Both very good tanks but I think... Leopard 2 A7V have some advantages. Both tanks uses the german rheinmetall 120mm but only germany uses the newer L55 (Abrams L44). Second point is, that the abrams engine drinks a lot... nearly 100% more fuel for same work and he cannot dive. Europe have a lot of water, lakes, rivers etc. etc..
The Abrams was designed for Europe and had to be modified for the desert. The diesel in the Leopard is a better choice because limited fuel availability and the extra range helps. Pretty much every gas station in Europe has diesel if German logistics can't keep their armor fueled. The turbine in the Abrams is used for the higher weight, added mobility, crew survivability, improved performance, and all terrain/weather for fighting around the world at the cost of range. USA will bring everything with them for a fight around the world and have the flexibility to use alternative fuels if needed. One tank isn't any better than the other, they just have different role within their combined arms doctrine.
@@mrgold3591 Sorry but you are wrong. The Abrams is made for US army in the role of supremacy.. so it is not important for the us, that abrams is only second or third best. He is good enough. But other armys have different strategy and possibilities.
@@bobthecanon3457 The Abrams isn't designed to be the best tank in the world. It was designed to be the best tank within a combined arms tactic with Infantry, artillery, close air support, engineers, air defense, etc... It performs it job perfectly in that job until it doesn't. That is when upgrades are needed to fill that roll again within the combined arms doctrine.
@@mrgold3591 Plse dont say wrong things. The Abrams and Leopard both originated from the same German-American tank project in the 70's, but both countries couldn't finally agree on a common tank. So Germany built the Leopard and the US built the Abrams. Even the first batch of the Leopard was clearly superior to the Abrams and that was not only due to the main armament. Because the first Abrams still carried a 105mm in contrast to the German Rheinmetall's 120mm of the Leopard. In all comparisons of the last decades, the leopard was able to convince. Against Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger. Germany keeps the Leopard (currently Leopard 2 A7V) up to date and up to date. The Abrams isn't a bad tank... but it's not the best tank for the US, nor for itself. It doesn't have to be, since the Americans' enactment doctrine is based on superiority.
Hatten die erste M1 nicht eine 105 Millimeter Kanone? Somit hatte er doch gegenüber einem Leopard 2 einen entscheidenden Nachteil was Präzision und Feuerkraft betrifft.
Ja, die ersten Abrams hatten noch die 105mm. Erst mit dem A2 (soweit ich weiß) haben Sie sich für die deutsche Rheinmetall L44 entschieden, die in Amerika und mit Lizenz gefertigt wird. Aber mittlerweile nutzt der Leo schon lange die L55. Der Abrams ist sicherlich ein guter Panzer aber wäre für uns nicht so brauchbar. Diesel gibt es im Krieg bei uns an jeder Ecke... die Turbine säuft das Doppelte und hat ein Wärmebild, das sehen noch die Chinesen auf dem Schirm. Problem ist auch, dass man mit der Turbine nicht durch Flüsse kann... also die Schnorchelfahrten, die ein Leo locker wegsteckt, gingen mit dem Abrams gar nicht.
Jeder Tank ist nur so gut wie seine Crew..Und beide Panzer sind in der Nato...also was soll's. The Abrams Gun ist the same as the Leopard..And the Abrams Engine needs more Fuel as the Leopard..
@@wolflarsen1900 The Abrams gun is actually built under license in the United States. It's also different inside. Different mechanism, different propellant.
@@wolflarsen1900 I wouldn't matter, Same "Paper Tiger" Soviet/Russian JUNK Tanks/IFV and tactics that all Nato Tanks would Destroy !!! You fight who you fight. Sgt, Semper Fi
@@wolflarsen1900 At least the Abrams faced off against enemy tanks. The Leopard II has yet to do this, so no one knows for certain how it would perform in combat.
@@classicgalactica5879 ääh no. the leo won in every single competetion, the abrahams never lost any. any other question? and now shot upt and by happy with your desillusioned american propaganda. kind regards
They are basically the same tank. Both have the same cannon gun. Use the same ammunition. U.S and Germany worked together developing this tanks. I'd take either one. With an experience tank crew!.
Both very good tanks but I think... Leopard 2 A7V have some advantages. Both tanks uses the german rheinmetall 120mm but only germany uses the newer L55 (Abrams L44). Second point is, that the abrams engine drinks a lot... nearly 100% more fuel for same work and he cannot dive. Europe have a lot of water, lakes, rivers etc. etc..
... and turbines suck in all the dust in dessert and dry areas
The Abrams was designed for Europe and had to be modified for the desert. The diesel in the Leopard is a better choice because limited fuel availability and the extra range helps. Pretty much every gas station in Europe has diesel if German logistics can't keep their armor fueled. The turbine in the Abrams is used for the higher weight, added mobility, crew survivability, improved performance, and all terrain/weather for fighting around the world at the cost of range. USA will bring everything with them for a fight around the world and have the flexibility to use alternative fuels if needed. One tank isn't any better than the other, they just have different role within their combined arms doctrine.
@@mrgold3591 Sorry but you are wrong. The Abrams is made for US army in the role of supremacy.. so it is not important for the us, that abrams is only second or third best. He is good enough. But other armys have different strategy and possibilities.
@@bobthecanon3457 The Abrams isn't designed to be the best tank in the world. It was designed to be the best tank within a combined arms tactic with Infantry, artillery, close air support, engineers, air defense, etc... It performs it job perfectly in that job until it doesn't. That is when upgrades are needed to fill that roll again within the combined arms doctrine.
@@mrgold3591 Plse dont say wrong things. The Abrams and Leopard both originated from the same German-American tank project in the 70's, but both countries couldn't finally agree on a common tank. So Germany built the Leopard and the US built the Abrams. Even the first batch of the Leopard was clearly superior to the Abrams and that was not only due to the main armament. Because the first Abrams still carried a 105mm in contrast to the German Rheinmetall's 120mm of the Leopard. In all comparisons of the last decades, the leopard was able to convince. Against Abrams, Leclerc and Challenger. Germany keeps the Leopard (currently Leopard 2 A7V) up to date and up to date. The Abrams isn't a bad tank... but it's not the best tank for the US, nor for itself. It doesn't have to be, since the Americans' enactment doctrine is based on superiority.
Hatten die erste M1 nicht eine 105 Millimeter Kanone? Somit hatte er doch gegenüber einem Leopard 2 einen entscheidenden Nachteil was Präzision und Feuerkraft betrifft.
Ja, aber nur die ersten 60 hatten die britische 105 mm danach 120 mm Glattrohrkanone von Rheinmetall auf die die ersten 60 auch nachgerüstet wurden.
@@steffenrosmus9177 Danke für die Info!
Ja, die ersten Abrams hatten noch die 105mm. Erst mit dem A2 (soweit ich weiß) haben Sie sich für die deutsche Rheinmetall L44 entschieden, die in Amerika und mit Lizenz gefertigt wird. Aber mittlerweile nutzt der Leo schon lange die L55. Der Abrams ist sicherlich ein guter Panzer aber wäre für uns nicht so brauchbar. Diesel gibt es im Krieg bei uns an jeder Ecke... die Turbine säuft das Doppelte und hat ein Wärmebild, das sehen noch die Chinesen auf dem Schirm. Problem ist auch, dass man mit der Turbine nicht durch Flüsse kann... also die Schnorchelfahrten, die ein Leo locker wegsteckt, gingen mit dem Abrams gar nicht.
Tiger 1 : Make me proud my grandson !
Jeder Tank ist nur so gut wie seine Crew..Und beide Panzer sind in der Nato...also was soll's.
The Abrams Gun ist the same as the Leopard..And the Abrams Engine needs more Fuel as the Leopard..
yes and the gun is made by germany
@@wolflarsen1900 The Abrams gun is actually built under license in the United States. It's also different inside. Different mechanism, different propellant.
Theres not much difference of the twos. After all challey,leopard and m1 are cousin leclerc are cousins
Pick on the enemy (Russians/Chicoms) not your greatest Ally !!!
As long as both are better than any chinese tanks everything is ok. Won't be long .......
Why do you do this ?
They will never fight, and the M1 Abrams Battle record in history will Never be beaten !
Sgt, Semper Fi
yes but you only have the record because you had an enemy (a very very baaad enemy)
@@wolflarsen1900 I wouldn't matter, Same "Paper Tiger" Soviet/Russian JUNK Tanks/IFV and tactics that all Nato Tanks would Destroy !!! You fight who you fight. Sgt, Semper Fi
@@wolflarsen1900 At least the Abrams faced off against enemy tanks. The Leopard II has yet to do this, so no one knows for certain how it would perform in combat.
@@classicgalactica5879 ääh no. the leo won in every single competetion, the abrahams never lost any. any other question? and now shot upt and by happy with your desillusioned american propaganda. kind regards
They are basically the same tank. Both have the same cannon gun. Use the same ammunition. U.S and Germany worked together developing this tanks. I'd take either one. With an experience tank crew!.
If you Believe in Jesus Christ, you will be Saved by Grace Alone, John 3:16, KJV....,
I'm calling BS. The Leopard II has never seen combat. The Abrams is a grizzled veteran. It is the superior vehicle.
since WW2 all tanks are air force breakfast. They are pure PR material only