Originally posted by motionknight
Leopard 2a6 is the best, and thats official.

“Official”? By whom? You, me, or grandma down the street?
The Leo 2A6 has not been combat proven, and the “best” is a relative term, what’s the Leo “best” for, speed, armor, firepower or crew comfort?

I consider the overall best tank to be one that is able to protect its crew and that is still able to destroy the enemy in unimaginable numbers. To date there have been very few modern tanks that have proven this ability through real battles, and sadly for you the Leo is not on of them.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

Abrams is regularly being disabled by a 12.7 MG or a .50 cal sniper rifle.

By hitting a completely unprotected compressor assembly the power to the turret is severed and the Abrams turns into a heavily armored bulldozer.

It's exactly how the Abrams gets ambushed in Iraq and why US supplied .50 cal Barretts have been transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq by Al-Qaeda.

With a single shot the sniper disables the turret and RPG crews burn the hull.

Russian soldier, I find your approach to be inflammatory and unproductive.


It's exactly the kind of misguided patriotism that turns valid discussions into rants.

I am looking forward to the day that Russia finds the balls again to enter an actual combat environment but it seems to still be licking its wounds from the buttwhopping it received at the hands of those Afghan tribal warlords.

Seekerof, what's that about? Balls, combat environment? Buttwhopping? You mean like Nam?

Other then the fact that it's exactly what's happening with US troops in Iraq right now, Russians have been fighting with Chechen's since the 90s. Where have you been man?

US supplied barett 50's in the hands of insuragants eh? where did you pull this from? where is the proof for this? infact, i havent even heard anything LIKE this!

Originally posted by iskander
Abrams is regularly being disabled by a 12.7 MG or a .50 cal sniper rifle.

By hitting a completely unprotected compressor assembly the power to the turret is severed and the Abrams turns into a heavily armored bulldozer.

Can we have some sources describing this “unprotected compressor assembly” and perhaps a news report or two about these “regularly” occuring cases. Thanks in advance.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

good point to, last time i heard no abrams was taken out beacuse of the 'unprotected' compressor, they got taken out because an auxilary unit on the back of the tank was hit and would leak on to the engine causing a fire that couldnt be extinguished. and that APU on the back was hit by an RPG! not this supposed barrett 50's that these insurgants apprently have.

Weak spots all taks got them

You can take out pretty much any tank on the planet be it a M1A2, Blackeagle, Challenger, Leo whatever with a simple home made properly thickened moltov cocktail to a tanks rear engine deck.

When the engine compenets and engine coolant reaches temperatures of burning petrol along with a bunch of other nasty effects it would have Electrical connections, fan belts etc.. being damaged its going to be a bad day for the tanks engine.

Theres a good chance that would produce a mobility (M) kill on a tank. Thats not going to kill the crew in this day and age but it will render the tank pretty much useless until they do a engine fix or swap.

Of course you need the balls to run up to a MBT with little more then a flaming bottle in your hands.

How much RHA can this sniper rifle penetrate?

Originally posted by iskander
So it's kind of common knowledge to harden all essential tank systems against anti-material rifles.

Abrams was designed to fight a straight Cold War tank battle and did not factor in the urban element, while everybody else learned their lessons in WWII.

Why continue to slam the Abrams when you haven’t show us that any have been disabled or killed by .50 Cal rounds? Nor have you for that matter shown that all the other tanks designed around the same time offered any significant higher levels of protection against .50 Cal rounds and or urban combat as you claim.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

iskander, your link did no good for anyone, it only said that .50 caliber Barrett rifles were sold to Al Queda for the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanastan. It in no place(that I have read, maybe I have misread) says that Insurgents in Iraq are armed with these rifles and are using them. Nor does it confirm any kills with .50 caliber Rifles. A .50 caliber will not kill anyone inside an Abrams, now if you land the perfect shot, it can DISABLE the tank.

Yes, sometimes, disabling it is all you need to do, agreed. Especially for Tanks such as the Abrams and it's glorious battle record. Trying to kill the crew just isn't worth the effort, all you can do is disable it from combat at best. The Abrams is just way too tough for that.

Just be glad that Al Queda never got any Anti-material rifles.

Shattered OUT...

Why continue to slam the Abrams when you haven’t show us that any have been disabled or killed by .50 Cal rounds? Nor have you for that matter shown that all the other tanks designed around the same time offered any significant higher levels of protection against .50 Cal rounds and or urban combat as you claim.

What is this some school playground?

I'm not slamming anything and I don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm not a child.

If you're lazy or ignorant it's not my problem.

Chevy Suburban is rather difficult to park down town, because it is a suburban vehicle, not an urban vehicle.

Abrams was designed to duel with other tanks in open field, not to operate in European theater and various urban environments.

Since WWII Russians/Germans/French/Israelis etc have been tucking in all of the guts because they know what happens when a tank gets ambushed in cramped spaces.

Why don't you reach out by your self and learn something for your self before doubting other people, it's only civilised.

Originally posted by iskander
What is this some school playground?

I'm not slamming anything and I don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm not a child.

Yup, you sure aren’t acting like one, if you want to claim something about the Abrams, which you have several times on here, you better back it up or don't post it at all, word are cheap.

Originally posted by iskander
Abrams was designed to duel with other tanks in open field, not to operate in European theater and various urban environments.

Of course it was, and it does it quite well I might add. However that still does not prove that it offered less protection in urban combat and or from Anti-Material Weapons then its contemporaries at the time did, as you originally claimed.

Originally posted by iskander
What is this some school playground?

I'm not slamming anything and I don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm not a child.

Yup, you sure aren’t acting like one, if you want to claim something about the Abrams, which you have several times on here, you better back it up or don't post it at all, words are cheap.

Originally posted by iskander
Abrams was designed to duel with other tanks in open field, not to operate in European theater and various urban environments.

Of course it was, and it does it quite well I might add. However that still does not prove that it offered less protection in urban combat and or from Anti-Material Weapons then its contemporaries at the time did, as you originally claimed.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

Actually, the original M1 was designed to fight on the fields of Europe. It wasn't designed for desert combat. The M1A1 would later be properly modified for those types of engagement.

Shattered OUT...

iskander, your link did no good for anyone, it only said that .50 caliber Barrett rifles were sold to Al Queda for the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanastan. It in no place(that I have read, maybe I have misread) says that Insurgents in Iraq are armed with these rifles and are using them.

So what you're saying is that I'm just making all this stuff up then right? It must be what you're saying, unless I didn't get that right.

The fact that Al Quada is using US supplied Barretts in Afghanistan against US troops and also transferred a number of units to Iraq was all over the news about a year or two ago.

The whole thing about night scopes, how CIA trained Afghans to assassinate Soviet officers and how the same people now pick of US troops.

Nor does it confirm any kills with .50 caliber Rifles. A .50 caliber will not kill anyone inside an Abrams, now if you land the perfect shot, it can DISABLE the tank.

Alright I'll start looking again but it's the last freaking time I'll be put in this situation. I'm sick and tired of this juvenile "I won't believe till you prove it" crapp. My wife is 34 years young and she keeps saying how silly it is of me to spend my time on this forum arguing with stubborn kids.

She's got a point but at least I'm not fuzzing bear and watching the tube to decompress.

Yes, sometimes, disabling it is all you need to do, agreed. Especially for Tanks such as the Abrams and it's glorious battle record. Trying to kill the crew just isn't worth the effort, all you can do is disable it from combat at best. The Abrams is just way too tough for that.

It is exactly what I said, 12.7/.50 cal MG/rifle is able to disable the Abrams by hitting an unprotected system destruction of which cuts the power, which then naturally makes it an easy target for RPG crews.

Not to mention making a it vulnerable against the heavy 12.7 MG of the enemy tank.

How much clearer can I make that?

Just be glad that Al Queda never got any Anti-material rifles.

Was I speaking in English earlier or it something personal with you?

Other then weapons we're not aware of, Al Queda has 25 Barrett US supplied anti-material rifles, what is so hard to grasp here?

Now lets get back to the topic and avoid any personal remarks. I will post tommorow if i have the chance good night. nice post seerkeroff!