Der Leo ist besser als der Abrahams! Von der Panzerung nicht, aber von der geschwindigkeit, vom Benzinverbrauch, von der Präzision und der feuerkraft (besserer Lauf als beim abrahams)
No longer the newest main battle tank, but still one of the best, insanely agile device, you will not believe in fighting weight 65t.
Remember only too happy to my technical training on the type A4 in Kassel / Hofgeismar InstAusbKp 1991 at 5 / 2 (Manteuffel-Kaserne), an unforgettable experience with the beast.
Our American friends have always got big eyes at the sight of Leo's, would probably have gladly traded her to M1, grinning.
un tanque de primera linea, de 59 tn, que cuenta con visor nopcturno de ultima generacion, con una autonomia de 550 km, y con una velosidad de 72 km x h, con una armadura compuesta, de 700 mm de espesor cuyo costo sobrepasa los 3^600,000.00 de euros. es facilmente destruido por un misil. el kornet-e misil cuyo costo es de USA32,900 dolares
En una operación militar que simula una invasión de tanques, el Ejército Peruano mostró la operatividad y eficiencia de sus últimas adquisiciones bélicas, siendo el representante estrella el misil antitanque “Kornet-E”, una poderosa arma capaz de destruir unidades blindadas como los tanques “Leopard” chilenos o cualquier otro de última generación.
@demoledor35 deja de hacer el ridiculo no te das cuenta que estas comentando en un video que no tiene nada que ver con tu Pais? creo no entiendes que estos tanques estan equipados con la ultima tecnologia tienes equipos que detectan cuando son blanco de algun misil y tambien cuentan con una cortina de fibras metalicas que evitan el misil. entonces dime tu porque crees que los mejores ejercito poseen este tanque? y si no sabes ingles no te metas que la discucion no tiene nada que ver con Peru.
@demoledor35 288 missiles and 24 launchers plus training simulators and technical support. The contract (worth on US$ 24 million) was signed in 2008. All missiles delivered in January 2010. Accuracy <5 m
EL LEOPARD2 ES LO MEJOR, VELOZ, DE BUENA ARMADURA QUIEN NO QUISIERA TENERLO EN SU ARSENAL. DESGRACIADAMENTE ES VIEJO DE 30 A 35 AÑOS DE ANTIGUEDAD ES DEL SIGLO XX. QUE HARA PARA ACTUALISARSE ANTE ARMAS COMO EL KORNET-E. UN LINDO REGALO QUE NOS DIERON LOS RUSOS. ESTA ARMA DEL SIGLO XXI
@demoledor35 this dummy say THE LEOPARD :UNFORTUNATELY IS OLD 30 TO 35 YEARS OLD IS THE LAST CENTURY. THEY CAN'T UPDATE AGAINST WEAPONS ACTUAL LIKE Kornet-E!
@demoledor35 Leopard 2 family, the 2A4 models included more substantial changes, including an automated fire and explosion suppression system, an all-digital fire control system able to handle new ammunition types, and improved turret with flat titanium/tungsten armour.The Leopard 2s were manufactured in eight batches between 1985 and 1992. All the older models were also upgraded to 2A4 standard.
Proven against armys with clear inferior equipment and by absolute air superiority of the Americans. The Abrams never prove something against a enemy who had a equal good equipment let alone the equal resources background. In the best case the Abrams prove that he is usable if you want to make a little bit clay shooting.
And just by the way, the Leopard prove in EVERY exist field compare, that he is superior to the Abrams :-)
@hotlanta35 not bad not bad, i was tankdriver at the german military. i have drive the leopard 2a4 an old leopard but i think if you look at the leopard and the abrhams you see that something is the part from the leopard 2. i mean the gun and the optik and the engine run very good it is a 47.6 l 12 zilinder with two turbos. my tank was running till 110 km/h fast. it is not a joke! at the street you can drive round 400 km and in field 200-300km. if you have a question write to me.
@hotlanta35 there we can make a good price. you need only to buy the body.. the best part of the german leopard 2 you own yet ... the gun of your M1 is from the Leopard ;-)
facil es destruir un leopard2, todo hecho por el hombre es destruido por el mismo hombre asi de sensillo, solo tiene 700 mm de armadura, pan comido este tanque es del siglo XX estamos en el siglo XXI, las armas se actualisan el mundo cambia
its funny how cool americans who exist in this world since like 400 years are showing off so much ... you maybe have more tanks ... , but , when it comes to warfare they suck compared to the leopard . its the very old history of germany that gives them advantage to you guys . for example : the leopard uses a diesel engine while your m1a2 is using a turbine as engine . the german engine can be replaced in 30 mins ... m1a2 engine , well you can trash the tank if the engine is dead .
@L1MITBREAK Let me start off by agreeing that the Tiger is the better weapon in my opinion due in part to the diesel engine it uses. That said, your statement concerning the ability to remove the power pack for service in one vs. the other is incorrect. Both can be on the ground in under an hour and this can be said for most tanks currently in use. As far as the German ability to wage war, with all due respect they managed to lose two major ones. This is not such a simple topic.
This information is not incorrect. After a lot tests in the last 30 years the official specs becomes the info that a complete crew with the complete need equipment needs ca. 15 minuten to exchange the whole engine block of a Leopard 2. Under the same conditions (!!!) you need ca. 45 minuten to exchange the whole engine block of a Abrams ...
@couteau86 If you read my comment you would see that I indicated under 1 hour in the case of both tanks and that most modern tanks meet this criteria as well. Did you misread my comment or is this just an argument for the sake of itself?
I only would have mentioned it, becuase you wrote "your statement concerning the ability to remove the power pack for service in one vs. the other is incorrect" ...
And i repead it for you the tankers from the Bundeswehr knows, that the topspeed of the Leopard 2 is clear over 45 mph and all my army dudes laugh at you, becuase of your stupidity and fals claims and right, i also laugh at you :-)
Ja, noch haben wir keine A7+ und auch keine A7 (unterschied ist, das der A7+ die Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 und der A7 die Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 Kanone hat). Und ob das dieses Jahr noch wird, wie es eigentlich sein sollte, ist fraglich, da der Bundeswehr zu wenig Geld zur Verfügung steht, um sich die Leo2 A7/A7+ leisten zu können ...
Naja, wo soll das Geld herkommen??? ;-) ... und wenn man sich jetzt noch die Entwicklung vom Euro ansieht, Griechenland bleite, Portugal, Spanien, Italien und Irland kurz davor, dann könnten wir in Kürze so oder so noch eine riesen Finanzkriese bekommen ... leider ...
Du siehst das falsch ^^ die 120mm M256 L/44 vom Abrams ist ne lizensproduzierte Rheinmetall 120mm L/44, wie sie im Leopard 2 Varianten A0 bis A5 eingebaut war. Und die Amis machen die nidrigere Mündungsgeschwindigkeit mit ihrer Uranmunition wieder wett. Aber um auf das Thema zu kommen, die L/44 hat genug Durchschlagsleistung um auf die kurzen Distanzen im Häuserkapf effektiv zu sein und durch das kürzere Rohr ist der A7+ auch nicht so bewegungseingeschrenkt ;-)
@couteau86 uranmuition << das sagt schon alles....die dreckigen amis verwenden ihren atommüll als "rohstoffmaterial" für ihre rüstungs industrie ( munition) - siehe 1 golfkrieg etc
Oh wow, i forget to wrote a letter, now the world will go down :-D
And whats now??? I think the book does not exist??? Again you prove that you make just execuses :-)
And right, you prove that you have absolute no idea where you talking about. Right, 69,5 tons for the M1A2 SEP, but this are AMERICAN SHORT TONS. Convert it in METRIC TONS and you get 63 :-) ... so, 62,5 tons for the Leo2 is in METRIC TONS, converted in SHORT TONS you get 68,9 SHORT TONS
Piece of advice: don't just rely on books, coz it makes you look like a moron who knows nothing about reality. Try going out and interview REAL troopers, not some imaginary friends on youtube or facebook. That shouldn't be too hard for you, considering that you are claiming to be german. How sad that a german has to resort to lies to make the leo 2 look superior. Tsk, tsk. Reality hurts, I know, but it will set you free from your delusions. Maybe then, we can talk about REAL tanks, hm?
Next time, don't rely merely on books you've read. As was the case with rolf hilmes book, it might backfire on you. Just another confirmation that you know nothing about REAL tanks, just what you've read on some technical books which, unfortunately, you see as gospel. Real soldiers don't rely on manuals, like you do. They rely on experience, and believe you me, Bundeswehr panzers KNOW that their leo 2s top speed is 45 mph.
Blaming the traffic now? So pathetic. Americans know that the speed limit of the m1 is 68 kph? Outright lie. On the contrary, it was American servicemen who actually drives around in an m1 who made this discovery when they removed the engine governor.Power/weight relationship? Again, technical crap. The full weight of an m1a2 is 67.8 tons, not 63. And it only proves that what you say are untrue, 68 tons or not, the m1 far outruns the leo 2.
Moron, rolf hilmes is a reserve officer in the bundeswehr who trained in the m48, leo 1 and leo 2 tanks. He didn't state anything that we don't already know, but he did confirm that many of the leo's current being was primarily an improvement of the AMERICAN m48 which germany used and still uses from 1958 til present. He only confirmed the fact that the leo 2s top speed is 45 mph, no more no, less.
So stubborn. It's rolf hilmes, not rolf hilms. All your technical balderdash still doesn't change the fact that the leo 2 does not do over 45 mph, a fact that real panzer troops know. Or ask the canadians, swiss, aussies, and every freakin' country that uses the leo 2. Geez, man, I really pity you, still stuck with his own delusions. So sad.:-(
... the better power/weight-relationship. Exactly 24,0 PS per ton for the Leopard 2 and 23,8 PS per ton for the Abrams.
And please, talk no bullshit about the weight-specs. If you say something about 68 tons for the Abrams, than you prove again that your knowledge is absolute ZERO :-)
... every fucking page in the internet and so on tells you, that the Abrams has a topspeed from 68 km/h (42,3 mph) and as long as you claim something else, as long as nobody belive you ;-)
And just by the way, the property "power" (in PS or HP) is the property who gives a reference to the topspeed. And, oh wow, both tanks have 1500 PS by a operating weight from 62,5 tons (Leopard 2) respectively 63 tons (Abrams). So, if you can math you will notice, that the Leo2 has ...
And i repeat it for you, performence test prove that the Abrams has, with not free engine, a maximum speed of ca. 110 km/h (68,4 mph) and that the Leopard 2 have a maximum speed of ca. 115 km/h (71,5 mph) and that the tankers here in Germany drive it sometimes up to 90 km/h (55,9 mph), although we may just drive max. 72 km/h (44,7 mph), becuase of the German road traffic act ...
And even just by the way, after your logic i must say, every fucking American tank trooper ...
Good try of a execuse, but sorry, the book exist. "Battle tanks today and tomorrow: comcepts - systems - technologys", writen by Rolf Hilms, ISBN 978-3-613-02793-0 and sorry every idiot that put this ISBN into google find the book, only you do not. This says all, you prove again that you are just a ignorant idiot who make excuse after excuse and lie again and again.
And just by the way, i, as former "Leo2 trooper" knows, that you lie and talk big bullshit. As i said, you have no credibility.
Since you seem ignorant of this piece of info which EVERY german personell, and Nato's for that matter, knows, I'll enlighten you. It is the Fulda Gap, idiot. For a german, you have been showing complete ignorance of militery facts which concern germany. Why does that not surprise me? Again, give me proof of your claims, and I'll back down. That tank engineering graduate of yours, if he does exist, still could not debunk the truth confirmed by leo 2 troopers who knows the limit of their tanks.
This is no manufacturer data, kid. Even the swiss army which you claimed conducted tests on the leo 2s top speed confirmed that the leo 2 does not, and cannot go over it's 45 mph limit coz it's engine is not capable of doing it, period. That engine was designed specifically for a tank's ideal speed, which is 45 mph. I bet you don't know that piece of detail, do you? Again, why can't you answer my simple question? What's the most important piece of land for germans besides germany? C'mon.
Hey, that book and your number is an invalid one!That isbn number does not exist! How many times do I have to tell you? The top speed of the m1 is 68 mhh or 42 mph WITH it's engine governor, something that the leo 2 does not have. But if you take off the engine governor, the m1 can go to speeds of well over 50 mph on rough surfaces, and over 60 mph on improved roads. Every country, germany included, that uses the leo 2 has confirmed this fact, so I don't know why you still persist w/ your lies.
Stupid idiot, becuase they all copy the manufacturer data!!! This forums even wrote, that the Abrams has a topspeed from 68 km/h (42 mph). So what??? Brainfree??? Right, that you are!!!
And sorry, this book is writen by a man with the title "graduate engineer of tank technology". So you also want claim that this man is a lier??? Sorry, but now you lost final every credibility ...
Stupid moron. Even the Iranian Defense Forum knows that it's top speed is 72 kmh, not mph. I haven't lied about the abrams, and i can SUBSTANTIATE my claims! How about you?
By the way, you haven't answered my question yet: what's the most important piece of geographic land that's most important to every german soldier besides Germany?
Meaning, that a du round which penetrates it's target will likely ignite the insides of that vehicle, while a wha or tungsten round would just probably punch a hole thru it. These are proof that du rounds are superior to wha or tungsten, contrary to what YOU claim. Want to know my source? Oddly enough, it's from a country that uses leo 2s, Canada. Look up the National Defence and Canadian Forces webpage. read it, and eat your heart out, dude. :-)
Okay, i'll tell you myself. DU rounds are considered more effective due to these reasons: 1.Tungsten or wha wounds shear or fracture on impact, while DU rounds have a self-sharpening effect when impacting an rha target. 2. DU rounds remain effective even at lower velocities, increasing it's deadly effect by 50 to 70 %. 3. oxidation occurs in DU impacts increasing it's pyrophoric effect inside the target. This does not happen in a tungten impact.
You know, you're screaming like a schoolgirl again. I haven't made any claims which are false, nor have I lied. Au contraire, it was you who lied again and again. Claiming to be something you're not, and making stupid statements which you cannot substantiate. Tell me, which ammo has deeper penetration capabilities, a du round or a tungsten round? Prove to me you're no dickhead, dude.
Also funny is, that everybody laughs about your stupidity and fals claims/lies and that you still think, that you are at the right way ... ridiculous!!!
A thermal can only see something that's within it's line of sight. If an m1 is running behind a small hill, this device can't detect it, but the taliban sure could hear a leo 2 running behind it. And for your information, if a thermal sensor can pick up a human's heat signature, it surely can see your leo 2 as well, not just an m1. Can't believe how dumb you are, man. The top speed of the leo 2 is 45 mph OR 72 kmh, not the other way around, stupid. That's official.
It is teh strongest and most practical tank ever made. The M1 Abrams might be a little more high tech ..but excatly that puts it behind. Here is why.. a simple reason.the Leopard 2 will burn any liquid that burns and use it as fuel. The M1 is limited to Propane gas to go.. on the battlefield that leaves you choiceless.
@7thSmurf It's the exact opposite, my friend. The m1's gas turbine engine will guzzle diesel, gasoline, jp-4, jp-8 and kerosene. It's the leopard 2's DIESEL engine that would have trouble were it to run out of fuel. Speaking of engines, the m1's engine is so quiet ( by tank standards ) that other nato troops, including the germans, nicknamed it " the whispering death". It's also so powerful that it could take a 68 ton tank to speeds of up to 60 mph, though that's not advisable. ; -)
@m16a4ish Yeah right.. The Leo 2 engine is an MAN ship engine with combustion sensors all over the place.. it runs with EVERYthing that burns. period.
Dumpfbacke, why you still talk such a mass of bullshit??? The Lycoming-Textron AGT-1500 turbine of the Abrams has ca. 210% of the consumption of the MTU MB 873 - Ka 501 multi-fuel engine of the Leopard 2. And who interest the noise at a modern theater of war??? If the enemy have a termal sensor than the Abrams looks fucking old, becuase his turbine has a fucking high heat signature ...
And again for you, Swiss army prove in 2007 that the real topspeed of the Leo2 is ca. 72 mph
@couteau86 Oh, you're still alive? Alive and still stupid, that is. The "enemy" you are referring to is currently the taliban, who uses their ears and eyes instead of fancy gadgets. The "modern" theater of war is not a conventional one, in case you haven't noticed. Instead of fighting an organized army, nato troops are fighting guerillas which fight unconventionally. Even if they can't see your leopard 2s, they can hear them for miles around coz it's too damn noisy.
And??? What has this to do with the technical facts where you lie again and again??? ... and a little tip for you, the loud sound of a tank shall be a psychological deterrent effect for the enemy, to much for your stupidity???
@couteau86 See, that's why I know that you are no panzertroop. A real soldier knows that stealth and surprise are 2 of the most important elements in any kind of warfare. To claim that this sound is some kind of deterrent is foolhardy at best, and stupid at worst. What do you think of the taliban? You think that they haven't fought against tanks before? Again, the top speed of the leo 2 is 72 kph, not 72 mph. There's a big difference between the 2, moron.
Again just bullshit and execuses from you ... 72 km/h after manufacturer data. So sorry, but General Dynamics give the data that the Abrams has 68 km/h ... in real the topsspeeds are clear higher you nope!!! So, realy sorry, but you are the moron
And about the rest of the bullshit you post i say nothing, just that it is ridiculous nonsense
@couteau86 Oh ho ho and ho! True.The GOVERNED top speed of the m1 is 68 kmh, but without it's engine governor, it can go as fast as 60 mph or 100 kmh, much faster than your leo 2's top speed. Can't admit that you're wrong? Once again, I cited facts, even provided you with the pertinent MILITARY site, and you still won't budge an inch. Can't the little baby read? Or maybe, he can, and saw how stupid he was when he read the site. Go home to your mama dude, she'll believe your lies.Maybe.
Again for your ignorance: the Swiss army prove in 2007 at a test, that the real topspeed of the Leopard 2 isca. 115 km/h/71,5 mph!!! FACT IT YOU TROLL!!! So the only person here who lie, that you are you asshole!!!
@couteau86 Name calling again? Can you direct me to the site where you got this stupid idea of yours? I guarantee you, there is no such site coz that test never happened! I looked up the swiss army records, and voila, the only thing I found was the confirmation that the leo 2s top speed is 72 kmh or 45 mph! Lying troll. I bet you don't even know what every german military personell knows: what's the most important place for a german soldier?
Site??? I'm not a little internet fanboy like you. This is knowledge :-) ... besides the Leopard 2 engine also is torque limited. Even a point you do not know, what proves again your stupidity. 72 km/h/45 mph is just the manufacturer spec, like the 68 km/h/42 mph for the Abrams. The reality looks much different. But how you shall know this, if you are just a brainfree islander fanboy nope???
@couteau86 Dee, you can't find anything on the net which can support your little lies. The defense departments or ministries of the countries which use the leo 2 all have sites on the net, that''s how I knew that the REAL top speed of the leo 2 id 45 mph./72 kmh. The SWISS army, along with all other nations w/c have the leo 2, confirms this fact. So sorry for you man. Even if I do live in an island, at least it is a REAL island, unlike you who lives in a fantasy world. Go to sleep now, baby.
@couteau86 See, you can't find anything on the net which can support your little lies. The defense departments or ministries of the countries which use the leo 2 all have sites on the net, that''s how I knew that the REAL top speed of the leo 2 id 45 mph./72 kmh. The SWISS army, along with all other nations w/c have the leo 2, confirms this fact. So sorry for you man. Even if I do live in an island, at least it is a REAL island, unlike you who lives in a fantasy world. Go to sleep now, baby.
I have by far not the pleasure to search for you. You also have internet, so do it! I'm not your mom ;-)
And again for you ignorant pussy:
Factory specification is 72 km/h, real used speed is 90 km/h and the maximum speed without "free engine" is 115 km/h. Readable in professional books like ISBN 978-8-613-02703-0 and this is knowledge by service at the tank troops. But how you shall know this if you never the a real tank??? Even at the Abrams you lie a little bit ...
Oh let me apologize. I got this one wrong. If only five crews got killed out of the 770 m1s attacked, there's a less than 1% probability of you getting killed if you are in an m1.
On the contrary, if one crew got killed out of the 4 leo 2s attacked, there's a 25% probability of you meeting your maker if you were in a leo 2. Hmmmmmm, the odds are rather one-sided, don't you think? : >
You're wrong. The leo 2 has a top speed of 45 mph, it goes faster than that, the tank goes kaput. The m1, on the other hand, regularly cruises around at 53 mph thru 2 to 3 feet of sand in iraq. And only the m1 was recorded as goinng as fast as 70 mph. Do you know what happened? It's treads melted right off. You're just as bad as our friend couteau here.
So what if the leo 2 is more agile? It won't help ,you one bit if the roads are narrow and confined. I'll choose the m1 with it's better speed. Speed is life. So what if the leo 2 has a better engine? This "better" engine makes a loud noise, and if your fighting insurgents that can hear you a mile away, you can bet your ass that they will be prepared for you. I'll take the m1 with it's low noise, a noise that can only be identified as belonging to a tank by those who are very familiar with it.
@m16a4ish Actually, the M1 and Leopard 2 go just as fast: 72 mph.
Can you substantiate YOUR claims?
"Even the canadians [...] acknowledge that the m1 protects it's crew better."
That's why they use the Leopard 2a6, right?
The fact is, the Leopard out-performed the Abrams on every single simulated fight. And neither of them have true combat experience. Shooting old soviet tanks with untrained crews? Seriously? You may as well shoot clay tanks.
@Helge129 And your leo 2s are fighting what? Taliban armed with kalashnikovs and puny ieds? Geeesz, man. Any fool would know that an obsolete t-72 with it's 125 mm gun is far more deadlier tahn a thousand taliban armed with AKs.Seriously dude, do you know what you're saying? Are the taliban more experienced than the iraqis?And, the canadians were quoted as saying that " they like the leo 2 better, but the m1 does afford the troops more protection".
Anf for claiming that the russian t-90 is number 2, you just showed complete ignorance dude. The russians themselves admitted that this tank is flawed and underpowered, it's armor inferior and crew survivality was compromised as always. It's main protection is it's advanced era, which won't really matter if it gets hit successively in the same place. Real military experts didn't even put this tank at their top 10 list, so I wonder where you got this idea of yours. ???????
Problem with both tanks is their extreme cost I mean look at the South Korean new generation of MBT to combat all MBTs its one badass piece of machine compared to the mediocre Abrams but the Leopard II IMO is the best European tank in the entire union
@couteau86 So und jetzt auf Deutsch, denn das muss unser Amerikanischer Freund nicht verstehen: Der Leo hatte bisher leider kaum Gelegenheit, seine Attribute unter Beweis zu stellen, weil unsere Regierung ja meint, das Teil sei in der Kaserne besser zu gebrauchen, als in Afghanistan. Und auch die Serben waren nicht dumm genug, kampfbereite Leos anzugreifen
Das große Problem ist, glaub ich, die deutsche Vergangenheit, den Schuldkomplex, den man uns eingeredet hat und die Gesetze von Deutschland. Das Alles macht es recht schwer einen deutschen Kampfpanzer auf fremden Grund einzusetzen ...
Oh, and before i forget it, at my active time in the army we drove the Leopard 2 up to speeds of ca. 90 km/h, this are 55,9 mph, also more that your bullshit claim with the 45 mph ...
@couteau86 I thought you were in the reserves? Make up your mind, man! We both know that you were never in the reserves, much less went active. Your l55 has a miniscule advantage over the m256, longer barrel an all. and as proven in afghanistan, the leo 2s armor is weak when hit with hollow explosions! Your own military even confirms this fact. Hohum, still the same old crap, huh? You got nothing new , old chap? How about actual battle stats? still nothing?
Bahahaha :-D:-D:-D ... as if the longer barrel is the only upgrade on the gun. Again you prove that you know a shit about the technology. But right, go on with your childish claims :-)
And sorry for you, a Canadian Leopard 2 A6 M prove in Afghanistan, as he was hit by a IED that had a explosive force OVER the average for IED's, that the armor works great, becuase the tank was abolute undamaged and the crew was absolute uninjured :-)
@couteau86 Ha ha ha right back at you. The reason why they upgraded the leo 2 to the a6 version was bcoz all the other leos prior to the a6 was quite inferior to the m1. That,s the bloody fact. And that ied w/c hit the leo 2a6 was only had an explosive weight of just under 10 kgs, while the m1 regularly gets hit with ieds w/ 60 to 90 kg explosive weight. Why do you think they stopped deploying additional leo 2s in afghanistan? Booo hu hu for you.
Sorry, but i ask you again, how can it be, that the Leopard 2 WON EVERY FIELDCOMPARE against the Abrams??? And sorry for you, your numbers are the biggest bullshit i ever heart ...
@Helge129 Here you go again with your claims which you can never substantiate with facts. I'll say this again: all those field comparisons with the m1 are weightless when it comes to ACTUAL combat performance, a field where the abrams is clearly superior to the leo 2. So what if the leo has greater fuel efficiency? I'd trade fuel any day to have my tank crews protected. Even the canadians and the australians acknowledge that the m1 protects it's crew better.
@Helge129 For your information, ieds in iraq are about 5 to 10 times more powerful than the ones employed by the taliban. A classic in iraq is a 90 kg ied made up of a detonator wired to several 155 mm rounds. You do know that a single 155 mm round can take out a tank, right? Another one they use in iraq is an iranian designed efp, which is specifically designed to penetrate a tank's weak bottom armor. These are regularly encountered on a daily basis by m1s in iraq for several years.
M1 was mainly built by german weapon design and do you know why? German tanks were absolutely superoir during World War II, no fucking sherman, cromwell, churchill, wolverine, jackson had any chance against a tiger or a panther (not to mention the jagdpanther, jagdtiger, ...) And that is why the Americans wanted to build up their new tank together with germany. Just compare both tanks, they are very similar. If the M1 beats leopard, well then germany beat germany! good day!
@lfcdave8 wrong. That was supposed to be the case with the mbt 70, but as things turned out, this american design proved to be quite formidable on it's own. The leo 2 has had about 7 variants, while the m1 has had only three. The funny thing is, the "latest" version of the leo has a, surprise, sloped turret not unlike the m1s. There's a saying " If it ain't broke, why fix it?". The m1 design has remained relatively unchanged in over 30 years, while you can't say the same for the leo 2.
@couteau86 Yeah, you know that NOW, BUT WHEN I first asked you that, you did not know what I was talking about. Sure,the m1 fought against inferior enemies armed with TANKS, RPGS(both old and new models), ATGMS and the powerful ieds. And, they belonged to the 5th largest army in the world. Wow, your leo 2 is fighting against a clearly POWERFUL enemy in the form of the taliban, who by the way are armed with kalashnikovs and very very old rpgs. Yep, you do make a convincing argument. LOL
Only becuase you little ignorant child ignor all facts i give you and only becuase you claim bullshit about me and the military technology your brainfree bullshit becomes not more right :-)
And the Abrams shall be better only becuase the USA use him in some illegal attack wars against clear inferior enemys??? Good prove!!! But hold, just the prove for a ignorant and childish fanboy nope like you, m16a4ich :-)
Dude, don't disillusion our friend couteau86 here. He claims to be a member of the german reserves, when he doesn't even know the difference between a panzer and panzergrenadier beret. We have been at it for quite some time now, and he'll drown you with technicalities that don't mean squat in actual combat. I've put forward arguments using ACTUAL combat records of the 2 tanks w/c clearly shows that the m1 is superior, but he just isn't willing to let his beloved leo2 lose. LOL
Also a lie from you. The MTU MB 873 - Ka 501 engine from the Leopard 2 has a max. torque from 4316 Nm at 1950 revolutions/minute, what give the Leopard 2 A6 M (62,5 tones) a torque/weight-relationship from 69,06 Nm per ton. The Textron-Lycomming AGT-1500 gasturbine of the Abrams has a max. torque from 3950 Nm at 1000 revolutions/minute, what gives the M1A2 SEP (63 tons) a torque/weight-relationship from 62,7 Nm per ton.
Short say, the Leopard 2 has the better acceleration
@couteau86 You'redead right on this one, but the thing is, it doesn't matter if the leo 2 accelerates faster since the m1can easily overtake your cat in a matter of seconds coz of it's no less than 10mph speed advantage. It's just like the faster runner giving the slower one a headstart.. He he. The leo 2 would shout yeah, I got off first, but just a few seconds later, the m1 would speed by and say See ya!
So, than tell me, why the Abrams lost every exist field compare against the Leopard 2??? Or why the Swiss army prove in 2007, that the real topspeed of the Leopard 2 is ca. 115 km/h (71,45 mph), where the Abrams get "just" ca. 110 km/h (68,35 mph)???
@couteau86 That's in practice. It's very different when you're in actual battle. I'll say it again, ACTUAL battle records prove the superiority of the m1 over the leo. Challenge that if you can. The top speed of the leo 2 is 45 mph, there's no going faster than that. The only thing where the leo 2 is better is fuel efficiency and agility, and that's it. Guns? The same. Speed? m1 wins. Armor? For the moment, m1 wins again. Ammo? M1 wins by a mile. Oh, I forgot, the leo 2 looks cooler. :-)
It's a fact, that a Abrams NEVER FIGHT AGAINST a Leopard 2 is a "actual battle" and that the battles that the Abrams has seen was just a little bit clay shooting against enemys with the clear inferior technology. So, all what the Abrams has prove until today is, that he is good for clay shooting.
As the reality proves, that the Leopard 2 wins every field compare against the Abrams, that his real topspeed is ca. 71,5 mph, not your lie from 45 mph ...
No matter, if you ignor it or not, but it is proven and everywhere readable, that the Swiss army prove in a test in 2007, that it is 71,5 mph!!!
And the same gun??? Again a lie from you. Abrams has the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44, the Leopard 2 has the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 ...
And sorry, the Abrams do not win at the point armor ... the M1A2 SEP has a max. protection effect from 940-960mm RHA-equivalent against KE and 1320-1620mm against HEAT ...
"the Weight of the Projectile isn't important" ... Dumpfbacke, 8,1 kg is the weight of the penetrator!!! The whole M829A3 round weight 22,3 kg!!!
So much to your words, that i'm the wannabe :-) ... and just by the way, i was 4 years by the German tank troops, so sorry, but nothing with "fanboy" :-)
@couteau86: Dude, learn to read. Cartridge isn't the Projectile, and the Projectile isn't the Penetrator, there is also a SABOT in it. There you can see it, Fanboy. You also can read that the M829A3 is the most advanced Tank Round in the World on ATK's Website. The M829A4 will be made by Alliant Techsystems. Also the XM360 has performed better against your L/55. By the Way, i've driven the Abrams at Daily Baracks a few Years ago.
@couteau86: Also the Weight of the Projectile isn't important, the Weight of the Penetrator is. The Penetrator of the M829A3 is over 120mm longer than DM63's it's made of DU, and has more weight, face it. And if you say, the Leopard 2 is faster in Offroad, and the Marine M1 hasn't a modified License Zeiss Range Finder, you are the Wannabe. You made my day, that are the real Leopard 2 Fanboys on YouTube. Knew everything about their tank but nothing from the others.
No no, the kinetic potential (weight + speed) is not important at kinetic energy (!!!) ammo :-D:-D:-D
And sorry for you, 8,1 kg weight, data direct from the manufacturers hompage. But right, who interest, if the little shippy say something different??? :-D:-D:-D
... so there the DM63 have 104,3% of the kinetic potential of the M829A3. So there the 10% advange of uranium is almost compensated. Next thing is that speed also is kinetic energy and that the DM63 is fired with 1750 m/s, 195 m/s more speed as the M829A3. Short they 112,5% of the kinetic potential of the M829A3.
In the whole 116,8% of the kinetic potential of the M829A3. Minus the 10% advange of uranium the DM63 has the 6,8% higher kenetic potential in compare to the M829A3
@couteau86: That's obviously wrong, the 2 Advantages of the M829A3 against the DM63 are the DU, and the second is, that the penetrator is longer, if it would be 646mm as the DM63, the DM63 would be superior, in the L/55. In the L/44 it would be another Game again. Nope, the Army uses a License Made from Zeiss. The Marine Abrams uses a superior from Raytheon, look it up. And again wrong, the M829A3 weight is 9kg.
And one times you said the rangefinder of the Abrams is superior and now you say that they use a license produced copy of the Leopard 2's rangefinder??? Sorry for you, but both claims are wrong :-)
And just by the way, the weight of the penetrator is important, not the length. Weight means kinetic energy and ther the DM63 is also superior. DM63 penetrator weight 8,45 kg, M829A3 penetrator weight 8,10 kg ...
@couteau86: Imagine you have a 10cm thick wall ( Tank Armor ) Now you're throwing a Dart with 8cm
( Penetrator ) length. You're throwing it with 20 Kmh ( muzzle velocity ) Then youre throwing a 5cm Dart with the same Muzzle Velocity, you know what i want to say? The Length is important.
And the CE628-Laser laser-rangefinder from Zeiss Eltro-Optronic has just a deviation from 10 metres at 10 kilometres. Against this the rangefinder of the Abrams is a joke!!!
And just by the way, Greece buy 170 Leopard 2 A6 HEL for 1,7 billion €. This means, that one unit cost exact 10 million € and 10 million € today are 14,3 million $, becuase 1 € = 1,4312 $, today ...
@couteau86: The M1 Abrams has the same like the Leopard 2, but license build from Raytheon, 5m deviation at 9995m. Do you think, Greece buy the Tanks from the Original Price? No. With Leclerc & the K2 Black Panther, the Leopard 2A6M is the most expensive Tank in the World.
Hmmm... I wonder how Germany could make a tank, thats more fuel efficient, weighs less, great fire power, faster, and lots of other technological aspects, like the projector destroying laser, more comfortable accommodation for 4 crew, and more fuel efficient, Abrams: Range 187 kilometers Leo2: Range 600 kilometers. Leo's Price 6mil Abrams: 12mil (M1A2). Just my opinion, :)
The Abrams is more expensive because it uses steel encased depleted uranium armor plating. It uses more fuel because it has a 1500 horsepower gas turbine engine with a gearbox that is larger than the engine.
Specific density of uranium is 19,16 g/cm³ at 20°C, specific density of tungsten is 19,30 g/cm³ at 20°C. Do you notice something???
Next thing ... the Leopard 2 also have a 1500 PS engine and??? What shall have this to do with the fact, that the Abrams has ca. 210% of the consumption of the Leopard 2???
And sorry for you, Leopard 2 is faster, has the better range, longer gun range, more penetration power, can drive under water and so on and so on ...
@couteau86: The density of depleted Uranium is 18,95 g/cm³. The desity of Wolframcarbide ( Tungsten ) is 16,00 g/cm³. There are also Abrams, with have a Diesel Engine from MTU, exactly like the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 is faster on the Road, not in hard terrain, or sand. Also the M1 has a better accleration due his Gas Turbine. The max. Gun Range of the Leopard 2 is 8km with LAHAT, and 12km of the Abrams MRM-KE. More penetration power? Not really. And drive under Water is nearly useless today.
@Helge129: Yeah, the M1A2 is from 1992. The Leopard 2A5 from 1995. The Abrams uses the General Dynamics M256, which is a License made Rheinmetall L/44. Both are 120mm Smoothbore-Cannon's.
Abrams with MTU diesel ... just prototyps and never produced in serie. The XM1111 ammo is stil a experimental ammo and also not in serie and with conventional ammos the Leopard 2 has a clear advange. In the average is the Leopard 2 5 km/h faster, no matter if road or offroad. But the main difference is the range, where the Leopard 2 is clear superior ... and drive under water is useless??? Abrams needs a bridge if he will cross deap water, Leo 2 not
@couteau86: The Abrams with Diesel was produced in Series, but it's just not in Service, not in the Army & not in other Countries. The MRM-KE isn't experimental anymore, the first Tank killed with it, was 2004. The Army will use it in 2013. They can't drive about 60 Km/h Offroad, they can drive the same speed in there, about 30 Km/h. Wars aren't on Streets, and 5 Km/h more isn't a real advantage. In the Range the Leopard 2 is clearly superior, yes. To dive isn't anything special anymore.
@ThatTankid: That's obviously wrong, the Leopard 2A6's Weight is 62t. The M1A2's is 61,3t. Both have great firepower, but the Abrams uses the more efficient DU-Ammo. In the Terrain, both Tanks can reach the same speed. On the Road the Leopard is faster, but the M1 has a way better accleration due his Gas-Turbine. What Laser do you mean? The Laser-RangeFinder from General Dynamics is also better than the German from Zeiss. And by the way, the M1A2 costs 6,2 Millions $
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 No no, u must have mistaken, German, Swiss, Austrian arms makers made a laser that could destroy projectiles that get near the tank. I hate to burst your bubble, but the Australians had bought 59 M1A1 Abrams for $8.5million each, but the tanks are both brothers (or sisters). Abrams don't last long on the road, I live in Australia and i saw the Abrams move and manovre and shoot its gun, the commentator said "Unfortunatly the Abrams dosen't last long on the road at 182km"
@ThatTankid: And what is the Name of this "Laser" ? Do you mean an active protection System?
The Abrams can be equipped with Iron Fist ( Trophy ) APS. Yeah, but that means nothing, the price of the M1A2 from General Dynamics US, is 6,2 Millions $. There is also an Abrams with a Dieselengine from MTU, like the Leopard 2 have. Same Range, same Speed.
More effective ammo??? M829M3 ammo, fired from the 120mm M256 L/44 (license produced German Rheinmetall 120mm L/44), has a muzzle velocity from 1555 m/s, a penetration power from 790mm RHA-equivalent at 2 km distance and a effective range from 4 km, DM63 ammo, fired from the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55, has 1750 m/s, 810mm RHA-equivalent and 5 km. Do you notice something???
@couteau86: First: It's named M829A3 not M3. Second: The DM53 can penetrate 810mm, the DM53 probably more, and you'll tell me, that the M829A3 has a lower penetration than the M829A2? The M829A3 is made of depleted Urhianium, wch has 10% more penetration power as Wolframcarbide aka. Tungsten at the same velocity. Also the Penetrator of the M829A3 ( 780mm ) is longer than the DM63.
( 646mm ) Both are official Specs from the Bundeswehr & US Army. Also the Abrams can shoot 12km with MRM-KE Ammo.
OFFICIAL AMERICAN REPORT known from my time by the Bundeswehr??? And sorry, it is still 80 damaged AND AND AND!!! 24 out of action you ignorant troll!!!
@couteau86 See, you're making that up. My sources are accurate, the DoD. Your source is fairytale land.Ha ha ha! Ha, screaming like a girl again. TSk, tsk. I'll answer for you, my dumb friend. The panzergrenadier is the german equivalent of the american mechnized infantry. It is an infantry heavy unit which uses marder and luchs armored vehicles, and is attached to a panzer brigade to be used against dug-in enemy infantry. How sad for you. :-(
Der Leo ist besser als der Abrahams! Von der Panzerung nicht, aber von der geschwindigkeit, vom Benzinverbrauch, von der Präzision und der feuerkraft (besserer Lauf als beim abrahams)
MasterChief2Man 3 weeks ago
best tank ever
barrri95 1 month ago
dear santa ....
soereneverts11 2 months ago
kill them! kill them! kill them fuckin all! :)
thezodiak666 5 months ago
Shit. It looks a perferct construction. I just saw a litle scratch on one of them right below the tower.
Pupak30 5 months ago
German always have the best tank in the world, US tank sucks!
foxsan99 5 months ago
i got goose bumps watching this
SSFTC 5 months ago
super tank
sadiurkmez 5 months ago
fucking awesome!!!!!!
weaklypaskaa2 5 months ago
Im Scared .. and im not joking
ThunderofBabylon 5 months ago
Leopard 2 - the best tank in the world
drakodlak2 5 months ago
No longer the newest main battle tank, but still one of the best, insanely agile device, you will not believe in fighting weight 65t.
Remember only too happy to my technical training on the type A4 in Kassel / Hofgeismar InstAusbKp 1991 at 5 / 2 (Manteuffel-Kaserne), an unforgettable experience with the beast.
Our American friends have always got big eyes at the sight of Leo's, would probably have gladly traded her to M1, grinning.
ed22ful 5 months ago 95
@ed22ful The 2a7 is the newest I think tho :P
Helge129 5 months ago
@ed22ful lol who says we cant have both ;)
fergie123able 4 months ago
un tanque de primera linea, de 59 tn, que cuenta con visor nopcturno de ultima generacion, con una autonomia de 550 km, y con una velosidad de 72 km x h, con una armadura compuesta, de 700 mm de espesor cuyo costo sobrepasa los 3^600,000.00 de euros. es facilmente destruido por un misil. el kornet-e misil cuyo costo es de USA32,900 dolares
demoledor35 5 months ago
En una operación militar que simula una invasión de tanques, el Ejército Peruano mostró la operatividad y eficiencia de sus últimas adquisiciones bélicas, siendo el representante estrella el misil antitanque “Kornet-E”, una poderosa arma capaz de destruir unidades blindadas como los tanques “Leopard” chilenos o cualquier otro de última generación.
su precio es de USA$ 32,900.00 por misil
demoledor35 5 months ago
@demoledor35 deja de hacer el ridiculo no te das cuenta que estas comentando en un video que no tiene nada que ver con tu Pais? creo no entiendes que estos tanques estan equipados con la ultima tecnologia tienes equipos que detectan cuando son blanco de algun misil y tambien cuentan con una cortina de fibras metalicas que evitan el misil. entonces dime tu porque crees que los mejores ejercito poseen este tanque? y si no sabes ingles no te metas que la discucion no tiene nada que ver con Peru.
Devoto77 5 months ago
@demoledor35 288 missiles and 24 launchers plus training simulators and technical support. The contract (worth on US$ 24 million) was signed in 2008. All missiles delivered in January 2010. Accuracy <5 m
Devoto77 5 months ago
@demoledor35 Skipe missile Chile Total 900 missiles,Maximum range
800 m to 25 km (870 to 27,000 yd) depending on version.
MBDA Mistral, Air Force of Chile Aspic systéme p4, 40 units.Effective range
5.3 km (effective against helicopters at up to 4 km)
Devoto77 5 months ago
EL LEOPARD2 ES LO MEJOR, VELOZ, DE BUENA ARMADURA QUIEN NO QUISIERA TENERLO EN SU ARSENAL. DESGRACIADAMENTE ES VIEJO DE 30 A 35 AÑOS DE ANTIGUEDAD ES DEL SIGLO XX. QUE HARA PARA ACTUALISARSE ANTE ARMAS COMO EL KORNET-E. UN LINDO REGALO QUE NOS DIERON LOS RUSOS. ESTA ARMA DEL SIGLO XXI
demoledor35 5 months ago
@demoledor35 this dummy say THE LEOPARD :UNFORTUNATELY IS OLD 30 TO 35 YEARS OLD IS THE LAST CENTURY. THEY CAN'T UPDATE AGAINST WEAPONS ACTUAL LIKE Kornet-E!
Devoto77 5 months ago
@demoledor35 Leopard 2 family, the 2A4 models included more substantial changes, including an automated fire and explosion suppression system, an all-digital fire control system able to handle new ammunition types, and improved turret with flat titanium/tungsten armour.The Leopard 2s were manufactured in eight batches between 1985 and 1992. All the older models were also upgraded to 2A4 standard.
Devoto77 5 months ago
@Axxisss
Aha ... and in wich point???
couteau86 5 months ago
the abrhams has been battle tested and proven the top tank in the world. that's all i need to say, even though the leopard is a fine tank.
honour123 6 months ago
@honour123
Proven against armys with clear inferior equipment and by absolute air superiority of the Americans. The Abrams never prove something against a enemy who had a equal good equipment let alone the equal resources background. In the best case the Abrams prove that he is usable if you want to make a little bit clay shooting.
And just by the way, the Leopard prove in EVERY exist field compare, that he is superior to the Abrams :-)
couteau86 6 months ago
i am from the US and think we should buy the Leopard 2
hotlanta35 6 months ago 17
@hotlanta35 not bad not bad, i was tankdriver at the german military. i have drive the leopard 2a4 an old leopard but i think if you look at the leopard and the abrhams you see that something is the part from the leopard 2. i mean the gun and the optik and the engine run very good it is a 47.6 l 12 zilinder with two turbos. my tank was running till 110 km/h fast. it is not a joke! at the street you can drive round 400 km and in field 200-300km. if you have a question write to me.
Jense27369 6 months ago
@hotlanta35 if they do this is gona be the best desezion in thear entayer life
libertateaaa 5 months ago
@hotlanta35 lol....America is deeply in debt my dear :D the US buy nothing .... drive your abrahams :D
BF2SpyOne 5 months ago
@hotlanta35 there we can make a good price. you need only to buy the body.. the best part of the german leopard 2 you own yet ... the gun of your M1 is from the Leopard ;-)
steinert 3 months ago
краасава!!!!!!!!!
MrSalen090678 6 months ago
@MrSalen090678 english please
77Andee77 6 months ago 3
@77Andee77 xD agree
TheEMIR95 5 months ago
der leo ist und bleibst der ultimative panzer
77Andee77 6 months ago
facil es destruir un leopard2, todo hecho por el hombre es destruido por el mismo hombre asi de sensillo, solo tiene 700 mm de armadura, pan comido este tanque es del siglo XX estamos en el siglo XXI, las armas se actualisan el mundo cambia
demoledor35 6 months ago
@demoledor35 you had to be Peruvian to make such a stupid comment!
Devoto77 5 months ago
leo 2 - watch them killing the democracy movement in the middle east soon!
thezodiak666 6 months ago
@thezodiak666 I don't know one siongle fuckiong country in that region using the Leo. We don't sell heavy armor to dictators
MrRammsteinKicksAss 5 months ago
its funny how cool americans who exist in this world since like 400 years are showing off so much ... you maybe have more tanks ... , but , when it comes to warfare they suck compared to the leopard . its the very old history of germany that gives them advantage to you guys . for example : the leopard uses a diesel engine while your m1a2 is using a turbine as engine . the german engine can be replaced in 30 mins ... m1a2 engine , well you can trash the tank if the engine is dead .
L1MITBREAK 6 months ago
@L1MITBREAK Let me start off by agreeing that the Tiger is the better weapon in my opinion due in part to the diesel engine it uses. That said, your statement concerning the ability to remove the power pack for service in one vs. the other is incorrect. Both can be on the ground in under an hour and this can be said for most tanks currently in use. As far as the German ability to wage war, with all due respect they managed to lose two major ones. This is not such a simple topic.
Guru1ofatl 6 months ago
@Guru1ofatl
This information is not incorrect. After a lot tests in the last 30 years the official specs becomes the info that a complete crew with the complete need equipment needs ca. 15 minuten to exchange the whole engine block of a Leopard 2. Under the same conditions (!!!) you need ca. 45 minuten to exchange the whole engine block of a Abrams ...
couteau86 6 months ago
@couteau86 If you read my comment you would see that I indicated under 1 hour in the case of both tanks and that most modern tanks meet this criteria as well. Did you misread my comment or is this just an argument for the sake of itself?
Guru1ofatl 6 months ago
@Guru1ofatl
I only would have mentioned it, becuase you wrote "your statement concerning the ability to remove the power pack for service in one vs. the other is incorrect" ...
couteau86 6 months ago
shit weapons, shit wars, the only reasons why i hate humans
apfel61 6 months ago
Probably would stop laughing at these machines when you see one pointing that main cannon at you.
DemBombaclot 6 months ago
And i repead it for you the tankers from the Bundeswehr knows, that the topspeed of the Leopard 2 is clear over 45 mph and all my army dudes laugh at you, becuase of your stupidity and fals claims and right, i also laugh at you :-)
couteau86 7 months ago
And sorry, the Bundeswehr does not use M48 today, we "just" have the Leopard 2 in the variants A4, A5, A6 and A6 M ...
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 A7+ haste vergessen^^
77Andee77 6 months ago
@77Andee77
Ja, noch haben wir keine A7+ und auch keine A7 (unterschied ist, das der A7+ die Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 und der A7 die Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 Kanone hat). Und ob das dieses Jahr noch wird, wie es eigentlich sein sollte, ist fraglich, da der Bundeswehr zu wenig Geld zur Verfügung steht, um sich die Leo2 A7/A7+ leisten zu können ...
couteau86 6 months ago
@couteau86 omg -.-
unsere regierung ist echt fürn.......
77Andee77 6 months ago
@77Andee77
Naja, wo soll das Geld herkommen??? ;-) ... und wenn man sich jetzt noch die Entwicklung vom Euro ansieht, Griechenland bleite, Portugal, Spanien, Italien und Irland kurz davor, dann könnten wir in Kürze so oder so noch eine riesen Finanzkriese bekommen ... leider ...
couteau86 6 months ago
@couteau86 is die frage ob die l44 das auch wert ist
schlechteres verhältnis von lauflänge zu kaliber etc
is die selbe krüppelkanone wie im abrams
und die hat nur unzureichende durchschlagskraft
TheLordZhufor 4 months ago
@TheLordZhufor
Du siehst das falsch ^^ die 120mm M256 L/44 vom Abrams ist ne lizensproduzierte Rheinmetall 120mm L/44, wie sie im Leopard 2 Varianten A0 bis A5 eingebaut war. Und die Amis machen die nidrigere Mündungsgeschwindigkeit mit ihrer Uranmunition wieder wett. Aber um auf das Thema zu kommen, die L/44 hat genug Durchschlagsleistung um auf die kurzen Distanzen im Häuserkapf effektiv zu sein und durch das kürzere Rohr ist der A7+ auch nicht so bewegungseingeschrenkt ;-)
couteau86 4 months ago
@couteau86 uranmuition << das sagt schon alles....die dreckigen amis verwenden ihren atommüll als "rohstoffmaterial" für ihre rüstungs industrie ( munition) - siehe 1 golfkrieg etc
77Andee77 4 months ago
@77Andee77
Hm, Briten und Russen, zum Beispiel, benutzen auch Munition, mit Penetratoren aus abgereichertem Uran ...
couteau86 4 months ago
@couteau86 na tolle scheiße -.-
77Andee77 4 months ago
@TheLordZhufor schau dir mal die leistungswerte der neuen munition an un bezug auf reichweite und durchschlagskraft - dann ist das kein thema mehr.
steinert 3 months ago
Oh wow, i forget to wrote a letter, now the world will go down :-D
And whats now??? I think the book does not exist??? Again you prove that you make just execuses :-)
And right, you prove that you have absolute no idea where you talking about. Right, 69,5 tons for the M1A2 SEP, but this are AMERICAN SHORT TONS. Convert it in METRIC TONS and you get 63 :-) ... so, 62,5 tons for the Leo2 is in METRIC TONS, converted in SHORT TONS you get 68,9 SHORT TONS
So much to your "knowledge" ...
couteau86 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
--Wotanks.info.ms-- если вы играете в МИР ТАНКОВ,вам сюда,тут всё:ангары,прицелы,шкурки,моды,ЧИТЫ!
- Wotanks. Info.ms-- if you play the world of tanks, you here, everything here: the hangars, scopes, skins, mods, cheats!
NOnStop7077 7 months ago
Piece of advice: don't just rely on books, coz it makes you look like a moron who knows nothing about reality. Try going out and interview REAL troopers, not some imaginary friends on youtube or facebook. That shouldn't be too hard for you, considering that you are claiming to be german. How sad that a german has to resort to lies to make the leo 2 look superior. Tsk, tsk. Reality hurts, I know, but it will set you free from your delusions. Maybe then, we can talk about REAL tanks, hm?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Next time, don't rely merely on books you've read. As was the case with rolf hilmes book, it might backfire on you. Just another confirmation that you know nothing about REAL tanks, just what you've read on some technical books which, unfortunately, you see as gospel. Real soldiers don't rely on manuals, like you do. They rely on experience, and believe you me, Bundeswehr panzers KNOW that their leo 2s top speed is 45 mph.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Blaming the traffic now? So pathetic. Americans know that the speed limit of the m1 is 68 kph? Outright lie. On the contrary, it was American servicemen who actually drives around in an m1 who made this discovery when they removed the engine governor.Power/weight relationship? Again, technical crap. The full weight of an m1a2 is 67.8 tons, not 63. And it only proves that what you say are untrue, 68 tons or not, the m1 far outruns the leo 2.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Moron, rolf hilmes is a reserve officer in the bundeswehr who trained in the m48, leo 1 and leo 2 tanks. He didn't state anything that we don't already know, but he did confirm that many of the leo's current being was primarily an improvement of the AMERICAN m48 which germany used and still uses from 1958 til present. He only confirmed the fact that the leo 2s top speed is 45 mph, no more no, less.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
So stubborn. It's rolf hilmes, not rolf hilms. All your technical balderdash still doesn't change the fact that the leo 2 does not do over 45 mph, a fact that real panzer troops know. Or ask the canadians, swiss, aussies, and every freakin' country that uses the leo 2. Geez, man, I really pity you, still stuck with his own delusions. So sad.:-(
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish but even if the abrams is faster
what benefit do you get of that?
the abrams trinks only high octane fuel and that like a black hole
it emits exttreme heat due to the turbine
and if the abrams is hit by an apc shell
the crew need to abandon the tank because of the fucked up depletet uranium in its armour and the high toxicity of that stuff
also the abrams has only the short 120mm cannon with much less mussle velocity and penetrating power then the leo 2s
TheLordZhufor 4 months ago
... the better power/weight-relationship. Exactly 24,0 PS per ton for the Leopard 2 and 23,8 PS per ton for the Abrams.
And please, talk no bullshit about the weight-specs. If you say something about 68 tons for the Abrams, than you prove again that your knowledge is absolute ZERO :-)
couteau86 7 months ago
... every fucking page in the internet and so on tells you, that the Abrams has a topspeed from 68 km/h (42,3 mph) and as long as you claim something else, as long as nobody belive you ;-)
And just by the way, the property "power" (in PS or HP) is the property who gives a reference to the topspeed. And, oh wow, both tanks have 1500 PS by a operating weight from 62,5 tons (Leopard 2) respectively 63 tons (Abrams). So, if you can math you will notice, that the Leo2 has ...
--> next post <--
couteau86 7 months ago
And i repeat it for you, performence test prove that the Abrams has, with not free engine, a maximum speed of ca. 110 km/h (68,4 mph) and that the Leopard 2 have a maximum speed of ca. 115 km/h (71,5 mph) and that the tankers here in Germany drive it sometimes up to 90 km/h (55,9 mph), although we may just drive max. 72 km/h (44,7 mph), becuase of the German road traffic act ...
And even just by the way, after your logic i must say, every fucking American tank trooper ...
--> next post <--
couteau86 7 months ago
Good try of a execuse, but sorry, the book exist. "Battle tanks today and tomorrow: comcepts - systems - technologys", writen by Rolf Hilms, ISBN 978-3-613-02793-0 and sorry every idiot that put this ISBN into google find the book, only you do not. This says all, you prove again that you are just a ignorant idiot who make excuse after excuse and lie again and again.
And just by the way, i, as former "Leo2 trooper" knows, that you lie and talk big bullshit. As i said, you have no credibility.
couteau86 7 months ago
Since you seem ignorant of this piece of info which EVERY german personell, and Nato's for that matter, knows, I'll enlighten you. It is the Fulda Gap, idiot. For a german, you have been showing complete ignorance of militery facts which concern germany. Why does that not surprise me? Again, give me proof of your claims, and I'll back down. That tank engineering graduate of yours, if he does exist, still could not debunk the truth confirmed by leo 2 troopers who knows the limit of their tanks.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
This is no manufacturer data, kid. Even the swiss army which you claimed conducted tests on the leo 2s top speed confirmed that the leo 2 does not, and cannot go over it's 45 mph limit coz it's engine is not capable of doing it, period. That engine was designed specifically for a tank's ideal speed, which is 45 mph. I bet you don't know that piece of detail, do you? Again, why can't you answer my simple question? What's the most important piece of land for germans besides germany? C'mon.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Hey, that book and your number is an invalid one!That isbn number does not exist! How many times do I have to tell you? The top speed of the m1 is 68 mhh or 42 mph WITH it's engine governor, something that the leo 2 does not have. But if you take off the engine governor, the m1 can go to speeds of well over 50 mph on rough surfaces, and over 60 mph on improved roads. Every country, germany included, that uses the leo 2 has confirmed this fact, so I don't know why you still persist w/ your lies.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Stupid idiot, becuase they all copy the manufacturer data!!! This forums even wrote, that the Abrams has a topspeed from 68 km/h (42 mph). So what??? Brainfree??? Right, that you are!!!
And sorry, this book is writen by a man with the title "graduate engineer of tank technology". So you also want claim that this man is a lier??? Sorry, but now you lost final every credibility ...
couteau86 7 months ago
Stupid moron. Even the Iranian Defense Forum knows that it's top speed is 72 kmh, not mph. I haven't lied about the abrams, and i can SUBSTANTIATE my claims! How about you?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
By the way, you haven't answered my question yet: what's the most important piece of geographic land that's most important to every german soldier besides Germany?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Sorry for the double post.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
german power at its best!
MrMightyRavendark 7 months ago
Meaning, that a du round which penetrates it's target will likely ignite the insides of that vehicle, while a wha or tungsten round would just probably punch a hole thru it. These are proof that du rounds are superior to wha or tungsten, contrary to what YOU claim. Want to know my source? Oddly enough, it's from a country that uses leo 2s, Canada. Look up the National Defence and Canadian Forces webpage. read it, and eat your heart out, dude. :-)
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Okay, i'll tell you myself. DU rounds are considered more effective due to these reasons: 1.Tungsten or wha wounds shear or fracture on impact, while DU rounds have a self-sharpening effect when impacting an rha target. 2. DU rounds remain effective even at lower velocities, increasing it's deadly effect by 50 to 70 %. 3. oxidation occurs in DU impacts increasing it's pyrophoric effect inside the target. This does not happen in a tungten impact.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
You know, you're screaming like a schoolgirl again. I haven't made any claims which are false, nor have I lied. Au contraire, it was you who lied again and again. Claiming to be something you're not, and making stupid statements which you cannot substantiate. Tell me, which ammo has deeper penetration capabilities, a du round or a tungsten round? Prove to me you're no dickhead, dude.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Also funny is, that everybody laughs about your stupidity and fals claims/lies and that you still think, that you are at the right way ... ridiculous!!!
couteau86 7 months ago
A thermal can only see something that's within it's line of sight. If an m1 is running behind a small hill, this device can't detect it, but the taliban sure could hear a leo 2 running behind it. And for your information, if a thermal sensor can pick up a human's heat signature, it surely can see your leo 2 as well, not just an m1. Can't believe how dumb you are, man. The top speed of the leo 2 is 45 mph OR 72 kmh, not the other way around, stupid. That's official.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
wargasm
ddioppp 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Almost as good as the Challenger 2.
mwillis1000 7 months ago
It is teh strongest and most practical tank ever made. The M1 Abrams might be a little more high tech ..but excatly that puts it behind. Here is why.. a simple reason.the Leopard 2 will burn any liquid that burns and use it as fuel. The M1 is limited to Propane gas to go.. on the battlefield that leaves you choiceless.
7thSmurf 7 months ago
@7thSmurf It's the exact opposite, my friend. The m1's gas turbine engine will guzzle diesel, gasoline, jp-4, jp-8 and kerosene. It's the leopard 2's DIESEL engine that would have trouble were it to run out of fuel. Speaking of engines, the m1's engine is so quiet ( by tank standards ) that other nato troops, including the germans, nicknamed it " the whispering death". It's also so powerful that it could take a 68 ton tank to speeds of up to 60 mph, though that's not advisable. ; -)
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish Yeah right.. The Leo 2 engine is an MAN ship engine with combustion sensors all over the place.. it runs with EVERYthing that burns. period.
7thSmurf 7 months ago
@7thSmurf
MAN??? It is MTU, Motoren und Turbinen Union ...
couteau86 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Dumpfbacke, why you still talk such a mass of bullshit??? The Lycoming-Textron AGT-1500 turbine of the Abrams has ca. 210% of the consumption of the MTU MB 873 - Ka 501 multi-fuel engine of the Leopard 2. And who interest the noise at a modern theater of war??? If the enemy have a termal sensor than the Abrams looks fucking old, becuase his turbine has a fucking high heat signature ...
And again for you, Swiss army prove in 2007 that the real topspeed of the Leo2 is ca. 72 mph
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 Oh, you're still alive? Alive and still stupid, that is. The "enemy" you are referring to is currently the taliban, who uses their ears and eyes instead of fancy gadgets. The "modern" theater of war is not a conventional one, in case you haven't noticed. Instead of fighting an organized army, nato troops are fighting guerillas which fight unconventionally. Even if they can't see your leopard 2s, they can hear them for miles around coz it's too damn noisy.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
And??? What has this to do with the technical facts where you lie again and again??? ... and a little tip for you, the loud sound of a tank shall be a psychological deterrent effect for the enemy, to much for your stupidity???
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 See, that's why I know that you are no panzertroop. A real soldier knows that stealth and surprise are 2 of the most important elements in any kind of warfare. To claim that this sound is some kind of deterrent is foolhardy at best, and stupid at worst. What do you think of the taliban? You think that they haven't fought against tanks before? Again, the top speed of the leo 2 is 72 kph, not 72 mph. There's a big difference between the 2, moron.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Again just bullshit and execuses from you ... 72 km/h after manufacturer data. So sorry, but General Dynamics give the data that the Abrams has 68 km/h ... in real the topsspeeds are clear higher you nope!!! So, realy sorry, but you are the moron
And about the rest of the bullshit you post i say nothing, just that it is ridiculous nonsense
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 Oh ho ho and ho! True.The GOVERNED top speed of the m1 is 68 kmh, but without it's engine governor, it can go as fast as 60 mph or 100 kmh, much faster than your leo 2's top speed. Can't admit that you're wrong? Once again, I cited facts, even provided you with the pertinent MILITARY site, and you still won't budge an inch. Can't the little baby read? Or maybe, he can, and saw how stupid he was when he read the site. Go home to your mama dude, she'll believe your lies.Maybe.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Again for your ignorance: the Swiss army prove in 2007 at a test, that the real topspeed of the Leopard 2 isca. 115 km/h/71,5 mph!!! FACT IT YOU TROLL!!! So the only person here who lie, that you are you asshole!!!
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 Name calling again? Can you direct me to the site where you got this stupid idea of yours? I guarantee you, there is no such site coz that test never happened! I looked up the swiss army records, and voila, the only thing I found was the confirmation that the leo 2s top speed is 72 kmh or 45 mph! Lying troll. I bet you don't even know what every german military personell knows: what's the most important place for a german soldier?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Site??? I'm not a little internet fanboy like you. This is knowledge :-) ... besides the Leopard 2 engine also is torque limited. Even a point you do not know, what proves again your stupidity. 72 km/h/45 mph is just the manufacturer spec, like the 68 km/h/42 mph for the Abrams. The reality looks much different. But how you shall know this, if you are just a brainfree islander fanboy nope???
So sorry, but you are the lying troll here :-)
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 Dee, you can't find anything on the net which can support your little lies. The defense departments or ministries of the countries which use the leo 2 all have sites on the net, that''s how I knew that the REAL top speed of the leo 2 id 45 mph./72 kmh. The SWISS army, along with all other nations w/c have the leo 2, confirms this fact. So sorry for you man. Even if I do live in an island, at least it is a REAL island, unlike you who lives in a fantasy world. Go to sleep now, baby.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@couteau86 See, you can't find anything on the net which can support your little lies. The defense departments or ministries of the countries which use the leo 2 all have sites on the net, that''s how I knew that the REAL top speed of the leo 2 id 45 mph./72 kmh. The SWISS army, along with all other nations w/c have the leo 2, confirms this fact. So sorry for you man. Even if I do live in an island, at least it is a REAL island, unlike you who lives in a fantasy world. Go to sleep now, baby.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
I have by far not the pleasure to search for you. You also have internet, so do it! I'm not your mom ;-)
And again for you ignorant pussy:
Factory specification is 72 km/h, real used speed is 90 km/h and the maximum speed without "free engine" is 115 km/h. Readable in professional books like ISBN 978-8-613-02703-0 and this is knowledge by service at the tank troops. But how you shall know this if you never the a real tank??? Even at the Abrams you lie a little bit ...
couteau86 7 months ago
Oh let me apologize. I got this one wrong. If only five crews got killed out of the 770 m1s attacked, there's a less than 1% probability of you getting killed if you are in an m1.
On the contrary, if one crew got killed out of the 4 leo 2s attacked, there's a 25% probability of you meeting your maker if you were in a leo 2. Hmmmmmm, the odds are rather one-sided, don't you think? : >
m16a4ish 7 months ago
You're wrong. The leo 2 has a top speed of 45 mph, it goes faster than that, the tank goes kaput. The m1, on the other hand, regularly cruises around at 53 mph thru 2 to 3 feet of sand in iraq. And only the m1 was recorded as goinng as fast as 70 mph. Do you know what happened? It's treads melted right off. You're just as bad as our friend couteau here.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
For the nth time, here's the actual battlerfield stats
Number of m1s attacked 770 Number of leo 2s attacked 4
Number of m1s damaged 80 Number of leo 2s damaged 3
Number of tank crews killed due to these attacks: m1 5 leo 2 1
About 10% of m1s attacked sustained damages
75% of leo 2s attacked sutained damages
There's a 6.25% probability that a crew will die if hit in an m1
There's a 33.3% probability that a crew will die if hit in a leo 2
Get it?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
So what if the leo 2 is more agile? It won't help ,you one bit if the roads are narrow and confined. I'll choose the m1 with it's better speed. Speed is life. So what if the leo 2 has a better engine? This "better" engine makes a loud noise, and if your fighting insurgents that can hear you a mile away, you can bet your ass that they will be prepared for you. I'll take the m1 with it's low noise, a noise that can only be identified as belonging to a tank by those who are very familiar with it.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish Actually, the M1 and Leopard 2 go just as fast: 72 mph.
Can you substantiate YOUR claims?
"Even the canadians [...] acknowledge that the m1 protects it's crew better."
That's why they use the Leopard 2a6, right?
The fact is, the Leopard out-performed the Abrams on every single simulated fight. And neither of them have true combat experience. Shooting old soviet tanks with untrained crews? Seriously? You may as well shoot clay tanks.
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 And your leo 2s are fighting what? Taliban armed with kalashnikovs and puny ieds? Geeesz, man. Any fool would know that an obsolete t-72 with it's 125 mm gun is far more deadlier tahn a thousand taliban armed with AKs.Seriously dude, do you know what you're saying? Are the taliban more experienced than the iraqis?And, the canadians were quoted as saying that " they like the leo 2 better, but the m1 does afford the troops more protection".
m16a4ish 7 months ago
einfach nur geil
philipp1057 7 months ago
Anf for claiming that the russian t-90 is number 2, you just showed complete ignorance dude. The russians themselves admitted that this tank is flawed and underpowered, it's armor inferior and crew survivality was compromised as always. It's main protection is it's advanced era, which won't really matter if it gets hit successively in the same place. Real military experts didn't even put this tank at their top 10 list, so I wonder where you got this idea of yours. ???????
m16a4ish 7 months ago
Problem with both tanks is their extreme cost I mean look at the South Korean new generation of MBT to combat all MBTs its one badass piece of machine compared to the mediocre Abrams but the Leopard II IMO is the best European tank in the entire union
GeneralNutcase 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
And just by the way, our army confirm, that the Leopard 2 is still the number 1 main battle tak of his class :-)
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 not just our army. Many military-experts confirm it's the best tank in the world. And on 2nd place there's the Russian T-90 MBT
MrRammsteinKicksAss 7 months ago
@couteau86 So und jetzt auf Deutsch, denn das muss unser Amerikanischer Freund nicht verstehen: Der Leo hatte bisher leider kaum Gelegenheit, seine Attribute unter Beweis zu stellen, weil unsere Regierung ja meint, das Teil sei in der Kaserne besser zu gebrauchen, als in Afghanistan. Und auch die Serben waren nicht dumm genug, kampfbereite Leos anzugreifen
MrRammsteinKicksAss 7 months ago
@MrRammsteinKicksAss
Das große Problem ist, glaub ich, die deutsche Vergangenheit, den Schuldkomplex, den man uns eingeredet hat und die Gesetze von Deutschland. Das Alles macht es recht schwer einen deutschen Kampfpanzer auf fremden Grund einzusetzen ...
couteau86 7 months ago
Liar.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Oh, and before i forget it, at my active time in the army we drove the Leopard 2 up to speeds of ca. 90 km/h, this are 55,9 mph, also more that your bullshit claim with the 45 mph ...
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 I thought you were in the reserves? Make up your mind, man! We both know that you were never in the reserves, much less went active. Your l55 has a miniscule advantage over the m256, longer barrel an all. and as proven in afghanistan, the leo 2s armor is weak when hit with hollow explosions! Your own military even confirms this fact. Hohum, still the same old crap, huh? You got nothing new , old chap? How about actual battle stats? still nothing?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Bahahaha :-D:-D:-D ... as if the longer barrel is the only upgrade on the gun. Again you prove that you know a shit about the technology. But right, go on with your childish claims :-)
And sorry for you, a Canadian Leopard 2 A6 M prove in Afghanistan, as he was hit by a IED that had a explosive force OVER the average for IED's, that the armor works great, becuase the tank was abolute undamaged and the crew was absolute uninjured :-)
couteau86 7 months ago
@couteau86 Ha ha ha right back at you. The reason why they upgraded the leo 2 to the a6 version was bcoz all the other leos prior to the a6 was quite inferior to the m1. That,s the bloody fact. And that ied w/c hit the leo 2a6 was only had an explosive weight of just under 10 kgs, while the m1 regularly gets hit with ieds w/ 60 to 90 kg explosive weight. Why do you think they stopped deploying additional leo 2s in afghanistan? Booo hu hu for you.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
Sorry, but i ask you again, how can it be, that the Leopard 2 WON EVERY FIELDCOMPARE against the Abrams??? And sorry for you, your numbers are the biggest bullshit i ever heart ...
couteau86 7 months ago
@m16a4ish You realise the IED that damaged the Leo only was able to do so because said leo was hit by several IEDs prior to that?
Helge129 7 months ago
@Helge129 Here you go again with your claims which you can never substantiate with facts. I'll say this again: all those field comparisons with the m1 are weightless when it comes to ACTUAL combat performance, a field where the abrams is clearly superior to the leo 2. So what if the leo has greater fuel efficiency? I'd trade fuel any day to have my tank crews protected. Even the canadians and the australians acknowledge that the m1 protects it's crew better.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@Helge129 For your information, ieds in iraq are about 5 to 10 times more powerful than the ones employed by the taliban. A classic in iraq is a 90 kg ied made up of a detonator wired to several 155 mm rounds. You do know that a single 155 mm round can take out a tank, right? Another one they use in iraq is an iranian designed efp, which is specifically designed to penetrate a tank's weak bottom armor. These are regularly encountered on a daily basis by m1s in iraq for several years.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@couteau86 I thought you said it was the swiss?
m16a4ish 7 months ago
M1 was mainly built by german weapon design and do you know why? German tanks were absolutely superoir during World War II, no fucking sherman, cromwell, churchill, wolverine, jackson had any chance against a tiger or a panther (not to mention the jagdpanther, jagdtiger, ...) And that is why the Americans wanted to build up their new tank together with germany. Just compare both tanks, they are very similar. If the M1 beats leopard, well then germany beat germany! good day!
lfcdave8 7 months ago
@lfcdave8 wrong. That was supposed to be the case with the mbt 70, but as things turned out, this american design proved to be quite formidable on it's own. The leo 2 has had about 7 variants, while the m1 has had only three. The funny thing is, the "latest" version of the leo has a, surprise, sloped turret not unlike the m1s. There's a saying " If it ain't broke, why fix it?". The m1 design has remained relatively unchanged in over 30 years, while you can't say the same for the leo 2.
m16a4ish 7 months ago
And only to stupid, that your question was, what Panzergrenadiere are. And the short version is Panzergrenadiertruppe = mobile infantry :-)
And about your new question, Panzergrenadiere have a green beret with this logo:
upload . wikimedia . org / wikipedia / commons / 0 / 08 / Barettabzeichen_Panzergrenadiertruppe_Bw . jpg
And the Panzertruppe has black berets with this logo:
upload . wikimedia . org / wikipedia / commons / 4 / 4f / Barettabzeichen_Panzertruppe_Bw . jpg
More questions???
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86 Yeah, you know that NOW, BUT WHEN I first asked you that, you did not know what I was talking about. Sure,the m1 fought against inferior enemies armed with TANKS, RPGS(both old and new models), ATGMS and the powerful ieds. And, they belonged to the 5th largest army in the world. Wow, your leo 2 is fighting against a clearly POWERFUL enemy in the form of the taliban, who by the way are armed with kalashnikovs and very very old rpgs. Yep, you do make a convincing argument. LOL
m16a4ish 8 months ago
Bahahahaha :-D
Only becuase you little ignorant child ignor all facts i give you and only becuase you claim bullshit about me and the military technology your brainfree bullshit becomes not more right :-)
And the Abrams shall be better only becuase the USA use him in some illegal attack wars against clear inferior enemys??? Good prove!!! But hold, just the prove for a ignorant and childish fanboy nope like you, m16a4ich :-)
couteau86 8 months ago
Dude, don't disillusion our friend couteau86 here. He claims to be a member of the german reserves, when he doesn't even know the difference between a panzer and panzergrenadier beret. We have been at it for quite some time now, and he'll drown you with technicalities that don't mean squat in actual combat. I've put forward arguments using ACTUAL combat records of the 2 tanks w/c clearly shows that the m1 is superior, but he just isn't willing to let his beloved leo2 lose. LOL
m16a4ish 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Also a lie from you. The MTU MB 873 - Ka 501 engine from the Leopard 2 has a max. torque from 4316 Nm at 1950 revolutions/minute, what give the Leopard 2 A6 M (62,5 tones) a torque/weight-relationship from 69,06 Nm per ton. The Textron-Lycomming AGT-1500 gasturbine of the Abrams has a max. torque from 3950 Nm at 1000 revolutions/minute, what gives the M1A2 SEP (63 tons) a torque/weight-relationship from 62,7 Nm per ton.
Short say, the Leopard 2 has the better acceleration
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86 You'redead right on this one, but the thing is, it doesn't matter if the leo 2 accelerates faster since the m1can easily overtake your cat in a matter of seconds coz of it's no less than 10mph speed advantage. It's just like the faster runner giving the slower one a headstart.. He he. The leo 2 would shout yeah, I got off first, but just a few seconds later, the m1 would speed by and say See ya!
m16a4ish 8 months ago
@m16a4ish
So, than tell me, why the Abrams lost every exist field compare against the Leopard 2??? Or why the Swiss army prove in 2007, that the real topspeed of the Leopard 2 is ca. 115 km/h (71,45 mph), where the Abrams get "just" ca. 110 km/h (68,35 mph)???
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86 That's in practice. It's very different when you're in actual battle. I'll say it again, ACTUAL battle records prove the superiority of the m1 over the leo. Challenge that if you can. The top speed of the leo 2 is 45 mph, there's no going faster than that. The only thing where the leo 2 is better is fuel efficiency and agility, and that's it. Guns? The same. Speed? m1 wins. Armor? For the moment, m1 wins again. Ammo? M1 wins by a mile. Oh, I forgot, the leo 2 looks cooler. :-)
m16a4ish 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
It's a fact, that a Abrams NEVER FIGHT AGAINST a Leopard 2 is a "actual battle" and that the battles that the Abrams has seen was just a little bit clay shooting against enemys with the clear inferior technology. So, all what the Abrams has prove until today is, that he is good for clay shooting.
As the reality proves, that the Leopard 2 wins every field compare against the Abrams, that his real topspeed is ca. 71,5 mph, not your lie from 45 mph ...
-->read part 2<--
couteau86 7 months ago
@m16a4ish
No matter, if you ignor it or not, but it is proven and everywhere readable, that the Swiss army prove in a test in 2007, that it is 71,5 mph!!!
And the same gun??? Again a lie from you. Abrams has the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44, the Leopard 2 has the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 ...
And sorry, the Abrams do not win at the point armor ... the M1A2 SEP has a max. protection effect from 940-960mm RHA-equivalent against KE and 1320-1620mm against HEAT ...
-->read part 3<--
couteau86 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m16a4ish
... where the Leopard 2 has a RHA-equivalent from 920-940mm against KE and 1290-1960mm against HEAT. In effect they are equal at this point ...
So, again nothing than ignorance and childish bullshit from you ...
couteau86 7 months ago
dutch army sold all of there leopard's -.-
AtomicFreerun 8 months ago
Oh a absolute cool wannabe that think he can make a execuse if he claim some stuff and replay some propaganda slogans ...
Penetrator = Sabot, anyway in the German language :-)
And, oh wow, a few years ago i drive the Leopard 2 ...
couteau86 8 months ago
Good, what a idiot :-D:-D:-D
"the Weight of the Projectile isn't important" ... Dumpfbacke, 8,1 kg is the weight of the penetrator!!! The whole M829A3 round weight 22,3 kg!!!
So much to your words, that i'm the wannabe :-) ... and just by the way, i was 4 years by the German tank troops, so sorry, but nothing with "fanboy" :-)
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: Dude, learn to read. Cartridge isn't the Projectile, and the Projectile isn't the Penetrator, there is also a SABOT in it. There you can see it, Fanboy. You also can read that the M829A3 is the most advanced Tank Round in the World on ATK's Website. The M829A4 will be made by Alliant Techsystems. Also the XM360 has performed better against your L/55. By the Way, i've driven the Abrams at Daily Baracks a few Years ago.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@couteau86: Also the Weight of the Projectile isn't important, the Weight of the Penetrator is. The Penetrator of the M829A3 is over 120mm longer than DM63's it's made of DU, and has more weight, face it. And if you say, the Leopard 2 is faster in Offroad, and the Marine M1 hasn't a modified License Zeiss Range Finder, you are the Wannabe. You made my day, that are the real Leopard 2 Fanboys on YouTube. Knew everything about their tank but nothing from the others.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
No no, the kinetic potential (weight + speed) is not important at kinetic energy (!!!) ammo :-D:-D:-D
And sorry for you, 8,1 kg weight, data direct from the manufacturers hompage. But right, who interest, if the little shippy say something different??? :-D:-D:-D
Good, G0LD3NGAM3R1989, what a wannabe :-D:-D:-D
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: The Israeli Defense Force introduced a Tank Round for the Merkava with is a modified DM63, just if u know it, named M338.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
... so there the DM63 have 104,3% of the kinetic potential of the M829A3. So there the 10% advange of uranium is almost compensated. Next thing is that speed also is kinetic energy and that the DM63 is fired with 1750 m/s, 195 m/s more speed as the M829A3. Short they 112,5% of the kinetic potential of the M829A3.
In the whole 116,8% of the kinetic potential of the M829A3. Minus the 10% advange of uranium the DM63 has the 6,8% higher kenetic potential in compare to the M829A3
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: That's obviously wrong, the 2 Advantages of the M829A3 against the DM63 are the DU, and the second is, that the penetrator is longer, if it would be 646mm as the DM63, the DM63 would be superior, in the L/55. In the L/44 it would be another Game again. Nope, the Army uses a License Made from Zeiss. The Marine Abrams uses a superior from Raytheon, look it up. And again wrong, the M829A3 weight is 9kg.
The Length isn't important? That must be a Joke.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
And one times you said the rangefinder of the Abrams is superior and now you say that they use a license produced copy of the Leopard 2's rangefinder??? Sorry for you, but both claims are wrong :-)
And just by the way, the weight of the penetrator is important, not the length. Weight means kinetic energy and ther the DM63 is also superior. DM63 penetrator weight 8,45 kg, M829A3 penetrator weight 8,10 kg ...
--> read part 3 <--
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: Imagine you have a 10cm thick wall ( Tank Armor ) Now you're throwing a Dart with 8cm
( Penetrator ) length. You're throwing it with 20 Kmh ( muzzle velocity ) Then youre throwing a 5cm Dart with the same Muzzle Velocity, you know what i want to say? The Length is important.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
And the CE628-Laser laser-rangefinder from Zeiss Eltro-Optronic has just a deviation from 10 metres at 10 kilometres. Against this the rangefinder of the Abrams is a joke!!!
And just by the way, Greece buy 170 Leopard 2 A6 HEL for 1,7 billion €. This means, that one unit cost exact 10 million € and 10 million € today are 14,3 million $, becuase 1 € = 1,4312 $, today ...
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: The M1 Abrams has the same like the Leopard 2, but license build from Raytheon, 5m deviation at 9995m. Do you think, Greece buy the Tanks from the Original Price? No. With Leclerc & the K2 Black Panther, the Leopard 2A6M is the most expensive Tank in the World.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
any country other than the usa are in trouble the next generation abrams will be made out of heavy medi alloy aka liquid metal you will be fucked
sjueco 8 months ago
i like how germany continue to give name at his tanks from the WW2 ... Tiger, Königstiger and then leopard... good work germany. I like.
(otherwise, good video but shit music)
hivemind99999 8 months ago
Hmmm... I wonder how Germany could make a tank, thats more fuel efficient, weighs less, great fire power, faster, and lots of other technological aspects, like the projector destroying laser, more comfortable accommodation for 4 crew, and more fuel efficient, Abrams: Range 187 kilometers Leo2: Range 600 kilometers. Leo's Price 6mil Abrams: 12mil (M1A2). Just my opinion, :)
ThatTankid 9 months ago
@ThatTankid
The Abrams is more expensive because it uses steel encased depleted uranium armor plating. It uses more fuel because it has a 1500 horsepower gas turbine engine with a gearbox that is larger than the engine.
WunderDoob 8 months ago
@WunderDoob
Specific density of uranium is 19,16 g/cm³ at 20°C, specific density of tungsten is 19,30 g/cm³ at 20°C. Do you notice something???
Next thing ... the Leopard 2 also have a 1500 PS engine and??? What shall have this to do with the fact, that the Abrams has ca. 210% of the consumption of the Leopard 2???
And sorry for you, Leopard 2 is faster, has the better range, longer gun range, more penetration power, can drive under water and so on and so on ...
Leo2 wins against Abrams :-)
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: The density of depleted Uranium is 18,95 g/cm³. The desity of Wolframcarbide ( Tungsten ) is 16,00 g/cm³. There are also Abrams, with have a Diesel Engine from MTU, exactly like the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 is faster on the Road, not in hard terrain, or sand. Also the M1 has a better accleration due his Gas Turbine. The max. Gun Range of the Leopard 2 is 8km with LAHAT, and 12km of the Abrams MRM-KE. More penetration power? Not really. And drive under Water is nearly useless today.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 It depends on the ammunition. Because the M1A2 uses the gun of the Leopard 2a5.
Helge129 8 months ago
@Helge129: Yeah, the M1A2 is from 1992. The Leopard 2A5 from 1995. The Abrams uses the General Dynamics M256, which is a License made Rheinmetall L/44. Both are 120mm Smoothbore-Cannon's.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Abrams with MTU diesel ... just prototyps and never produced in serie. The XM1111 ammo is stil a experimental ammo and also not in serie and with conventional ammos the Leopard 2 has a clear advange. In the average is the Leopard 2 5 km/h faster, no matter if road or offroad. But the main difference is the range, where the Leopard 2 is clear superior ... and drive under water is useless??? Abrams needs a bridge if he will cross deap water, Leo 2 not
--> read part 2 <--
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: The Abrams with Diesel was produced in Series, but it's just not in Service, not in the Army & not in other Countries. The MRM-KE isn't experimental anymore, the first Tank killed with it, was 2004. The Army will use it in 2013. They can't drive about 60 Km/h Offroad, they can drive the same speed in there, about 30 Km/h. Wars aren't on Streets, and 5 Km/h more isn't a real advantage. In the Range the Leopard 2 is clearly superior, yes. To dive isn't anything special anymore.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@ThatTankid: That's obviously wrong, the Leopard 2A6's Weight is 62t. The M1A2's is 61,3t. Both have great firepower, but the Abrams uses the more efficient DU-Ammo. In the Terrain, both Tanks can reach the same speed. On the Road the Leopard is faster, but the M1 has a way better accleration due his Gas-Turbine. What Laser do you mean? The Laser-RangeFinder from General Dynamics is also better than the German from Zeiss. And by the way, the M1A2 costs 6,2 Millions $
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 No no, u must have mistaken, German, Swiss, Austrian arms makers made a laser that could destroy projectiles that get near the tank. I hate to burst your bubble, but the Australians had bought 59 M1A1 Abrams for $8.5million each, but the tanks are both brothers (or sisters). Abrams don't last long on the road, I live in Australia and i saw the Abrams move and manovre and shoot its gun, the commentator said "Unfortunatly the Abrams dosen't last long on the road at 182km"
ThatTankid 8 months ago
@ThatTankid: And what is the Name of this "Laser" ? Do you mean an active protection System?
The Abrams can be equipped with Iron Fist ( Trophy ) APS. Yeah, but that means nothing, the price of the M1A2 from General Dynamics US, is 6,2 Millions $. There is also an Abrams with a Dieselengine from MTU, like the Leopard 2 have. Same Range, same Speed.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
More effective ammo??? M829M3 ammo, fired from the 120mm M256 L/44 (license produced German Rheinmetall 120mm L/44), has a muzzle velocity from 1555 m/s, a penetration power from 790mm RHA-equivalent at 2 km distance and a effective range from 4 km, DM63 ammo, fired from the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55, has 1750 m/s, 810mm RHA-equivalent and 5 km. Do you notice something???
--> read part 2 <--
couteau86 8 months ago
@couteau86: First: It's named M829A3 not M3. Second: The DM53 can penetrate 810mm, the DM53 probably more, and you'll tell me, that the M829A3 has a lower penetration than the M829A2? The M829A3 is made of depleted Urhianium, wch has 10% more penetration power as Wolframcarbide aka. Tungsten at the same velocity. Also the Penetrator of the M829A3 ( 780mm ) is longer than the DM63.
( 646mm ) Both are official Specs from the Bundeswehr & US Army. Also the Abrams can shoot 12km with MRM-KE Ammo.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
vøll_geìl_lÉUtè_sùcht_mÅl_ñách:_olikohle_åÚf_göØglÊ_vØll_gêìl
sweetmadhuri100 9 months ago
excelente video
hermoso tanque
saludos
BeRsErKeR3T 9 months ago
Okay, one more question to redeem youself. Who was regarded as the best fighter pilot in WW1? He's a german, too.
m16a4ish 9 months ago
OFFICIAL AMERICAN REPORT known from my time by the Bundeswehr??? And sorry, it is still 80 damaged AND AND AND!!! 24 out of action you ignorant troll!!!
couteau86 9 months ago
@couteau86 See, you're making that up. My sources are accurate, the DoD. Your source is fairytale land.Ha ha ha! Ha, screaming like a girl again. TSk, tsk. I'll answer for you, my dumb friend. The panzergrenadier is the german equivalent of the american mechnized infantry. It is an infantry heavy unit which uses marder and luchs armored vehicles, and is attached to a panzer brigade to be used against dug-in enemy infantry. How sad for you. :-(
m16a4ish 9 months ago