Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
I did not want to go into specific details too much - if you want to set a forum on fire you just need to ask which tank is the best in the world, and off and high into the air blow all the turrets. Heads, I mean.
The tracks of the Leopard 2 are said to brake less easily than that of the M1, so AL has a point, though.
And Heibges:
selling the Leopard-series never was a problem, neither the Leo-1, nor the variants of the Leo-2. Leo-2 is far more widespread than the Abrams, and was delivered to more countries. The Chally-2 may have a bit more armour (at the price of less mobility), the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp), but the balance of these and other factors is what makes the Leopards so much wanted around the world. It is often said and written that it is the best balanced design worldwide. It's also offering the best mobility of the three leading western tank designs, despite it's very high armour level. I do not know much about the latest French tank, though - but it is said to also be an extremely advanced design.
|
What about Merkavas? How do they compare to the ones you mentioned?
|
I rememember training with the Canadian Army about 13 years ago at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. We had M-60's, and very strict regulations about speed limit. But the Canadians in their Leo 1's would fly up those dirt roads balls to the wall.
The Merkava is really a revolutionary design in many ways. They put engine in the front, which adds to the frontal armor and therefore crew survivability. I believe they can also carry a couple of troops in the back, so it is also a sort of personel carrier. And since it is relatively light, it doesn't beat the heck out of itself like the M1's and M1 Heavies.
__________________
U.Kdt.Hdb B. I. 28) This possibility of using the hydrophone to help in detecting surface ships should, however, be restricted to those cases where the submarine is unavoidably compelled to stay below the surface.
http://www.hackworth.com/