Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Leopard 2 Forever And Ever
SYSOP    2/13/2015 6:19:15 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
DavidE    Leopard vs. M-1   2/13/2015 2:37:32 PM
These articles always say that the Leopard is more highly regarded than the M-1, but they never say why.
 
 Can someone enlighten me on the specifics?  Why is the Leopard better?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    DavidE   2/13/2015 3:17:24 PM
Because it's a GERMAN tank....remember Germans make great tanks....unlike the US....that was sarcasm, BTW.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/13/2015 3:23:50 PM
The Germans know what works with tanks. They tend to cut out fluff. The M-1 comes with some unneeded bells and whistles and at least in the base version they forgot the APU and the infantry phone, two things a US tank has got to have.  Don't mind JFKY, either. He's actually rather good on the armor stuff.
 
Learned a lot from reading his old postings.

These articles always say that the Leopard is more highly regarded than the M-1, but they never say why.

 

 Can someone enlighten me on the specifics?  Why is the Leopard better?

 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    David   2/13/2015 6:49:53 PM
"Better" can be pretty subjective. The main reasons I've seen for Leo preferences are the diesel engine (rather than turbine)and lower operating costs.. other stuff is more nit picky.. in my 2 cent opinion. And their may be something to JF's off the cuff comment.. a perception that Germans really do know tanks..
 
Quote    Reply

manny       2/14/2015 1:27:32 AM
Turbine engine is a deal breaker though, astronomical fuel usage, jet rear blast to torture troops behind the tank, needs to be replaced frequently and very expensive. (so expensive they are no longer being made)
 
Another deal breaker is that the Abrams has no dozer, so it can't actually push dirt or obstacles without breaking.
 
THAT is why no country except Australia fields the tank. (paper armies like saudia arabia and egypt don't count.)
 
It's not that the Leopard is a better tank, it's just that the Abrams is a crippled pos.
 
Quote    Reply

royrdsjr       2/14/2015 4:34:38 AM
The Leopard 2 A6/A7+ has a longer tank gun than the M1A1/A2 MBT's. The new German tank gun measures at 55 caliber versus the 44 caliber gun for the M1. Apparently Japan,South Korea,& Turkey are making licensed versions of this new gun for the new tanks that they are coming out with.
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Not a tankists perspective   2/14/2015 5:40:34 AM
But,
Why doesn't every heavy tank have a version of this as standard spec?
a tethered mast would increase that tanks situational awareness to an enormous degree.
Surely this is a tanks biggest issue?
Deployable when combat is imminent. I get that it would make the tank a tiny bit more visible, but surely with an overwatch system feeding telemetry from your very most forward attacking platform, the ability to call in fire support, not to mention launch indirect attacks itself would increase a tanks effectiveness exponentially?
I know the Merkava has a cabin in the back alongside a 60mm internal mortar.
Im sure one of these deployed instead of the mortar with an operator in the cabin would be a welcome upgrade. 
 
Quote    Reply

frylock       2/14/2015 8:27:45 AM
Turbine engine is a deal breaker though, astronomical fuel usage, jet rear blast to torture troops behind the tank, needs to be replaced frequently and very expensive. (so expensive they are no longer being made)
They are thirsty but quite reliable, the Abrams still has an enviable track record for the battlefield achieving over 90%  readiness in Iraq.The Leopard's have never been tested.
Furthermore their turbines are also much quieter and smokeless when compared with a diesel (though they run hotter but then again how many terrorists are using thermal sights?). They have much better acceleration and instant power compared to a diesel. All of these are arguably more valuable in today's urban heavy asymmetrical battlefield.
Regardless, like the diesel, technology is not standing still on them.
This is not to argue for the turbine over the diesel or vice versa, it's merely to point out that each has it's advantages and disadvantages. The turbine engine had definitely not been a deal breaker for the US.
 
Another deal breaker is that the Abrams has no dozer, so it can't actually push dirt or obstacles without breaking.
Not true...
It's not that the Leopard is a better tank, it's just that the Abrams is a crippled pos.
 
"The Abrams is a crippled pos"? Wow, just how do you write such nonsense?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    frylock   2/14/2015 10:17:09 AM
"Manny" has been reading too many Soldiers for the Truth postings or the like.... In fact, Manny, your post was a little self-contradicting...the Lycoming turbine is so expensive to repair it's no longer made? H'hhhhhm wouldn't it follow that there would be NO MORE engines for the "Crippled pos"? Instead, it's better to say, that given the ability repair/refurbish & the excess number of turbines available, due to force structure changes, that it's no longer NECESSARY to build new Lycomings. Also, it's a bit late to change engines, Congress mandated thru the first 5-10 years of the M-1's development/deployment an alternative diesel powerpack. It was finally, killed as Pork Barrel politics, in the 1980's. So UNLESS, the US is going to take an expensive program of development or re-design, a diesel is right out for the M-1....even if the MTU (???) 1,500 HP diesel were available, we'd have to find a US manufacturer AND fit it to the M-1.... The one thing the Leopard 2a6 and others have going for it is the 55 caliber barrel. Depending on ammunition compatibility issues & hence costs, that is the one thing I wish the US would adopt. OTOH, given that our main opponents have T-72's & the number of T-90's is vanishingly small, how necessary is the upgrade of the main gun? For me, the issue is the continued insistence on creating it "here." Just from a perusal of various "Janes" publications, I'd recommend purchasing LAHAT, rather than continued development of an equivalent US round. It would be built here & built by 'Mehrikuns.....just an Israeli round. Just like NetFires died, & whilst it's not an exact replacement, I like, on paper, the Israeli "Jumper" system.....It's an apples to oranges comparison, but if the US feels the need for a missile in a box, Jumper is preferable to NOTHING....our current option.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       2/14/2015 10:26:06 AM
The US felt that it was cheaper to develop a better bullet than to replace the main gun on the M-1.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics