The real best tank of World War 2 ....

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

Was German of course. It was the P1500 Landcruiser, eat that America, Britain and Russia. 1,500 tons. Twin 380 mm guns. Top speed 40 km/h using multiple marine diesel engines. You can find some information on it at http://www.achtungpanzer.com Don't know any other good site. Still don't think the internet is quite up to the mark as far as WW2 resources are concerned. But yes, the P1500 Landcruiser would have just run over the Americans, British and Russians. The T-34s wouldn't look too good if they were flat, eh?

[DeBaer]

this post isnt serious, is it?
its just to boost the self-confidence of us poor germans, am i right?
such a landcruiser wouldnt look good without fuel, and some hitlerjungen as crew, eh?

to me its enough that the Leopard 2 is the world's best tank, besides the Abrams. (and this is no nonesense)

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

The Leopard 2 is better than the Abrams, any day of the week. To see the latest versions of the two, http://www.army-technology.com is a good web-site. It's run for the military-industrial complex. You will find that besides the Leopard 2A6, Swedish market models and others, it is also offered with a 1,650 horsepower engine. The M1A2 SEP is still offered with only 1,500 horsepower and continues to employ the ridiculous gas turbine format of automotive power. You'd think the Americans thought tanks were ships .... Oh and the Americans depend on Rheinmetall for their guns; they can't even make decent guns for themselves. They make things like the M16 ....

[Tony]

But it works dont it? More horsepower doesn't always mean more speed. Personally I'd go with turbine power anyways. Yeah the Leopards engine cranks out more horses, but the Abrams can get up and go pretty quickly and has better reliability. I'd go with DeBaer on this one.
Tony

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

So I can't openly contradict you there. I do however find it unlikely that a high quality 'Mercedes-Benz' style German powerplant such as that used in the Leopard 2 would be bested by your typical 'General Motors' type fall off the bottom of your car powerplant.

From what I understand about turbines, there's a lot of stress involved in their running versus the ordinary internal combustion engine, so surely this can't be good for reliability.

As for speed, the Leopard 2 unquestionably has a higher top speed, partly due to being a lighter tank. However, with respect to the accelerative capability of the Leopard 2's engine, I would say that the Leopard 1 could get four of seven road wheels off the ground at maximum acceleration for a tank that wasn't much lighter, with not much more than half the horsepower. I'm sure the Leopard 2 can more than match that.

And of course diesel engines are infinitely more economical. The Israelis switched to license built German MTU diesel engines for their Merkavas, hard as it was for them to admit the superiority of German technology to either theirs or that of the Americans. When lives are at stake, only German.

As for the implication of lighter weight on armour, it has been shown that depleted uranium armour emits neutrons/radiation in response to being exposed to heavy neutron radiation itself, thus negating some of the protective effects of the tank in a nuclear conflict.

Finally, German metallurgy and skill with materials/steel, is far superior to that of the Americans, hence the more reasonable weight of the Leopard 2. Did you know that a number of Palestinian militants have survived direct AGM-114 Hellfire hits on their cars by Israelis, simply because they were driving old beat-up MERCEDES-BENZES? If it weren't for the fact they were driving Mercedes-Benzes, they'd be 100% dead when getting hit by ANTI-TANK missiles. GM claims it's built like a rock. So what should Mercedes-Benz say? Built like a Mercedes-Benz is the only satisfactory answer.

[leopard 2]

Hey, FanofgermanmilitaryMight! I bet you're from Germany, isn't it?

Anyway, you may be right. As you can see from my username, I'm a big fan of the leopard 2. And the best reason for that is that I've drived and commanded Leopard 2 A4 from the swiss army.

Tony talked about the compared reliability of the two tanks. I agree with FanofgermanmilitaryMight about the less-reliability of the turbine. I can testify that the leopard is pretty reliable. Lots of little problems, because of the electronical technology, but nothing can stop a leopard 2 so drive or to fire... When I say nothing, you'll understand me of course...

Vincent

[Freiritter]

What's so wrong with the M-16? Sure, the M-16A1 had that nasty jamming problem, but that was corrected in the M-16A2. Besides, for a .223 ( 5.56mm ) round, a high powered .223 round, it does compete with the larger 7.62mm rounds of the AK series and the NATO battle rifles. Plus, with the lesser recoil and low weight, the M-16A2 could probably be one accurate piece of machine. I'm no expert on the Leopard II vs. the M-1/M-1A1 or M-1A2 debate, so I'm afraid that I can't voice an opinion on that subject.

Cordially,

Freiritter

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

Or almost perfectly, since I haven't been inside a Leopard 2. BUT I have been inside a Mercedes-Benz .... Actually I'm from the Republic of India, just a student in America at the moment. Just like to buy German products when I can afford them. Starting with Mercedes-Benz of course .... I'd love to see an Army of Leopard 2s rip an American Army of Abrams to pieces. Of course, that's not very likely to happen. However, if Bush is re-elected, maybe he will invade Europe, and then we will see the Leopard 2 destroying the Abrams.

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

And the M-4 Carbine version is a nice piece of equipment. The reason why the M-16 almost matches the AK-47 for power is because Russian ammunition is 'short', so they're not as powerful as the equivalent calibre NATO rifles. Still, when it comes to guns, always Heckler und Koch ....

[Panzer37]

Anyway, you may be right. As you can see from my username, I'm a big fan of the leopard 2. And the best reason for that is that I've drived and commanded Leopard 2 A4 from the swiss army.

Vincent

Hi Leopard2

You might find these 2 sites interesting

http://www.steelbeasts.com

and

http://www.esimgames.com

I do like the leopard 2 and the M1 tanks. I do not think that if any of these 2 tanks is better than the other, it would be by a considerable margin. IMHO, the Leo has a plus, in that is meant for any country, even if it is not rich, In an m1 you need very good logistics and complete supremacy of the air space, as to guarantee supplies will be always there, i think it is a bit too fuel thirsty. also, the battlefield has already many dangers as to add a very hot rear turbine exhaust gas and grill.

regarding M16s, i always hear that most western rifles suffer fragility issues. I would only criticize the lack of full auto in the later versions of this M16. I always get mixed opinions, even my admired G3 is criticized by some friends, who actually fired them. That does not mean I would not prefer them over any other one. Being this way, I cant fault the Americans if they prefer their M4 or M16. I even heared from a German friend that he did not like the newer G36 and like me that he would rather keep his G3.

Regards everyone.

Hector

[Deiter Hollenstein]

And the M-4 Carbine version is a nice piece of equipment. The reason why the M-16 almost matches the AK-47 for power is because Russian ammunition is 'short', so they're not as powerful as the equivalent calibre NATO rifles. Still, when it comes to guns, always Heckler und Koch ....

But neither the 5.56 nor the Soviet 7.62 has the same penetration power as the larger 7.62 NATO round. Not as good in forested areas. HK does make some decent weapons to be sure, but they don't dominate all areas.

[MacX]

Hi there!
I think the best tank was the "Maus".
Developed in 45, I think, but never joined any battle. A friend of mine read it in the "landser" magazin, I guess.
Maybe anyone knows a bit more about it.

[leopard 2]

It seems that, if the Maus had been put into action, he wouldn't have been able for any other tank to destroy it...

But, he might have been a great target for heavy bombers at 10'000 feet, or for battleships in tha Atlantic, even if the Maus had been far from the coast!

I'convinced that the Maus could compete for the title of the "worst tank ever"

[DeBaer]

the maus indeed was a waste of time and resources. in city fightings it would be completly useless, because it cant get around any corner,let alone turn the turret, and in the open country it would just be blown apart by the huge number of enemy aircraft as soon as its located. thats what i think about it. same with the other planned "landcruisers". the panther to me was the most reasonable and useful tank built by the germans and performed very good (at least the later versions). and it has the "good look"-bonus .

[stab131]

Was German of course. It was the P1500 Landcruiser, eat that America, Britain and Russia. 1,500 tons. Twin 380 mm guns. Top speed 40 km/h using multiple marine diesel engines. You can find some information on it at http://www.achtungpanzer.com

From the website: "The series never left drawing boards. " It was probably to big, heavy, would have sucked the life out of manufacturing, moved at 24 mph, would not have been rail transportable, too wide to make it through tunnels."

see http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm

Once again "Fan" is misinformed. Is it time to start ignoring him?