GHQ Models Forums

I love modern German kit so this one intrigues me. Since GHQ already makes an excellent Leo 2 I'm curious what they are changing. I took a look through my resources and the designation changes between A0, A1, A2, A3, and A4 are all due to internal changes. These wouldn't be noticeable at this scale really. There are minor external changes that occurred between production batches that would be visible but these didn't coincide with designator changes.

For any interested here's a short primer from Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank Development and German Army Service Note, there is a companion book which deals with International service. Basically the Leopard 2 was produced in eight batches.

1st Batch Leo 2A0 380 produced (Oct79 - Mar82) No Thermal Imager (TI) [200 fitted with PZB 200 image intensifier]

2nd Batch Leo 2A1 450 produced (Mar82 - Nov83) TI now included, designator changed.

3rd Batch Leo 2A1 300 produced (Nov83 - Oct84)

[Note: During Batches 2&3 all Leo 2A0 were brought up to Leo 2A1 standards by installing TI. These tanks had an interim designation of Leo 2A2]

4th Batch Leo 2A3 300 produced (Dec84 - Dec85) Leo 2A1/2 standard plus new SEM 80/90 radios, designator changed.
[Note: Batch 4 vehicles, and later batches, came off the assembly line in NATO 3 color paint scheme]

5th Batch Leo 2A4 370 produced (Dec85 - Mar87) Leo 2A3 standard plus digital ballistic fire control, designator changed.
[Note: By the end of '87 all previous Leo 2 version had the digital FC installed effectively making the entire fleet Leo 2A4s]

6th Batch Leo 2A4 150 produced (Jan88 - May89)

7th Batch Leo 2A4 100 produced (May89 - Apr90)

8th Batch Leo 2A4 75 produced (Jan91 - Mar92)


As I mentioned there were some external changes between batches but they were not tied to the designator changes.

Between Batches 1 and 2 the commander's periscope was raised 5cm.
Between Batches 1 and 2 the length and attachment of the tow ropes changed.
Between Batches 2 and 3 the exhaust grill changed.
Between Batches 1 and 3 various hatches, tank caps and covers were changed or deleted.
Between Batches 4 and 5 the ammunition loading hatch on the side of the turret was deleted late in 5th batch production run. Older batches had theirs welded shut.
Between Batches 5 and 6 the "heavy" part of the side skirts were changed.
Between Batches 7 and 8 the "light" part of the side skirts were changed.

These changes would also be back-fitted to earlier versions as time and money allowed. When Leo 2A4 hulls and turrets started to undergo modification to Leo 2A5 there was often a mismatch of turrets and hulls of different batches left behind.

So, after all that what version of the Leopard 2 does GHQ already make?
Working backwards through time it has the old style side skirts so it is pre-Batch 6.
It has an ammunition loading hatch which marks it as pre-Batch 5.
It is hard to be certain but the exhaust grills look like the old style which would make it pre-Batch 3.
The engine deck filler cap arrangement, tow ropes, upper glacis plate, and commander's periscope all look like they have pre-Batch 2 features.
My assessment is that the current Leopard 2 model is in fact a Leopard 2A0.

Paul, et el....
This is perplexing..... The two ideas that I have,
1. the best one in my opinion is the Leopard 2 with add-on armor as many countries utilized. Still has the same sighting system and gap up front, but with additional armor.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... rt=mozilla
.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... rt=mozilla
.
.C.https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/ ... rt=mozilla
2. The Leopard 2A5, could be this one, but not enough noticeable difference with that and the Leopard 2 A6 which is produce. If you want to show the A5, cut the A6 barrel a bit shorter, which is what I have done.
3. Is a different version ofLeopard 2A4,A3,A2,A1 which I would not care for.
.
I would greatly prefer the first on that I have identified. Any thoughts, comments and votes. ***Sorry for the long link to pics.***

The current Leos look enough like Leos to do the trick for me.

Chris,

The pictures you have are of the Singapore Leo 2A4. I don't think anyone else uses it. Could be interesting given the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean kit available but limited use in a European context.

What we need is the Qatar Leopard. (joke^^)

Perhaps.... last News CV90105, CV 9030, CV 9040 and now the MBT Leopard 2A4 for Scandinavia States.

Hi Gentlemen,

my thoughts on this are the follwoing:

1.) Maybe they want to replace a worn-out (or on the way to be worn-out) mold.

2.) Considering the quite heavy focus on the Canadian Army it may be the CAN Leopard 2A4M.

Cheers,
Benjamin

Ben wrote:Hi Gentlemen,

my thoughts on this are the follwoing:

1.) Maybe they want to replace a worn-out (or on the way to be worn-out) mold.

2.) Considering the quite heavy focus on the Canadian Army it may be the CAN Leopard 2A4M.

Cheers,
Benjamin

Ben,

Good to see you on the forum again. I think point 1 is most probable. The existing Leopard II mold has been out there since the mid '80s or so. 30 years is a long time.

As for point 2, I think they wouldn't have said "Modern Germany, and many others" if the new model was going to be that specific to Canada.

[edited to correct typo]

Canadian Leopard 2A4M Can would be great. I hope it is this. Add a new product to the product line. Great add on to use for several other countries that have Leopard 2 A4 and up armored them.

The you tube video "leopard 2 tank updates" by tanknut dave was rather helpful if any one else wants to catch up on the Leo 2A4 basic history and modernization programs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUMTI07_cY

I'd bet that the model GHQ produces will be a stock LEO 2A4. As others have commented the current Leo 2 model is likely getting old. It would make sense to produce a good model of the 'deployed standard' early 80's through 90s MBT. As I understand it all the earlier variants (A0 through A3) were eventually brought up to the A4 standard.

A LEO 2A4 with IBD's AMAP (aka Singapore version and others now) would be a very contemporary model but not as widely deployed. the Canadian 2A4m only consisted of 20 vehicles. I don't think GHQ will make this model.


Time will tell.

Good day Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have not been on this forum for a very long time .
However as I am in search for some miniatures needed for my recent project, I remembered that some GHQ models could be of use.

While browsing the catalogue I stumbled upon the new Leopard 2A4 model and had the feeling to leave a comment on this specific item.
However as it would not be all positive I will do this later after leaving a happy Hello here.

Cheers,
Benjamin

Ben,

Welcome back to the forum. I would be interested in your project and to see pictures once you are done.

As for your critique, I would love to here your opinions on the model. I am making some effort to start posting critique of the pieces I purchase in the future.

Hoth_902

Hi Hoth,

my project is in the planning phase. What I would like to build is a harbour in 1/350 and in this scale some of the GHQ items can be used as well. In this context I ordered the LCA, DUKW and the Floßsackbrücke.
Furthermore while already ordering I added the very good looking Swedish FH77B and some spares for a halted CV90 project.

Referring the Leopard 2A4 I noticed that the older miniature N52 is still available, my thought when the N600 Leo 2A4 was announced was that it would replace the olded Leo 2 miniature (like the new Warrior IFV miniatures which did replace their predecessors) which seems not to be the case.
I am not sure if the N600 Leo 2A4 was already discussed here, maybe I did it and can't remember ...
However what I found a bit odd with this in general good looking model (at last all GHQ miniatures are good looking well done miniatures) are two details:
Why does it still have the small ammunition resupply hatch which was deleted on later Leo 2A4 and closed by welding on earlier / refitted A4. I know it is a minor detail but due to their excellent detail quality it can be seen on the miniature.
More confusing is that the KADAG (Kanonen-Abschuß-DArstellungs-Gerät = gun fire simulating device) is fitted to a model intended for a wargame, as this is a training device.

Just my thoughts.

Kind regards,
Benjamin

Ben,

Sounds like an awesome project. I hope you will put some pictures when you are done and if you can, along the way to the finish line.

I've noticed that GHQ has a couple of small issues with other vehicles. The M1A2 Tusk and SEP Tusk II. They both have the commanders gun position and the remote gun station. From what I have seen, the M1s either have the commanders position or the remote station. I cannot find a picture of both installed. All the pictures I have seen has the remote gun station mounted in front of the commander's position and not in between the commanders and the other hatch.

Hoth_902

Perhaps the difficulty is that the sculptors are good at sculpting, but not experts in what they are looking at for samples and prototypes. I have noted several fairly significant mistakes, examples of which are the M577 track extension and the use of the M48A2 hull and cupola for the M48A5 (the easy fix is use the M48A3 hull instead). The M1A2 TUSK is egregious. I haven't ordered any, so I'm not sure what might be done to correct it. It is disappointing that, once these errors are pointed out, no effort is made to correct them by GHQ. While some M48A4s (M48A2 hull with 105mm gun and original cupola) were used by the Israelis, that is NOT the model used by US forces as the M48A5. SOME M48A5s were issued with the original cupola, but that was very early in production. Almost all had the low-profile cupola, and the Israelis very quickly replaced those original upolas, as well. I understand that the creation of the molds is expensive and that may prohibit correction. I choose not to buy the M577 with extension, although I would like to have that vehicle with the correct extension. I buy the Magach 3 for my M48A5, which is closer to the M48A5, once the 50cal over the main gun is removed.

On a similar issue, why did we get the CV90/105? Neither it nor the 120mms version elicited any orders. It has not gone into production, let alone service. In contrast, there are vehicles that are or were in service, such as Conqueror, in which forum members have expressed interest. We also have several examples of German, British, and US vehicles in the '47 series which were not in production. This brings up the question of the criteria for making a model. Where is my MBT70, my General Motors M1 version, and the Conqueror. How about my ARSV? So, what determines the selection?