I always thought our M1A2 was the best tank in the world, but I have heard claims that the Challenger 2 or Leopard 2 are the best. Any tankers with knowlege of the comparative strengths of these tanks care to comment?

I did some studying on this subject for a separate project at one point and one could make a pretty good argument for the Leopard given its lower profile but they each have their strengths. From a purely technological standpoint ours is an easy winner. The Challenger might be the "toughest" in the sense that its my understanding they designed it for durability and if you watch the news you'll note it gets used a lot to bulldoze buildings fairly regularly. From a speed standpoint its my understanding that the Abrams has an edge in the desert but the leopard might be faster in the mud and its pretty close on a smooth surface. The abrams probably has a slight edge in armor the leopard isn't that far back and I think the guns are a tossup. I know the abrams turret is almost exclusively hydrolic but I'm not sure if the leopard or challenger can operate without either. There are some group computer programs and targeting systems that make the abrams pretty nifty in a group and last I checked niether the leopard or challenger had that system.

Additionally, I saw a special about a year ago (don't remember what channel) that campared these three and the tests that they used had the abrams come out on top with a solid margin but both the leopard and challenger were very competitive. I will note that I specifically remember that the abrams didn't get a chance to show its higher end functions because there just wasn't an opportunity to use it.

I don't know how completely accurate I am but this has been the impression I've gotten from the research I've done (again in a related but not directly related subject).

quote:

---

I know the abrams turret is almost exclusively hydrolic

---

Trust me, you can get quite a workout manually operating the Abrams turret without using the hydraulics.

I've never been in an M1. The Marines still used M60's in my day, and so did the TXARNG when I later briefly served in the unit in Bryan. The M60 always struck me as a ridiculously large target. Glad I never had to go to war in one.

the Leo II and the A2SEP are pretty much a wash, with each having a feature or two that is better than the other. the main guns are identical, the M256 was bought from the germans to begin with, and is also the same gun that the israelis use on thier latest merkava. our rounds are what seperates us from everyone else, and our fire control system is better also, but not by a whole lot. as for the challenger, not heard alot about it good, or bad. they use a two piece round which makes loading a slower process. everyone uses a regular diesel engine except for us, and i wish that we would retro a big diesel into ours. the gas turbine we use may be cool, but if i had my drothers, i would go with a big diesel from Cat or Cummins. i would also get rid of the hydraulic turret and go with an electrical turret. anyone who has been on abrams for a while will agree that the most problems on the tank is from hydraulic leaks (engine fires) and tempermental engines that guzzles fuel, go through starters like nobody's business, and use about 7-8 quarts of turboshaft daily. we could do better.

quote:

---

Trust me, you can get quite a workout manually operating the Abrams turret without using the hydraulics

---

Interesting that it is possible but sort of reinforces my point. It is a slight advantage to be able to easily traverse a turret without use of electric or hydrolic equipment (in case of malfunction etc). Hydrolic brings the point home further since you lose it if you lose the engine.

BTW - went back and checked my statement about the challenger being something of a bulldozer was actually refering to the merkava which coincidentally, I've heard is pretty durable and reliable but I don't know that much more about it.

the challenger is a good tank, but i would rank in behind the Abrams/Leo, and even the frances new tank to be honest with you. the merkava is an excellent defensive vehicle, but has minimal armor, that being traded for room for a team of grunts in the back, with the engine placed up front.

The real answer comes down to the crews. Who ever gets off the first shot is going to survive. Firing and maneuvering also increases your ability to surv

quote:

---

Who ever gets off the first shot is going to survive.

---

It's definitely not that simple. Here's a real world example. One of my E6 Tank Commanders served with the 24th ID in Desert Storm. He told me that what they saw happen was T72s fire at them and their rounds fell short of the target (the 24th ID) or in some cases the Iraqi rounds were complete duds. Obviously the superior range of the Abrams 120mm cannon was a big benefit but he said the key was the fact that the US uses what he called "match grade" propellant (gun powder). So, every round that the US fires has predictable results. With the Iraqi ammunition their crews could get the jump on the Americans and fire first but they had to watch their rounds fail to reach the target.

Or in cases where the Israelis fought Syria over a small piece of land, who ever got the shots off first did matter.

Ultimately, I don't think it is ever an easy comparison when it comes to equipment. Equipment serves its purposes as designed for a specific task or tasks. We may want more mobility give our global reach whereas another country may want more armor on their tanks given their defensive nature and inability (or unlikelihood) to go on the offense.

In the Israli example, they could reload faster than the Syrians. I don't know what their armor was at the time, but it didn't matter give the land they were covering...I'm not an expert on the battle.

The T-72 maned by a poorly trained force was certainly a inferior tank. We were killing T-72's with Bradly chain-guns as well. I was speaking in relation the comparison between the three tanks being discussed.

Of those three tanks I think it comes down to the crew and who get's the first shot off.

quote:

---

Of those three tanks I think it comes down to the crew and who get's the first shot off.

---

Being that the gun system is comparable in each of the aforementioned, as well as the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 10, I tend to agree with this.

A first shot hit may not kill the opponent but it would certainly give the attacker significant advantage over the tank that was hit as it is hard to envision any of these tanks coming out of it unscathed. Each have night/thermal vision and combat command hardware so I think that each of them would be formidable with a well trained crew and well maintained vehicle.

[This message has been edited by Say Chowdah (edited 11/30/2010 4:43p).]