The German tanks - Page 4




 
--
 
September 29th, 2005  
warhappy100
 
 
AK means Leo2A6+Strv122 are better then gas happy M1A2 SEP
September 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warhappy100
AK means Leo2A6+Strv122 are better then gas happy M1A2 SEP
Ok they get 50 more miles that the M1.
September 29th, 2005  
warhappy100
 
 
At least Leo2 still has carries a true work horse of a engine while M1s
has a engine that has not been production since 92 and will end up being replaced by a diesel in the future since fuel cost will go up and maintince
cost go up for everytime that engine used up like in enviorments like
Iraq and even if it has a fuel efficenet set up now the M1 is not cost effective anymore that I won't be surprised is the Aussies swap out
turbines later for diesels. cause even in wartime you have to watch your budget Seaman
--
September 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warhappy100
At least Leo2 still has carries a true work horse of a engine while M1s
has a engine that has not been production since 92 and will end up being replaced by a diesel in the future since fuel cost will go up and maintince
cost go up for everytime that engine used up like in enviorments like
Iraq and even if it has a fuel efficenet set up now the M1 is not cost effective anymore that I won't be surprised is the Aussies swap out
turbines later for diesels. cause even in wartime you have to watch your budget Seaman
Thats why the Army has been investigating a new Honeywell-Lycoming Turbine that is more fuel efficenet.

You seem to have alot of comtempt for a vehicle that has a combat record in three wars and has beaten the living out of whatever it comes up against.

Whats your point? The Avco hasn't been built since 92'.....and?

It's not cost effective to countries that can't afford it.

It gets a power to weight ratio of 25 HP/Ton, it's speed without govnorers is 60 MPH, with them it's 45 MPH, 0 MPH -20 MPH acceleration, and 4 speed forward, 2 speed reverse.
September 29th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
If i'm not misstaking the M1A2 was first in production in 1990, the Leopard 2 was in production in 1979

Source of the info of when the M1A2 was first put into production was http://www.military.com/Resources/EQ...NK&cat=g&lev=2
The A2 was first produced in 90', but the M1 was first produced in 79'. The A1 and A2 don't differ much externally.

Yes the Leo 2 was built in 79'.

I don't get what your point is? The M1 Family is built around the MBT-70 as is the Leo 2.

Well you did mention M1A2 and not M1 from 1979. And the year on the Leo wasnt a question

And if it differ much externaly is only something you have to consider if its a buty contest, its the inside that counts and there quite a difference between the M1A2 and Leo 2 when it comes to internal parts, such as electronics etc, so i'm not sure why you compare a tank from 79 with an updated tank from 90. Thats my point

Think of how much a computer changed in 10 years.

Well considring that the armor platform ramains the same, yet the designation hasn't. The current tank, the Leopard 2A6 is totally differ form the baseline Leo 2.

As you said, it's the inside that counts. The M1 and M1A2 are the same externally, execpt the CITV, UAAPU, and main gun.

M1= M1A2

Leo 2= Leo 2A6

Both armor platforms where built in 1979, but have been updated through the years.

M1

M1A2 SEP


Leo 2


Leo 2A6
The reason for why I said that its the inside that counts is because when comparing a tank from 1979 and 1990 its the Electronics that changes the most, there for I don't see a reason to look at the outside either. It is however a big part of a modern tank.

Also Leopard 2 = Leopard 2
Leopard 2 A6 = Leopard 2 A6
STRV 122 = STRV 122 and so on

By the way, you posted a picture of an early Leopard 2 A4 model and not a Leopard 2 (Its still a Leopard 2 but Leopard 2 referes to the first Leopard 2 and not any of the upgrades, the correct way is to add the upgrade designition at the end for clearification.

I know I posted a picture of an early 2A4, the site doesn't have any Leo 2 photos.

I do get your point. The Leo 2A6 is the same platform as the Leo. The Leo 2A6 is the most recent variant of the Leo 2 family, as is the M1A2 for the M1 family. I was comparing the M1A2 SEP with the Leopard 2A6.

Are you stating the M1A2 SEP is superior to the Leopard 2A6?
Oh sorry a mixup then, thought you ware refering to the Leopard 2 and not Leopard 2 A6, now i know!

I state that STRV 122 and Leopard 2E is better then M1A2 SEP

One more thing is that, its not cost effective for any countries, It may however be and it can be used by USA, its however not cost effective. The price running it doesnt justify the few things that it can do that a Diesel can not do.

Not sure why Aussie díd not get a newer Leopard 2 such as A4 or A5. Not that M1A2 isn't good, don't get me wrong, but they already have older Leopards so for me it would be natrual to go for the Leopard 2 A5.

I guess political reasons got cought in there once again.

I do guess that the M1A2 can cope with the climat better then the Leopard 2 A5 can though, the Leo isn't made for desert so that might be another reason. By the way did they get M1A1 or A2?
September 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
If i'm not misstaking the M1A2 was first in production in 1990, the Leopard 2 was in production in 1979

Source of the info of when the M1A2 was first put into production was http://www.military.com/Resources/EQ...NK&cat=g&lev=2
The A2 was first produced in 90', but the M1 was first produced in 79'. The A1 and A2 don't differ much externally.

Yes the Leo 2 was built in 79'.

I don't get what your point is? The M1 Family is built around the MBT-70 as is the Leo 2.

Well you did mention M1A2 and not M1 from 1979. And the year on the Leo wasnt a question

And if it differ much externaly is only something you have to consider if its a buty contest, its the inside that counts and there quite a difference between the M1A2 and Leo 2 when it comes to internal parts, such as electronics etc, so i'm not sure why you compare a tank from 79 with an updated tank from 90. Thats my point

Think of how much a computer changed in 10 years.

Well considring that the armor platform ramains the same, yet the designation hasn't. The current tank, the Leopard 2A6 is totally differ form the baseline Leo 2.

As you said, it's the inside that counts. The M1 and M1A2 are the same externally, execpt the CITV, UAAPU, and main gun.

M1= M1A2

Leo 2= Leo 2A6

Both armor platforms where built in 1979, but have been updated through the years.

M1

M1A2 SEP


Leo 2


Leo 2A6
The reason for why I said that its the inside that counts is because when comparing a tank from 1979 and 1990 its the Electronics that changes the most, there for I don't see a reason to look at the outside either. It is however a big part of a modern tank.

Also Leopard 2 = Leopard 2
Leopard 2 A6 = Leopard 2 A6
STRV 122 = STRV 122 and so on

By the way, you posted a picture of an early Leopard 2 A4 model and not a Leopard 2 (Its still a Leopard 2 but Leopard 2 referes to the first Leopard 2 and not any of the upgrades, the correct way is to add the upgrade designition at the end for clearification.

I know I posted a picture of an early 2A4, the site doesn't have any Leo 2 photos.

I do get your point. The Leo 2A6 is the same platform as the Leo. The Leo 2A6 is the most recent variant of the Leo 2 family, as is the M1A2 for the M1 family. I was comparing the M1A2 SEP with the Leopard 2A6.

Are you stating the M1A2 SEP is superior to the Leopard 2A6?
Oh sorry a mixup then, thought you ware refering to the Leopard 2 and not Leopard 2 A6, now i know!

I state that STRV 122 and Leopard 2E is better then M1A2 SEP

One more thing is that, its not cost effective for any countries, It may however be and it can be used by USA, its however not cost effective. The price running it doesnt justify the few things that it can do that a Diesel can not do.

Not sure why Aussie díd not get a newer Leopard 2 such as A4 or A5. Not that M1A2 isn't good, don't get me wrong, but they already have older Leopards so for me it would be natrual to go for the Leopard 2 A5.

I guess political reasons got cought in there once again.

I do guess that the M1A2 can cope with the climat better then the Leopard 2 A5 can though, the Leo isn't made for desert so that might be another reason. By the way did they get M1A1 or A2?
I disagree that the STRV 122 and Leopard 2E are better than the M1A2.

Well I agree that the Aco-Lycoming isn't cost effective. The U.S. Army has been investiating a new Honeywell-Lycoming that is fuel efficent and smaller.

From what I'm hearing they are getting the M1A2, but it could be A1's.
September 29th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
If i'm not misstaking the M1A2 was first in production in 1990, the Leopard 2 was in production in 1979

Source of the info of when the M1A2 was first put into production was http://www.military.com/Resources/EQ...NK&cat=g&lev=2
The A2 was first produced in 90', but the M1 was first produced in 79'. The A1 and A2 don't differ much externally.

Yes the Leo 2 was built in 79'.

I don't get what your point is? The M1 Family is built around the MBT-70 as is the Leo 2.

Well you did mention M1A2 and not M1 from 1979. And the year on the Leo wasnt a question

And if it differ much externaly is only something you have to consider if its a buty contest, its the inside that counts and there quite a difference between the M1A2 and Leo 2 when it comes to internal parts, such as electronics etc, so i'm not sure why you compare a tank from 79 with an updated tank from 90. Thats my point

Think of how much a computer changed in 10 years.

Well considring that the armor platform ramains the same, yet the designation hasn't. The current tank, the Leopard 2A6 is totally differ form the baseline Leo 2.

As you said, it's the inside that counts. The M1 and M1A2 are the same externally, execpt the CITV, UAAPU, and main gun.

M1= M1A2

Leo 2= Leo 2A6

Both armor platforms where built in 1979, but have been updated through the years.

M1

M1A2 SEP


Leo 2


Leo 2A6
The reason for why I said that its the inside that counts is because when comparing a tank from 1979 and 1990 its the Electronics that changes the most, there for I don't see a reason to look at the outside either. It is however a big part of a modern tank.

Also Leopard 2 = Leopard 2
Leopard 2 A6 = Leopard 2 A6
STRV 122 = STRV 122 and so on

By the way, you posted a picture of an early Leopard 2 A4 model and not a Leopard 2 (Its still a Leopard 2 but Leopard 2 referes to the first Leopard 2 and not any of the upgrades, the correct way is to add the upgrade designition at the end for clearification.

I know I posted a picture of an early 2A4, the site doesn't have any Leo 2 photos.

I do get your point. The Leo 2A6 is the same platform as the Leo. The Leo 2A6 is the most recent variant of the Leo 2 family, as is the M1A2 for the M1 family. I was comparing the M1A2 SEP with the Leopard 2A6.

Are you stating the M1A2 SEP is superior to the Leopard 2A6?
Oh sorry a mixup then, thought you ware refering to the Leopard 2 and not Leopard 2 A6, now i know!

I state that STRV 122 and Leopard 2E is better then M1A2 SEP

One more thing is that, its not cost effective for any countries, It may however be and it can be used by USA, its however not cost effective. The price running it doesnt justify the few things that it can do that a Diesel can not do.

Not sure why Aussie díd not get a newer Leopard 2 such as A4 or A5. Not that M1A2 isn't good, don't get me wrong, but they already have older Leopards so for me it would be natrual to go for the Leopard 2 A5.

I guess political reasons got cought in there once again.

I do guess that the M1A2 can cope with the climat better then the Leopard 2 A5 can though, the Leo isn't made for desert so that might be another reason. By the way did they get M1A1 or A2?
I disagree that the STRV 122 and Leopard 2E are better than the M1A2.

Well I agree that the Aco-Lycoming isn't cost effective. The U.S. Army has been investiating a new Honeywell-Lycoming that is fuel efficent and smaller.

From what I'm hearing they are getting the M1A2, but it could be A1's.
I'm pretty sure we will continnue to disagree hehe. Anyways, will be interesting to see how much difference the new turbine will make compared to the one used now, know anything more about the new engine thats in development? (presume it still is)
September 30th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Nothing much. Just the it's built by the same company.
October 3rd, 2005  
Wham-size
 

Topic: german tanks


while you guys say that you all missed the best mbt the challenger 2.
best protection in armour.
one of the best gun if not the best.
downpoint slow then mosts
all these add up to a tank that get the crew home which is what counts not speed but protection.
as it goes a challenger has the longest confirm tank to tank kill at 5.1km.
leap 2 good tank i go with that next made to take a betting.
and now silly turbine engine that has a heat imade the size of a 10story build not good for night work real.
jsut to say that challenger 2 or leop 2
October 3rd, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 

Topic: Re: german tanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
while you guys say that you all missed the best mbt the challenger 2.
best protection in armour.
one of the best gun if not the best.
downpoint slow then mosts
all these add up to a tank that get the crew home which is what counts not speed but protection.
as it goes a challenger has the longest confirm tank to tank kill at 5.1km.
leap 2 good tank i go with that next made to take a betting.
and now silly turbine engine that has a heat imade the size of a 10story build not good for night work real.
jsut to say that challenger 2 or leop 2

I'll give you that the CH2 has good armor, but the gun isn't any better than the M1A2's.

Whats you fixation on the turbine? The reason the M1's top dog is because the enemy is killed before he sees the M1.

The Ch2 has Chobham 2, the M1A2's Chobham w/ DU is almost equal.

You can't compare a tank that has never seen combat to ones than have. M1's seen three wars.