Jump to content
titanpilot321

Leopard 2 or M1A3 Abrams

Recommended Posts

there both pretty good, I reckon atm the leopard is better, but son the M1A4 is coming soon, witch is upgraded being lighter and with an auto loader so the leopard might have some competition!

Whats your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to blast the hell out of someone with a fat tank cannon. Want to see them fly, panic and flee.it will be glorious!! Im guessing insurgents/millita will get russian models Txx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there both pretty good, I reckon atm the leopard is better, but son the M1A4 is coming soon, witch is upgraded being lighter and with an auto loader so the leopard might have some competition!

Whats your opinion?

 

Leopard should become real when German Forces get implemented into Squad.

Unless they plan to do so.

 

I prefer Russian tanks than Abrams M1.

Even T-10 is better than the crappy Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Challenger, Leopard, Abrams, Leclerc, are all pretty much the same. You can even overclock all of those tanks to match the speed of the leopard, there is a thing prohibiting at least the Abrams from exceeding like 45 mph if I remember correctly.

 

 These western tanks were designed to fight against the Russian tanks. Particularly the T80 and to a lesser extent the T72. Well the USSR collapsed and Russia still has not updated their tank arsenal from T72s and T80s. T90s are extremely similar to the T72 except with upgraded electronics and modern armor. They would still underperform against the 80s western MBTs. The frontal armor of these western tanks are meant to withstand direct hits from the front and are likely to do so. The only one that has seen combat against other tanks in significant numbers is the Abrams, where it went against far superior numbers of cold war era tanks and utterly destroyed them. No other modern MBT has been tested in battle except for the M1 Abrams. 

 

 There is a reason the western forces have always used lighter, smaller guns. The ammunition has always been of better quality. It really starts with the British 17 pounder on the sherman firefly. It was a 76mm gun, but it performed and exceeded the performance of the American 90mm gun on the m36 slugger and M26 pershing onwards to the m47 patton before it was replaced with a better 90mm to use HEAT and SABOT rounds. Russian tanks are armed with 125mm and have been historically much larger than the western forces (For decades the western world used 90mm with limited 105mm, the 105mm was introduced then almost instantly phased out with the 120mm after the m60) because the manufacturing of the tanks and it's ammunition are not that great. Therefore bigger is better for them. 

 

 

 A good example of this is in the Korean war. The majority of tanks used by the USA were M4 shermans, mostly of the 76mm variety. The majority of enemy tank used was the Russian T34 withthe 85mm gun. The 85mm gun does not have enough penetrating power to penetrate an M4 sherman frontally whereas the 76mm can penetrate the T34 at any location, at any angle, even without the APCR round using a normal ballistic capped AP shell. 

 

 So you have the gap right there, 76mm to 85mm. It just continued and continued. The way Russian tanks are designed are to be small, quick, mobile, to overwhelm an enemy. These vehicles are very effective because they are simple. In a straight up slug fest they would fall very short probably. The Abrams and all Western MBTs are meant to be faced forward. Their armor thickness is only 40mm on the sides and rear which is why you see Abrams knocked out of commission in Iraq. They can't even penetrate their own frontal armor with the 120mm SABOT or even the HEAT. There isn't a chance any sort of Ruskie ammunition can penetrate them from the front. All of the western tanks are pretty much assault tanks. Front towards enemy. 

 

 They suck for mass production though. They are also extremely heavy, tons heavier in fact. That weight is armor though. So while all the western MBTs will perform similar, they were all designed to counter the Russian T80 and T72. They still do that. 

 

 The new T14 armata weighs if I remember correctly, 10 tons more than an M2 Bradley. That makes the Armata a light tank. Which means it is not capable of fighting MBTs other powers will be fielding. This light tank package comes in the size larger than an Abrams tank. Russia current best tank for armored conflict is the T80, with the T90 being a good supporting/flanking piece. The saving grace of Russian tanks at this point is there is a lot of them. it is possible to flank without them knowing. 

 

 If we want to compare just the Western tanks, the M1a2 Abrams is currently the most advanced and best armored machine right now. It is going to have more armor though extremely close to the others, but the only reasons it wins out right is how much more advanced the new tech is on it with the SEP and TUSK blocks and there are like 9000 of them. Germany has like 140 Leopards. Britain has like 200 Challengers. Nobody but Russia, China, and America have enough pieces of equipment stored away for a military conflict. Today if we were to see a major war, vehicles would be destroyed by the thousands. European military power is a joke, they have great special forces but in a land war their military equipment would be destroyed in seconds. Of course they would probably be able to do the same to the enemy. Unless it was Russia. They have enough tanks and people to eclipse that. So when you are looking at how good a tank is you have to consider all these things.

 

 You wouldn't say the Leopard 2 is better than the Abrams because there are more Abrams than the Leo. They are protected equally, they have the same gun, they have similar speed, one has more advanced electronics but still probably close, the only difference between all of these is there are thousands of one, and hundreds of the others. 

 

I am just a wee o civilian that cares a lot for my military and I do have an opinion on military weapons. Even without ever having driven an Abrams, I know they need a Coaxial .50 and loaders with 25mm automatic grenade launchers to make it better against infantry because m240s and m2s are not quite effective at killing a swath of infantry as grenades are. 

 

 I am kind of skeptical with the whole missile thing as I think that takes away from the role of the MBT on the battlefield. If you are engaging targets at long distance with a missile from a tank, why aren't you doing it more times from farther with a helicopter? 

 

 

 My favorite tank is the Abrams because America, but also because it looks way cooler and meaner than any other tank. Though I do know it's pretty much the same as everything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merkava  FTW hands down.

 

But it means we would need Middle Eastern Factions. Touchy topic these days LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice info, In 2007 Australia replaced its 100 leopard 1a2s with 100 M1A1s with a few Aussie upgrades, like Air conditioning and a mixture of features used by the US army and US marine corps versions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mid-air nuclear warhead kill everyone, so no need to fight in area.

My Star Wars missile defense system of satellites shoots down your mid air nuke in orbit or transit...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 A good example of this is in the Korean war. The majority of tanks used by the USA were M4 shermans, mostly of the 76mm variety. The majority of enemy tank used was the Russian T34 withthe 85mm gun. The 85mm gun does not have enough penetrating power to penetrate an M4 sherman frontally whereas the 76mm can penetrate the T34 at any location, at any angle, even without the APCR round using a normal ballistic capped AP shell. 

 

Would looooove to hear some sources on that.

also, the rest of your comment reeks of blind patriotism... Leclerc, Challanger and Merkava all are better tanks with better track record.. but mostly it would boil down to the tactics employed and the force ratio of the conflict. and as a side note, saying that the T-14 would not be able to fight other MBTs because its lighter shows how little you know about modern armored combat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would looooove to hear some sources on that.

also, the rest of your comment reeks of blind patriotism... Leclerc, Challanger and Merkava all are better tanks with better track record.. but mostly it would boil down to the tactics employed and the force ratio of the conflict. and as a side note, saying that the T-14 would not be able to fight other MBTs because its lighter shows how little you know about modern armored combat...

Truthfully the Merkava out does all other tanks but the OPs question was Leopard or Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truthfully the Merkava out does all other tanks but the OPs question was Leopard or Abrams.

well he was the one conparing it to other western tanks..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M26 Pershing was used in Korea....as the new hbt heavy battle tank that was first used at end of ww2 to replace the Shermans. They still used the Shermans more in Korea? M26 later got reclassifief as a medium battle tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1368879628_df044a4d81.jpg

2202902419_e1c46c4b29_o.jpg

 

tank barrier....ooops....this is how you stop a tank....still like the M1a3.

Edited by XRobinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×