StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This debate started in the thread "US, Empire of Liberty, or just really cool", after a poster by the name Azeron said about Leopard 2 MBT that it is "roundly inferior to M1A2". I replied and he replied back, leading to this. Because I know that many of you are a bunch of military tech geeks (I know I am) I decided to start this. So go ahead and contribute, don't let this thread die too soon. I spent an hour putting this info together.



The discussion so far...

Azeron: "(Leopard 2 is) roundly infereior to an M1 A2"

Me: Elaborate. Abrams hasn't seen an upgrade since the early nineties, whereas Leopard 2 has seen several of them. When comparing M1A2 to Leo 2 you gotta be specific about the Leo 2 variant you are refering to. Also the environment and other variables must be taken in account.


A: "M1A2, has been consistantly upgraded as well. the newest variant has a new more modular deisgn approach. the newest variant can plug and play various weapons sytems as well as counter measures or sensors. The next variant is going to have a much improved engine in both fuel economy, range and speed, although they did cancel the new cannon upgrade due to technical problems. Why is it better? it has more armour protection, better counter measure suite and sensors. From what I have seen it beats the leopard 2 in nearly every compeitition."

Me: Perhaps I should've said that Abrams hasn't received a major upgrade lately (I wouldn't count the new SEP project as a major upgrade), unlike its German counterpart... So far I haven't encountered a single article where Abram' supremacy over any existing MBT has been declared. Every modern MBT (e.g. Challenger 2, Leopard 2A6, M1A2 and T-80UM1) has their own weaknesses. Let me ask you why only a few countries outside US use the Abrams if it is so much ahead of everything else? Even South-Korea, which is one of the biggest users of American equipment, is developing its new MBT with the Russians instead of buying M1A2s. Same goes for Israel which considers its Merkavas a better choice for its needs.

For example when Sweden was upgrading its armoured units in mid-nineties, Leopard 2 (don't remember which variant) was a clear winner after extensive tests. Other MBTs involved were the French LeClerc and Abrams, which was considered unsuitable for Swedish terrain and weather as well as pain in the ass to maintain. LeClerc, of course, was the worst of the bunch. You probably know that Abrams uses a German-made 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun? A similar gun (if not the same) was fitted for earlier Leopard 2 variants, but the relatively new Leopard 2A6 has a better, improved gun called L55.


A: "As for the leopard tank, the m1a2 variants and m1a1 sells better than it, but quite a bit. there are thousands of them in the service of countriues around the world. the M1A2 also has an armour upgrade like the leopard, but hasd consistantly managed to stay ahead of it in armour, although its been close recently. The L55 cannon is not really better than the abrams cannon, just a bit longer by a foot or 2 giving it a little better aim. But the sensor suite, as well as eletronic warfar systems are more advanced as well as command and control in the M1A2.

I suspect the reason why sweeden bought it was because the supplier was euro rather than on technical merits. that and the german government probably subisidized the purchase.

As for t-90 serries, the t-90's are only a moderete upgrade of the t-70 series, and would get thier ass kicked by everyone except the french.
As for cannons, the germans simply copied french deisgns and improved on them. hey its the one thing they do well."


This is my reply . . .


These lists were compiled from these two sources:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... index.html


Production numbers for Leopard 2

Leopard 2 380
Leopard 2A1 (second batch) 450
Leopard 2A2 (third batch) 300
Leopard 2A3 300
Leopard 2A4 370
Leopard 2A4 (sixth batch) 150
Leopard 2A4 (seventh batch) 100
Leopard 2A4 (eight batch) 75
Leopard 2 NL (license-built?) 445
Strv 122 (licence-built) 120
Leopard 2 GR (license-built) 170
Leopard 2A6 (license-built) 219
-------------------------------------------
a total of 3,078 Leo 2s built

. . . compared to M1A1/2 . . .


The numbers mentioned at"The Armour Site" and "Army-Technology" seem to contradict each other. TAS says that "-- over 8,800" M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced --".


Army-Technology

M1 3,273
M1A1 4,796
M1A1 (US Marines) 221
M1A1 (Egypt) 555
M1A2 77
M1A2 (Saudi-Arabia) 315
M1A2 (Kuvait) 218
-----------------------------------------
a total of 9,445 Abrams built + this piece of news from Jane's
"The latest proposed order will bring the Egyptian M1A1 MBT fleet up to 755"
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_force ... _3_n.shtml

I guess Army-Tech figures are more reliable, and in any case it is clear that production numbers of Leopard 2 are much lower. However, as it often goes with Soviet-made equipment, quantity doesn't always equal quality. If we compare these two steel beasts, Leopard 2 is much more widely used than Abrams.

I'll quote Army-Tech
"The successor to the Leopard 1, the Leopard 2, was first produced in 1979 and is in service with the armies of Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain, with over 3200 produced. The Finnish Army is to buy around 100 used Leopard 2A4 tanks from Germany (already bought). In March 2002, the Hellenic Army of Greece announced that it had selected the Leopard 2 GR, with a requirement for 170 tanks."

+

"219 Leopard 2A6 are to be license-built in Spain by Santa Barbara."

Poland also recently joined this merry, ever-growing club of Leopard 2 owners by buying ex-Bundeswehr A4s (I wouldn't be suprised if same thing would occur in other Eastern European armies like in Slovakia or Slovenia.)

That's twelve countries at the moment, all of them European, though. Undoubtedly political reasons play their part, but that is not always the case. A good example of this is was the Finnish fighter deal in 1992, when American F-18C/D Hornet was chosen over French Mirage 2000 (they threattened to stop Finnish membership apply to European Union unless their jet wasn't chosen), Swedish JAS Gripen (they were pissed off as well) and Russian MiG-29.

Okay, it's not exactly the same thing, but you have to admit that the geopolitical situation in the Middle-East had something to do with Egyptian, Saudi, or Kuwaiti deals concerning their Abrams acquistions. All three of these Arab countries are unusually friendly towards USA. Also all foreign customers who have bought M1A1/2s, would be using them on desert environment. Before Leo 2 deal was made here, many people were yelling loud that any western tank is too heavy for Finnish terrain, yet Sweden had been using their Leo 2s for several years. While an Abrams is typically about 5-10 kilos heavier than most of Leo 2s (depending on the variant), is that too much? I do recall that Swedes were worried by M1A2's suitability for winter during their tests.



Azeron, you said that "The L55 cannon is not really better than the abrams cannon, just a bit longer by a foot or 2 giving it a little better aim. But the sensor suite, as well as eletronic warfar systems are more advanced as well as command and control in the M1A2."

Based on what I've read, it's more than just that. For example, it increases the range and armour penetration and allows the use of new type of heavy penetration ammunition, as said at Army-Tech. "With the DM53 round the L55 gun can fire to a range of 5000 m." Now, that's nasty!



"But the sensor suite, as well as eletronic warfar systems are more advanced as well as command and control in the M1A2."

Got any proof? Besides, not every country that has Leopard 2AX in their inventory uses the same TCCS on their tanks. BTW, Abrams' fire-control computer is Canadian!



"As for the leopard tank, the m1a2 variants and m1a1 sells better than it, but quite a bit. there are thousands of them in the service of countriues around the world."

See the beginning of this post. Four countries vs. twelve. I think that US and three Arab states is hardly the same thing as "around the world".



"As for t-90 serries, the t-90's are only a moderete upgrade of the t-70 series, and would get thier ass kicked by everyone except the french."

Yep, I know that. That's why I said T-80UM1 -- the newest T-80 on the market. It's typical for Russians to keep the better stuff for themselves and put the poor stuff for export (T-55, T-64, T-72, T-90...)



Feel free to post anything about other things covering MBTs and armour as well.

Azeron, you said that "The L55 cannon is not really better than the abrams cannon, just a bit longer by a foot or 2 giving it a little better aim. But the sensor suite, as well as eletronic warfar systems are more advanced as well as command and control in the M1A2."

I saw this and I had to answer.

Increassing the length of such weapons has nothing to do with accuracy. Instead, it allows an increase in muzzle velocity, and therefor energy and penitration capabilities as well as range.

I think the German cat would piss the American General off by biting his ankles, then the American General would drop-kick the cat.

Meanwhile, a little British girl would find the German cat, coughing, spitting, and licking its wounds after being drop-kicked, and the Brit would squeez the hell out of the poor kitty. Then the cat will bite her head off.

Then this all will spark WWIII.

Armour peotection levels (mm)

M1A2 SEP
Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Leopard 2a5 (couldn't find latest stat on 2a6)
Turret: 850-930 Glacis:620
Lower front hull:620

Its a bit give and take, but it looks like the abrams wins protection round.

as for the electronics package, its designed to fit into a US battle network, you know eelctronic coordination and such. As far as I have seen from reports from team feilding the m1a2 beats the leopard in battle simulations between US and germany.

Though the leopard does have some notable advantages like forging, which the m1a2 can't do. but in competitions the m1a2 beats the leopard every time in firing excerises. (although they seem leopard have won overall competitions, not by much)

As for 5000 meters, how many areas of the world can you fight 5 miles out between tanks? ECM matters. hunting matters. Team players matter. you buy 1 leopard and you can't reconfigure it. M1A2 SEP is a step in that direction. though I don;t think there is anything you can reconfigure a SEP with right this moment, it has the archetitecture to do it.

Though I guess things like that don;t count when you are just comparing tank vs tank and not looking at goup properties.

The Abrams is a better vehicle for fighting in the open. Its main cannon is devastatingly accurate, and very powerful, and it is very mobile and well armored. The German tank has advantages in urban combat and while out of combat (it requires less maintanance). The German advantage at extremely long range is relatively worthless in a combat situation.

Also, the Abrams has a considerable advantage in its electronics, which allow for very good coordination with other vehicles and air support.

This is a semi redundant argument. All of the Gen III and IV MBT's have roughly the same level of performance OVERALL. there are things the M1 series does very well, same with the Leopard , remember that both designs have their roots in the MBT 70 project between West Germany and the US. Essentialy they are cousins in many respects. All any piece of armor is a compromise between firepower, mobility and defense. Individually the Leopard is probably the more surviveable tank, being designed to fight in a very traditional style , where infantry and air support is not instantly available at the click of a mouse like the new Abrams will have. The Germans and much of Europe lack the resources to field the complex C&C equipment that the US is working on, and this scares them , hell much of the latest gen of weapons coming out od US arsenals has them scared shitless , they have NOTHING that can deal with the B-2 , the F-22 or the new RAH-66 Comanche attack helo, to say nothing of the Javelin AT missile which just turned any tank over 10 years old into a 40ton ash tray.

Ack , Im ranting......

Armour protection on A6 is supposed to be same as on A5. The Swedish Strv 122 has the best armour of all currently existing Leo 2 variants. Well, as it has been pointed out here, most modern MBTs have pretty much equal capabilities. Each country has its specific needs and what is good for another, may not been good or useful for other. Tactics also differ greatly. Who says that a similar c&c package could not be added to Leopard 2? I don't thint that Egypt has as good system as the Swedes or the Germans have. Does that mean that M1A1/2 sucks?

I personally doubt that anything is going to come out of F-22 project which has suffered from several cutbacks during the Clinton administration. While it is undoubtedly an excellent aircraft, according to the latest news I've heard only a handful of 'em are unfortunately going to be built. I grant you that the much-hyped Eurofighter is nothing special. The Russians on the other hand have some very interesting projects going on and it would seem that Sukhoi can finally fully start work on the promising Su-47 project. As for Commanche, I don't think that any other army in the world has a similar beauty in their hands, but however you must remember that (armed) reconnaissance is its primary role. The Apache will remain as the primary attack helicopter in the US Army.

The Germans and much of Europe lack the resources to field the complex C&C equipment that the US is working on

They have the resources but they lack the will to use them, prefering instead to spend them on foreign aid.

...they have NOTHING that can deal with the B-2 , the F-22 or the new RAH-66 Comanche attack helo, to say nothing of the Javelin AT missile which just turned any tank over 10 years old into a 40ton ash tray

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed." {hiss}

It should be pointed out that Europe regards the US as an ally, not a threat, so they arn't THAT scared. I also have to point that a whole raft of technology is under development around the world which should allow stealth aircraft to be tracked, though I grant you that attacking them will still be fairly difficult.

Akm72 wrote:They have the resources but they lack the will to use them, prefering instead to spend them on foreign aid.

Be prepared to receive some flak because of that comment, you European commie-socialist! Seriously speaking, Europe can't be too proud about their spending either. Have a look atheret

Before anyone says that "what would we gain from giving foreign aid?", you have to remember that if third-world countries can increase their status, it creates more market for your country's products, thus improving also your life. Of course aid doesn't always go to the right places.

It should be pointed out that Europe regards the US as an ally, not a threat, so they arn't THAT scared. I also have to point that a whole raft of technology is under development around the world which should allow stealth aircraft to be tracked, though I grant you that attacking them will still be fairly difficult.

Even cell-phone networks can be effectively used for tracking stealth aircraft. A true invisibility from radar is years away, if even ever possible, but at least even some stealth charesteristics help.