Leopard 2 vs. Abrams

[Yin717]

Yes, you bring up a pretty good point. In the trials the Leopard 2 has been the top performer, Europe loves the Leopard. In the Greek trials i think the Leopard scored a few points higher than the M1.

To be honest, im pulling a bit for the home team ^_~


I loved the s-tank too, i dont understand why they would do that. It was the perfect take for Sweden to defend her borders with, the long narrow passages made a non-rotatable gun a pretty good choice, its low silhouette made it hard to spot and easy to hide. How expensive was it?

Sometimes I feel sorry for America. Us Europeans always stick up for each other. We always make our tanks better somehow. lol.

How much did the S-Tank cost? I could never say. I guess to be totally frank very little is know of the S-Tank. it is, in a sense, Sweden's secret tank. I don't believe Sweden gave out much information on it which is rather a surprise now that it is decommissioned. We still don't know what it's armour is!

 

[Yossarian]

Man this would be a nasty fight, I really would like to sit this one out :/ The Germans really made a good tank and the Abrams is more than combat proven... What if you drew the battle out? Throw both tanks and necessary support crews out on a armor range, and let them play cat and mouse at thousands of yards, and test the support crews in nasty muddy or sandy or snowy environments, what makes a good tank, plane or and vehicle is seems to me is not just firepower and stats on paper alone, how sustainable is it in the field? And which of these to tanks comes out on top in that category?

Ask the Armor folks on the forum about life in the field with heavy armor. Then draw assessments.

 

[Bacara]

neither tanks have faced an equal opponet, nor will they ever likely will, so no one will ever know.

 

[Yin717]

Man this would be a nasty fight, I really would like to sit this one out :/ The Germans really made a good tank and the Abrams is more than combat proven... What if you drew the battle out? Throw both tanks and necessary support crews out on a armor range, and let them play cat and mouse at thousands of yards, and test the support crews in nasty muddy or sandy or snowy environments, what makes a good tank, plane or and vehicle is seems to me is not just firepower and stats on paper alone, how sustainable is it in the field? And which of these to tanks comes out on top in that category?

Ask the Armor folks on the forum about life in the field with heavy armor. Then draw assessments.

That's not bad an idea but I have a slight feeling that it's already been done. I know America held tank competitions and America had the Abrams, Britain had the Challenger and Germany had the Leopard. I believe actually the British won it with Americans second and the German's third. But I'm totally confident so don't take my word on it.

 

[cute.exe]

i vote for the leopard because..
the m1 have the old rheinmetall l44 gun and the leopard 2a6 the new rheinmetall l55 gun with more power and higher distance. the leopard have better mine armor and better overall armor. he have the same performance but the engine tuned up in wartime to 2200hp. the most peaple here compare with the 1500hp in piecetime. the leopard engine and tracks are the best you can buy. the m1 armor is in relation about the uranlayer... not to be about the leopard. the operation range of the l2 is higher and you can fuel gaz or diesel or alcohol or mix it and the engine iss happy. is see almost advantages of the leopard. its the best tank in my opinion.

 

[SHERMAN]

The L55 is used to compensate for the german decision not to use DU rounds anymore, hence the results are not much better in penetration than l44 with DU...

 

[AVON]

Sometimes I feel sorry for America. Us Europeans always stick up for each other.

Don't waste your time feeling sorry for America, we do quite well in the design and production of weapons, especially in major systems (B-2, F-22A, SSNs, SSBNs, aegis destroyers and, cruisers, etc.) While you might not consider the M-1 "the best tank" (I disagree), it is among the best, and it has a great support system behind it!

neither tanks have faced an equal opponet, nor will they ever likely will, so no one will ever know.

As an organization you are correct but, the M-1 has faced the T-72 and has shown it can take a hit. It has operated very well in an environment in which it was supposed to be poor in, the desert. It has shown excellent crew protection when in a fratricide incident back in the PGW#1, a group of M-1A1s (with its 120mm cannon) fired on a M-1A! The M-1A was hit seven times with only one penetration. Three of the four crew-members survived.
I don't understand the complaints against the Abrams because of its range? Its range is about 15% less than the Leclerk, Leopard or, T-90, while being similar to the range of the Challenger 2. I guess it is just something to complain about?

The L55 is used to compensate for the german decision not to use DU rounds anymore, hence the results are not much better in penetration than l44 with DU...

The US Army loves the effectiveness of the DU sabot round and they will fight not using the DU sabot as much as they are fighting the 'anti-land mine' folks.

 

[Panzercracker]

Sometimes I feel sorry for America. Us Europeans always stick up for each other.

Yes we Europeans do stick up for each other, like when we fought the 7 Years War, the 30 Years War, the 100 years war, the War of the Roses, War of Spanish Succession, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic War, Deluge War ...

Europe is absolutely drowning in its own blood, we had more wars between our respective nations in three centuries then the entire rest of the world combined, we even started World Wars but hey we stick for each other!

We always make our tanks better somehow. lol.

No, Western Allies had crappy tanks and had to settle for American Sherman which was slightly less crappy, only recently we have started producing armor that can match or exceed American tanks.

How much did the S-Tank cost? I could never say.

Given that Sweden was piss poor and still bought 290 of them in the short span of 4 years we can assume it was very cheap.

I guess to be totally frank very little is know of the S-Tank. it is, in a sense, Sweden's secret tank. I don't believe Sweden gave out much information on it which is rather a surprise now that it is decommissioned. We still don't know what it's armour is!

No but we can assume quite a lot, at 39-43 tonnes without a turret it was bound to have good armor, maybe even on par with T-80U but it still doesnt change the fact that its a strictly defensive contraption and cannot be used like a regular tank.

 

[Britney]

The L55 is used to compensate for the german decision not to use DU rounds anymore, hence the results are not much better in penetration than l44 with DU...

hmm, really? Thats interesting i never knew they stopped using DU rounds...that changes things a bit.

 

[Yin717]

Yes we Europeans do stick up for each other, like when we fought the 7 Years War, the 30 Years War, the 100 years war, the War of the Roses, War of Spanish Succession, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic War, Deluge War ...

Europe is absolutely drowning in its own blood, we had more wars between our respective nations in three centuries then the entire rest of the world combined, we even started World Wars but hey we stick for each other!

I guess so but times have changed.

No, Western Allies had crappy tanks and had to settle for American Sherman which was slightly less crappy, only recently we have started producing armor that can match or exceed American tanks.

That's not entierly true or fair. The Churchill was a rather remarkable tank, it's just that Britain was constantly being bombed and needed America to build a majority of the tanks, which had to be the Sherman really. Also, America were way behind the British at the start of war on military technology. The British had to lend some of their technological advances to America so they even start building weapons to assist the war effort. And also, the Sherman Firefly, the only tank that the British and Americans used that could actually do any effective damage to German tanks, was a british design. So I think you'll find this is not entierly correct

 

[Panzercracker]

I guess so but times have changed.

We had exactly 64 years or relative peace, after more then 1000 years of hardcore wars thats a bit early to say something like that.

That's not entierly true or fair. The Churchill was a rather remarkable tank,

By German and Russian standards the Churchill was an underarmed, underarmored and underpowered junk.

Also, America were way behind the British at the start of war on military technology. ,

Really? They had the best tank chassis, the most modern aircraft carriers, best light tanks, their first medium tank was also superior to anything Brits had.

The British had to lend some of their technological advances to America so they even start building weapons to assist the war effort.

Thats some new history right there, last i checked it was US that transferred technologies.

And also, the Sherman Firefly, the only tank that the British and Americans used that could actually do any effective damage to German tanks, was a british design. So I think you'll find this is not entierly correct

1. Americans did not use Fireflies.
2. Fireflies were basically a British gun squeezed into an American tank, hardly a revolution.

 

[SHERMAN]

How is any of this relevent to the topic of the thread?

 

[Zastava-Arms]

We have moved from extremely advanced and modern tanks to T-34's and Shermans.

 

[Zastava-Arms]

Sorry for the double post, but I just though i should add this:

...There were other threats, as well. In one instance not previously disclosed, an American M1 tank was damaged by an RPG-29, an advanced anti-tank weapon.

So there is the point that the Abrams can still be damaged by a late 80's era RPG. I thought it would have had more armour but hey..

Edit: Forgot to add link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp


Another edit:

During the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, US troops encountered an unanticipated, and formidable, weapon in the Iraqi arsenal -- Russian-built Kornet antitank missiles. Iraqi soldiers used the wire-guided missile system against American tanks, but the US military previously did not know they possessed. It emerged as the Iraqis' most effective direct-fire weapon against U.S. armor in the desert of southern Iraq. Iraqi commandos traveling in three-man teams dressed in black civilian robes and riding in Nissan pickup trucks moved against the flanks of columns of armor from the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division and launched broadside attacks from several kilometers away using the system. Those attacks had disabled at least two Abrams tanks and one Bradley armored troop carrier in the opening week of the war. US military intelligence officials were extremely interested in capturing one of the missiles intact. They also instructed American soldiers who destroy one of the Kornet launchers to save the remains of the system for close inspection.

Link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-14.htm



And here we have a comparison of the Russian T-90 and T-80U against the Kornet ATGM, which managed to disable 2 Abrams tanks:

On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.
T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

• Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
  • RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
  • RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
  • RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
• ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
  • Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
  • Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
  • Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
  • Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
• APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.


The trials yielded the following outcome:

• ATGLs
  • T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
    No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
  • T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
    Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
• ATGMs
  • T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
  • T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
    No other ATGMs could penetrate.
• APFSDS
  • T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
    Without ERA, one round penetrated.
  • T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

As show here, a T-90 with Kontakt 5 ERA armour could NOT be penetrated by the Kornet ATGM, and without ERA only 1 out of 5 of them managed to penetrate it. The T-80U didnt do as well [Predictably].

Link:

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

 

[Bacara]

with the abrams, you go to war with one foot in a bucket, and had the iraq's simply waited for the HUGE line of fuel trucks behind the M1's, they could have severely damaged the war effort, in a large scale war with say russia, china, or maybe the EU, just an example, those fuel trucks would become a major liablity, becuase, either you have complete air supierority, or you commite large amounts of AA system to protect those helpless fuel trucks, a T-90 used close to half the fuel the abrams does.

 

[AVON]

with the abrams, you go to war with one foot in a bucket, and had the iraq's simply waited for the HUGE line of fuel trucks behind the M1's, they could have severely damaged the war effort

From open sources, the range of the M-1 is about twenty percent less than its competitors. In a fuel train, a M-1 would need five fuel trucks as opposed to four fuel trucks for its competitors. Yes at the end of a conflict, that is many more gallons/litres of fuel but, at 20% less, instead of a two and a half mile supply train, the other tanks will only have a two mile supply train. Either way those are large targets for CAS aircraft.

in a large scale war with say russia, china, or maybe the EU, just an example, those fuel trucks would become a major liablity, becuase, either you have complete air supierority, or you commite large amounts of AA system to protect those helpless fuel trucks, a T-90 used close to half the fuel the abrams does.

Anything less than air superiority (air parity, etc.) is going to cause massive casualties on your ground forces, your CAS aircraft, etc.

Am I missing something with my perspective or over simplifying the problem?

 

[Yin717]

Really? They had the best tank chassis, the most modern aircraft carriers, best light tanks, their first medium tank was also superior to anything Brits had.


Thats some new history right there, last i checked it was US that transferred technologies.

Oh trust me, this is true! Unless of course your telling me that historically correct documentaries that were researched and presented by one of the most respected political historians in Britain got it wrong? I'll search around for it on the BBC news, or even find a clip of it on Youtube.

However to get back onto topic, since both were part of the NATO project could they in anyway be similar? (I am going to slaughtered now.)

 

[Guaporense]

We had exactly 64 years or relative peace, after more then 1000 years of hardcore wars thats a bit early to say something like that.

Europe will not have any great war.

The wars in the past occurred when the interests of great powers clashed. Today it is not profitable for governments to make war and the European governments are not the most powerful in the world anymore.

Until the first world war Europe had the 3 most powerful nations in the world one very close to the other: France, Britain and Germany. It was only a question of time before wars erupted on the continent. After WW1 France and Britain were finished as world powers, however, Germany was still strong. It took WW2 to finish Germany as a great power, so, after the world wars the center of the political world moved to the US and the USSR. And these countries didn't enter in war for 2 reasons: They are thousands of kilometers away from each other and they had nukes.

Really? They had the best tank chassis, the most modern aircraft carriers, best light tanks, their first medium tank was also superior to anything Brits had.

But the British had better doctrine and more combat experience. Also, the British had better aircraft at the start of the war.

 

[Yin717]

Until the first world war Europe had the 3 most powerful nations in the world one very close to the other: France, Britain and Germany. It was only a question of time before wars erupted on the continent. After WW1 France and Britain were finished as world powers, however, Germany was still strong. It took WW2 to finish Germany as a great power, so, after the world wars the center of the political world moved to the US and the USSR. And these countries didn't enter in war for 2 reasons: They are thousands of kilometers away from each other and they had nukes.

Now that is not entierly true! If anything. Germany became the weaker power. Highest unemployment, unstable government everything. It was Hitler that made it strong again, after a little assistance from Stressemann during the Golden Age. But no way was Germany a superpower after WW1. Only during the 1930s really could it classified as one. Britain though was defenatley a superpower and still is. The war did not stop it. It still owned a majority of the Empire and was trading much more than the US. if anything Britain was bigger than the US before WW2. It was probably the WW2 that gave the US the edge. No, Britain was still a superpower.

But the British had better doctrine and more combat experience. Also, the British had better aircraft at the start of the war.

Now that is certainly true!

 

[smokly]

I saw to fight each other in the training field. Abrahams won but the Leopards’ crews were conscripted soldiers.