreement was made with the German government on August 12 on a very favorable lease of surplus Leopard 2 CFE Treaty of 1990 had limited how many tanks Germany got hold.

Right after that the contracts between the FMV and German suppliers was completed in August 1994 began on August 15 education for Swedish instructors and technicians. This conducted in Germany at Kampf squad Schule 2 in Muenster and the Technische Schule in Aachen. The first round ended in November of that year.

They used the tanks were delivered in August 1994 and the end of the year, all 160 carriages transferred. Once in Sweden underwent technical review the vehicles were painted in Swedish camouflage pattern and fitted with Swedish radio systems before they then went into operation of the units. The tanks were given the designation Strv 121.

The Swedish industry's involvement in the manufacture and supply of Strv 122 was set the following objectives:

Take advantage of capacity and experience in the defense technical manufacturing sector and thereby maintain them for the future

Perform the essential part of the production in Sweden to ensure the knowledge of maintenance, taking over responsibility system, and future development

Swedish effort to get the greatest value in the economic conditions.

Against these objectives sought Krauss Maffei Wehrtechnik quotes from the Swedish industry. These were tried out technical and commercial aspects. As a result of this selection process could ultimately volume of Swedish industry participation determined. In essence, it is stated in the following areas under the respective selected Swedish companies - also known as direct industrisamverekan:

Hagglunds Vehicle AB: System Integration Housing, manufacturing Chassis mounting Tower components	Bofors AB Tower Manufacturing Tower, integration weapon systems L44 stabilization System	SKF: stabilization System
Saab Instruments AB: stabilization System Trolley manager's control Trolley manager's dressing tools Sagittarius dressing tools	Celsius AB: Installation of optics Management	Ericsson Microwave Systems AB Shooter's control panel
Akers Krutbruk Protection AB: Ballistic protection modules	SSAB Oxelösund: Armour Steel	Sörman Information AB technical documentation

The above industrial equipment collaboration, each Swedish company had its counterpart in Germany, was made possible thanks to two MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed between the two countries on June 6 1994, and the contract that was signed two weeks later regarding industrial collaboration had a contract amount equivalent to 1.020 DM (5, 1 billion Swedish crowns at the then exchange rate). The total commitment for Krauss Maffei ran in 9 years and was distributed as 30% direct, 45% indirect and 25% civilian industry co. Added to this was voluntary pledges by Krauss Maffei about another 20% indirectly and civilian industry co. This meant that opportunities existed for Swedish industry cooperation within the frame of the contract totaling 6.1 billion.

The twenty-first new Leopard tanks were assembled in Germany. The remaining 91 wagons license built in Sweden Bofors responsible for the tower and Hagglunds as responsible for the chassis and final integration. The tanks were given the designation Strv 122 the first car was delivered to FMV in December 1996 for examination and 2002, all Strv 122 delivered to the Armed Forces.

The photographs on this page are taken from his own archive, FMV archives, Karl Skaremyr, and Wikipedia. Some of the images from the archives of the FMV has no source and I are grateful for comments on this to correct ...

Data for this article is from FMV's publication "Facts about the Leopard 2 - tank 121 and 122" from 1995 and the following authors have received help with text: Sture Ärlebäck, Stig Edgren, Ulf Birath, Gunnar Ivarsson, Lars Fagerberg, Lars Östlund , Rüdiger Rötzel and Carl G Lundgren.

给您贴上英译版本吧（也是用谷歌翻得，就是比直接译为中文的话错误率小点，另外就是看您连接的这个网页，特别是使用CHROME内核浏览器时需将编码调至北欧语言（ISO-8859-10）这样才不会出现乱码）
========================================================
This page was last updated 2013-10-04. Responsible for this page is Richard O. Lindstrom.

background

The issue of a new Swedish tank the replacement of the tanks that were acquired during the 1950s and 1960s (Centurion and S-basket) was discussed for many years. During the 1970s, conducted the so-called udes studies (Surface Direct Fire Combat Vehicle) with a focus to start development of a new Swedish tank at the end of the decade. The defense in 1977 shot, however the issue of a new tank on the future, which meant that the older cars - Strv 101/102 and 103 Strv - instead underwent renovation and modification in the 1980s in order to better meet the 1990s threat. At the same time began the study of a new lightweight combat vehicle family with the goal of achieving "a broad mechanization of the Army" it was later to result in Combat 90th

In the mid-1980s began, however, the FMV on its own initiative technical studies for a future acquisition of new tanks projects Tank 2000th Along with the Swedish defense was conducted extensive studies in the latter half of the 1980s, both the whole concept of component solutions with new technologies. The 1987 defense (Prop. 1986/87: 95) found that issues associated with the continued mechanization of the army, armored brigades and the future and the need for new tanks should be studied further. Meanwhile, also stressed that "the battle for variable - mostly attack - required anti-tank system that has good mobility and armor protection."

This led to the parallel development of the Tank in 2000, attempts were made with borrowed foreign tanks Leopard 2 A4 from Germany and M1A1 Abrams from USA in order to build the knowledge of modern coaches to set proper requirement Strv 2000. experiments in northern Norrland, however, came to be a epiphany when the 55-ton tanks were shown to have significantly better traction ability in snow and soft ground than what the army leadership had previously provided. The cars were simply so heavy that they pushed their way through the deep snow and got contact with the ground, allowing surprisingly good combat technology movement in the terrain. Furthermore, the hit probability when shooting over time much better than expected.

Decisions on direct acquisition of new tanks

With this insight and with newfound American and British experiences of the war in Kuwait in early 1991, it soon became clear that Sweden's old tanks did not meet the 90 first century. To continue the development of a new Swedish tank was judged to be too expensive and take too long. The operational slump discovered meant that it was not possible to wait with a purchase of new tanks to after 2000, this meant that the government of the special defense bill in spring 1991 (Prop. 1990/91: 102) stated that a possible acquisition of new tanks should be carried out as direct acquisition abroad which latter, the defense the following year (1991/92 Defence Committee: FöU12). In this says:

"The Committee, for its part noted that the tanks that are currently in use in the Swedish troops to its basic design is 30-40 years old. Successive modifications have allowed them to remain in the war organization, but the data for the units in which they are received restricted. It should be obvious attde current battle wagons quality weapon and survival are insufficient against an opponent most modern dressing. "

Defence Committee's majority concluded his argument by stating that it is necessary to begin sales of existing tanks during the defense period.

The decision was a turning point in that long tradition of developing its own tanks were no longer relevant. A project Strv New created in September 1991 at FMV and immediately began the work of preparing a purchase from abroad.

Requirements for a new Swedish tank

What requirements were then on a new modern tank system?

The design for a tank system is primarily the threat, it thought the attacker's tanks and their technical development. Tank system must also be designed against the environment where it is intended to occur, the joint where it intended to be included and the other resources that it will interact with. The tank system is a capital-intensive investment that renewal can only occur with intervals. The equipment must therefore be dimensioned for long life. Some requirements will be constant over the lifetime, while others claim - dictated by technology and hotutvekling - may change. To fend off these requirements must also have a certain capacity for future development accommodated, ie development potential.

Defence is to meet an attack both on land border by air, requiring flexibility for different types of combat; ward Airborne assault, arrest / beat the advancing enemy and attack into the enemy beachhead. The ability of the defense to react quickly reflected in the requirement that units and materiel must be operational at short notice, after long storage position and without additional training. With a dwindling number of qualified brigades (as well as mechanized armor) increases the demand for the few units that can occur throughout the country. Thus specifies a number of requirements to be able to occur during the country's different climate types and in all the country terrains. This was accentuated during the trials 1989-1990 when they borrowed the tanks showed that they could operate even in soft ground, something that had not previously been considered mökligt. The ability to quickly implement the movement of tank connections between different areas of operation in the country was therefore of great importance.

Other factors that influenced our choice of the new tank system was our general conscription and related systems for basic and repetionsutbildning: selection of crews, available training time and thus the ability for staff to utilize the technical potential that is built into a modern tank systems. A new tank must be designed to suit the Swedish Armed Forces' maintenance concept. It should be easy to diagnose even at the incident site. Repair to be carried out quickly with so-called utbytensenheter, which are managed in units' maintenance chain. In time, the tanks must be maintained at defense workshops and face lifetime extension renovations / modifications at these or civil industries.

The ability of various stridsfordonsytper to perform together or interact in armored or mechanized brigade is essential. That means that other types of vehicle by hand may be adapted to the new tank.

These overarching framework, however, overshadowed by the main requirement - the ability to fight other tanks. This ability must be exercised for a long time, ie, the tank must survive in order to be able to repeatedly fight the attacker's tanks. At the time of acquisition of new Swedish tank could be seen that the most modern hotstridsvagnen have:

  Good weapons effects, with the cannon> 120 mm and projecting pilprojektiler as principal ammunition

  High level of protection, composite armor, have little vulnerable target surface

  Good observation of light and darkness

  good mobility

Composite materials, combinations of steel and foremost ceramic materials, the protection afforded by the bombardment with pilammunition equivalent of more than 600 mm homogeneous armor steel. To achieve the effect of such goals requires a cannon with a minimum of 120 mm caliber. However, with the continued development of protection is not sufficient these play performance. When maintaining conventional weapons technology - with gunpowder-driven projectiles - have the caliber alternatively eldrörslängden be increased. Possibility of changing the cannon is the development of a new modern tank must have.

The most important selection criteria for a new tank system came to be summarized in:

  Firepower at least equal to 120 mm

  Firing the cannon during the time

  Shooting and sighting in darkness or reduced visibility

  A level of protection that resists modern pilammunition

  A total weight of less than 65 tons

  Fod accessibility

From the System Plan C for stridsvagnsfunktionm 2000 / Tank Dressings, head of the Army 1993:

"Tank system is an assault weapon with great flexibility and good with both the tactical and operational mobility., It creates offensive ability with the ability to quickly make determinations and take back and hold terrain.

The tank will initially provide both high firepower somgod endurance in combat with the ability to run around the clock and in any väderfärhållanden.

Through good management opportunities and limited requirements on preparation for battle can gynnnsamma time relationships can be achieved, among other things to meet the enemy's hair growth.

Dressings with modern tanks should have a strong war deterrent effect. "

Many potential foreign candidates tank

An analysis of the market made ​​a theoretical evaluation of 14 potential candidates:

Leopard 2 A4

Leopard 2 "Improved"

M1A1 "Abrams"

M1A2 "Abrams"

Challenger 1

Challenger 2

Challenger 2 chassis with Leopard 2 turret (concepts that were considered by the UK)

AMX Leclerc

Merkava

Ariete

M-84 (a quote sent to us spontaneously from Yugoslavia in the early 90's)

T-72

T-80

T-80U

In autumn 1991, the FMV prepare loan of tanks to carry out testing and trials in Sweden. Parallel with the activities of this work began with tillsasmmans The head of the Army develop a test and trial plan.

Request for Information

After completing the theoretical evaluation was served four potential suppliers an RFI (Request For Information). This was done on November 11 1991 and March 1, 1992 responses were received on the Challenger 2 tanks (Vickers Defence, UK), Leclerc (GIAT, France), the Leopard 2 Improved (Krauss-Maffei, Germany) and M1A2 Abrams (General Dynamics, USA) were considered to meet the requirements of the specifications. In this context it should be noted that the RFI responses submitted by Krauss-Maffei did not keep the same quality level as the responses from the other three suppliers. Within the project team asked whether the Germans really were interested in being involved in the procurement process - perhaps they had just sent a standard based on "information brochure"? But we were soon clear to us that their interest was serious ...

The purpose of the RFI was among others to obtain sufficient good knowledge in order to design a good invitation to tender. One challenge was that the Army establish a foreign-developed tank, tailored to their specific requirements, without changing the cart more than absolutely necessary. To this should also be factored in all fully developed support system.

Prior efforts to develop an RFI was decided that the FMV would use the principle of a primary supplier of a complete tank systems. This system consisted of the addition of tank ammunition, documentation, training, training equipment, spare equipment, maintenance equipment, and coordination of interfaces to existing equipment in Sweden.

Another important decision was to follow international military standards when developing specifications and more. In addition to these demands would be looked into the possibility of counter-trade or industrisambverkan.

Common to the four cars were arming with 12 cm high-pressure cannon otherwise, they differed to a considerable degree. Parable with traditional passenger cars produced in those countries were not entirely far-fetched - in the USA we had to drive a wagon type Chevrolet Impala experienced big and rocking with a good rumble, in England we were treated to a pretty spirited Jaguar who had consumed for some horsepower to and where he pulled hoses and wires in the engine compartment had been given free play space to the tune of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds". In France it is not feasible with a simple solution that works but it will be a bit special and "space: at" and their digital mix of Citroën / Renault / Peugeot did not disappoint when it came to satisfying the "Star Wars vein." Germany fielded a Mercedes, everything clicked perfectly - almost on Gansen to splendidly when we got a 2hr lesson how relationships between different track shoes at its best right ...

British Challenger 2 was an improved version of Challenger 1, including a brand new tower

American M1A2 was a vidraeutvecklad version of the M1A1 that includes management, periscope with IRV to the commander as well as the caravan electrical system was equipped with a data bus

German Leopard 2 Improved was significantly improved in the tank else compares with the previous version, A4; mainly regarding the carriage and ballistic protection to wagon boss periscope fitted with IRV

French Leclercv was a tank still under utvecklibng; three-man crew, ATMs and with a hyper barbarian engine and a total weight of 8 tons lögre than competitors

Overall data for the competing tanks
Leclerc   Leopard 2 Imp M1A2  crew  3 4 4 weight （ton） 54.5 62.5 62.5 charge Machine  manual manual sight IR / BF 2 x IR  2 x IR  laser   Director / ShooterSagittarius Sagittarius Management  coordinates map map Engine (1500 hp)  Hyberbar  diesel turbine
As part of the RFI was also attached draft agreement text for the loan of tank for tests in Sweden. From the Swedish side was considered to be of great importance that the cars could be tested in Swedish terrain with Swedish crews and under Swedish control. Therefore rejected propositions that instead follow the manufacturer's own effort or to perform the tests at the manufacturer.

Negotiations began in the spring and summer on loan by tanks comparative trials in Sweden. The negotiations resulted in an agreement that included loans of tanks from each country, technical support, and training of Army personnel and FMV. The intention was that the officers who were trained in each country would conduct crew training in Sweden in autumn 1992 Furthermore Swedish technicians to maintain and repair cars in Sweden. The experiments were planned to be conducted during January - June 1993, a period of training for conscripts herds in Sweden in November and December, 1992.

It turned out afterwards that all countries had problems fulfilling FMV's wishes. Vickers was involved in the testing of the Challenger 2 and in June forced Englishmen renounce continued participation on the grounds that they needed their carriages for this testing because they had obligations to its clients throughout 1993 Circumstances, however, spoke against the British Royalty was rifled barrel (others had smooth bore barrel and could shoot the same type of ammunition), the lower the engine power (1200 HP in the Challenger compared with 1500 hp at the other contestants) and the crew compartment centrally located ammunition storage (strange that they had not pulled deeper conclusions from the experience with Sherman in World War II). Taken together, these facts have contributed to the ignominious retreat.

Before the test was sent Swedish personnel for training on the remaining candidates in the respective countries. During the fall of 1992 the Army was trained and FMV's staff on the three carriages. FMV ruled during this period training with approximately 150 participants abroad. Both civilian and military personnel, both officers conscripts participated in the training. After this training took additional training in Sweden with Leopard 2 Improved and M1A2 - who arrived in Sweden in late 1992, it took until January 1993 before the French could connect to the trials. They then came by plane with two (!) Carts from pilot series to the Leclerc tank - just right in time for the trials that would start in Boden. With PAC responsible for the violation of technical trials began an intensive trial period.

Request For Quotation and the testing of the borrowed tanks

On 1 February 1993 was broadcast RFP (Request For Quotation - RFQ) to Krauss Maffei Wehrtechnik, General Dynamic Land Systems and GIAT Industries. Replies were due by 1 June 1993.

Parallel to the potential suppliers of New Strv worked on getting a competitive tender was conducted trials in a number of stages, essentially comprising the following:
stage 1

Winter Trial in Upper Norrland (traction in snowy, 48-hour stridsdyng, passage of northern rivers and snow blocks, and cold start)

  stage 2

BT shootings in Skövde (shooting simulator, with stationary and moving carriage against stationary and moving targets during daylight and in the dark)

  stage 3

Observation Trial in Skövde (observation from stationary and moving carriage against different types of targets during dagskjus and in the dark)

  stage 4

Firing with exercise and combat gear on Ravlunda (shooting with stationary and moving carriage against stationary and moving targets during daylight and in the dark)

  stage 5

Lead Testing on Revinge (comparative trials with and without management support in daylight and in darkness, accuracy, target identifica- tion) 48-hour battle day in Rinkaby and road march to Skovde

  stage 6

Dryland Try Skövde (traction on various types of surfaces, rear, steeplechase and trench-climbing ability)

  stage 7

Maintenance Functional analysis of Skövde and in France (measuring times to conduct repairs and requirements for maintenance and test equipment)

The technical tests included the shootings against each wagon protection modules, avviknings- and angular displacement, measurement of IR signature under snow and snow-free conditions (elimination of heat radiation in the infrared wavelength range), radar cross section measurement, presents tooth measurement of infrared vision, measurement of acoustic signature, vibration measurement , kölsprov and measurement of the ABC system overpressure (protection against atomic, biological and chemical weapons).

A total of 151 completed various tests and trials. They aimed to provide answers to questions relating to the following subsystems / features:

  Vehicle / mobility

  Weapon / effect

  Protection / survival

  Leadership / management

  Reliability / availability / maintenance

  ergonomics

  Education

Availability means how much of example, a vehicle can be misused. The degree of availability is thus affected by downtime for repair, service and maintenance.

Where possible, a tank 104 (Centurion) as compared wagon. The reason for this was that a trial report would be sent to each supplier with the results for self-carriage and wagon for comparison. Below is an idea of ​​the scope of the experiments:
Leclerc  Leopard 2 Imp   M1A2 distance traveled  3000 km   3730 km 3800 km spent fuel  41,400 liters   26,874 liters 56,488 liters Fuel  138 liters / 10 km  72 liters / 10 km  148 liters / 10 km   shots fired235 271 289
Results from testing

The experimental results showed that two of the cars in general compliance was in PTTFO (Provisional Tactical Technical Economic Mission), while the third, Leclerc, substantially did not. The reason was partly that this stroller at the time attempts were not fully developed and that some design solutions from a Swedish point of view was not entirely successful.

All experimental results, detailed in the values ​​obtained, is at the supplier's request secret. Below are the results at a inbördesi form of level indication for each wagon and sub / function. In some cases, the differences between the cars small, in others larger. It should be noted that the results and conclusions are based on the configuration and the experimental carriage had during the trials in Sweden. For example, the M1A2 was not tried in workmanship provided with guard, but can relatively easily be equipped with such.
Leclerc  Leopard 2 Imp  M1A2  mobility  2 13 effect  3 12 survivability  3 1 2 line 3 2 1 Operations & Maintenance3 2 1 TOTAL:  14 7 9
All the vehicles were essentially equivalent for mobility, with an advantage for Leclerc's acceleration due to its high specific power output. Surprisingly not affected traction in other of the big weight difference. Leclerc weighed 7 tons less than the other vehicles.

Leopard 2 Improved had the best accuracy results with training ammunition ochde shortest times to shot. With combat gear fired M1A2 best. Trolley manager's observation opportunities were the best in M1A2. However, the cart is not equipped with light sight for wagon boss.

Leopard 2 Improved front had the best ballistic protection, protection from enemy fire, and was also equipped with a certificate on the tower roof. M1A2 had a ballistic protection in the export version. Slide attempt against the best ballistic protection made ​​in the USA. Otherwise, the survivability of the M1A2 good as the ammunition stored separate from the herd.

M1A2 was the only one of the tested cars that had an operational management system. M1A2's management was able to buy relatively easily adapted to Swedish standards. A Leopard 2 Improved management systems in prototype design was borrowed specifically for management efforts. This management system was also assessed after some modifications correspond to the Swedish requirements and this system therefore came to be the basis for the management who later came with Strv 122.

Improved Leopard 2 and M1A2 had the highest availability and a minimum number of errors during the trial period. It appeared that Leclerc was not fully developed, but was marred by a number of teething problems of a more or less serious nature.



In parallel with the para-cal experiments with the tanks carried FMV technical tests and analyzes. Especially battle wagons survival ability came to be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Slide test was conducted in the respective countries against delskrov of the various battle wagons protection modules in the chassis and turret. Corresponding shooting tests were also made with relevant hotammunition (slightly lower threat levels for the chassis) on FFK Karlsborg against all tanks alternatively provided with a Swedish designed protection from Akers Krutbruk and the German partner of IBD (engineering office Deisenroth). Since we have not got enough material from the supplier, we let build delskrov his own way to perform the shooting test against the various tanks with the Swedish-developed protection - something that particularly surprised the French ...



This was a ballistic protection as in many attitudes increased protection with 50-100%, primarily on the French but also the American tank (something like a four-star American general astonishment became aware that, in their study). Of tanks signatures in different wavelength regions were also mapped something that is also needed to help with FOA.

All the surveyed industries submitted bids in June 1st 1993 It was a sizable amount of covers that arrived at FMV and approximately 3,000 additional written questions were asked bidders. After the tender is submitted, it commenced formal evaluation. This evaluation did tactically, technically, and financially. More than 2000 different parameters were evaluated in a computational model.

Example shows no actual requirement for Strv New

Negotiation with suppliers was carried out in the latter half of the year. This work was structured so that the first order draft was drawn up in collaboration with the bidders. Then requested additional quotes in with regard to the changes made. The third drew up the draft order was the basis for final negotiations and provided input to the government request. This was submitted to the Government on 22 December 1993.

The completed preparation and negotiation process was at times very intense and dramatic. The short span of time put great pressure on both the bidders and the FMV. Throughout this period was held the Ministry of Defence, Commander in Chief and Head of Arménväl informed about the situation.

The differences between the tanks were large and the French were forced to conclude that their 7 tons lighter tank Leclerc was still an immature product in comparison to competitors. It was soon clear that the French Royalty did not measure, but the FMV informal thrust to the Defense Department to segregate early GIAT's tender from further evaluation and negotiation did not meet the ear.

Evaluation document was on 100's of pages and contained a lot of information that is impossible to reproduce here. The final report with the results of the comparative analyzes presented in December 1993 and could be summarized in the following ranking matrix:
Leclerc Leopard 2 In  M1A2   Vehicle / Mobility 2 1 3 Weapon / Effect  3 1 2 Safety / Survival  3 1 2 Management / Management 3 2 1 Reliability / Availability / Maintenance  3 2 1 Total  14 7 9
As the time drew near for the government to implement the parliamentary decision on the purchase of new tanks, there was a very substantial debate. Observations of very different nature were made in different places - some examples:

  Tank acquisition should stop

  Easier combat vehicles should be chosen instead

  Attack helicopters are better

  The Russian tank T-80 should be purchased

  Used Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands or Germany should be purchased instead

  The number of tanks should be limited

Also discussed the tank that should be selected and which so-called counter-trade package that could be considered gynsam mast.

When it became clear to the Americans that the M1-ball probably would not get elected, they made one last thrust with an unsolicited offer where the price has been reduced by one billion. They offered even to the U.S. President, on his way home from a visit to Moscow, could stop over for deeper discussion with the Swedish Prime Minister in the tank issue. FMV received the offer but declined to Clinton. Instead, filed a petition to the government days before Christmas in December 1993, where the German Leopard 2 advocated.

Decisions on the purchase of the Leopard 2

After a sensitivity analysis in the days where the American M1-ball was considered one last time, took the government 20 January 1994 decision to procure 120 newly Leopard 2 S ?? a further development of the Leopard 2 A5 and with an option for a further 90 cars in a later step.

At a press conference Defence Minister informed that the government in the selection of tank primarily took into account three different criteria:

  The tank's technical performance

  price

  The so-called counter-trade offered the Swedish defense

While the decision to procure 120 new carriages, the Government also decided to purchase 160 pieces of used Leopard 2 in an older version Leopard 2 A4 (all trolleys were upgraded to this version). In parallel with the testing of the most modern tanks to armored brigades had tank namely simpler alternative is evaluated as a solution to the need for the mechanized brigades this instead of another lifetime extension of the Centurion tank (where a prototype Strv 105 had been produced).

In addition to second-hand Leopard 2 from Germany also had older M1: or by 10.5 cm gun offered by the Americans, but the most spectacular was that two Russian tanks of the latest model T80U had been borrowed for both combat technical experiments as a technical test for half a year 1993/94. Because of the government's swift announcement that Leopard 2 also was our choice for the mechanized brigades were forced trials stopped early, but they still gave their contribution to Sweden's unique knowledge about the world's most modern tanks.

After a spring of final negotiations could enter into a contract June 20, 1994 by Krauss-Maffei Wehrtechnik for purchase and licensed production of tank Leopard 2 S. The contract also included the purchase of maintenance and education. At the same time signed an offset agreement on counter-trade agreements to a contract value equivalent to the order. In parallel, an agreement was made with the German government on August 12 on a very favorable lease of surplus Leopard 2 CFE Treaty of 1990 had limited how many tanks Germany got hold.

Right after that the contracts between the FMV and German suppliers was completed in August 1994 began on August 15 education for Swedish instructors and technicians. This conducted in Germany at Kampf squad Schule 2 in Muenster and the Technische Schule in Aachen. The first round ended in November of that year.

They used the tanks were delivered in August 1994 and the end of the year, all 160 carriages transferred. Once in Sweden underwent technical review the vehicles were painted in Swedish camouflage pattern and fitted with Swedish radio systems before they then went into operation of the units. The tanks were given the designation Strv 121.

The Swedish industry's involvement in the manufacture and supply of Strv 122 was set the following objectives:

Take advantage of capacity and experience in the defense technical manufacturing sector and thereby maintain them for the future

Perform the essential part of the production in Sweden to ensure the knowledge of maintenance, taking over responsibility system, and future development

Swedish effort to get the greatest value in the economic conditions.

Against these objectives sought Krauss Maffei Wehrtechnik quotes from the Swedish industry. These were tried out technical and commercial aspects. As a result of this selection process could ultimately volume of Swedish industry participation determined. In essence, it is stated in the following areas under the respective selected Swedish companies - also known as direct industrisamverekan:
Hagglunds Vehicle AB:

System Integration

Housing, manufacturing

Chassis mounting

Tower components Bofors AB

Tower Manufacturing

Tower, integration

weapon systems L44

stabilization System SKF:

stabilization System Saab Instruments AB:

stabilization System

Trolley manager's control

Trolley manager's dressing tools

Sagittarius dressing tools
Celsius AB:

Installation of optics

Management Ericsson Microwave Systems AB

Shooter's control panel Akers Krutbruk Protection AB:

Ballistic protection modules SSAB Oxelösund:

Armour Steel Sörman Information AB

technical documentation
The above industrial equipment collaboration, each Swedish company had its counterpart in Germany, was made possible thanks to two MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed between the two countries on June 6 1994, and the contract that was signed two weeks later regarding industrial collaboration had a contract amount equivalent to 1.020 DM (5, 1 billion Swedish crowns at the then exchange rate). The total commitment for Krauss Maffei ran in 9 years and was distributed as 30% direct, 45% indirect and 25% civilian industry co. Added to this was voluntary pledges by Krauss Maffei about another 20% indirectly and civilian industry co. This meant that opportunities existed for Swedish industry cooperation within the frame of the contract totaling 6.1 billion.

The twenty-first new Leopard tanks were assembled in Germany. The remaining 91 wagons license built in Sweden Bofors responsible for the tower and Hagglunds as responsible for the chassis and final integration. The tanks were given the designation Strv 122 the first car was delivered to FMV in December 1996 for examination and 2002, all Strv 122 delivered to the Armed Forces.

The photographs on this page are taken from his own archive, FMV archives, Karl Skaremyr, and Wikipedia. Some of the images from the archives of the FMV has no source and I are grateful for comments on this to correct ...

Data for this article is from FMV's publication "Facts about the Leopard 2 - tank 121 and 122" from 1995 and the following authors have received help with text: Sture Ärlebäck, Stig Edgren, Ulf Birath, Gunnar Ivarsson, Lars Fagerberg, Lars Östlund , Rüdiger Rötzel and Carl G Lundgren.

Rhine 发表于 2014-8-2 10:42
如果是排名 汇总用的也会是1 2 3形势
不会用这么奇怪的格式。。。
而且如果是排名的话机动性 武器这俩 ...
后面也说了，法国人很惊讶，但是事实就是这样……

总大将 发表于 2014-8-2 11:46
豹2还是很靠谱的！来克莱尔我不认为靠谱
与时间有关，当时勒克莱尔刚刚定型没多久……
如果放在现在的话能会好些……