• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Leopord Best tank in the world??

SgtH3nry3 said:
The M1A2 Abrams isn't technically superior because it uses the LV100-5 gasturbine engine.
point being...? The decision to initially use the turbine was controversial, and still is. This has nothing to do with it being technologically superior...it's a concession of some range towards greater acceleration and speed.

Which means it's range is 391 kilometers when it has no ammo onboard and it's uses crazy amounts of JP-8 fuel
lets see....
Challenger II max road range - 450km/1797 litre fuel = 3.99 litres/km
Leo 2A6 - max range 500km/1200 litre fuel = 2.4 litres/km
M1A1 SEP - max range 265 miles (425km)/1907 litres = 4.48 litres/km

yep - thirsty...don't know if this mileage info is for the AGT1500 or the LV100-5

which is known for it's hazardous fumes which cause various heavy cancers.
Even the exhaust gas has a MAC value of C3!
out of curiosity, what's the MAC of diesel fumes...?

It's heatsignature is huge!

Compared with other tanks like the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A6, which uses the Perkins-Caterpillar CV12 turbocharged dieselengine and the French MTU MB873 turbo supercharged diesel engines, the M1A2 Abrams would make very easy targets for Flankers, Frogfoots and their likes.
have you ever even looked thru a thermal sight or a FLIR? Hate to say it, but EVERY vehicle - tracked or not - has a fairly large heat signature, and is fairly easy to pick out on the darkest nights...

Until now the Abrams have only proven itself against outdated Russian main-battle tanks.
and the LeClerc and 2A6 have proven themselves against......what...? The Abrams has proven it can take enemy fire and the crew will survive..

here's a site for you....remember getting this as a briefing when I was still on active:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

But it won't survive from the French A1 LeClerc, the German Leopard 2A6 or the British Challenger 2.
The way armor and armaments are today - first shot will win...doesn't matter WHAT tank you're in. Put me in a M60A3 with M829 super sabot rounds(edit, the M829 in the 120mm, the 105mm is the M900) - in a good defensive position - and half decent gunner would take out the LeClerc, Leo, Challenger AND the Abrams

EDIT: The fumes are too hot and too toxic to make them usable for urban infantry support.
They have to use M2A2's for that!
Amazing...a tanker for 13 years, and I'm still alive from all the toxic fumes I sucked in while drying my fart sack, clothes, heating coffee and MRE's, and staying warm in the winter. You want to make a groundpounder's day - roll your pig up and give them some heat ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
1.AR[GSC]=[ENIGMA]= said:
Uhm...

The Leo2 has a Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 - L/55 smoothbore, developed by Rheinmetall of Ratingen, the Abrams is using the same gun build under license and one of the above comments regarding the "excess of 1700mph per hour or maybe minute" etc is probably incorrectly read, the announcer most probably meant to say "in excess of 1700 METERS per second", which turn out to be some 5500+ ft. per second.

"Challenger 2 is equipped with an L30, 120mm rifled tank gun from BAE Systems Land Systems (formerly RO Defence). In January 2004, Land Systems was awarded a contract to develop a new smoothbore 120mm gun for the British Army Challenger tanks. Rheinmetall of Germany will provide examples of the L55 smoothbore gun fitted on the Leopard 2A6 for the programme."

Hm, so they must be "downgrading" the Challenger 2 armament then *o_0*


Ah, the Challenger 2 was made after the 1995 docu?...

"Prime Contractor was Vickers Defence Systems plc. Vickers Defence Systems started work on the Challenger 2 in November 1986 as a private venture and shortly afterwards, in March 1987, made its first presentation of the vehicle to the British Ministry of Defence. In February 1988, Vickers submitted a formal proposal regarding the tank to the MOD following the issue of the staff requirement. In December 1988 it was announced that Vickers Defence Systems was to be awarded a
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Your right. That could never happen to a tank unless it was filled with explosives. Too bad all of that fuel and ammunition means that the tank is basically filled with explosives. :D What happened to that T72 could easily happen to any T72 as it has no protection against an ammo explosion.

Personally I doubt Arena is effective as they say. Yet systems such as these will become more common. We are working on a few of our own APS systems at the moment.

Efforst are underway to counter systems such as these however as missiles are improved. In the end I doubt systems such as Arena will create a major impact.

Now you say that the M1 Abrams has only proven itself against older Russian tanks which is true but at the time the T72 was still a fairly modern tank and the Iraqi military had experience. Iraq also had a few upgraded T72s with laser rangefinding gear and other improvements. Anyway at least we have proven our tanks against something unlike most of the tanks you seem to brag about.
 
Upvote 0
SargeDC said:
That vid is the Javelin, not a Hellfire - Hellfire is an air to ground weapon system ;)
Hellfire is also used in a ground to ground role.

hellfire.jpg


But you are correct, that vid is with the javelin, and I am confident they have packed their target chock full of explosives to boost the explosion
 
Upvote 0
SimFreak said:
Share ammo? Unless balistic computer is upgraded, there will be no 'sharing', and it takes quite a while to upgrade that (depending on army size).

"Standard NATO" round means that no matter the nationality of whoever makes the round...it is the SAME round. The different countries that use 120mm NATO rounds use different nomenclature - but it is the SAME round.

Not every round used in the 120mm is a NATO standard...the 2A6 uses the DM53, which is NOT a NATO standard round. If you were to put this round into an Abrams, there is no computer solution...but you would be able to fire it...

Would you hit at 3500 meters - probably not...but in a pinch, any ammo is better than nothing...
 
Upvote 0
I've heard the A1 LeClerk is the most technologically innovative tank of our times.

Apparently it features a state of the art defense system where a large white flag is deployed out of the cannon and a high powered megaphone declares, "We unconditionally surrender" in every language known to man. This feature can be deployed manually, or set to deploy automatically as soon as an enemy is detected by the LeClerk's onboard computer.

Efforts are under way to implement this technology in French aircraft and infantry weapons systems as of 2005.

:D

Jokes aside though I think the biggest problem with the Abrams needing JP-8 to run is specialization. By that I mean what do you do if you are out of gas and cut off from your supply line? At least a tank running on diesel has the chance to capture and use enemy fuel stocks, but with the Abrams you're up **** creek without a paddle.

It's also more expensive that diesel isn't it?

Also in regards to the Javelin, sure it won't obliterate a regular 'non-stuffed-with-explosives' tank ala that video, but it is still an incredibly impressive anti-tank system which will knock out a modern MBT with no hassles.
 
Upvote 0
SargeDC said:
"Standard NATO" round means that no matter the nationality of whoever makes the round...it is the SAME round. The different countries that use 120mm NATO rounds use different nomenclature - but it is the SAME round.

Not every round used in the 120mm is a NATO standard...the 2A6 uses the DM53, which is NOT a NATO standard round. If you were to put this round into an Abrams, there is no computer solution...but you would be able to fire it...

Would you hit at 3500 meters - probably not...but in a pinch, any ammo is better than nothing...

[FONT=&quot]I
 
Upvote 0
Following thing I've heard some weaks ago:
During the 1990s, russian army compared their T90 tnak to 3 other tanks: The M1 Abrams, the Challenger and the Leo2A4. Result: T90 and Abrams are on the same level, while the T90 is superior to Challenger and Leo2A4.
Some years later, they tested the new Leo2A6 against the T90. Result: The Leo2A6 is superior to the T90.
Sadly, I forgot where I've read this.
 
Upvote 0
I doubt that is true. Sounds like it came from some Russian loving information source. T90 is nothing but talk.

I have said it before and I will say it again that T72 is not packed with C4 or anything with that. It is just carrying a realistic fuel and ammunition load. That is what would happen to a T72 if a Javelin hit it in a combat zone. While a hit from a Javelin can still easily destroy newer MBTs such a large explosion is unlikely as newer designs have systems to safeguard against the ammo going off.

Yet they were testing it against a T72 or some old Russian tank and that is a realistic outcome.
 
Upvote 0
Ranari said:
The Abrams is certainly the most battle proven tank in the world

WRONG. That is incorrect, the T34 and it's variants are the most battle proven tanks in the world, produced from 1940-1956, and considering that it has been used in virtually every main conflict since the second world war, including the Vietnam war (the Vietcong had 5 and the Americans never actually saw them; only heard them), they were used in the Balkans, the Suez, the Korean war, Saddam Hussein had some in the first Gulf war, the Cubans and many of the Warsaw Pact countries had or still have some. Here is a list of countries that have had T34s see action:

Europe and America
Middle East and Asia
Africa
 
Upvote 0