The collapse of the myth of German tanks series of "Leopard-2", as the best tank of the world

[TruthHurtz]

Captured from who? The Turks?

Yeah, who else? lol

 

[Penguin]

Yeah, who else? lol

Just checking to make sure. No need for you to get fresh with me, thank you.

Again, blow off panel in turret rear functioned. No hull peneration. Question is if/who of the crew survived: likely the driver, possibly turret personnel too. Note again, this is a static position, a vehicle scrape.

don't forget that the armor is standard armo, if they had add reactive armor that tank would have little damage. Look to the sabra, they are hit several time and still are ok.

M60Ts have also been killed.

 

[TruthHurtz]

Just checking to make sure. No need for you to get fresh with me, thank you.

I'll get stale with you.

 

[Penguin]

I'll get stale with you.

Please do.

 

[TruthHurtz]

Please do.

K

 

[Glavcom]

 

[masud]

M1A1 is superiour to defend against ATGM. from starting defeting atgm was it,s first desin consept and tank on tank battle was 2nd. while LEO-2 consept was oposite, it was design to tank on tank battle first and defeting atgm is 2nd.
both tank is influenced by MBT-70.

 

[Penguin]

Nice overview. Is there a point you are trying to make? Note all Leo2s here are unupgraded A4s. There is a reason why we've moved beyond the 1990s A4 version ..... esp. also where armor protection is concerned. Hence, A6, A6M and A7.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Doesn't the Leopard 2 looks a tad bit similar to the Arjun tank?
I think the design philosophy was inspired by the German tank.

So if the Leopard 2 is one of the best tanks then Arjun should also be good.

lol because it's a badly assembled clone of old leopard .. Arjun was also designed by Germans.

 

[Glavcom]

Nice overview. Is there a point you are trying to make? Note all Leo2s here are unupgraded A4s. There is a reason why we've moved beyond the 1990s A4 version ..... esp. also where armor protection is concerned. Hence, A6, A6M and A7.

 

[niaz]

Everyone knows that MBT have 2 main roles. First is to attack fortified and entrenched enemy positions in relative safety and the 2nd being like an iron first to break through the enemy lines, akin to the role of heavy cavalry of old. MBT's role has never been to hunt down an enemy in an urban jungle. Therefore, before one can form a definite opinion; it must be established as to how, when & where was the German tank in question destroyed?

If the Leopard tank faced another tank and was destroyed in the process, yes the myth of it being the best tank of the world is broken.

Any tank in the world can be ambushed and destroyed in narrow streets of the enemy held city. Main reason being that there is always a design compromise between weight & agility. MBT’s are generally designed to have strong front & rear armour but weaker side & top armour. In the confined spaces of the narrow city streets, tanks are sometimes unable to turn or even rotate the main gun turret, hence become vulnerable to ambush. Even the Israeli Markova with engine in the front specifically designed for the urban warfare role did not do too well in the 2006 Israeli Hezbollah war when about 52 Merkova tanks were destroyed/damaged.

ISIL/Daesh have abundant supply of modern anti-tank weapons due to capture of US supplied arms abandoned by the fleeing Iraqi army and also because the arms given to the rebel Syrian army by the US & the Saudis eventually find their way to the ISIL. A Leopard 2 was destroyed, yes but would an Abrams or Challenger have done any better?

I would reserve my judgement until such time more facts are available. However, if I were the armoured corps commander; I would not send my tanks; irrespective of their armour protection; into the hostile urban areas without adequate infantry support

 

[Penguin]

If the Leopard tank faced another tank and was destroyed in the process, yes the myth of it being the best tank of the world is broken.

Not necessarily e.g. when you have one side with superior equipment but inferior doctrine and/or training.

Even the Israeli Markova with engine in the front specifically designed for the urban warfare role did not do too well in the 2006 Israeli Hezbollah war when about 52 Merkova tanks were destroyed/damaged.

Depends on how you define 'protection'. If you mean 'inpenetrable', then even Merkava didn't do well. If you mean 'kept the highly trained crew alive' you can't judge unless you would know the number of personnel casualties with those 52 tanks and the same number with an equal number of other tanks.

A Leopard 2 was destroyed, yes but would an Abrams or Challenger have done any better?

Version (basic A4 or uparmored later ones, as compared to specific versions of the other tanks) matter here too!

I would reserve my judgement until such time more facts are available. However, if I were the armoured corps commander; I would not send my tanks; irrespective of their armour protection; into the hostile urban areas without adequate infantry support

Agree

 

[Glavcom]

 

[Penguin]

Significant: Only 5 of 10 Leo2A4s were killed/damaged by ATGW. Other causes: IED/Mine (2x), Rocket/Mortar (1), "Pallet problem [whatever that may mean] (1), unknown [possibly captured > abandoned?] (1).

 

[Glavcom]

All that remains of the much vaunted German "cat"