SeaRich Posted September 18, 2001 Share Posted September 18, 2001 I would sure like to hear some of your opinions about the superiority of the C2 Leopard over the M1A2 Abrams battle tank (or vice versa). I know a good friend who claims that the Abrams is just an APC with a big gun on top. If that were true why would we use it? Why not buy our armor from Germany? Those of you in the Army--do you think so? What is it like inside a Leopard? I hope you will post some of your thoughts. :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Wotherspoon Posted September 18, 2001 Share Posted September 18, 2001 The Leopard C2 is probably the ultimate development of the Leopard 1 tank, but it is not a match for the M1. The M1 is by no means the perfect tank, but it is generally considered one of the best in the world, equaled (some say bested) only by the Leopard 2A5. I don't know why your friend referred to the M1 as an APC with a turret on it. It does not carry any troops beyond its four person crew and it is designed for one thing - killing other tanks, something it is very good at. The M1 and the Leopard 2 already have a lot in common. They use the same gun (a German designed 120mm smoothbore) and can fire each other's ammo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted September 18, 2001 Share Posted September 18, 2001 the leo 2 is indeed a good tank. I think it can match up the M1 well enough,keep in mind that both tanks were developed out of the same project in the 70's a joint venture between the US and Germany It was a missed chance for the Dutch and German armies(I dont mentione German industry)by having no Leo units available in the gulf war. Furthermore I think that the French Leclerc MBT is a tank that can be compared with both the US and The German tank,so why not buy that one. Or is it that your friend doesn't like Americans ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted September 18, 2001 Share Posted September 18, 2001 One point that I would like to make based on field experience and observation of competition between NATO tankers. The M1s optics and aiming hardware and software are slightly better than those of our German comrades. So the M1 can see farther and clearer which means they get the first shot opportunity. I don't know all the technical details but my observations on the subject. I think the leopards engines are better but I would wonder how they would perform sucking in Saudi dust? My two cents... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted September 18, 2001 Share Posted September 18, 2001 just look at the annual tankmeetings in Germany. you will see that a lot of these exercises were won by Dutch crews in Leo 2's In many cases these crews were no professional soldiers but conscripts....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dglad Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 Trouble with the M1 series is the tank is a) too heavy and too fuel inefficient. The former makes for serious problems with strategic deployment, as well as battlefield mobility--you need at least a class 60 bridge to handle an M1. The latter is probably an even more serious problem, creating serious logistical headaches. I know the U.S. is replacing the gas turbine engines on at least some of its M1s with far more fuel-efficient diesels. Now, having said all that, in actual combat there are very few tanks that can stand up to the M1. The Leo 2 is probably one; the Leclerc is another (a fine tank, that). Not sure about the T-80/T-90, though. Dave L. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBelly Posted September 22, 2001 Share Posted September 22, 2001 Don't believe I've heard that USA is replacing turbines w/ diesels in M1. Source? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know the U.S. is replacing the gas turbine engines on at least some of its M1s with far more fuel-efficient diesels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted September 24, 2001 Share Posted September 24, 2001 Abrams engines are being replaced with a new gas turbine, not a diesel. But I have heard that a diesel engine for the Abrams is being offered for export. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted September 24, 2001 Share Posted September 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carter: But I have heard that a diesel engine for the Abrams is being offered for export.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I seen this reported recently; it looked like they mated an M1 turret with the hull of an M60. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavguy Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I seen this reported recently; it looked like they mated an M1 turret with the hull of an M60.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A diesel version has been available for years, we fielded a version to the Koreans called the K1, but it also did not have the special armor. I don't believe there has been a design mounted on an M60 chassis. The next generation M1 is the M1A2 SEP with numerous improvements - a more fuel efficent and powerful turbine (also less maintenance intensive), a FLIR instead of thermals, armor upgrades, and numerous electronics upgrades. I believe the engine is to be retrofitted on M1A1/A2 designs other than the SEP over a period of time. Also of interest - a beehive round for the M1 is due to be fielded beginning FY02. CPT Niel Smith, US Armor Officer [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Cavguy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilyKylee Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 This is posted on strategypage.com under the Armor section: September 16, 2001; General Dynamics Land Systems has completed a fully functional prototype of its M-120S tank and has shipped it to Turkey for demonstration trials. The M-120S was previously marketed as the M-60-2000 and consists of an M60 chassis and an M1A1 turret. The chassis is fitted with the M1's torsion-bar suspension to deal with the heavier turret. The chassis also has ballistic skirts and storage boxes that make it look more like an M1 chassis than an M60 chassis. The prototype has no extra armor and the original 750 horsepower engine, but GDLS says it can provide extra armor and several engine choices (up to 1200 horsepower) if a customer wants them. The turret has the same M256 smoothbore 120mm cannon as the M1A1, as well as the same machineguns (7.62mm coaxial M240, 7.62mm pintel-mounted M240 for the loader, and 12.7mm M2 for the commander). Turkey has said, however, that if it upgrades its M60s instead of buying new M1s it would use Israeli-built 120mm cannon. Turkey expects to spend $450 million upgrading 170 of its M60s. Eventually, Turkey wants to upgrade all 960 of its M60s using Israeli 120mm cannons and German 1,000hp MTU engines.--Stephen V Cole As for the original topic, I hardly think the US Military(or politicians) would pay Millions of $$ per tank to a foreign source for OUR armies symbol of military might. Right or wrong, that's how politics work. There is little doubt from all I've read that there are several tanks out there that rival the M1 for the title of "King of Beasts", but only one is made in USA. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: WilyKylee ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embar Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cavguy: A diesel version has been available for years, we fielded a version to the Koreans called the K1, but it also did not have the special armor. I don't believe there has been a design mounted on an M60 chassis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hm. I know that the K1 was designed by General Dynamics (though AFAIK it is built by Hyundai), but is it really a version of the M1...? It is much smaller: Korean K1 MBT Length: (gun forward) 9.672 m (hull) 7.477 m Width: (over skirts) 3.594 m Height: (to turret top) 2.248 m US M1 MBT [numbers in brackets are for M1A1]: Length: (gun forward) 9.766 [9.828] m (gun rear) 8.971 [9.033] m (hull) 7.918 m Width: 3.653 [3.657] m (reduced) 3.479 m Height: (to turret roof) 2.375 [2.438] m So, well... the K1 both has a hull half a meter shorter than the M1, and is five inches lower to the top of the turret. If the only difference between them is the armour, the K1 must be even lighter armoured than the Leo 1! Regards, Embar [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Embar ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 There has been a lot of talk about the M1 and there are many illusions. The logistical problems are not as bad as many make them out to be. The M1 can travel 300 miles without refueling. Granted in combat it will not be going in straight lines, but it has an acceptable range considering what it brings to the table. A lot of people talk about this gun or that ATGM or the advantages of any given weapon system. When the focus of tanking is on the gun the point of the tank has been missed. You fight a tank with the tracks. The gun and not nearly as important as where the tanks are and how they are deployed. Tanks are meant to destroy by fire and shock effect. Therefore to use tanks like mobile bunkers is to defeat one of their most deadly traits. Whether the Leo II is a little better or not is not nearly as important as how the tank is used. Give a good platoon commander some T-72’s and solid crews and put them in nasty terrain (Urban or tight quarters) and those Leo II’s won’t last very long. So don’t sweat the little differences and it’s not whether the M1 or Leo II is better, but who has the better crews and who deploy and execute by fighting the tracks and not the gun. The thoughts of a tanker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Logan Posted October 8, 2001 Share Posted October 8, 2001 took the words out of my mouth a good example of this is eastern front 1943, germans tanks are vastly under guned (majority was mark 4's and 3's not panzerkampfwagen vi ausf b or tiger 1 as its better known or rare at the time just being trained up to the front panthers) by the russian t-34, the germans won by tactics, and crew skill not by the tank they had. a combination of both is the formula for a effective fighting tank, you cant base entirely the tank on its fighting capability, just like the top gun training done in the USAF the better trained shall prevail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 8, 2001 Share Posted October 8, 2001 The Combat Mission forum currently has an interesting thread named "the relative importance of armor specs", discussing exactly this. It is WW2, but probably worth reading for anyone interested in tanks. There was a second thread, the Subject escapse me right now, let me know if you want the link. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifle1860 Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cavguy: The next generation M1 is the M1A2 SEP with numerous improvements - a more fuel efficent and powerful turbine (also less maintenance intensive), a FLIR instead of thermals, armor upgrades, and numerous electronics upgrades. I believe the engine is to be retrofitted on M1A1/A2 designs other than the SEP over a period of time. CPT Niel Smith, US Armor Officer [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Cavguy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out of shear interest, anyone got any ideas about the use of FLIR vs. thermal sights. Part 2 - Isn't FLIR an active-source devise? Over 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just out of shear interest, anyone got any ideas about the use of FLIR vs. thermal sights. Part 2 - Isn't FLIR an active-source devise?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Technically FLIR is a thermal sight, it "sees" in temperature differences and requires no illumination source. Gyrene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifle1860 Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Gyrene Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that any IR sight or devise needed an active illumination source. Sounds like the SEP is quite the tank. Maybe you guys will let your friends from the Great White North come down and slobber over it for a while. Out [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Rifle1860 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted October 25, 2001 Share Posted October 25, 2001 The Abrams has been tried out with the MTU diesel in the place of the turbine for export purposes for quite some time. It seems to work. This is as opposed to the M1/M60 combination. K1 is not just an Abrams with a diesel. In fact, it's a fairly much a different tank entirely, though at first sight it looks kindof like a toy IPM1. Call it a family resemblence since it's from the same stable. An interesting comparison can be had by playing that most excellent of tank sims 'Steel Beasts'. Personally, I find the Leo2A4 to be superior to the Abrams by virtue of the fact that I will almost invariably get the first shot off (The Leo's computer will distinguish between shooter-induced motion and target-induced motion, dropping about a second off the engagement time). The dual-axis stabilisation on the Leo's sight as opposed to the single-axis stabilisation on the M1A1 also makes the Leo's system more user friendly. (M1A2's sight is dual-axis stabilised, I'm told). The Abrams system is a little more forgiving at long range though. For starters, Leo2 will not permit a shot at over 4km. Period. Also, the way the Abrams calculates lead on an average over one and a half seconds makes it much more forgiving of tracking accuracy over long ranges than the leo's instantaneous computations. As for best tank going, I'd rather be fighting in a Challenger 2. NTM [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Trooper ]</p> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.