In message , robert
arndt writes
http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl....de/english/in
dex.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKMW,%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

M-1A2 is dogmeat.

Which presumably explains the dismal failure of the Abrams family every
time they're sent into combat, compared to the stellar fighting history
and long combat experience of the Leo2s?

Now personally I'd say the Challenger 2 has some minor edges over the
M1A2 as well as vice versa (like CR2 has an APU under armour, more
ammunition and so on) but that both tanks (and the Leo2 as well,
actually) were damn good vehicles to take into combat and the
differences are largely a matter of preference and style.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk