Leopard 2 vs. M1
-
Ukraine would be much better off with 200 Leopard 2 tanks than with 150 Leopard 2's and 50 M1's.
-
They could have phrased the first paragraph a bit better (emphasis mine):
The West is poised to send nearly 200 battle tanks to Ukraine in a potential hammer blow that could help Kyiv win its war against Vladimir Putin.
How about "stop Russia's invasion." or something like that?
Sending less would mean the Abrams’ "usefulness would outweigh their strain on logistics chains".
Shouldn't it be "Sending fewer?"
But, I digress. Why would the Leopard 2 tanks be a better choice? The article doesn't go there.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
They could have phrased the first paragraph a bit better (emphasis mine):
The West is poised to send nearly 200 battle tanks to Ukraine in a potential hammer blow that could help Kyiv win its war against Vladimir Putin.
How about "stop Russia's invasion." or something like that?
Sending less would mean the Abrams’ "usefulness would outweigh their strain on logistics chains".
Shouldn't it be "Sending fewer?"
But, I digress. Why would the Leopard 2 tanks be a better choice? The article doesn't go there.
@George-K said in Leopard 2 vs. M1:
But, I digress. Why would the Leopard 2 tanks be a better choice? The article doesn't go there.
I'd heard it was because the Abrams requires more complex maintenance.
I was only joking
-
@George-K said in Leopard 2 vs. M1:
But, I digress. Why would the Leopard 2 tanks be a better choice? The article doesn't go there.
I'd heard it was because the Abrams requires more complex maintenance.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Leopard 2 vs. M1:
@George-K said in Leopard 2 vs. M1:
But, I digress. Why would the Leopard 2 tanks be a better choice? The article doesn't go there.
I'd heard it was because the Abrams requires more complex maintenance.
That is my understanding as well. As one defence analyst explained, the Leopard was designed for a moderately trained conscript army while the M1 was designed for a highly trained and specialised professional army.
-
@Copper said in Leopard 2 vs. M1:
Yes, simpler supply chain, fewer maintenance parts and people and ammunition
Yep, and it takes a little while to train a good tank crew. With Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and the M1 in the mix, training would be a nightmare. One of the main reasons British and American tanks are so good, is because their crews are very good.
Also, there are a lot more Leopards out there, that could possibly become available.
Some Leopard 2 background:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
I find it interesting that both the M1 and the L2 have design elements of the MBT-70. It's even more interesting that Russia's new tank, the Armata, also has some of those design elements.
-
They could have phrased the first paragraph a bit better (emphasis mine):
The West is poised to send nearly 200 battle tanks to Ukraine in a potential hammer blow that could help Kyiv win its war against Vladimir Putin.
How about "stop Russia's invasion." or something like that?
Sending less would mean the Abrams’ "usefulness would outweigh their strain on logistics chains".
Shouldn't it be "Sending fewer?"
But, I digress. Why would the Leopard 2 tanks be a better choice? The article doesn't go there.
@George-K said in Leopard 2 vs. M1:
Shouldn't it be "Sending fewer?"
Depends on whether they were referring to the degree of support being sent, or literally the tanks.
-
I’m surprised we haven’t heard more complaints about the Army naming a tank after Stacey Abrams.
-
