@SdaveDrum67 The major differences is the A2 has a citv so the tc can scan seperatly from the gunner and designate him to whatever target he spots. The other is the A2 can run a bit and a fit test, which tells you what lru is messed up and even what circut card is bad inside it. There are a bunch of other little differences to. The a1 has different versions Like the ED, is 19 different sidecars linked in with the lru's that are supposed to throw fults up but they only work right half the time
wiki Quote "During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. Twenty Bradleys were lost - three by enemy fire and 17 due to friendly fire incidents; another 12 were damaged."
Well Leopard2 has a higher mobility then the Abrams, that why sweden chose it.
the K1A1 was almost a 1 to 1 copy of the Abrams as you could see already in the Design. We will see which tank is better if it is war.
btw. the first Leopards will be upgraded to 2A7+ in 2012
@44centz That is so true. It didn't take more than a couple of knife and pistol to high-jack 2 planes...and look how that turned out.
Sure the US have a super high tech army, but their enemies are peasants using 60 year old automatic rifles and with all their technology, the war "lasted" a long ass time.
The lethality of the Abrams isn't the gun, it's the round. The M89A2 penetrator is the best in the world. Rated at 1500mm of RHA compared to T-90 round's penetration rating at 625mm of RHA.
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 the boy means that its not the best right now, Leopard 2A6 is actualy the best, its place of origine is germany, the newer m1a2 abrams is a like a hi luxury car, like a cadilac or so on, but the leopard 2a6 is like an older but good car.. like the ferrari enzo, but comparing tanks to cars is like comparing an boxer to a armed marrine seal, who wins? ya but im sure you get my point
i whas talking about the tow newest tanks, most resant, but sure, its allways fun to look back in history... right? ya actuly no matter what happend what they got will stay what they got and what they do will change what wuld happend
@5T34LTHcamoT4NK: Yes, the newest Abrams is the M1A2 from 1992. Since 1992 -> today he just got better Electronics, & is still compareable to the Leopard 2A6 from 2002. That's 10 Years difference, in Weapon Technology a big time!
M1A2 > 1992
Leo 2A6 > 2002
K2 > 2010
There you can see the Difference in the Technology but all Tanks can be compared.
Well Abrams and Leopard started with the same project MBT-70. But since it was cancelt both countrys build their own. the hull of both is almost the same. The US Military just took the cannon and electronic systems of the Leopard and replaced the 105mm gun with the 120mm gun from rheinmetall. You have to keep in mind that the western tanks were build to stop a russian invasion (which never came) now they are more firesupport for Infantry so then some Urban Protection.
Well the Leopard 2A6 has a new cannon with a higher range and accuracy then the old gun of the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams. Armor of the Leopard was increased with the Version 2A5 and is a different kind of armor as the armor of the Abrams. The Leopard use slot armor which slows down incoming rounds so the won't do any damage the the amror behind it. I like how all talk about the TUSK Kit, it is just for Urban terretory and not really useful in open combat.
@JazzJaRa: You aren't tellin me anything new, the maximum firing Range of the Leopard 2 is 8km with the LAHAT Ammo. The Abrams can shoot driving Tanks with the MRM-KE on 12km. The Electronics were made by Zeiss ( Germany ) but were replaced by Raytheon & General Dynamics Electronics ( USA ) in the SEP Upgrade. The Leopard 2A5s Slat Armor is just useful against CE-Ammo, the M1A2 can have reactive Armor on the Side against CE. You're Right, the TUSK is for Urban. It include the A6M Mine-Protection
The LAHAT Ammo is a missile just like the russian 9M119 svir. The Armor protection of AP Rounds are almost equal on the Leopard 2A6 and the M1A2 Abrams. But the Leopard has a higher protection against HE Rounds. Leopard 2 also can use reactive Armor, the Leopard 2A7 was shown some weeks ago, looked like the 2A6 "PSO" but with Hard and Soft Kill systems and a lot of reactiv armor. The MBT's aren't for open field battle anymore, they just need protection against IED's and RPG's
But problem on these Ammo types is the Laser. The most modern MBT's (like M1A2? T-90 , Leopard 2 , Leclerc and Challenger2) have a system if they get lasered the Turret automaticly goes into that position and fires without the gunner has to do anything, thats what i learned on an Anti Tank Missile Training "Never use a laser range finder on a MBT"
All they would need is the same guns like all western tanks have (Rheinmetall 120mm gun) Also they have really good planes, their submarines are really good if not the best after the new german submarine class. The Black Eagle Tank which the russian made for export, had a really amazing armor. But the same poor gun like the T-80 or T-72. But if all Nations have Western Technology, we all are really messed up in a WW. Also if i think back to the Anti Missle Shield thingy.......
I don't think other Nations are sleeping in producing weapons. Rheinmetall will surely build other guns too. Also the M1A3 will not be developed within the next years. Also i remember the problems with the M551 Sheridan Tank which also had a "new" gun but was a complete failure. Yes but i still don't think the russian will buy western weapons. Maybe to get information about it but not really to "use" it.
Another thing, the Russian already have a weapons agains western MBT's like the M1 or Leopard. The AT-15 Sprigger can pierce 1200mm Tank Steel and 1000mm Tank Steel behind Reactiv Armor and has a range up to 6000meters while the missile reaches supersonic speed. Whithin 4 Minutes 15 targets can be attacked. It is the best Anti Tank system aviable at the moment.
@JazzJaRa: The Khrizantema is a thermobaric HEAT-Warhead, the Leopard 2's Turret Front can withstand due his sharped Armor nearly 2000mm penetration. The Range is also not very big. In Theory the AT-15 couldn't destroy the Leopard 2 on 8km, the MRM-KE with 1000mm Penetration would. The AT-15 flies at Mach 1,2 the MRM-KE at Mach 4! It also has the double Range, the Russian's didn't use the AT-15, the MRM will be in Service in 2 Years. It was sucessfully tested against driving T-72 at 12km.
Well a T-72 is no tank. Its a piece of metal without any protection or firepower. The german DM53 ammo can penetrate double reactive armour, the new round can destroy the latest generation of main battle tanks even at long ranges of engagement. I don't think that the russian will buy Western Tanks or weapons, they are too proud on their own technology as that they would take Stuff of other Nations. Also if i think about russian tanks i think about round turrets and flat tanks
The T-72 never had a good Statistic like the King Tiger or Panther which had a good Kill ratio.
The Leopard 2A7 is also already in Development and has a lot of new things like "AMAP-ADS" , "AMAP-SC" , "AMAP-B" and many other things. Which will still let him be the number 1 of the MBT's. Well but if russia don't get the things of the US or GB or Germany, they could get it from Israel (Merkava) or Iraq who use the M1 Abrams too just without the Uran Armor.
@JazzJaRa: If you are going with the Kill Ratio, then the Abrams must be the best modern MBT.
Active Protection Systems will not be in use, the T-90 has already Schtora & the Abrams/Merkava Trophy.
The Number 1 of MBT's? I don't think so, if the A7 won't be exported, it will never see Combat.
I don't think that they get Weapons from Israel, the Iraq's Abrams is without the DU Armor, the newest Electronics & Ammo, a downgraded piece of Shit, with the Abrams Hull, that is not a Tank.
Would be a shame if the USA lost an Abrams against export Versions of the T-55 and T-72's with poor trainend crew without thermal sights , night vision or any other electronic systems in Desert Storm. But they lost enough Abrams tanks through IEDs.
Also i never saw a Abrams with a Protection System, even the SEP doesn't has any of these Systems. But even the IFV Puma is using Soft and Hard Kill Systems, so the Leopard 2A7 will.
@JazzJaRa: Sure it would be a Shame, the most M1A1 were destroyed due RPG's.
The Abrams had Throphy, but it isn't in active Service. The M1 TUSK is better protected in the Front,
has ERA on the Sides & Mine Protection like the Leo M-Packet. I don't think that the Leo 2A7 will see Combat, the K2 is the biggest Shit. German Cannon, German Engine, French Armor, General Dynamics Design, and build in Korea, way to expensive, just to build in lower Numbers.
Well we don't know what will happen in the future, but i am sure if not the german 2A7 then the 2A7 of other Nations will see combat, the 2A6 were in action too in Afghanistan. Well TUSK and PSO are almost the same thing, but the PSO has a shield on the Hull front xD Also the M Packet on the Abrams is almost the same of the Leopard, since they have both almost the same Hulldesign. K2 is rated as one of the best MBT's and the Turks ordered some of the K2 too.
Well as i said, there are no Tank combats anymore like in WW2 or Desert Storm. But the M2 Bradley destroyed more Tanks in Desert Storm, then the Abrams did. Well the Taliban try to avoid the Leopards ;) I think i read a text, where a Canadian Leopard attacked Taliban troops.
Sweden did real tests betweed the Leclerc , Challenger 2 , Abrams and Leopard 2. K2 is just some kind of Kit tank, just pic all good parts of other tanks and hope it will be a good tank.
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 you left out many m1a1-2 upgrades over the years M1A2 Abrams SEP (System Enhancement Package) & (M1A2 TUSK PROGRAM IS THE BEST) upgraded tusk 3 upgrade loader's gun shield field new Loader's Thermal Weapon Sight with Helmet Mounted Display provides thermal imaging for the loader's M240 machine gun.Tank Infantry Phone reactive armor, belly armor, thermal sights for the loader and a SECOND .50-caliber CROWS FOR T.C
@GOLD3NGAM3R1989 MOST ALL THESE UPGRADES ARE ALL NEWER THAN 2004-STILL IN PRODUCTION. YOUR INFO IS NOT UP TO DATE THIS VIDEO IS OLD CHECK M1A2 UPDATES ONLINE WITH A NEW M1 WITH NEW LV100-5 gas turbine engine WITH Over 8,800 BUILT AND SOLD
It doesnt matter what tank the M1A2 faces, it will put a sabo round through the turret and then a high explosive round through the hole it just made. It.will.kill.you
funny thing is EVERY t90 wont have shtora, EVERY t90 won't have all the armor kitting, and EVERY t90 will certainly not have the extremely well trained crews we have. We might be in a new generation, but the russian tank doctrine sure as hell isn't any different and they will mass produce that which is cheaper for them.
Are you going to kidding me a heat round from a tank never penetrates 950mm of RhA it hardly will penetrate 300mm.Or are you talking from the AT-11 SNIPER B?
The abrams is fully integrated to the enrire military, has the most powerful armor know to man, can hit an area within 2 ft of where it aimed if not exeactly spot on from miles and miles away. The abrams is also biologicaly and chemicaly impervious.
During testing T90 used it's SHTORA system to guide away incoming missiles. After which it fired it's own ATGMs through a turret. it proved invulnerable to chemical and biological attack and can be submerged 10m underwater. It can also fire shrapnel and gas rounds with automatic reloading right above the heads of enemy infantry. The Abrams can't do any of these. All of T90 competition bogged down in Malayan jungle. It's an entirely new generation of tanks compared to Abrams.
The T90 takes 6 rounds 120mm from 200m range. After this it is taken to a range for grenade launcher/RPG testing. After taking another 6 of the most modern rounds used by top militaries it is taken to inspection. Only outer frame is damaged. T90 proceeds to take out 7 targets 5 km away at distances 2-3km from each other in 53 seconds. After which it treads through 900km of Malayan jungle.
The Abrams is heavily damaged by 60s model RPG7 in Iraq and breaks down on testing grounds losing a tread.
there will be no m1a3 tank. US is making a whole new tank u know. US is making a drone tank that needs no crewmembers to work. Just computer. The new Drone tank US is making can run 65 miles per hour controlled by computer.
just yesterday I was rolling with the Unit that already had the first A2s, believe it or not they were National Guard too. That 120 is beautiful also.
the t-72 is a old cold war tank and the t-80 is just a upgraded t-72. also the abrams has some of the best amour in the world, the only tank with amour that is better is the challenger 2.
@azz578, it doesn't have reactive armor plating. T90 HEAT-FS 125mm smoothbore will poke a 950mm hole in your Dorchester. Then put in a fragmenting round (which it can actually fire with enough computer-guided accuracy to hit that hole, challenger 2 can't do either) into that hole just to make sure.
ive seen video of abrams taking DIRECT fire from and rpg, and there was a tiny little dent that the crew buffed out in the garage later. an abrams has NEVER been destroyed by enemy fire. so let them fire thier damn rpg's all they want. (side note does anybody know if Abrams would survive javelin? or has nobody tried that, even for our own testing)
According to the wikipedia page on the M1, several tanks survived direct APFSDS hits to the glacis and turret face, although not to the side or rear armor. The wikipedia article on the Javelin mentions that it was tested on M1 tanks but I'd say its HEAT warhead would be ineffectual against the front hull and turret armor. The side, rear, and top armor of the M1-series is still quite thin, however, and would almost certainly be breached by the Javelin.
That drone he is talking about is not a main battle tank Its like a baby Bradley. A m1a2 tank is the best battle main battle tank in the world And has the best armor. It will never be replaced there will always be a need for a Main battle tank. Russia china and North korea have tons of main battle tanks. We need the M1a2 tanks to destroy there t-72 t-90 tanks
Is it just me, or are the comments' order and placement all messed up in this thread?
@GarettandBounty, were you replying to me or @oppeer? If me, well, I used the Wikipedia article to verify some stuff I'd been told when I was in the Armor Corps; if @oppeer, I can't even figure out what he's saying :)
no point in heavy armour these days..they will be phased out eventually...why?...because they are nothing more than moving coffins in a high tech battlefield. A $75k javalin or spike fired from the shoulder of a soldier can turn any multi million dollar heavy armour tank into scrap metal within a few seconds.
not always true they do have the side protection that blows up missiles and the armor is being improved with every addition of weapons such as the javalin
The person who compiled the clips to make the video knows nothing about tanks. They showed images of the mounted MG rather than the coax gun when they mentioned the coaxial machine gun.
Indeed: A show called"Future Weapons" rated the LeopardII over the M1A2, I wondered why because they did not do a point-4-point comparison, just made points. I researched it.
The Abrams IS a heavy tank, as they point out. The Leopard does have off the shelf powerplant/repair capability BUT, BUT..the Abrams will burn ANYTHING for fuel except water!!! THAT is a tremendous - even outrageous advantage for a logistic and tactical mission planner. Forget 'ease of repair' if you r dead!
@MrBlonde707: Nobody know when M1A3 is in Service, not even Obama.
The Army is planning to start developing the M1A3 in 2012 - The production will start 2017 at the latest. We will see, we will see an Leopard 3 and M2 Abrams too, if u are 60 Years ore older =)
Yes but the diesel engine of the Leopard 2 is also a multi-fuel one. That was one of the requirements for the MBT 70 project that spawned the Abrams and the Leo series. Abrams and Leo use the same primary fuels, diesel oil, gasoline and kerosine and can run on a variety of fuel mixtures from alcohol to cooking oil.
But actually the Abrams has a logistic disadvantage here : The really bad fuel efficiency of gas turbines. A Leopard runs longer with the same amount of fuel.
Indeed: The nod STILL must go to the turbine, here's why. The reciprocating engine WEARS. It can be shown and is a matter of record and fact that whereas the turbine runs hotter and burns more fuel, it can run for 100,000 hours and STILL look as if it were brand new. The Diesel IS durable but far outclassed by the turbine: Look at any jet engine maintenance manual and compare with a Spitfire or P-51. The Leopard will be on the sidelines while the Abrams is ROCKIN!
The 2 tanks a kind of rivaled. they both fire the same cannon. But the abrams has 4 incs of uranium depleted armour and a turbine engine of 15 hundred horsepower. so if prefer the M1 a2. buy the way, its personal choice.
no, when you look at the tanks,you come to that conclusion.... sorry abrams vs leo2 on the field = abrams hands down(superior accuracy and everything) the leo goes under water which is cool haha
I disagree, The Leo2 is closely followed by IDF's Merkava MK4 because of its composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy and reinforced titanium carbide sloped modular design. It is able to shatter kinetic energy penetrators and create extremely high resistance upon shaped charge impacts; Its operational range and top speed are double that of the M1A2.
Well, both the M1a2 and Leo 2 are actually better then IDF Merkava. the are both great tanks, but if you look at the specs lep and m1 are better at everything. Thicker armor, the same or better speed ( in the army we drove the swedish leo2 at speeds above 70 km/h), and range, height and fire control systems are better then Merkava. The Leo has actually the best fire control system in the world today. So they are clearly better. But the Merkava is good enough to destroy Russian crap tanks!
i like them all(military machinery) and they are all amazing to me but i think some armies are more specialized meaning: armies who will never go into another country to fight ,arent equipped with the tools to do it. so im sure those who use the leo2 rely more heavily on their tanks than,say,america. its good to be the best in every area: you never know what situation might arise that would render your best methods ineffectual i.e.,the u.s. could be forced n2 a war where airpower is null
the f-22 was beaten in visual range combat. the f-22 was superior in long range combat. how are you going to get in visual range if it blows you up before you can get there?
only 69 tons? that kinda heavy, and the armor isnt 4 inches all the way around and its not all DU, its only DU at the front and its not just DU its DU, RHA, Kevlar and composties arranged in a mix called chobham, which is 1 foot thicvck in the front of the vehicle
its not, the leapard 2A6 and the Merkava 4 are tied by ordinance usage and armor. Leapard = 3rd Generation composite; including high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component. Merkava 4 = Classified composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy. Sloped modular design. Very similar weapons and armor... =\
Not to forget the 1500 hp diesel engine of the leopard 2 is more reliable than the gasturbine in the Abrams, which also consumes more fuel and is a greater heat source.
And something which doesn't make any difference... the 120 mm smoothbore used in the abrams and leopard 2 is designed for the leopard 2 by a german company.
I THINK THE CHALLENGER 2 HAS THE SAME HUNTER KILLER SYSEM !! THE M1A2 Abrams Engine IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD BUT IT HAS SHORT RANGE OF 289 mi (465.29 km !!
damn im glad i found a u.s. milt based vid on utube without a damn rock song(like friggin 'get down with the sickness')on it for once!ppl have horrible taste to think they go together.anyway,good vid
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is a real powerful tank. the problem only, is in it's armour.
soldiers that have been in an M1A2 for too long will start suffering from the depleted uranium armour. after all, it is a kind of nuclear waste that protects the tank. diseases like cancer happen a lot like that.
What is the diference between m1a1 and m1a2 abrams????
SdaveDrum67 8 months ago
@SdaveDrum67 A series of ugrades.
TexasMadeChicano 7 months ago
@SdaveDrum67 The major differences is the A2 has a citv so the tc can scan seperatly from the gunner and designate him to whatever target he spots. The other is the A2 can run a bit and a fit test, which tells you what lru is messed up and even what circut card is bad inside it. There are a bunch of other little differences to. The a1 has different versions Like the ED, is 19 different sidecars linked in with the lru's that are supposed to throw fults up but they only work right half the time
Bartholomeusismyname 3 months ago
wiki Quote "During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. Twenty Bradleys were lost - three by enemy fire and 17 due to friendly fire incidents; another 12 were damaged."
Well Leopard2 has a higher mobility then the Abrams, that why sweden chose it.
the K1A1 was almost a 1 to 1 copy of the Abrams as you could see already in the Design. We will see which tank is better if it is war.
btw. the first Leopards will be upgraded to 2A7+ in 2012
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa The K1A1 was indeed a copy of the Abrams design, but it's armor is weaker.
Robloxsaltytaco1234 10 months ago 2
It's called research? Besides, I'm an Abrams Crewman in the Army myself.
Bloodhound264 1 year ago
M1A3 is going to start development in 2014, and are planned to be fielded by 2017. Get it right.
Bloodhound264 1 year ago
@Bloodhound264: So u work for the Pentagon or General Dynamics, or something?
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
this is the only tank ive seen go full speed and turn its turret 360 degrees
nunchuck19 1 year ago
The M1A2 Abrams is from 1992, the most kiddies here are even born there.
M1 = 1981
Leopard 2A1 = 1982
Leopard 2A3 = 1984
M1A1 = 1985
M1A2 = 1992
Leopard 2A5 = 1997
Leopard 2A6 = 2002
You see, the Leopard is newer than the Abrams, its Technology is newer.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 technology does not guarrentee victory
44centz 1 year ago
@44centz: you are right
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@44centz That is so true. It didn't take more than a couple of knife and pistol to high-jack 2 planes...and look how that turned out.
Sure the US have a super high tech army, but their enemies are peasants using 60 year old automatic rifles and with all their technology, the war "lasted" a long ass time.
thepineapple1 1 year ago
@thepineapple1 yerr lol
44centz 1 year ago
@thepineapple1 r u done killing all the cockroaches in ur house yet -_-
tonydeadlock 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 doesnt mean the abrams has improvements that were made oafter the A2
nunchuck19 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 Don't forget about the TUSK package that is beinbg integrated into our Abrams. That is extremely new.
Bloodhound264 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
M1A2 SEP = 2003
Suck it.
ResiusOnline 1 year ago
@ResiusOnline: Nice and now? My dick is too big for the 120mm Cannon.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
The T-90 has only 125mm... only 5 more.
The lethality of the Abrams isn't the gun, it's the round. The M89A2 penetrator is the best in the world. Rated at 1500mm of RHA compared to T-90 round's penetration rating at 625mm of RHA.
ResiusOnline 1 year ago
@ResiusOnline: Yes, youre right, and now?
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 the boy means that its not the best right now, Leopard 2A6 is actualy the best, its place of origine is germany, the newer m1a2 abrams is a like a hi luxury car, like a cadilac or so on, but the leopard 2a6 is like an older but good car.. like the ferrari enzo, but comparing tanks to cars is like comparing an boxer to a armed marrine seal, who wins? ya but im sure you get my point
5T34LTHcamoT4NK 1 year ago
@5T34LTHcamoT4NK: Sure, but imagine 1992 the M1A2 against the Leopard 2A4: The M1A2 wins, for sure!
1995: M1A2 against Leopard 2A5 would be a draw, 2002 > M1A2 against Leopard 2A6 > Maybe A6 wins.
The last upgrade of the Leopard 2 was a Gun and Armor in 2002.
This Upgrade for Abrams was 1992. They just integrated new Electronics at the Moment!
If i would be the boxer, the boxer would win against the Seal ;)
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 *armed seal(m16 ect..)
i whas talking about the tow newest tanks, most resant, but sure, its allways fun to look back in history... right? ya actuly no matter what happend what they got will stay what they got and what they do will change what wuld happend
5T34LTHcamoT4NK 1 year ago
@5T34LTHcamoT4NK: Yes, the newest Abrams is the M1A2 from 1992. Since 1992 -> today he just got better Electronics, & is still compareable to the Leopard 2A6 from 2002. That's 10 Years difference, in Weapon Technology a big time!
M1A2 > 1992
Leo 2A6 > 2002
K2 > 2010
There you can see the Difference in the Technology but all Tanks can be compared.
The M1A2 rules!
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 Now we wait for the M1A3. Which I think comes out in 2014.
Robloxsaltytaco1234 1 year ago
@Robloxsaltytaco1234: Watch my Channel Background & put your dick out!
TankNutJohn89 1 year ago
@TankNutJohn89 Is that the M1A3 abrams?!? :3
Robloxsaltytaco1234 1 year ago
@Robloxsaltytaco1234: No, it's the M1E3 Prototype with the new XM360E1 120mm Gun.
TankNutJohn89 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Well Abrams and Leopard started with the same project MBT-70. But since it was cancelt both countrys build their own. the hull of both is almost the same. The US Military just took the cannon and electronic systems of the Leopard and replaced the 105mm gun with the 120mm gun from rheinmetall. You have to keep in mind that the western tanks were build to stop a russian invasion (which never came) now they are more firesupport for Infantry so then some Urban Protection.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Well the Leopard 2A6 has a new cannon with a higher range and accuracy then the old gun of the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams. Armor of the Leopard was increased with the Version 2A5 and is a different kind of armor as the armor of the Abrams. The Leopard use slot armor which slows down incoming rounds so the won't do any damage the the amror behind it. I like how all talk about the TUSK Kit, it is just for Urban terretory and not really useful in open combat.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: You aren't tellin me anything new, the maximum firing Range of the Leopard 2 is 8km with the LAHAT Ammo. The Abrams can shoot driving Tanks with the MRM-KE on 12km. The Electronics were made by Zeiss ( Germany ) but were replaced by Raytheon & General Dynamics Electronics ( USA ) in the SEP Upgrade. The Leopard 2A5s Slat Armor is just useful against CE-Ammo, the M1A2 can have reactive Armor on the Side against CE. You're Right, the TUSK is for Urban. It include the A6M Mine-Protection
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
The LAHAT Ammo is a missile just like the russian 9M119 svir. The Armor protection of AP Rounds are almost equal on the Leopard 2A6 and the M1A2 Abrams. But the Leopard has a higher protection against HE Rounds. Leopard 2 also can use reactive Armor, the Leopard 2A7 was shown some weeks ago, looked like the 2A6 "PSO" but with Hard and Soft Kill systems and a lot of reactiv armor. The MBT's aren't for open field battle anymore, they just need protection against IED's and RPG's
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
But problem on these Ammo types is the Laser. The most modern MBT's (like M1A2? T-90 , Leopard 2 , Leclerc and Challenger2) have a system if they get lasered the Turret automaticly goes into that position and fires without the gunner has to do anything, thats what i learned on an Anti Tank Missile Training "Never use a laser range finder on a MBT"
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: The Russian Weapons are far behind the Times, that also said russian President Medvedev.
They wanted to buy US Weapons, no not the M16 Rifle, they want complex Systems, like
Tanks, Planes, Ships, and the Electronics, watch this > watch?v=XyIrdrBmZtU
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
All they would need is the same guns like all western tanks have (Rheinmetall 120mm gun) Also they have really good planes, their submarines are really good if not the best after the new german submarine class. The Black Eagle Tank which the russian made for export, had a really amazing armor. But the same poor gun like the T-80 or T-72. But if all Nations have Western Technology, we all are really messed up in a WW. Also if i think back to the Anti Missle Shield thingy.......
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: The US produces a new 120mm Smoothbore-Cannon, which is way superior to
the Rh 120mm, the M1A3 may uses the XM360E1. They use good planes yeah, but they are to late.
The Suchoi 27 came nearly 10 Years later then the F-15. The Su-25 - 5 years later than A-10.
The T-50, about 10 years later than F-22. The US have better Radars, Electronics.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
I don't think other Nations are sleeping in producing weapons. Rheinmetall will surely build other guns too. Also the M1A3 will not be developed within the next years. Also i remember the problems with the M551 Sheridan Tank which also had a "new" gun but was a complete failure. Yes but i still don't think the russian will buy western weapons. Maybe to get information about it but not really to "use" it.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Another thing, the Russian already have a weapons agains western MBT's like the M1 or Leopard. The AT-15 Sprigger can pierce 1200mm Tank Steel and 1000mm Tank Steel behind Reactiv Armor and has a range up to 6000meters while the missile reaches supersonic speed. Whithin 4 Minutes 15 targets can be attacked. It is the best Anti Tank system aviable at the moment.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: The Khrizantema is a thermobaric HEAT-Warhead, the Leopard 2's Turret Front can withstand due his sharped Armor nearly 2000mm penetration. The Range is also not very big. In Theory the AT-15 couldn't destroy the Leopard 2 on 8km, the MRM-KE with 1000mm Penetration would. The AT-15 flies at Mach 1,2 the MRM-KE at Mach 4! It also has the double Range, the Russian's didn't use the AT-15, the MRM will be in Service in 2 Years. It was sucessfully tested against driving T-72 at 12km.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Well a T-72 is no tank. Its a piece of metal without any protection or firepower. The german DM53 ammo can penetrate double reactive armour, the new round can destroy the latest generation of main battle tanks even at long ranges of engagement. I don't think that the russian will buy Western Tanks or weapons, they are too proud on their own technology as that they would take Stuff of other Nations. Also if i think about russian tanks i think about round turrets and flat tanks
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: The T-72 is no Tank? Then, the King Tiger & Panther wasn't tanks at all.
Lower Mobility, Lower Firepower, and lower Armor too. The T-72 is no match today anymore, but
it is still a Tank, the M1A3 is in Development already, the M1E3 Prototype uses the XM360,
which performed better than the Rh 120mm L/55. Russia will not get Western Weapons, i could swear it,
not from the US, not from Germany, and not from the UK.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
The T-72 never had a good Statistic like the King Tiger or Panther which had a good Kill ratio.
The Leopard 2A7 is also already in Development and has a lot of new things like "AMAP-ADS" , "AMAP-SC" , "AMAP-B" and many other things. Which will still let him be the number 1 of the MBT's. Well but if russia don't get the things of the US or GB or Germany, they could get it from Israel (Merkava) or Iraq who use the M1 Abrams too just without the Uran Armor.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: If you are going with the Kill Ratio, then the Abrams must be the best modern MBT.
Active Protection Systems will not be in use, the T-90 has already Schtora & the Abrams/Merkava Trophy.
The Number 1 of MBT's? I don't think so, if the A7 won't be exported, it will never see Combat.
I don't think that they get Weapons from Israel, the Iraq's Abrams is without the DU Armor, the newest Electronics & Ammo, a downgraded piece of Shit, with the Abrams Hull, that is not a Tank.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Would be a shame if the USA lost an Abrams against export Versions of the T-55 and T-72's with poor trainend crew without thermal sights , night vision or any other electronic systems in Desert Storm. But they lost enough Abrams tanks through IEDs.
Also i never saw a Abrams with a Protection System, even the SEP doesn't has any of these Systems. But even the IFV Puma is using Soft and Hard Kill Systems, so the Leopard 2A7 will.
Well maybe russia gets the K2 Tank ;)
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: Sure it would be a Shame, the most M1A1 were destroyed due RPG's.
The Abrams had Throphy, but it isn't in active Service. The M1 TUSK is better protected in the Front,
has ERA on the Sides & Mine Protection like the Leo M-Packet. I don't think that the Leo 2A7 will see Combat, the K2 is the biggest Shit. German Cannon, German Engine, French Armor, General Dynamics Design, and build in Korea, way to expensive, just to build in lower Numbers.
Russia will get nothing. ;-)
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Well we don't know what will happen in the future, but i am sure if not the german 2A7 then the 2A7 of other Nations will see combat, the 2A6 were in action too in Afghanistan. Well TUSK and PSO are almost the same thing, but the PSO has a shield on the Hull front xD Also the M Packet on the Abrams is almost the same of the Leopard, since they have both almost the same Hulldesign. K2 is rated as one of the best MBT's and the Turks ordered some of the K2 too.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: i don't think that the 2A7 will be exported. What did you define under combat?
The 20 canadian 2A6M CAN have seen "Combat" but they did not attack somethink, they drive Patrol
at their "base" Bad that the Talib's have no Tanks. The modern Tank with the most Kills is
undoubtly the M1A1. Yeah, the K2 won a non-simulate Test against the Leopard 2 in the Turkey.
But the K2 has many penalty's in comparsion to the Leo 2.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989
Well as i said, there are no Tank combats anymore like in WW2 or Desert Storm. But the M2 Bradley destroyed more Tanks in Desert Storm, then the Abrams did. Well the Taliban try to avoid the Leopards ;) I think i read a text, where a Canadian Leopard attacked Taliban troops.
Sweden did real tests betweed the Leclerc , Challenger 2 , Abrams and Leopard 2. K2 is just some kind of Kit tank, just pic all good parts of other tanks and hope it will be a good tank.
JazzJaRa 11 months ago
@JazzJaRa: How do you know that more Tanks have been destroyed by the Bradley IFV?
In all sources & docu's the Airforce & Abrams fleet destroyed the Tanks. The Bradley used
his Chain gun & Tow to attack enemy T-52, but the T-72 were taken out by Abrams mostly.
Yes, is Sweden the Abrams was the best after the Leopard, due his Gasturbine.
The Leopard & Abrams are developed in the 80's. The K2 came 20 years later.
the K1A1 was ( on the paper ) better than the Abrams, but i d'nt believe so.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 of course the Leopard 2 A7 will be exported Saudi Arabia already paid for a huge amount of Leopard 2 A7 tanks
ExtremelyFlamable100 3 months ago
@ExtremelyFlamable100: I have written the Comment 7 months ago. Now i know Saudi Arabia will get 2A7's.
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 3 months ago
Comment removed
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 11 months ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 you left out many m1a1-2 upgrades over the years M1A2 Abrams SEP (System Enhancement Package) & (M1A2 TUSK PROGRAM IS THE BEST) upgraded tusk 3 upgrade loader's gun shield field new Loader's Thermal Weapon Sight with Helmet Mounted Display provides thermal imaging for the loader's M240 machine gun.Tank Infantry Phone reactive armor, belly armor, thermal sights for the loader and a SECOND .50-caliber CROWS FOR T.C
hotrod4you2 7 months ago
@GOLD3NGAM3R1989 MOST ALL THESE UPGRADES ARE ALL NEWER THAN 2004-STILL IN PRODUCTION. YOUR INFO IS NOT UP TO DATE THIS VIDEO IS OLD CHECK M1A2 UPDATES ONLINE WITH A NEW M1 WITH NEW LV100-5 gas turbine engine WITH Over 8,800 BUILT AND SOLD
hotrod4you2 7 months ago
It doesnt matter what tank the M1A2 faces, it will put a sabo round through the turret and then a high explosive round through the hole it just made. It.will.kill.you
master15243 1 year ago
funny thing is EVERY t90 wont have shtora, EVERY t90 won't have all the armor kitting, and EVERY t90 will certainly not have the extremely well trained crews we have. We might be in a new generation, but the russian tank doctrine sure as hell isn't any different and they will mass produce that which is cheaper for them.
poonjoo 1 year ago
@30DOTCOM
Are you going to kidding me a heat round from a tank never penetrates 950mm of RhA it hardly will penetrate 300mm.Or are you talking from the AT-11 SNIPER B?
SaMuRaIFoRFuN 1 year ago
As well as anti missile technology and 3 and or 4 machine guns on the turret
master15243 1 year ago
The abrams is fully integrated to the enrire military, has the most powerful armor know to man, can hit an area within 2 ft of where it aimed if not exeactly spot on from miles and miles away. The abrams is also biologicaly and chemicaly impervious.
master15243 1 year ago
During testing T90 used it's SHTORA system to guide away incoming missiles. After which it fired it's own ATGMs through a turret. it proved invulnerable to chemical and biological attack and can be submerged 10m underwater. It can also fire shrapnel and gas rounds with automatic reloading right above the heads of enemy infantry. The Abrams can't do any of these. All of T90 competition bogged down in Malayan jungle. It's an entirely new generation of tanks compared to Abrams.
30DOTCOM 1 year ago
The T90 takes 6 rounds 120mm from 200m range. After this it is taken to a range for grenade launcher/RPG testing. After taking another 6 of the most modern rounds used by top militaries it is taken to inspection. Only outer frame is damaged. T90 proceeds to take out 7 targets 5 km away at distances 2-3km from each other in 53 seconds. After which it treads through 900km of Malayan jungle.
The Abrams is heavily damaged by 60s model RPG7 in Iraq and breaks down on testing grounds losing a tread.
30DOTCOM 1 year ago
i love it how it says "Giving it a weight of only 70 tons" the Abrams is the heaviest operational MBT in the world
MyPancakeMan 2 years ago
No there will be no drone there will be a M1A3 but not for a Long TIme look it up on wikipedia
oppeer 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
garbage
zlzkzjzh 2 years ago
im sure the m1a3 will be good
oppeer 2 years ago
there will be no m1a3 tank. US is making a whole new tank u know. US is making a drone tank that needs no crewmembers to work. Just computer. The new Drone tank US is making can run 65 miles per hour controlled by computer.
TheCatholic143 2 years ago
0:04, Someone didn't fasten that flap..
Crim15 2 years ago
And the gunner's going to traverse it right the hell off :)
superhakujin 2 years ago
ive heard the new German Lepoard is quite good
Yun351 2 years ago
just yesterday I was rolling with the Unit that already had the first A2s, believe it or not they were National Guard too. That 120 is beautiful also.
HelghastForceRecon 2 years ago
best tanks in the world:
1. m1a1(2) abrams, leo2a6 (tanks are equal)
2.challenger 2
(can change 2 and 3)
3.leclerk(sorry if misspelled)
4.merkava
5-14-no tanks
15.t-90
goofoffproductions 2 years ago
lol that's Leclerc ! :D
furywolf29 2 years ago
1. T-72 and T-80!!
DimISTrus 2 years ago
uh no
goofoffproductions 2 years ago
campaign in Chechnya showed that the electronics does not help in urban combat! while Russian tanks were holding more than one hit with RPG-7!
DimISTrus 2 years ago
the t-72 is a old cold war tank and the t-80 is just a upgraded t-72. also the abrams has some of the best amour in the world, the only tank with amour that is better is the challenger 2.
goofoffproductions 2 years ago
It's armour isnt actually better. It's the same. They both use Chobam Armour made in the UK.
TheMMAEmperor 2 years ago
The Challenger 2 has 2nd generation Chobham armour or "Dorchester". Its the most heavily armoured tank in the world.
azz578 2 years ago
@azz578, it doesn't have reactive armor plating. T90 HEAT-FS 125mm smoothbore will poke a 950mm hole in your Dorchester. Then put in a fragmenting round (which it can actually fire with enough computer-guided accuracy to hit that hole, challenger 2 can't do either) into that hole just to make sure.
30DOTCOM 1 year ago
Dude yes it does have reactive armour. Please dont compare the paper armour on the T-90 to this.
Bigjonmetal 1 year ago
No, it doesn't, if it had, I wouldn't have seen RPG-7s tear through it's back armor.
30DOTCOM 1 year ago
yes, but its almost impossible to mass produce a challenger
taterfrickintot 1 year ago
ive seen video of abrams taking DIRECT fire from and rpg, and there was a tiny little dent that the crew buffed out in the garage later. an abrams has NEVER been destroyed by enemy fire. so let them fire thier damn rpg's all they want. (side note does anybody know if Abrams would survive javelin? or has nobody tried that, even for our own testing)
Berzerkerdood 2 years ago
According to the wikipedia page on the M1, several tanks survived direct APFSDS hits to the glacis and turret face, although not to the side or rear armor. The wikipedia article on the Javelin mentions that it was tested on M1 tanks but I'd say its HEAT warhead would be ineffectual against the front hull and turret armor. The side, rear, and top armor of the M1-series is still quite thin, however, and would almost certainly be breached by the Javelin.
superhakujin 2 years ago
That drone he is talking about is not a main battle tank Its like a baby Bradley. A m1a2 tank is the best battle main battle tank in the world And has the best armor. It will never be replaced there will always be a need for a Main battle tank. Russia china and North korea have tons of main battle tanks. We need the M1a2 tanks to destroy there t-72 t-90 tanks
bogner174 2 years ago
Wikipedia is not the place to go to get info on tanks, bud.
GarettandBounty 2 years ago
Is it just me, or are the comments' order and placement all messed up in this thread?
@GarettandBounty, were you replying to me or @oppeer? If me, well, I used the Wikipedia article to verify some stuff I'd been told when I was in the Armor Corps; if @oppeer, I can't even figure out what he's saying :)
superhakujin 2 years ago
Funny man
popscoop12 2 years ago
nothing funny! you know that it was with Abrams in Iraq!!
DimISTrus 2 years ago
Ya ant the Abrams slaughtered them
popscoop12 2 years ago 2
didn't they provde those tanks to be inadiquate to the Abrams?
Sombomombo 2 years ago
Comment removed
N1DE0N 2 years ago
i have no idea why i put that there/
goofoffproductions 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a good tank!
no point in heavy armour these days..they will be phased out eventually...why?...because they are nothing more than moving coffins in a high tech battlefield. A $75k javalin or spike fired from the shoulder of a soldier can turn any multi million dollar heavy armour tank into scrap metal within a few seconds.
ISinisterI 2 years ago
not always true they do have the side protection that blows up missiles and the armor is being improved with every addition of weapons such as the javalin
Kingweb08 2 years ago
@ISinisterI wat the fuck is wrong with you? dont u think the designers thought about this!? ANTI MISSLE TECHNOLOGY? AND FLARES!? 2 defences rite ther
44centz 2 years ago
Nope. T-90 has radar which can detect infantry, it can fire a shrapnel round from 5km away which is further than the range of a Javelin.
30DOTCOM 1 year ago
The person who compiled the clips to make the video knows nothing about tanks. They showed images of the mounted MG rather than the coax gun when they mentioned the coaxial machine gun.
GreyCoyote 2 years ago
If it weren't for the shitty gas mileage these things would be even moar epic.
Shadowmoose 2 years ago 2
@Shadowmoose
Indeed: A show called"Future Weapons" rated the LeopardII over the M1A2, I wondered why because they did not do a point-4-point comparison, just made points. I researched it.
The Abrams IS a heavy tank, as they point out. The Leopard does have off the shelf powerplant/repair capability BUT, BUT..the Abrams will burn ANYTHING for fuel except water!!! THAT is a tremendous - even outrageous advantage for a logistic and tactical mission planner. Forget 'ease of repair' if you r dead!
ferroxian 1 year ago
@ferroxian well leopardII was made in 1979 and the Abrams was made in 1980 so i think both of the tanks are equal
TheModernwarfare2009 1 year ago
@TheModernwarfare2009: Thats not correct. There were designed in 1980.
Leopard 2A6 = 2002
M1A2 Abrams = 1992
That are 10 Years difference, its the same like the Leopard 2A7 ( 2012 )
and an M1A3 ( 2022 )
They are not equal. Abrams have more firepower and armor than the Leopard.
Forecast ranked the M1A2 SEP as "1" MBT of the World, Leopard 2A6 just "4"
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@G0LD3NGAM3R1989 m1a3 = 2017
MrBlonde707 1 year ago
@MrBlonde707: Nobody know when M1A3 is in Service, not even Obama.
The Army is planning to start developing the M1A3 in 2012 - The production will start 2017 at the latest. We will see, we will see an Leopard 3 and M2 Abrams too, if u are 60 Years ore older =)
G0LD3NGAM3R1989 1 year ago
@ferroxian
Yes but the diesel engine of the Leopard 2 is also a multi-fuel one. That was one of the requirements for the MBT 70 project that spawned the Abrams and the Leo series. Abrams and Leo use the same primary fuels, diesel oil, gasoline and kerosine and can run on a variety of fuel mixtures from alcohol to cooking oil.
But actually the Abrams has a logistic disadvantage here : The really bad fuel efficiency of gas turbines. A Leopard runs longer with the same amount of fuel.
Celeon999A 1 year ago
@Celeon999A
Indeed: The nod STILL must go to the turbine, here's why. The reciprocating engine WEARS. It can be shown and is a matter of record and fact that whereas the turbine runs hotter and burns more fuel, it can run for 100,000 hours and STILL look as if it were brand new. The Diesel IS durable but far outclassed by the turbine: Look at any jet engine maintenance manual and compare with a Spitfire or P-51. The Leopard will be on the sidelines while the Abrams is ROCKIN!
'nuff said.
ferroxian 1 year ago
Coolest thing about Abrams is the engine!
14Trooper88 2 years ago
there still are no photos of the m1a3 tusk or the m1a4(army secret)
Gotcha1234Mariok 3 years ago
Because they dont exist. Those are just internet gossip to create hype and something to talk about.
chrisnorris1x 2 years ago
Maybe you are right,but I also know about about your american OPSEC.
Gotcha1234Mariok 2 years ago
agreed
jrk922 2 years ago
the abrams m1a3 is already being introduced,the m1a3 tusk abrams is being worked on,and the m1a4 is in the planning stages.
Gotcha1234Mariok 3 years ago
what do they plan to look like
smka13 3 years ago
can anybody tell me how many were produced
Masseyferguson911 3 years ago
9000, the total number of operational Armored units and units in storage is classified.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
I love the Abram, its performance & protection. But,why the turret (Rheinmetal of Germany) is imported? Can't the US made their own?
xxbienxx 3 years ago
the turret is made in america. So is also the gun, but the design of the gun is german. What can they say... it was a fine cannon!
:-)
arasaka2020tm 3 years ago
The turret isn't imported, its made in America along with the rotating base, the design is german though.
TheGreatestVids 3 years ago
Americans are working on the XM360, similar to the M256, just 1/3 the weight.
otester 3 years ago
When we look just at the tank the Leo2 is clearly the best in the world, followed by the American M1a2
arnmagnusson22 3 years ago
The 2 tanks a kind of rivaled. they both fire the same cannon. But the abrams has 4 incs of uranium depleted armour and a turbine engine of 15 hundred horsepower. so if prefer the M1 a2. buy the way, its personal choice.
MachinimaHSJ 3 years ago
no, when you look at the tanks,you come to that conclusion.... sorry abrams vs leo2 on the field = abrams hands down(superior accuracy and everything) the leo goes under water which is cool haha
lunarsiege 3 years ago
They have the same canon. The leopards is a bt longer, thats it.
arnmagnusson22 3 years ago
I disagree, The Leo2 is closely followed by IDF's Merkava MK4 because of its composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy and reinforced titanium carbide sloped modular design. It is able to shatter kinetic energy penetrators and create extremely high resistance upon shaped charge impacts; Its operational range and top speed are double that of the M1A2.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
Well, both the M1a2 and Leo 2 are actually better then IDF Merkava. the are both great tanks, but if you look at the specs lep and m1 are better at everything. Thicker armor, the same or better speed ( in the army we drove the swedish leo2 at speeds above 70 km/h), and range, height and fire control systems are better then Merkava. The Leo has actually the best fire control system in the world today. So they are clearly better. But the Merkava is good enough to destroy Russian crap tanks!
arnmagnusson22 3 years ago
Informal Fallacy.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
Your just to stupid to realise fact. Check wikipedia or anytnig alse.
arnmagnusson22 3 years ago
You don't have access to authentic documentation.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
So all the informatiion sites on the internet are false? Look guys, this kid is totally blowed! hahaha
arnmagnusson22 3 years ago
You don't have access to authentic documentation.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
i do believe that russia has a long way to go with all their crappy equipment
lunarsiege 3 years ago
i like them all(military machinery) and they are all amazing to me but i think some armies are more specialized meaning: armies who will never go into another country to fight ,arent equipped with the tools to do it. so im sure those who use the leo2 rely more heavily on their tanks than,say,america. its good to be the best in every area: you never know what situation might arise that would render your best methods ineffectual i.e.,the u.s. could be forced n2 a war where airpower is null
lunarsiege 3 years ago
well the U.S. have the best air power with its F-22, F-15, and F16. F-22 being the best fighter of all time.
Cptjonmiller 3 years ago 2
Then explain to me why the F-22 scored so low on the countdown? It was beat out by other fighters such as the F-15, and the Phantom of all things.
chrisnorris1x 2 years ago
the f-22 was beaten in visual range combat. the f-22 was superior in long range combat. how are you going to get in visual range if it blows you up before you can get there?
mmafan1775 2 years ago
No its because its new and hasn't be battlefield tested.
desertstorm1989 2 years ago
been*
desertstorm1989 2 years ago
I dont like the m1a2. its a downgraded version of leopard 2.america deserves something better.
Domesticador 3 years ago
HOOAH!!!
reliablethreat23 3 years ago
only 69 tons? that kinda heavy, and the armor isnt 4 inches all the way around and its not all DU, its only DU at the front and its not just DU its DU, RHA, Kevlar and composties arranged in a mix called chobham, which is 1 foot thicvck in the front of the vehicle
ECWUSA1995 3 years ago
The .50 cal is not its coax, its just another secondary weapons, the M1 Abrams coax is it 7.62mm or .30 cal that is mounter next to its main gun.
ECWUSA1995 3 years ago
why not?
Stan198612 3 years ago
really nice tank but its hard to say if its really the best
Stan198612 3 years ago
no its not
CNKWYDNC 3 years ago
its not, the leapard 2A6 and the Merkava 4 are tied by ordinance usage and armor. Leapard = 3rd Generation composite; including high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component. Merkava 4 = Classified composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy. Sloped modular design. Very similar weapons and armor... =\
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
yeea thats whhy a lot of tankers in the Maerkava were killed during the war in lebanon
ECWUSA1995 3 years ago
Not to forget the 1500 hp diesel engine of the leopard 2 is more reliable than the gasturbine in the Abrams, which also consumes more fuel and is a greater heat source.
And something which doesn't make any difference... the 120 mm smoothbore used in the abrams and leopard 2 is designed for the leopard 2 by a german company.
O__o
slopedarmor 3 years ago
Were not talking about the Abrams.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
Just to put it straght, the 2 tanks are rivaled.
MachinimaHSJ 3 years ago
woops something important: leopards 2 powerpack is EXTREMELY easy to replace under battlefield conditions.
slopedarmor 3 years ago
I like how people give the comment thumbs down, when its true. How sad.
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
the m1a2 is certainly the beat tank in the us armoury and one of the best 3 in the world
hairhairhair1234 3 years ago
I THINK THE CHALLENGER 2 HAS THE SAME HUNTER KILLER SYSEM !! THE M1A2 Abrams Engine IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD BUT IT HAS SHORT RANGE OF 289 mi (465.29 km !!
sargon08 3 years ago
its getting a new 1, its called the LV100-5
SpywareHater 3 years ago
damn im glad i found a u.s. milt based vid on utube without a damn rock song(like friggin 'get down with the sickness')on it for once!ppl have horrible taste to think they go together.anyway,good vid
lunarsiege 3 years ago
chobham armor
depleted uranium
effective armor of the abrams tank...
zehb245 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
M1A2 Abrams? Bullshit!
killybane88 3 years ago
whats bullshit?its a damn tank. would you rather see a panzer?
lunarsiege 3 years ago 3
A Panzer is a tank....
TheBlitz1 3 years ago
why are you telling me this? i used to do old model tanks(remember glue and plastic?) and the panzer,i still have..... i know its a tank
lunarsiege 3 years ago
a panzer is not a tank but the tank but all german tanks example panzerkampfwagon 4 or panzer 4, panzerkampfwagon leopard or leopard
goofoffproductions 2 years ago
Noun1. panzer - an armored vehicle or tank.
TheBlitz1 2 years ago
oh i must have miss understood your comment that i replied to
goofoffproductions 2 years ago
panzer means tank in german genius.
sweetcuppincakes1 2 years ago
Hehe... I think they left a dent on the tank in the beginning (oops...too deep) XD
TrueCourse 3 years ago
no thats just a cover to cover the track but it dint shut properly
1ohtaf1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is a real powerful tank. the problem only, is in it's armour.
soldiers that have been in an M1A2 for too long will start suffering from the depleted uranium armour. after all, it is a kind of nuclear waste that protects the tank. diseases like cancer happen a lot like that.
Ideaboy13 3 years ago
I thought the lead casing took care of that problem?
otester 3 years ago