>/k/ suddenly hates the leopard 2
What happened?
>>29511067
you started thinking /k/ was one person you fucking dolt
I like the Leopard 2 :(
>>29511067
i love leo2.
It's impossible to judge the modern MBT's capabilities since they're all super secret and have not had anything to face them that would prove them in combat.
They're all reliable, comfortable, safe and powerful.
But leo2 is the most beautiful. That turret overhang
>>29511067
/k/ presumably learned that it has a magazine that lacks blowout panels.
>>29511175
>It's impossible to judge the modern MBT's capabilities since they're all super secret
why did they put a shot trap on the leopard 2 over the 1?
seems stupid desu senpai
>>29511425
"shot traps" have not been a thing since before your father was born.
you are repeating a meme that's been around since before women could vote
>>29511425
there is no such thing as shot trap in modern combat , modern apds don't bounce, they shatter
>>29511067
I blame jidf + reddit mass immigration.
>>29511067
>>/k/ suddenly hates the leopard 2
But that's where you are wrong you dumb nigger.
>>29511448
then why do some modern tanks make sure to not have shot traps?
>>29511347
They never did disclose the armor for either the challenger 2 or the Merkava 4
>>29511508
Name one.
>>29511508
>not having something automatically means that the designers MADE SURE to not have it
yeah that's a totally legit train of thought you got there
it's not retarded or anything
10/10 critical thinking skills
>>29511067
>What happened?
Abrams was assblasted in Yemen.
No one can hate the best tank in the world.
>>29512629
vs the Abrams
[ ] Better Armor
[x] Fuel Effeciency
[x] Range
[ ] more lethal
[-] better crews (we will give it a draw)
[ ] C4ISR
[-] More Accurate (marginal differences today, draw)
[-] Size
[ ] Quieter
[ ] Better Engine
[ ] More Survivable
[x] Cheaper
>better
lolno
It is comfortably the second best tank, and only behind first by a small margin. It would wreck house against other nations tanks, alongside the Abrams and Challenger II
>>29514659
At least you tried
>>29514796
Nice counter argument, you got me bro.
>>29514860
I don't see how you assume that's an argument besides making funny little boxes and marking them you fucking autist.
Nothing happened, the leopard has done nothing since it was made, it just sits around and still somehow soaks up praise when the Abrams has actually been seeing combat for multiple decades, does extremely well and people still say it isn't as good as this german paper weight.
>>29511568
Abrams, Challenger, Leclerc
>>29511067
/k/ is not a fucking hivemind.
>>29517012
>does extremely well
>>29517012
>clappers ACTUALLY THINK they've been in "actual combat" since WWII.
Tip top fucking kek you fucking autist.
>>29517089
> boo hoo, shit gets broken in combat!
Good thing the leopard is conveniently stored away where it can never be put through the same scrutiny as an abrams, show me a video of the exact same thing happening to a leopard and if it survives I'll change my mind, but if you fags continue to cry that a tank that actually sees combat gets destroyed then you have zero critical thinking skills.
>>29517141
> I'm going to redefine combat to suit this situation
Again, zero critical thinking
>>29517141
Are you literally retarded?
Define "actually combat" so it can be cross checked with dictionary resources.
>>29517141
So opposing forces shooting at eachother is no longer combat?
>>29517089
I like how the crew walks away at the end of the video
>>29517272
holy shit amerifats are actually this butt blasted that literal sandniggers with rocks and sticks repeatedly fuck their billion dollar hardware up L M A O
>>29511067
Oh that. Well see, /k/ are a bunch of retarded neckbeards who nitpick every little detail until something that is really good, seems terrible. But it takes a little while for people well versed in less popular things to REALLY cut it down.
Let's just pretend that the Mosin Nagant is an uncommon rifle, for fun's sake.
>hey guys!! Look at this rifle!! Its REALLY cheap and shoots cheap ammo!!
>OMG thats the rifle the USSR used to beat the Nazis!!!
>holy shit!! Did you know that contrary to what your high school teacher taught you the USSR actually did way more to defeat the Nazis than the rest of the Allies?
>REALLY OMGZORS this rifle must be the best rifle EVAR!!! LELELELELEL!!!!
>well ACHTUALLY, it is a poorly made rifle and isn't very good as far as rifles go.
>I agree with this Anon, this rifle has a sticky bolt and has manufacturing issues
>I agree!! It SUCKS. WORST. RIFLE. EVER.
It usually takes a while for opinion on a slightly obscure but possibly better than the competition object to rise to the heights of the gods only to come crashing back to Earth. Eventually the opinion on the object will rebound until it finds a happy parity of opinion with the competitive objects it is actually competing against.
>>29511067
I'll always find it strange.
Let's just continue to improve the panzer and tiger tanks?
Not start again.
>>29511425
Modern ammunition requires extreme angles to bounce, and the wedge shape Leopard 2's picked up from the A5 and onward is NERA (steel-rubber-steel) over the actual armor.
>>29517089
>vatnik damage control intensifies
>>29517344
>Rocks and sticks
>The most successful ATGM on the planet
wew lad
>>29516580
You could at least try and say why he is wrong, instead of a "because I said so".
>>29514659
The Abrams has a terrible engine and compartment. It isn't nearly as easy to maintain, sure it has power but I think logistically diesel makes the engine better on the Leopard.
Honestly these tanks are neck and neck, it's truly preference, but also consider how each tank is utilized. Leopards were probably going to deploy like the first gens, shoot and scoot. The Americans can definitely pound a 1,000 Abrams need be, and they'd be fantastic at it. Germans can probably just rely on terrain and superior profile to ambush.
>>29517758
The maintenance difference between the AGT and MTU diesels is a trade-off.
The AGT can be run for longer on the same engine, but you have to clean out the air filters more. It also uses less engine oil than the MTU.
With the MTU diesel you change the air filters less, engine oil more, and the engine itself has to be overhauled more often.
>>29517808
And then you find out the M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEP/SEPv2 Abrams have self cleaning air filters.
>>29511067
Germans can not into ammo and make gun longer, just like history.
>>29516580
>you fucking autist.
ok I'll play.
>Better Armor
Leo has spaced armor thats amazing for HEAT styled warheads, weaker against Kinetic, specifically more so then the Abrams.
>Fuel Effeciency
The Leopard gets better range but the Abrams has more fuel, so the Abrams range deficiency isn't actually an issue.
>Range
See above. The HEMTT Tankers carry 5000 gallons of fuel at a time, refueling isn't an issue.
>More Lethal
Abrams fires DU rounds while Germany has Tungsten. Germany's 8% increase in velocity with the L55 doesn't make up for the increased penetration of America's M829A3. Thus, even witht the L44/M256, the Abrams is still more lethal.
> better crews
America has training rotations in Germany, both sides have almost equally competent crews
>C4ISR
The Abrams can laze an area, and call up an artillery strike in seconds with an artillery batteries AFATDS and the Tanks FBCB2 communicating with each other. Or call in medevac, offer real time enemy location services, information traffic, etc etc. Leopard II lacks this essential 21st century upgrade.
> More Accurate
Rumor has it the LeClerc and Abrams are the most accurate tanks. Also the L55 suffers accuracy penalties for its increased barrel size, the tube needs an MRS update more often then the L44.
>Size
Basically the same size. Its not like T90 vs Abrams where the '90 is 65% the silhouette
>Quieter
Droning V12 diesel is louder and lowered pitched then a gas turbine. Next to each other from the rear they sound the same. But at any range, or at the front of the tank, the Turbine is significantly quiter. Its basic sound physics.
>Better Engine
Again, the Turbine is a better engine. the V12 with its explosions and throwing of metal pieces is less reliable then the spinning fan that is a turbine. America can afford to spend 200% on an engine that is 125% better.
>More Survivable
The number of back up systems in the abrams, and its ability to operate with its digital systems taken offline easily seals the deal
>>29519555
>this autism wall
Wow dude kill yourself
>>29516580
2/2
>Cheaper
everyone knows being cheaper doesn't make you better. Like in the T90's case, it struggles to keep up with the majority of modern tanks used by the west. Its cheaper which is cute, but it lacks performance. Much in the Same the leopard is still only 90% of what the Abrams is, and can do.
>Leopard being better
So as iterated, in almost no tangible way is the leopard a "better" tank. I am being genereous here, I could go into further detail.
>autist
Please, share your plethora of information that proves anything I said wrong.
>>29519576
>stop refuting my points
;^)
>>29519555
>>29519588
Nobody is reading this trash. You're not some tank expert, you're just a stupid faggot on 4chan who needs to rein in his ego and quit taking things so seriously.
>>29517808
>>29517758
So >>29517924 beat me to it. But the Abrams has self cleaning air filters. It has several cubic meters worth of air filters which are air blasted clean by a lot of blowers, which funnel out next to the exhaust. Once the engine reaches a certain RPM or time of running allocation they turn on.
Anyone who says the Abrams air intake is an issue is severly ill informed, trolling, or just making shit up and shit posting, as this isn't an issue. The Abram's turbine engine is mandated to be services for a semi annual quick overhaul, which takes a few hours, and full on servicing that takes a day.
>lol the abrams is shit with all the servicing it needs thanks for proving my point right
of course, being 70 tons of electronics, armor, hydraulics, and optics, all we adults know MBTs require many hours of maintence to keep running anyway. That goes for all nations. During the "overhauls" they replace filters and seals, and that's about it. The Abrams having a shitty engine is a myth, and its false. America wouldn't spend so much on an engine if it didn't have a benefit. Which it has plenty of.
> rely on terrain and superior profile to ambush
Tank doctrine uses a heavy defensive strategy of remaining invisible to enemy tanks, and popping out to kill them once they pass a trigger line which is 50% of the max range of the gun. The tanks optics are poached on a berm or turret down position, impossible to see but with the most advanced optics, and once targets are aquired the entire section/platoon/company moves forward just so the gun is above the edge, and backs down once the targets are destroyed. Let it not be under exaggereted how effective this method of killing other vehicles is.
> It also uses less engine oil than the MTU
The combat load for an abrams includes gallons of engine oil. The Abrams spends less then half a litre a day, and that's if its a bad engine. You're making up issues that aren't issues.
>>29519631
Oh yeah? Then surely you will have an easy time debunking the information I laid down. Or you could just call me names, that works too.
>>29519631
>PROOFS PROOFS I WANT PROOFS
>here proofs
>YOU ACTUALLY WASTED TIME TYPING PROOFS? HAHAHHAHAJAHAJAHAJHAJ AUTIST
>>29519725
>>29519753
Nobody asked you to sperg out like this
>>29517808
I said it uses LESS engine oil than the MTU, which is a plus for the AGT.
I'd type a witty comeback, but its quite apparent being BTFO of the argument is justice enough. Until someone starts spreading misinformation again i am going to let this sage until someone needs to be shown facts again. Stay mad homie.
>>29519767
>tool has no idea what hes talking about
>loses argument and calls others nerds for knowing more then he does
>>29519822
>>29519836
Is this literally your first visit to this website?
>>29519822
>i am going to let this sage
Sage hasn't been a thing for nearly ten years.
>>29517758
>logistically diesel makes the engine better on the Leopard
Other way around, the Abrams is easier logistically due to the US's whole universal fuel thing. Let me tell you what a fuel dump looks like with multiple fuel types, not pretty.
>>29519767
You are not very good at this.
>>29517758
Abrams and Leo 2s have drop in engine compartments dude. Open hood, wrench off hoses and pull. 1 hour to take out and put back in total.
Now if we were to discuss the T72 and 80 we looking past a few hours at least to take out. Them a few hours to put back in.
>>29520074
Its less. But yes, it doesn't take long.
Fair enough, that's some pretty ireffutable shit right there
>>29520120
I was being cautious. Fun fact: the Greeks took 45 mins to pull and reconnect a complete engine unit while the competing T80 took 3 hours and lots of dismantling just to get it out in the first place.
That plus the syrian tanker commenting how his tank's side armor falls off and how he has to dismantle large portions of the engine area to get into critical spaces.
>>29520344
ur good homie
I have had to remove pack many times. You unhook the final drives, disconnect the fuel and electrical, hydraulics, and it slips right out. If you have a full crew and maintenance team working on it, its 15 minutes to pull in and out.
>>29520344
>the syrian tanker commenting how his tank's side armor falls off
he was obviously talking about the skirts, not actual armor.
>>29520425
I specifically meant the skirts with ERA.
>>29520460
>I specifically meant the skirts with ERA.
Have some goddamned shame and admit that you were wrong you little turd. You're not fooling anyone.
>>29521288
>than the turbine which has a lot more finicky components
Top fuckin bait.
What's the primary advantage to using a turbine in a tank, Is it acceleration or something else?
I heard a tank with a turbine can accelerate much faster then a tank with a diesel engine which could be a godsend when it comes to poking in and out of cover.
So if it's acceleration doesn't that mean electrically driven tanks with their superior acceleration and torque are the future?
>>29519851
Oh he's mad that's cute
>>29519555
Im not the anon that was bickering with you over your original post. However I do take issue with you stating that the principle for a turbine engine is more reliable than a diesel. You are literally putting the power plants into caveman terms and then comparing them. The MTU/detroit v12 is a diesel that has seen and will continue to see widespread use through industries/applications the world over. As have turbine engines. The difference is that that diesel is much more robust and tolerant to abuse than the turbine which has its own issues as its more than just a simple "rotating fan" as you put it and is better suited for aerospace and stationary uses. It is also logistically easier to supply which brings me to your mental gymnastics about range and fuel economy. Honestly how can you be that daft? Nobody gives a flying, grounded or underwater fuck about how much fuel you say they bring with them. The leopard simply has a longer range on its own fuel supply and is also more fuel efficient as it takes an Abrams approx 4.46lper km and leo 2.18per km so gtfo with your bullshit you clearly know not a fucking thing about engines.
>>29519555
>Leo has spaced armor thats amazing for HEAT styled warheads, weaker against Kinetic, specifically more so then the Abrams.
The spaced armor is in addition to to the turret frontal armor array. In any case its also quite effective against APFSDS since the additional yaw it induces on the rod is given ample space to develop before it even strikes the main armor.
>The Leopard gets better range but the Abrams has more fuel, so the Abrams range deficiency isn't actually an issue.
Its a big issue. There's only so much space inside the tank you can store fuel in that I doubt the smaller dimensions of the Abrams powerpack gives enough extra space to store about double the fuel load or at least the same amount to compensate for the inferior mileage.
>See above. The HEMTT Tankers carry 5000 gallons of fuel at a time, refueling isn't an issue.
The easiest way to kill a tank is to kill their fuel trucks. More trucks to support the same number of tanks is not better even if you have them.
>Abrams fires DU rounds while Germany has Tungsten. Germany's 8% increase in velocity with the L55 doesn't make up for the increased penetration of America's M829A3. Thus, even witht the L44/M256, the Abrams is still more lethal.
Its only demonstrably better against steel armor stand-ins, and even then its marginal at best.
>America has training rotations in Germany, both sides have almost equally competent crews
Germans don't get nearly enough tank time for the piecemeal units they still have left of their once great panzer fleet so this is false again.
> Also the L55 suffers accuracy penalties for its increased barrel size, the tube needs an MRS update more often then the L44.
Its Leclerc. And a MRS more often is not a big deal, that happens automatically like every shot the tank makes.
>Again, the Turbine is a better engine.
in terms of serviceability, no. I could find you 50 dudes who know diesels of that size for every 1 who knows turbines like that.
>>29519588
>everyone knows being cheaper doesn't make you better. Like in the T90's case, it struggles to keep up with the majority of modern tanks used by the west. Its cheaper which is cute, but it lacks performance.
The T-90 struggles how? pretty much the only conceivable complaint against it is the putiated inferior armor due to lower mass(nevermind the fact that it has a very small interior volume and silhouette to protect in the first place) and inferior penetration of armament(nevermind that the vast majority of western tanks are Leopard 2A4s and M1A1Hs in various stages of upgrades that are vulnerable to a T-90 firing 2000s era ammo). Against practical opponents, which isn't top of the line MBTs it performs just as adequately- in fact it might be even better against the typical target on the battlefield which are infantry positions against which the T-90's focus on programmable HE shells pays off the most.
>Much in the Same the leopard is still only 90% of what the Abrams is, and can do.
And pray tell what is that additional 10% is? >>29519709
>Tank doctrine uses a heavy defensive strategy of remaining invisible to enemy tanks, and popping out to kill them once they pass a trigger line which is 50% of the max range of the gun. The tanks optics are poached on a berm or turret down position, impossible to see but with the most advanced optics, and once targets are aquired the entire section/platoon/company moves forward just so the gun is above the edge, and backs down once the targets are destroyed. Let it not be under exaggereted how effective this method of killing other vehicles is.
UAVs directing arty and N-LOS ATGM fire like Spike says your tank in dug-in defilade is toast.
Look at the recent NK conflict- a couple NK tanks got roasted sitting in prepared dug-in positions by the Azeris using Spike missiles.
>>29519767
>>29521411
>The leopard simply has a longer range on its own fuel supply
Literally ~15 miles according to KMW and GD.
>>29522749
T-72A's getting popped by Spike ATGM is nothing special.
>>29522749
>pretty much the only conceivable complaint against it is the putiated inferior armor
The only place the T-90 can hope to stand up to modern anti-tank weapons is the turret face.
>>29517758
You do know the Abrams engine is multifuel and actually has a wider pallet of fuel that most multifuel diesels. The "only runs on jet fuel" meme needs to die.
>>29519555
>LeClerc
This made me clench my butt.
Frenchfag I summon thee
>>29523091
It's the same people that don't understand that until the US Army decided to unify the fuel logistics, the M1s were given diesel until the mid 90s when they switched over to JP with most everything else that could take it.
It still amuses me how there's so much animosity between the Leo2 and M1.
They're two tanks with almost identical design requirements that use the same vehicle as their benchmark (the MBT-70) that they strived to be better than.
It's amazing that that one sperg actually replied to me two dozen separate times, while nobody replied to his dumb autism walls.
He must really be mad.
>>29523779
>I'm not mad! Continuing to reply a day later is normal!!!
>>29517586
What is that circled?
>>29524228
yeah, it is when it's my thread
you, however, have been replying non-stop for over 36 hours to every single reply I've made
it's really time for you to stop this
>>29524912
That was my first post in this thread, but good attempt at damage control.
>>29525118
>but good attempt at damage control.
certainly much better than yours
this is the sixth post you've made in the past 30 minutes.
>>29511067
'Muricans and Russians happend.
They can't appreciate anything that is not build withing their borders.
If KWM would open shop in Texas/Komi and would start pumping out the leopard there they would love it to death. They would also claim they invented it.
Russians and Americans are the easiest people to generalize. They are so alike.
