Eh, kinda. Tungsten only outperforms DU at extreme velocities like 2000 m/s but you could just make a longer DU penetrator which while slower will have a greater penetration than the faster tungsten projectile (penetration is mostly a matter of density, projectile length, and velocity). The US uses slow (1500ish m/s) projectiles with really long penetrators allowing them to outperform German ammunition fired from the L/55.
>THIS SUMMER >THE WORLDS DEADLIEST TANK >against... THE WORLDS DEADLIEST TANK >in a competition full of weird ass hypotheticals, but devoid of any real informed input >we put TWO TONKS >in a POOL full of SCORPIONS >after FLOODING them with HOT SAUCE >and replaced their main guns WITH PLASTIC SWORDS >in an UNDERWATER >TANK >JOUSTING COMPETITION >in a BURNING DUCK BROTHEL >on THE MOON
really it's never like "oh so basically we have no idea about either tank/soldier/gun/armor's capabilities and most of the time victory and defeat hinge on the most random shit like a soldier not paying attention or a dead rabbit getting stuck in the optics so the real answer is that nobody fricking knows", it's always this dumb ass clickbait shit full of variables that make zero sense in situations that are even dumber
>who would in in a zombie apocalypse, 10 navy seals who have type 2 diabetes or 10 spetznatz who are allergic to cucumbers and squirrels
like homie what the frick is this competition even, how often does this shit happen irl
it doesn't matter. All western Tanks outperform the russian shit.
They will always be better at everything. The minimal differences between western tanks don't matter a little bit when they blow russian trash into the orbit, since they will always fight shoulder to shoulder against their enemys.
None that are relevant for arctic warfare.
Compared to A5 >Add-on Armor >Upgraded C2 system >Upgraded FCS >Improved suspension for the added weight >+ some minor things
Most Leopard platforms are rather old and are upgraded as time goes on, the upgrade packages are modular and are either exchangable or build on top of each other so to speak, the Stridsvagn is an upgrade to the A5.
The A6 has the improved L/55 cannon, the Stridsvagn doesn't afaik but they are "upgrade-ready" to accept the longer gun.
Leopards, but not to a degree that you'd have to worry about using an Abrams in any meaningful way if your country has the logistics to use them in the first place.
I have a better question: Summer is coming so which tank has the best A/C? Do russian tanks even have good enough ventilation to keep from cooking the crew on a hot day?
Best pic of a snow leopard pack
https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2015/12/norwegian-leopard-2a4no-main-battle.html
That last phot is LIT! I love the tracer effect.
Both the Leopard and Abrams tanks are designed to operate in a variety of environments and weather conditions, including snow. However, each tank has different features and capabilities that may make them more or less effective in a snow-covered battlefield.
The Leopard 2 tank is known for its agility, maneuverability, and excellent cross-country performance. It has a low ground pressure and advanced suspension system that can help it navigate through difficult terrain, including snow. The Leopard 2 also has a powerful engine and good power-to-weight ratio, which gives it good mobility and acceleration in snowy conditions. Additionally, its advanced thermal imaging and targeting systems allow it to operate effectively in low-visibility environments, such as snowstorms or blizzards.
On the other hand, the M1 Abrams tank is known for its heavy armor, firepower, and durability. While it may not be as agile or maneuverable as the Leopard 2, it can still navigate through snow-covered terrain using its tracks and powerful engine. The Abrams also has advanced targeting systems, including a thermal imaging system that can help it detect targets in snowy conditions.
In general, both tanks are capable of operating in snowy environments, and their effectiveness may depend on the specific conditions of the battlefield. However, the Leopard 2's superior mobility and agility may give it an advantage in navigating through deep snow or difficult terrain, while the Abrams' heavy armor and firepower may be more useful in a defensive role. Ultimately, the success of either tank in a snowy battlefield will depend on a variety of factors, including the skill and training of the crew, the terrain and weather conditions, and the tactics and strategy employed by the military.
The Leos will, but this is because it is what the crews have trained on all the time. It doesn't really matter what an Abrams can do better if the crew goes crosseyed at the sight of snow.
this ninja warrior shit is so fricking infantile, i sometimes dont know whether i'm ok /k/ or the call of duty forums
Abrams have the power, but leopards have speed and agility. if i had to bet, I got money on the leopard swooping in and landing a big banger head on
And where is Challenger 2 or LeClerc in this hypothetical competition?
I always thought they had the same gun
ENGINE power.
Same gun but in reality Tungsten can't match the penetration or after armor effect of depleted uranium.
depends on velocity.
Eh, kinda. Tungsten only outperforms DU at extreme velocities like 2000 m/s but you could just make a longer DU penetrator which while slower will have a greater penetration than the faster tungsten projectile (penetration is mostly a matter of density, projectile length, and velocity). The US uses slow (1500ish m/s) projectiles with really long penetrators allowing them to outperform German ammunition fired from the L/55.
Don't newer Leos have the longer version? Did the Abrams ever get that upgrade?
>THIS SUMMER
>THE WORLDS DEADLIEST TANK
>against... THE WORLDS DEADLIEST TANK
>in a competition full of weird ass hypotheticals, but devoid of any real informed input
>we put TWO TONKS
>in a POOL full of SCORPIONS
>after FLOODING them with HOT SAUCE
>and replaced their main guns WITH PLASTIC SWORDS
>in an UNDERWATER
>TANK
>JOUSTING COMPETITION
>in a BURNING DUCK BROTHEL
>on THE MOON
really it's never like "oh so basically we have no idea about either tank/soldier/gun/armor's capabilities and most of the time victory and defeat hinge on the most random shit like a soldier not paying attention or a dead rabbit getting stuck in the optics so the real answer is that nobody fricking knows", it's always this dumb ass clickbait shit full of variables that make zero sense in situations that are even dumber
>who would in in a zombie apocalypse, 10 navy seals who have type 2 diabetes or 10 spetznatz who are allergic to cucumbers and squirrels
like homie what the frick is this competition even, how often does this shit happen irl
Tank jousting sounds awesome
More fun that horse jousting for sure
Hysterical post
My dude it is fricking May
Winter is still coming (in 6 months)
Not really. It's not going to be a "real" winter in Ukraine until January at least. So that's almost 8 months from now.
>he doesn't know
I wonder if russkies are going to push "they're going to freeze!" this winter.
yes, they will.
ukrainians were "freezing" every winter since orange revolution (with a short break during yanukovich cadence)
Haha, stupid hohols were preparing against freezing in winter, but you know what? They'll never see coming freezing in SUMMER
>it is fricking May
˙ɹǝʞuɐM ǝıssn∀ ɐ s,ǝH 'uou∀ ǝɔıN ǝᙠ
Finns use Leopards, I guess they work better than Abrams
it doesn't matter. All western Tanks outperform the russian shit.
They will always be better at everything. The minimal differences between western tanks don't matter a little bit when they blow russian trash into the orbit, since they will always fight shoulder to shoulder against their enemys.
do amerimutts really believe this?
Do ziggers really believe otherwise?
no, its not
>Winter is coming
So you live in the south hemisphere, kek
>Winter is coming
Black person are you from New Zealand or something? It isn't even fricken summer yet.
>he doesn't know about snow leopards
Leos are better suited for winter warfare, but they're not as good as their Swedish modification (Stridsvagn)
Just curious, what are the differences?
None that are relevant for arctic warfare.
Compared to A5
>Add-on Armor
>Upgraded C2 system
>Upgraded FCS
>Improved suspension for the added weight
>+ some minor things
Most Leopard platforms are rather old and are upgraded as time goes on, the upgrade packages are modular and are either exchangable or build on top of each other so to speak, the Stridsvagn is an upgrade to the A5.
The A6 has the improved L/55 cannon, the Stridsvagn doesn't afaik but they are "upgrade-ready" to accept the longer gun.
Nothing can beat T-90 in this
Yeah the t90 is totally unstoppable, luckily ukraine captured a whole bunch of them so the counteroffensive will certianly succeed
Will Abrams even be in Ukraine by winter?
abrams does well on snow but it needs almost twice as much gas as the leopard 2.
Leopards, but not to a degree that you'd have to worry about using an Abrams in any meaningful way if your country has the logistics to use them in the first place.
Abrams is probably better, but it really depends. If its the Sep V3 with the AMP and M829A4, then yeah no contest, the Abrams wins 9 outta 10 times.
Abrams
Scratching that itch under the turret
Doesn't it snow in USA too? Why would M1 work in snow?
I have a better question: Summer is coming so which tank has the best A/C? Do russian tanks even have good enough ventilation to keep from cooking the crew on a hot day?
Russian tanks can cook crews in any weather.
What was that tank who's heater was so anemic the driver would get frostbite?
t80bvm
Whatever the scandies are using.
abrams is inferior to other tanks because it has absurd logistical demands compared to the leo while having very similar capabilities
Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Canada all use Leopard 2's.
So I would say the Leopard 2.
is it just me or is the turret abnormally long on this leopard?
Shit that's a good looking Leopard
something about tanks in snow is very comfy
Oh yeh, the snowy forest/tundra is kino. Anything military related looks cool up there. Maybe it needs a thread for kino snow warfare.
>LAST ACTION HERO
finally, some good tank names
jesus that's fricking hot, hnnnggg
Best pic of a snow leopard pack
https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2015/12/norwegian-leopard-2a4no-main-battle.html
That last phot is LIT! I love the tracer effect.
Both the Leopard and Abrams tanks are designed to operate in a variety of environments and weather conditions, including snow. However, each tank has different features and capabilities that may make them more or less effective in a snow-covered battlefield.
The Leopard 2 tank is known for its agility, maneuverability, and excellent cross-country performance. It has a low ground pressure and advanced suspension system that can help it navigate through difficult terrain, including snow. The Leopard 2 also has a powerful engine and good power-to-weight ratio, which gives it good mobility and acceleration in snowy conditions. Additionally, its advanced thermal imaging and targeting systems allow it to operate effectively in low-visibility environments, such as snowstorms or blizzards.
On the other hand, the M1 Abrams tank is known for its heavy armor, firepower, and durability. While it may not be as agile or maneuverable as the Leopard 2, it can still navigate through snow-covered terrain using its tracks and powerful engine. The Abrams also has advanced targeting systems, including a thermal imaging system that can help it detect targets in snowy conditions.
In general, both tanks are capable of operating in snowy environments, and their effectiveness may depend on the specific conditions of the battlefield. However, the Leopard 2's superior mobility and agility may give it an advantage in navigating through deep snow or difficult terrain, while the Abrams' heavy armor and firepower may be more useful in a defensive role. Ultimately, the success of either tank in a snowy battlefield will depend on a variety of factors, including the skill and training of the crew, the terrain and weather conditions, and the tactics and strategy employed by the military.
leo 2 has better firepower on the move and superior protection in the frontal arc but its not that much faster than the abrams
K2 for South Korean winters
A new challenger has arrived.
Better pic posted here
1/10 low effort
Abrams. Gas turbine engines don't give a frick about cold weather, its why russia prefers to keep T-80s in their arctic regions.
The Leos will, but this is because it is what the crews have trained on all the time. It doesn't really matter what an Abrams can do better if the crew goes crosseyed at the sight of snow.
>Abrams
is'nt the abrams optimized for the desert, or is it just the merkava?