Superior tank

Iwasfrozen

Help solve a feud between my friend and I, which tank is superior? The Leopard II tank or the M1 Abrams?

troubleshooter

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Help solve a feud between my friend and I, which tank is superior? The Leopard II tank or the M1 Abrams?

Mercs or Beamers ? They are both excellent, saying that I read the M1 Abrams turret was vulnuerable to RPGs when its turret was turning, some were taken out by RPG 29s in Iraq,also it gave a huge heat signal from its engine.

"From the sides and rear though the M1 is vulnerable and a sizable fraction of the 90 or so M1's destroyed in combat to date were the result of damage from RPG fire in these more vulnerable area's. There are plenty of pictures all over the web to confirm this."

Manic Moran

Very, very close question. I think I would only slightly give the nod to Leopard 2A6HEL over M1A2SEPv2, but mainly due to the roof armour and electric turret traverse system. The FCS has some neat features as well such as rucksteurung and a static-target mode, but that's a 'nice to have'. I don't know enough about the 'livability' of the German tank to comment. However, there are things that one tank has that the other hasn't, and vice versa. Many of them are things which would not be considered in amateur conversation, such as the location of the gunner's auxilliary sight, which is on top of the turret roof on Leo2A6 but down by the bottom of the main gun tube on the Abrams, which is where it used to be on earlier marques of Leopard 2. Personally, I prefer the lower position.

Of course, both are ultimately 30-year old designs, and are starting to be eclipsed by tanks such as K2 or Type-10.

NTM

Avgas

My 2 cents....

The gas turbine engine in the Abrams has poor fuel efficiency...although recent newer mark engines have whittled this down somewhat.....so in a protracted fight or if your resupply has been cut off for whatever reason you'd have a problem; Leopards are that bit better in fuel efficiency...but in reality its probably a marginal difference....between them...like everyone else is saying....

Maybe....any Abrams with the TUSK kit fitted would probably be a bit better fixed for urban fighting....not sure how Germans have updated 2a6s in this respect.....

It would come down to experience of crews and supporting arms and situational awareness..... and while many users of the Leopards are no slouches in these fields...the US would probably be ahead...quite a bit of combat experience......

Of course...I wouldn't be Avgas if I didn't give the annoying CORRECT answer....

Which is better the Abrams or the Leopard?

Answer: a 1,500ib improvised explosive device fired by simple command wire.:)

Manic Moran

not sure how Germans have updated 2a6s in this respect.....

PSO fulfills most of the same requirements.

NTM

Manic Moran

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Help solve a feud between my friend and I, which tank is superior? The Leopard II tank or the M1 Abrams?

So who won?

NTM

Delancey

A tank that runs out of fuel is as useless as a giant paperweight and that is more likely to happen to an Abrams given its gas guzzling turbine engine ( very American in that regard ).
A fuel consumption of close to 3 gallons a mile suggests a tank that requires an especially long logistics tail to support it , on that basis alone I would rate the Leopard higher.

Manic Moran

delancey42 wrote: »

A tank that runs out of fuel is as useless as a giant paperweight and that is more likely to happen to an Abrams given its gas guzzling turbine engine ( very American in that regard ).
A fuel consumption of close to 3 gallons a mile suggests a tank that requires an especially long logistics tail to support it , on that basis alone I would rate the Leopard higher.

I would qualify that statement. The Israelis, for example, never claim that their tank is the best tank in the world. They do claim it's the best tank in the world for Israel. Doctrine and support have a very large effect.

If you're a military such as the US and you can afford to have a large logistical trail, then there is little benefit to compromising your tank with a diesel engine for the sake of fuel efficiency.

NTM

Iwasfrozen

Manic Moran wrote: »

So who won?
NTM

Well just like the posters on this thread can't agree we also can't agree. I support the Abrams but he says the Leopard 2 is far better.

Delancey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would qualify that statement. The Israelis, for example, never claim that their tank is the best tank in the world. They do claim it's the best tank in the world for Israel. Doctrine and support have a very large effect.

If you're a military such as the US and you can afford to have a large logistical trail, then there is little benefit to compromising your tank with a diesel engine for the sake of fuel efficiency.

NTM

Very fair point I must admit . When you think of the fact that in the Battle for France in 1940 the British and French had better tanks and more tanks than the Germans yet due to the superior doctrine of the Wehrmacht the Allies were routed.

Avgas

Newer engines in the later Abrams have cut fuel consumption by around 30% I think....and running the engine on diesel rather than Kerosene/Jet fuel JA-1 types might reduce it down again.....

Also while PSO Leopard in theory does match TUSK...is it an actual field issue with any army..or just a design study and offering by KMW?

Delancey

Avgas wrote: »

Newer engines in the later Abrams have cut fuel consumption by around 30% I think....and running the engine on diesel rather than Kerosene/Jet fuel JA-1 types might reduce it down again.....

Also while PSO Leopard in theory does match TUSK...is it an actual field issue with any army..or just a design study and offering by KMW?

Forgive the question but I'm not the most technical of folks - is it possible to run a Gas Turbine engine on diesel fuel ?

Avgas

here's a sources which suggests that its not a prob.

"The tank can be fueled with diesel fuel, kerosene, any grade of motor gasoline, JP-4 jet fuel, or JP-8 jet fuel; the US Army uses JP-8 jet fuel in order to simplify logistics. The Royal Australian Armoured Corps' M1A1 AIM SA uses diesel fuel; it is cheaper and makes practical sense for Australian military logistics."

http://21stcenturymilitary.forumotion.com/american-military-zone-f4/m1a1-abrams-t15.htm

I think NATO specified that all their MBTs would all be 'multi-fuel capable in the 1980s or something.

Cheers.

If only our cars were more like MBTs...sigh,........

Delancey

Kind of appropriate I learn this from a user caller Avgas