Which is better, the American m1a2 Abrams tank or the German Leopard 2 tank?

Answer 1

both are great tanks , however the M1a2 is a better tank , better optics , better fire control , beter survivablity , remember no M1 has ever been destroyed by another tank .

Answer 2

Even though the U.S. military has the money and is always looking for the next big thing, the U.S. army has not been looking to upgrade the M1A2 much. Sure some friend/foe mapping system will or has been put into it and it's getting a couple of new weapons (The Israelis and the U.S. army are both developing laser guided rounds (The U.S. has the MRM-CE round) that can travel 12 km) and defense system (the Israelis call theirs the TROPHY system). Once these systems are put on the M1A2, the Leopard 2 wouldn't be able to get a round into the M1A2 while the M1A2 could take out a Leopard 2 it can't see with the help of a spoter with a laser targeting system. The M1A2 SEP (and the Israeli version) would probably not be given to other countries for awhile.

The Germans are happy with their tank.

Both systems sell well so I can't say one is beter than the other. The M1A2 has logged more combat hours and has held up well. The Leopard is more refined (better handeling, comfort level and probably a faster repair rate).

Answer 3

Most of your specs are wrong, others are speculative at best and your conclusions have no basis in fact. All 3 for example use the same gun and the M1 has NEVER FACED the T-90 in combat. No M1 has been knocked out in combat by an enemy tank either - not that I regard hot tank-on-tank action as the measure of a tanks performance because it isn't. The simple fact of the matter is the Type 90 is not exportable and is never going to compete against the M1A2 or Leopard 2A6 for a contract. Nor will they ever face each other in combat. So your rant is pointless.

Answer 4

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.

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

Answer 5

Obviously, I'm more partial to the M1A2. I do think that the Leopard 2 is a great tank, though.

When it all comes down to it, it's all about the tankers inside. You can have the world's best tank but if the crew sucks, all you have is a 70 ton taxi with a gun.

EDIT:

Alex, the M1 series tank is made to run on diesel/JP8. It's more powerful than the L2 in that aspect. The M1 series was developed to run on the low quality diesel the Soviets were using back in the day.

Answer 6

depends on the crew complement, terrain, who fires first, etc. there's no real way to say which. now, the M1A2 is more technologically advanced, and would probably win in a sandstorm. but the Leopard 2 is tough, a follow-on to the successful Leopard 1 series. it all comes down to the things i listed before. both have 120 mm cannons, i think, and both have heavy armor, particularly the Abrams. Abrams has more acceleration; my money would be on whichever tank fired first, with the best crew.

Answer 7

Actually there is no real difference they both use the same armor and guns. Their fire controls are equal to one another and their speed is the same. The only difference is that the leopard uses a diesel engine that uses less fuel than the Abrams so I would say the leopard has the slight advantage.

Answer 8

The L2. But that's only because it's one step
ahead in upgrading. These days the two tanks
share most of the important stuff. The L2 uses
much of the M1s electronics and the M1 uses
the german gun. If they actually get the 140mm
upgrade that's already being tested they'll be
another step ahead of the competition.

Most differences are with the engine. The M1
uses a gas powered one and the L2 uses a
classic diesel engine. Which is better is difficult
to say. It depends on the situation.

Answer 9

Leopard 2.

Answer 10

What, you have one that you want to test? Got some rounds of either that you can fire? Got a situation where you are criticaly involved?

Tell you what, I'll start a petition to buy one of each and we will buy them and come around your place, blow the heck out of your place and then drive away.

And you can decide which one was better.

OK?