'Leopard 2' is not sufficient.
The original Leopard 2 entered service in 1979. The M1A2 came online in the middle 90s. The SEP which is the main modernization upgrade, around 2000.
At the time of Leopard introduction, the M1P was the standard U.S. Abrams and was equipped with a 105mm M68 weapon which was not capable of penetrating the T-72 with BDD armor at over about 800-1,000m. Which is okay in a way because there were few places in our chunk of Germany where that would have mattered.
The initial Leo2 production lot was little more than a preseries development tank rushed into production for which most of the intended sighting package was not yet available. This effected the capability of the 120mm cannon which -could- penetrate, out to about 2,000m but did not always hit, especially at night or in weather (we had TI they had I2).
The Leo2A2/A3 quickly remedied this and, together with the commanders sight, proved to be an all round superior tank for extended range gunnery.
However; then the M1A1 came along and by adopting the same Rheinmetall weapon, became the basis of a fair comparison with the Leopard 2A4.
Where the Leo falls down a bit is in the lack of the Abrams composite armor or dual-angle sloping (though the turret front was narrower and so the basic RHA steel was thicker) and it's chosen sight location which holed the turret front which was generally seen as a very bad move. It's frontal arc was also seen as poorly protected until thicker sideskirts were developed and the glacis reshaped.
Where the mid-series Leopard really wins out is in the automotive end where it is more reliable and less thirsty.
The U.S. then fielded the 'M1A1HA' or Heavy Armor with the DU lattice facing and this again tipped the scales towards the Abrams as now both tanks could kill at range but the Abrams had a noteable front sector overmatch advantage at the shorter LOS ranges of Fulda and the Hopf. The Germans who are past masters of the moving ambush, tend to take a lot of flank shots so this may not have mattered as much to them. On the North German Plain facing Hamburg and the like, they can and do kill from the horizon.
The 1A2 added more armor and some automotive improvements as well as the CITV which finally provided the Abrams with equal hunter-killer capabilities to the Leopard in a better protected tank which weighed almost 15 tons more than the Leopard 2A4.
If you want to compare the M1A2 and Leopard 2, evenly, you need to chose the SEP model Abrams and Leopard 2A5 or A6 as your baseline and there the game is about evenly matched.
The chisel-nose turret of the 2A6 with the raised GPS box fixes the armor issues, though it brings the Leopard fully into the 60 ton class and so it is not a agile as it once was. While the (2A6 mounted) long-barreled L55 gun provides a 1,750m/sec muzzle velocity (roughly 5,800fps) which gives the LM53 LRP round as much as 1,100mm of penetration in comparison with the M829A3 which offers perhaps 900-950mm. The latter is a superior round, being denser (DU vs. tungsten) but only comes out of the barrel at about 1,500m/sec (or 5,000fps).
This is because the Abrams retains the shorter barrel L44 version of the Rheinmetall main tube and so could theoretically (it's a very long barrel and subject to heat droop as well as certain issues in close terrain) upgun for a match, ballistically, to the Leopard 2a6.
But where the M1A2 was intended to go was towards over the horizon guided shots for which the XM1111 MRM and digital communications links were vital in providing shared targeting and a smart top attack capability to go -beyond- the frontal arc protection of a threat.
Both the 1A2SEP and the 2A6 are better protected for the urban fight, though the TUSK II package has better layering. Neither vehicle has an active APS intercept capability at the moment, though the AMAP-ADS and Quick Kill options are available. These could theoretically 'remission' 20 tons of dead weight in armor by themselves.
The 2A6 also has air conditioning and an APU which makes fighting in hot climates easier.
If it comes to the open field tank fight, the Leo2A6 is probably the better ranged killer with less dependence on fuel and air filter cleanings (the Abrams gas turbine leaves it a roughly 2hr fighter in movement based actions).
If it comes to a MOUT fight where the threat is at close range and/or you have multiple friendlies intermixed, you have to give the nod to the Abrams which has the better passive protection suite, better close in weapons (RWS or turreted protection for gunner and TC) and superior networking to sort the sheep from the goats.
The Abrams really suffers in the tank vs. tank fight for want of an over-hill capability as guided rounds (MRM was cancelled) to exploit it's network shooter package however and if you look at the 'next gen' Leo2A7, not yet fielded, with massive add on side-armor packages, the decision probably flips back to the Leopard, even in urban fights.
M1a2 stats: 125mm smoothbore cannon,1500 hp and manual loader
Harkins, Westmoreland, and Abrams (name sake of today's M-1 Tank).
Varies widely by design: An M1 Abarams tank weighs about 62 tons A World War II Sherman tank weighed about 30 tons
how were the destroyer tank M36was used? US tank detroyers, the M36 and others, were called tank destroyers to improve the morale of their crews and make them more aggressive. The effectiveness of this nomenclature is unknown, but "tank destroyer" sounded more macho than what they really were: armored anti-tank artillery. And the armor was only enough to protect against anti-personnel bullets and fragments. Unlike the German equivalent, US tank destroyers could not stand a hit from a tank, even the 20mm cannon of the Panzer II. The M36 probably used its mobility to best advantage, firing and moving a lot. They had a gun specially designed for destroying tanks, but they did not fight like tanks because they did not have the armor of a tank. * It has been said with some validity that the best weapon for destroying a tank is another tank. Where tanks cannot be available, tank destroyers could certainly fill the gap to defend and delay an armored assault. Just don't try to lead your own armored assault with them. It will not work.
The US Army establishes the criteria for US military "Armor" (Tanks). The US Marines, and in some cases special "leased or on loan" "Armor" is given to the other branches (Air Force or Navy, etc.). But, the Marines, and everyone else will use what the US Army adapts. The official US Army tanks AFTER WW2 were the M46, M47, and M48 PATTON tanks. These were officially classified as 90mm Gun Tank Patton(s). Light Gun Tanks were the M41 Walker Bulldogs, which had 76mm Guns. The US Military's ONLY heavy tank was the 120mm Gun Tank M103 (which had no name). The US Army only fielded one battalion of those M103's. The US Marines wanted the heavies more than the Army, and retained them until about 1974. Oficially, 76mm gun tanks were "Light Gun Tanks"; 90mm gun tanks were "Medium Gun Tanks"; and 120mm gun tanks were "Heavy Gun Tanks." Un-officially, people referred to them as Heavy, Medium, and Light tanks. The 105mm Gun, Full Tracked, M-60 COMBAT Tank was the US Army's FIRST MBT (Main Battle Tank) and was fielded in 1960. The M60 Series (Main Battle Tank) was an improved descendent of the M-48 Patton; however the M60 NEVER RECIEVED AN OFFICIAL NAME. The US Army wanted to change to M60's nomenclature to MBT, but management had already established it as a COMBAT tank on paper; and didn't want to "change horse's in the middle of a stream" (they wanted to get to building it and getting it to the units in Europe, rather than bickering over the name of the tank). The M-48 Patton, was the last Patton, and the last of the "medium gunned" US Army tanks; however, after the Vietnam War the M-48 was later up-gunned to meet the M-60 MBT's standards with a 105mm cannon...called the M-48A5. The M-48A5 was an "Artificial M-60", designed to make MORE NUMBERS, rather than build more M-60's. The M-48A5 105mm gunned Patton, was eventually replaced in the 1980's, as more M-1 Abrams MBT's came on line. Leaving only the M-60 Series (MBT) and the M-1 Abrams MBT in the Army's inventory. Bottom line: the M-1 Abrams (MBT-120mm Gun) replaced the M-60 Combat tank (MBT-105mm Gun).
M1A2 is the more advanced model.
That information is classified.
M1A2 Abrams. 68 tons of steel.
The cost is around 4 million.
Depends on what tank you are referring to. The M1A2 Abrams tank has 120 mm (4.72 inches) of armour.
M1a2 stats: 125mm smoothbore cannon,1500 hp and manual loader
The biggest tank in the world would probably be the US M1A2 Abrams main battle tank.
It is among the most advanced in production, though it's not the only such tank in existence.
120mm smoothbore tank ammo, 12.7x99 (.50 BMG), and 7.62x51.
The M1A2 costs $6.21 million per, although there have since been upgrade programmes which have likely made the tank more expensive.
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
this answer is not ture for many reason one. the m1a1 is a out dated verison of the m1a2 and the most advanced tank in the world is the British Challenger 2