Stixx Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 I don't think any MBT can match the Abrahams can it? I'm no expert but i thought the Abrahams was the tank of all tanks? Am i wrong? They where firing those depleted Uranium rounds in the Gulf War and there were confirmed kills through 20ft!!!! of sand. Abrahams knocking out T-72's? (Correct me there) through 20Ft!!! of sand. Thats one mean machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWinterbottom Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 Hate to burst your bubble. But in my opinion, there will never be a "tank of all tanks". Something better will eventually come along. Be it better tactics, weaponary, weapon platforms or all of the above. If we speak of contemporary, I would have to agree that the latest version of the Abrahams is a killer tank. However, I do believe that the main gun is the exact same one as being used in the Leopard II. Which is also a nice little tank. I just bring that up as you seemed impressed with the kill power of the M1A1. But as the current overall nicest tank in the whole wide universe.... now that is more tricky. Lemmethinkaboutit.........(15 minutes passes) heh...got me stumped, mate. Mr.Winterbottom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incoming Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 I believe the M1A? can travel at a much higher rate of speed than the other MBT's. If so I would think this would figure into your which is better argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfcub: this is slightly off topic but what does every 1 thnk is the best tank out of the challenger II, leapord [have no idea how u spell t] and the abrams ,personly i think the challenger [im british ] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was another thread on this recently. It all boils down to what your definition of the "best" is (sounds a bit Clintonian, doesn't it!). Are you referring to servicability, armament, etc? BTW: It's Abrams, not Abrahams [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 Going thru the site that GriffinCheng listed I found this pic of a Leopard 1 and something caught my eye...Couldn't this be considered a classic shot trap, as indicated on the picture? Due to the upper front armor having almost no slope, a round would ricochet at almost full speed against the turret ring. :eek: Any thoughts on this? Gyrene [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 Originally posted by Gyrene: [QB]Going thru the site that GriffinCheng listed I found this pic of a Leopard 1 and something caught my eye...Couldn't this be considered a classic shot trap, as indicated on the picture? Due to the upper front armor having almost no slope, a round would ricochet at almost full speed against the turret ring. :eek: Any thoughts on this? Gyrene ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOL...a potential shot trap. Kinda ironic that if it is indeed a shot trap, it's in almost the exact same place as the one on the Panther! [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted April 12, 2001 Share Posted April 12, 2001 Nope The kind of projectile that would get through that armour in the first place, an APFSDS rod, does not ricochet. A less extreme projectile will simply "die" on impact, the vertical surface not really propelling it in any particular direction. If you want to look at something that really looks like a shot trap you should see the Leo 2A5 (or is it 6?) the "V" shaped front looks, to the naked eye, like an insane construction in this sense. M. [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted April 13, 2001 Share Posted April 13, 2001 Pretty sure the Australian army also fields a handful of Leopard I's. [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Fenris ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlankWithANailIn Posted April 13, 2001 Share Posted April 13, 2001 I think all modern British,German and USA main battle tanks are pretty much equal. Their guns can penetrate each others armour, they are all fairly reliable, have self leveling guns...reactive armour ect....I recon it comes down to crews...numbers and air support. Lets face it these tanks are never gona fight each other. An invading force would be sunk 100's of miles of coast either via Air attack, cruise missile's or tatical nukes. Now another Korea or Vietnam could blow up into the scale of WWII if some of the boardering countries got involved. Russia V's Europe is long gone, I just cant see a War on the scale of WWII being able to develope. We "The developed nations" i.e. Europe and North America would attack the agressor with convetional arms....If that fails and they dont have nuke's then we'd just nuke em(Only if it was a fight to the death i.e Engalnd v Germany at the start of WWII).If they have Nuke's then we'd just call it a draw or something....er....i...think....im....losing the plot here....someone take over....help. Plank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalistdoginchina Posted April 13, 2001 Author Share Posted April 13, 2001 Wow thanks for all the replies. It seems there is a thread of evidence to support that there was indeed a Leopard in development prior to WW2. But the real question remains....did it ever see action in WW2? Under a different name maybe? It seems not quite conclusive yet. Cheers CDIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted April 13, 2001 Share Posted April 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfcub: this is slightly off topic but what does every 1 thnk is the best tank out of the challenger II, leapord [have no idea how u spell t] and the abrams ,personly i think the challenger [im british ] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did I guess? Anyway, the main reason why the M1A1 Abrams version came out was so that it could incorporate the same 120mm smooth-bore gun as the Leopard 2 does so that the two tanks could use interchangable (same) ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted April 13, 2001 Share Posted April 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: I did I guess? Anyway, the main reason why the M1A1 Abrams version came out was so that it could incorporate the same 120mm smooth-bore gun as the Leopard 2 does so that the two tanks could use interchangable (same) ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, Maximus, the Abrams was originally contemplated to carry either an experimental British 110mm gun or the German 120mm job. I think gun performance ended up carrying more weight than the issue of interchangeable ammo, although it wound up being a nice bonus when both nations ended up with the same gun. [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted April 13, 2001 Share Posted April 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: Going thru the site that GriffinCheng listed I found this pic of a Leopard 1 and something caught my eye...Couldn't this be considered a classic shot trap, as indicated on the picture? Due to the upper front armor having almost no slope, a round would ricochet at almost full speed against the turret ring. :eek: Any thoughts on this? Gyrene [ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This shot trap you refer to is actually the shadow that the turret casts over the glacis plate....if you want to see a shot trap look at the same area on the M-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts