the m1a2 is the best tank to have ever been built. like i said before the targeting technology is amazing. the abrams and the leopard have the same sized gun. both have 120 mm main guns. the m1a2 has depleted uranium armor which stands up to 120mm rounds and anti tank missles. the armor is about 24 in. thick which is about the same thickness as the leopard. there is kevlar incorporated in the design that helps protect crews from rounds that might discharge if the tank is hit. and the abrams is now being deployed with missle defence counter measures which jam laser guided anti tank weapons. the only real problem with the m1a2 is the gas guzzling but that is a small price to pay for such a good tank. the m1a2 is at least as good but more likely better than the leopard 2.
I haven't really studied modern armor too much. There is so much secrecy involved that I find assessments to be little more than speculation. Therefore, I would like to make some comments about the Abrams just to see what comes of it. When I joined 3rd Mech in 1982 (B/3/7 Cav serving on M60A1's) the Abrams was new. While I thought it an impressive machine in many ways I also had reservations that still apply today: A turbine is not necessary and consumes far too much fuel; If we were in another global war and had to produce the Abrams on the same scale was WWII could we afford it? Could it even be done? And could we maintain the tank on such a massive scale? I have my doubts.
the massive tank battles of world war II are part of the past. with the end of the cold war, tank battles on a massive scale won't happen again. the only way they could happen is by having to sides with many countries on each in which case there would be no great burden on any one of the countries. today just about all countries that use expensive high tech tanks would face the same problem of producability. so if all of the countries with which this tank battle could involve face the same problem tank battles will be smaller. and if the united states is outnumbered by the enemies tanks airpower will play a much greater factor than it did in world war II. aircraft such as the a-10 and ah-64 apache the airpower of the united states would be the deciding factor in the battle. the usa also leads the way with advanced anti tank systems such as the javelin. modern tank battles for the most part won't be large and the few that might be will not be decided by the number or strength of the tanks but by the airpower and anti-tank weapons employed by the opposing sides.
Well i still believe the Leopard 2A6 is the best modern MBT. Yes, in many ways it is equal to the Abrams in some aspects such as armament and the Leopard uses a type of armour almost identical to the British Chobham style which dosnt use depleted uranium as does the Abrams but is just as effective. In terms of Rolled Homogenous Armour Equivelent (RHAE) the leopard's turret has 1,960 millimeters of RHAE compared to the Abrams' 1,620 a significant difference. The Leopard 2A6 is also 7.5 tons lighter than the M1A2 SEP and slightly faster And not only does the M1's jet engine guzzle gas it also exerts a vast amount of heat which poses the danger of getting a heat-seeking missile right up the @$$. But if it were to come down to a one-on-one encounter between the two it would just be a contest of who gets the first hit because the two (for the most part) are evenly matched... but the Leo looks cooler
you are right about the one on one. it does come down to first shot. the turret on the leopard is so ugly and boxy compared to the abrams. the abrams' turret is lower down to the tank which gives it a much more menacing apperance.
now that i think about it first shot will p\usually go to the abrams because of the targeting equipment so that means it will get first hit so it wil win.
well we could continue to argue over which tank is better (which sounds like tons of fun) but we cant really know for sure until the 2 are shown in combat against eachother which however unlikely would definiently prove the Leo's abilitys.......the leopard turret makes the tank look all the cooler it looks like an arrow head not "boxy"
and the entire Abrams is only 30 cm shorter in height than the Leo2.....I smell a t.v. show where these tanks are ranked against eachother...wait..there already is one "Ultimate-Top 10 Tanks" and i cant figure out why but the Leopard 2 not only outranked the Abrams but got the #1 spot....weird eh
one more thing.. the Leopard 2A6 has the same size (width) gun as the abrams but the Leo's gun is more advanced and of a higher caliber giving it higher muzzle velocity.
the m1a2 abrams uses the m-256 smoothbore gun. although the m-256 is produced under licnse by general dynamics. the liscense is from rhinemetall AG of germany. the design for the m-256 is the exact same design that is used in the leopard 2. as for the armor the abrams also has chobham armor combined with depleted uranium armor so the aromor of the abrams is better than that of the leopard. as for turret thickness you don't need as much armor when your armor is better. the reason the abrams is slower is because the armor is heavier. small price to pay for better armor. and the abrams can be fitted with reactive armor if necassary with it's urban survival kit. does the leopard have that option? des the leopard even have an urban survival kit which every tank needs these days because tanks are more vulnerable in urban situations?
The M1A2 has the same size gun made by the same company as the Leopard's: Rheinmetall Germany but the Abrams has the L44 version the same gun that previous leopards such as the 2A4 and 2A5 had but the latest version of the Leopard:2A6 has the new L55 smoothbore cannon and is 130 cm longer than the L44 and has a greater muzzle velocity a 30% improvement over the L44.
so what. it isn't like there is a huge gap between the L-44 and the L-55. i want to know what you think about the stryker. you know canada is considering adopting it. i personally think that in 20 or 30 years it will be considered the best apc of all time and i think it is the best that is out there right now.
And yes the newest version of the Leopard: the Leopard 2A6 E PSO has the equivalent of a Urban Survival Kit. The measurements i provided above for armour thickness are in RHAE which i already said stands for Rolled Homogenous Armour Equivalent. Meaning that the normal steel equivalent of the leopard's and abrams'armour-for example: Chobham armour may be several times as efficent than RHAE of the same thickness it is the only realistic way to compare armour thickness between tanks because neither the abrams or the Leopard could realisticly have 1,960 mm of armour(close to 6 feet!) and the Leopard has the equivalent of almost 2 feet more armour than the Abrams (on the turret)and about the same on the hull & glacis.
i dont really know much about the stryker i pay more attention to the tanks because i build models of them and ive been trying to get my hands on a stryker but the kits are hard to find.
i build models too but i mostly do airplanes with the ocassional ship or amored vehicle. i think that the stryker and future vehicles like it will eventually replace mbts. the stryker has variants such as the mobile gun platform that carries a 105 tank gun. and you can have a medial variant, command and control variant, transport variant, fire support variant, mortar platform variant. with all of these variants things like mbts and most armored vehicles will eventually be fased out for things like the stryker. in terms of production this makess sense because you can buil all of these variants on one body and one basic design. what are your thoughts?
from what i have read about the t-95 it sounds like a great tank killer. a 152 mm smoothbore. that is almost overkill and better crew survivabliity. sounds like the russians might finally have realized that it is good to protect a crew. but funding is a problem. it sounds like a lot of russians in power wnat to just upgradt the t-80 to the black eagle standard to save money. i can't find much about the m1a3. the only things i've found are a possible diesel engine, the xm-291 120mm smoothbore gun, and armor augmentaion. there is also talk of a co-axle rail gun but that isn't likely and new ammunition for anti personel use. it doesn't sound all that much better exept for the diesel engine which is the only major problem with the m1a2.
From what i've heard your right the Stryker could change all vehicle production and yes, could eventually make MBTs obsolete also as resources such as gasoline get rarer its really the only practical way to fund a large war because of course a 60 ton tank will use up alot more gas than a 6 wheeled APC but eventually if this happens than APCs will eventually have to come in contact with other APCs and then those APCs will need to get more heavily armoured to combat other APCs and eventually could lead to a vehicle similar to a MBT meant for destroying APCs and essentially it could be another arms race. Well i hope that modern tanks will be built similarily to the Merkava : with the ability to carry soldiers in the back of the vehicle- sort of a MBT/APC. Most of whats being said about the T-95 is rumours and its unusual that russia has not revealed the tank after 12 years but some concepts that are agreed upon are that it will have either a 135mm smoothbore cannon or a 152mm and it will have a very small remotely-operated turret and it features a new chassis and a diesel-fuel-cell engine (some people insist that it will be able to run for 5 years on a single tank which is more than likely impossible with todays technology) and the M1A3 seems like not that much of an improvement over the M1A2 except for the better engine and new gun.
i think you are right about future tanks. i think the stryker mobile gun system variant is the first look at what the future holds. it has a 105mm tank gun that can pretty much kill any apc or ifv and with some good hits could kill just about any tank.
You left one very important one out, the striker. In my opinion the best Tank/IFV ever built with its many different variants. Here's a list of the variants.
* M1126 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) * M1127 Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV) * M1128 Mobile Gun System (MGS) * M1129 Mortar Carrier (MC) * M1130 Command Vehicle (CV) * M1131 Fire Support Vehicle (FSV) * M1132 Engineer Support Vehicle (ESV) * M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle (MEV) * M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) * M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBC RV)
And when this tank is put into the new landwarrior program, the U.S. will have the power to win or stop any war.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ryanworldleader,
Hello, Just wanted to make a few points about the Stryker system. The Army promotes this system very heavily as it was an enormously costly and controversial(internally anyway) system. Despite the positive press releases, there is much to dislike in both the system and some of its proposed uses. First I would like to point out that the Stryker is not in any way shape or form a tank. It is nothing more than an armored car, albeit a sophisticated and extremely expensive one.Therefore it suffers the same limitations as an armored car; its mobility and speed is limited to relatively flat, firm ground; its armor protection is light in the extreme, both in terms of crew protection and primary weapon systems(which must be externally mounted); its weight for rapid deployability is only acceptable in stripped form w/o the add on armor screens, and w/o combat load; its ability to fire on the move is also restricted; the vehicle's load with add on armor and combat load overburdens the chassis(and tires in particular); it may be suitable for patrol and recon work but is highly vulnerable as street fighter; finally it is extraordinarily expensive relative to its current capabilities. It may have been wiser to buy an available off the shelf armoured car and upgrade the electronics than to have deployed this vehicle. An upgraded M113 series could have provided most of the capabilities of this victor with better fighting ability, higher survivability and lower cost. Under the right circumstances, fighting a low grade 3rd world power, it may look somewhat impressive, but I shudder to think of the casualties if this vehicle gets forward deployed against a nation with genuine combat capabilities.
I get really annoyed when people make statements such as M1 is the best tank ever produced and list its capabilities that ARE ALREADY ADOPTED BY ALMOST EVERY MAJOR POWER.
Every latest tank now has at least 120mm - M1 is not special in that area nor even a pioneer.
Every modern tank now has active defense system against atgms and rpgs. ARENA is not unique to m1, merkavas, leos, challys and leclercs, all have it.
I should note that the system was INVENTED BY RUSSIANS and is used in their t80u and t90u units.
Again, active armor is globally wide-spread and remote controlled weapon stations are not m1 unique.
M1s chobham series-2 armor is also present on leo-2 and chally-2 actually has 3rd generation chobham.
every modern tank of this day carries an exotic composite armor mix. The destroyed iraqui tanks that were manufactured by soviets in the 70s is not a reflection of every tank technology of every country in 2007.
with all due respect, before posting something like "this is the best thing since sliced bread" do some research.
I dont know which tank is better. They practically all have the same equipment. Chances are that 90% of the answers are biased.(i.e., germans think the leopard is the best,americans the abrams, british the challenger ect.)
but the Leopard 2 not only outranked the Abrams but got the #1 spot....weird eh 