Pale Rider
Active member
Yes we have offered M1 series to European countries, Greece, Spain and Sweden have tested the M1A2 for possible purchase.
Leopard 2 vs. Abrams
- Status
Yes we have offered M1 series to European countries, Greece, Spain and Sweden have tested the M1A2 for possible purchase.
FO Seaman
Active member
I'd assume the price is what drives them away. For the life of me I can't find a price quote for the Leo 2. I'm a bit curious to wee what one would cost, just a base line model that is.
Wouldn't Spain be considered in the Med?
Last edited:
Damien435
Active member
What results? As far as I know the Leo 2 has never seen combat and I'm about 99% positive it's never had to go into an engagement with enemy armored units.
johnnyQAMR
Active member
The Leo 2 has seen combat in kosovo with the germans (but only had one fire fight and that was taking out two serbs with AKs in a lada) and is on Op's in Afghanistan with Canada and the Danes. You are right that the Leo 2 has not seen tank on tank combat but M1A1/A2's shooting up 30-40 year old MBT's in Iraq with total air cover has not tested them to their limits yet. I think its a draw until the M1 or the Leo 2 go up against a gen 3 MBT in combat.
gotcha1234
Active member
The german engineering is maybe even the best on the world together with japanese engineering,howewer who knows what pentagon knows about their abrams mbt's?Both tanks are strong but in the top10 cathegory of today's mbt's the difference's are ''in inches''.With the leo2,abrams m1a2,the type99,challenger,the merkava and the soviet t-90 the competition is as hard as as chobham armour.
FO Seaman
Active member
No one has any idea what the Abrams has. The material the skirt armor is made out of is still classified to this day.
You can't claim "top spot" just because a tank does well in field tests and does well in a war game. Murphy's Law has a funny way of taking tests and games, and throwing them back in your face where the metal meets the meat.
So a Leo 2 took out Serbs with AK's? So could a Sherman, anything with armor thick enough to make an 7.62x39mm look like a BB could.
Afghanistan maybe starting to be regroup and recoup for the Taliban again, but it is a far, far cry from the streets of Iraq, sure you run into some guys throwing bottles or rocks, but when was the last time that a Leo 2 got caught at a four way and was being bombarded by RPG's and mortars?
Op's is a broad spectrum, even tanks on peace keeping mission do Op's.
And in ODS some Abrams sustained some hits from Iraqi armor. And if you put air support in the the scenario you make the argument moot, because then the air is supporting the M1, making it even more of a beast to contend with.
The Abrams numbers are pretty darn good, 8,500 produced. I have no idea the production numbers of the Leo 2 but I don't think its even close to the M1's, but I could be wrong so don't quote me on that.
Then the argument about reliability and fuel consumption are redundant. 90% of the M1's power pack can be removed without total breakdown of the system. Ok so sand would eat the blades of the turbine, it was fixed by putting a coating on them and using a finer filter.
Fuel consumption, ok sure 1 mpg isn't the best, but when your unit has a support unit two and even three times it size, then fuel comsumption becomes moot. In a combat zone, US support units, normally outnumber combat units. This is the exact reason we where able to fly across France and bash through the hedgerows like we did in 1944, our logistical chain was superb, and we where able to keep control of the skies.
So what it all boils down to is what I said before. A tank is no better than the supporting arms it is supporting. So when you compare the two, the M1 just takes the cake.
Last edited:
johnnyQAMR
Active member
As the US is giving 140 M1A1 SA's to Iraq we might see how a army with a lot less money deals with the loggie issues.
(note: info about the M1's to Iraq from this weeks JDW e-mail)
(note: info about the M1's to Iraq from this weeks JDW e-mail)
Pale Rider
Active member
Actually it is the fuel consumption issue, all other aspects of the vehicle have come out ahead or in some cases tied with the LEO 2 series, have you noticed what alot of the LEO 2 A5/6 using countries are doing with the hull frontal area, think about why.
Yes Spain should be considered from the Med but they like to think they are a big European country.:lol:
FO Seaman
Active member
I should have known that, that's always the downer about vehicle shopping. You find one you like and "bam" it gets 12 mpg, not exactly the best choice for a person on a small income.
Never did think about that Pale, it is quite interesting.
That's ok, lets not spoil their fun.
I think it's going to be along the same lines as to why Australia picked the M1 for their MBT. Chances are if they are fighting, the US is gonna be right there too. I think it's the same for the Saudi's and Kuwait, we're their ally and if they get into a scrap, we'll back them. Unless they do something stupid. So I bet it's along those lines, besides you can't give Iraq a bunch of M60's, I love those babies, but it'd cost more to beef them up and give them updated systems then just giving them brand new M1A1 SA's.
Quite true, but I think it's like as I said above, they rely on us for logistical support.
Last edited:
Pale Rider
Active member
I should have known that, that's always the downer about vehicle shopping. You find one you like and "bam" it gets 12 mpg, not exactly the best choice for a person on a small income.
Never did think about that Pale, it is quite interesting.
That's ok, lets not spoil their fun.
I think it's going to be along the same lines as to why Australia picked the M1 for their MBT. Chances are if they are fighting, the US is gonna be right there too. I think it's the same for the Saudi's and Kuwait, we're their ally and if they get into a scrap, we'll back them. Unless they do something stupid. So I bet it's along those lines, besides you can't give Iraq a bunch of M60's, I love those babies, but it'd cost more to beef them up and give them updated systems then just giving them brand new M1A1 SA's.
Quite true, but I think it's like as I said above, they rely on us for logistical support.
The issue with the LEO 2 series hull that I was eluding to was the amount of armor protection, please keep in mind that this is also where they store reserve ammunition, right next to the driver, if this goes up then you are looking at a total vehicle loss. There is a different engine pact that was tested and is ready to go for the M1 series, it is called LV100-5, the same engine pact for the now shelved Crusader program. LV100-5 operates at 40% less parts and should be able to get 70 additional miles per M1A2 SEP top off. AGT1500 engine pact is at its worst when at idle, this is one of the biggest causes for fuel consumption.
FO Seaman
Active member
I noticed that. A very big liability, same thing for the Sherman back in the day. Just weld a steel plate over that section and you'll go good they said.
We kinda learn keeping ammo in with the crew could cause some problems.
The AGT1500 also consumes 5 gallons on start up alone. I have seen mentioning of the LV100-5 in a few reports, but nothing delving deeper than that, GE/HW deal. Wise choices on the defense markets part.
Last edited:
FO Seaman
Active member
Agreed. Not to be impartial but we favor Israel over Egypt. Not just because you guys have beautiful women, but because you guys are just awesome
Last edited:
Damien435
Active member
I don't get the relevance of this statement, Egypt and Israel made peace decades ago.
FO Seaman
Active member
And so did Germany at the Versailles signing. Political climates change, leaders ideologies differ. It's just time, it changes things.
Aside from that, we where referring to a "what if" scenario.
Damien435
Active member
The US has plans for invading Canada, it's a great way to keep young staff officers busy.
- Status