GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The M60 was also a medium battle tank.
Even the illustrious T-72 was known to burn like a candle on a birthday cake...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The M60 was also a medium battle tank.M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.
I read somewhere the T-64 autoloader sometimes snagged the gunners arm and loaded it ILO a shell.
Probably no truth to the rumor but I'm not volunteering to serve as a T-64 gunner.
That's why the next upgrad of the Challenger2 will get a MTU engine and from all I haver heard the Rheinmetall 120-mm-Glattrohrkanone.
Also how many countries are equiped with the challenger2 compare to the Leopard 2?
That's absolutely why the Leopard2 is this poorly armored and had no fighting power?!
About the time the US was upgunning the M1 to 120 mm, NATO was doing some studies for the next generation of tank guns, concluding, iirc, that 140 mm would be the next step.
I do think it's vaguely interesting that the US lagged both Germany and the UK in going to 120 mm. Even more interesting is that the main tank guns of the US Army for many years have been foreign designs.
Since I don't think it's worth a new thread, does anybody here think that the MBT-70 could actually have entered service with any kind of success?
Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.
The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.
Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.
The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.
I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.
Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
Perhaps you should bring some proves and not just claim something.
All the tests around the world speaks clearly for the Leopard 2.
Like I said, I don't know either way, and am open minded on the subject.
I however have not seen or read anything that states its armour, armament and powerplant are terrible. Same with the M-1...
I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.
Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
Perhaps you should bring some proves and not just claim something.
All the tests around the world speaks clearly for the Leopard 2.
M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.
Leopard 1 - Virtually made of tissue paper. Armour protection only to lesser rounds. Easily destroyed by anything with a gun above 30mm so even a technical, a datsun! with a big enough gun could see one off. Some 23mm would penetrate the side armour.
Leopard 2 - sold fantastically - Never tested properly tested in war with the exception of limited conflicts!. Rejected by the British as poorly armored and too light a construction in the chassis.
Abrams - Oh dear. Can of worms this one. Great tank in a lot of respects. Really great. However - Pity about the amour. Bit of a Panther. Watch the (numerous) videos for the Gulf conflicts of burning Abrams taken out by handheld and just about anything else around the side and arse. Propensity to burn on the rear made worse by a turbine with a steamingly hot engine deck I wonder. Great up front but armour protection is much more than that. The Israels understood with the Merkava. Very poor loss level vs Challenger.
Prove what? What have you actually asked here?. At no stage have I said in any post what you have just said. At no point in any post have I said that the Challenger is a better tank. Please read my posts again and I'll reply.
Read my post again. You've just done the same thing again. 'Ours is better we made it'. This is a forum for discussion not patriotism. You have misread a post based on a defensive patriotic view and posture and polarized a topic and turned it into an argument. Not very positive. Also your language is accusatory and confrontational. You should try harder to encourage positive discussion were you might learn something constructive instead of being objectionable because you personally like something.