Originally Posted by FO Seaman

What facts and tests do your base you opinion on?

And I think everyone should also remember that the M1 is not just a "US" MBT anymore. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Australia also utilize the M1.

So the "Well most of Europe uses the Leo 2" isn't a valid proxy anymore. Has the US hasn't offered the M1 to any European countries for export.

And I am sure that the Leo 2 has had it amount of obstacles to over come, all tanks have there issues, none are perfect. The M1 wasn't built as an export model, so it's easy of use wasn't made to be user friendly to someone without certain training.

And I am still wondering how the M1 is not a reliable machine?

Yes we have offered M1 series to European countries, Greece, Spain and Sweden have tested the M1A2 for possible purchase.

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Yes we have offered M1 series to European countries, Greece, Spain and Sweden have tested the M1A2 for possible purchase.

I'd assume the price is what drives them away. For the life of me I can't find a price quote for the Leo 2. I'm a bit curious to wee what one would cost, just a base line model that is.

Wouldn't Spain be considered in the Med?

Originally Posted by Herr_Alvaro

Having said this I´ll vote for the LEOPARD over the ABRAMS, so far the German tank has proven to have less problems than his American counterpart and even better results on the field.

Best regards

What results? As far as I know the Leo 2 has never seen combat and I'm about 99% positive it's never had to go into an engagement with enemy armored units.

The Leo 2 has seen combat in kosovo with the germans (but only had one fire fight and that was taking out two serbs with AKs in a lada) and is on Op's in Afghanistan with Canada and the Danes. You are right that the Leo 2 has not seen tank on tank combat but M1A1/A2's shooting up 30-40 year old MBT's in Iraq with total air cover has not tested them to their limits yet. I think its a draw until the M1 or the Leo 2 go up against a gen 3 MBT in combat.

The german engineering is maybe even the best on the world together with japanese engineering,howewer who knows what pentagon knows about their abrams mbt's?Both tanks are strong but in the top10 cathegory of today's mbt's the difference's are ''in inches''.With the leo2,abrams m1a2,the type99,challenger,the merkava and the soviet t-90 the competition is as hard as as chobham armour.

Originally Posted by johnnyQAMR

The Leo 2 has seen combat in kosovo with the germans (but only had one fire fight and that was taking out two serbs with AKs in a lada) and is on Op's in Afghanistan with Canada and the Danes. You are right that the Leo 2 has not seen tank on tank combat but M1A1/A2's shooting up 30-40 year old MBT's in Iraq with total air cover has not tested them to their limits yet. I think its a draw until the M1 or the Leo 2 go up against a gen 3 MBT in combat.

No one has any idea what the Abrams has. The material the skirt armor is made out of is still classified to this day.

You can't claim "top spot" just because a tank does well in field tests and does well in a war game. Murphy's Law has a funny way of taking tests and games, and throwing them back in your face where the metal meets the meat.

So a Leo 2 took out Serbs with AK's? So could a Sherman, anything with armor thick enough to make an 7.62x39mm look like a BB could.

Afghanistan maybe starting to be regroup and recoup for the Taliban again, but it is a far, far cry from the streets of Iraq, sure you run into some guys throwing bottles or rocks, but when was the last time that a Leo 2 got caught at a four way and was being bombarded by RPG's and mortars?

Op's is a broad spectrum, even tanks on peace keeping mission do Op's.

And in ODS some Abrams sustained some hits from Iraqi armor. And if you put air support in the the scenario you make the argument moot, because then the air is supporting the M1, making it even more of a beast to contend with.

The Abrams numbers are pretty darn good, 8,500 produced. I have no idea the production numbers of the Leo 2 but I don't think its even close to the M1's, but I could be wrong so don't quote me on that.

Then the argument about reliability and fuel consumption are redundant. 90% of the M1's power pack can be removed without total breakdown of the system. Ok so sand would eat the blades of the turbine, it was fixed by putting a coating on them and using a finer filter.

Fuel consumption, ok sure 1 mpg isn't the best, but when your unit has a support unit two and even three times it size, then fuel comsumption becomes moot. In a combat zone, US support units, normally outnumber combat units. This is the exact reason we where able to fly across France and bash through the hedgerows like we did in 1944, our logistical chain was superb, and we where able to keep control of the skies.

So what it all boils down to is what I said before. A tank is no better than the supporting arms it is supporting. So when you compare the two, the M1 just takes the cake.

M1 is not always deployed with amrican forces, so it dose not always enjoy american logistics. I would not think the Egyptians in Sinai vs Israel, in a possible war, wwould enjoy the same support and logistics, but they will be using the same M1 platform.

As the US is giving 140 M1A1 SA's to Iraq we might see how a army with a lot less money deals with the loggie issues.

(note: info about the M1's to Iraq from this weeks JDW e-mail)

Originally Posted by FO Seaman

I'd assume the price is what drives them away. For the life of me I can't find a price quote for the Leo 2. I'm a bit curious to wee what one would cost, just a base line model that is.

Wouldn't Spain be considered in the Med?

Actually it is the fuel consumption issue, all other aspects of the vehicle have come out ahead or in some cases tied with the LEO 2 series, have you noticed what alot of the LEO 2 A5/6 using countries are doing with the hull frontal area, think about why.

Yes Spain should be considered from the Med but they like to think they are a big European country.

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Actually it is the fuel consumption issue, all other aspects of the vehicle have come out ahead or in some cases tied with the LEO 2 series, have you noticed what alot of the LEO 2 A5/6 using countries are doing with the hull frontal area, think about why.

Yes Spain should be considered from the Med but they like to think they are a big European country.

I should have known that, that's always the downer about vehicle shopping. You find one you like and "bam" it gets 12 mpg, not exactly the best choice for a person on a small income.

Never did think about that Pale, it is quite interesting.

That's ok, lets not spoil their fun.

Originally Posted by johnnyQAMR

As the US is giving 140 M1A1 SA's to Iraq we might see how a army with a lot less money deals with the loggie issues.

(note: info about the M1's to Iraq from this weeks JDW e-mail)

I think it's going to be along the same lines as to why Australia picked the M1 for their MBT. Chances are if they are fighting, the US is gonna be right there too. I think it's the same for the Saudi's and Kuwait, we're their ally and if they get into a scrap, we'll back them. Unless they do something stupid. So I bet it's along those lines, besides you can't give Iraq a bunch of M60's, I love those babies, but it'd cost more to beef them up and give them updated systems then just giving them brand new M1A1 SA's.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

M1 is not always deployed with amrican forces, so it dose not always enjoy american logistics. I would not think the Egyptians in Sinai vs Israel, in a possible war, wwould enjoy the same support and logistics, but they will be using the same M1 platform.

Quite true, but I think it's like as I said above, they rely on us for logistical support.