• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Leopard II top tank?

PRB

PRB

Administrator
Staff member
Watching the Discovery Tank Channel and they had another top ten show, this one on tanks. They said the #1 tank is the German Leapard II. Our M-1 Abrams came in at #2. According to them. It was pretty interesting. The Soviet T-72 was in there someplace, and it was funny listening to the British army guy commenting on the T-72. He said the T-72s innovative auto loader was great, but it had an unfortunate habit of trying to stuff the crewmen into the breech of the gun from time to time. Oops...
 
I guess my only rebuttal to that the German Leopard II tank is the best of all tanks is: Has it proven itself in battle yet? The Abrams has. Numerous times. This is nothing to take away anything or discredit the Leopard tank. I don't know it's specs vs. the Abrams,...but probably exceeds them since it is a newer tank. Yet,....it always comes back to the question: What has it proven in the field of battle?
 
Oh I love these debates!!

I believe the Leopard would probably be considered a better all around tank than the Abrams. It is doubtless more maneuverable, carries the same gun as the Abrams, and is more suited in some ways to maneuver warfare, being 10 tons lighter and able to cross softer terrain. It also requires less fuel and has a significantly improved range over the Abrams, almost twice as far in fact. The Leopard is a diesel, the Abrams a Jet Turbine, so the Abrams is faster, but just a bit. I believe the Leopard is also cheaper.

That being said, it has less armor protection than the Abrams. The trade off being that agility will make up for risk of potential hits on the turret or hull. Nothing wrong with that trade off. It's a bit ironic though that this is the same trade off the U.S. made with the M4 Sherman over the German heavies of WWII.

Something odd to remember though, the Abrams is primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon. The Leopard is designed for a more OFFENSIVE role, or at least rapid EXPLOITATION. One thing I dislike about these various comparisons is that they never peel back the onion to discover the actual mission the weapon is designed to accomplish.

In it's doctrinal role, the Abrams engages targets from a defensive position, and is designed to absorb damage while at the same time inflicting it. It's speed was needed to move it from position to position rapidly, where it would once again engage targets as part of a coordinated defense. The fact that the U.S. has used it in primarily the offense is incidental, but you see the 2nd and 3rd order effects in the massive amounts of logistics support required to support the tank in the offense. That creates a vulnerability, which while shared with all armored forces, is particularly notable when using the Abrams.

However, Brad Kaste makes a perfectly legitimate point...the Abrams has a stellar tank on tank maneuver warfare record. There just aren't a lot of things out there that can kill it. The Leopard has been used in combat, but cannot even come close to making the same claims. I've not seen a lot of kill rings on Leopard 2 tanks. There's a motor pool just up the road from me, where I can show you dozens of Abrams with kill rings -- and these are tank on tank kills.
 
Tom Clancy was asked to make comments during this show, and he said of the Abrams fire control system: "The M-1's fire control system can best be described as the 'I wish you were dead' system." That's funny.

Interesting, TeaSea, about the roles these machines were made for. It's just like the fighter debates. The planes (and tanks) are actually designed to carry out narrowly defined roles, often in specific regions. And then they always go to war not in those roles or places.
 
Has the M-1 ever been offered for international sale? The USA used to give the M-47, M-48 and M-60 series of tanks away or sell them for a pretty reasonable price to allied nations, but I've never seen a foreign armored unit equipped with an M-1.

On the other hand, many NATO nations field a version of the Leopard and it's reputation seems quite good if I'm to believe the foreign soldiers I've worked or trained with.

For sheer good looks though, I really like the Israeli Merkava. I believe it also has the same 120mm smooth bore main gun as the Leopard II and the M-1A2. Its combat record seems to be good and, and like the M-1 and Leopard II, it's been deployed in one form or another for something like 30 years now. Like the M-1, I don't think that it serves with any army other than its parent nation's forces.
 
PRB said:
Interesting, TeaSea, about the roles these machines were made for. It's just like the fighter debates. The planes (and tanks) are actually designed to carry out narrowly defined roles, often in specific regions. And then they always go to war not in those roles or places.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. Aircraft are probably even more closely defined than armored vehicles. As for their utilization in other roles -- we design things based on doctrine. That doctrine defines the requirements, and the operational parameters of any system. Since all systems, particularly aircraft, are a series of compromises, how you adjudicate those compromises is going to be defined by your requirements. That is all just common sense.

It's the very rare system that breaks out into an all around functionality for every mission set, although there are clearly some more flexible than others. As for using systems for multiple roles, well Secretary Rumsfeld took a lot of heat for stating the obvious, ...you fight your wars with what you have on hand at the time, not what you wish you had.
 
S-Tank!
"The pacifist's choice"
Those shows are fun to watch, but I never really learn anything new. They're geared more for the casual viewer. Like, for the Sherman, no (even brief) mention of T-23 turret, HVSS, 76mm gun?
Or IDF M-51 Isherman?
Oh, and Tom Clancy? Military expert?!?
 
Leopard 2's are in service with Canada in Afghanistan at current. Waiting to see a leopard up here in the dead cold winter. Would love to see it operate high Arctic out of curiousness.
 
As a armor intell specialist, while in the Army, we were sent two XM-1' back in the day for field trails.. 1976..
It wasn't the same tanks they have now, much improved since the 70's...

But I do realize that the roles each tank was designed for was of a different nature..
The greatest advantage the M 1 has over the german tank is it's ability to take hits and keep the crew alive..

That to a Tanker like me, meant alot..

I trained on Russian, French and British armor, wore a german uniform for 6 months training in a german armor unit, and the goals and way of thinking was different then what we americans
used and consided during the cold war years..
Even then the german armor was GREAT..
I doubt that this has changed much..

For me I would rather be in a M1 then the german tank mainly because of the ability for the M 1 to take hits and keep the crew alive..

No they aren't designed for the roles but Both are great compaired to the T-72's..

As I learned in my years as a tanker the Russsians were not as accurate or long ranged, and this is what caused many russian tanks facing the Allied forces in the gulf wars, to be knocked out quickly by the allied armor..And I will admit our tatics are higkly developed which also makes a big difference..
And against Isreael the russian armor was defeated badly.. And Isreael in 73' was still using the Sherman's with the 105mm french gun to very good effect on the Golan hieghts.That says alot when a WW2 tank took out russian armor with great effect..

Oh for those who would know, I took many tanks downrange in my day, and managed to always to score in the top 1% of of my division.. I truly hated when I became a tank commander, I rather loved being the gunner..

Got myself Busted back to gunner because of this..LOL.. Yea sure did..

Nothing Like launching a round at a target and seeing the splash of a heat round or the Flash from a Sabot as it Hits the front of a target.. At night it was too cool to see..

As a tanker, I would go with the M 1 only becuse of the tanks ability to take hits and still keep the crew alive..
Just a a old tanker that has served in both American and German armor..
 
According the Brits the Challenger is the best, the Yanks claim the M1 is the best and Discovery Tank channel states the Leopard II is the best. And according to some member here you need a war to prove this......

Isn't it all about your own definition of "the best" ?

Huub
 
The Leo 2 simply offers the best bang for the buck. Sure, the others might offer extras like a built-in hairdryer or a hot water dispenser for tea, but with the Leo you get what you pay for: Armor, manouverability, the best gun on the market, and a multi-fuel engine.

If you want, you can even put them together in hunter-killer teams. Let the lighter 2A4 hunt and the better armoured and armed 2A6 kill.



Together, the propulsion pack is capable of driving the Leopard 2 to a top road speed of 68 km/h (which is limited to 50 km/h during peacetime), and top reverse is 31 km/h.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Propulsion

68 kph...*Snort*

My record is about 80 kph with ample time for acceleration. I hadn't even reached top speed yet...




CG_1976 said:
Leopard 2's are in service with Canada in Afghanistan at current. Waiting to see a leopard up here in the dead cold winter. Would love to see it operate high Arctic out of curiousness.
Click to expand...

The Leo C1s already did well in CAF service from what I've heard, so a C2 wouldn't do much worse.
 
Not one single Challenger II has been lost to enemy fire. One was hit with 14 RPGs and a Milan, and still came home... Only one Challenger II has ever been lost to fire, and that was from another Challenger II... The Spams can't say as much about the M1. I don't know how many carcasses of M1s there are scattered about in Iraq, but there are a few.

If I were a tankie (you couldn't pay me enough to get inside one of those things!) I'd want a Challenger. In the end, survivability gives you the opportunity to use your fire and manoeuvre to best effect. Fire and manoeuvre doesn't work if you're on fire while manoeuvring.

Speaking as an infantryman, the tanks that worry me the most are those that I can't kill. So inversely, a good tank must be one that I wouldn't be able to kill, but which is on our side.

Interestingly, nobody has mentioned the French Leclerc. The French think it's pretty hot kit, even if nobody else does. Apparently the RACs trialled one at Bovvie but they didn't like it - systems too sensitive, not battleproof or soldierproof. If you've ever driven a Renault, you'll know what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top