Originally Posted by Britney

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?

Sometimes I feel sorry for America. Us Europeans always stick up for each other. We always make our tanks better somehow. lol.

How much did the S-Tank cost? I could never say. I guess to be totally frank very little is know of the S-Tank. it is, in a sense, Sweden's secret tank. I don't believe Sweden gave out much information on it which is rather a surprise now that it is decommissioned. We still don't know what it's armour is!

Man this would be a nasty fight, I really would like to sit this one out :/ The Germans really made a good tank and the Abrams is more than combat proven... What if you drew the battle out? Throw both tanks and necessary support crews out on a armor range, and let them play cat and mouse at thousands of yards, and test the support crews in nasty muddy or sandy or snowy environments, what makes a good tank, plane or and vehicle is seems to me is not just firepower and stats on paper alone, how sustainable is it in the field? And which of these to tanks comes out on top in that category?

Ask the Armor folks on the forum about life in the field with heavy armor. Then draw assessments.

neither tanks have faced an equal opponet, nor will they ever likely will, so no one will ever know.

Originally Posted by Sukio

Man this would be a nasty fight, I really would like to sit this one out :/ The Germans really made a good tank and the Abrams is more than combat proven... What if you drew the battle out? Throw both tanks and necessary support crews out on a armor range, and let them play cat and mouse at thousands of yards, and test the support crews in nasty muddy or sandy or snowy environments, what makes a good tank, plane or and vehicle is seems to me is not just firepower and stats on paper alone, how sustainable is it in the field? And which of these to tanks comes out on top in that category?

Ask the Armor folks on the forum about life in the field with heavy armor. Then draw assessments.

That's not bad an idea but I have a slight feeling that it's already been done. I know America held tank competitions and America had the Abrams, Britain had the Challenger and Germany had the Leopard. I believe actually the British won it with Americans second and the German's third. But I'm totally confident so don't take my word on it.

i vote for the leopard because..
the m1 have the old rheinmetall l44 gun and the leopard 2a6 the new rheinmetall l55 gun with more power and higher distance. the leopard have better mine armor and better overall armor. he have the same performance but the engine tuned up in wartime to 2200hp. the most peaple here compare with the 1500hp in piecetime. the leopard engine and tracks are the best you can buy. the m1 armor is in relation about the uranlayer... not to be about the leopard. the operation range of the l2 is higher and you can fuel gaz or diesel or alcohol or mix it and the engine iss happy. is see almost advantages of the leopard. its the best tank in my opinion.

The L55 is used to compensate for the german decision not to use DU rounds anymore, hence the results are not much better in penetration than l44 with DU...

Originally Posted by Yin717

Sometimes I feel sorry for America. Us Europeans always stick up for each other.

Don't waste your time feeling sorry for America, we do quite well in the design and production of weapons, especially in major systems (B-2, F-22A, SSNs, SSBNs, aegis destroyers and, cruisers, etc.) While you might not consider the M-1 "the best tank" (I disagree), it is among the best, and it has a great support system behind it!

Originally Posted by Bacara

neither tanks have faced an equal opponet, nor will they ever likely will, so no one will ever know.

As an organization you are correct but, the M-1 has faced the T-72 and has shown it can take a hit. It has operated very well in an environment in which it was supposed to be poor in, the desert. It has shown excellent crew protection when in a fratricide incident back in the PGW#1, a group of M-1A1s (with its 120mm cannon) fired on a M-1A! The M-1A was hit seven times with only one penetration. Three of the four crew-members survived.
I don't understand the complaints against the Abrams because of its range? Its range is about 15% less than the Leclerk, Leopard or, T-90, while being similar to the range of the Challenger 2. I guess it is just something to complain about?

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

The L55 is used to compensate for the german decision not to use DU rounds anymore, hence the results are not much better in penetration than l44 with DU...

The US Army loves the effectiveness of the DU sabot round and they will fight not using the DU sabot as much as they are fighting the 'anti-land mine' folks.

Originally Posted by Yin717

Sometimes I feel sorry for America. Us Europeans always stick up for each other.

Yes we Europeans do stick up for each other, like when we fought the 7 Years War, the 30 Years War, the 100 years war, the War of the Roses, War of Spanish Succession, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic War, Deluge War ...

Europe is absolutely drowning in its own blood, we had more wars between our respective nations in three centuries then the entire rest of the world combined, we even started World Wars but hey we stick for each other!

Originally Posted by Yin717

We always make our tanks better somehow. lol.

No, Western Allies had crappy tanks and had to settle for American Sherman which was slightly less crappy, only recently we have started producing armor that can match or exceed American tanks.

Originally Posted by Yin717

How much did the S-Tank cost? I could never say.

Given that Sweden was piss poor and still bought 290 of them in the short span of 4 years we can assume it was very cheap.

Originally Posted by Yin717

I guess to be totally frank very little is know of the S-Tank. it is, in a sense, Sweden's secret tank. I don't believe Sweden gave out much information on it which is rather a surprise now that it is decommissioned. We still don't know what it's armour is!

No but we can assume quite a lot, at 39-43 tonnes without a turret it was bound to have good armor, maybe even on par with T-80U but it still doesnt change the fact that its a strictly defensive contraption and cannot be used like a regular tank.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

The L55 is used to compensate for the german decision not to use DU rounds anymore, hence the results are not much better in penetration than l44 with DU...

hmm, really? Thats interesting i never knew they stopped using DU rounds...that changes things a bit.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

Yes we Europeans do stick up for each other, like when we fought the 7 Years War, the 30 Years War, the 100 years war, the War of the Roses, War of Spanish Succession, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic War, Deluge War ...

Europe is absolutely drowning in its own blood, we had more wars between our respective nations in three centuries then the entire rest of the world combined, we even started World Wars but hey we stick for each other!

I guess so but times have changed.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

No, Western Allies had crappy tanks and had to settle for American Sherman which was slightly less crappy, only recently we have started producing armor that can match or exceed American tanks.

That's not entierly true or fair. The Churchill was a rather remarkable tank, it's just that Britain was constantly being bombed and needed America to build a majority of the tanks, which had to be the Sherman really. Also, America were way behind the British at the start of war on military technology. The British had to lend some of their technological advances to America so they even start building weapons to assist the war effort. And also, the Sherman Firefly, the only tank that the British and Americans used that could actually do any effective damage to German tanks, was a british design. So I think you'll find this is not entierly correct