M1 Abrams vs Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2 vs Leclerc

[Domobran7]

Considering all the discussion about tank supplies to Ukraine, I got interested in how these tanks compare to each other? Discuss either newest variants or those most likely to be supplied to Ukraine.

By a quick look, M1 seems to have advantage in survivability, considering all the ammunition is in the turret bustle. I have heard that Challenger 2 has an uncommonly good suspension, but otherwise Leclerc would be the most mobile? thanks to its relatively low weight and good engine. Leopard 2 may have edge in lethality and long-range accuracy thanks to its L55 gun, whereas Leclerc and Challie use L52 and Abrams uses L44. But Challenger 2 uses two-piece ammunition which would reduce APFSDS efficiency, though I doubt it would matter against Russian tanks all that much... and of course all have good optics, but Leclerc arrangement seems to leave a hole in armor? or I'm mistaken there.

[bojan]

All are perfectly adequate tanks for their nations at the time of their introduction with a pretty similar capabilities. Challenger might be most "problematic", due the subpar engine and weird FCS w/o independent stabilization for thermal sight. Which would be fixable, but Britain decided to never really invest in it unlike US/Germany or even France.

[Kanon]

 

1 hour ago, Domobran7 said:

Considering all the discussion about tank supplies to Ukraine, I got interested in how these tanks compare to each other? Discuss either newest variants or those most likely to be supplied to Ukraine.

By a quick look, M1 seems to have advantage in survivability, considering all the ammunition is in the turret bustle. I have heard that Challenger 2 has an uncommonly good suspension, but otherwise Leclerc would be the most mobile? thanks to its relatively low weight and good engine. Leopard 2 may have edge in lethality and long-range accuracy thanks to its L55 gun, whereas Leclerc and Challie use L52 and Abrams uses L44. But Challenger 2 uses two-piece ammunition which would reduce APFSDS efficiency, though I doubt it would matter against Russian tanks all that much... and of course all have good optics, but Leclerc arrangement seems to leave a hole in armor? or I'm mistaken there.

 

Well if we start with the Leopard 2, we know a good chunk of those that are going to be supplied to Ukraine will be 2A4's. Protection wise these are rather vulnerable, albeit less so if they come with C-tech armour.  An interesting question is wether they will be modified (upgraded) before being shipped, which when we're talking 2A4s would definitely be worthwhile in certain areas.

FCS & mobility wise however, the 2A4s are going to be superior to anything the Russians are fielding regardless. 

The type of ammunition they're going to be supplied with is also of importance. One could hope they would get modern TIPS munitions, as that would markedly improve their firepower & survivability. It's plausible that atleast the German supplied 2A5 & A6s will come with these, if the supply situation allows for it.

On the 2A5's and 2A6s, these have the potential to be very effective, being very hard for the Russians to destroy if care is taken not expose their flanks. Their 2nd gen commanders thermals will also make it hard for the Russians to hide from or spot them first. Coupled with their high mobility and hitting power, these could become a real nightmare for the Russians if properly employed. The same can generally be said of the Leclerc, eventhough it trades some protection for lighter weight and increased mobility. I do have my concerns when it comes to how easy it will be to keep it running though.

Then there's  the Challenger 2, again it also has the potential to be quite effective, however one weakness is the lack of an independent thermal sight for the commander, which limits its hunter killer capability. The effectiveness of the gun vs the latest Russian tanks could potentially also become an issue, as can the supply of ammunition for it.  FCS wise, whilst capable, it is the least capable in this regard of the 4 tanks.

And finally the Abrams, it appears the US gov is dragging its feet by intending to only send newly built ones, instead of simply supplying some from their huge ready to go stockpiles. So its anybodys guess if any will reach Ukraine before the war is over. If they ever do arrive however, I expect them to perform well, mostly in line with the Leopard 2 & Leclerc.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Kanon

[bojan]

10 minutes ago, Kanon said:

...FCS & mobility wise however, the 2A4s are going to be superior to anything the Russians are fielding regardless. ..

So 2A4 w/o CITV, target auto tracking and with 1st gen thermals for gunner is superior to T-90M which has all those things?
Why do you consider it's FCS considered superior to one on T-72B3 or T-90BVM? After all, Sosna U has all FCS functions 2A4 has, and in addition has auto tracking and 2nd gen thermals.

So how is it's FCS exactly "superior to anything the Russians are fielding"?

Edited February 6, 2023 by bojan

[Wobbly Head]

9 minutes ago, bojan said:

So 2A4 w/o CITV, target auto tracking and with 1st gen thermals for gunner is superior to T-90M which has all those things?
Why do you consider it's FCS considered superior to one on T-72B3 or T-90BVM? After all, Sosna U has all FCS functions 2A4 has, and in addition has auto tracking and 2nd gen thermals.

So how is it's FCS exactly "superior to anything the Russians are fielding"?

 I would say it may not be. Good thermals and FCS are a force multiplier. If they are well maintained and used by a skilled crew they will give enough of an edge to win the battles. If they are not maintained and used incorrectly the edge they give will be severely blunted which might be a good reason supposed superior tanks T72 tanks are being beaten by supposedly inferior T64 in Ukraine. A tank is only as good as the crew and support it has.

[Kanon]

28 minutes ago, bojan said:

So 2A4 w/o CITW, target autotracking and with 1st gen thermals is superior to T-90M which has those things?
Why is it's FCS even considered superior to one on T-72B3 or T-90BVM?

I did mean to write "almost anything" the Russians are fielding. But with that being said there's only so much fancy software can do for you, the underlying system capability sets the limit, and the stabilizer system in the T series doesn't have a great reputation when it comes to accurate fire on the move. Meanwhile it may surprise you, but the 2A4 is still right up there with the best in the west in this respect, as it has shown again and again during competitions and joint exercises over the last decade. The system was just THAT good to start with.

The lack of a commanders thermal sight is ofcourse a disadvantage, but then how many Russian tanks are even going to have thermals in the first place.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Kanon

[seahawk]

In the war in the Ukraine, the tank with the best roof armour wins, as artillery is the killer.

[Stuart Galbraith]

42 minutes ago, Kanon said:

 

 

Well if we start with the Leopard 2, we know a good chunk of those that are going to be supplied to Ukraine will be 2A4's. Protection wise these are rather vulnerable, albeit less so if they come with C-tech armour.  An interesting question is wether they will be modified (upgraded) before being shipped, which when we're talking 2A4s would definitely be worthwhile in certain areas.

FCS & mobility wise however, the 2A4s are going to be superior to anything the Russians are fielding regardless. 

The type of ammunition they're going to be supplied with is also of importance. One could hope they would get modern TIPS munitions, as that would markedly improve their firepower & survivability. It's plausible that atleast the German supplied 2A5 & A6s will come with these, if the supply situation allows for it.

On the 2A5's and 2A6s, these have the potential to be very effective, being very hard for the Russians to destroy if care is taken not expose their flanks. Their 2nd gen commanders thermals will also make it hard for the Russians to hide from or spot them first. Coupled with their high mobility and hitting power, these could become a real nightmare for the Russians if properly employed. The same can generally be said of the Leclerc, eventhough it trades some protection for lighter weight and increased mobility. I do have my concerns when it comes to how easy it will be to keep it running though.

Then there's  the Challenger 2, again it also has the potential to be quite effective, however one weakness is the lack of an independent thermal sight for the commander, which limits its hunter killer capability. The effectiveness of the gun vs the latest Russian tanks could potentially also become an issue, as can the supply of ammunition for it.  FCS wise, whilst capable, it is the least capable in this regard of the 4 tanks.

And finally the Abrams, it appears the US gov is dragging its feet by intending to only send newly built ones, instead of simply supplying some from their huge ready to go stockpiles. So its anybodys guess if any will reach Ukraine before the war is over. If they ever do arrive however, I expect them to perform well, mostly in line with the Leopard 2 & Leclerc.

And it might be, if Russian tank design had appreciably moved on from 1998 when it entered service. There is T90AM, T14, and they have few of either. T72B3 didn't very much please the Russian Army, and it doesn't seem to operate appreciably better than a line T72BV.

Meanwhile, Russia keeps dusting off T62s. So...

[blackjack552]

Is steal beasts a good reference regarding armor protection for tanks or you guys got any different sources on that?

[Walter_Sobchak]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

All are perfectly adequate tanks for their nations at the time of their introduction with a pretty similar capabilities. Challenger might be most "problematic", due the subpar engine and weird FCS w/o independent stabilization for thermal sight. Which would be fixable, but Britain decided to never really invest in it unlike US/Germany or even France.

When you refer to the Challenger engine as subpar, do you mean that it has less HP than the Leopard 2 or Abrams, or are there other known issues with the Perkins engine?

Edited February 6, 2023 by Walter_Sobchak

[DB]

It's nominally rated at 1200hp, with others being up to 1500. As CR2 gets heavier with applique armour packs, that can be a problem.

Aside from it being a Vickers, Perkins and Caterpillar engine at various points in its career (and it may have been Rolls Royce at one point, too), the main complaint that I know about it has been the need to downgrade performance in hot climates. This is claimed to be resolved primarily by the use of a revised engine bay (seen only in Titan and Trojan) that improved airflow. Obviously that could be expected to apply to all current CR2s.

Other issues were sand clogging of air filters in the desert, resolved by actually cleaning/changing filters at manufacturer's recommended intervals.

[Stuart Galbraith]

CV12 was a Rolls Royce product initially. So was CV8 iirc.

Worth remembering though, suspension  goes a long way with acceleration, on rough ground anyway.. According to Dick Taylors Chieftain book, Chieftain accelerated similarly to Leopard 1 on rough terrain.

At least its reliable, which is a lot more than can be said for L60, or even the Leclerc engine reputedly.

[Walter_Sobchak]

2 minutes ago, DB said:

It's nominally rated at 1200hp, with others being up to 1500. As CR2 gets heavier with applique armour packs, that can be a problem.

Aside from it being a Vickers, Perkins and Caterpillar engine at various points in its career (and it may have been Rolls Royce at one point, too), the main complaint that I know about it has been the need to downgrade performance in hot climates. This is claimed to be resolved primarily by the use of a revised engine bay (seen only in Titan and Trojan) that improved airflow. Obviously that could be expected to apply to all current CR2s.

Other issues were sand clogging of air filters in the desert, resolved by actually cleaning/changing filters at manufacturer's recommended intervals.

Given the amount of consolidation in the defense industry, it is not uncommon to see engines changing manufacturers.  For example, the venerable old AVDS-1790 has gone from Continental to Teledyne Continental, to General Dynamics, to L3 Combat Propulsion Systems and is now a product of Renk America.  

[Walter_Sobchak]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

CV12 was a Rolls Royce product initially. So was CV8 iirc.

Worth remembering though, suspension  goes a long way with acceleration, on rough ground anyway.. According to Dick Taylors Chieftain book, Chieftain accelerated similarly to Leopard 1 on rough terrain.

At least its reliable, which is a lot more than can be said for L60, or even the Leclerc engine reputedly.

While I certainly do not doubt that a French engine could suffer from reliability issues, I am not sure if the decision to put the German MT883 into the LeClerc for the "tropicalized" version for the UAE had to do with reliability or with politics.  According to "Char Leclerc" by M.P. Robinson (Kagero press), UAE owned shares in MTU and therefore wanted the MTU engine.

[alejandro_]

 

11 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

While I certainly do not doubt that a French engine could suffer from reliability issues, I am not sure if the decision to put the German MT883 into the LeClerc for the "tropicalized" version for the UAE had to do with reliability or with politics.  According to "Char Leclerc" by M.P. Robinson (Kagero press), UAE owned shares in MTU and therefore wanted the MTU engine.

From an interview with a Leclerc veteran (who used both engines as he was an advisor in UAE):

13) Leclerc has been sold with 2 different engine types (MT883 diesel and Hyperbar diesel engine). How do they compare in different climates? What about the maintenance?

2 different generations of engines.

• MTU is 80s technology. Reliable and easy to maintain. Classic turbo charged V12 bi turbo of 27liters for 1500HP.
• Wartsila hyperbar. Full optimized diesel engine. Turbine charged V8 16liters for 1500HP.
•   
These 2 different technologies have their positive and negative sides. The maintenance is easier on MTU but the engine, according to me, is a little less efficient. The maintenance is sharp on the Hyperbar but this engine is amazing.

For hot climates, I have to admit than the MTU is perfect. The Hyperbar suffers issue, not from its technology, but by the electronic supposed to protect the powerpack…

http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2021/01/interview-with-former-leclerc-crew.html

Regarding comparison, IMO Abrams is a superior vehicle as it has been backed by large investment. Challenger 2 remains as fielded in the late 90s.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Not entirely, there have been some improvements,  not least in ammunition. But they are rather niche, and other that Dorchester Level 2 F armour pack, don't substantially add to its combat capabilities. Unless the aged jammer has an anti drone capability, which seems unlikely.

I can recall as early as 2002 the MOD briefing in publications they believed the tank had no future, hence the birth of FRES and the whole Strike mania. So I'm surprised they did as much as they did, if it hadn't been for Iraq, I suspect they would have gone.

[Wiedzmin]

[Domobran7]

1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

So Challenger seems to have reliability problems? Any idea why?

5 hours ago, Kanon said:

Well if we start with the Leopard 2, we know a good chunk of those that are going to be supplied to Ukraine will be 2A4's. Protection wise these are rather vulnerable, albeit less so if they come with C-tech armour.  An interesting question is wether they will be modified (upgraded) before being shipped, which when we're talking 2A4s would definitely be worthwhile in certain areas.

FCS & mobility wise however, the 2A4s are going to be superior to anything the Russians are fielding regardless. 

The type of ammunition they're going to be supplied with is also of importance. One could hope they would get modern TIPS munitions, as that would markedly improve their firepower & survivability. It's plausible that atleast the German supplied 2A5 & A6s will come with these, if the supply situation allows for it.

On the 2A5's and 2A6s, these have the potential to be very effective, being very hard for the Russians to destroy if care is taken not expose their flanks. Their 2nd gen commanders thermals will also make it hard for the Russians to hide from or spot them first. Coupled with their high mobility and hitting power, these could become a real nightmare for the Russians if properly employed. The same can generally be said of the Leclerc, eventhough it trades some protection for lighter weight and increased mobility. I do have my concerns when it comes to how easy it will be to keep it running though.

Then there's  the Challenger 2, again it also has the potential to be quite effective, however one weakness is the lack of an independent thermal sight for the commander, which limits its hunter killer capability. The effectiveness of the gun vs the latest Russian tanks could potentially also become an issue, as can the supply of ammunition for it.  FCS wise, whilst capable, it is the least capable in this regard of the 4 tanks.

And finally the Abrams, it appears the US gov is dragging its feet by intending to only send newly built ones, instead of simply supplying some from their huge ready to go stockpiles. So its anybodys guess if any will reach Ukraine before the war is over. If they ever do arrive however, I expect them to perform well, mostly in line with the Leopard 2 & Leclerc.

Thanks!

4 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

 I would say it may not be. Good thermals and FCS are a force multiplier. If they are well maintained and used by a skilled crew they will give enough of an edge to win the battles. If they are not maintained and used incorrectly the edge they give will be severely blunted which might be a good reason supposed superior tanks T72 tanks are being beaten by supposedly inferior T64 in Ukraine. A tank is only as good as the crew and support it has.

Personally, I'd say that good thermals may well be more important than anything else about the tank... and Russian IR imaging systems are... not of the greatest quality.

[bojan]

6 minutes ago, Domobran7 said:

...and Russian IR imaging systems are... not of the greatest quality.

Which ones? Old from '80s? Absolutely. Current thermals? They are for all purposes same ones that "west" uses.

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, blackjack552 said:

Is steal beasts a good reference regarding armor protection for tanks or you guys got any different sources on that?

While the Leopard 2A4 is undergoing a critical review right now (which will end in a reduction of its protection level, reflecting that the vast majority of 2A4s had "B tech" armor during their operational lifetime) it is important to realize that the primary purposes of SB Pro are crew procedure training and tactical training at platoon...battalion levels. Steel Beasts does not claim to make accurate predictions whether a BM22 will perforate a certain armor plate from ranges 1430m or lower, or how many spare parts of what type a battalion of tanks will require after attacking a certain enemy position.

Steel Beasts gives you a ballpark impression.

This is, I think, all that can realistically be expected from any simulation that is based on publicly available information (and it's got to be non-classified sources, or else SB Pro PE couldn't be sold to the general public). There is a lot of conflicting info out there. Different tank simulation developers have come to different conclusions about the balance of attacking projectile and protection levels. Of course, where possible, eSim Games tries to not drift off into fantasy area.

[Wiedzmin]

5 hours ago, Domobran7 said:

So Challenger seems to have reliability problems? Any idea why?

Too small production batch, with 400 vehicles you simply never have enough tanks for good testing imho 

[DB]

It's a victim of the UK MoD not understanding that for a product to be successful it must be made in sufficient volume to get past what is essentially prototyping. The way they've written requirements for UK military use in the past has often made them too focussed on odd UK needs at the expense of exportability.

One tries to counter the lack of width (number of vehicles) by depth (increased qualification testing), but that drives development costs ever higher and is never truly representative.

[Stuart Galbraith]

21 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

Its 1992. Challenger 2 was in the initial prototype phase, the first one wasnt even built till 1989. It wasn't due to enter Army service till 1996. After receiving the first batch to the Scots Greys, the Army found a problem, something to do with gun accuracy, and the MOD withheld on it for two years till VDS fixed it.

It's a bit like drawing conclusions on how Abrams is today, based on a test report from 1978.

Abrams completed the course in half the time? My, who would believe it of a gas turbine. Now show me the fuel chit.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

Too small production batch, with 400 vehicles you simply never have enough tanks for good testing imho 

I've seen the trial rigs for C1 parked outside Bovington, and they were all knackered. The prototypes for C2 looked no less tired.

So no disrespect, this is a great reach on your part. The vehicle is reliable. Its main failing is that's its old and badly in need of a MLU.

[Wobbly Head]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I've seen the trial rigs for C1 parked outside Bovington, and they were all knackered. The prototypes for C2 looked no less tired.

So no disrespect, this is a great reach on your part. The vehicle is reliable. Its main failing is that's its old and badly in need of a MLU.

To be fair the British Army recycle their prototypes and trial vehicles into the regular vehicle supply once they are approved. You can tell them apart at most regiments by their license plate numbers they are significantly different number and lettering from the normal production vehicles. I remember one of the Challenger 1 prototype/trial vehicles. When I was first line tanks (REME) of the  fifty tanks in the regiment they all had KG or KA as  middle letters only one had SP as it's middle letters. Which can explain why the trial and prototype vehicles look run down is because they are.