Abrams vs Leopard

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
35

Not entirely correct.

Countries that have developed or trialed DU MBT munitions :
USA (M1- M829 A3/A4/E1? Not sure on E1)
UK (Challenger 2- Charm 1 & 3 )
Russia (T90, T14- 3BM32 “Vant”, 3BM42M “Lekalo”?)
China (T99- DTP-125?)
India (Arjun- Not sure on model name)
Pakistan (Al-Khalid- Naiza APFSDS)

Countries that have access to DU MBT Munitions :

France (Access and trialed, no report on use)
Israel (Access, no report on use)

Countries that rely on tungsten due to environmental ethical reasons :

Germany
Japan
South Korea

EDIT : In terms of tanks : Freebrams takes the cake, combat tested and good looking. Leo coming in for a REAL close second.

36

For realism. I think the Abrams does a great job and suits better logistically in the hands of the United states and the Leopard for Germany.
These ‘battles in a vacuum’ are nothing but for people to stroke their egos.

In game: Leopard 2.
Because the turret is better.
The weakspots on the Abrams in game are so glaringly large and artificially induced that even full-caliber rounds can sneak through it’s turret ring. Unironically, if you gave the original Abrams the 120 with the M829A2 and kept the tank light. Most players would pick it just from the sheer maneuverability alone.

1 Like
37

Australia also only uses Tungsten for Environmental reasons.

1 Like
38

Interesting, I did not know this. I know some Scandinavian countries also avoid it but I am not sure enough to mention who and who’s’nt.

39

Yeah too many countries to keep track of who does and who doesn’t.

1 Like
40

Like quartas said earlier, it’s a cheaper and more abundant resource in the US.

41

I’m sure it’s Norway and Sweden, possibly Finland, but I have doubts for Finland.

1 Like
42

voted both cause in game the lepord is better but irl they are both pretty evenly matched

1 Like
43

The Abrams gun is a Rheinmetall gun, which is almost(!) the same as the leopard gun.

The MTU engine of the Leopard is superior to the Abrams gas turbine, not only in fuel consumption, but also in relation to heat dissapation from the exhaust.

So that’s why, in my book, the Leopard is the better tank.

What we can all agree on though, is that both tanks are superior to any russian tanks :)

1 Like
44

I agree with that in every aspect but profile, but yes XD

45

Modern tungsten composites have caught up to DU penetrators in raw penetration. The main benefits of DU now is a slightly better post-pen damage and being A LOT cheaper than tungsten.

2 Likes
46

That’s; arguable. Through its lifespan it costs more, in man hours, enrichment, and disposal; considering its “waste” though, and the government (US) regulates Nuclear Waste, they can practically get it for free at the end of its lifespan.

47

Of course Leopard 2 - basically a ‘golden standard’ among other MBT’s.

48

I occasionally notice the better reload decides duels in favor of Abrams’. So they’re better.

49

Which is very unrealistic to real life.

50

But the U in the DU has served it’s purpose and generated quite a bit of power by then no? Enough to cancel out the energy cost of mining it and processing it, and then the leftover can be used for weapons.

Overall just more efficient than tungsten which has a collective energy loss from mining to firing

1 Like
51

I vote for the European tank, though I think the Leclerc Is actually better irl because of the smaller profile, both the Leopard and the Abrams are too big, they’re humongous especially the leopard

1 Like
52

Not even really true anymore. Some WHA APFSDS have additional pyrophoric tail units to enhance their under armor effectiveness (cough DMXX series cough).

Also for those saying that “profile matters”, not anymore. With digital FCS and sights that can identify a vehicle out to 5km’s, whether you’re the size of a Leopard 2 or a T-72, you’ll still be spotted and engaged.

2 Likes
53

I wouldn’t say better, sure the incendiary effect would be better, but the spalling would also be worse by the self sharpening and the smaller size of the fragments of du

1 Like
54

Cost-use ratio is very large and hard to calculate, so it’d take a while to be sure.