General Dynamics to beat out Germany for Saudi tank deal-report

Until the royal family is all killed.

Radical islam was invented there.

The Marines didn’t have the Abrams when they went right up the middle of Saddam’s armor that included the T-54, T-55, T-62, Type 69, and T-72s. That fight was done with the M60A3. Only one tank lost, no casualties.

A few M60A3’s scored over 30 kills.

Israel still has over 700 M60A3’s in service. The Abrams is superior and the Marines have them now but there is no armor made by anyone that even comes close in head-on battle to the Abrams.

The Abrams is superior and the Marines have them now but there is no armor made by anyone that even comes close in head-on battle to the Abrams.

Not trying to be (too) pedantic, but the truth is that if you look at the top three Western tank designs they are all equal. These three tanks are the US M1A2 Abrams, the British Challenger 2, and the German Leopard 2. Ofcourse there are certain aspects one will be better than the other in, but on aggregate the top three Western tanks are equally effective in terms of offensive capability, electronics, and armor ...and for that matter even the strategy used by the tank crews.

A lot of debate can be had on certain aspects that each tank has that the other doesn't. For instance, the use of depleted uranium rounds by the Abrams (and depleted uranium armor around certain parts of the tank), or the more developed Dorchester upgrade of Chobham armor of the Challenger 2 that is alleged to be better than the Chobham of the Abrams, or the Leo 2's ability to fire a missile from its main gun at ranges over 100% longer than using a normal round. Fact is that a lot of those differences are largely moot. For instance, any real information on the difference between Chobham + DU armor vs Dorchester armor upgrades is secret, and were it to be revealed the difference would be moot. Why? Because both approaches are largely virtually impermeable to most opposing force weaponry. For all three tanks your best chance against them is a mobility kill, and even then you have to shoot at them before they shoot at you, which considering the tank doctrine of the three main countries using those three tanks, would be quite difficult to do. Same thing applies for the disadvantages. Some say the gas turbine of the Abrams is a gas guzzler, and it is, however the logistics supply chain of the US armed forces is second to none. Thus, it is not a problem. Or the 'disadvantage' of the Leo 2 not using depleted uranium APFSDS rounds, as compared to the Charm 3 DU tipped round of the Challenger 2 or the M829A3 for the Abrams. Well, true, but the heavy tungsten penetrator for the Leo 2 has consistently been shown to be able to punch through both turret and frontal armor. In terms of what the enemy feels the effect is the same ...dead enemy, with the difference being one round was like cutting butter with a blow torch, and the other like cutting butter with a slightly hotter blow torch.

Anyways, if one says the Abrams is the best that is probably accurate. The British may disagree, as would the Germans, and all would have good points to make. However, one thing that is pure fact and not speculation is that it is simply not true that none come close to the Abrams. The three Western tanks could easily be substituted for each other without any of the three main users complaining. In many ways, especially when it comes to the Leopard and the Abrams, they were originally meant to be the same tank.

Logistics is a critical aspect and nobody comes close to the support for the Abrams.

So I guess it depends on how remote and how large the battlefield.

However, the speed and range of the Leopard II is amazing and it was superb performer in Afghanistan.