oops nm the last sentence...

Some weapons explode when they hit a target,some weapons penetrate and come right into the crew department,thats why the fromtal special shaped armor is hallow because the ''penetrator'' explodes when it has penetrated some thing,in this case it has penetrate the special shaped armor,but not the MAIN A4 Armor. Let me put it this way; if the special shaped armor wasn't ''empty'' the frontal armor of the Leopard2A5/A6 would be about 2 meters thick!!! The tank will weight about 75Ton i think! Try too understand the ligic in my explenation :)

LOGIC***

Jeffrey, you are trying to explain something that you obviously don't fully understand. A dual or tandem warhead is designed to defeat reactive armor. The first warhead detonates the ERA, the second warhead penetrates the RHA. The Leo2, and many other tanks, use a laminate armor system that includes air layers, to cause the second warhead to detonate prior to striking armor, thus dissipating the plasma cone. It's not foolproof, it can be defeated simply be delaying the detonation time for the second warhead. The Leo2 is a good tank, but not as quantitatively superior as you are trying to make out.

An APFSDS round would slice through this "hollow armor" and through the air in it then hit the main armor with pretty much all of it's original force.

I was in a very fortunate position to have spent a lot of time in Kassel, visiting Wegmann, both before and after the merger with Krauss-Maffei. During my visits, I was able to observe the PZh-2000 in production, the Swedish 122 in production, Leo 2A4's being upgraded to A5, Cheetah's being rebuilt, and, finally, I observed the first of the A6 being placed in production. Of course, Wegmann did not produce hulls, but complete versions of all were there for me to jump in and out of, and play (under supervision) with. I also was fortunate enough to meet with various different people from IBD, whose armour graces the Leo2A5/6, the 122, and is available as kits to upgrade Leo1's. I do not have the combat experience of mike_golf. However, I do have experience. I also still have many contacts in various countries, mostly soldiers, but those who are not are in the armour industry in one way or another. Of course, my travels just happened to take me to other exotic locales as well. Many of these locales would be exotic only to a dedicated armour soldier, but many would give their eye teeth to have done the travelling I did, and to experience the same things I did. Anyhow, it was while the 122 was in production that it was discovered that the 122 was slightly overweight. Instead of putting it on a diet, the torsion bars were beefed up, and better brakes installed. Amazing, in that these were the only upgrades required to handle the extra 15 or so tons the suspension was first designed for on the Leo2! The Leo2A5 based it's design on the 122, but was designed as an upgrade, without a lot of the 122 features to keep costs down. They got the extra turret armour, although much less on the turret roof, the improved commanders FCS, and the turret electrive drive. The hull for the Leo2A5 were rebuilt older hulls, and do not have the extra armour of the 122. I was wrong on an earlier post, where I said the Leo2A6 was new production. Germany has decided not to build new, and will instead upgrade to the A6 standard. There still exists the possibility of new turrets, but no new hulls are planned. Sounds like the M1A2SEP package, doesn't it?

The Leo2A4, A5 and A6 are good tanks, no doubt. The Germans engineer them quite well, they have a long history of building great tanks and the industry to ensure that they don't have the quality problems that plague the French. But the continuous argument that they are the world's best tank when they have never seen combat, never been struck by a round fired in anger with crewman inside, never been under the arduous conditions that combat entails is ludicrous. In 1990 I believed the M1A1 was a fine tank, but I wasn't about to argue it was the world's best tank when it had never seen combat. I personally feel that the major plus to the A6 is the improved top armor. The longer gun is a simple trade off to gain KE since the Germans don't use DU penetrators, no big advantage there. Using DU penetrators would mean a complete new ammo design. I don't personally agree with the "interior sloping" design of the Leo's armor either. I think the round should be defeated at the exterior of the armor to the greatest extent possible. The Leo's optics are not up to the standard of the M1A2SEP, and as far as I know the digital C3I package is not up to the level of the M1A2SEP or C2e. All in all, it still boils down to the same answer, the Abrams, Chally and Leo are all about even, with minor nitpicking differences. When one is selected as the top tank in a procurement political issues that are unseen by outside observers are the driving force. Of course, if the choice happens to match our personal preference we will argue that there's no politics playing out, just objective evaluation.

Well, of course you make a bunch of valid points, mike_golf. However, there are some things about the L55 gun in the 122/A6/Merkava that I'm wondering about. The advantages of the longer barrel are two-fold, I think. Using the longer barrel alows ammunition makers to use the newer triple-based propellants, that offer lower burning temps. The longer barrel allows the all-burnt point to be moved further down the barrel, while at the same time, lowering muzzle flash. The end result is much more KE than is possible in the L44 using duplex propellants. However, the longer barrel also increases barrel bend and droop, to the point where, in extreme cases, the sight will not have the field of view to pick up the mirror from the sight in the MRS. There is also the point of additional vibration, always a concern in long smooth bore barrels. The powers that get paid to make decisions obviously think that the trade-off is worth it. I do know that there were problems with early issue barrels. Someone I really respect for his knowledge once told me that the ideal tank would involve the mating of the Leo2 hull with the M1A2 turret. I couldn't think of a reasonable argument to refute him. Can you?

Retired wrote: "Someone I really respect for his knowledge once told me that the ideal tank would involve the mating of the Leo2 hull with the M1A2 turret. I couldn't think of a reasonable argument to refute him. Can you" I really like the turbine. It is amazingly responsive and very quiet. It does use a lot more fuel, but it's also multi-fuel capable, a plus. However, I like the armor, size, tracks and suspension of the Leo hull. I think it would be a damn fine combination.

The best tank in the world is also the most expensive, and there is a relationship. The best tank in the world can do something the others cannot, but it is expensive! It can articulate to obtain the best tactical position in the immediate circumstances. It uses a gun tied for first place, but has an autoloader, so it can fire two rounds to our one. It uses a lot of the same equipment as the M-1, but where it differs, it is better. And the diesel engine is safer in real combat. The tank is the Type 90 of Japan.