Damian90 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Hi. Well from a pure crew sense, I don't think so (the Leo 2A6 is a Porsche, the M1 is a F250 Ute). Hehe, nope. It's good that Australia bought better tank, M1A1SA (or AIM v.2) is btter tank overall, Leo2A6 and all leo2's have many shortcomings, firt, thinner armor. M1 in all versions starting from M1IP have. Frontal turret armor LOS thicknes as ~850-870-900mm, side turret armor on full lenght no less than ~300mm LOS thick, in comparision all versions of Leo2 starting from Leo2A4 have turret frontal LOS thicknes ~600-650mm, side turret armor over crew compartment is less than ~300mm, probably ~200-250mm LOS thick, side turret armor over bustle is less than ~150mm LOS thick and this is only simple RHA plate. Besides in GPS area there is probably really weak zone, it can be penetrated by auto cannon ammo in certain angle of hit. M1 is safer for crew, all ammo (turret bustle and hull) is isolated from crew by armored blas proof sliding doors, magaiznes have also Blow-Off/Out Panels, there were no crew casualties in Iraq being efect of ammo cook-off. Ha the good thing is, if engine is not damaged, after ammo cook off the tank can still move around and crew can escape under armor from dangered zome. In Leo2 only 15 rounds are stored in this way, rest are on simple unprotected racks in front hull. Also driver in m1 is better protected. This is, 5cm layered heavy balistic skirt, running gear "air gap", more than 5cm side hull plate over drivers compartment, internal fuel cells, builded similiar to honeycomb, they act like an armor, and another thick steel plate. Leo2 have, more than 5cm heavy balistick skirt, probably layered armor or spaced, 5 or more cm thick side hull and, driver or ammo depends on what side we talk. M1 have also FBCB2 and BFT systems, Germans have probably not so advanced system. The only real advantage of Leo2 over M1 is engine, Diesel is more economic than GT, but then again, GT is quiet, start in every conditions, it's more cleaner. Thermal signature is almost same for both engines. Ps. Sorry for my bad english. ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 That wasn't what I meant. As someone who has crewed both, I and others who have, prefer operating the 2A6 over the M1 due to stuff like, Internal layout, location of parts (like always smashing your knee on something on the M1 but not on the 2A6), etc. The tab data is not what I was talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Leo2 comparing to M1 is very cramped, and every tank is not so comfort, i know people that sit in Leo2 and in T-72 and say that T-72 turret is more comfort. You see, about Leo2, hah, the German armor is many stereotypes and myths about it's superiority over other countries designs. The real thing is it just comparable and in many aspects also inferior as you see on example in Leo2 armor protection compared to M1, ha, funny thing, T-90A/AS have thicker armor on some angles than Leo2. ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Friend, Listen, the thread asked for an Australian point of view. As a serving Australian armoured officer who has crewed it I gave my opinion. You are more than welcome to have a different one - but in the context of the thread its not relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Ok, nothing happened, I'm only say that reality is different. :-) By the way, you don't think that better armored tank with superior crew protection is better than other more comfortable? I mean, ok Leo2 is more comfortable in you point of view, more fuel efficent, but then again, tankers can be deployed somewhere, if there will be US forces you can use their tanks. Not bad i think? Oh, and IRCC, Australia will recive not only Saab Barracuda MCS but also T.U.S.K.-I or II kit's right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 By the way, you don't think that better armored tank with superior crew protection is better than other more comfortable? I mean, ok Leo2 is more comfortable in you point of view, more fuel efficent, but then again, tankers can be deployed somewhere, if there will be US forces you can use their tanks. Not bad i think? Its not a question of "comfort" but crew effectiveness and therefore improved efficiency in terms of shortened engagement times, etc. A bit like why a professional truck driver has a comfortable seat to sit in 10 hrs a day. As for the other questions may I suggest you maybe read the thread from the start as I'm pretty sure I covered off on the "reforger" aspects of the purchase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Its not a question of "comfort" but crew effectiveness and therefore improved efficiency in terms of shortened engagement times, etc. A bit like why a professional truck driver has a comfortable seat to sit in 10 hrs a day. Ok, but in this manner, it seems that M1 and Leo2 are comparable, besides M1A1SA have A/C unit, Leo2 not, and if you bought standard version you will not have A/C, other way is to bought version similiar to Leo2A5S/Strv122 or Leo2A6HEL, but still they are much more expensive. As for the other questions may I suggest you maybe read the thread from the start as I'm pretty sure I covered off on the "reforger" aspects of the purchase. Ok thanks. :-) 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.