Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:56 am
by Belisarius
Originally posted by Craw:
Some brief reading on the armor site indicates that the Abrams is the best overall tank in service today. However, that takes into consideration the fact that American military forces are designed to fight in an extremely broad range of conditions, so versatility is paramount. I understand the Leopard 2 has a very lethal gun, but is considerably less armored than the Challenger and Abrams. However, proponents of the Leopard will note that the tank has vastly superior mobility and is tiny (for a MBT), providing a small target. It becomes the question of the boxer versus the puncher. Therefore, in a tactical situation calling for mobility and stealth, the Leopard WOULD be a better tank than the Abrams.
Good point, Craw. Also worth noting that our (the Swedish) Army uses an upgraded version of the Leo II, the IIS or S-122. It's not really comparable to the German Leo IIA5 (or KWS), it's taken one step further. Amongst other things - added armor on hull top and turret and a more sophisticated command system. This version is, from what I've heard (sources - although from different parts of the world - may be biased) the most advanced MBT today. Par with, and in some cases, above the M1A2?
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2002 2:29 am
by Steve Wilcox
As a point of interest for any unaware of it, both the Leopard II and the late model(non-105 armed)Abrams use versions of the German 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, with the US version being somewhat simplified. It must be good.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2002 3:22 am
by richmonder
From the reading of 73 Easting, it should be very clear: best tank or not, it is the superior communications and tactics between combat arms and units that enable forces to be overwhelming or sitting ducks. So if a tank has slightly better frontal armor or it's gun is a bit deadlier, what does that matter when that's tanks fellow forces have lost air superiority and there are loads of copters pummeling them with anti-tank missiles and what not? Or any other poor tactical situation.
It's all very relative, but makes great fodder for us keyboard generals.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2002 3:27 am
by richmonder
A smoothbore gun??!!? Wow - shades of the Napoleon!!
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2002 4:18 am
by lnp4668
Originally posted by richmonder:
A smoothbore gun??!!? Wow - shades of the Napoleon!!
It fires fins stabilize ammo, so don't needs for the shells to rotate.
Checks this link:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm
[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: lnp4668 ]</p>