The Challenger 2, the Leopard 2, and M1A2 are for all intents and purposes equal. As you said, we can only know which is best if and when the Germans start WW3 sometime soon. And what tank the Australians have is completely irrelevant because their military will not make any extremely important impact in the near-future. Sorry, but you have to admit that unless Indonesia invades or something it really doesn't matter. Hell, it probably doesn't matter even if that does happen!
ADF goes with Challenger 2 or Leopard 2
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
No, not exactly true.
It was not a typical Russian made RPG 7(or chinese clone) that can damage Abrams battle tanks, it probably was a Russian RPG 27 or RPG 29 that are much more sophisticated then RPG 7. The Challenger was hit 8 times or so with low grade RPG's like the 7. It was a Milian 2 anti-tank missile that damaged the challenger tank. The 27 and 29 are designed to penetrate composite and reactive armor. Some test with the RPG 29 have penetrated the frontal armor of the T-80 and T-90, certainly not the Abrams or Challenger but still designed to damage modern main battle tanks. Here is a story about the Abrams being supposedly damaged by a RPG 29, look on the 2 page. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/middleeast/21sadr.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp
Another possibility was that both tanks were hit at some point by a MILAN 2 Anti Tank Missile. That is a very different and far more sophisticated weapon. Milian 2 is effective against composite armor, but again it is a guided missile with a sophisticated warhead not a rocket propelled grenade, big difference. Milian 3 is used more against tanks with reactive armor.
I'm American, but I'm not a big fan of the Abrams. It burns too much fuel and requires too much specialized maintenance.
I like the Leopard II much better. Just as effective, with a nice simple diesel.
Where and when? The only time I remember an M1A1 being disabled by enemy fire was during the thunder run on Baghdad. Its engine was disabled but a very good or lucky hit, possibly by an RPG or Recoilless rifle. You hit any tank's engine its going to stop. Plus they could have pulled the tank with them if need be.
Quaility wise any tank mentioned here that the ADF could have bought would have been fine. The Chally, Abrams, and Leo are all excellent first line MBTs. As others have said it comes down to cost.
And has all the same complex electronics and other maintenance issues a first line tank is going to have. They all require complex maintenance and service.
MacCaulay
Banned
Thpbt.
You're forgetting about sales to third-world nations! And the fact that gear whores love to argue minutae! Why else would we be on an alternate history site?
Yeah I know but my point is all modern tanks are complex machines, all are going to need complicated service. If it isn't the engine its going to be the gun, or the electronics, or armor. Plus the Army has had over two decades to switch to another engine, they haven't.
The Lepoard, Challenger, and Abrams all use a variation of the same German designed Tank Gun. All have chobum armor, incredible sophistication in their electronics.
The French main battle tank is an excellent design, not unlike the other 3.
The French main battle tank is an excellent design, not unlike the other 3.
Has a Leopard series tank ever killed any of the Russian tank series in combat? I'm trying to think of where it might have happened but have come up short.
MacCaulay
Banned
After a quick search of my books...I'm going to say that it's never even happened.
The Canadians had Leopard 1s in Afghanistan around the same time that the Taliban still had some operating T-55s and T-62s, but they were never anywhere near each other.
There were the wargames between the Canadians and the OPFOR at Ft. Irwin in the desert, where Leopard 1s more or less always came out on top though with frequent kills among their ranks. This was often attributed to home-field advantage among the OPFOR personnel. (Dragons At War: Land Battle in the Desert, Daniel P. Bolger)
The fact that people are actually debating this is kind of silly, but as an American, I also prefer the Leo II. You also have to take into account that the Brits have never exported the Chally II, so there's also another factor.
Everyone is forgetting the French LeClerc! What's wrong with you people!
Honestly the only way we will ever know is when the next generation of tanks come out, and we start exporting M1's Challys and Leos out for unstable African nations to play with, then we will see how well they do vs. one another.
To be honest on the subject on what tank to buy, I was thinking more along the lines of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank.
But, alas the Australian Army never had M60's so it's not as good an option. But, it is an option. The US military would love to throw surplus M60's rotting in the mothballs dirt cheap I bet, along with the M60-2000 upgrade (also known as the M60T or Sabra III in the Turkish military) for a pretty low price. You could get way more number wise for the same cost, and the M60-2000 upgrade is on the level of a Merkava Mk. IV, or T-90. So it's still a modern main battle tank by comparison.
Everyone is forgetting the French LeClerc! What's wrong with you people!
Honestly the only way we will ever know is when the next generation of tanks come out, and we start exporting M1's Challys and Leos out for unstable African nations to play with, then we will see how well they do vs. one another.
To be honest on the subject on what tank to buy, I was thinking more along the lines of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank.
But, alas the Australian Army never had M60's so it's not as good an option. But, it is an option. The US military would love to throw surplus M60's rotting in the mothballs dirt cheap I bet, along with the M60-2000 upgrade (also known as the M60T or Sabra III in the Turkish military) for a pretty low price. You could get way more number wise for the same cost, and the M60-2000 upgrade is on the level of a Merkava Mk. IV, or T-90. So it's still a modern main battle tank by comparison.
MacCaulay
Banned
As far as best tank for the money, I believe I proved with a (very well put together) slide show on my "Best post-World War II Tank"-thread in Chat that it was the Centurion.
That tank has a cheap running price, and a reliable history. It's able to be endlessly upgraded and is outfitted with the 105mm L7-series gun, which is probably the best tank gun ever fitted in the history of armoured warfare.
There are South African versions of the Centurion that are still in operation. The chassis are between 40 and 60 years old. That's unheard of in the world of armour. No other tank has that kind of longevity, especially when it's been through constant combat like the Centurion has.
And if pitted against most Western modern MBT's it would be a hunk of burning scrap metal. No first world army would consider buying one today. Its obsolete, and pretty much at the limit of it's upgradability.
Its really very simple. The M1's we bought are training aids. Nothing more.
We bought them so that our soldiers would be able to hop straight into American M1's deployed by Americans to a land far far away so we can go out and save American butts.
And so they can save our butts when they deploy to a land close close by, namely our own northern yard when the big bad Indon's come down on us.
Its for exactly the same reason our air force deliberately likes to buy US Navy equipment. Because they're the most likely ones to respond quickest and operate with us. Hence off the shelf F/A-18F's.
We bought them so that our soldiers would be able to hop straight into American M1's deployed by Americans to a land far far away so we can go out and save American butts.
And so they can save our butts when they deploy to a land close close by, namely our own northern yard when the big bad Indon's come down on us.
Its for exactly the same reason our air force deliberately likes to buy US Navy equipment. Because they're the most likely ones to respond quickest and operate with us. Hence off the shelf F/A-18F's.
Last edited:
MacCaulay
Banned
Good point. I really hope you don't think that I was trying to say that a Centurion could take out an M1. Good lord.
MacCaulay
Banned
The add-on armour helped, though I did like the original boxy turret.
It does look better than the M1A1.