comment: >
context: "Norway will order 54 new German-made Leopard 2 tanks for its army from the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Group, and will get an option to buy a further 18 tanks at a later time, the government said on Friday.
  "We ensure that we have the same tanks as our Nordic neighbours and many key NATO allies," Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere told a news conference.
  "This further strengthens our relationship with Germany," he added." >
  
  What the article (and the PM) fails to mention is that Norway also already operates Leopard 2.
  They are just buying newer Leopard 2A7+s to replace their aging Leopard2A4NOs. >
  
  The distinction was helpful, otherwise I would have assumed Navy tanks (/s) >
  
  Also known as water tanks >
  
  This is why letting countries send their old tanks to ukraine is a no brainer for germany. Every tank that goes is just another order that comes in for german manufacturing and german jobs for a new leopard 2. >
  
  Clearly some major shit is about to go down this decade, any nation not kicking their defense production industry into high gear right now are fools.
  Better to be prepared and wrong than underprepared and wrong. >
  
  "army tanks" >
  
  50 septic tanks would not make the news. >
  
  That depends... >
  
  User name checks out >
  
  Change the name from Leopard to Ole.  Imagine the fear they would project..3 Oles just came into view >
  
  Try Gunnar, or Atle, or the dreaded Guttorm MBT. 
  "Per" MBT hahaha >
  
  And this is why the US is "sending" Abrams to Ukraine.
  Leopard2's make the most sense but Germany just didn't want to be the only tank supplier.  
  Abrams are great when backed by a logistics network the size of the US military.  Leopards are great when crews only have a few weeks training and their diesel engines make them much easier to keep battle ready is an active warzone. >
  
  That is just a load of BS pushed in the recent propaganda wave. They are both almost identical in terms of logistics give or take.  Literal third world countries can and do operate the abrams just fine. >
  
  Not accurate whole picture. It’s about maintenance network, expertise, parts availability, and training availability.
  Many European nations have stocks of leopards and decades of experience with them
  Vastly more expertise and specialists dealing with leopard are in Europe
  This makes maintenance much more straightforward. Standardisation of NATO equipment in Europe. 
  Look, Norway just committed to buying leopards for this very reason. They literally said it, but go ahead and contradict them like you know more.
  Money talks. >
  
  Again... the industrial powerhouse of Irak with their vast maintenance network, nearby parts and training availability uses them perfectly fine. Your excuses don't matter. You are just repeating deliberate disinfo. >
  
  No. You are incorrect. 
  Iraq was US occupied for how long? 10 years or so
  Do you think they would be using the American built military infrastructure and training? Or start anew? Obviously they would be going with what they already have in place. The Iraq army is American armed and trained. That maintenance capability is a holdover due to supporting the large American presence. It’s not some home grown domestic capability. 
  Europe’s armies are armed with Leopards, and Norway has decided to spend its money buying this tank because of European standardisation. How will you argue against what THEY JUST SAID?
  Thanks >
  
  
  Iraq was US occupied for how long? 10 years or so Do you think they would be using the American built military infrastructure and training? Or start anew? 
  
  Iraki soldiers were training for 1 year on the system before it was handed over to them not the 10 years of occupation.
  
  The Iraq army is American armed and trained. 
  
  The same can be said (in part) of the Ukrainian army.
  
  That maintenance capability is a holdover due to supporting the large American presence. 
  
  unlike the incredibly small American presence in Europe right next door where any mainenance beyond field repair needs to be done anyways as is planned for the leopards?
  
  It’s not some home grown domestic capability.
  
  seems easy enough to adapt then.
  
  Europe’s armies are armed with Leopards, and Norway has decided to spend its money buying this tank because of European standardisation.
  
  which is the correct choice long term as it is cheaper and provides better interoperability.
  
  How will you argue against what THEY JUST SAID?
  
  Poland is phasing in the Abrams as we speak. >
  
  So now you agree that it is the better choice for a European tank? >
  
  Since reading comprehensions doesn't seem to be your strong point: They are both almost identical in terms of logistics give or take.