Your favorite Modern tank

M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)

M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D 1:Against Kinetic Energy 2: Against Chemical Energy (in mm of RHAe):

Turret: 1: 800 - 900 2: 1,320 - 1,620

Glacis: 1: 560 - 590 2: 510 - 1,050

Lower Front Hull: 1: 580 - 650 2: 800 - 970


Leopard 2 A5-A6 MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002 - 2004)
Leopard 2 A5 - A6 1: Against Kinetic Energy 2: Against Chemical Energy (in mm of RHAe):

Turret: 1: 920 - 940 2: 1,730 - 1,960

Glacis: 1: 620 2: 750

Lower Front Hull: 1: 620 2: 750

It is clearly evident that the Leopard's armor is overall better !

Remember the armor of the M1A1 is exactly the same as on the M1A2 ! (Steel encased depleted uranium armour)


About the sighting system, well they both use 2nd generation FLIR but the difference is the gunsights and muzzlevelocity of the guns !

The L/55 gun is notably more accurate than the L/44, and the German daytime sighting system ( The optical FERO Z-18 ) is just "Great" !

KBO

 

''When did Germany last fight a war????..............go back to school and learn some more history about WW2, please, who do you think used armor warfare first??''

I know that understandable reading is not everyones good point, but i clearly said MODERN action- as in, after WWII, maybe i wasn't clear enough.

Nice numbers KBO

 

Jeffrey i think Jens was refering to Grieg.

KBO

 

O ..... didn't know :lol:

I'll adjust it...

 

And I thought I removed that line because it sounded like an insult. :angry:

 

was not meant as an insult, but sorry for that is you feeled like it

 

You people seem to have some misunderstandings about DU. Its is DEPLETED! That means they took it from old reactor fuel. It is a TINY little bit radio-active, but so are most false teeth. DEPLETED means it is safe. I bet you get more radiation working and X-ray machine then working in a tank because teh uranium is DEPLETED!

 

:roll:
Yet another US vs the rest scrum... :angry:

Moving on...

To be honest, the way things are at the moment, I would hesitate to put any one tank head & shoulders above the rest. My personal preference is for the Challenger 2 (unsurprisingly, given my nationality) largely because it does seem to be the only one without a horrendous shot-trap or vertical armour on the turret front...

Oh and just to pick up on a few pedantic points...

England.

You would, but you still do get a fair bit from DU, especially if you are handling it / sitting next to it frequently.

 

Regarding DU, there were issues with this at the MoD ranges in Scotland used to test the rounds. Background radiation where strikes on targets had occurred was higher than normal due to "dust" being created from the round. They no longer use this particular range for testing DU due to this -even firing out to targets at sea was banned.

If memory serves (I have no sources), there were also concerns after the 1st Gulf war as radiotion levels around targetted tanks were higher than the norm and of possible long term effects to crews of the tanks firing it - seems to me that some DU rounds are less depleted than others.

 

Talking about the Challenger2... :lol:

The sighting-system for the gunner is right on the main gun!!!
This is an easy target for the enemy because the armor is not that hard, if that gets hit (wich is not tat difficult) the tank is more than useless.

I also noticed the Chally2 has 3 sighting systems, why 3?

BTW, it still got a shottrap, when the turret aims to the front there is a pretty big space in between the turret and hull...

 

I have raised this before, and been told that the hideous box-thing is actually a device to check for barrel distortion...

What's wrong with a little systems redundancy? After all, If the box-thing goes (if that is a sighting-system) you get 2 more to use.

Ah, yes, the driver's slot. Still not as impressive as that on other MBTs though...

 

On the Challenger and almost all other modern MBT there is the normal optical gunsight and then there is FLIR.

FLIR= "Forward Looking InfraRed sighting system"

KBO

 

The box on the main gun of the Challenger is as far as I know a sigthing system with thermic camera, made by french SAGEM company, the same as on the Leclerc.

 

In that case - what the heck are they doing sticking it out there?
It's gonna get shot off!

 

Agreed. Please note that I only raise the issue of other military capabilities to make what IMO is a crucial point i.e. MBTs are only one tool in the war fighting capability available to a modern battlefield commander.
It is very difficult and sometimes misleading to attempt to remove it from the other support and command and control functions.

Not for me inasmuch as I am new to this forum however another way of looking at it would be as a Euro vs. US scrum. I like to think that I give credit where it is due despite having a slightly different perspective than many of you on this issue. For instance I mentioned that IMO Rheinmetall makes probably the best main guns I would also point out the the US adopted and later improved upon the British developed Chobham armor.
Despite what some of you doubtless think is US chauvinism it should be noted that the US has been quick to adopt foreign developments into their MBTs with improvements and modifications.

I would like to address the data presented in the post by KBO.
You failed to provide a source for your data thus one cannot attempt to evaluate the accuracy. I would point out that there have been significant changes from the M1A1 ..to the M1A1 HA (heavy armor) to the M1A2 (several models) and finally to the M1A2 SEP.
Even if the source is considered there is no way to truly judge the accuracy of the data since all this information is classified and any "data" is actually just the opinion of someone who is unable to provide the classified testing data. Even if the data were accepted as written you should be aware that the APFSDS-T M829E3 is "estimated" to be capable of penetrating 960mm at 2000 meters.

The bottom line is this IMO. All these MBTs are capable of killing one another at reasonable ranges. That is exactly why the deciding factor is NOT the MBT vs. MBT match up that many of you hypothesize. I must return to the overall capablities that support the MBTs on the battlefield.
No T-80 or Leopard is likely to encounter a lone Abrams in the field in a single combat duel such as sometimes happened in WW II. The Abrams was designed to fight the former Warsaw Pact forces manuevering and fighting as aprt of an overall force. Essentially all MBTs are designed for this. The other roles in which they sometimes serve are maily due to expediency. That is why one cannot look simply at an MBT and ignore the environment in which it must fight.

As far as the safety of DU goes I think that every study that has looked into it has concluded that any potential risk from exposure is quite small...certainly smaller than the risk one takes in combat generally.
Thus the only issue on the table IMO is it's effectiveness. That cannot be denied.

Smoke, dust and darkness have much to do with gunsights and fire control which is why the 2nd generation FLIR. If one tends to discount this factor read the accounts of the Gulf War battle known as 73 Easting where Abrams were able to sight, engage and destroy enemy tanks while remaining essentially undetected. Iraqi tanks were even killed by firing through sand berms behind which they thought they were concealed.


I will not address the insults and back-handed slurs in some of the posts as I do not subscribe to ad hominem as a debate technique nor am I here to debate US geopolitics. This is not the proper forum for the debate some of you wish to have with me. I will say this to the poster who questioned my age and experience level; you are mistaken, my age is 51 years and I served a four year tour with the US Marines. Enough about me

 

Could you please explain what you exactly mean by "situational data/command and control" that european countries don't have?

 

I do not know but I guess they placed it where it's best apropriated.

 

''Smoke, dust and darkness have much to do with gunsights and fire control which is why the 2nd generation FLIR. If one tends to discount this factor read the accounts of the Gulf War battle known as 73 Easting where Abrams were able to sight, engage and destroy enemy tanks while remaining essentially undetected. Iraqi tanks were even killed by firing through sand berms behind which they thought they were concealed.''


Again, the tanks that the Iraqi's used where downscraped, bad maintained T-55 and T-72 tanks, the Russian T-72 isn't even a good opponent for the M1A1... (or A2 ofcourse)

All the things you mentioned is nothing really special, this is where MBT's are designed for, the sights they use can see trough smoke and bad weather, don't think its a special ability that only the Abrams have.

And ofcourse a MBT needs its ligistical support and things like that, and again, you think only the US is capable to fight a war with tanks, where do you think army's serves for, yes, to figt wars!
When there's gonna be a war, lets say, Germany VS iran, i'm sure Germany is as capable in supporting the MBT's and commanding the attack as the US is, the US is nothing special, they just show what a modern army is capable off, just like the US most modern countries are capable of conducting a full scale attack, the only difference is that the US has a somewhat bigger Army :lol:

And by the way, why do you think no other country is capable of organizing a full scale armored battle? Any source that they are not capable of doing so?

 

Or they just didn't have any room to put such a HUGE ( ) box in/on...

 

Grieg you can deny all the info we have brought up and call it unreliable or whatever, and just keep on believing the Abrams is the worlds #1 all you want, but that just isnt the case !

The Leopard and Leclerc are just as good if not better than the Abrams in many cases, and overall they are all pretty equal in the sense that each one has its advantages.

KBO