Modern Tanks

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Wildfire]

That would be a boring game! The americans would always win!

Why do you say that? The M1A2 is fitted with an inferior version of the 120mm gun of the Leopard 2 A6

And by game I mean actual tank platoons with infantry in a real life exercise.

Americans ar ethe only ones with lots of tank experience.

Our hardware rarely fails when compared to the euro tanks' auto reloading system.

For the others talking about the russian tanks, a 156mm barrel = shorter range. Therefore, m1 wins.

Our armor is superior to any other armor.

For a tank to be stronger, it must be slower, therefore m1 wins.

Agreed. The m1 is still the best main battle tank out there, no matter if another tank's gun is stronger, more armor, etc. The technology that goes into a M1A2 is so far superior to any other tank that any short coming are easily covered up.

oh, and this new feature is one of the main reasons why the m1 is so awesome

In addition to this, the new XM1111 (Mid-Range-Munition Kinetic Energy) is also in development. Essentially a cannon-fired guided round, it has a range of roughly 12 km and uses a KE warhead which is rocket assisted in its final phase of flight. This is intended to be the best penetrator yet, an improvement over the US 3rd generation DU penetrator (estimated penetration 790 mm).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition

this thing has a higher penetration than a normal tank round and you can fire at a target that you dont even see...

[KABOOM]

So your americna arguement is;

Our tank is better, even if the other tanks have better Range, Speed, Firepower, Armor, Detection Systems and so on, because its american?

[Smithy17]

Well put

[Draken]

Imo Leopard A6 > M1A2 = t-90 > Challanger II > Lecrec > Merkava

But anyway like I said before, win that tank what spot enemy faster, tbh It's basicly one shot one kill for every of this tank from eachother.

Leopard 2 is better then Abrams imo, becase it have better engine and it's exploitation is way better. U can plug Leo to the PC and check what is wrong with it. changing enginee takes 30 to 50 mins.

Btw funny thread evolve from "What tank looks more sexi" to Elephant, the to this ;-).

[Akranadas]

I wouldn't say the Leopard 2 is better than the Abrams, mainly because the Abrams has been tested in real combat conditions (some of the harshest) where as the Leopard 2 hasn't.

Sure the Leopard is a great tank, but having a great tank doesn't mean much when you don't fight with it.

[Draken]

That's true but you cannot say that's Abrams is better. Let's just say that those tanks are equal. If there will be no WW3 we will never know which tank is better ;-).

[Akranadas]

I will say it's better. It's better at real combat than the Leopard 2. Trails and War Games are no match for a real warzone. Until the Leopard sees real combat, the best COMBAT tank in the world is the Abrams.

[Mysthalin]

Abraams has proven to be cost ineffective, as it's been up only against islam fundamentalist terrorists(how the americans call the ones who they fight) that are understocked in weapons.
It can't be considered the best combat tank in the world for that reason. When it goes up against OTHER TANKS, and proves to be better than the Leopard, or any other tank, then alright.
Right now, we can't know, and all claims are bias theorycrafts.
That said, Leopard is better as it looks so much more sexy.

[Akranadas]

Your forgetting the first Gulf War.

The Only Modern Tank Battle.

[KABOOM]

I wouldn't say the Leopard 2 is better than the Abrams, mainly because the Abrams has been tested in real combat conditions (some of the harshest) where as the Leopard 2 hasn't.

Sure the Leopard is a great tank, but having a great tank doesn't mean much when you don't fight with it.

Oh belive me, if you do some research, as I did the Leopard has been tested extensevly by several nations that then made there choice for the leopard instead of the Abrams or any other tank.

[Akranadas]

I wouldn't say the Leopard 2 is better than the Abrams, mainly because the Abrams has been tested in real combat conditions (some of the harshest) where as the Leopard 2 hasn't.

Sure the Leopard is a great tank, but having a great tank doesn't mean much when you don't fight with it.

Oh belive me, if you do some research, as I did the Leopard has been tested extensevly by several nations that then made there choice for the leopard instead of the Abrams or any other tank.

I am not saying the Lepoard isn't a superior tank than the Abrams. I am saying that it is not combat proven to be superior; data sheets and field tests only go so far, and in the modern world only 1 tank has actually fought in 2 wars. 

[KABOOM]

Running over people on the street with a modern army after the have been bombed to hell is not really a war. Also its still the same thing. It does not make a big difference if you get hit by a RPG in a place somewhere in Afganisthan or in a Test Area. The Test area will simulate hits on all parts at least.

You might as well say that the sword is a better weapon then a gun since it took part in more Wars.

[Akranadas]

It's not about how many battles it's fought it. It's about the experience the crews, designers and tank itself has had in real combat. Because of the Abrams being in combat in the modern theatre, it's seem the development of specialised armour to help stop RPG and IED weapons from penetrating the armour of the tank. I'd say that with this experience and new advancements the Abrams would stand up better than the Leopard Tank were it in the same situation today.

We only have to look back as far as the First Gulf War where the Abrams first saw real combat, and in a desert no less. Where it (while it was superior technologically) was out numbered by Iraqi armour, yet only sustained 23 losses and not one to an Enemy tank.

While the Leopard 2 has only recently had an engagement in real combat (apart of the Canadian Army and Danish Army no less) in Afghanistan. In Both instances the Leopards fair exactly the same as the Abrams does against IEDs, IE tanks being written off. 

Both tanks are constantly being upgraded, which is a testament to their designs. Both tanks are equal, but where the Abrams trumps the Leopard is actually doing what a Tank is meant to do; Kill other tanks.

[Apex]

Although the Abrams might have seen more combat, which makes a difference in the crews experience, still the Leopard is probably the better tank. Germany has some experience in asymetrical warfare in Afghanistan, and the combat experience of many other states, like Canada and Denmark, who use the Leopard too, were valueable on its future development.

The most modern versions, the Leopard A6 and the Leopard PSO, can be judged superior to other similar tanks. The A6 would likely win any tank-to-tank engagement, where the PSO is specially fitted for Urban Combat. The PSO kit inludes enhanced mine protection, bulldozer blade, extra side skirts, surround optics, advanced communications, a new computer system and a remotely controlled 40mm grenade launcher on top of the turret.

There is also a new upgrade for A6 being developed, called level 3, which equips it with a 140 mm cannon and an automatic loading system, to further increase it's Anti-Tank capabilities.

And for what it's worth, when India was looking for their new main battle tank, in the simulated battle tests the Leopard A6 won over the M1A2 Abrams and the Challenger 2.

[Guderian]

ye but can pepole stop boastin about theyr countrys damn tank
i mean everytank is built by expirences of another tank so to say.

swedish apc ftw  top 10

[stumpster]

In the battlefield of today, I think that the Leopard and Abrams are both grossly inefficient.  In all honesty, in the majority of combat scenarios that are encountered I'd take the Merkava.

[KABOOM]

Mind you Akra. the german forces are the 3rd largest Amount of Troops in the Middle Eastern Countrys, 1st being the us, 2end being the UK. While the American foces lost over 20 000 troops the german forces lost under 100, of course this is mainly because they take a "Defensiv" role.

[Apex]

In the battlefield of today, I think that the Leopard and Abrams are both grossly inefficient.  In all honesty, in the majority of combat scenarios that are encountered I'd take the Merkava.

I was looking for some more info on the Merkava:

[Thtb]

LETS GET GRAPHICAL!

Leo;
(American show says leo is best;)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao



VS

[Akranadas]

It's kinda funny actually debating which tank is better, when IFV's are actually better than tanks now.