M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2

Alright, that is your right. Such statements however are bound to stir controversy and attention, since what you have said runs contrary to the grain of official and unofficial information available to most of us. I know a large number of armor veterans, many of whom had fought in the Gulf War and none related to your experience.

*Edit:
I checked my sources on Leopard 2 armor. According to Paul Lakowski, Leopard 2A5 does use 3d generation Chobham armor in addition to the "wedge" applique armor, which is several layers of different hardness steel seperated by empty space.

 

Got to get one in for the chally here, probably the best combat record of any British AFV.

 

They obviously did not participte in the Battle of Basra highway. Why would I lie because I was not the only one who saw it? The U.S. lies about weapons capabilities, equipment losses, and kills like everybody else. If people want to drink the kool-aid they can. I'm done with this.

 

Tch!

 

If so it'll probably be some third world country 30 or 40 years from now and likely still won't tell which is best crew quality will easily overwhelm the differences in these two.

Chrysler also need a bail out. Remember there were two M1 prototypes.

The 105 also allowed additional rounds to be carried and had a greater selection of ammo types available.

My understanding is that the US didn't go to the L/55 weapon because it's accuracy while firing on the move wasn't as good as that of the L/44 weapon. It is better firing from a halt and has somewhat greater penetration. The US emphasises firing on the move the Germans don't.

The trubine actually has a number of advantages centered around the fact that full power is aviailable almost instantly. The disadvantage is fuel consumption at idle.

 

I saw a briefing after ODS by one of the generals concerned with tank losses. He brought up an interesting point. I think he said that all the M1's that had been damaged could have been repaired it was a question of which were worth repairing. Note that the one caught in the ammo dump explosion was in very bad shape.

 

Thanks for the link Za. Here is the actual name of the Battle which I participated. Za that battle took place mostly at night and I thought by the number of wheels it was a T-55 because they typically have five.

Battle of Norfolk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Maybe. And it is not likely that the Army would ever refuse to buy American.

Definately true but still, DoD was already looking for its alternatives in the British 115mm and Rhinemetal 120mm. The jury was still out when the M-1 MBT project was completed and no one was in the mood to wait.

Interesting. Do you have a source for this? It seems counter-intuitive that a higher muzzle velocity weapon would be less accurate, and I do not understand why one gun would been less accurate then another but only when it is on the move. The ability to fire on the move and make solid hits is a foundmental requirement for all of modern western armor, and I don't recall the Germans being doctrinally different. I am not trying to grill you, but I'd interested to know where that come from.

Yep. Acceleration is what makes one a harder target to hit.

 

I agree with TripleC here. I don't see how the l55 could be less accurate than the l44, but I'm no expert. I just know the Germans have very high standards
I do know that the British are curently considering the l55 for their Challenger 2.

 

I don't remember where I read it. The longer barel gives you not only more velocity but more accuracy normally. However there is a certain amount of flexability in the barrel so that when you aree moving the barrel "whip" on the L/55 actually decreased accuracy at least in some cercumstances. As for firing on the move while the Leopard can do it I beleive the Germans at least in the 80s and 90s tended to prefer to fire from the short halt as did the British. Part of this may be that planning for both of those armies was very mcuh based around defence where the US Army was in the midst of a reformation based around mobility.

 

I am not so sure about nowadays, but due to the gas turbine the heat emission and infra red and night vision pickup on the M1 was troumendous in the 80's and early 90's.

Have things changed on that behalf?

Regards
Kruska

 

the Leo2 has all that also except I'm not sure about the gas turbine.

 

Ha?? beg your pardon

Regards
Kruska

 

ok. I was able to find a 2008 Combat Vehicle Reference Guide and they say the Leo2's armor offers 700mm protection against KE rounds and 1000mm against HEAT rounds.

Does anyone know what the Abrams offer in terms of protection?

 

Ah, thanks!

Wow!

 

I am piqued by the [citation needed] tags flying all over the place. 1st ID breached Iraqi trenches with anti-mine prows and burried defending infantry in it. Oh no, we can't that! Bombing, shooting and barraging them is fine. But prows just crossed da line!

 

This is true I think, however the decision is being made because of the increased availability of ammo and ease of storage and whether that could make up for loss of accuracy.