Main page

The Leopard II really does beat the Abrams as far as overall performance and ability to be modular unlike the Abrams. While the Abrams brings a bit more firepower the time it takes to maintain the tank and the cost to run is so much more then it is actually out putting as far as results. I didn't just right a opinion by the way.

This forum just show the bias of being on a forum sight that is visited by mostly Americans. For all intensive purposes the Abrams and the Leo are the same tank the only real separation is the engines, and the Leo has a much better engine because it has about the same horse power but its a diesel engine so it doesn't burn so much fuel and that's the Abrams Achilles heel.  The Abrams is gas guzzling hog and it's a huge strain on supply lines especially when their being used offensively.

TEForest, on Jan 14 2012 - 18:13, said:

Fuel Efficiency is about number 30 on what you look for in a tank engine.

Nodbugger, on Jan 14 2012 - 18:27, said:

Maybe in a country that spends almost more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and where the military is allowed to  spend  money as fast as the People's Republic can buy up our debt.

Out in the real world, the costs and logistics associated with massive fuel consumption - are actually a factor.

gabriel, on Jan 14 2012 - 19:05, said:

But for us, it isn't. So if fuel consumption isn't a factor, the engine is better.

Nodbugger, on Jan 14 2012 - 19:49, said:

If your military isn't factoring in economy, sure.

If you're part of the rest of the world, then no. Good performance isn't good if you can't afford to run it.

gabriel, on Jan 14 2012 - 19:54, said:

Which still means the engine isn't better.

It is like saying, we can't afford a Lamborghini only this Prius, but since it gets better gas mileage it is better.

Nodbugger, on Jan 14 2012 - 18:27, said:

Nod the ignorance of this statement bothers me, you know how you kill an Abrams? You knock out its supply convoys, yes the Abrams has great armor hows the armor on a fuel tanker?

TEForest, on Jan 14 2012 - 21:11, said:

I'm well aware of what the fuel requirements of an Abrams is. I'm well aware of the planning considerations of missions. I'm well aware of what the Support Battalion in an HBCT is capable of. An enemy force isn't getting anywhere near our fuelers Especially since there will be an Armor Company with them.

All the planing in the world doesn't stop the IED or the ambush that eventually happens, usually when the convoy feels safest. Bottom line you can't expect the unexpected, the less convoys needed the better it's safer for the tanks and the men guarding the convoys that way.

TEForest, on Jan 15 2012 - 09:05, said:

Except the Leopard and the T90 have smaller fuel tanks and because of that a similar effective range.

Nodbugger, on Jan 05 2012 - 18:44, said:

true but in a modern war better stay button up. commander head outside sniper bang 1 tank now very ineffective with commander brains all over tank. Not too say if that range rover had a mini gun that anouther reason the commander stays button-up.

steroids77, on Jan 09 2012 - 02:09, said:

yes i do videos showing the older t90 version driving way most agile and faster in turn then the m1a2 ever has. then the newwer t90 just have more HP yet. Even if the m1 could the m1a2 can't do anything past 3 km but fire he rounds that the t90 could easily shot down.  not too say a he round never get though the t90am armor and new ERA. Then even our great du ap a3 rounds at 3km are so slow they be lucky too get though any modern tanks armor. The sniper missles is is rated at 5km meaning you can start firing at 6 km with it. then too hit as tests have put then newer sniper missile out too 6km in test fires though this max with burning solid fuel systems varying.

I'd have too see it too beleave it as i never see a m1a2 of any-kind make a shot wile in the air. the fact is most modern fire computers are so close too equal that it's how fast they give a result in the end. then most Russian computers have out done western counterpart and sample being reaction times on active hard kill systems. The Russians has the fastest clock times so far.  In dunes as you put radium course changes vs zig zag. to throw off  though of rounds long fly times at long ranges yet once again the t90 with start fireing at around 6 km away. for the m1 to fire past 3 km at t90 is a waste of rounds. At 2 to 3 km the t90am new era and armor will easily stop the a3 rounds. what this new video points out is in close a t90 gonna drive allot alike that rover did. she'll be low and mobile wile the the m1 will act almost like the ch2 is big and not very agile. ok yes the t80u and t90 are older version this like say lets talk of the old m1 before it used du and had 105mm. The standard m1 would get whooped on the modern battle field.  Or do you just want too do what most yankees do and have the m1a2sep2/tusk vs the older t90 or t80u when it was the m1a1 vs the t80u?

djuice1701, on Jan 14 2012 - 16:02, said:

she great but like ww2 it falls sort it like they half did a tank. great armor and hp per ton. electric transmission for full speed reverse. this tank be great on softer ground yet heavy armor. Yet the type 10 has no active defenses and nano crystal armor week point is heat so missile will be more effective so will he rounds verse her armor. yet she still has a composite too and ceramics will help vs heat but not as much as say on ch 2 or m1a2. Then the gun old and out dated a L44 smooth barrel. rounds have a hard time killing new MBT. they will not even have the advance a3 u.s. DU rounds too help. If the type 10 had ch2 rifled L50 gun or had the German L55 smooth-bore with a the LAHAT missile this made her nasty. Now add trophy hard kill system then the type 10 would have been the best MBT easy.

starknight97, on Feb 16 2012 - 05:20, said:

I see a lot of sales brochure talk here...

This is so annoying... just like the AR-15 or AK debate rubbish always going on...

Guys, opinions are like the lower pyloric sphincter muscle on the human body-we all have them.

All the Americans will vote for the Abrams because they are always told it is the best tank in the world, all the Russians will vote for the T-90 becuase they cant vote for the American tank. Other countries feel left out. And for godness sake, the Merkkava,seriously!... you have to be kidding it doesn't even have a place in the top 10.

Polls like this and the ever ubiquitous Military channel 'Top 10's' are nothing more than nationalistic propoganda.
Thats not Anti-American or anti-anyone else for that matter, its just the truth.

The reality is that the Abrams shares the top spot for 'Most overated tank ever' with the Merkava series. The 'BEST' moniker is a pointless attribute just like the 'Best tank of WWII' type poll where all the Americans will vote for the Sherman and the Russians vote for the T-34 and everyone else says 'Tiger'.

None of this adds anything to the debate which has no end. 'Better' or 'Best' are not realistic terms unless wars are decided by 1 tank versus another with no aircraft, troops, politics or economic involved. Stop it please guys, lets talk about something else.

TEForest, on Jan 14 2012 - 18:13, said:

And this is the reason why I like the Leopard 2.

I'd say they're all about equal. I mean we've reached the point that their abilities are simmilar enough that a war would probably come down to the strategies, supporting weapons used, and in large measure the air force.


In the event of an imediate sudden war, the USA is probably the best prepared because we're currently involved with a peace-keeping/counter-insurgency action in Iraq and Afghanistan (we have more weapons ready to go), and because we have more and more-recent combat experiance (see Iraq and Afghanistan).


Also the whole support from NATO thing doesn't hurt.

I find it hard to believe that somebody can support a tank that was in development for 3 decades, cannot go turret-down effectively, has a huge weakness in the turret (viewing devices create an interrupted plate), somehow expected to stand off 6-1 against joint Chinese-Pakistani tanks, cannot be transported arnound in the country it's designed in, and supposed to take an engine in development for 2 decades but still does not exist.

The 450km range isn't too low, but is an issue when you consider that India kind of lacks a tansport infrastructure. The Army has no trucks to move it. The railways might be able to transport it. The rural bridges might not support its weight. That means the Arjun will often have to move under it's own power, which is a serious supply issue.

To show how bad the Arjun is, the Indian Army does not like the tank, and has constantly rated its performace poorly. They even plan on a new, joint Indian-Russian tank, to be in service by 2020.

I just love that Israeli tank