Does Canada use the MG-3 Machine gun on the leopard?

Ran into a Vet years ago and he said they used captured MG42's on the Germans but kept taking friendly fire because of the RPM so they shortened the spring to Bren level and no problems.........Neat old guy....Harold
 
As we leased these tanks we were unable to do any modifications to them. The crews would rather have the C-6 as it is a more reliable gun and the ammo belts would be interchangeable with the infantry on the ground. Yes the MG3 is used both co-axially and in the AA mount.
 
I would have thought that the C-6/Mag-58/M240 and the MG-3 would have taken the exact same belt of ammunition since they are all NATO standard weapons..

Wikipedia states that the Leo 2 has 4750 rounds in the turret. Firing at 1000 RPM..makes about 4.75 minutes of continuous firing possible. I've gotta say, hosing the target for 4.75 minutes makes little sense when there is a 120mm gun beside it... just sayin'...
 
I don't know about scaring Haji with an MG, if I'm in a tank I should already be having an effect on his nerves - they know now they're not dealling with Russian conscripts in these things - apparently came as a bit of a surprise (of the nasty sort)
 
Polearm you may be correct in the interchangeability department. My Sqn left before the LEO 2's were bombed up and moved forward, but we were told by the ammo techs it was not interchangeable. I assumed it was in non -disintegrating belts but never looked myself. As for the quantity of Ammo in the turret only 1,000 is linked together with the rest in storage bins.
 
MG3 will feed our disintegrating link belts as well as the old non disintegrating link the Germans used in the 50's on MG1 and MG2. That and the chrome lined barrel and heavier bolt are the principle differences between the older models. Read it in Janes after seeing some ISAF allies in Kabul on my first tour still using Waffen marked MG42s in 7.92mm non disintegrating link!
 
I was surprised to see the cages on the tanks, cage like the ones used on the LAV's. Does this mean "there" RPG's penetrate the armour of the Leopard?
I didnt think they were that effective against the big tanks?

Scary ####.

Then again what do I know
 
it's to deal with the threat of dualhead RPG like the RPG-29, even a standard RPG can do a lot of damage if they hit the right place. Since the RPG and the IED are the two threats to this tank it makes sense to protect them as much as possible. the cage offers stand off and shearing forces against the RPG with the least weight gain (the other enemy of tanks) these Leo's are also the mine protected version with heavier belly plates.
 
You have to take into consideration that these tanks were design during the cold war era; they would maximize the frontal protection versus side and rear. Nothing wrong with than until you face an asymmetrical threat were you need 360 protection. The Leo 2 has a very high ballistic protection against kinetic projectiles such as sabot rounds, less against chemical projectile like the RPGs, nevertheless a top of the line design and a very reliable mechanic.

As for the MG-3, we rented those tanks, now we own them. The Germans made a deal with us, they are taking the 20 2A6 we bought from the Netherland in replacement minus the EMES 15, PERY 17 sights and the power packs. The CDN wants to replace the MG-3, not because there is anything wrong with them, it's just a question of standardization.

I was talking to my friend who came back from there as 2A6 loader, the major issue with MG-3 is the mount in the turret and the non-disintegrating belts, they have a different spacing than our C-6, it make them incompatible with our guns. In other words, if you take a C-6 belt, it would work for 2 to 3 rounds in an MG-3 before you get a stoppage.
 
Here's a couple of Canadian Leopard 2A6 tank photos I found on the net. Looks like an MG-3 to me.

Leopard2A6M_Canada_03.jpg


Leopard2A6M_Canada_02.jpg
 
lou68 said:
You have to take into consideration that these tanks were design during the cold war era; they would maximize the frontal protection versus side and rear. Nothing wrong with than until you face an asymmetrical threat were you need 360 protection. The Leo 2 has a very high ballistic protection against kinetic projectiles such as sabot rounds, less against chemical projectile like the RPGs, nevertheless a top of the line design and a very reliable mechanic.

As for the MG-3, we rented those tanks, now we own them. The Germans made a deal with us, they are taking the 20 2A6 we bought from the Netherland in replacement minus the EMES 15, PERY 17 sights and the power packs. The CDN wants to replace the MG-3, not because there is anything wrong with them, it's just a question of standardization.

I was talking to my friend who came back from there as 2A6 loader, the major issue with MG-3 is the mount in the turret and the non-disintegrating belts, they have a different spacing than our C-6, it make them incompatible with our guns. In other words, if you take a C-6 belt, it would work for 2 to 3 rounds in an MG-3 before you get a stoppage.
Click to expand...


They made a deal on those tanks did they? any talk of designing mounts for the Rollers and plows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom