Leopard 2 vs. Abrams

Leopard 2 vs. Abrams

  • Leopard 2

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • Abrams

    Votes: 12 50.0%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
zander_0633 said:
I will defitnely votet for Leo 2 cause there is news that a single RPG round can destroy a Abrams! In this case, it happened in Iraq!
Click to expand...

A single RPG can take out any tank in service today, all tanks, regardless of their apparent invulnerability to harm, have weak spots. The Abrams, like most other tanks, is weakest at the rear where the exhaust exits, where the turret connect to the hull, and as always the treads are always in danger of being shot off.
 
Damien435 said:
A single RPG can take out any tank in service today, all tanks, regardless of their apparent invulnerability to harm, have weak spots. The Abrams, like most other tanks, is weakest at the rear where the exhaust exits, where the turret connect to the hull, and as always the treads are always in danger of being shot off.
Click to expand...

An RPG can't take out a modern tank, it can disable one however.
 
Cadet Seaman said:
An RPG can't take out a modern tank, it can disable one however.
Click to expand...
A RPG can penetrate a tank and kill the crew, this is a fact...

zander_0633 said:
I will defitnely votet for Leo 2 cause there is news that a single RPG round can destroy a Abrams! In this case, it happened in Iraq!
Click to expand...

A single RPG round can penetrate any tank if placed in the right shot. This is especially true of the newer RPG-29 warheads.
 
One point of confusion would be if you didn't distinguish between types of RPG and lump them all together. I know that sounds silly, but there are those who will browse through here and never have heard that there are lots of RPG warhead types. Old RPG's vs new RPG's = Huge difference!
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Hey Damien, kudos on this round, you have two races with VERY close contenders. Tough for me or anyone to pick from either race!
Click to expand...

That's how this system is supposed to work, first round blowouts and then the real competition begins. ;)
 
godofthunder9010 said:
One point of confusion would be if you didn't distinguish between types of RPG and lump them all together. I know that sounds silly, but there are those who will browse through here and never have heard that there are lots of RPG warhead types. Old RPG's vs new RPG's = Huge difference!
Click to expand...

Correct. Old RPG warheads get about 300mm of penetration, newer ones get 800mm of penetration after ERA. This can tear straight through the side armor of any tank in service.
 
Koz said:
Correct. Old RPG warheads get about 300mm of penetration, newer ones get 800mm of penetration after ERA. This can tear straight through the side armor of any tank in service.
Click to expand...

No RPG has destroyed an M1, an RPG round penetrated into the turret through the track skirts and between the turret and chassis where this is about an inch od space, so lucky insurgent got a crackshot off.

Now you say an RPG-29 round can penetrate 800mm of armor, the M1's flank armor is 200m thick and the frontal armor is 450m thick. I myself have seen an M1 it by an RPG-7v on the frontal section of the turret and the round made a small blast crater, but it did not penetrate the armor.:tank:

I know that a insurgent can take out an M1 if they get a shot on the turret roof from on a building. But other than the single M1 hit by the 7v round and that M1 was in service after being maintained. No M1 has been totally destroyed by an RPG.
 
zander_0633 said:
I will defitnely votet for Leo 2 cause there is news that a single RPG round can destroy a Abrams! In this case, it happened in Iraq!
Click to expand...


The M1 wasn't destroyed, just disable. I know a captain whos good friends with the TC of that tank. I asked him what happened and he said it was penetrated between the turret and chassis in the track skirts where there is about an inch wide gap with no armor, that currently is being fixed. The tank and it's crew where prefectly fine and no damaged other than the hole.
 
Who in their right mind would shot an RPG at the thickest part of a tank? Unless it was desperation. A test with a RPG 7 in the front wont show how safe the tank is, just how stupid the test was hehe
 
AlexKall said:
Who in their right mind would shot an RPG at the thickest part of a tank? Unless it was desperation. A test with a RPG 7 in the front wont show how safe the tank is, just how stupid the test was hehe
Click to expand...

Sometimes your best shot isn't necessarily a good shot.
 
Well, Is it possible to shoot at the tracks of the tank?> Some are protected with skirts, but they do not fully extend to the ground. We can use this to destroy them!
 
zander_0633 said:
Well, Is it possible to shoot at the tracks of the tank?> Some are protected with skirts, but they do not fully extend to the ground. We can use this to destroy them!
Click to expand...

Your not getting the point, even if you take out a tanks track it's still a 70 ton road block with a 120mm cannon armed with Canister or Bee Hive rounds. OUCH!:-?
 
Well, Yes, At least we can stop the convoy of tanks from advancing! We will then play the wating game! After some time, the troops will come out!
 
zander_0633 said:
Well, Yes, At least we can stop the convoy of tanks from advancing! We will then play the wating game! After some time, the troops will come out!
Click to expand...

You may be surprised that complex theory that works out so well in the movies just leads to tons of friendly casualties in real life.
 
[SIZE=-1]www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Here's the after-action report of the M1 in Iraq

just copy and paste it into your browser
[/SIZE]
 
Fox said:
Abrams needs more armor to guard from RPG rocket.
Click to expand...

Atfter reading the report pages 4 -10 is states in the first sentance of the first paragraph the "No catastrophic losses due to Iraqi dierect or indirect fire weapons."

It also states in the second paragraph of page 4 first sentance that "Frontal turret and hull armor continues to provide excellent crew protection. Top side and rear armor remains susceptable to penetration."

As you continue to read this paragraph it goes to explain that 25mm DU-AP rounds fired from a Bradley disabled to engine on an M1.

From what I read in the report.No M1 has been destroyed from Iraqi insurgents , only one has be totally destroyed and the was from friendly fire of on Sabot, a thermite grenade and two Maverick Missiles. Also the photos and pics of M1's scorched or burned by friendly fire or by ammo ejection, also by vandalism by Iraqi's or striped for parts.

Only one report of penetration for enemy fire is recorded, that is of the strange round the pentrated throught the non-ballistic skirts and into the Hydraulic Reservoir, this is on page 8 of the report.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top