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.
Yeah too many countries to keep track of who does and who doesn’t.
1 Like
Like quartas said earlier, it’s a cheaper and more abundant resource in the US.
I’m sure it’s Norway and Sweden, possibly Finland, but I have doubts for Finland.
1 Like
voted both cause in game the lepord is better but irl they are both pretty evenly matched
1 Like
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
I agree with that in every aspect but profile, but yes XD
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
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.
Of course Leopard 2 - basically a ‘golden standard’ among other MBT’s.
I occasionally notice the better reload decides duels in favor of Abrams’. So they’re better.
Which is very unrealistic to real life.
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
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
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
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
Cost-use ratio is very large and hard to calculate, so it’d take a while to be sure.
Any tank with an Autoloader is almost always superior by default. (Excluding T-tanks)
Not really. Ingame its better to have more crew (loader) for more survivability.
Irl a skilled loader can reload faster than any autoloader. Especially when the commander orders a double shot where the loader already holds the next shell in his arms. There are tank vids where loaders insert new shells at super warpspeed. No autoloader is able to do that.
Not really, considering you keep one in the chamber, you only have one moving shot, then you have to stop to reload the gun, that is unless you are driving on flat paved ground (almost never)
Even Germanic industry has acknowledged it as Rheinmettal’s new MBT’s are fitted with a bussel autoloader, and even the EMBT project between them and France.
(Rhinemettal KF-51 Panther loader)