M1a2 or Leopard 2?

Answer 1

Leopard 2 A 6 of course and nothing else

Answer 2

The one major selling point for the M1Ax (hereafter referred to as the M1) is the fact that it is battle tested and proved. Back when the US was in the M60xx series the Leopard came out. Most tankers at the time thought the Leopard was a superior vehicle (and it really was). During the 90’s the Germans were working hard on improving the Leopard series while the US switched to the M1.

The M1 originally had a 105mm Gun (actually the same gun as was in the M60xx series) (probably as much to use up the existing stocks of ammunition (which at the time was stockpiled everywhere in the world for contingencies)). The US switched to the 120mm main gun that is in there currently (I believe this is the same gun as in the Leopard and can be used interchangeably with some modifications) and will upgrade at some point to the new 120mm gun. All the above is a long winded way of saying the firepower between the current in the field Leopard and the M1A2 is pretty much a wash – both are pushing for improved guns but I am looking specifically at hulls in the field.

The discussion about the armor is debatable except for the specifications. The M1 has battle tested armor which has survived numerous attempts from mines, RPG’s antitank missiles, and other tanks. Please see the reference for specifics on vehicle losses and crew KIA/WIA in the recent war in Iraq. It is debatable because the Leopard has not had the same baptism by fire. Specifications are one thing, being able to walk away from an mobility kill or turret shot is another thing entirely. I’ll leave it at that.

Both vehicles have integrated fire control and some sort of battlefield intelligence systems. The M1 is now in production (new variant) with the combat tested battle integration system that was tested during and after deployment with the 4th Infantry in Iraq in its striking cavalry units and armored formations. The Leopard is not at this level of sophistication and battlefield integration yet (though there are rumors about this within the armor community).

Both vehicles have their adherents and detractors, but the best reason I will submit for the M1 over the Leopard is numbers in the field. This number equates to spare parts stocked worldwide, available skilled personnel who have been trained on the specific platform and ammunition that can be used in emergency.

As an old cavalry trooper I remember the three important axioms of the tanking world:

What can be seen, can be hit
What can be hit, can be killed
Shoot, move, and communicate

“Ready and Forward”

Answer 3

Without access to classified information it's far more difficult to answer the question.

The Leopard 2A6 does have a slightly better main gun, the 120mm Rheinmetal smoothbore cannon. It is the same gun used on the M1A2, however the Leopard has a 55 calibre weapon as opposed to the 44 calibre weapon on the M1A2, which gives it slightly better range , accuracy, and better penetration ability. Both tanks have very similar levels of armor proctection, although some feel that the layer of Depleted Uranium on the M1A2 gives it better protection against kinetic energy (KE) weapons.

One of the primary drawbacks is the massive fuel consumption of the M1A2, using twice as much fuel per mile as other modern main battle tanks.

Comparing modern Western tanks such as the M1A2, Leopard 2A6, Challenger 2, LeClerc, etc, is very problemtic and totally subjective without having access to classified information. However, the M1 does have one thing going for it.........it has been combat tested on numerous occasions, completely dominating Iraqi armor in 1991 and 2003. Being combat proven is a definitely a factor in its favor.

I don't know where gregory_dittman gets the idea that the M1 or Leopard carry anti-tank missiles. That is totally false, and the M1 certainly doesn't use either TOW or Hellfire.

You really can't go wrong with either one, as both are superior to anything used by non-NATO countries.

Answer 4

Depends what you want to do. They're good for different reasons. This question recently arose in Australia when we decided to upgrade from the Leopard 1. When it came down with it, the tank with the most fire power and protection was the Challenger II. The problem was that it guzzles fuel too quickly. This was fine in Europe or America, but it was found that because Australia is so large that it wasn't feasible. Fuel points are to sparse.

The Leopard 2 is a fantastic tank, reliable, strong and effective, and important to Australian conditions, a greater range. It is also a very hardy tank, also very important for Australian Conditions. This was the Obvious Choice.

The M1A2, the standard US tank is the one we went for though. Not because it was a better tank, but because it was American. Really the only reason was so that the US and AUS became more compatible. An Australian crew can drive an American Tank, and an American can drive an Australian Tank. Also maintenance and transportation of the tanks can be done by either country. With a standardized tank, generals know the limitations and the transportation vehicles can take either countries tank.

We only bought 59 though. Generally the plan is to train Australian Crews and personnel on the tanks, and if we go to war, we send them over to use American Tanks.

So really you need to put the question into context.

Answer 5

It depends. Both tanks can destroy each other on the battlefield with thier main guns. Both tanks can carry anti tank missles such as the hellfire or tow 2. This is where the M1A2 will win as it will have better targetting hand off capability and be able to take out Leopard tanks at the full range of the missles (three to four miles away for the hellfire) with the aid of anybody with a targetting system. That could now be everyone in the U.S. military with the new land warrior system. Aircraft already have that capability. With this intergrated targetting system, every Leopard 2 tank the country has could be destroyed in less than three days even if the only thing on the battlefield was tanks.

Ok wrong about the Hellfire and Tow, since the M12A will be firing the MRM-KE from the main gun with the same range listed above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRM-KE
The Israeli can launch their Lahat missle from the main gun of the M1A2.

Answer 6

A US tank formation incorporates both Abrams MBT's and Bradley IFV's, they make what's usually a See Shoot blend. The Bradleys use a extra stepped ahead targeted on equipment, with a defense force internet, they deliver the training to the Abrams, this gives the Abrams a severe benefit. And both automobiles can fireplace a lengthy rang missile (Bradley=Tow 2, Abrams= 100 and twenty mm missile with similar training). This nullifies the Leopard 2's determination benefit.

Answer 7

Both very good tanks. It would be quite a battle it the two were matched up against each other. I would say I like the British Challenger 2 as the top tank too bad you did not list that as well.
But the money is on the M1.

Answer 8

The Leopard is superior if that is the question.
Over 80 Abrams have been taken out by a rag tag bunch of "towel heads" or mechanical failure.

Answer 9

i would wager on leopard 2
but to be honest there is very little difference between the two

personally i like the israeli merkava, same guns but with better armor and survavibility

Answer 10

As much a fan I am of German technology...especially WW2, I would have to be patriotic and say M1 all the way!