An M1A2 can hit over 70 MPH if you remove the govener?

SUBMAN1 · 08-25-09, 10:09 PM

Wow! Just watched that on TV. Some things I didn't know about the M1, that is for sure.

The Leopard II though - best tank in the world as far as best bang for the buck goes. The M1A2 is the Rolls Royce however. One on one, Leopard II is dead, but at what price tag? Is it really worth that much more for a marginal performance improvement? I'd have to say yes since I believe our troops should have the best there is, bar none.

-S

Sledgehammer427 · 08-25-09, 10:24 PM

I am all for the leopard 2, the Germans know their tanking, and my uncle who served in the gulf war told me a story about how his Humvee was doing about 55 mph and to his suprise an M1 went screaming by. granted, those gas-turbine engines are a hoot, but it seriously reduces the M1's range.
which is why I would prefer the leopards diesel engine.

now there's going to be a big long argument about which tank is better hehe

Task Force · 08-25-09, 10:42 PM

I perfer the tiger panzer... but... thats alittle outdated...:rotfl:

bookworm_020 · 08-25-09, 11:14 PM

Australia bought the M1's instead of the leopard 2. I still think we should have gone for the leopard 2

August · 08-25-09, 11:42 PM

I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience.

Melonfish · 08-26-09, 10:08 AM

you guys are just missing the challenger II! what a tank! i mean can you name any other tank with a built in water heater?
pete

SteamWake · 08-26-09, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience.

Thats what I was thinking a ride in that thing at 70mph would be like being stuck in a clothes dryer.

Skybird · 08-26-09, 10:40 AM

Plenty of secondary considerations go into guessing which tank you would prefer, Leo-2 or M1. For example the conditions of war you expect you need to fight in (defensive with stressed supply lines, or offensive), and the logistics capability of your army. That gas turbine of the M1 always consumes the same stellar ammount of fuel, no matter whether chasing down the street at maximum speed, or sitting still in idle, and it always shines bright as a christmas tree in thermal displays. The fuel needs of a Leo-2-basing tank force are much, much lower, since the Leo has as many PS as the Abrams, but bases on a Diesel engine (which additionally is extremely robust, and fast to replace if maintenance demands it). The modern versions of the Leo-2 feature equivalents to IVIS system for TC's SA, while the Leo-2 always has the additional TC advantage of that TC-perisope. Maximum speed for the Leo is slightly, but not much, higher than for the Abrams, while the Abrams has a slightly better acceleration, but if these minor difference really play a role in reality or not, only real tanker can tell you - but I doubt it. Ergonomics and firing procedures in the Leo-2 seem to be easier, shorter and thus: better. the Canadians using leased Leo2A6-ers in Afghanistan say they consider it to be the best tank in the world, and prefer it to the Abrams. But as I see it, all in all both tanks in their most modern incarnations pretty much compare to each other, with both vehicles being incredibly tough armoured, and mobilised. As an enemy tank, you would not like to have to deal with either a Leopard-2A6 or an modern Abrams. The main difference imo is the logistics factor, and easier maintenance, both speaking for the Leopard.

Both tanks derive from a German-US cooperation for a future tank, but that cooperation then broke apart. However, many of the design and dimension similiarities between both tanks are explained from that.

I must admit that I still failed to have learned anything about the Challenger-2. Shame on me!

Jimbuna · 08-26-09, 11:07 AM

Challenger 2 Specs:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

IMO she'll hold her own on the battlefield.

Schroeder · 08-26-09, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

since the Leo has as many PS as the Abrams

Er, it's HP in English.

08-26-09, 12:43 PM

Cool can keep up with highway traffic.

SteamWake · 08-26-09, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rilder

Cool can keep up with highway traffic.

Oh... and if traffic back up just driver over em !

Falkirion · 08-26-09, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

Australia bought the M1's instead of the leopard 2. I still think we should have gone for the leopard 2

Couldn't agree with you more Book.

SUBMAN1 · 08-26-09, 09:48 PM

You guys are forgetting - the M1 has 505 Gallons of fuel on board. Yes, takes a lot to fill up, but what other tank can you run up into the local civi's garage, find some paint thinner, some vodka, and it can run on it?

That is what it is designed to do - run on anything decently flammable.

Stick that in your Leopard! Gonna cause you much headache!

Aussies made a wise, but expensive purchase. Of course, the extra 18 tons of weight will do wonders for your black top! I guess if you are on a budget, a Leopard will fit the bill.

-S

Thomen · 08-26-09, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You guys are forgetting - the M1 has 505 Gallons of fuel on board. Yes, takes a lot to fill up, but what other tank can you run up into the local civi's garage, find some paint thinner, some vodka, and it can run on it?

That is what it is designed to do - run on anything decently flammable.

Stick that in your Leopard! Gonna cause you much headache!

Aussies made a wise, but expensive purchase. Of course, the extra 18 tons of weight will do wonders for your black top! I guess if you are on a budget, a Leopard will fit the bill.

-S

As far as I remember, You can throw anything from alcohol to vegetable oil into the damn Leopard engine, and it will still run.
Interestingly there seem to be quite some international experts that put the Leopard 2 clearly above the Abrams.

08-25-09, 10:09 PM	#1
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	An M1A2 can hit over 70 MPH if you remove the govener? Wow! Just watched that on TV. Some things I didn't know about the M1, that is for sure. The Leopard II though - best tank in the world as far as best bang for the buck goes. The M1A2 is the Rolls Royce however. One on one, Leopard II is dead, but at what price tag? Is it really worth that much more for a marginal performance improvement? I'd have to say yes since I believe our troops should have the best there is, bar none. -S __________________

08-25-09, 10:24 PM	#2
Sledgehammer427 PacWagon Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Drinking coffee and staring at trees in Massachusetts Posts: 2,908 Downloads: 287 Uploads: 0	I am all for the leopard 2, the Germans know their tanking, and my uncle who served in the gulf war told me a story about how his Humvee was doing about 55 mph and to his suprise an M1 went screaming by. granted, those gas-turbine engines are a hoot, but it seriously reduces the M1's range. which is why I would prefer the leopards diesel engine. now there's going to be a big long argument about which tank is better hehe __________________ Cold Waters Voice Crew - Fire Control Officer Cmdr O. Myers - C/O USS Nautilus (SS-168) 114,000 tons sunk - 4 Spec Ops completed V-boat Nutcase - Need supplies? Japanese garrison on a small island in the way? Just give us a call! D4C!

08-25-09, 10:42 PM	#3
Task Force Rear Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: SPACE!!!! Posts: 10,142 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I perfer the tiger panzer... but... thats alittle outdated...:rotfl: __________________ Task Force industries "Taking control of the world, one mind at a time"

08-25-09, 11:14 PM	#4
bookworm_020 Navy Seal Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sinking ships off the Australian coast Posts: 5,966 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	Australia bought the M1's instead of the leopard 2. I still think we should have gone for the leopard 2 __________________ "There is always one person in any organization who knows whats going on, That person must be fired"

08-25-09, 11:42 PM	#5
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

08-26-09, 10:08 AM	#6
Melonfish XO Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Warrington, UK Posts: 417 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	you guys are just missing the challenger II! what a tank! i mean can you name any other tank with a built in water heater? pete

08-26-09, 10:40 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Plenty of secondary considerations go into guessing which tank you would prefer, Leo-2 or M1. For example the conditions of war you expect you need to fight in (defensive with stressed supply lines, or offensive), and the logistics capability of your army. That gas turbine of the M1 always consumes the same stellar ammount of fuel, no matter whether chasing down the street at maximum speed, or sitting still in idle, and it always shines bright as a christmas tree in thermal displays. The fuel needs of a Leo-2-basing tank force are much, much lower, since the Leo has as many PS as the Abrams, but bases on a Diesel engine (which additionally is extremely robust, and fast to replace if maintenance demands it). The modern versions of the Leo-2 feature equivalents to IVIS system for TC's SA, while the Leo-2 always has the additional TC advantage of that TC-perisope. Maximum speed for the Leo is slightly, but not much, higher than for the Abrams, while the Abrams has a slightly better acceleration, but if these minor difference really play a role in reality or not, only real tanker can tell you - but I doubt it. Ergonomics and firing procedures in the Leo-2 seem to be easier, shorter and thus: better. the Canadians using leased Leo2A6-ers in Afghanistan say they consider it to be the best tank in the world, and prefer it to the Abrams. But as I see it, all in all both tanks in their most modern incarnations pretty much compare to each other, with both vehicles being incredibly tough armoured, and mobilised. As an enemy tank, you would not like to have to deal with either a Leopard-2A6 or an modern Abrams. The main difference imo is the logistics factor, and easier maintenance, both speaking for the Leopard. Both tanks derive from a German-US cooperation for a future tank, but that cooperation then broke apart. However, many of the design and dimension similiarities between both tanks are explained from that. I must admit that I still failed to have learned anything about the Challenger-2. Shame on me! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-26-09, 11:07 AM	#9
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,500 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Challenger 2 Specs: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm IMO she'll hold her own on the battlefield. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-26-09, 12:43 PM	#11
Rilder Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Cool can keep up with highway traffic.

08-26-09, 09:48 PM	#14
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	You guys are forgetting - the M1 has 505 Gallons of fuel on board. Yes, takes a lot to fill up, but what other tank can you run up into the local civi's garage, find some paint thinner, some vodka, and it can run on it? That is what it is designed to do - run on anything decently flammable. Stick that in your Leopard! Gonna cause you much headache! Aussies made a wise, but expensive purchase. Of course, the extra 18 tons of weight will do wonders for your black top! I guess if you are on a budget, a Leopard will fit the bill. -S __________________