Tank Battle #2: Leopard 2 vs. M1A2 Abrams

[Sea Skimmer]

Which is why Strv-122 is considered to be the most advanced Leo2. however I recall the A6 being specified. If we go with Strv-122 then it should be against SEP, since few of either exist.

[Vympel]

Don't 2A6s have it?

[K. A. Pital]

Vympel
I heard it has the C&C.

P.S. In any case, even if we deploy the Strv-122 against the SEP version, we have the Leo win again.

[Vympel]

Leopard 2A6 is one damn sexy tank. That is all ....

[K. A. Pital]

Vympel
Case closed

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

We still let Germany have tanks? How nice of us. And they even name them after felines still, just like back in the days when they were important.

I'm sure the Germans can thank the Soviets for that. The Americans wanted the Germans to help out against the Soviets, so they have to let them have some armed forces

[von Neufeld]

I don't know which tank is best, but if there is enemy infantry I would pick the Strv-122 since it is the most advanced tank that have HE shells that I know of.

[Vympel]

I don't know which tank is best, but if there is enemy infantry I would pick the Strv-122 since it is the most advanced tank that have HE shells that I know of.

I'd take a T-90M for infantry killing, personally. It's HEF shells are bigger, it has reactive armor to deal with infantry AT weapons (all HEAT based), and a remote fired 12.7mm Kord HMG. Strv-122 is more vulnerable along the top and sides.

[Axis Kast]

How is the Leopard 2A6 the superior machine? It doesn't have Chobalm, does it?

[Vympel]

How is the Leopard 2A6 the superior machine? It doesn't have Chobalm, does it?

Some form of composite armor, don't know if its the Chobham blend. Ever since the Leopard 2A5 got it's add on armor package (compare 2A4 with 2A5) it has had thicker armor than the M1A2, so Sea Skimmer tells me.

[Axis Kast]

Really?

I was under the impression that the M1A2 SEP with its Chobalm armor was the best-protected tank in the world aside from perhaps the new Challenger II with Dorchester package.

Skimmer?

Also - as a sidenote, I like the fact that the M1A2 mounts three rather than the two standard MGs. Now I just wish they'd mount an automatic grenade launcher on a secondary mount atop the turret or perhaps an ATGM - though that might get too dangerous.

[Vympel]

Really?

I was under the impression that the M1A2 SEP with its Chobalm armor was the best-protected tank in the world aside from perhaps the new Challenger II with Dorchester package.

Skimmer?

Also - as a sidenote, I like the fact that the M1A2 mounts three rather than the two standard MGs.

Unfortunately, the M1A2s commander's MG can no longer be fired from under armor- too much new equipment in his station.

Now I just wish they'd mount an automatic grenade launcher on a secondary mount atop the turret or perhaps an ATGM - though that might get too dangerous.

An ATGM couldn't be done, because there's no room in the crew stations for it to be fired- not without some major reworking anyway. Gun-launched arrangement like the Russian Refleks or Israeli LAHAT would be preferable.

[Rubberanvil]

Really?

I was under the impression that the M1A2 SEP with its Chobalm armor was the best-protected tank in the world aside from perhaps the new Challenger II with Dorchester package.

IIRC M1A2 SEP is third or fourth on the list of best armored tank.

[Axis Kast]

Hm. That problem (with the machine gun) certainly needs to be rectified. There is no reason he should have to expose himself when remote fire is an option - or could be.

As for the M1A2 armor debate, I'm now hearing that the L2A6 is better-armored than even the Challenger II with its 'Dorchester' loadout. What is the case?

And aren't barrel-launched missiles less accurate than their tube-launched counterparts?

[phongn]

I've been hearing that the L2A6 is the best followed by the C2 and the M1A2 SEP - no particular order there, I'm not sure on that.

[Vympel]

Hm. That problem (with the machine gun) certainly needs to be rectified. There is no reason he should have to expose himself when remote fire is an option - or could be.

It was a tradeoff for the CITV equipment that got added in the M1A2 upgrade- this gives the commander his own 360 degree thermal imaging view of the battlefield, where he can act as the 'hunter' for the gunner, designating targets for him. That's a big advantage.

As for the M1A2 armor debate, I'm now hearing that the L2A6 is better-armored than even the Challenger II with its 'Dorchester' loadout. What is the case?

Not sure myself really. I consistently hear that the Leopard 2A6 gets the highest marks- but by a very small margin.

And aren't barrel-launched missiles less accurate than their tube-launched counterparts?

I don't see why that would be the case- I haven't heard things to that effect- the US always had trouble with gun-launched ATGMs (see Shillelagh disaster), but the Russians seem to have gotten it right.

[Axis Kast]

We need to ask the Israelis for help on the gun-launched ATGM then.

And I agree that the CITV is more important, but they might at least put some new, dozen-sized systems in place, no? On the next upgrade.

Can a Leopard withstand a hit from a 120mm gun? I assume the difference in armor isn't really noticable.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its supposedly not the Leo2A6 but rather some odd subtype of it that has greater protection then the M1A2 over the frontal arc. But the difference is less then 100mm of RHA equivalent. In any case, if the 900-1000mm ish numbers thrown around for both are true, neither can expect to hurt the other with frontal hits at combat ranges.



However, there is a lot of information and many people who suggests that pretty much all estimates of tank protection may be too low, possibly by hundreds of mm of RAH equivalent. That might also explain why Russia doubled the penetration of many of its missile and rocket anti tank weapon in the late 80’s-90’s. Why they don’t use over fly top attack I don’t know, that seems to work very well and the technology isn’t so advanced that they can’t build them by the ten thousands.

[Ted]

We still let Germany have tanks? How nice of us. And they even name them after felines still, just like back in the days when they were important.

I heard they wanted to name the Leo2 Tiger, but politico's scrapped that idea...

[K. A. Pital]

Ted
"Tiger" doesn't go. The Tiger line is already fit with heavy tanks. They scrapped the idea? No wonder. It reminds everyone of the baddest tank in the world. Although Leopard 2A6 is the baddest tank, again, it's less scarier to have it named Leopard, since Leopard doesn't have these associations.