How was it possible that the USA and Germany designed their main

When you have to buy a shit ton of tanks because world police, the average quality of those tanks is going to be lower compared to the guys that only have to worry about defending their own borders.

>American result was so much inferior compared to the Leopard 2
Based on what? Has the leopard 2 ever seen combat?

shit thread senpai, where is proofs

File: 1423666380037.png (11KB, 478x373px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 478x373px

Everybody sage

y'know, it sure wasn't Leo2's laying waste to saddam's forces.

>>29625081
>Has the leopard 2 ever seen combat
/k/, the board where people make pointless shitposts without making even the most basic of research

The Leopard 2 was indeed on its own league back in the 70s when the tanks were introduced.

It helped that all kinds of German people in charge were aware that the MBT 70 project wouldn't end well and developed an alternative while the MBT 70 was in developement.

EMES 15 was superior to anything else.

And even today the Leopard 2 is beating other tanks in competitions and trials.
What a miracle of engineering.

>>29625081
>Has the leopard 2 ever seen combat?
Entire operational history:
>Took rifle fire from 2 Serbs in a 4wd, did not fire back as was unmanned
>Fired warning shots at an empty town in Kosovo
>Drove over an IED, no casualties
>Provided fire support for Brit infantry in skirmish at Helmand river
>Drove over another IED, no casualties
>Drove over third IED, driver killed
>Provided fire support while retaking Nade Ali
So basically no.

M1 is pretty good for the purpose it was designed. Meaning expeditionary warfare in uncontested airspace.

>>29625135
I'm pretty sure the main reason why the Germans pulled out of MBT-70 was the gas turbine. You can only go on high octane aviation fuel for so long until MiG bombs the fuel dump and severs the fuel supply. Thus rendering your entire armored division useless.

>>29625246
JP-8 is a NATO standard fuel that replaced diesel. It's not some super rare thing.

If anything, they save logistically by only needing a single fuel, which is why they switched to only using JP-8 in the first place.

>>29625246
There were many arguments against the MBT-70.

Main argument against the MBT-70 was the American fetish for the 155mm gun, just to fire anti-tank missiles at long ranges.

The developement was a clusterfuck and the fact that 80% of all tank battles in Middle Europe could only happen at <2000m (for just geographical reasons) didn't help either. The domestic 120mm gun was the better deal and it took the USA some time to accept that (see how the first Abrams only used the 105mm gun)

>>29625081
>Raptor
>never actually fucking used.
>Super mega best ever fighter plane. Is the world even trying?

>Leopard 2
>Also untested, but generally agreed upon to be a great tank.
>Hurr durr no combat experience.

Goddammit, /k/. Keep your idiots and trolls in check. For your own sake.

>>29625208

Not exactly the "Battle of 73 Easting" or the "Battle of Medina Ridge".

>>29625275
>Also untested, but generally agreed upon to be a great tank.
This is a meaningless accolade. The Merkava I was "untested, but generally agreed" to be the safest tank in the world until it actually got tested in Lebanon, where 34 were destroyed. Hence the Merkava IIs development.

People don't know that tanks suddenly become worse when enter an acutal combat zone!

The Leopard 2 for example which beats the Abrams in accurancy and archiving an fire solution suddenly can't hit for shit!

Combat proven is quite the meme looking at how the Challenger was also capable of destroying completly outdated monkey model tanks operated by idiots while the tank is far behind the Abrams and Leopard 2 in every tank trials (and then they just gave up all tank export ambitions).

>>29625377
You mean that war which proved that the Merkava was well protected?

It basically showed that the tank design doctrine of putting more armor on tanks after the six-days war was the right way.

>>29625275
Except with planes it's pretty cut and dry. The Raptor has better stealth, better sensors (not counting F-35), and even thrust vectoring. It's indisputably the best plane in the sky at the moment. However, with tanks it's a lot more of a grey area. The Abrams and Leo 2 have the SAME gun. They're within 3 tons of each other's weight (Depends on variant). Honestly, the differences are rather minute.

>>29625646
The best plane for what?

>>29625275
Actually, the raptor was used to bomb mudhuts

>>29625646
>The Abrams and Leo 2 have the SAME gun.
What? No. Abrams and Leo are fairly similar in regards to firepower, weight and niggerloader fire rate, but L55 provides better penetration as it is essentially a longer version of the L44. It allows for better muzzle velocity which translates into faster shell travel time, faster aiming and better accuracy. The Abrams can only keep up because it puts a lot more focus on the APFSDS.

>>29625717
L55 would pen better if the two countries used the same ammo.

They dont.

>>29625733
Indeed, the USA would need to move away from the less dense uranium for it's ammunition.

DU is more or less a dead end.

You can't really increase the muzzle velocity anymore when firing DU ammunition.
It will be interesting to see what will happen in the next 20 years. If we are moving to rail guns then tungsten is the only option anyway.

The only real option to make DU relevant is to increase the gun caliber to 140-150mm which leads to all kinds of other problems.

Who cares? Leo2 and Abrams are virtual clones of each other compared to the real snowflake tanks from WW2. 10 of one beats 9 of the other and vice versa.

>>29625717
L55 is a better gun, but without depleted uranium its a wash.

>>29625800
>L55 is a better gun, but without depleted uranium its a wash.

This is wrong.

>>29625274
152mm, but yes. the launcher was horrible.

>>29625809
>>29625800
Correct would be that L55 doesn't improve penetration that much if you use DU ammo in fact it would maybe even have opposite effects because of the higher velocity.

File: Abrams Loading.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>29625246
That's not what the Abrams was designed for. It was made specifically to fight a defensive war against the Soviets. In a nutshell, defeat a wave, then use the better torque and acceleration of its turbine engine to GTFO faster than anyone else. Basically, fall back to another defensive position and load up on supplies/fuel for the next wave real quick. That's why the turbine engine was chosen even though everybody knew it had a horrific mileage. It gets to top speed faster, and stays at top speed much more easily than normal diesel engines, something most people overlook.

In regards to >>29625059 though, the Abrams isn't inferior; it's simply made for a different purpose, style, doctrinal use or whatever you want to call it. Same stuff as I said to the other anon. Though they're both tanks, they're made with different goals in mind; the Abrams is more defensive and is meant to wear the enemy out in a running fight of attrition, trading ground for time. Meanwhile, the Leopard 2 is made to be well rounded while having that extra 'oomph' and accuracy from that long gun. It's better at offensive maneuvers since its conventional engine doesn't guzzle fuel, meaning it can push the attack further without needing refuel at the cost of acceleration. This means it's not as good defensively when you're in a fight you know you're going to be losing at, and know you'll always be retreating in.

>>29625884
What he said. The shorter L44 on the Abrams is just as good as the L55 on the Leopard because it uses DU, yet won't do better if fired out of the L55 due to the metallurgical properties of the DU itself. If new advances are made in the DU alloy itself, we may be able to combine both, but for now, that's not the case as far as we know.

>>29625990
>What he said. The shorter L44 on the Abrams is just as good as the L55 on the Leopard because it uses DU

And this is wrong

The superiorty of German tanks over American tanks is a result of tank doctrines.

In the previous chapters the fundamentals of
German armor tactics of the Second World War
have been elaborated. They were the basis of
smashing successes and also gave a major impulse to
the doctrines of other nations. During the war the
Soviets sought to apply German employment fundamentals
on the operational level. At first they had to
learn the hard way with several costly failures, but
they achieved impressive successes in 1944 and at
the beginning of 1945.
The Americans and British remained stubbornly
rigid in their doctrine until the end. The British
used armor almost exclusively as support of infantry,
and the Americans overemphasized advance preparation
of combat support (also from the air) and
neglected taking advantage of or advancing those
leaders who were aggressive.
At times, German principles of command control
were taken up in the manuals of the young
NATO armies of the 1950 and also in the Red Army.
However, immense gaps yawned between words and
deeds. The new (West) German Army, the Bundeswehr,
was also restricted in its doctrinal thinking,
since an operationally questionable, purely defensively
conceived, concept of operations was forced
upon it. It was conspicuous, however, that the manuals
for armored forces were, in large part, identical
to those of the Panzertruppe of the Wehrmacht.
That was possible because of the basic understanding
that even in the defense, armor should be committed
in an offensive role. In large part, this
principle was built into the defense plans, if only in
the fact that the main battle tanks, more often than
not, formed the reserves, with the corresponding
option of conducting mobile operations. In a series
of NATO maneuvers, particularly in the" 1970s and
1980s, armored formations-frequently and conspicuously
mostly German-carried out flexible, wideranging
operations, confirming yet again the
correctness of those fundamentals.

>>29626054
THE INFLUENCE OF CHANGES IN
TECHNOLOGY
Another important factor was the development of
the German Leopard 1 and, especially, the Leopard
2 tanks-both systems capable of outstanding
mobility and dominance on the battlefield. Above
all, the Leopard 2 in its most modern version, the
Leopard 2A6, is clearly superior to most of its rivals,
especially in technical reliability. Under the influence
of entirely new technologies, it was then necessary
to change the manuals.
The essential differences from earlier armor follow:
• Stabilized alignment of sights
• Computer-directed fire-control equipment
• Laser range finder
• Thermal-imaging devices
• New forms of tank armor
• New types of armor-piercing ammunition
• Efficient means of communication
• Command and weapons ontrol system
Modern battle tanks fire with a high probability
of hits at full speed. The alignment of the sights is

>>29626061
computer guided in remaining on target, the optics
are stabilized. Targets can be recognized in complete
darkness. Transmission of data and verbal
information is carried out with low interference in
real time. All in all, the Leopard 2 has a first-shot hit
probability on the move of more than 70 percent,
even at distances well over 2,000 meters. It has a
split-second combat reaction time and reliable target
identification capability even in conditions of
restricted visibility. Mobility has been sharply
increased with a 30 horsepower-to-ton ratio ofvehicle
weight (the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther had a
15 horsepower-to-ton ratio). Today's tank also provides
stabilized optics for the tank commander.
Mter short preparation it can drive under water and
it can destroy targets at ranges in excess of 3,000
meters. Its armor protection, at least in the most
decisive area in an engagement-the front-is high
and protects it against hits from tank guns even at
short ranges. The new generation of kinetic-energy
rounds (Pfeilgeschosse) attain a muzzle velocity of
1,800 meters per second and faster. At a range of
2,000 meters it penetrates over 700 millimeters of
armor plate. (In comparison, the frontal armor of
the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II was between 150
and 180 millimeters. The Tiger's primary armorpiercing
round, the Panzergranate 40/43, with a
muzzle velocity of 1,030 meters per second, penetrated
165 millimeters of armor at a range of 1,000
meters.)

>>29626064
The pressing question, then, is whether fundamentals
of action from more than fifty years ago can
still be relevant. The answer is amazing: Precisely
because the reaction time of modern battle tanks is
drastically reduced, the commander must follow the
tried and true fundamentals with greater speed and
flexibility. In so doing, the prerequisites for commitment
of armor are exactly the same as before
(choice of terrain and point in time, issuing of
orders, combat- and operational support). The operational
fundamentals must be employed with particular
consistency, bearing in mind the ever more
rapid sequence of "reconnaissance-command and
control-effect" (AufkHirung-Fiihrung-Wirkung)
and the ever shorter decision cycle that remains.

>>29626068
TRAINING

In order to take advantage of the clearly heightened
capabilities of the modern tank, the crew and
the leaders must be trained accordingly. Granted, it
is relatively easy to use the weapons system of a
Leopard 2. However, the outcome of a modern
engagement is decided in a matter of seconds. Consequently,
an ingenious and efficient training system
has been created with widespread use of
simulators. Thus, the career of the gunner does not
begin with expending excessive ammunition, but in
a firing simulator. Mter he has achieved a "do-it-inyour-
sleep" level of efficiency, tactical understanding
in the context of the platoon is taught in the
combat simulator. Live ammunition, of course, i
not in any way eliminated, but the static school firing
tables while stationary Dn a concrete pad are a
thing of the past. Right from the beginning, firing is
under tactical conditions. Non-nonsense time limits-
fifteen seconds, maximum, for a combat
engagement where the time begins when the target
appears and not when it is spotted-almost exclusively
firing on the move-with most of the targets
also moving-and constant conditions of numerical
inferiority coax the utmost out of the crews.
As soon as the tanker is capable of fighting in
the context of the platoon, it comes to a "showdown"
for the company. Battle runs with live ammunition
are conducted for the tank company, during
which the company is reinforced with Panzergrenadiere.
Before the battle runs, and repeatedly
in between engagements, the tanks being used take
each other on, using engagement simulators. Live
ammunition is replaced with a laser emitter in
the muzzle of the gun barrel. The opponent has
reflectors mounted on his tank. Getting a "target"
depends on how well the crew carries out its combat
tasks. If mistakes are made (such as poor timing),
then there is a miss. Errors in acquiring targets,
engaging them and in use of terrain are mercilessly
penalized.

>>29626069
The high point in training is an all-day annual
exercise for the company-for the entire battalion
in the crisis reaction forces-in a combat exercise
center against an enemy force. Everything is evaluated
online with computer support. Exact positions,
determined with the help of global positioning systems,
document the course of the fighting. Verbal
or radio orders are recorded on video or audio
tape. Granted, the stress, particularly for the commanders,
is not the same as under the mortal danger
of real combat, however-and you can mark my
words on this-it is not far from it! If you can make
it through those exercises, it is because you learn a great deal in a hellishly short period of time andthis
is important-because you can make mistakes
and not be put through the grinder by the training
personnel. Evaluations are exclusively internal,
from the direct superiors. In no case are there evaluations
by personnel of the exercise center. All
tapes are turned over to the troops in the form of
cut and edited material. The rest are erased after
four weeks.

>>29626070
COMMAND AND CONTROL
Obviously, there is less tension in the simulator-supported
training of leaders. War is practiced in a virtual
setting at the battalion, brigade and division
level in computerized simulation centers. Practice
goes on in giving correct orders during fighting that
goes on all day (and night). The advantage is that
all combat elements can be trained without any of
the peacetime conditions of safety that are required
in a combat exercise center. These new types of
command and training materials have also left their
fallout in the manuals. Thus, for example, the technique
of giving orders has been refined, and the
commander placed in a position to act faster. That ability to act faster is also brought about by the
increasing use of so-called command and weapons
control systems, a computer display that presents all
sorts of data on the situation, the technical aspects
of orders and other data (such as status of vehicles) .
In addition it also displays the positions of friend
and foe, as well as being able to pass on any sort of
report to others by radio.

SUMMARY
Tanks are not the lords of the battlefield. No single
weapons ever has been. However, when correctly
employed by commanders who distinguish themselves
through determination and independent
action, they continue to be an indispensable element
of the combined-arms team in combat.
Armies that commit their armor accordinglyas
did Israel in 1967 and 1973, as did the Coalition
in the Gulf War of 1991 and as Germany formerly
did-prove themselves superior to others and succeed
with fewer losses. As has always been the case,
there is a wide gap between those who are capable
of executing operations well and who have the corresponding
systems and the rest of the world.

>>29625990
There is no such a thing like a defensive operating tank.

A defensive operating tank is counter attacking and this point all the points applying which makes the Leopard 2 superior to the rest of the world.

File: M1 Abrams Lewd Skirt Pic.jpg (241KB, 1800x1196px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1800x1196px

>>29626018
Except it isn't.

At first, I thought to myself, "Why the fuck aren't we using the L55? What we got is just more shitty than what the Leopard 2 has hands down," and then I went to find out why. At first, after going through several sources, I was like, "WTF", but they all basically said the same thing. Since we have a shorter barrel, we compensate by having better ammo, using DU instead of tungsten. Believe it or not metallurgy and projectile construction is a huge fucking deal. Enough of one that we decided that the benefits of having a self-sharpening and pyrophoric projectile outweighed the cons of an alpha radiation emitting, toxic, heavy metal alloy.

It's like one person grabbing a full length rifle with commercial FMJ, and another person taking an SBR with green tip.

>>29626085
>I don't know what hull down is or why it's important
>I don't know what the Fulda Gap is
>I don't know what the Cold War is
>I don't know how horribly outnumbered we expected to be

The post.

The thing is, you can't always counter-attack every single time. Especially when the odds are stacked against that specifically. Not only that, but trading ground for time is a perfectly viable strategy. It's even more important when you learn that life expectancy for a tank was perhaps somewhere around two or three days if very lucky. Because of its engine, the Abrams has a shorter 'thrust' than the Leopard 2 thanks to fuel, but it can make that thrust faster, and also retreat faster. We chose to have that over a longer but slower thrust and retreat ability that would come with a normal diesel engine. Why? Because we knew, absolutely knew, we were up against an enemy that preferred low profile, lightweight and fast tanks, and did not want to be caught with our pants down when they rushed through the gap.

I am not saying the Abrams is better and the Leopard 2 worse; I am very specifically pointing out that they were built with different purposes in mind.

>>29626210
>random greentext

>>29626210
>I am not saying the Abrams is better and the Leopard 2 worse; I am very specifically pointing out that they were built with different purposes in mind.

All the things you posted are plain wrong.

I'm not sure where you got your education in tank warfare but holy fuck.

None of your greentext examples would be about tanks in a defensive role. Tanks will always operate in an offensive way.

File: Leopard 2 Bring Me My Beer.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>29626227
Look, if you don't even know why all that is important or don't even care because you're that big of a Leo 2 Fanboy and/or a wehraboo, shut up and have some Leopard 2.

And beer.

>>29626249
And here comes the anon who just says "you're wrong" and then restates his point of view without anything to back it up whatsoever. I'm done. I'm just done.

>>29626265
>I have no arguments but lol!

>>29626265
Sadly, you never provided any arguments or examples what a defensive operating tank does.

It's fact that fortifications of tanks don't work - quite the example was the Gulf War in that regard. But that tanks should operate in a offensive way even if it just locally. Germany learned a lot from the second half of WWII and embraced a high operational mobility (speed, range, high combat readiness) since the Leopard 1.

>>29626210
>At first, after going through several sources

Serious question: how does the Challenger 2 perform? What are the main differences to the Abrams?

>>29626322
>how does the Challenger 2 perform?

Badly

>What are the main differences to the Abrams?

Inferior in all regards

>>29626210
quality post anon, keep it off /k/.

>>29626277
>It's fact that fortifications of tanks don't work

in the presence of air power. a brrrrt or a longbow make quick work of dug-in tanks.

>>29625059
I miss when shitposting actually meant something.

>>29626277
It's late and I'm extra tired from the shit posters, but you're correct. Fortifications don't work, and tactically, they would be operating offensively and only use prepared defensive positions if there really wasn't a better option or if it was the best option to use because there was a choke point or objective or something. However, on the strategic level? It's a defense where you're trading ground for time. Never mind how you engage the enemy tactically; after that tactical engagement with the Soviets is complete and assuming you survive, you'd have to fall back because you're outnumbered, they're coming and don't want to just stand there waiting for the Soviet Bear to belly flop onto you. So you kill some, fall back. Kill some, fall back. Rinse and repeat. Basically the same thing Russia (messily) did when Germany was pushing into it during WWII, and also what Germany did ( fairly well, all things considered) when the shoe was on the other foot towards the end. The point I'm trying to make is that the Abrams was meant to be strategically defensive, using its torque and acceleration to more carefully pick its tactical engagements so it could keep falling back on a strategic level. As a result, it's not as good when you're on a strategic offense due to the increased logistical burden. It's all a series of tradeoffs.

Tactical stuff is fun and all, but I've always seen people overemphasizing it and forgetting the big picture. Strategy and especially logistics and all that. I basically do the opposite.

>>29626305
Go dig around in the /k/ dropbox for starters. There's a lot of good tank stuff there including info on tank usage in urban warfare. There's even some stuff on the F-35 most people don't get. Also recommend "Revolt of the Majors".

File: 1400251390186.jpg (2KB, 125x116px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x116px

>>29626336
>no reasoning
opinion discarded

>>29626249
Are you really saying the US planned for it's tanks to operate offensively against the hordes of soviet tanks coming at them?

Tanks are more effective weapons offensively, sure, but that doesn't mean they can't be pressed into a defensive role if they need to be.

>>29626322
Up until the recent encounter between Abrams and Kornet, Challenger has been the only modern MBT to get frontally penetrated by portable anti-tank munition.

>>29626364
The statement is correct though.

The Leopard 2 was the plain better tank when both were introduced.

>>29626391
>Are you really saying the US planned for it's tanks to operate offensively against the hordes of soviet tanks coming at them?

Yes.

Tank warfare is all about attacks and counter attacks.

>>29626379
>>29626322
It's unfortunately not as good as the Abrams, Leopard 2 or LeClerc as >>29626336
said. The ammo is two-piece and has to be loaded one half at a time for an example and doesn't even have an autoloader to at least make up for that. Plus, the gun is not even NATO standard, so ammo commonality is out the window. They use 120mm CHARM IIRC. Then, the barrel is rifled; though the HESH is great for aloha-snackbars and the like, sabot is not as good even with the slip ring to compensate. The front glacis of the hull was proven to not be very good either, even with ERA, and was penetrated by an RPG during the Iraq war. It had to have applique armor added afterwards. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong - I should go to sleep soon - but there was also an alignment problem with its optics and its guns. Something about how the gunner's optics were directly on top of its cannon and unable to look around independently to scan for targets or something? I just remember it was really fucking bad. I'm sure I'm missing some other details though.

On the bright side, it's got a fucking awesome water boiling vessel you can use to make hot drinks such as tea, or heat up your rations in.

So jelly.

>>29626364
Dark days are upon us.

>>29626391
He's not entirely right or wrong to be honest. Tactically, a tank is usually a waste if it's not used to attack in most circumstances. Most. Tactically, you find a fight you can win. You win it, then you GTFO to friendly lines to resupply because strategically, we were to play defensive with a systematic retreat and bleed out the bear across Europe.

>>29626379

Greek trials.

>>29626367
>torque
>acceleration
>strategic level

>>29626404
Not really. The initial Leopard 2 for example had inferior armor package to the M1 and Challenger and the DM13 was only mildly superior to the M774. It wasn't until the DM23 that came out years later that the Germans saw a serious improvement from the Leopard 1 to Leopard 2 in terms of penetrative performance. There's a reason why the US didn't seem particularly bothered by the continued use of the venerable 105mm after the M774 showed just how much life the 105mm had left in it and why their first 120mm AP round, the M829 had such a serious performance increase over the DM23 that was in service at the time.

>>29626054
As if people would read that stuff and not just repeating tank memes.

>>29625275
Raptors are used all the time in combat exercises like Red Flag.

The joke is that self-sharpening meme is plain outdated.
Modern tungsten ammo provide the same self-sharpening effects.

>>29625990
>meaning it can push the attack further without needing refuel

According to GDLS and KMW the cruising range of the Abrams is 265 miles and the Leopard 2 is 280 miles.

>>29626541
Which would mean that the Abrams uses around twice the fuel as the Leopard 2. The high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue.

>>29626443
Only that trials between the 120mm and the 105mm guns in the mid 70s proved the superioty of the 120mm pretty clearly.

The main reason why the Abrams didn't have the 120mm from the start was that the original turret wasn't capable of carry it. So it took a complete redesign until the Abrams was capable of taking the 120mm gun.

>>29626559
What is their respective fuel capacities?

>>29626577
Also the main reason the USA didn't use the L55 120mm gun is that the efficiency of DU rounds can't be improved with higher velocity over 1500m/s
The penetrator would mostlikely just break apart when fired with higher speed. That's also the reason why we will never see DU rounds in rail guns.

While tungsten has still some juice left for improvement.

>>29626591
~1100l for the Leopard 2
~2000l for the Abrams

>>29626577
>Only that trials between the 120mm and the 105mm guns in the mid 70s proved the superioty of the 120mm pretty clearly.

Using inferior German 105mm ammunition.

>>29625059
now this is a fucking b8 thread if i've ever seen one

>>29626602
And just to ask, where did you get those numbers.

>>29626541
What matters is the combat range in terrain, not road range. In terrain the Leopard 2 has approx. 161 km range with a 1160 liter tank, Abrams 129 km range with a 1911 liter tank.

>>29626597
The main reason the US hasn't adopted the L55 is because the Rhm.120 and M256 are not the same gun and are not interchangeable.

>>29626609
German ammunition was state of the art.

But I don't think that the USA used German ammunition in that trinational competition between the USA (105mm gun), UK (110mm gun) and Germany in 1975.

>>29626618
>>29626616

>>29626630
A redesign is like the least of the problems.

DU ammo for the L55 just doesn't make sense. That was also comfirmed by American trials which just comfirmed that there weren't any improvement between the L44 and L55 for the own DU ammo.

>>29625777
>If we are moving to rail guns
Not unless we get some impressive jumps in battery technology and I haven't been following how the rails are holding up recently to the heat, but unless it's "real fucking well", we'll need some development in that department as well.

>>29626670
Then we hit a dead end for penetrators and the future are smart rounds.

>>29626679
>>29626654
The feature of penetrators are nanocrystalline
tungsten or bulk metallic glasses.

>>29626430
Very interesting, thanks.

>>29626054
This is wrong. Post-war militaries followed the Soviet Deep Battle doctrine more than they did the Blitzkrieg. And no, the Soviets didn't copy it from the Germans.

>>29626430
>penetrated by RPG
Was it, by any chance, an RPG-29? Last I heard, the burgers wouldn't let the Iraqis have those because they can penetrate the front armour of literally any tank.

We need APS, holy shit. Russia is making us look like dumb fucks here.

>>29626577
>The main reason why the Abrams didn't have the 120mm from the start was that the original turret wasn't capable of carry it

No it had to due with the initial development of the M735 series (which would turn into the 774 due to ease of construction) showing that even the M48A5 and anything else in the NATO inventory armed with the 105mm could be a serious threat on the modern battlefield as it's penetration was within 40mm of the DM13 that was in development at the time. The IP's 'long turret' format was capable of accepting the 120mm that was planned on eventually being the mainstay of the force. Meanwhile the DM13A1 that was being developed had almost identical performance to the first iteration of the M833 that was being produced in '83 which lead to a crash course development of the DM23 after the FRG and US decided to cooperate more on 120mm munitions that lead to its first prototype being produced in late '83.

The simple fact of the matter is that the 105mm still had a great deal of life left in it throughout the 80s and most of the 90s as can be seen with the M900 achieving penetrative performance on similar to that of the M892A1.

>>29626638
>German ammunition was state of the art.

Not particularly. They really dropped the ball after the L52 when the US and Swiss 105mm munitions began to pull away in the mid 70s.

>>29626727
Post not related to anything?

>>29625059
Germans are vastly superior engineers. In terms of planning, design, efficiency and production the German people are the greatest in the world. America has a lot of German genes, however it's been somewhat diluted. Thus they are good, but not as good.

The losses of German life in WW2 were a massive blow to humanity as a whole.

>>29626430
>The front glacis of the hull was proven to not be very good either, even with ERA, and was penetrated by an RPG during the Iraq war.

lol the front? discarded

Under belly penetrated due to the rear of the tank being reversed into the ditch by the driver. The round BARELY penetrated the under belly, and the driver only lost a couple toes.

>The ammo is two piece and has to be loaded one half at a time
And? RAC loaders can fire three rounds of DU/T CHARM II in 12 seconds during rapid fire.

>HESH
HESH is just HESH, everyone already knows about it.

>Gunner sights
Multiple gunner optics. TOGS is what you're thinking about.

And, everyone already knows this but hey I'll add it again, it has yet to be destroyed by a penetrating round. While the Abrams, the only other tank with combat under it's belt, is getting BTFO'd daily in the middle east, and even during the first and second Iraq Wars. Challenger 2 has the best armour, by far.

>>29626742
>within 40mm

Pulling out bullshit numbers

File: challenger 2.jpg (246KB, 2345x1327px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 2345x1327px

>>29626737
It was an RPG-29, and it hit the low glacis, which is inherently weaker. They swapped out the smaller ERA plates for a fuckoff huge block of composite.
That anon is blowing its issues out of proportion, or has completely misunderstood them (like the two-piece ammo, loading speed is actually slightly faster compared to Abrams/Leo 2).
And there isn't a problem with the APFSDS, which performs just as well as Abrams or Leo 2 ammunition.


All in all, the Challenger 2 is an incredibly impressive MBT. Despite being heavier and having a lower power-to-weight ratio than the Abrams, it can easily keep up with it cross-country due to its hydropneumatic suspension.

>>29626775
>is getting BTFO'd daily in the middle east, and even during the first and second Iraq Wars.

Most of your post is correct, but this is just bullshit. In the first Iraqi war, Abrams BTFO everything they came across, including themselves.
Today they're getting BTFO because Arabs are literally the worst soldiers on earth. It's all about tactics and training.

Which is amusing, since there are loads of butthurt Abrams fanboys using the exact same arguments than Russoboos use regarding T-80 casualties in Chechnya.

>>29626773
>The losses of German life in WW2 were a massive blow to humanity as a whole.

This.

Not any kind of neonazi but the US was not any sort good guy in WW2, we did most of same eugenics programs as Nazis, killed millions of the brightest and strongest people in Europe, and allowed the USSR to become a mass murdering super state far more brutal than anything Germany could ever be.

The German DM13 rounds were ahead of everything else in the NATO. There isn't really much to discuss.

But NATO and SU ammo had the problem that they were capable of penetrating pure steel armor but weren't effective against the more complex armor of modern tanks.

So the DM33 and derivates werethe first ammo which were also capable of penetrating more complex tank armor. Something even the most modern 105mm armor can't do.

>>29626802
Which is why its so funny when idiots on here call the MGS a 'tank destroyer'.

File: Leo2.jpg (52KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 736x552px

Just like to point out the Leopard 2 has seen combat.

>>29626773
>>29626801
Fuck off wehraboos. This fucking German arrogance is what caused the war in the first place. The US out-engineered you in WWII easily because they understood that reliability, mass-producability, and versatility were more important than special snowflake supertanks. Having a tank that can be mass produced in a car factory and can fix damage easily in the field is better and more impressive engineering than an overly complex tank with complicated and unreliable transmissions and suspensions, and other bullshit.

>>29626845
>brightest and strongest people
>start war over fucking stupid and retarded ideas from a short angry Austrian artist

>>29626802
>The German DM13 rounds were ahead of everything else in the NATO. There isn't really much to discuss.

The question is by how much, and history shows not much.

>So the DM33 and derivates werethe first ammo which were also capable of penetrating more complex tank armor.

The first production batch of DM33 came out in 1987 and matched the performance of the M829, the M829 was adopted in 1985 and had Go krautaboo somewhere else.

>>29625777
>You can't really increase the muzzle velocity anymore when firing DU ammunition.
You can. You just need a more powerful gun with correspondingly more propellant load.
It loses the natural adiabatic effect at ~2km/s though, but that is offset by the increase from hydrodynamic penetration i.e. the closer you get to the higher velocities that render material strengths irrelevant the more only relative density and length matter, which means they act like Tungsten which has a similar density and consequently length at these velocities.
>>29626702
This. Focus is on making novel penetrators with adiabatic shear properties at high velocities as well.

>>29626861
M829 in charge of penetrating composite armor.

>>29626786
Why does everyone shit on it? Is it just because it's not American, or does it legit have problems?

File: 2J0Ni.jpg (34KB, 485x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 485x480px

If tungsten kinetic energy penetrators are as good as the depleted uranium ones, why would the French bother to field new DU APFSDS for the Leclerc's L/52 120mm smootbore gun ?

>>29626937
The UK just gave up trying to export it after getting destroyed in every tank competition it was part.

>>29626948
Source?

>>29626916
>you in charge of knowing anything you're talking about

I can do it too :3

>>29626976
Try harder

>>29626978
Okay

DM33 in charge of penetrating a wet paper bag

>>29626937
>Is it just because it's not American, or does it legit have problems?

Because it's not American. Every vehicle has its problems, but over the past two years on /k/, the 'merica factor' has exploded. Where all flaws of foreign equipment is blown out of proportions, and flaws of domestic equipment is downplayed.

>>29626948
Rule #1 about military acquisition contracts: It doesn't matter how good your product is, it's about which is cheapest and who's friends with who.
The Chally 2 is incredibly expensive, the UK suck at promoting it, and they're not good at military-industrial complex corruption compared to the US and Russia.

>>29626984
Got it, thanks. I don't come on /k/ too often, but it is pretty burgerised compared to other boards.

File: Challenger 2 Union jack.jpg (729KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1600x1200px

>>29626984
It's not that they suck at promoting it, I think it's more that they don't want to. Read an article a while back about how the MoD don't want to export military secrets to nations they're not on a first name basis with.

The UK has exported military kit to Omen since forever, so it makes sense to trust them with Challenger 2's. I don't think they're export models, so correct me if I'm wrong there.

And yes, CH2 is incredibly expensive, and no nation gives no more of a shit about their armed forces than their average civie.

File: Challenger 2_destroyed_1.jpg (82KB, 1000x466px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1000x466px

>>29626786
>It was an RPG-29, and it hit the low glacis, which is inherently weaker. They swapped out the smaller ERA plates for a fuckoff huge block of composite.

Yet another additional weight to be added for a tank whose surface was initially less covered by composite armor than its counterparts.


>That anon is blowing its issues out of proportion, or has completely misunderstood them (like the two-piece ammo, loading speed is actually slightly faster compared to Abrams/Leo 2).


This might be quite normal due to the lack of proper separate armored compartment for the ammunition.


>And there isn't a problem with the APFSDS, which performs just as well as Abrams or Leo 2 ammunition.


Shorter penetrator means less penetration depth.


>Despite being heavier and having a lower power-to-weight ratio than the Abrams, it can easily keep up with it cross-country due to its hydropneumatic suspension.


How can you claim that without knowing the vertical travel of both suspensions ?

Good luck on following an Abrams with such poor amount of torque.

>>29627020
The Abrams was penetrated by an RPG-29 from the front as well though.

>>29627010
>The UK has exported military kit to Omen since forever, so it makes sense to trust them with Challenger 2's. I don't think they're export models, so correct me if I'm wrong there.

The Omani Challenger 2 has a better cooling group, US-made GPS, .50 HMG mounted on the loader's station and Challenger 1's single-pin tracks.

Oman has currently an eye on the Leopard 2.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/11/13/report-oman-may-acquire-german-leopard-tanks/75699444/

>>29627020
good luck trying to keep up with the ch2 with your civie car tier suspension.

File: M1 Abrams RPG-29.gif (3MB, 350x256px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x256px

>>29627040

File: abrams hit by RPG.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>29627056
Oh anon you shouldnt have

>>29626367
The only problem with doing a fighting retreat is that you need an awful lot of strategic depth to work with in the first place. It doesn't take much to turn a withdrawal into a rout after all so you need a lot of space to allow yourself a couple extra chances to reform and reorganize.
The problem is that while the Soviets and Germans had a thousand kms at least to work with, NATO in W. Germany had 500kms at best, and because of political considerations, most NATO forces are deployed within 100km of the border.

>>29627056
Not sure why you're posting that, but ok

>>29627067
>these filenames get more and more inaccurate each time they're posted

Stop it.

>>29627067
That's a Kornet.

File: 1442630396896.png (103KB, 195x335px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 195x335px

>>29627056
>On September 5, 2007, a PG-29V hit the side turret of an M1 Abrams in Baghdad, killing 2 of the crew and wounding 1, and the tank was seriously damaged.

>On August 25, 2007 a PG-29V hit a passing M1 Abrams in the hull rear wounding 3 crew members.

>In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that another M1 Abrams tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.

>he US Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to armor so high that they refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into insurgent hands.

:^)

>>29627086
>side and rear hits
no fucking shit
just about any tank now adays is vulnerable to a goddamn rpg29 to the side

>>29627086
>side turret
>hull rear

Are you aware that a main battle tank shouldn't expect to withstand such kind of weapon in such spot ?

Muh monkee moduls
I'll tell ya what

File: challenger 2 rpg hit.jpg (42KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 604x453px

>>29627092

>One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

>>29627020
>due to the lack of proper separate armored compartment for the ammunition.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The propellant bags are stored in an armoured wet-storage bin, the projectiles themselves don't need special storage since it's the propellant fire that's the biggest danger.

>Shorter penetrator means less penetration depth

L30 APFSDS rounds are not shorter than 120mm smoothbore APFSDS rounds, there is literally no indication that they would be.

>How can you claim that without knowing the vertical travel of both suspensions

Because the Challenger 2 (Challenger 1 did as well) routinely does so in training exercises?

>Good luck following an Abrams with such poor amount of torque

Let me guess, you're going to claim that the Abrams has infinite torque, right? Or "Everything that has less torque than MY tank is automatically shit"?

>>29625800

Underrated post. All of the modern MBT's are pretty darn good. Crew training, and upgrading of fire control systems is the primary difference between any of them.

>>29627104
grasping at straws
those were not RPG-29s
a challenger was penetrated in the lower glacis by an RPG-29 however, so fuck off.

>>29627092
>>29627100
>rpg-29 hits weaker lower armour of challenger 2
LOL FUCKING BRIT TANKS ARE INFERIOR
>rpg-29 hits weaker side and rear armour of abrams
>Are you aware that a main battle tank shouldn't expect to withstand such kind of weapon in such spot? Clearly the Abrams is superior!
Make up your minds.

>>29627121
>so fuck off
>this much damage controlling
>all this denial

>In August 2006 south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq, an RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal lower underbelly armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars.

Try harder, anon

>>29627124
>LOL FUCKING BRIT TANKS ARE INFERIOR
when the fuck did I say that
I just got here, calm your fucking autism

>>29627115
>the projectiles themselves don't need special storage since it's the propellant fire that's the biggest danger.

Before someone claims "But what about the HESH/HEAT rounds?", if the conditions are hot enough or there's enough shock to set off the HESH/HEAT rounds via sympathetic detonation, you're already long dead.

File: Challenger_2.jpg (1MB, 1646x1232px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1646x1232px

>it was just the weaker lower amour!

Just look at a goddamn Challenger 2.

File: DSC02732_01.jpg (847KB, 2362x1575px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2362x1575px

>>29627139
And compare it to the Leopard 2 or Abrams and you see how flawed the Challenger 2 is designed.

>>29627124
Welcome to modern /k/, where if it's not American, it's automatically shit and literally the worst piece of equipment you can use.

>>29627139
We already went through this, it hit the UNDERSIDE of the vehicle due to it being in the process of reversing down into a ditch.

>>29625059
Because a superpower with global reach and massive industry is going to have a different doctrine from a small regional power and smaller industry thats sitting next to their biggest threath

>>29627149
Welcome to modern /k/ where if it's not russian it's overpriced piece of useless propaganda technology that is inferior to anything russian produced since the 1850's.

>>29627160
So you mean building an inferior tank is a doctrine now?
Although having access to most of the key technologies?

>>29627158
>underside

being that wrong

>>29626984
>'merica factor'
Really? Because it's been pretty much the opposite. Americans might be chest-thumping a bit more but it's probably in fucking response to the constant shitposting threads like this that pop up every day.

>>29627169
What are you talking about? America spergs out when something Russian is posted, not the other way around. Look at the catalog, and I guarantee you'll find some thread saying that something Russian is shit.

File: Challenger 2 reactivearmor.jpg (131KB, 743x557px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 743x557px

>>29627147
Flawed? Don't think so.

Imo Challenger 2 looks better with it's ERA upgrade than both the Leo 2 and Abrams

>>29627173
In ww2 when the russians produced a literal barely functional piece of shit, that doctrine worked fine.

In ww2 when burgers produced a completely avarage middle of the road tank, that doctrine worked fine

In ww2 when germans produced bazillion variants of the same avarage tank and tried to produce special snowflake high quality "better than everything senpai" tanks, they got a wall built in the middle of berlin.

>>29627179
>this much fucking denial

Jesus Christ, just stop anon. This is sad

>In August 2006 south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq, an RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal lower underbelly armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars. The tank, which had already been hit by 10-15 RPGs, small arms and sniper fire, was attempting to draw fire away from another callsign that had become stricken.

>>29627182
>I can't accept that America isn't the best
>It's all shitposting!

Prove that the M1 was even close of being on par to the Leopard 2 when both were put in service.

>>29627183
Whenever f35 is posted it's the biggest piece of shit and waste of money that could be used to build safespaces.

Whenever t14 is posted it's the greatest technology ever that will single handedly defeat america if photos of it leaked.

>>29627190
That random post.

File: 1453193737307.png (385KB, 656x608px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 656x608px

>>29627191
>not american
YOU'RE STILL WRONG THO

USA USA USA

>>29627191
>frontal lower underbelly

read your own greentext

>>29627183
Are we looking at the same /k/? Eurotrash and Slavs have been shitposting about American vehicles to an absurd degree recently. The only reason you're noticing the fucking meager criticisms European vehicles are receiving is because you take it personally

Euros throw a conniption fit and start shitposting and starting false flag threads whenever the US mentioned and it's getting embarrassing

>>29627192
Does it matter? They still btfo anything russians have to offer.

File: UK APFSDS vs German and American ones..png (1MB, 1040x1370px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1040x1370px

>>29627115
>You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The propellant bags are stored in an armoured wet-storage bin, the projectiles themselves don't need special storage since it's the propellant fire that's the biggest danger.

There are not more wet GRP charge bins since the Challenger 1 mk. III.

It's unlikely that a propellant fire would have been able to lift off the whole turret of a Challenger 2 as was the case in March 2003.

>L30 APFSDS rounds are not shorter than 120mm smoothbore APFSDS rounds, there is literally no indication that they would be.

Pic-related

>Because the Challenger 2 (Challenger 1 did as well) routinely does so in training exercises?

Maybe in your wet dreams, knowing that the Abrams can cope better with the bumps thanks to its suspensions offering a vertical travel of 481 mm compared to only 450 mm for the Challenger 1 & 2.

>Let me guess, you're going to claim that the Abrams has infinite torque, right? Or "Everything that has less torque than MY tank is automatically shit"?

CV12 TCA V-12, No. 3 Mark 6A : 4126 Nm at 1700 rpm

AGT1500 : 5300 Nm at 1000 rpm

>>29627197
Lurk more newfag

Everyone on /k/ minus ruskies admit that the T-14 is a piece of shit.

People btfo the F-35 because they compare it to an F-22 and that event where the F-35 actually did get BTFO'd by tomcats

>>29627192
That wasn't what I was saying in the post at all, idiot. I wasn't even the person you were responding to, just pointing out a fact.

>>29627223
> to the constant shitposting threads like this

File: not sure how I feel.gif (1MB, 266x268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 266x268px

>>29627208
At this point I can't tell if you're trolling, or are genuinely retarded.

>>29627205
>that comic
>people actually think posting constant paragraph long diatribes about "big ebil amerikkka" is just having a gaff

"It's just bants bro! I'm gonna go ahead and start 3 threads about this in response"

>>29627209
Go onto the catalog and find me an anti-american thread. Then, find how many anti-euro/slav threads there are in comparison.

Why do you think the Americans are seen as inherently autistic and dumber than other posters? Because you shit on everyone elses country and lose your shit the moment you are criticised.

File: 1460596179162.gif (1MB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 280x210px

>>29627226

>>29627222
Plenty of people defend t14 since it is big and new.

Defenders seem to forget that it is their tank with T-10/is3 tier track record, except even t-10/is3 didn't break down when it had to drive down a flat piece of tarmac. Which makes t-14 one of the worst tanks in active service

>>29627233
It was copied from a genuine thread on 4chan. The french guy made a joke, and a burger literally replied with that wall of text.

>>29627230
Read the greentext.

Compare how large and visible that part is >>29627139

And claim that isn't a design flaw again.

File: solid snake newspaper pffhahaha.jpg (49KB, 192x171px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 192x171px

>>29627221
>Suspension travel is the only measure of how effective suspension is

>>29627246
I would rely on it. Russian ERA is nothing to laugh about. When Kontakt V first came out, German testers reported that it was practically invulnerable. Both Germany and America had to develope new ammo to counter it, and I have no doubt that the new ERA they have will do the same to modern APDS projectiles.

Not only that, but it has an active defense system specifically designed to counter Javelin. Trophy worked exceedingly well for the Israelis in their last Palestine adventure, why wouldn't it work for the Russians?

>>29627250
>Frontal underbelly
>Thinks they're referring to the glacis and not the underside of the vehicle

m8, take a second, breathe, and think this through.

>>29627255

These figures are considered as a leading factor.

>>29625059
better engineers
better tank doctrines
being a front state

Stuff like that can happen.

>>29627269
>Frontal lower underbelly

Sure makes sense to have an underbelly and a lower underbelly!

File: 35oLAxsKDO.jpg (188KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 800x600px

>>29627269
Too bad that the lower glacis of a tank is part of the underbelly construction and is generally way less armored (or not).

But a good tank is designed in such a way that the frontal lower underbelly isn't that visible like in the case of the Challenger 2.

>>29627147

>>29627241
>>29625059

>meanwhile the only vaguely European-focused threads is one talking about the EU semi auto ban and a British veteran getting arrested for owning a handgun
>Meanwhile a week ago there was a gun control thread up every day, usually from a European coming into /k/ to remind us about how evil we are, not to mention

Kill yourself, Europeans are the cancer of this board

>>29627313
There's no actual source for this

>>29627271
Only if you're comparing similar types, i.e: one torsionbar to another.
Hydropneumatic suspension offers a lot of advantages, and in the case of the Challenger 2 vs the Abrams, it's superior off-road performance (which nullifies the Abrams power advantage).

File: abrams.png (556KB, 1510x954px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1510x954px

>>29627281
excuse my leonardo da vinci tier artistic skills

>>29627332
fuck should've added that the centre is the "Lower underbelly"

>>29627325
>There's no actual source for this

a source for what? That a lower glacis is way less armored? That's fact.

The numbers? They are the numbers which are used by that one tank simulation, which are just estimation but don't really matter here because RHA is a pretty bad way of showing the level of protection/penetration anyway.

>>29627330

During the development of the Leopard 2, the Germans have extensively tested hydropneumatic suspensions before opting for torsion bars.

>>29627332
A little desperate.

>>29627267
If you did an a-10 BRRT pass on an era equipped vehicle, would ERA react to the rounds?

>>29627346
Because it was cheaper & simpler for manufacturing.

>>29626654
Complete bullshit.
Especially for long distance shooting this is worthwhile because you have a higher projectile speed all around.
This supposed study you claim that has been done on the subject is something that I would also like to see sourced.

File: 1436648608880.jpg (27KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 625x626px

>>29625059

>>29627350
It'd have to penetrate the protective covers of the K-5 (which can withstand smaller precursor warheads).
I'm not familiar with the penetration statistics of the A-10's API ammunition. But if it were to penetrate, it'd most probably set it off.

>>29627361
The M829A3 even slowed down from 1680 m/s of the A2 to 1555 m/s which is more or less the sweetpoint of DU.

>>29627348
>nothing else to say to argue with facts
>Y-YOU'RE DESPERATE
>S-STOP B-BEING SO DESPERATE

Just give in.

krauts could have a tank 500x better than the abrams but they will always be complete faggots that have the US do the lifting while they complain about them for being mean and war like in between sucking off rapeugees

>>29627384
Sadly, you are the one who failed to prove anything.

>>29627379
So in theory if you somehow manage to be close enough and not killed you can dump some 20-30mm autocannon rounds on a kontakt covered tank and then hit it with an missile or cannon

>>29627393
You really are trying too hard

>>29625059
Because USA can not into tank guns. They had to ask Brits and Germans for their guns for more than half a century by now since Americans themselves are completely incapable of producing a tank gun on their own.

>>29627325
>a gun control thread every day
>on a pro-gun board
Gee, that doesn't sound like bait at all! Why would we keep posting it? It's not like Americans get triggered and respond to it EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME!

>>29627425
Also diesel engines.

>>29626249
Are you just going to type "you're wrong" over and over?

Kill yourself, fucking moron

>>29627419
Yeah, but then you're assuming that the tank is just sitting there taking it like a Slavic whore and not unloading HEAT shells and 14.5mm heavy MG fire into your face.

I am quite sure the 3 big western tanks are similar in every category, except challenger should have a bad main gun performance and leopard should have weaker protection due to no special meme armor.

This makes the abrams probably the best of them all, and since its combat proven that pretty much is it.
Also it has all that DU bullshit going on which probably gives it the edge.

The leopards apparent superiority is only because americans are humble, british people overblow the protection level of the challenger often (while not mentioning the poor gun) and many people all over the world are naziboos and somehow connect "superior" nazi german tanks to postwar designs (even if Leo and Abrams had the same father, and late allied ww2 designs were better then german tanks and soviets were better all over)

tldr KMW is very good at marketing
t. turk natoboo.

>>29627452
>post completly random examples

What did you expect? That people are wasting their to explain what the American strategy was to defend the Fulda Gap?

>>29627425
Instead of producing all our own tanks, how about we have

>Britain design the armour & FCS
>Germany design the engine & cannon
>America design the ammunition & sensors

>>29627457
which is exacly why it's "useless but good to know" info.

Maybe if you loaded a really small gau8 into the cannon, fired a burst, shot it at the tank and then loaded HEAT and shot it at the tank to defeat kontakt

File: meme.png (226KB, 1000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x2400px

>>29627461
...and just as i typed that out i found the "muh german engineering" meme in action.

pic related

>>29627475
So you want a tank with good engine and gun?

>>29627425

The German Rh-120 120mm smoothbore gun gun was heavily based on the US Delta gun from the early 1960s.

>>29627487
You should really stick to memes.

>>29627498
No, the Rheinmetall tank gun wasn't "heavily based" on the Delta Gun from an engineering point there aren't even any connections.

You could argue that the promising stats of the Delta Gun ( velocity of 1,615m/s) was the motivation for the Germans to put some effort into an own smoothbore gun.

>>29627492
You do realize that both the Abram's and Leopard 2's armour is British, right?

>>29627504

spotted the germanboo

>>29625059
America designed the Abrams' around the 105mm rifled gun, then later up-gunned them to the L44 version of the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun.

The leopard II was designed around the superior L55 version of the 120 smoothbore.

The other key difference is that the leopard II uses a conventional diesel power pack while the Abrams uses that stupid turbine which suffers from awful idle fuel consumption.

>>29627548
No. Only the Abrams is based on the Chobham armor.
The Germans tested the armor but didn't like the focus on HE protection, so they went for an own solution. The French did the same for their tank.

File: Type10MBT.jpg (423KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1500x1000px

Nano-crystal steel or bust!

>>29627548
leopard 2 doesn't have dorchester m8. it never did. germans are to untrustworthy so they get to use their own shitty gapped armor composite trash.
>>29627627
the L55 literally only exists because germoney are to pussy to fling DU. The L55 also introduces even more problems such as increased barrel ware due to its incread length and weight increasing barrel droop over time thus decreasing accuracy faster than on the L44. Also the extra weight of gunlaying components means significantly more weight. additionaly the 7.9KG DM53 is vastly inferior to the 10kg m829a3 round. Ultimately the L55 has become something used to trick retards who think hurr durr it's longer must be better like yourself into urging their country to buy shitty german military exports.

>>29627627
>The leopard II was designed around the superior L55
>Leopard 2
>designed around a gun that was built in the 2000's

k

>>29627627
>The leopard II was designed around the superior L55 version of the 120 smoothbore.
No. The leo2 was designed around the 105mm cannon. Later a New turret was designed for the L/44. The L/55 for the Leopard A5 was an Upgrade to make up for not using DU-Penetrators.

>>29627749
>The leo2 was designed around the 105mm cannon.

>>29627761
>he doesn't know the leopard 2 av had a 105mm gun
neck yourself

>>29627698
>it never did. germans are to untrustworthy so they get to use their own shitty gapped armor composite trash.

No, they received the specifications and details of Chobham armour from the British, and then proceeded to produce their own Chobham-derived composite armour.

>>29627761
First prototypes used the 105mm cannon. Get it in your head.

>>29627749
No, it was not. Different prototypes were equipped with different guns simultaneously.

>>29627772
>>29627776
>first prototype had...
>designed around

At no point in the developement the Leopard 2 was supposed to carry anything than the 120mm smoothbore gun.
In fact it was the the main reason the project even existed in the first place - see the developement of the Keiler project.

>>29626778
>these numbers are wrong
>does not provide alternatives

>>29627805
>not having access to classified data

What a surprise!

>>29627773
false.
the leopard 2 usus perforated armor. they never had access to chobam. pre and even post unification it was considered far to easy for a soviet spy to gain information on it. So the germans had to do their own shit hence perforated armor which actually isn't to bad. it's just nowhere near as good as a complex composite

>>29627814
Learn to type.

And stop posting plain bullshit.

>>29626737
RPG-29's cannot penetrate the frontal composite armor of MBT's like the Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.

>>29626786
>It was an RPG-29, and it hit the low glacis, which is inherently weaker.

It wasn't inherently weaker because it was the lower glacis, it was weaker because in the armor layout of the Challenger 2 the lower glacis is just a steel plate.

This has since been compensated for by bolt on packs of armor when equipped with TES armor.

>>29627796
Well, fact is:
1. The leo2 wasn't designed for the L/55.
2. Prototypes carried the 105mm cannon before the L/44.
Maybe designed around the 105mm is a description.

>>29627814
This shitposter is guilty of a fairly common misconception regarding armor -- that armor can only be made of one material, or only use one effect to stop all threats. The truth is that perforated armor is just one possible component of a complete multi-component armor system. Chobham/Burlington is another component. England, Germany, America, and France all use armor systems which incorporate Burlington as one component, but also have other components both above and below the Burlington component. Germany uses perforated armor as one of its outer components, and Burlington as one of the deeper components. The effect of the perforated armor (bending, breaking, or yawing incoming penetrators) makes the deeper layers more effective at stopping the threat. The same goes with Explosive Reactive Armor -- ERA doesn't stop much by itself, but it does interfere with the penetrator's ability to overcome deeper layers of armor.

This is what composite armors are all about -- different layers working together to produce effects which interoperate to defeat the threat. No one layer is "better" than the other, any more than a car engine's fuel injectors are "better" than its pistons. You couldn't build a better engine by leaving out the pistons and adding more fuel injectors, and neither can you build a better armor by using only one component to the exclusion of others, be it steel, titanium, ceramic, depleted uranium, rubber, or perforated plates. An effective armor is a machine, much as the gun or engine are machines, and all of its mechanical parts play a necessary role.

>>29627829
please stop trying to pass off wikipedia as truth. "Leopard 2: sein Werden und seine Leistung" is in no way a reliable source especially when it only passively mentions that they may have been given knowledge without ever citing any source for such rumors.

>>29627812
What is the Lanz & Odermatt formula.

>>29627858
When you need to slap several tons of hollow applique onto the front of your tank. you might have shit composites behind it tbqh fampie.

>>29627861
Explain it and show us how you get the numbers.

>>29627876
English please

>>29627850
>Prototypes carried the 105mm cannon before the L/44.
No, they carried both guns simultaneously. This damage control is entertaining though, knowing that M1 didn't get 120mm gun until Germans shared it.

>>29627876
If less weight of ERA + passive armor can achieve the same protection as all passive armor
Then why not?

File: ladder.jpg (191KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1280x720px

>>29626837
That is pretty rare, most have been educated to know the MGS is effectively direct fire artillery. Although M900 will frontally kill a lot more than some would like to admit.

>>29627883
Wenn Sie müssen mehrere Tonnen Hohl Applikation auf der Vorderseite des Tanks zu schlagen . Sie könnte Scheiße Composites dahinter tbqh fampie haben .

>>29627814
The Germans are the most secretive about their armor design.

Even the countries which can licence build Leopard 2 tanks don't have access to basic data like armor thickness.

>>29627907
>secretive
>export tank
heh no 5 hours with a blow torch means any fag in cunuckistan can find out pretty easy

>>29627877
http://www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php

Have fun.

>>29626251
>>29626251

Why does he press it down onto the platform?

I call bullshit.

>>29627922
I see

You don't understand the formula and its limitations.

>>29627893
ERA can be bypassed.

>>29627933
Please, enlighten us.

>>29627886
Which do you think was available first? The old 105mm cannon or the L/44? The first Leo2 Chassis were equipped with the 105mm. Godfuckingdamnit

>>29627933
I doubt you can quantify its limitations, or why the generally accepted numbers are wrong.

>>29627937
I have no degree in material science so I was asking you to explain it to me.

>>29627926
because it's recessed in the plinth otherwise acceleration would make it fall off, the video is to show stabilization so the the beer doesn't spill

>>29627943
>generally accepted numbers

>not even posting the source of the numbers

>>29627893
except it isn't era it's just a hunk of mild steel and rubber. it's so fucking bulk it's ridiculous the driver can't excape without turning the turret completely to the side. disgusting

>>29627894
>ladder.jpg
Did they do something with recoil or does it still need a crutch when shooting sideways?

>>29627944
You did just say that the formula has limitations.

Are you now saying that you are not qualified to discuss those limitations that you said it has?

File: 1424828831267.png (899KB, 1040x1370px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 1040x1370px

>>29627115
>L30 APFSDS rounds are not shorter than 120mm smoothbore APFSDS rounds, there is literally no indication that they would be.

>>29627958
>Are you now saying
not the same guy but fuck off with that snide shit. just admit you don't know even a single sliver of a fuck of what you're talking about.

The Leopard 2 deploays a similiar armor like Chobham but with an own mix of rubber, ceramics and (the biggest difference) perforated steel.

File: 1280px-Leopard_2_Prototyp_PT15_T02_105mm.jpg (364KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1280x960px

>>29627942
Pic related

>>29627969
I'm not even the guy that first posted the link. I'm just pointing out that 'totally not you' is weaseling their way out of answering a simple question.

File: 1457141703506.png (67KB, 1061x305px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1061x305px

>>29626251

>>29627957
It never needed a crutch to fire sideways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHnNSURLEA

File: leopard2av.jpg (82KB, 825x586px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 825x586px

so if the leopard 2 had a 105mm would the 105mm not be a bad gun because german?

>>29627067
Edit: God I love shitposting

>>29628001
It is hilarious when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it?

>>29628001
Looking at the fact that Germans never considered the 105mm gun as gun for the final version of the Leopard 2.

It would have been pretty shitty.

>>29628066
>Looking at the fact that Germans never considered the 105mm gun as gun for the final version of the Leopard 2.
>Looking at the fact that Americans never considered the 105mm gun as gun for the final version of the Abrams.

Two can play that game.

>>29628091
But the 105mm was the gun for the final version of the Abrams.

>>29625059
First of all, the only thing the Leopard 2 has over the Abrams is fuel range. But what the M1 brings to the table, the Leopard is the inferior tank.
>>29625717
Ok so in the first 20 posts, half of them were shit posts, about 6 were blatant misinformation, but this is one is the worst one, I had to reply.
>first 3 points
true
>L55 provides better penetration
Blatantly false. This argument has been gone over in every other mbt vs mbt thread, but compared to their 90's equivalent when Russia came out with new armor, each country had a different approach to countering it. Germany built a new gun, America built a new round. Today, that 8% increase in velocity in the L55, does not make up for the over 25% increase in penetration for America's M829A3 (compared to the M829A2 and A1) TLDR the Leopard's lethality is behind the Abrams but only by a small margin. But that's not the only reason the Abrams is better, to include armor, c4isr integration, and a few other attributes. The Leopard and Abrams are hands down the best tanks.

>>29626210
>L55 vs M256 argument again
Also don't forget with the L55 gun the added weight makes the gun more inaccurate. First hit accuracy is about the same as both tanks FCS's are similar in capability, and bore-sighting capability is also similar. But after several shots the L55 gun tube droops more then the M256. All tubes do this as a product of heat dissipation. There is a Muzzle Reference System in the tank that tracks the end of the tube, and with a manual update can be returned to almost the original accuracy after computating. But when doing it more in combat that means less time scanning for targets and shooting shit.

>>29626397
>Up until the recent encounter between Abrams
Yeah, but I got about a hundred pictures of T72's being penetrated from the front that says otherwise. The M1A2S isn't modern, and Neither are T72 Lion of Babylon tanks, don't confuse them. I wouldn't use those to make T90 Analogues.

>>29628114
>First of all, the only thing the Leopard 2 has over the Abrams is fuel range. But what the M1 brings to the table, the Leopard is the inferior tank.

>better gun
>better FCS
>better speed
>better cross-country performance
>better range

etc.

Namefag, stop bringing shame to you and your family.

>>29628001
105 mm gun is bad not because Germans didn't use it, but because it had pathetic performance against contemporary tanks and because Soviets were fielding tanks with 125mm guns since 1964, mere 3 years after Americans have finally moved on from 90mm to 105mm.

>>29628137
m900 is a shitty round?

>>29628137
>Soviets were fielding tanks with 125mm guns
Irrelevant considering the 125mm gun is trash because of the soviet autloader system limiting shell length and weight. Up until recently with the armata they haven't been able to edge over 8MJ.

File: LAND_Stryker_MGS_Firing_Anomaly_lg.jpg (573KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 800x600px

>>29627996
>It's not visible so it's not there
:^)

>>29628134
>
>better gun
no, you didn't even read my comment
>better FCS
no
>better speed
defenitley no turbine > diesel
>better cross-country performance
same shit
>better range
they have literally the same range. But the M829A3 has superior penetration at ranges further then Germany's DM53.

Confirmed for not know how tanks works. When you have an actual argument, please get back to me.

>>29628161
>no, you didn't even read my comment

Sadly, I did.

>no

trials and competitions showing the opposite

>defenitley no turbine > diesel

trials and competitions showing the opposite

>same shit

trials and competitions showing the opposite

>they have literally the same range.

L2 has ~twice the fuel efficiency as the Abrams

>But the M829A3 has superior penetration at ranges further then Germany's DM53.

No

>>29625990

What is this manual loading shit. Are they not supposed to have autoloaders?

>>29628161
>Confirmed for not know how tanks works.

namefag, please.

>>29628175
fuel efficiency is irrelevant if you have more fuel in the tank and better logistics to keep it fueled. get maymayed on kid

>>29628140
It's a round for an outdated gun that appeared 30 years after its introduction. It's not shitty, it's irrelevant in this argument.
>>29628157
>Damage control
I see how irrelevant it is butchering American "tanks" with 105mm "guns" here and there up until 1991.

>>29626801
It was all Germany's fault, USSR having half of Europe is 100% Germany's fault.
Go fuck yourself.

>>29628209
>It's not a bad thing!

>Leopard 2 never lost to the Abrams in export tank trials

>but but the Abrams is better!

>>29628232
considering the turbine is quite has better torque and brake horsepower and general automotive performance aswell as burning cleaner. yes it's fein

>>29628260
You could post some examples, but then you wouldn't get to endlessly shitpost I guess?

>>29628272
>I'm pulling out bullshit

>>29628223
?
Germany fought the USSR, the US allied with them, supplied them, and handed them half of europe no questions asked
Then forcibly deported 6 million refugees back into the USSR

Nazi Germany was merely a right wing nationalist movement, the sort people on this board/site wish existed

WW2 was the start of all this self-destructive marxist insanity
If you don't support white genocide & other left wing ideologies, then you cannot support what WW2 was about.

>>29628288
Name a single export bid the Abrams won over the Leopard 2 because of its performance.

File: dat torque.png (64KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x800px

>>29628289

>>29628209
Having more fuel means you need to truck that fuel in, can't idle anywhere near as long, need to stop and refuel more often, need to spend long refueling.
And inevitably means you'll be doing more maintenance

>>29628296
so you don't have any sources? you made the claim now back it up kiddo.

>>29628158
>its not visible but it really is because I say so

>>29628296
Australia.

>>29628296
Australia.

Most of the countries that bought Leopard 2's bought them when Germany was selling off its fleet for bargain bin prices.

>leopard 2 stores ammunition in its hull still
>stores shitload in it's turret too
>has no blow out pannels
leo2 literally BLOWN THE FUCK OUT good thing the only people who buy leo2's are countries that are to pussy to ever see combat.

>>29628306
>claims there is no bid won by the Abrams over the Leopard 2
>there is indeed no example which shows the opposite
>but there are Sweden, Greece, Swiss which all picked new Leopard 2 over the Abrams

>no source

>>29628329
No German Leopard 2 tanks were part of the bid because if Iraq War shanigans.

>>29628108
>But the 105mm was the gun for the final version of the Abrams.

The shit retards say.

File: 1460762801212.jpg (22KB, 427x282px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 427x282px

>>29628358
you still refuse to post a source with information on the choice. till you give me actual testing results of some form. You're Full Of Shit

>>29628358
>Leopard 2's were picked because of performance
>not because officials were caught taking bribes from German companies like in Greece

:^)

>>29628175
Cute, but I have worked with both tanks while you were shitposting on /k/ from your mom's basement. American tanks are better, and you didn't disprove anything I said wrong.

Video related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLOP19YSc9Y&index=66&list=PLRp5dUHLINFPS4-3SIyXuWR6iMjlxnGyH

>>29628175
>trials

You don't even know how to quantify what the trial results mean.

>>29628401
The switch back over to woodland from Desert Tan can't come soon enough. Fucking Iraq. Fucking Afghanistan. Fucking NTC

>butthurt Americafags

It's the best tank even if no one wanted to buy it!

>>29628464
The Challenger?

File: abrams_in_poland_2.jpg (807KB, 1896x800px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 1896x800px

>>29628425
You will take olive drab and you will like it.

>>29628474
UKfags are pretty bad as well with their "punching above one's weight" stuff!

File: 1460653150689.jpg (272KB, 953x1200px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 953x1200px

>>29628464
so you have any sources yet buttangry krautbro?

>>29628209
>fuel efficiency is irrelevant if you have more fuel in the tank and better logistics to keep it fueled
That's like saying having a weapon system that's worse is irrelevant if your army is bigger and stronger.
While that's not false, it's also a red herring argument. Pointing to the effectiveness of the whole fighting force serves merely to distract in a discussion about the efficiency of a particular weapon system.

But based on that book I have here the German Leopard 2A5 fulfilled 91% of all requirements while the Abrams M1A2 fulfilled 85% in that Sweden competition in 1993.
Both were way ahead of the French

This is also pretty in line with that Greece competition.

>Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger 2E, 69.19%. Next was the T-84 and last the T-80UE.

>>29628510
>engine is better in every other aspect from maintenance to automotive performance
>has bad fuel efficiency so it's bad
no. germans need fuel efficiency because they are poor faggots who still refuse to spend the nato promised 2% of their gdp on military and slack with 1.2%

>>29628525
Does your book actually break down the numbers?

>>29628542
savage af

The Leopard 2 is the cheapest, if you decide to buy an unrefurbished Leopard 2 on mid 1980s level maybe. But if you buy a newly built Leopard 2A6, then it will be the most expensive of the tanks - according to Army Guide Spain paid more than $10 million for each Leopardo 2E (219 tanks for $2.200.000.000).

But this doesn't matter much, because the tanks are not bought because of their price, but rather because of their performance. Before buying the Strv 122, Sweden did test the M1A2, Leclerc and the Leopard 2A5 (in a prototype version). The tanks were trialed for six months, each tank drove between 3000 and 3800 km. In the extensive trials, the Leopard 2A5 was found to be the best in terms of mobility, firepower and armor protection, while the M1A2 was considered to be superior in management (the Leopard 2A5 does not come with a digital battfield management system) and availability.
After hearing the rumors that the Leopard 2A5 was favored by the Swedish, President Clinton stopped by at the Swedish Prime Minister after visiting Moscow, and offered a price reduction by $1 billion for the M1A2, which made it the cheapest tank available. Still the Swedish MoD insisted on buying the better tank, that's why the Strv 122 was chosen.

A few years later, Greece was buying a new tank. They went out to most tank manufacturers and offered them a chance to compete in the Greek trials for a new MBT. The Leopard 2, the Leclerc, the Challenger 2E (which has an improved FCS and a 1500 hp diesel engine), the M1A2, the T-84 and the T-80U were trialled. At the end of the trials, the Leopard 2 met 78.65% of the requirements, the Abrams 72.21%, the Leclerc managed to fullfill 72.03% and Challenger 2E reached only 69.19%. So the Greek MoD decided to buy the Leopad 2, despite cheaper alternatives being available.

>>29628554
I could write about the Turkish trials (which lead to Turkey buying 354 second-hand Leopard 2A4s instead of the M1A2 with diesel engine, uparmored Leclerc or T-84), the Swiss trials (M1A1 vs Leopard 2) or the Spanish opinions from the Lince program as well, but I think you can already see the trend...

>>29628554
So no break down of actual numbers or standards used. having the driver seat on the wrong side of the tank could have been an arbitrary 5% of demands we literally wouldn't know.

>>29628559
Considering you are copypasting, I question whether you could write about the Turkish trials.

>>29628577
I'm that poster and copypast quite a lot because shitposters have the tendency of repeating the same shit.

>>29628586
yet by copy pasting you have failed to adapt to the claim you needed to back

Doesn't help that the USA only exports their tanks without DU armour and takes away a vital point of the armour protection design.

Though the Abrams also loses in more than just the protection part in such trials to the Leopard 2.

File: 1460729003140.gif (1MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x197px

>>29628618
>the Abrams also loses in more than just the protection part in such trials to the Leopard 2
what parts?

>>29628302
now show us the chart with the values AFTER the transmission

>>29628586
For some reason I doubt you are MM, although his 'the German option is the best option' attitude would fit in here.

>>29628626
>the Leopard 2A5 was found to be the best in terms of mobility, firepower and armor protection, while the M1A2 was considered to be superior in management (the Leopard 2A5 does not come with a digital battfield management system) and availability

>>29628627
You first.

>>29628639
>>29628420

Leopard 2 is the better tank, while the Abrams was capable of closing the pretty big gap from the early 80s.

Though Germany has now a successor of the L2 in developement while the USA will decide about a new tank in a few years.

>>29628639
Well to some extent I guess that makes sense The US doesn't give out m829a3 rounds like candy. where as the germans are fine with giving away dm53s. Armor too because the US won't give out its DU composite packages The mobility part seems rather odd though considering they both have similar hp to ton ratios with the abrams having better torque. while the leopard has better fuel efficencey

File: bob.jpg (22KB, 400x357px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x357px

Can someone explain why anons are arguing about 20 year old versions of the Leopard 2 and Abrams instead of the current 2A7 and SEPv2/v3 models?

>>29628660
With diesel-electric being the future, it should give Germany (France is also top tier in that regard) quite the edge over most countries in the world.

>>29628677
M829A3 and the L55 did not exist when those trials took place.

>>29628680
Well alot of anons seem to think the US uses the tanks we send to export trials

>>29628660
>Leopard 2 is the better tank
false the leopard 2a7 can compete in no way other than fuel efficiency with the m1a2sepv2 period.

>>29628660
>>29628684
I feel bad for Russia in that regard.

>>29628700
>comparing urban warfare optimized Abrams to a general upgraded Leopard 2

I'm not even sure what you trying to do.

>>29628722
>urban warfare optimized Abrams
sepv2 is a general upgrade m8 you'r thinking tusk

>>29626408

Fucking stupid

Go look at the field manuals and qualifications issued to tankers during the 80's.

Note what they did for their firing tables. The tank drove up to a berm, went hull down, and scoring was based on quickly and accurately engaging targets while still.

Then the tank would relocate to another firing position and do the drill again. The concept of firing from a hull down defensive position was very important in cold war doctrine, which had a heavy influence on equipment design.

This is why the M1 has a big turret to allow for -9 degrees of gun depression, why the M1A1 has an armor upgrade on the turret only, why M1A1 HA only gave the turret the DU layer. The choice for human loader also comes in because humans can load at high gun depression faster than autoloaders can.

Doctrine wise, the Abrams was only supposed to show it's turret, and the turret was armored to take whatever the Soviets can throw at it. Once a position became untenable, the tank revved up it's big turbine and beat a hasty retreat to the next firing position.

Then when the opportunity presented itself, the Abrams would go on the counterattack, where the gun stabilizer and high speed allowed it to make quick attacks.

If you want to look at a tank designed specifically for the attack, look at the T-72. The Abrams has many features that are odd or wasteful for a tank that only operates on the attack.