Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
Weird that they would do that when they have their clamps, I mean fingers, in the very businesses that create tanks over here! Doesn't make sense really.
To each his own I guess.
An M1 probably costs considerably more, so I bet that had something to do with it.
-S
|
No. We have been using Leopards for a long time. To switch to M1s a good deal of time and money would have to go into retraining tankers to operate them. Seeing as we need the tanks in action now and not in four years, it is better to go with the more efficient and familiar choice, even if it may not be the best platform. |
Evaluations also showed that the Canadian military as well as other nations rank the Leo-2 and especially the A6-variant slightly better than the Abrams. Additionally, there is a logistics factor, and Leos 2s are
slightly easier to maintain and consume
far lesser fuel than M1s. And finally, the later Leo-2 models can be equipped with the new to-come-soon 125mm gun with longer barrel (or was it 140 mm, maybe I mix it up), which gives a.) higher precision, b.) greater penetration and c.) greater range than the 120mm. this is not the already new, longer L55 120 mm that the A6 already is equipped with. A deal on this gun with the americans, like it was done for the Rheinmetall 120mm, has not yet been made official. I do not know if it is even planned.
tjhat is my pori9vate and subjective view, but I think TC has better SA in the Leo2 than with the M1, sinc ehe has more options. the Swedes have equipped their Leos with a digital network link similiar in function and capacity to the American system in the M1A2s. Germany also has introduced such a system.
On the mine-protected A6M which is alreayd run by Canada in Afghanistan, leased from Germany.
The Canadians seem to be impressed. I know from a German soldier that the feedback from Afghanistan regarding the Candians and their German-leased Leo-2A6 already there is "rundum zufrieden" (totally satisfied), he said.
Abrams and Leo2 are in the same range regarding a lot of specifications. I would be very hesitent to say the one is "superior" to the other. Note that if you want to do something like that nevertheless, the Leo2 often is rated as "slightly better", and/or "best-balanced package there is".
Beside slightly lower costs, that'S the reason why Leopard-2s are operated by 15 countries (additonally to european countries: Chile, Canada) , the Abrams by 5 (USA, Kuwait (around 200), Saudi Arabia (around 200), Egypt (around 1000), australia (50)). In total, the Leo2 also got sold in higher numbers to exterior customers, than the Abrams. Political reasons att he time of deal, and relations also play a major role in "who buys what". also, some foreign customers have positive previous experiences with the Leopard 1 and the support by the manufcturer, which helped them to decide in favour of Leo-2 again.
"Which tanks is the better" often is discussed, and usually leads nowhere. there are so many other factors to be considered: doctrine, logistics, and crew quality: a superior tank with a bad crew still gets the crew killed.