Leopard 2 vs. Abrams

Leopard 2 vs. Abrams

  • Leopard 2

    Votes: 12 50.0%
  • Abrams

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
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.
Last edited:

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.
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 [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]2A5DK

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

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.
eventhough that i am fond of russian weapons,but admit that leopord2a6 tank is absolutely the best tank in the world.
You don't know what are you talking about Damien435 , the leopard resist against the Russian made who destroyed half of the Israel forces in Yom Kippur War. Called the 9K11 Malyutka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-3_Sagger and RPG-7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7 still a danger for the modern tank.

This is your Merkava tank after a RPG-7 and modified iranian 9K11


Canada has borrowed 20 Leopard 2A6M CAN from the German Army for use in combat operations in Afghanistan. In an assault on November 2, 2007, a Leo 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: “My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should.” wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-5Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hiller denied reports that a Leopard II tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. “The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard II tanks in several ambushes” and that as a result the Taliban “learned some very harsh lessons” and lost the battle in question “very quickly and very violently.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-7
Denmark has also deployed its Leopard 2s in support of operations in southern Afghanistan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-8 In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking maneuver by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-9 On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-10
The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. Despite being treated on site by Danish army medics, he died. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-11 During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-12
The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 has a conventional drivers seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver's seat has been replaced by a "Dynamic Safety Seat" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#cite_note-13, which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip. 6 large belts hold him in the right position. Like that the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.
I don't know what I'm talking about with this post either because your post contained no reference to anything I said, care to enlighten me what you're talking about and preferably in something that resembles English? If you must post in French by all means do so, I will find an online translator.
factanonverba, lets see....LOL....

1) the trhead is not about the Merkava.

but ill respond to those pictures anyhow-

Picture A-
Is a Merkava Mk 2 that drove off what apears to be a 30 foot cliff and into the road. You can see the cliff on the other side of the road I assume its the same on the side it fell off. If you looke carefully you can see the towing chanes from a armored recovery vehicle chained to the rear of the tank and they are about to drag the tank back on its tracks. note that the crew managed to stop the fall by using the gun as a support.
Picture B-
This one is a little harder to understand. Firstly, it is not a Merrkava, it is a MAGACH 7.(Modernized M60). A civilian might think the tank was hit by some sort of IED/Missle on its right side(where the ground is disturbed) and flipped somehow on that side. However if you loook at it with trained eyes and a little common sns you see that it is another accident-
1)The officers in the back are not wearing helmets, flack jackets or seem concerned about any tactical issues- meaning this is not an area with enemy in it.
2) there are no burn marks from a fire. the tank is too intact for surviving an explosion that would throw 50 metric tonns in the air. the smoke granade launchers on the right are intact(and those catch fire easily).
3)Im almost sure that the picture was taken in the west bank where i know of no tanks hit by IEDs ever, certinly not so powerfull as to throw a MAGACH on its side.
So in conclusion picture B is a MAGACH 7(not merkava) that probably drove off this road and onto the hills side, the ground wasent strong enough to carry it and collapsed sending the tank down on its side and cracking the pavement of the road.

All in all, dont post stuff you know nothing about:)
Notice there are no americans getting to say anything. I gues i will fill that role. I will say this, The Leopard 2 is not Battle tested so as far I'm concerned, its still a concept tank, not the best tank in the world.

Although the M1 has seen more Combat and has a fantastic history, I'm still going with the Leopard II, it's more efficient, and the Germans have always been the best at building tanks. Hopefully we never see the two face off.
Notice there are no americans getting to say anything. I gues i will fill that role. I will say this, The Leopard 2 is not Battle tested so as far I'm concerned, its still a concept tank, not the best tank in the world.

Try re-reading what was said when this thread was new, it has been dead for over a year and was first started over two years ago. Both sides have already made their arguments and rebuttals multiple times.
Though the Leo 2 series hasn`t seen any type of true tank on tank battlefield engagements I will state that the technology has been tried and tested and used by other countries for their tanks.
Not to troll or flame....

Well not to piss anyone off but this topic is one that always surfaces on the net and 99% of the time it's initiated by someone who's country uses L2s and only wants to boast or flame M1s and Americans.

So I don't mean to troll but here's a good response I wrote one night long ago against most arguments/boasts/rants that I found on the issue of Leopard 2 VS M1A1

Who would win? If your anyone but American you'd say Leopard 2, if your American than M1A2.

From false data claiming the Leo2 is invincible and linking burning or disabled Abrams from Iraq aside, the question isn't so simple... But after reading years of Europeans, Chileans, Australians, and Canadians saying MY COUNTRY'S TANK IS BETTER THAN YOURS HAHAHAHA AMERICA! I'm gonna say its kinda even....if your in open desert without anything to hide behind than I'd take the M1A2.... Depleted Uranium/ Chobham Armor in general and in theory is more effective and denser than the roll/perforated aluminum armor....which is why the M1 family is more heavier than the Leopard family .......although the new Leo A5's claim their new perforated armor are within the protection class of the M1A2 against Kinetic Energy rounds. But in say a valley or woodlands of Europe I'd take the Leopard...it's speed and weight and fuel economy are great advantages in certain scenarios. Although it's only a 5 to 10 ton weight different between the two but it could mean whether you can cross a bridge or you have to travel 200 miles to a another one. Or hope you have a bridge layer tank and that it wont get disabled.

But the proves another problem when comparing the two....for every new country the Leopard 2 is sold to a slightly different version is created. The M1A2 line hasn't been updated as much or offered as in many (slight) variations, mainly due to a perceived lack of a real threat.

So it's easy for someone to say THE Leo2A5 CAN DO THIS THIS AND THIS....but its not even out yet and only offered to potential buyers....or the Leo A4 IS THIS THIS AND THIS but only _________ (tiny country in Europe) has it and only in a few dozen.

And also you have to understand the politics behind the development of the two tanks....in the 1950s the Germans and many other European nations got scared of the path tank development was going.....BIGGER AND BIGGER GUNS and THICK AND THICKER ARMOR to counter the bigger guns....the Germans and most Europeans realized they could not continue this path and their resource were limited ....heavier and better armored tanks = more $$, reinforcing bridges, more strain on military transport and infrastructure and much more fuel consumption, thus longer support and supply chain.

The Europeans rather trade armor for speed and maneuverability. With the L2A5 this might not be true anymore but in the 60s with Chobham armor it was. They believed it wasn't economically sound to choose the Chobham and heavier tank path or MBT development. Most European nations never required anything more from their MBT than to defend against Soviet MBTs, never dreaming to go on the offensive. Where as the US military had completely different ideas on their requirements for MBT.

So if your not really a world superpower then you want the Leo....frankly its more bang for the $$.... more economical and you could say "efficient". If you don't plan on WW3 and only need a MBT as a defensive instrument against other countries MBT then the Leo is more than qualified. But if you want a tank that is designed purely to slug it out in the complete naked open desert against the biggest and nastiest Soviet tank in the world....well then M1A2 is my pick....but if you want a tank to use in semi urban/rough terrain warfare in close proximity to civilians and anti team squads and IEDs than my pick is the Merkava 4 hands down....so really there is no best....

Again not to troll or flame but.....

So you can sit there and say Leo2A5 is better on paper than the Abram and I can say well America pretty much has conventional warfare down to a art and that if _______ European country fights the US...pretty much there a good chance most if not all of the Leo2A5s will never meet a M1A2 as they'll be picked off by F-16s/18s/15 strike eagles and not to mention little tiny UAV predators/Apaches/Cobras while being lit up like a Christmas tree by any tanker's worse nightmare......A-10 Warthog/thunderbolt with it's 30mm Depleted Uranium rounds and the god knows how many anti tank missiles it carries. And the CUB-97 Sensor Fused Weapon which is 1,000lb cluster bomb that carries 10 sub munitions that spins and circles a area and looks for armored vehicles to fire its Explosively Formed Projectile penetrator from above at. Not to mention B1/2/54s carrying cruise missiles (JSSAM, JSOW)...because the moment your tank exposes itself and comes out of it's underground or covered bunker and gets picked up by that giant souped up 707 called the JSTAR god knows how many missiles and strikes sorties will be dropped on your head. So I'd rather sit in a slightly worse tank in certain situations and know that I have more explosives than god behind me and ready to rain down in your head than in a tank that's only "slightly" better and that my country only has 100 to 200 of.
Last edited:
Both tanks are fully capable of handling current and future threats, you cannot use the weight argument inregards to the M1 series crossing bridges due to ground pressure measurements of the tank, also the LEO 2 A5 and A6 are both fielded with majority NATO alliance countries while LEO 2 A4s are making way with third world countries, so the A5 and A6 versions have been out for quite some time.
Not open for further replies.