Well that's because in other sources of their information, Special Forces get dropped behind enemy lines armed with a pistol, knife and 100% health.

@damien-

its possible to operate tanks in urban terrain. israel dose it and so do many others. you need good infantry, UAVs, attack helos, and very good engineers...but if you have all those you can use any tank in urban terrain. truth be told, with out all that, tanks arnt much good in the open either. The tank is the main piece in the game of mechenized warfare but its far from the only one. with out infantry, artillery, logistics and most important air-support, your tank is nothing but a paper tiger.

Originally Posted by Damien435

I would like to say that the above statement is ludicrous and that everybody knows tanks are not designed for urban warfare. Unfortunately I've seen how ignorant my fellow students are in all matters not related to the big party at (insert fraternity name here) and have to concede that very few people realize tanks are actually designed to duel on open plains or better yet, ambush from concealed positions, punch a whole in the enemy lines, and move forward with infantry and air support. Most people seem to think tanks are designed to work on their own or in small groups with other tanks hundreds of miles away from the nearest supply depot/fuel truck.

We are shying away from using tanks on the scale that we have in Iraq, they do have some use but they have to be protected by your dismounts which has always played a major factor. A tank does need security while out in the open plains also for protection.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

@damien-

its possible to operate tanks in urban terrain. israel dose it and so do many others. you need good infantry, UAVs, attack helos, and very good engineers...but if you have all those you can use any tank in urban terrain. truth be told, with out all that, tanks arnt much good in the open either. The tank is the main piece in the game of mechenized warfare but its far from the only one. with out infantry, artillery, logistics and most important air-support, your tank is nothing but a paper tiger.

Simply welll said Sherman, A modern day Air Land Battle Doctrine is a beutiful thing when it is in motion.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Well that's because in other sources of their information, Special Forces get dropped behind enemy lines armed with a pistol, knife and 100% health.

Really - most of the time they are armed thru the teeth. What does Special Forces have to do with this topic.

Originally Posted by CanadianCombat

I would have voted for the Leo 2 but I fogot about this thread. My bad. so technicalliy the Leo 2 would have won 13 to 12, but I came to late..........DAMN DAMN DAMN.

Hehe ditto I signed up just to vote. The Leopard 2 has seen tank on tank combat, and it one has never been lost. They've gone through the same ridiculously gruesome tests the British use to torture test the Challenger, they've been hit by RPG's a few times as well but never penetrated. Us Canadians have quite a few of them in Afghanistan nothin has taken one down yet.
The fall back of the C2 Leopard is there aren't as many of them in the world, thats about it, gotta admit they will obviously have less protection than the Challenger, but even the Abrams have less protection when you get down to it. And the Tungsten Rounds are certainly not sub par DU, honestly they are better in quite a few ways especially with the weight and momentum those bloody rounds get.

The leo is capable of firing DU rounds, its just a matter of having some. And they are superior to tungstan in several areas, specifically the fact that they "sharpen" on penetration and ignite inside the target.

Leopard 2 have better capacity than the Abrams for sure in firepower these two tank have the same one because Abrams use L55 main gun...but for protection and speed ratio the Leopard 2 beat everything and for people who said the Leopard 2 never saw action combat isn't true, Canadian Army and Danish Army use it in Afghanistan.

Canada use the 1A5 (C2) and Leo 2A6M CAN (slat armour)
Danmark use the 2A5DK

And the leopard does a great job in afghanistan as you can see here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqbnd...eature=related

How much tank on tank combat has their been in Afghanistan? I can't recall any off the top of my head, the Taliban never had the means to purchase anything, maybe some old T-55's or something but a five year old with a water pistol could take out one of those things. The Leopard 2's combat record can not compare to what the Challenger, Merkava and Abrams can claim.

Plus, as has already been said, the Leopard and Abrams evolved from the same program, their differences are minute and the support they receive will determine the winner in a head to head engagement, not the individual platforms capabilities.

a five year old with a water pistol could take out one of those things

You want to try?