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.
After you take all the facts and lay them out your comparing two tanks that are the same. Both are born of the MBT-70, both use the latest technology, both have outstanding armor packages. Other than the fact the M1 has the Leo on numbers it's nothing but a pissing match between allies.

The day an M1 vs. a Leo I'm sure that this whole world will be in a war, and then my concern is not my allies tank, but my enemies tank.

Aside from all this tech talk, the crew is the meat of the tank and in armor combat experience it goes: Israel, the US and, the UK

A tank is only as good as the other parts of the Combined Arms it's supporting.
 
Last edited:
The Spain Army uses the Leopard tanks and the Cavalry boys love their german "toys".

I think the Leopard is a very good last generation tank, but other tanks like, for example, the Abrams or the Merkawa have been tested in combat, the Leopard, not...:roll:
 
Last edited:
Spain Marine said:
The Spain Army uses the Leopard tanks and the Cavalry boys love their "toys".

I think the Leopard is a very good last generation tank, but other tanks like, for example, the Abrams or the Merkawa have been tested in combat, the Leopard, not...:roll:
Click to expand...
Wrong, actually one Leopard was bombed (big device) by Taliban (i can't quite remember which state... I think it was Sweden...) and the whole crew survived, after that they sent an official thanks to Germany. Maybe anyone remembers the story correctly.
 
what is "big"? 50 kg? 80 kg? you have to understand that the ones that kill the big boys are usually 150-400 kg of HE.
 
FO Seaman said:
After you take all the facts and lay them out your comparing two tanks that are the same. Both are born of the MBT-70, both use the latest technology, both have outstanding armor packages. Other than the fact the M1 has the Leo on numbers it's nothing but a pissing match between allies.

The day an M1 vs. a Leo I'm sure that this whole world will be in a war, and then my concern is not my allies tank, but my enemies tank.

Aside from all this tech talk, the crew is the meat of the tank and in armor combat experience it goes: Israel, the US and, the UK

A tank is only as good as the other parts of the Combined Arms it's supporting.
Click to expand...


Simply well put, both are very good tanks with excellant capabilities but the tank crew and force structure better have good sound training that takes advantage of both vehicles potential.
 
Ah i found the info it was the 2nd Novembre 2007, ISAF- Afghanistan and it was a canadian Leopard 2 A6M- CAN. Whole crew survived, driver broke his hip. And the tank wasn't destroyed and yould be repaired.
January 5th 2008 Danish Leopards 2A5 were involved in several firefights while supporting british troops. Feb 26th 2008 a danish Leopard 2 was attacked with 2 demolition charges- again the crew survived and only one chain was destroyed again the tank could be repaired. July 2008 again a Danish Leo 2A5DK was attacked by a demo charge, the driver was killed because the tank didn't have the latest Mine protection gear...
So much for no combat experience- those were only the cases I could find...

Didn't find anything about the explosion size...
 
ObjSRgtLw said:
Ah i found the info it was the 2nd Novembre 2007, ISAF- Afghanistan and it was a canadian Leopard 2 A6M- CAN. Whole crew survived, driver broke his hip. And the tank wasn't destroyed and yould be repaired.
January 5th 2008 Danish Leopards 2A5 were involved in several firefights while supporting british troops. Feb 26th 2008 a danish Leopard 2 was attacked with 2 demolition charges- again the crew survived and only one chain was destroyed again the tank could be repaired. July 2008 again a Danish Leo 2A5DK was attacked by a demo charge, the driver was killed because the tank didn't have the latest Mine protection gear...
So much for no combat experience- those were only the cases I could find...

Didn't find anything about the explosion size...
Click to expand...

I think that what Germany took as a lessons learned during WW 2 and other armored skirmishes that have taken place through out the world that we cannot use the not seen any action trump card. Give one to me, I would not hesitate to take the fight to the enemy in one.
 
SHERMAN said:
what is "big"? 50 kg? 80 kg? you have to understand that the ones that kill the big boys are usually 150-400 kg of HE.
Click to expand...
After all we learned the terrorist are many things but in cases of destruction not entirely dumb- I assume they would use a device fit for penetrating a tank... I could be wrong though- the info must be somewhere out there ;)
 
not so much a matter of penetration, as a matter of complete and utter destruction. No AFV in the world can withstand a 250 kg charge exploding under it.
 
The terrorists and Taliban probably see it as a waste of explosives going after the tanks, especially when they're are plenty of unarmoured and lightly armoured vehicles getting around that require a quarter of the explosives and carry more troops inside them.
 
SHERMAN said:
not so much a matter of penetration, as a matter of complete and utter destruction. No AFV in the world can withstand a 250 kg charge exploding under it.
Click to expand...
I heard that the tank went some meters into the air- dunno how much explosives that takes
 
Wallabies said:
The terrorists and Taliban probably see it as a waste of explosives going after the tanks, especially when they're are plenty of unarmoured and lightly armoured vehicles getting around that require a quarter of the explosives and carry more troops inside them.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Taking down an armored beast like an M1 is very demoralizing, especially to troops like ours. We have a "invincible army" mentality, and when you see something like an M1 taken out, reality quickly sets in.
 
I dont know about that. In my unit we always considered our tank very much destoryable, and I for one know that in a war there is a fair chance of my tank beig hit and destroyed.
 
SHERMAN said:
I dont know about that. In my unit we always considered our tank very much destoryable, and I for one know that in a war there is a fair chance of my tank beig hit and destroyed.
Click to expand...

But you tend to have more experience than most of our troops.
 
SHERMAN said:
I dont know about that. In my unit we always considered our tank very much destoryable, and I for one know that in a war there is a fair chance of my tank beig hit and destroyed.
Click to expand...

Every Israeli knows the reality of warfare, every Israeli has experienced it first hand, the last time a war was fought on American soil was two uninhabited islands in the Aleutian Islands in WWII and before that it was 1815. We don't have that ingrained sense of the true cost of war and what we're doing in Iraq has very little impact on the survival of America as a nation, Israel much always be on the defensive because of your geography within the world. Also, after Desert Storm and the Balkans we had this idea in our heads (as a people) that wars could be fought without the loss of life, it was our bombs destroying their buildings and nothing else. The reality has been hard to accept for many and not acceptable at all for those who believe going to war for oil is wrong. I'm not going to say that an American life is more precious, but each loss is more devastating to our troops because of our perceived invincibility. How many people did America lose in all combat operations between... 1976 and 2000? How many did Israel lose? Your people as a whole have a much better grasp of the true costs of war that Americans just don't have.
 
Damien435 said:
Every Israeli knows the reality of warfare, every Israeli has experienced it first hand, the last time a war was fought on American soil was two uninhabited islands in the Aleutian Islands in WWII and before that it was 1815. We don't have that ingrained sense of the true cost of war and what we're doing in Iraq has very little impact on the survival of America as a nation, Israel much always be on the defensive because of your geography within the world. Also, after Desert Storm and the Balkans we had this idea in our heads (as a people) that wars could be fought without the loss of life, it was our bombs destroying their buildings and nothing else. The reality has been hard to accept for many and not acceptable at all for those who believe going to war for oil is wrong. I'm not going to say that an American life is more precious, but each loss is more devastating to our troops because of our perceived invincibility. How many people did America lose in all combat operations between... 1976 and 2000? How many did Israel lose? Your people as a whole have a much better grasp of the true costs of war that Americans just don't have.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Israeli's are a more battle hardened people.
 
Well I belive that the Leopard is far much superior MBT than the Abrams, because of its cost and reliability.
I have to admit that the Germans do KNOW how to make tanks, they have proven this plenty.
What I will give to the US and his MBT is that the Abrams is a new design while the Leopard 2 is getting quite old, this has nothing to do with any upgrades you can put on it, eventually the german tank will need to be replaced while the Abrams will still have some life in it.

Having said this I´ll vote for the LEOPARD over the ABRAMS, so far the German tank has proven to have less problems than his American counterpart and even better results on the field.

Best regards
 
Herr_Alvaro said:
Well I believe that the Leopard is far much superior MBT than the Abrams, because of its cost and reliability.
I have to admit that the Germans do KNOW how to make tanks, they have proven this plenty.
What I will give to the US and his MBT is that the Abrams is a new design while the Leopard 2 is getting quite old, this has nothing to do with any upgrades you can put on it, eventually the german tank will need to be replaced while the Abrams will still have some life in it.

Having said this I´ll vote for the LEOPARD over the ABRAMS, so far the German tank has proven to have less problems than his American counterpart and even better results on the field.

Best regards
Click to expand...

What facts and tests do your base you opinion on?

And I think everyone should also remember that the M1 is not just a "US" MBT anymore. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Australia also utilize the M1.

So the "Well most of Europe uses the Leo 2" isn't a valid proxy anymore. Has the US hasn't offered the M1 to any European countries for export.

And I am sure that the Leo 2 has had it amount of obstacles to over come, all tanks have there issues, none are perfect. The M1 wasn't built as an export model, so it's easy of use wasn't made to be user friendly to someone without certain training.

And I am still wondering how the M1 is not a reliable machine?
 
Last edited:
Herr_Alvaro said:
Well I belive that the Leopard is far much superior MBT than the Abrams, because of its cost and reliability.
I have to admit that the Germans do KNOW how to make tanks, they have proven this plenty.
What I will give to the US and his MBT is that the Abrams is a new design while the Leopard 2 is getting quite old, this has nothing to do with any upgrades you can put on it, eventually the german tank will need to be replaced while the Abrams will still have some life in it.

Having said this I´ll vote for the LEOPARD over the ABRAMS, so far the German tank has proven to have less problems than his American counterpart and even better results on the field.

Best regards
Click to expand...


You do realize that both tanks were spawned after the MBT 70 program, and what are the better results for the LEO 2 series, that it can take a IED impact, I think that you will find Danish and Canadian Leo`s had time to scramble with additional vehicle upgrades due to lessons learned from the U.S.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top