Leopard II top tank?

huub vink said:
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
Click to expand...

Depends on doctrine and tactics.
 
ndicki said:
...
Click to expand...

The Challenger's huge disadvantage is its engine. Only 1200 hp for 62.5t isn't that good for manouverability.

A huge advantage of the Leclerc is its relatively low weight. The horse power per tonne ratio is among the highest out there.



Oh, and another argument in favor of the Leo 2: Take a look a the japanese Type 90 and the indian Arjun and tell me that it doesn't look like a pre-wedge Leo.
 
Fine, the Leclerc is light. Light, by the way, equals reduced survivability on the battlefield, and that added to the legendary reliability of French automotive products and their electronics, means that I don't want one. Which was pretty much what the RAC had to say, too. You can see why.

The other thing is that the Leclerc has an autoloader. Now I don't want to sound superior or old-fashioned, but autoloaders are peacetime gadgets unless you're an expendable Sov. They can't be replaced on the battlefield. Human loaders can...

And I still come back to the other major source of concern after its survivability - it isn't soldierproof. That's really all that needs to be said.
 
German Leo2's were with us in Kosovo. But you can simply look at the specs and cut out the crew's impact on performance and I guess that's what they did. Pretty interesting!
 
ndicki said:
Fine, the Leclerc is light. Light, by the way, equals reduced survivability on the battlefield, and that added to the legendary reliability of French automotive products and their electronics, means that I don't want one. Which was pretty much what the RAC had to say, too. You can see why.
Click to expand...

Light doesn't necessarily mean reduced survivability. If it moves quicker, it's less likely to be hit.
And the "unreliable french" cars thingy is a classical example of "apples vs bananas".

The other thing is that the Leclerc has an autoloader. Now I don't want to sound superior or old-fashioned, but autoloaders are peacetime gadgets unless you're an expendable Sov. They can't be replaced on the battlefield. Human loaders can...
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one. Autoloaders are simply too impractical and can't replace another pair of hands and eyes.
 
"My tank is better than your tank"... LOL

Navy guy who worked on Bradley Fighting Vehicles & M113s as a civilian years ago.
 
Bjoern said:
Light doesn't necessarily mean reduced survivability. If it moves quicker, it's less likely to be hit...
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is really true... The navy thought the same thing and came up with this concept of the "battlecruiser" which, lighter than battleships, due to thin armor, were faster than the big dreadnoughts, and thought, therefore, to be better "protected" because of it. They were not. Turns out that "boolets" go faster than battle cruisers, and 10 knots of extra speed just doesn't make up for 6 inches of steel. Would not the same be true of fast thinly armored tanks?
 
huub vink said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I don't feel there is a top tank,as a former armor crewman on M60A1's I have a bit of experience in this matter.The Soviet and now Russian armor did the light and fast routine with most of their stuff and it made great target practice as did the Sherman.

The Sherman was a death trap but it was cheap,fast and easy to build in large numbers,it also killed it's crewmembers in large numbers.There are always those who are willing to trade speed for armor and it rarely works out for them.The Leopard,Abrams and Challenger are the big dogs.

Nothing the Russians or Chinese have can compete in my opinion,which is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Time will tell if the Arjun and the Leclerc can hang in a fight.Also the Merkava is a very specialized vehicle.What really matters is crew training and morale along with a good vehicle,there is no armored vehicle that can't be destroyed by the proper application of brute force.
 
All of these front line MBT's are excellent and I would not be so quick to say one is better than any other as such. However, not one of them is invulnerable by armor and systems alone. Threats these days are 100% lethal such that previous armor advances(Heavy/Advanced Armor Technology) really mean nothing. When considering the cost of and M-1A2, Leopard 2A5/6, Challenger II, Leclerc, Merkava IV, a cheap but high tech anti-armor missile is a cost effective way to counter an expensive MBT. The answer to such threats are Active Protection Systems. The Russians have a system called Arena(and the earlier Drozd system) but that system is not in widespread use and in actual combat, they have not shown to be very effective. The US had more than one AAP System in development in the early 90's but cut the funding later. Raytheon is currently developing a AAPS called Quick Kill but it is well behind schedule and is suffering a number of technical issues. Germany has a similar system in development called AMAP-ADS and Sweden the LEDS-150. Currently, Israel has the world's only "in service" full coverage AAP System which is called Trophy. They have another AAPS called Iron Fist. The US Army has field tested Trophy and combat tested it in Iraq with 100% Zero Loss Rate. With such developments in place, one must question if there is really any need for Heavy Armor MBT's as opposed to developing newer mobile combat systems that are lighter/faster, less expensive, and more effective in multiple scenarios.

Here's a demo of Trophy in action. BTW, the system is about to be fully certified against Kinetic Energy Rounds.



(EDIT) and Iron Fist.
 
DUDE!!!! how did you get such a realistic looking layer of dust???
Click to expand...
1) Build model.
2)Place on shelf.
3)Every two to three years, blow off with the air-in-can stuff.
4)Enjoy!
Strat.
Been digital model building (for you guys!) the past severeal years. But I do want to get going on my Tamiya T-55, and Cromwell. And the Stryker. And the BMP-3, And the.....
 
That Trophy thing looks dead good. If the Israelis are deploying it actively, then the probability is that it really does work. They are not known for wasting money on kit that doesn't do what it says on the box... Not like the rest of us...
 
ndicki said:
That Trophy thing looks dead good. If the Israelis are deploying it actively, then the probability is that it really does work. They are not known for wasting money on kit that doesn't do what it says on the box... Not like the rest of us...
Click to expand...

Yeap, that system is combat proven both by the IDF and our combat tests in the box. When the field trials were held Stateside, there was 1 anomaly out of 40 test shots. The Trophy Interceptor round proximity burst slightly behind an RPG-7 round but the blast still hit the rear of the round knocking it off course (tumble) enough to fail. We're going to see a lot more of these types of systems come about for sure. Makes sense being that it is cost effective in protecting a very expensive piece of hardware and most important, the lives inside the armor!
 
deathfromafar said:
Yeap, that system is combat proven both by the IDF and our combat tests in the box. When the field trials were held Stateside, there was 1 anomaly out of 40 test shots. The Trophy Interceptor round proximity burst slightly behind an RPG-7 round but the blast still hit the rear of the round knocking it off course (tumble) enough to fail. We're going to see a lot more of these types of systems come about for sure. Makes sense being that it is cost effective in protecting a very expensive piece of hardware and most important, the lives inside the armor!
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the Trophy and Iron Fist videos. That's some awesome technology.
 
PRB said:
...
Would not the same be true of fast thinly armored tanks?
Click to expand...

Open water isn't really the same as open ground.
Even the desert provides dunes and hills to hide behind or go hull down. Change the sand with your standard soil and add some forests and villages and you'll see how important it can be to quickly move from cover to cover.



safn1949 said:
Nothing the Russians or Chinese have can compete in my opinion,which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Click to expand...

It's always in whether you use your advantages or not. If my mind doesn't fail me, the T-72s advantages for example are it's small size (really, this thing is awfully tiny for a MBT) and the long 125mm gun. The Leopard 2 was actually developed to counter the T-72, which had a huge range advantage and could pick off Leo 1s before they could hit back. The tradeoff for the T-72s size is its limited gun elevation range. It's really hard to find a good hull down position in one of those.

Also the Merkava is a very specialized vehicle.
Click to expand...

MBAPC. :d

And it looks kind of sexy to boot.
 
Jagdflieger said:
Has the M-1 ever been offered for international sale?
Click to expand...
Jagd, we received a shipment a year or two ago, IIRC the number was 59 units.
Not very clever on the part of our DOD because the M1 is so bloody big it has been a disaster just to move from the docks to the 1st Armoured Regiment's home base.
Narrow roads, bridges and not enough railway freight cars to cope.
Very sophisticated vehicle but too big for our use, the 'Leopold' suits our terrain and any possible future scenarios in the region.
Most of them went through upgrades and remain very well liked by the regiment.
The M1 has 'replaced' the Leopolds' which are more or less moth balled for the Army Reserve

As in anything it's horses for courses.
:ernae:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top