Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Tiger Tank vs. Current Issue

Being dead or not but I'd still take the Leopard 2 over a M1.

To each his own. I enjoy living!

Expat

Well there is no doubt that the three best battle tanks are the Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger. I would hate to have to see a duel between those three although based on the DVD the Abrams has the edge over both but only by a slim margin.

Well said derby dude..I enjoy life myself thus the L2.

When I was stationed in West Berlin in 1971, I worked with a German civilian (whose father had been a Colonel in the SS), and he told me that a WWII German tank was equivalent to 10 US tanks. Of course, the Americans always had an eleventh tank!

In a static fight, you are correct, but in a moving fight, the gap widens. The M1 has a decided advantage in speed, cross-country mobility, and fire control.

Expat

Yup the numbers from east and west won the tank battle.Not the machines.Though the T 34 in it's time was a wicked bastid with the numbers behind it..

I was in a armored scout squadron in the early 60's & we had the M29A3 tanks. No comparison as you stated to the German Tiger. Some of my fellow officers had served in Korea where the M29's did well. Our squadron commander was a young officer in WWII & told many horror stories of whole companies of Sherman's being destroyed by Tigers. When tankers surrendered most were executed by the Germans. When we received the M60 it was like comparing a candle to a flashlight. A/C, night vision, computerized range finding, etc. We were ready to take on the Russians.

Actually, the only reason they didn't was because the Tanks slowed up their advance and wait for the Loggies...

In one instance it was M1's from the USMC, and they endup waiting for a couple of days...Of course it doesn't help when the enemy folds like a pack of cards

But in both wars, running out of fuel or rounds was the main worry, as it was only at that point the Iraqi's stood any chance of counter attacking, and even then it was slim...

The Tiger and the King Tiger were momuments to stupidity. All told the German's built less than 1400 of them. While The Russians built 50+ thousand T-34's and We Built 54 thousand M-4 Shermans. While the Tigers were some of the most formadable tanks fielded in the Second World War, it would be a turkey shoot for them going up an M-1 Abrams or any other tank built from the mid 1960's on ward. Now the Mk 4 Panther the better tank. Germany had a lot of problems in world war II. They could never produce enough of the good stuff they needed, because Germans like to over engineer things. All you have to do is look at how they engineer a VW today verses the VW Bugs that were Aircooled in the 1945 to the late 1970's. Like I said the like to build Monuments. The T-34 was crude and easy to make, and it was a very good cross country machine for the Russian Seppes. The right machine in the right place. To bad the fools forgot about radio's. That was the edge the German had in the East for the first year or so. A simple two way radio.

The fire control on the Abrams and Challenger 2 are almost indentical as they are from the same company,(not sure about the Leopard 2)Canadian I believe...

The Abrams is faster than Challenger 2 across country but not by much, but Challenger has better range, and doesn't have that thermal signature of the Abrams.

The Abrahams has a German 120mm smoothbore gun, where as the British went with a similar sized rifled design. The Abrams gets to use the so called Silver Bullet round, probably the best anti tank round available today. The British uses a similar round (not quite as good but still defeats current WARSAW Pact armour) but retains the ability to fire HESH and HEAT rounds which need to be rifled to be accurate.

In the past this has been seen as added versitility, but there is much debate now on whether to go to the 120mm smoothbore (or bigger) and trials are on going...

I finished my time in an armoured recce regiment driving Fox CVR-(W) and we used to get to drool over Challenger 2's....Lets just say the performance exceeds their paper specs in many areas (I'm sure its the same with Abrams) and they are are world class kit...Challenger 1 onthe other hand was pretty dismal and was only in service for about 10 years, but Challenger 2 certainly corrected all its short comings and then some...

Edited to add both the Challenger 2 and the Abrams have been been breached by the RPG29...Whether by luck or skilled shot placement is open to debate, but neither tank is invincible...

Regards,

Peter

I'm going with the battle tested, Abrams.
If I hadda. Normally I ride in a Ford. .357 cal main gun, no armour. Good speed.

No armored advance can proceed faster than its fuel. The advance didn't slow from what was planned, it was slowed from the pace the maneuver commander opted to set. No plan survives contact intact, but all choices have implications and there are laws of physics that have to be obeyed even in war. I've never been assocated with an American military effort in which there was not 3-4 times more ammo on hand than what was required. It is cheap insurance in the long run.

Expat

Made me think of this:

Challenger 2 tank vs Land Rover

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0sGDbjTQ8Q

Are you German? No offense but I notice you favor German technology as superior over all others.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this tactic of the Second World War: US tanks were there to support infantry advances, not take on German tanks. Tank destroyers were the machine intended to take on Tigers, like the M10 and M18.

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/tanks.htm

44henry

well, it was and is pretty good. I cant blame anyone for liking german weapons, tanks, ect

Wanna see my gun Yankee boy?


Grrrr, ruff, ruff.

It's loaded for a little devil...

Well this settles it! Case closed, argument over!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO5X_xTR6k0&NR=1

Derby-Dude,

Except the Leopard 2 has never been in combat, at least not tank ~v~ tank combat.

Incidently guess which tank holds the record for the longest kill on another tank at 5.1km?

Which tank had no losses (either kills or disabled) to enemy action in either GW 1 or GW2?

During GW1 and GW2 which tank was so reliable/ well armoured that it has never had to be abandoned/destroyed due to break down or minor battle damage??

Which tank has only had three losses, (one destroyed by FF, one breached by an RPG29 and other breached by a large EOD) since coming into service?

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the Abrams!

Edited to add the most important feature I nearly forgot: The Challenger has a BV (think tea-ern!) as standard!