The reason is far from the level of operation, it how the tank is used and in what situation it occured, you can hardlY blame this issue on the ground to cover considering the operation was managed by the US, this is a totally unfair comparison and excuse, as for recovery again this is a unfair comparison as both armies have armd recovery, its down to again the operaional use in the field. the US had more armd recovery options than the UK,
M1A1, the indestructible Tank?
- Thread starter M1Brams
- Start date
The reason is far from the level of operation, it how the tank is used and in what situation it occured, you can hardlY blame this issue on the ground to cover considering the operation was managed by the US, this is a totally unfair comparison and excuse, as for recovery again this is a unfair comparison as both armies have armd recovery, its down to again the operaional use in the field. the US had more armd recovery options than the UK,
Well, fighting it's way from Kuwait to Bagdad in less than 3 weeks is in different ballpark than laying siege to Basra in the same timeframe.
The tempo of operations the US maintained just prevented them from salvaging every combat vehicle which got damaged/immobilized during their swift attacks. So the SOP was to destroy such vehicles and leave them behind.
One cannot make a case against the design of the Abrams out of it and defenitely no case for a superior Challi 2.
ARV capabilities have nothing to do with this.
The tempo of operations the US maintained just prevented them from salvaging every combat vehicle which got damaged/immobilized during their swift attacks. So the SOP was to destroy such vehicles and leave them behind.
One cannot make a case against the design of the Abrams out of it and defenitely no case for a superior Challi 2.
ARV capabilities have nothing to do with this.
My point being you cannot compare like for like, the british operated in a diffrent way than the US so as i said you cannot use the temp of operations as a mesure of each tanks ability, as they were not used or operated in the same manner, the use of arv in follow up formations to recover tanks is clearly an issue, because if what you are saying is correct then no follow up formations were allocated this task of recovery, and the losses were accptable.
Everyone will have their own point of view for diffrent reasons, experiance, we trailed M1 back in the 80s as a replacement for chieftain and it did not even make it to the top 3, yes im bais and allowed to be.
Last edited:
And then you got the Challenger 1. It's not as if national pride had nothing to do with it...
I have no problem with this but one shouldn't use the UKs evaluation as a proof of the Abrasms deficiencies. That just doesn't fit.
As for comparison of apples and oranges. You were the one who started to talk of the burned out M1 hulks. Our responses where just a reaction.
As for national pride. It's all good and I love my Leopard as much as any former tanker likes his track. And while I am confident in the capabilities of the newest Leopard IIs I wouldn't feel less good in a M1A2SEP, Merkava Mk.IV or Leclerc T11.
And while the Challenger 2 defenitely is a good tank it is in no way special or up front. And I guess that future developments look bleaker than with for example the Abrams, Leo II or Merk IV. The userbase and threat level is just too small.
I have no problem with this but one shouldn't use the UKs evaluation as a proof of the Abrasms deficiencies. That just doesn't fit.
As for comparison of apples and oranges. You were the one who started to talk of the burned out M1 hulks. Our responses where just a reaction.
As for national pride. It's all good and I love my Leopard as much as any former tanker likes his track. And while I am confident in the capabilities of the newest Leopard IIs I wouldn't feel less good in a M1A2SEP, Merkava Mk.IV or Leclerc T11.
And while the Challenger 2 defenitely is a good tank it is in no way special or up front. And I guess that future developments look bleaker than with for example the Abrams, Leo II or Merk IV. The userbase and threat level is just too small.
Accepted, however the orginal question was is the M1 indistructable, we can only refer to current operational issues if indeed it was or not, it is questionable due to the losses operationally, if what people are saying the losses were down to them distroying their own tanks when they were disabled then would explain a lot, please do not get me wrong the M1 is a good tank,, as for callenger being selected, it was a toss up between leopard which the RAC whanted and challenger which was 2nd option belive it or not.And then you got the Challenger 1. It's not as if national pride had nothing to do with it...
I have no problem with this but one shouldn't use the UKs evaluation as a proof of the Abrasms deficiencies. That just doesn't fit.
As for comparison of apples and oranges. You were the one who started to talk of the burned out M1 hulks. Our responses where just a reaction.
Clearly you haven’t read the first post and just assumed the subject from the title. The first post refers to the attempts by US forces to destroy an M1 they had to abandon. How many rounds they had to put into it to achieve a total loss. A word like “indestructible” can mean many things without a common set of definitions.
You have been assuming it implies no combat losses and have been extrapolating really wrong data to deny this and talk up the CR2. Lots more T-34s were destroyed in WWII than Cruisier Mk IVs but that doesn’t make the Cruiser a better tank.
If you really want to do a side by side analysis of the M1A2 and the CR2 you have to go through each area of capability and give a ranking. To do that seriously in the inside layers of survivability can not be done on this forum.
And what does any of this have to do with tank capability? The driving issue in that acquisition was non-recurring costs (Treasury), recurring costs (RAC) and balance of payments (HM Govt). I don’t think anyone was really grading on capability which can be so subjective anyway when a full blown live fire survivability campaign isn’t conducted. The M1 was selected over the CR2 and Leopard 2 by range of other users with different requirements.
Bonehead, I have been waiting for your response.
The main reason why bonehead that the British did not pick the M1 series is due in large part with a somewhat different concept with the main armor, we thought our version of your design was better, maingun also played into it the decision by a small portion. It was a matter of rifling versus smoothbore. With all the British tankers that I have worked with I have never heard them make the statement that they would rather be cruising around in Leopard tanks.
The main reason why bonehead that the British did not pick the M1 series is due in large part with a somewhat different concept with the main armor, we thought our version of your design was better, maingun also played into it the decision by a small portion. It was a matter of rifling versus smoothbore. With all the British tankers that I have worked with I have never heard them make the statement that they would rather be cruising around in Leopard tanks.
Having been in the demonstration team on the dorbann training area, where the mobility trails were undertaken in germany, i can tell you without doubt which tank was perfered and discussed, as well as inspected the most. like wise the survey carried out by the ATDU team with each regiment,( this was requested by the director of the school of armour in bovington along side the MOD) the results were leopard first option, while the gun ect may well also have played its part as well as national poltics, but the oveall view at that time was leopard.
The crews liked the mobility, ease of maintenace in the field, cant say other regments but mine was clear. we worked with the local german armour school a lot, the M1 demo team did not provide a very good demonstration, the same occured on the ranges, the gun was not a problem as at the time it was a british gun,.
As for british crews perferance for the M1 in 22 years never heard one, not even in the gulf, personally ive never been overly impressed by the M1 at all every time i see it ,i expect if we had taken leopard it would have had a british gun system anyway at the time. i would still place the leopard over the M1 to this day. if the M1 and challenger were both that good everyone would buy them, as it is, the NATO standard tank is the Leopard. with good reason.
The reason is that we and others were willing to sell boatloads of Leos for a bargain price.
Poland got theirs for free...
There are simply not that many options available apart from surplus Leopard II A4s when one wants a relatively modern western tank for small money while having the option to upgrade it to a 1st class MBT without problems. Sure the Leopard also won some high profile contracts (Sweden, Greece, Spain) but these deals were also sweetened by additional low cost A4s.
The US wasn't willing or able to offer the same deals with surplus Abrams, the Brits and French could only offer pricey new builds and Italy has a tank which may not even be on par with a Leo II A4.
I think that the Leo may very well have won some or even all of the premium contracts but it would have never become so widespread without us reducing our armoured corps to a shadow of it's former self.
Poland got theirs for free...
There are simply not that many options available apart from surplus Leopard II A4s when one wants a relatively modern western tank for small money while having the option to upgrade it to a 1st class MBT without problems. Sure the Leopard also won some high profile contracts (Sweden, Greece, Spain) but these deals were also sweetened by additional low cost A4s.
The US wasn't willing or able to offer the same deals with surplus Abrams, the Brits and French could only offer pricey new builds and Italy has a tank which may not even be on par with a Leo II A4.
I think that the Leo may very well have won some or even all of the premium contracts but it would have never become so widespread without us reducing our armoured corps to a shadow of it's former self.
One main reason other than price is logisics, not only this, the US have been selling M1 refurbs and offering great inducements and extras within the packages, in fact the only country to benifit from the recent wars has been the US andas been able to off load many of its surplus stocks as a result, the UK and France dont have nor needed the numbers the US has, so not in the same postion, most countries in europe have small defence budgets, and the best on offer for the price is the leopard,2a4 and in some cases the a5, which can all be upgraded to the a6, it is also cheaper to maintain and operate.
reducing armour units in Germany has i admit assited in this process with 2nd hand german leopards being sold, however even before, leopard was above other tanks, and a firm fav even in the british army we very envious in a chieftain when over taken by a leopard
The Leopard II only really began to become a successfull export item after the end of the cold war. Before that only the Dutch and Switzerland bought it.
The Chieftain was a dog compared to the Leopard II as was any other western tank of the time bar the Abrams and partially the Challi 1 later on (Well the Brits only got it really right at the second try...).
The rest of NATO (including big parts of German and US forces) was driving around in Leopard Is, M48/60s and AMX30s. A sobering thought when one thinks about what lurked on the other side of the wall...
The Chieftain was a dog compared to the Leopard II as was any other western tank of the time bar the Abrams and partially the Challi 1 later on (Well the Brits only got it really right at the second try...).
The rest of NATO (including big parts of German and US forces) was driving around in Leopard Is, M48/60s and AMX30s. A sobering thought when one thinks about what lurked on the other side of the wall...
The British tankers who fought in CR2s in OIF can be thankful that the BMW syndrome of the tankers from a decade previous did not result in the acquisition of the Leopard 2. Granted for a tanker in peacetime the Leopard 2 can seem a much better tank. Well engineered, great engine, etc makes for the kind of thing you’d like to have in your garage at home.
But there are two critical errors in that belief. The first is it is likely that any British Army Leopard 2 would be built in Britain. So suddenly your BMW is being built by Rover and probably with an English donk in the back as well. License production often results in only the flaws being passed on. But most importantly it is a fighting vehicle and the Leopard 2A4 has two significant protection flaws against comparable tanks like the M1 and Challenger.
The first is the turret face cut-out for the main gun sight. Saved some weight and kept the frontal profile down but allows for any RPG gunner to kill the commander with a frontal aspect shot. Leaving 1/12 of your turret front without significant armour protection is a strange way to build a tank. This flaw was quickly removed in the KWS upgrade (Leopard 2A5) but no guarantee of that for the British Army.
The second flaw is the M2 ammunition being located in the hull front, exposed to the fighting compartment without any compartmentalisation. This is not a good idea with fast burning, highly combustible propellant like that in 120mm Rheinmetall gun ammunition. One bow penetration and the entire tank will catastrophically explode in seconds just like a Soviet T-72. M1 kept all of its ammunition in the M3 magazine and compartmentalised. CR2 has M3 and M2 propellant magazines with protection to avoid catastrophic sympathetic detonation. Both are proven to work.
But there are two critical errors in that belief. The first is it is likely that any British Army Leopard 2 would be built in Britain. So suddenly your BMW is being built by Rover and probably with an English donk in the back as well. License production often results in only the flaws being passed on. But most importantly it is a fighting vehicle and the Leopard 2A4 has two significant protection flaws against comparable tanks like the M1 and Challenger.
The first is the turret face cut-out for the main gun sight. Saved some weight and kept the frontal profile down but allows for any RPG gunner to kill the commander with a frontal aspect shot. Leaving 1/12 of your turret front without significant armour protection is a strange way to build a tank. This flaw was quickly removed in the KWS upgrade (Leopard 2A5) but no guarantee of that for the British Army.
The second flaw is the M2 ammunition being located in the hull front, exposed to the fighting compartment without any compartmentalisation. This is not a good idea with fast burning, highly combustible propellant like that in 120mm Rheinmetall gun ammunition. One bow penetration and the entire tank will catastrophically explode in seconds just like a Soviet T-72. M1 kept all of its ammunition in the M3 magazine and compartmentalised. CR2 has M3 and M2 propellant magazines with protection to avoid catastrophic sympathetic detonation. Both are proven to work.
The Australian Army thoroughly evaluated the US Army supplied 0 houred M1A1 Abrams Improved Management and the Swiss Army Panzer 87 WE (upgraded and 0 houred Leopard 2) and chose the M1 for both cost/schedule and capability issues. This is despite being a happy Leopard 1 user, a major ‘long distance’ operator (fuel burn being very important) and the very high quality/condition of the Swiss tanks. Quite simply the M1A1 AIM offered much better protection and much better networking and C4I for the commander.
Last edited:
Having made multiple claims to service in this and other threads, I suggest you provide some evidence of this service to the mod team immediately, as if you are going to use claims of service as evidence of credibility, you will be required to prove it. The fact that you have said things that wildly contradict posters who have known, confirmed records of service as tankers makes this even more imperative. So please provide your details of service to either the Webmaster, Preceptor, or gf0012-aust, at your earliest convenience.
I can confirm the RAC's desire for the Leopard 2 during the Chieftain trials. It’s pretty well known.
But back to M1 survivability here is the Abrams PEO lessons learnt report from OIF.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf
But back to M1 survivability here is the Abrams PEO lessons learnt report from OIF.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf
@Abraham
The ballistic gap of the Leopard II A1-4 is not as bad as some want it to be.
There is an armor block behind the primary sight. So in order to get a penetration there one needs to hit the sight just in the right angle to hit the thin walls located at the side between the frontal armor and the armor block behind the sight.
It is evidently a weak point but let's not exaggerate it. It's still a golden shot. As you rightly said I would be much more worried about somebody penetrating the frontal hull and incinerating the whole crew.
As for the Australian evaluation.
For sure a Swiss Leopard is not comparable to a M1A1AIM. The Swiss tracks are basically plain normal A4s with some minor and irrelevant modifications. A fair comparison would have been something along the lines of the danish deal. They bought German A4s and immediately brought them up to A5DK standard. Add a battlefield management system and there you go. That would be a much better comparison.
The Australian decision was one between price or capabilities and not one over comparable tanks.
The ballistic gap of the Leopard II A1-4 is not as bad as some want it to be.
There is an armor block behind the primary sight. So in order to get a penetration there one needs to hit the sight just in the right angle to hit the thin walls located at the side between the frontal armor and the armor block behind the sight.
It is evidently a weak point but let's not exaggerate it. It's still a golden shot. As you rightly said I would be much more worried about somebody penetrating the frontal hull and incinerating the whole crew.
As for the Australian evaluation.
For sure a Swiss Leopard is not comparable to a M1A1AIM. The Swiss tracks are basically plain normal A4s with some minor and irrelevant modifications. A fair comparison would have been something along the lines of the danish deal. They bought German A4s and immediately brought them up to A5DK standard. Add a battlefield management system and there you go. That would be a much better comparison.
The Australian decision was one between price or capabilities and not one over comparable tanks.
I can also confirm that the decision was also made by the germans when they felt that one of the australian companies involved with negotiations to upgrade the leo 1's was regarded as fundamentally dishonest. They vowed to not deal in australia while the exectuive of that company remained in play.
they walked from further negotiations, and from my perspective, with good reason and justification to do so.
Not at all. The Swiss Panzer evalulated was the Pz 87 WE. WE stands for Werterhaltung = value conservation and is the Swiss equivilant of the A5. It has extra armour, combat management system and a remote control 12.7mm amongst other things.
As to the gunner's sight the armour back up is not of the same thickness as the rest of the frontal array. A weak spot is a weak spot and this 1/12 of the turret front not 1/100...
Well I thought that the armor upgrade as well as the CIWS and battlefield management system are not included in the WE package.
So the WE package of the Swiss army includes a new electric turret drive, a slightly modified recoil mechanism (for DM53/63), TI for the TC-perisokope and a backdriving camera for the driver.
The designation in the Swiss Army is Pz 87 WE. Nothing spectacular and not in the same league as a M1A1AIM.
And you are the one who stated that every crunchy with a RPG is going to be able to penetrate there. This is not the case and an exaggeration.
So the WE package of the Swiss army includes a new electric turret drive, a slightly modified recoil mechanism (for DM53/63), TI for the TC-perisokope and a backdriving camera for the driver.
The designation in the Swiss Army is Pz 87 WE. Nothing spectacular and not in the same league as a M1A1AIM.
And you are the one who stated that every crunchy with a RPG is going to be able to penetrate there. This is not the case and an exaggeration.
Well whatever the Swiss have downgraded their upgrade to is their business and I don’t know about it. I do however know what was offered to Australia and this 2004 Pz 87 WE included all the bells and whistles: extra armour, 12.7mm and a French combat system. As in this attached photo.
Depends on the RPG…
Last edited: