# M1 Abrams vs. Leopard 2 **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 29, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346 "2009-11-29T17:50:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/1 "2009-11-29T17:50:34Z")
Which is the better tank; the [M1 Abrams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Abrams), or the [Leopard 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2)? . ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/2 "2009-11-29T19:11:32Z")
[Similar debate for reference.](http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=129078) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/3 "2009-11-29T19:19:03Z")
If cost is no object, Challenger 2. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/4 "2009-11-29T19:25:12Z")
> [@astro](#): > > [Similar debate for reference.](http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=129078) Short debate. 😛 The guy who responded makes some good points, but this struck me as amusing (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > The third reason is, the Gas Turbine engine utilized (to great controversey at the time) in the M1 series tank is far quieter (if far less efficient) than that of any Diesel engine in the world. **The Leopard would let the enemy know they’re coming from a mile away.** But earlier he said that the cannon has a 2-1/2 mile range. 😉 > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If cost is no object, Challenger 2. I haven’t heard much about that one. Just that it exists, and that it’s a good tank. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/5 "2009-11-29T19:40:11Z")
The Challenger 2 is largely based on the Challenger, which still holds the record for the longest confirmed kill (~5km) by some distance. Armor is basically the same as the Abrams/Leopard. Only one Challenger 2 has ever been lost in action, and that one was destroyed by another Challenger 2. On the other hand, there are less than 500 of them, so the odds of one being destroyed are much lower. In terms of effectiveness for unit cost, the Abrams wins hands down - so many have been built that it’s nearly half the price of a Leopard or Challenger. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/6 "2009-11-29T20:01:54Z")
The differences between the three tanks in terms of technical performance aren’t very significant. The history of armored warfare suggests that HOW tanks are used is much more important than small differences in technical specs. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/7 "2009-11-30T16:22:58Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The history of armored warfare suggests that HOW tanks are used is much more important than small differences in technical specs. Concur. Also, at closer ranges, the penetrator would probably go through either tank’s armor, and without deviating much in its short flight path – making victory largely a question of who fires first. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-abrams-vs-leopard-2/519346/8 "2009-11-30T17:29:53Z")
Actually, even at close range the Abrams and C2 would need to fire multiple rounds to destroy other Abrams and C2s. Not sure about the Leopard. During the (first) Gulf War, only one Abrams was lost to enemy action. However, several were damaged beyond quick repair during Allied advances, and the other tanks sent to destroy them so they couldn’t be captured by the Iraqis invariably had to fire multiple rounds even at point-blank range to ensure they couldn’t be recovered. These were already heavily damaged tanks with hatches open, mind. Similarly, he sole Challenger 2 loss was to (accidental) friendly fire, and the tank was only destroyed because the incoming round struck the open turret hatch and the ensuing explosion caused its own ammunition to explode. For now it appears that Generation 2 Chobham armor development is way ahead of anti-tank munitions development.