0
How does the German Leopard tank compare to Americas Abrams tank?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
The German leopard is far Superior to the Abram's, better gas mileage, lighter, faster, the only thing it lacks is the Abrams ridiculously think armor
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is leopard in German?
English 'leopard' German 'Leopard' [Spot the difference]
What is the german word for leopard?
Leopard
What is the German for snow leopard?
It is translated literally and it is "Schneeleopard".
When was the Abrams Main Battle Tank invented?
The development stems from a joint programme between the US and West Germany known as the MBT-70 programme. Eventually, the joint project was scrapped, and the US and West German programmes went their separate ways, applying what they'd gained from MBT-70 to new developments. In the case of West Germany, the result was the Leopard 2, while the American development was the M1 Abrams. The first prototype of the Abrams was received in 1976, and first production models were produced in 1979.
What are two common uses for depleted uranium?
DU mesh armor is used on most modern main battle tanks such as the US M1A2 Abrams, British Challenger 2, and German Leopard 2 (A4-A7). DU has been rumored to have been recently used in new armor piercing rounds, but they are largely unconfirmed.
Where did the name Goettler come from?
It is of German origin. The Goettler family emigrated to the Americas from the then German-held territory of Alsace-Lorraine.
What are five causes and effects of World War 2?
1. German invasions 2.German sinking of Americas Ship
Who would win between an old German King Tiger tank and a modern M1A1 Abrams?
The newer Abrams would win. It has advanced armor design and a 120-mm gun. The German Tiger had the beginnings of slopped armor but only had an 88-mm gun. Also the Abrams new optic sight allows for thermal and infra-red imaging to see in the dark and through the smoke. You're not comparing apples to apples. You're comparing technology that is almost 70 years old to tech that is state of the art. Who would win in a tug of war? An original model T ford or a new F-550 diesel? See my point? By the way....the gun on the abrams, its German made. If you ever get a chance to go to Aberdeen they have a King tiger there and an Abrams on display. Its mind boggling how FREAKN BIG the King Tiger compared to the Abrams. It would be scarey to have that sucker rolling at you, 70 yrs old or not.
What is the name of the famous German tank?
There were several famous German Tanks. One of them was the Panzer, another was the Tiger tank, and lastly, the modern-day German tank is the Leopard II.
Can you get a comparison of the Challenger 2 and M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks?
(This answer has been updated and corrected with the intention to improve the answer by providing unbiased corrections to inaccuracies. I urge the original answerer to please do more extensive research in the future however.) Most comparisons about the best tank are between Abrams and Leopard 2. Which conclude that the Leopard 2 A6/A7 is the best tank for the price. So you get the best tank for each Dollar or Euro your spend (The Leopard 2 is cheaper to buy and operate). However when looking purely at combat performance the Abrams is the best tank. The Challenger 2 is never number 1 in such comparisons. The Abrams is the best protected tank. Like the Challenger 2 it has a variant of Chobham/Burlington armor. But in the case of the Abrams it is improved with a layer of steel encased depleted uranium (DU). The radioactivity of DU is harmless. (Correction: This is contested by Australian evaluations, though the extent of harm is believed to be limited.) It is a very dense material which gives a lot of extra protection against kinetic energy (sabot) projectiles. The older M1A1 Abrams in Desert Storm could survive hits at the front and side turret. Not just of obsolete T-72's but also pointblank 120mm 'Silver bullet' rounds from other Abrams which pass straight trough a T-72 or T-80. (Correction: Proper T-72s did not engage Abram tanks in Desert storm Iraq did not use them. They used local models 'Sadda' 'Assad Babil' and diminished export T-72s.) When Abrams tanks had to be abandoned and destroyed when stuck in mud or were disabled (blown track, engine failure) other Abrams were often unable to do so. With the versions after that (M1A1 HA, M1A1 HC, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP TUSK) protection has become even better. During Thunder Run (armored assaults into Baghdad) Abramses were hit to up to 15 anti-tank weapons and kept going. The only one knocked out was a lucky shot which hit a drum of fuel at the rear turret. The fuel got into the engine and caused fire. The (uninjured) crew was unable to get it out and had to leave it behind.(Correction: These anti-tank weapons consisted primarily of SPG-9 recoilless rifles and RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launchers. Later RPG-29s were found more effective against the Abrams even the front armor and accounted for many the losses the Abrams suffered during the war.) As other tanks can't penetrate Abrams the abandoned tank it was taken out with an air strike to prevent it falling into enemy hands. This required 2 Mavericks and a Hellfire (which are very heavy anti-tank missiles). So the Abrams performed very well in an urban environment (which is usually a bad place for tanks) before it even had an urban warfare kit. The Abrams also has ammunition blow-out panels. When the ammunition is hit (which is at the rear turret) these panels blow out forcing the blast upwards instead of towards the crew compartment. Neither Challenger or Leopard 2 have ammunition blow-out panels so an ammunition hit will mean more damage and more injuries. (Correction: Challenger uses separately loaded ammunition, therefore Blowout panels are not needed. Furthermore Abram's blowout panels are rated for 105mm ammunition and should not be considered protection from 120mm cook offs) The Challenger is also very well protected but not as much as the Abrams. Both have a chobham variant but the Chal has no DU in its armor. (Correction: Chobham armor is just another term for composite armor. The Dorchester Mk2 of the Challenger and the RHA + DU armor of the Abrams are not comparable. Dorchester Mk2 contains Tungsten Carbide and a variety of other materials in a different (though also classified) sandwich. However combat experience has shown that DU armor provides no greater protection.) There have been instances where they have been penetrated by other Challengers (freindly fire). The ammo is seperated but there are no blow-out panels. The Challenger 2 can be regarded as the second best protected tank behind the Abrams. (Correction: In light of the original authors misunderstandings about blowout protection, and armor types their conclusion can be disregarded as well. PS Armor was not penetrated HESH creates spalling of the armor but does not penetrate. Furthermore the tank that suffered from the strike was equipped with older armor thus should be considered in the category of the Abrams A1 which suffered many penetrations during the Iraq wars.) The Leopard 2 has advanced composite armor but no chobham variant or DU. It has been deployed to Afghanistan by Denmark and Canada. In a test with a Leopard 2 A5 which was shot by another it required 7 hits. One could argue that more Abrams has been disabled then Challenger 2. This is not a fair comparison as much more Abrams have been deployed then Challengers. When there are more around there is a bigger chance one is hit. (Correction: As per percentage of tanks hit, Abrams have suffered greater causalities. Thus the mention of their losses is still relevant.) The only Abrams destroyed were hit by 500kg IED underneath which would have destroyed everything. In freindly fire between Abrams there were no casualties (even point blank no penetrations at front and sides). In friendly fire between Challengers 2's there was. (Correction: Not a penetration, and the L/44 M256 is not comparable to other MBT weapons and should not be considered proof positive.) It most however be noted that there is a diffirence between the American Abrams and the export Abrams. The export Abrams does not have the DU armor package. So while the US Abrams has better armor for sure, it could very well be that in armor protection the export Abrams is equal or maybe even less then the Challenger 2. Protection: 1. Challenger 2 2. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down a slot to correct the original authors bias and misunderstandings in order to better reflect the actual protection.) 3. Leopard 2 A6 The Challenger is underpowered. It only has a 1200hp engine compared to 1500hp on Abrams and Leopard 2. The Abrams has better mobility and the Leopard 2 more mobility then Abrams. Winner on mobility. Dutch Leopard 2 reached 110km/h on German training area. Abrams reaches 120km/h with speed limiter removed (but fuel consumption is drasticly increased). (Correction: The Challenger is not underpowered, underpowered implies that it struggles in mobility. It does not. However it does have a less powerful engine. It should be noted that the 1500hp Gas-Turbine is prone to fan sheering and is highly inefficient, future US army tanks will use diesel engines. Finally turning off the engine governor requires work at the motor pool and operating beyond the governed speed will cause damage to the tank. It is highly recommended against by the tanks manual.) Mobility: 1. Leopard 2 A6 2. M1A2 SEP Abrams 3. Challenger 2 Both Abrams and Leopard 2 A6 can destroy a T-90 or T-80U at 4km with a single shot. The Leopard 2 A6 has a better gun but the Abrams has comparable firepower because of DU ammo (just a bit less). (Correction: The difference between tungsten and depleted uranium penetrators is negligible. The difference in force behind the round however from the shorter barrel is not. The challenger 2 is capable of doing the same at 4-5km.) I have no information regarding the Challenger 2 but they want to replace the rifled gun with the German L55 of the Leopard 2 A6 which indicates the firepower is less then the Leo 2 A6. So the Leopard 2 wins with the Abrams following very very close behind. (Correction: The British army evaluated the L55 for a short time, not due to performance requirements but due to ammunition considerations. Ammunition for the L30 was no longer produced and they evaluated adopting a gun with widely available ammunition. Due to the size of the cased 120mm for the L55 however the tank fit less than 10 rounds, instead of the normal 40. The L55 evaluation has since been cancelled and ammunition for the L30 is being produced again. It was never an adoption only an evaluation on a single tank. Information on the L30 is widely available.) Firepower: 1. Leopard 2 A6 2. Challenger 2 (Correction: For the purposes of accuracy, the Challenger and Leopard A6 onward can be consisidered tied. The L30 has much greater range, but the L55 has a greater variety of ammunition. Older leopards however can be considered inferior because they use an L/44.) 3. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down because the abrams uses a 44 caliber gun, with less power Challenger does not win in any of these catagories. Overal I would rank protection as most important as it determines the survival of tank and crew. Abrams is clearly winner here. Second is firepower. Leopard 2 wins here but with a very small margin. In practice its compable. Leopard 2 wins on mobility. I would take any of these tanks to combat. But if I had to pick I would want to be in the Abrams rather then the other 2. So the Abrams is the best tank when judging combat performance. (Correction: See previous corrections. Best mobility focused tank: Leopard 2A4 & A5 [A6, A7 & E are much heavier and less mobile] Best protection focused tank: Challenger 2 Best firepower focused tank: Tie between Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 A6-E
How did the Netherlands benefit from the North Americas?
Liberated them from the German soldiers in World War 2
Whose name was given to the Americas?
A German map maker named it after Amerigo Vespucci.
