well for people who cared. i didnt. my father died to all of that unfortunatly.

The Abrams indefinitely, not only because it's proven in combat, but also because the longer something is out, the more bugs and errors and problems you are able to work out. So if you put a 100 abrams up against a 100 Leopard 2s on different terrains around the world, the leos will most likely lose because they have more unforeseen problems that will occur. Thats my opinion

Originally Posted by Rayelth

The Abrams indefinitely, not only because it's proven in combat,

Against third world powers with total aerial superiority, not much of combat proof.

Originally Posted by Rayelth

but also because the longer something is out, the more bugs and errors and problems you are able to work out.

Thats nice, Leopard is "out" a year longer than M1.

Originally Posted by Rayelth

So if you put a 100 abrams up against a 100 Leopard 2s on different terrains around the world, the leos will most likely lose because they have more unforeseen problems that will occur. Thats my opinion

Which Leopards against which Abrams? Both tanks have, pardon my latin, an asston of variants which make a huge difference, an original M1 would require a 2-4 numerical superiority to have a chance against Leo2A6M likewise original 2A4 would require similar against M1A2 Sep.

100 Leopard 2s vs 100 Abrams

Far to even to call, they are essentially twins. The M1 is slightly faster, but the Leopard has a longer range.

I will have to say the M1 because its been proven very effective in combat, and the Leopard 2 has yet to see a real foe.


That and im always pulling for the Home team ^^

Originally Posted by Britney

Far to even to call, they are essentially twins. The M1 is slightly faster, but the Leopard has a longer range.

I will have to say the M1 because its been proven very effective in combat, and the Leopard 2 has yet to see a real foe.


That and im always pulling for the Home team ^^

As said before, it has only been proven against T-72's of a poorly trained and inexperienced army, not to mention the tanks themselves didnt even have GPS or night vision, and the majority uses training rounds.

And the USA also had total air superiority.

Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms

As said before, it has only been proven against T-72's of a poorly trained and inexperienced army, not to mention the tanks themselves didnt even have GPS or night vision, and the majority uses training rounds.

And the USA also had total air superiority.

Erm, the Iraqi army was not inexperienced, they had more experience then most armies. They just fought a decade war with Iran, and took Kuwait. The Republican guard was decently trained.. Its the Soviet crews id be worried about. The crews of the T-72s where the elite of the Iraqi armored corps.

Training rounds? According to who? A few did due to logistical problems, but by no means the majority. Where do you read otherwise? Are you thinking of the T-55s?

Have any tests or competitions been done to prove the Abrams is better? because from my experience, just because it hasn't seen combat doesn't make it better.

Originally Posted by Yin717

Have any tests or competitions been done to prove the Abrams is better? because from my experience, just because it hasn't seen combat doesn't make it better.

I dont think it makes it better, but i do think the Leopard 2 like any other piece of equipment is going to find out it has problems under fire. Maybe it's gas lines are prone to rupture if it gets hit with a HE round. I remember the AH-64 was a lot more vulnerable to ground fire than it was thought in the first gulf war.

We found out a lot about the M1, worst being how vulnerable it was to IEDs, or any ground charge. We also found out its armor was more resilient than many people thought it would be- same with the Challenger 2 witch proved to be quite tough to knock out contrary to a lot of people's concerns that the new armor wouldn't hold together from a hit. As history proved it did more than hold together, held together and gave it back to the enemy with interest.

I'm proud of NATO tanks, damn fine machines.

But hasn't the Leopard 2 had more contractors for it? I know that at least 3 countries, I think Spain, Denmark and Sweden, have got contracts to build the Leopard 2. Well, leopard 2A6 I think actually. Sweden also got rid of their S-Tank's to replace them with Leopard 2's, and I thought the S-Tank was a darn good tank. it's actually my favourite!

Originally Posted by Yin717

But hasn't the Leopard 2 had more contractors for it? I know that at least 3 countries, I think Spain, Denmark and Sweden, have got contracts to build the Leopard 2. Well, leopard 2A6 I think actually. Sweden also got rid of their S-Tank's to replace them with Leopard 2's, and I thought the S-Tank was a darn good tank. it's actually my favourite!

Yes, you bring up a pretty good point. In the trials the Leopard 2 has been the top performer, Europe loves the Leopard. In the Greek trials i think the Leopard scored a few points higher than the M1.

To be honest, im pulling a bit for the home team ^_~


I loved the s-tank too, i dont understand why they would do that. It was the perfect take for Sweden to defend her borders with, the long narrow passages made a non-rotatable gun a pretty good choice, its low silhouette made it hard to spot and easy to hide. How expensive was it?