This group is for everyone who like tanks, sci-fi tanks, real tanks, funny tanks, you can put here tank mods, tank maps, simply everything with straps, armor and gun :D

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
RSS feed Report content armor-comparison leopard 2 vs t-80 & t-90 (view original)
armor-comparison leopard 2 vs t-80 & t-90
embed
share
view previous next
Share Image
Share on Facebook Tweet Email a friend
Embed Image
Comments
DerEisenmann
DerEisenmann

...
After several tests and fire trials the leopard 2's front armor was found to be immune against any antit ank weapons. No ATGMs and no RPGs are capable of penetrating the Leopard 2's front armor on the turret, as the round/warhead/grenade/missile just stuck in the thick armor block.
...

...
While the armor of a ERA-equipped T-90 was penetrated 3 times by RPG-29
...

...
There is a reason why so many countries bought the Leoaprd as their main battle tank, it is not for no reason officially the best tank in the world.
...

PWND!!! xD

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
ThatBritishBloke
ThatBritishBloke

*cough* Challenger 2 hit by 12 RPGs and one Milan AT missile, still worked afterwards *cough*

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
tanker1408 Author
tanker1408

@TrueBrit Yes that's correct, the 3rd generation of composite armor on the Chally 2 is known to be practically immune against most threats as well, however, the front amor was penetrated by RPG-29 in 2006. I posted a picture of this engagement on this page, just look it up.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
GriffinZ
GriffinZ

*cough* And only 445 Challangers have ever been produced compared to the number of Leopard 2s the Germans got, 2,125! They also have been exporting to other countries like Sweden or spain that together got 500 Leopard 2s. You see, while the Germans learned from their mistake in WWII that they couldn't keep makeing expensive, complicated and slowly produced tanks like the Panther, so know they produce the T-34/85 of today, the Britts did not. Leopard 2 got Good protection, good speed, good firepower, easy to repair, easy to make, inexpensive... <---WIN!!

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
ThatBritishBloke
ThatBritishBloke

Can I just point out the Germans have a better industrial base than the UK, considering they were the centre of attention of American backing during the Cold War. The Challenger 2 was built to be a reliable, tough tank designed ONLY for use by the UK as a home-made MBT. You can't simply base numbers on the comparison between two completely different tanks. There is no need to get competitive, I simply said that light-heartedly. so just chill man. Its what's on the inside that counts ;)

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
GriffinZ
GriffinZ

Challanger 2 is just slightly better then Leopard 2, however, the Leopard is mass produced (Sweden got half the number of your tanks, even though our total population are the smaller then Londons...) And WWII proved mass production wins over quality, (shermans was 10:1 with german tanks) it's even worse when the mass produced are comparable to your own tanks (T-34, or Leopard 2).

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
tanker1408 Author
tanker1408

Dear GriffinZ, even thou I agree with most of the content in your comment, but in no way has the Challenger 2 better armor protection than leo2A6 ;) This rumor was created when the Leoaprd 2A5 & A6 were not developed and there was only the old Leoaprd 2A4 without AMAP armor, at this times yes, the Challenegr 2 had better armor protection. But since the new Leo2A6 was upgraded with 4th generation of modular AMAP design, the armor thickness has been doubled! And let alone that the Leoaprd 2 can launch LAHAT ATGMs (anti tank missile) which has a maximum range of 8km and outranges the Challeneger on open field. Obviously I'd place the Challenger second rather but still very close to the L2.

Reply Good karma+2 votes
DerEisenmann
DerEisenmann

Calm down men, with my post i was just giving a (not so serious^^) statment to the "russian tank fanboys". xD

p.s.: 'n' hey if you "russian tank fanboys" read this post: chill, russian tanks are pretty cool, too!

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Guest
Guest

This comment is currently awaiting admin approval, join now to view.

GriffinZ
GriffinZ

So it's cheaper, mass producable, same firepower with the gun, but better protected, very easy to repair (since you can change almost anyhting)... and laucnhes friggin ATMs?

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
tanker1408 Author
tanker1408

Yep.

German Steel.

What did you expect. Best engineering since...for ever lol.

Reply Good karma+2 votes
DerScharfschutze
DerScharfschutze

Leopard 2 is just better than both of em.And it could beat the armada too if it would be upgraded to the 140 mm gun.Its good that it doesnt use depleted uranium shells because at least we dont spread cancer lik idk *cough USA cough*

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
Post a comment
Sign in or join with:

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.

Description

A cut-through diagram of Leopard 2A4/2A5 and T-80U/T-90 shows a direct comparison of LOS thicnkness of the turret armor.

Note that the effectiveness of the Kontakt-5 reactive armor (of the T-80U/T-90) is not shown in this picture. Only the basic turret armor (LOS thickness) is being portrayed. With the Kontakt-5 ERA bricks, the armor protection of T-80U/T-90 would be even increased.

The Kontakt-5 reactive armor was first used in 1985 with the T-80U. It was designed to "break" the long-ROD penetrator (APFSDS) of NATO tank ammunition, so that they couldn't penetrate the main armor of the T-80U where the Kontakt-5 covered the armor. It was very effective in the mid-80's and made early NATO ammunition quite ineffective. The American and European Main battle Tanks (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2) had no sufficient APFSDS munition to penetrate the Kontakt-5 ERA in 1985. For example, the early M1 Abrams used the M829A1 and the Leoaprd 2A4 used the DM33/43, both of which failed to penetrate the
Kontakt-5. Only 6 years later, the Americans first developed a new APFSDS penetrator M829A2 in 1991, that could effectively penetrate the Kontakt-5 plus the basic armor of the T-80U.

However, other NATO countries such as the UK and Germany still lacked sufficient APFSDS rounds to defeat the Kontakt-5 until 1999.
For example, even the Leopard 2A5 in 1996 still used the outdated DM33/43 munition from the 1980's ERA, and the british Challenger 2 still used the outdated L-23/L-26 CHARM 1 APFSDS rounds from 1983 to 1999. Which means that neither Leoaprd 2A4/2A5 nor Challenger 2 had sufficient ammunition types to defeauntil the Kontakt5 until the early 2000's.

Only in 1999 the Germans finally developed a sufficient penetrator round DM53 for the longer 120mm L/55 gun used by the new Leopard 2A6 from 2001. And the British developed the more powerful L-27 CHARM 3 in 1999 for the Challenger II. Both of these ammunitions can now penetrate the Kontakt-5.

Details
Date
Size
1784×1286
Options
URL
Embed
Embed Thumb
Share
Feed
RSS feed