For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

[robert arndt]

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three years running.

Rob :)

[The Enlightenment]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
>
> Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
years running.
>
> Rob :)

A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
help hill climbing.

What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
ones.

The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.

1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.

2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
the number of 'eyes')

3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
turret showing thus the greater depression.

4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
need less Armor.

Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.

They need Russian style tanks.

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> >
> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> years running.
> >
> > Rob :)
>
> A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
> latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
> consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
> help hill climbing.
>
> What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
> all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
> ones.
>
> The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
> heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.

You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?

>
> 1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.

And the NATO tanks actually tend to win every time they engage Russian
equipment, which while lighter (or maybe because of that) *does* exhibit the
ability to apparently acheive near low-earth-orbit with their turrets when
struck by western munitions...but I am not sure that is much to brag about.

>
> 2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
> Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
> the number of 'eyes')

What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as did
the earlier M60 series vehicles. You have to go a LONG way back in history
to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to "load"
the gunner into the breach... :-)

>
> 3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
> designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
> turret showing thus the greater depression.

Behind "parapets"?! You have any idea what a sabot round does when it
encounters an earthen "parapet"? It goes right through it, and then through
the tank behind it. What you are searching for here is the
hull-down/turret-down defilade position--not a "parapet" (which we used to
refer to as "MILES piles", becuase the only thing they would defeat was the
laser enagement training system, not real warrounds).

>
> 4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
> need less Armor.

They seem to make plenty-big targets, as evidenced by their performance
against western tanks in various Middle Eastern engagements.

>
> Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
> style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.

Or we could just proceed with FCS...

>
> They need Russian style tanks.

That is the absolute *last* model I'd use. We want systems that can not only
be delivered to the TO, but can *win* when they get there--Russian systems
seem to be a bit lacking in that last requirement.

Brooks
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
>
> Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three years
running.
>
> Rob :)

Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then, preaching
its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...

Brooks

[Tex Houston]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> >
> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
years
> running.
> >
> > Rob :)
>
> Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
> experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then,
preaching
> its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...
>
> Brooks
>
What is this fascination (obsession?) with tanks in a newsgroup labeled
rec.aviation.military?

Tex

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> > >
> > > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> years
> > running.
> > >
> > > Rob :)
> >
> > Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
> > experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then,
> preaching
> > its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> What is this fascination (obsession?) with tanks in a newsgroup labeled
> rec.aviation.military?

What is this fascination (obsession) you have for being the newsgroup cop?
FYI, big guy, I have been furiously killfiling the numerous purely-political
posters who have been inundating us of late--only to periodically find their
messages still popping up because *you* feel you have to play cop, and then
you can't even figure out how to at least delete this NG from the address
line before you hit the send key. This armor-related discussion popped up as
an aside to another thread. If you don't like it, delete it and ignore
it--but enough of your personal NG cop routine, OK?

And just to really **** you off... have you been by the HANGER lately?

Brooks

>
> Tex
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:09:06 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
>> >
>> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
>> years running.
>> >
>> > Rob :)
>>
>> A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
>> latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
>> consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
>> help hill climbing.
>>
>> What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
>> all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
>> ones.
>>
>> The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
>> heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.
>
>You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?


He's talking out of his ass. "Trading mobility. . ."? Maybe they
can't be towed by a heard of donkeys in a bind but under it's own
power it'll out drive the typical Russian POS any day of the week.


>
>>
>> 1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.
>
>And the NATO tanks actually tend to win every time they engage Russian
>equipment, which while lighter (or maybe because of that) *does* exhibit the
>ability to apparently acheive near low-earth-orbit with their turrets when
>struck by western munitions...but I am not sure that is much to brag about.
>
>>
>> 2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
>> Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
>> the number of 'eyes')
>
>What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as did
>the earlier M60 series vehicles. You have to go a LONG way back in history
>to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
>dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to "load"
>the gunner into the breach... :-)
>
>>
>> 3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
>> designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
>> turret showing thus the greater depression.
>
>Behind "parapets"?! You have any idea what a sabot round does when it
>encounters an earthen "parapet"? It goes right through it, and then through
>the tank behind it. What you are searching for here is the
>hull-down/turret-down defilade position--not a "parapet" (which we used to
>refer to as "MILES piles", becuase the only thing they would defeat was the
>laser enagement training system, not real warrounds).
>
>>
>> 4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
>> need less Armor.
>
>They seem to make plenty-big targets, as evidenced by their performance
>against western tanks in various Middle Eastern engagements.
>
>>
>> Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
>> style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.
>
>Or we could just proceed with FCS...
>
>>
>> They need Russian style tanks.


Yeah the side that wins tank engagements 99.999% of the time needs to
trade it's tanks for the losings side's model. I think you need to
change your handle because "enlightened" you ain't.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 2 May 2004 03:45:20 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
>
>Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three years running.
>
>Rob :)


"The Pentagon's gas turbine-powered M1 Abrams may be the first tank
that comes to the minds of most Americans, but overall, Germany's
Leopard 2 is the world's best. In a new analysis of the world tank
market, Forecast International/ DMS finds that, based on an overall
comparison in terms of lethality, fightability, mobility and
survivability, the Leopard 2A6EX comes out on top. The annual tank
analysis and ranking, the only one of its type available from open
sources, is a product of Forecast International's Weapon Group.

Although the Leopard 2A6EX ranked above the M1 Abrams (in the A2
system enhancement package model), the gap between the two tanks
remains exceedingly small. ******In this year's survey, the deciding
factor was the Leopard 2's 55-calibre version of the Rh 120mm tank
cannon and the formidable DM 53 long rod penetrating ammunition.*****
The Abrams is slated to receive the same cannon, but not for several
years."


The report I read (not this one- at least I don't think it was though
the above sounds almost verbatim) went on to say the M1 had better
armor and said it was the best armored tank period. They also
reasoned that the US feels the longer 55 calibre gun wasn't needed
because they have better ammunition available to them. (The DU M829E3)

"M829E3
The M829E3 is the Army's next generation 120mm Armor-piercing Tank
round. It replaces the M829A1 and the M829A2 projectiles. These rounds
are widely regarded as the most effective tank-fired anti-armor
weapons in the world. The E3 round will provide the army greater armor
penetration capability than its two predecessors and also with
improved accuracy. The M829E3 120mm Cartridge is an Armor piercing Fin
Stabilized Discarding Sabot - Tracer. This Advanced Kinetic Energy
Round that defeats advanced threat armor, with improved accuracy at
greater range. This new 120mm KE round for the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams
fleet features a combustible cartridge, overall length is less than
986mm, Depleted Uranium Penetrator. Weight is less than 56 Lbs. and it
uses RPD 380 propellant. The System Contractor is Alliant Techsystem,
Inc. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m829a1.htm

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:09:06 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> >> >
> >> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> >> years running.
> >> >
> >> > Rob :)
> >>
> >> A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
> >> latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
> >> consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
> >> help hill climbing.
> >>
> >> What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
> >> all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
> >> ones.
> >>
> >> The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
> >> heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.
> >
> >You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?
>
>
> He's talking out of his ass. "Trading mobility. . ."? Maybe they
> can't be towed by a heard of donkeys in a bind but under it's own
> power it'll out drive the typical Russian POS any day of the week.

Maybe what he means by 'mobility' is it's airlift/sealift potential.

The Abrams is a bitch to get in-theatre (but great once it gets there),
though I think that speaks more to our lack of heavy airlift capability (or
high speed sealift), rather than to the need for lighter tanks.

One of the major arguments for 'transformation' to the lighter FCS forces is
that they will be able to deploy much faster than our current heavy armor. I
have to say that I am *highly* suspicious of trading our battle-proven heavy
armor for a set of 25-ton vehicles that admittedly will not be anywhere near
as survivable in direct combat as the M1, but will depend entirely on
high-technology and advanced tactics for survivability. I don't care how
high-tech they are; computers crash, networks go down, and tactics can be
easily flawed or otherwise screwed up in any number of ways. We should
always maintain a dominant, overmatching force to fall back on.

The eagerness to rid our ground forces of this heavy armor is very
disconcerting to me. We should be developing a heavy follow-on to the M1 to
operate within the FCS. Perhaps it won't need to be produced in the same
numbers as the M1, but we should *always* maintain a heavy armor capability,
period. If deployment speed is such a concern (which it is), we should
absolutely develop more advanced heavy airlift and high-speed sealift as
well, so these heavy units can be deployed as quickly as the rest of the FCS
forces; there are several on the drawing boards.


>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.
> >
> >And the NATO tanks actually tend to win every time they engage Russian
> >equipment, which while lighter (or maybe because of that) *does* exhibit
the
> >ability to apparently acheive near low-earth-orbit with their turrets
when
> >struck by western munitions...but I am not sure that is much to brag
about.
> >
> >>
> >> 2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
> >> Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
> >> the number of 'eyes')
> >
> >What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as
did
> >the earlier M60 series vehicles. You have to go a LONG way back in
history
> >to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
> >dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to
"load"
> >the gunner into the breach... :-)
> >
> >>
> >> 3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
> >> designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
> >> turret showing thus the greater depression.
> >
> >Behind "parapets"?! You have any idea what a sabot round does when it
> >encounters an earthen "parapet"? It goes right through it, and then
through
> >the tank behind it. What you are searching for here is the
> >hull-down/turret-down defilade position--not a "parapet" (which we used
to
> >refer to as "MILES piles", becuase the only thing they would defeat was
the
> >laser enagement training system, not real warrounds).
> >
> >>
> >> 4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
> >> need less Armor.
> >
> >They seem to make plenty-big targets, as evidenced by their performance
> >against western tanks in various Middle Eastern engagements.
> >
> >>
> >> Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
> >> style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.
> >
> >Or we could just proceed with FCS...
> >
> >>
> >> They need Russian style tanks.
>
>
> Yeah the side that wins tank engagements 99.999% of the time needs to
> trade it's tanks for the losings side's model. I think you need to
> change your handle because "enlightened" you ain't.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > writes:
>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:09:06 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> >> om...
>> >> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
>> >> years running.
>> >> >
>> >> > Rob :)
>> >>
>> >> A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
>> >> latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
>> >> consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
>> >> help hill climbing.
>> >>
>> >> What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
>> >> all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
>> >> ones.
>> >>
>> >> The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
>> >> heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.
>> >
>> >You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?
>>
>>
>> He's talking out of his ass. "Trading mobility. . ."? Maybe they
>> can't be towed by a heard of donkeys in a bind but under it's own
>> power it'll out drive the typical Russian POS any day of the week.
>
> Maybe what he means by 'mobility' is it's airlift/sealift potential.
>
> The Abrams is a bitch to get in-theatre (but great once it gets there),
> though I think that speaks more to our lack of heavy airlift capability (or
> high speed sealift), rather than to the need for lighter tanks.

All tqnks are a bitch to get in-theater. The idea of airlifting tanks
as anything other than a show performance, or under some _very_
strange conditions is absurd. Think about it logically.
What would be a better use for 75 C-5s. Airlifting in an M-1 each,
without any supporting arms, without ammunition, without spares, or an
Intel net, or a Comm net, or airlifting umpty-poo Infantry types with
their own mobility, their own bullets and beans (And, if they need
more mobility, they can use local resources - trucks are everywhere.)
ANd the commo net and eyes to allow them to call down fire on whoever
needs it? Or, for that matter, a Red Horse team to turn whatever
airport they're stopping at into a forward airbase so that the
loiter time for the airplanes providing the support is as short as
possible?

Sure, it would be great to airlift an Armored Brigade somewhere, but
there just isn't ever going to be enough heavy airlift to even
consider it. (Or for that matter, enough ramp space available to put
the force in the ground in anything but a thin trickle.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[The Enlightenment]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> > >
> > > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> years running.
> > >
> > > Rob :)
> >
> > A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
> > latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
> > consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
> > help hill climbing.
> >
> > What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
> > all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
> > ones.
> >
> > The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
> > heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.
>
> You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?

Sure, in certain conditions of flat and solid ground it is not at a
big disadvantage.

However it will have problems in
1 Mud/Quagmire
2 Crossing bridges
3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
tanks.


>
> >
> > 1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.
>
> And the NATO tanks actually tend to win every time they engage Russian
> equipment, which while lighter (or maybe because of that) *does* exhibit the
> ability to apparently acheive near low-earth-orbit with their turrets when
> struck by western munitions...but I am not sure that is much to brag about.

That has everyting to do with the fact that frontline american tanks
are engaging second rate export version of the old soviet blok tanks
firing inferior munitions.

The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
Russian style tank



>
> >
> > 2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
> > Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
> > the number of 'eyes')
>
> What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as did
> the earlier M60 series vehicles. You have to go a LONG way back in history
> to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
> dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to "load"
> the gunner into the breach... :-)

The auto loaders have been improved an can functiopn without returning
to the zero elevation position. either way the safet deficiency was
more a matter of Indifference to guarding and interlocking the loader.


>
> >
> > 3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
> > designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
> > turret showing thus the greater depression.
>
> Behind "parapets"?! You have any idea what a sabot round does when it
> encounters an earthen "parapet"? It goes right through it, and then through
> the tank behind it. What you are searching for here is the
> hull-down/turret-down defilade position--not a "parapet" (which we used to
> refer to as "MILES piles", becuase the only thing they would defeat was the
> laser enagement training system, not real warrounds).


Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
positioning tactic.

>
> >
> > 4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
> > need less Armor.
>
> They seem to make plenty-big targets, as evidenced by their performance
> against western tanks in various Middle Eastern engagements.

Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.

>
> >
> > Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
> > style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.
>
> Or we could just proceed with FCS...
>
> >
> > They need Russian style tanks.
>
> That is the absolute *last* model I'd use. We want systems that can not only
> be delivered to the TO, but can *win* when they get there--Russian systems
> seem to be a bit lacking in that last requirement.

I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
Fire Control and Multilayer armour.


>
> Brooks
> >
> >

[Yeff]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:09:06 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:

> What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as did
> the earlier M60 series vehicles.

It's been a long time since I last read "King of the Killing Field", but
didn't the Army specifically *want* four crew members? Something about two
of them being able to repair a track while one other was dismounted as a
guard while the other stayed with the tank to man the radios and a machine
gun?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[The Enlightenment]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message >...
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:09:06 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > >> om...
> > >> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> > >> >
> > >> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> years running.
> > >> >
> > >> > Rob :)
> > >>
> > >> A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
> > >> latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
> > >> consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
> > >> help hill climbing.
> > >>
> > >> What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
> > >> all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
> > >> ones.
> > >>
> > >> The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
> > >> heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.
> > >
> > >You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?
> >
> >
> > He's talking out of his ass. "Trading mobility. . ."? Maybe they
> > can't be towed by a heard of donkeys in a bind but under it's own
> > power it'll out drive the typical Russian POS any day of the week.
>
> Maybe what he means by 'mobility' is it's airlift/sealift potential.

Quite, An Abrams is useless if it isn't there or is there is to small
a number or is consuming so much fuel and logistical resources you
can;t keep your forces supplied.

Weight will also effect cross country abiltiy and bridge crossing
abillity.


SNIP
> One of the major arguments for 'transformation' to the lighter FCS forces is
> that they will be able to deploy much faster than our current heavy armor. I
> have to say that I am *highly* suspicious of trading our battle-proven heavy
> armor for a set of 25-ton vehicles that admittedly will not be anywhere near
> as survivable in direct combat as the M1, but will depend entirely on
> high-technology and advanced tactics for survivability.

A Russian style tanks gets its ligher weight by being smaller. I
believe armour thickness should be about the same.

The light weight armour the US is trying to develop is I believe much
lighter again. I think a Russian style tank makes more sense since
these are more mobile than the defensive style NATO tanks.

It seems to me that the ultra light weiigh armour the US is working on
will be effective against HEAT style rounds but not so effectice
against kinetic rounds. I would expect US forces would have such air
superiority that en****ering an enemy MBT would be a rare event.




> I don't care how
> high-tech they are; computers crash, networks go down, and tactics can be
> easily flawed or otherwise screwed up in any number of ways. We should
> always maintain a dominant, overmatching force to fall back on.
>
> The eagerness to rid our ground forces of this heavy armor is very
> disconcerting to me. We should be developing a heavy follow-on to the M1 to
> operate within the FCS. Perhaps it won't need to be produced in the same
> numbers as the M1, but we should *always* maintain a heavy armor capability,
> period. If deployment speed is such a concern (which it is), we should
> absolutely develop more advanced heavy airlift and high-speed sealift as
> well, so these heavy units can be deployed as quickly as the rest of the FCS
> forces; there are several on the drawing boards.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.
> > >
> > >And the NATO tanks actually tend to win every time they engage Russian
> > >equipment, which while lighter (or maybe because of that) *does* exhibit
> the
> > >ability to apparently acheive near low-earth-orbit with their turrets
> when
> > >struck by western munitions...but I am not sure that is much to brag
> about.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
> > >> Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
> > >> the number of 'eyes')
> > >
> > >What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as
> did
> > >the earlier M60 series vehicles. You have to go a LONG way back in
> history
> > >to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
> > >dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to
> "load"
> > >the gunner into the breach... :-)
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
> > >> designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
> > >> turret showing thus the greater depression.
> > >
> > >Behind "parapets"?! You have any idea what a sabot round does when it
> > >encounters an earthen "parapet"? It goes right through it, and then
> through
> > >the tank behind it. What you are searching for here is the
> > >hull-down/turret-down defilade position--not a "parapet" (which we used
> to
> > >refer to as "MILES piles", becuase the only thing they would defeat was
> the
> > >laser enagement training system, not real warrounds).
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
> > >> need less Armor.
> > >
> > >They seem to make plenty-big targets, as evidenced by their performance
> > >against western tanks in various Middle Eastern engagements.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
> > >> style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.
> > >
> > >Or we could just proceed with FCS...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> They need Russian style tanks.
> >
> >
> > Yeah the side that wins tank engagements 99.999% of the time needs to
> > trade it's tanks for the losings side's model. I think you need to
> > change your handle because "enlightened" you ain't.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, The
Enlightenment > writes
>3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
>tanks.

How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
immobile pillbox two days later.

>The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
>Russian style tank

Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.

>Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
>positioning tactic.

And a bloody useful one.

>Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
>control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.

So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
to use Western professionals...

(always the problem when you try to base your solution around technology
rather than people)

>I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
>Fire Control and Multilayer armour.

Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
key factors for how the West fights.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> > > >
> > > > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> > years running.
> > > >
> > > > Rob :)
> > >
> > > A fine weapon, though there is not much gap between the M1A2 and the
> > > latter Leopards. I believe the hyperbaric diesel of the Leopard
> > > consumes 3/4 less fuel though the smoother power of the AGT 1500 might
> > > help hill climbing.
> > >
> > > What the Americans need, now that they are likely to invade countries
> > > all over the world, is not American or German style tanks but Russian
> > > ones.
> > >
> > > The US German and other NATO MBTs are essentially defensive tanks;
> > > heavily armored they trade mobility for the following.
> >
> > You have never seen an M1 move across the countryside, eh?
>
> Sure, in certain conditions of flat and solid ground it is not at a
> big disadvantage.

LOL! You need to visit NTC--it ain't all flat, and it ain't all "solid". Of
course, neither was the countryside that the US moved through not once, but
twice against Mr. Hussein's forces. Where did you get this strange idea that
the M1 can only operate effectively in flat/open/solid terrain?

>
> However it will have problems in
> 1 Mud/Quagmire

Most tanks do. That said, the M1's handled the Iraqi desert, with its salt
ponds in some areas, quite well.

> 2 Crossing bridges

Which is why our bridges have to have, generally, a Class 70T/105W rating.
Which they do. It would be nice to have even better tactical bridge systems
available, but other than HDSB, we seem to be saddled with what we now have,
which is sufficient to handle the M1. Remember, your bridges have to be able
to handle the maximum load vehicle, and newsflash--the M1A1 ain't it.
Probably the worst would be a HET with a M1A1, but that is not a required
laod capability for tactical bridges; their worst would more likely be heavy
tractor/trailer combo (point loads generally being worse than the spread
loads of the tracked vehicles, not to mention less forgiving of approach
conditions).

> 3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
> tanks.

Which are of little value if they quickly die when you get them there, as
russian equipment has been proven to do. If the need is for heavy armor, go
with the best, which would be something in the M1A2/Challenger class. If you
are going somewhere where you don't absolutely have to have "the best", and
air transportability rules, go with the LAV or Stryker.

> >
> > >
> > > 1 NATO tanks are around 55-60 tons while Russian tanks are 42-45 tons.
> >
> > And the NATO tanks actually tend to win every time they engage Russian
> > equipment, which while lighter (or maybe because of that) *does* exhibit
the
> > ability to apparently acheive near low-earth-orbit with their turrets
when
> > struck by western munitions...but I am not sure that is much to brag
about.
>
> That has everyting to do with the fact that frontline american tanks
> are engaging second rate export version of the old soviet blok tanks
> firing inferior munitions.

Balderdash. That has to do with the western systems being plain ol' superior
products. The Russians cut a few corners in building the T-54 through T-72
classes, and their performance in combat has *always* been substandard
compared to western systems, from the M48A5 and Centurion forward. Less
capable fire control and target detection equipment (that means less weight,
doncha know?), inefficient autoloaders in later models, poor design of the
turret ring area (*pop* goes the weasel!), etc., ad nauseum.

>
> The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
> Russian style tank

And weighs more, not to mention the fact that the statement is not quite
true--if it were, all of those nations looking at the time consuming and
costly retrofit of western subsystems to their old Soviet era tanks 9and in
some cases post-Soviet tanks) would snap their fingers and it would be done.
There is not a lot of spare *space* inside those wonderfully smaller Russian
tanks of your's, right?

> >
> > >
> > > 2 NATO tanks have typically 5 crew while Russian tanks use an Auto
> > > Loader to reduce crew to 3 (this reduces the rate of fire and reduces
> > > the number of 'eyes')
> >
> > What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as
did
> > the earlier M60 series vehicles. You have to go a LONG way back in
history
> > to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a
rather
> > dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to
"load"
> > the gunner into the breach... :-)
>
> The auto loaders have been improved an can functiopn without returning
> to the zero elevation position. either way the safet deficiency was
> more a matter of Indifference to guarding and interlocking the loader.

Again, what western tanks have five man crews? Any? Come on, you rolled out
your tongue--now either retract it, or let it get walked on, with
golfspikes.

And the autoloaders still suck, the last I read--which is maybe why none of
the western (or far eastern) designs have adopted such a system.

> >
> > >
> > > 3 NATO tanks are taller and can depress their guns further; they were
> > > designed for defensive operations behind parapets with only their
> > > turret showing thus the greater depression.
> >
> > Behind "parapets"?! You have any idea what a sabot round does when it
> > encounters an earthen "parapet"? It goes right through it, and then
through
> > the tank behind it. What you are searching for here is the
> > hull-down/turret-down defilade position--not a "parapet" (which we used
to
> > refer to as "MILES piles", becuase the only thing they would defeat was
the
> > laser enagement training system, not real warrounds).
>
>
> Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
> positioning tactic.

"I have no earthly idea what i am talking about, but I am right anyway..."?
If the height of a tank was so important to us USians, why did we spend so
much time digging *turret* (not just hull) defilade positions for them at
NTC? Yes, ours are taller--and more roomy inside, making for greater crew
comfort, and in the long run improved crew performance. How many glowing
reports of crew comfort have you seen regarding russian tank designs?

> > >
> > > 4 Russian tanks are smaller targets. Because the are smaller they
> > > need less Armor.
> >
> > They seem to make plenty-big targets, as evidenced by their performance
> > against western tanks in various Middle Eastern engagements.
>
> Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
> control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.

That is like sayin, "Hey, if they were the same as western tank designs,
they'd do better!" Duh.

> > >
> > > Given the US's need to operate offensive wars they need offensive
> > > style tanks that are lighter, more mobile and require less fuel.
> >
> > Or we could just proceed with FCS...
> >
> > >
> > > They need Russian style tanks.
> >
> > That is the absolute *last* model I'd use. We want systems that can not
only
> > be delivered to the TO, but can *win* when they get there--Russian
systems
> > seem to be a bit lacking in that last requirement.
>
> I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
> Fire Control and Multilayer armour.

So you want to take a lightweight, small vehicle, cram a bit more in the
line of subsystems into it, increase the armor effectiveness, change it to a
new gun (and ammo, meaning you'd have to rework the ammo storage system),
etc.? Yeah, riiight...Thank goodness you are NOT involved in the procurement
process for US armored systems--the tankers would likely string you up.

Brooks

>
>
> >
> > Brooks
> > >
> > >

[B2431]

>From: (The Enlightenment)

>
>Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
>positioning tactic.

Really? We were taught in tank school it was to shoot down at bad guys when we
were higher then them.

Now, if it were superior elevation you might have a point.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Eunometic]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
> > >
> > > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
> years
> running.
> > >
> > > Rob :)
> >
> > Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
> > experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then,
> preaching
> > its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> What is this fascination (obsession?) with tanks in a newsgroup labeled
> rec.aviation.military?

Two words:
airlift logistics.


>
> Tex

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 10:13:24 -0600, "Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
>> >
>> > Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
>years
>> running.
>> >
>> > Rob :)
>>
>> Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
>> experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then,
>preaching
>> its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>What is this fascination (obsession?) with tanks in a newsgroup labeled
>rec.aviation.military?
>
>Tex
>
It is our little nazi Rob ranting about aryan (read German) superiority in all
fields, with the rest of the world just tagging along.

Al Minyard

[robert arndt]

> >You Abrams fanboys really need to look beyond 30yr old obsolete Iraqi junk
> >that hasn't been serviced since 1991 for your comparisons.

True. It would be amazing to see a Leopard 2A6 face off against the
current M-1A2 upgrade. Of course the new German L55 main gun with DM
53 ammo would pick it right off IMO. The Germans have a range of
studies and prototypes being tested for their future MBT. Among those
are the DB wheeled 8x8 50 ton tank, the EGS demonstrator built with
Merkava-type architecture but more advanced German techology (stealth,
EM armor, anti-helo/aircraft missiles, mine detection and destruction
equipment, protection from top-attack missiles, engine up front with
the exhaust cold-filtered below the vehicle, and reduced crew to 3 men
and probably the 140mm main gun tested on the Leopard 2), the RakJpz
Panther crane-tank, and small purely autonomous killing robotic AFVs.
>
> And you might look to what is actually IN service for your
> comparisons. Face it. Russian tanks are junk.

Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
crew of 3, autoloader. Check out their T-80UM-2, Ukrainian T-84
upgrades, T-95, and Black Eagle. They definately have the technology
but lack funding. Besides, try fighting Russia on their territory with
the M-1. I don't care if the people had Molotov cocktails alone- they
would beat US the same way they beat Germany. An elephant can kill
thousands of tiny ants with its bulk but eventually the ants will
swarm over the elephant and strip it alive. So far the M-1 is good at
attacking puny Third World nations with rusting import FSU MBT's
manned by conscript soldiers that live like animals. Some
comparison...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The same report that got this thread started had the T-80 and T-90 as
> WAY down the list. IIRC it went something like
>
> Leopard II A6
> M1A2
> Merkava IV
> Challanger II
> South Korean Type 88 K1A1 "mini M-1"
> Japanese Type 90
>
> *then* the two Russian (or Russian/Ukraine) tanks. Come to think of
> it, even the LeClerc might be ahead of them.
>
>
> (BTW is someone has a link to that report I'd appreciate it. I can't
> seem to find it)

No, the order was:

Leopard 2A6EX
M1A2
Type 90
Merkava 4
Challenger 2
LeClerc

From Forecast Internation report 2002/3.

Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

On 3 May 2004 13:17:46 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> >You Abrams fanboys really need to look beyond 30yr old obsolete Iraqi junk
>> >that hasn't been serviced since 1991 for your comparisons.
>
>True. It would be amazing to see a Leopard 2A6 face off against the
>current M-1A2 upgrade. Of course the new German L55 main gun with DM
>53 ammo would pick it right off IMO.

Of course, you'd be wrong. The M-1 doesn't need the longer gun
because it's got much better ammo available to it than the DM53
(M829E3) not to much the much better armor of the M-1A2.


>> And you might look to what is actually IN service for your
>> comparisons. Face it. Russian tanks are junk.
>
>Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
>MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
>equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
>anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
>gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
>crew of 3, autoloader. Check out their T-80UM-2, Ukrainian T-84
>upgrades, T-95, and Black Eagle.


Whoopie. Which part of "working on" equates to "in service"? The US
is working on EM guns, laser self-defenses etc. And those tanks you
mention are the ones that suck according to the paper that ranked the
Leopard II A6 number 1. Black Eagle and T-84 were specifically
mentioned.



>They definately have the technology
>but lack funding. Besides, try fighting Russia on their territory with
>the M-1. I don't care if the people had Molotov cocktails alone- they
>would beat US the same way they beat Germany.

Well, you keep living in your fantasy world.




> An elephant can kill
>thousands of tiny ants with its bulk but eventually the ants will
>swarm over the elephant and strip it alive.


Fortunately we're not talking about elephants and ants but tanks.



> So far the M-1 is good at
>attacking puny Third World nations with rusting import FSU MBT's
>manned by conscript soldiers that live like animals. Some
>comparison...

Some comparison. . . .?? And??


>> The same report that got this thread started had the T-80 and T-90 as
>> WAY down the list. IIRC it went something like
>>
>> Leopard II A6
>> M1A2
>> Merkava IV
>> Challanger II
>> South Korean Type 88 K1A1 "mini M-1"
>> Japanese Type 90
>>
>> *then* the two Russian (or Russian/Ukraine) tanks. Come to think of
>> it, even the LeClerc might be ahead of them.
>>
>>
>> (BTW is someone has a link to that report I'd appreciate it. I can't
>> seem to find it)
>
>No, the order was:
>
>Leopard 2A6EX
>M1A2
>Type 90
>Merkava 4
>Challenger 2
>LeClerc
>
>From Forecast Internation report 2002/3.
>
>Rob


So where do your vaunted Russian tanks fall? That Type 90 they're
talking about is the JAPANESE tank. I'm willing to be proved wrong
though. Just send me the link to that report if you would.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>

>> And you might look to what is actually IN service for your
>> comparisons. Face it. Russian tanks are junk.
>
>Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
>MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
>equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
>anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
>gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
>crew of 3, autoloader.

No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?

Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That was
"active" (correct term reactive) armour. M-1 series' armour is better. If the
former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue losing
gunners from associated injury that's their business.

As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in action
against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
aircraft etc.

Tell you what, join your Army, observe with your mouth shut and learn. I have
worked with the German military. You will be treated fairly amd learn a lot if
you are willing to be a team player.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (robert arndt)
>
> <snip>
>
> >> And you might look to what is actually IN service for your
> >> comparisons. Face it. Russian tanks are junk.
> >
> >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
> >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
> >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
> >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
> >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
> >crew of 3, autoloader.
>
> No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
>
> Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That was
> "active" (correct term reactive) armour. M-1 series' armour is better. If
the
> former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue losing
> gunners from associated injury that's their business.
>
> As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in
action
> against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
> aircraft etc.

Not to mention that the US tried the 152mm combined gun/missile launcher a
few 8decades* ago, in the M60A2 and M551, and never did find it to be a very
valuable or reliable combination. It is surprising that Arndt has not tried
to claim that the Germans actually pioneered that effort, maybe in
conjunction with his ridiculous "flying disk" tales...

Brooks

>
> Tell you what, join your Army, observe with your mouth shut and learn. I
have
> worked with the German military. You will be treated fairly amd learn a
lot if
> you are willing to be a team player.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> And you might look to what is actually IN service for your
>> >> comparisons. Face it. Russian tanks are junk.
>> >
>> >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
>> >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
>> >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
>> >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
>> >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
>> >crew of 3, autoloader.
>>
>> No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
>>
>> Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That was
>> "active" (correct term reactive) armour. M-1 series' armour is better. If
>the
>> former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue losing
>> gunners from associated injury that's their business.
>>
>> As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in
>action
>> against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
>> aircraft etc.
>
>Not to mention that the US tried the 152mm combined gun/missile launcher a
>few 8decades* ago, in the M60A2 and M551, and never did find it to be a very
>valuable or reliable combination. It is surprising that Arndt has not tried
>to claim that the Germans actually pioneered that effort, maybe in
>conjunction with his ridiculous "flying disk" tales...
>
>Brooks



Give him time, he will tell us of an improved nebelwerfer or some such.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


>> Tell you what, join your Army, observe with your mouth shut and learn. I
>have
>> worked with the German military. You will be treated fairly amd learn a
>lot if
>> you are willing to be a team player.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[robert arndt]

> >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
> >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
> >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
> >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
> >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
> >crew of 3, autoloader.
>
> No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?

Not at all, but what was said in the earlier post is an outright lie.
Check out Concord's book #7503 "Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank". In
it is:

T-80 BV/U/UK/UE/UM-1/UM-2
T-84 Supertank/T-84U
Ciorny Oryol (BLACK EAGLE)
2S19 MSTA-S
BREM-80U
>
> Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That was
> "active" (correct term reactive) armour.

Moron, the updated T-80U series has Arena defense that throws active
explosive panels into the path of incoming missiles. The Drozd version
also has 8 anti-missile launchers, dazzlers, active armor, Arena
defense, and Kontakt-5 armor comparable to the Leo 2 and M-1A2. The
turret is especially protected against top-attack missiles.

M-1 series' armour is better.

Says you.

If the
> former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue losing
> gunners from associated injury that's their business.

The Japanese Type 90 and LeClerc use autoloaders and are ranked #3 and
#5 respectively. No complaints there.
>
> As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in action
> against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
> aircraft etc.

Brilliant explanation except that most future MBTs will have those
systems as standard features. Most deadly thing on the battlefield to
an MBT isn't another tank but aircraft and helos when out in the open.
In street fighting its ATGWs and hidden mines. Tanks need protection
from all of these now... as well the future threats of loitering
UCAVs, hunter-killer autonomous robot AFVs, KKVs (aka
Swarmers),kamikaze top-attack missiles,etc...
>

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
> > >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
> > >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
> > >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
> > >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
> > >crew of 3, autoloader.
> >
> > No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
>
> Not at all, but what was said in the earlier post is an outright lie.
> Check out Concord's book #7503 "Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank". In
> it is:
>
> T-80 BV/U/UK/UE/UM-1/UM-2
> T-84 Supertank/T-84U
> Ciorny Oryol (BLACK EAGLE)
> 2S19 MSTA-S
> BREM-80U
> >
> > Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That
was
> > "active" (correct term reactive) armour.
>
> Moron, the updated T-80U series has Arena defense that throws active
> explosive panels into the path of incoming missiles.

And is yet unproven, not to mention the fact it is dependent upon a radar
mounted on the turret top--can you say, "Here I am boys, come and hit me!"?
Somehow I dont think an omnidirectional radar transmitter is going to be
*the* thing that everyone is going to be clamoring to put on their MBT's
(and how many nations have bought this wonder weapon of your's???). Anywho,
as one source puts it, "The status of the Arena E system is unclear,
although the system was seen in public since the mid 1990s, it is believed
that funding problems delayed final development and deployment of the
system." (www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm ) More vaporware
from Arndt?

The Drozd version
> also has 8 anti-missile launchers, dazzlers, active armor, Arena
> defense, and Kontakt-5 armor comparable to the Leo 2 and M-1A2. The
> turret is especially protected against top-attack missiles.

And how many of these wonder systems are actually in service? Plus, Arena
alone would (if it *really* existed)add another 1.3 tons to the vehicle
weight...

>
> M-1 series' armour is better.
>
> Says you.

Can you refute that claim? What other tank has a combination of composite
armor including DU?

>
> If the
> > former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue
losing
> > gunners from associated injury that's their business.
>
> The Japanese Type 90 and LeClerc use autoloaders and are ranked #3 and
> #5 respectively. No complaints there.

Yet. And note that they are not the trashy Russian autoloader--unless there
have been a string of Japanese and French gunners being inserted against
their will into cannon breaches with little publicity.

> >
> > As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in
action
> > against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
> > aircraft etc.
>
> Brilliant explanation except that most future MBTs will have those
> systems as standard features.

What "future" MBT's would you be talking about? ISTR you claimed the germans
were developing a new MBT--where is it? You must have missed the FACT that
most nations are leaning away from future heavy armor development in favor
of lighter systems--including your vaunted Bundeswehr.

Most deadly thing on the battlefield to
> an MBT isn't another tank but aircraft and helos when out in the open.

And when you get to the point that you have a tank that can protect itself
against the threat of modern air delivered standoff weapons by engaging the
air threat directly, you no longer have an MBT, you have an AD vehicle. Take
a gander at what the standoff ranges are for the newest air delivered
anti-armor systems entering into use by the US are...

> In street fighting its ATGWs and hidden mines.

Nope. ATGW's are usually lower down the list in the true street fight;
engagement ranges are too short, backblast can be a real concern, etc. The
threat there is the off-route mine and the light antitank weapons.

Tanks need protection
> from all of these now... as well the future threats of loitering
> UCAVs, hunter-killer autonomous robot AFVs, KKVs (aka
> Swarmers),kamikaze top-attack missiles,etc...

Congratulations on the development of the first modern 100 ton (plus) MBT if
you think you are going to field a system that can reliable handle *every*
threat--are you having flashbacks to that *marvelous* late-WWII German
behemoth's design...?

Brooks

> >
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Rob

[robert arndt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
> > > >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
> > > >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
> > > >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
> > > >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
> > > >crew of 3, autoloader.
> > >
> > > No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
> >
> > Not at all, but what was said in the earlier post is an outright lie.
> > Check out Concord's book #7503 "Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank". In
> > it is:
> >
> > T-80 BV/U/UK/UE/UM-1/UM-2
> > T-84 Supertank/T-84U
> > Ciorny Oryol (BLACK EAGLE)
> > 2S19 MSTA-S
> > BREM-80U
> > >
> > > Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That
> was
> > > "active" (correct term reactive) armour.
> >
> > Moron, the updated T-80U series has Arena defense that throws active
> > explosive panels into the path of incoming missiles.
>
> And is yet unproven, not to mention the fact it is dependent upon a radar
> mounted on the turret top--can you say, "Here I am boys, come and hit me!"?
> Somehow I dont think an omnidirectional radar transmitter is going to be
> *the* thing that everyone is going to be clamoring to put on their MBT's
> (and how many nations have bought this wonder weapon of your's???). Anywho,
> as one source puts it, "The status of the Arena E system is unclear,
> although the system was seen in public since the mid 1990s, it is believed
> that funding problems delayed final development and deployment of the
> system." (www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm ) More vaporware
> from Arndt?

Brooks you are really clueless. Russia lacks funding. No funding=
little R&D plus no operational hardware. Many of the FSU's best
weapons were being developed to compete with the West at the time
Communism was falling. Since their defense programs were so huge just
about everything was affected by the fall. Still, Russia continues to
develop more sophisticated and better weapon systems in small numbers.
And as far as the original argument goes the Russian MBTs still are in
the Top 10 ranked by Forecast Int. and Jane's which are WORLD
AUTHORITIES on armaments... unlike you who just likes to attack
foreign equipement.
>
> The Drozd version
> > also has 8 anti-missile launchers, dazzlers, active armor, Arena
> > defense, and Kontakt-5 armor comparable to the Leo 2 and M-1A2. The
> > turret is especially protected against top-attack missiles.
>
> And how many of these wonder systems are actually in service? Plus, Arena
> alone would (if it *really* existed)add another 1.3 tons to the vehicle
> weight...
>
> >
> > M-1 series' armour is better.
> >
> > Says you.
>
> Can you refute that claim? What other tank has a combination of composite
> armor including DU?

The Leopard 2A6 has laminate, spaced, and modular armor fitted- quite
comparable to the M-1 which BTW was penetrated from the rear 4 times
in OIF.
>
> >
> > If the
> > > former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue
> losing
> > > gunners from associated injury that's their business.
> >
> > The Japanese Type 90 and LeClerc use autoloaders and are ranked #3 and
> > #5 respectively. No complaints there.
>
> Yet. And note that they are not the trashy Russian autoloader--unless there
> have been a string of Japanese and French gunners being inserted against
> their will into cannon breaches with little publicity.

Another idiotic response since an autoloader speeds up the process and
saves another crewman's life by replacing him. Tanks DON'T need 4 crew
anymore. Future designs could run with 2 if they had to.
>
> > >
> > > As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in
> action
> > > against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
> > > aircraft etc.
> >
> > Brilliant explanation except that most future MBTs will have those
> > systems as standard features.
>
> What "future" MBT's would you be talking about? ISTR you claimed the germans
> were developing a new MBT--where is it? You must have missed the FACT that
> most nations are leaning away from future heavy armor development in favor
> of lighter systems--including your vaunted Bundeswehr.

The Bundeswehr has FOUR prototypes of different concepts with even
more concepts being evaluated that haven't made it to prototype
status. Most agree the German future MBT will be based on the EGS
demonstrator or 140mm version of the Leopard 2.
>
> Most deadly thing on the battlefield to
> > an MBT isn't another tank but aircraft and helos when out in the open.
>
> And when you get to the point that you have a tank that can protect itself
> against the threat of modern air delivered standoff weapons by engaging the
> air threat directly, you no longer have an MBT, you have an AD vehicle. Take
> a gander at what the standoff ranges are for the newest air delivered
> anti-armor systems entering into use by the US are...

How do you arrive at this conclusion since the MBT will still have a
main gun as primary weapon. Anti-helo and aircraft weapons are bolt-on
defensive systems.
>
> > In street fighting its ATGWs and hidden mines.
>
> Nope. ATGW's are usually lower down the list in the true street fight;
> engagement ranges are too short, backblast can be a real concern, etc. The
> threat there is the off-route mine and the light antitank weapons.
>
> Tanks need protection
> > from all of these now... as well the future threats of loitering
> > UCAVs, hunter-killer autonomous robot AFVs, KKVs (aka
> > Swarmers),kamikaze top-attack missiles,etc...
>
> Congratulations on the development of the first modern 100 ton (plus) MBT if
> you think you are going to field a system that can reliable handle *every*
> threat--are you having flashbacks to that *marvelous* late-WWII German
> behemoth's design...?

First of all the current Leopard 2s and M-1s when fully loaded exceed
63 tons- that's the size of a WW2 Tiger I and close to a Tiger II.
BTW, if you knew MBT history you would know that the majority of King
Tigers were abandoned by their crews when fuel and ammo ran out. When
engaged they were virtually impervious to all Allied tanks except the
Russian JS-2 and T-34/85 at extremely close ran and usually from the
rear where the armor was weak. When not engaged by other tanks the
King Tigers that actually are shown in photos with severe damage were
hit by rocket-firing Typhoons and 500 lb bombs! NO KING TIGER WAS EVER
PENETRATED BY ANOTHER TANK FROM THE FRONTAL ASPECT- FACT! The post-WW2
Russian photos at their testing grounds showed they had to use
extremely large caliber guns at point-black range to achieve any
piercing at all. But not one shot from the war ever did. All the
Tigers needed was a 1000 hp engine and a new transmission. They WERE
marvelous tanks considering their small numbers destroying huge
amounts of enemy armor while under constant threat of air attack.

>
> Brooks


Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
> > > > >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no
Western
> > > > >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
> > > > >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs,
higher-hp
> > > > >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50
tons,
> > > > >crew of 3, autoloader.
> > > >
> > > > No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
> > >
> > > Not at all, but what was said in the earlier post is an outright lie.
> > > Check out Concord's book #7503 "Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank". In
> > > it is:
> > >
> > > T-80 BV/U/UK/UE/UM-1/UM-2
> > > T-84 Supertank/T-84U
> > > Ciorny Oryol (BLACK EAGLE)
> > > 2S19 MSTA-S
> > > BREM-80U
> > > >
> > > > Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s.
That
> > was
> > > > "active" (correct term reactive) armour.
> > >
> > > Moron, the updated T-80U series has Arena defense that throws active
> > > explosive panels into the path of incoming missiles.
> >
> > And is yet unproven, not to mention the fact it is dependent upon a
radar
> > mounted on the turret top--can you say, "Here I am boys, come and hit
me!"?
> > Somehow I dont think an omnidirectional radar transmitter is going to be
> > *the* thing that everyone is going to be clamoring to put on their MBT's
> > (and how many nations have bought this wonder weapon of your's???).
Anywho,
> > as one source puts it, "The status of the Arena E system is unclear,
> > although the system was seen in public since the mid 1990s, it is
believed
> > that funding problems delayed final development and deployment of the
> > system." (www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm ) More vaporware
> > from Arndt?
>
> Brooks you are really clueless.

No, as many others have pointed out, that would seem to be *your* bailiwick
(state of cluelessness).

> Russia lacks funding. No funding=
> little R&D plus no operational hardware.

Then stop acting as if this vaporware actually exists in the real world,
idiot. You indicated it has already been fielded on this "updated
T-80U"...which nobody seems to be abloe to verify as being true. Where are
these wonder weapons?

Many of the FSU's best
> weapons were being developed to compete with the West at the time
> Communism was falling. Since their defense programs were so huge just
> about everything was affected by the fall. Still, Russia continues to
> develop more sophisticated and better weapon systems in small numbers.
> And as far as the original argument goes the Russian MBTs still are in
> the Top 10 ranked by Forecast Int. and Jane's which are WORLD
> AUTHORITIES on armaments... unlike you who just likes to attack
> foreign equipement.

I love good foreign equipment, and have used a bit of it in the past. That
does NOT mean that the Russian armor systems are worth a crap, however, nor
does it mean that the Germans, despite their hollow claim to the contrary,
*may* (if it ever actually enters into service) someday offer the "first"
weapons capable UAV within NATO with your rather underwhelming Taifun--that
claim goes to the Predator.

> >
> > The Drozd version
> > > also has 8 anti-missile launchers, dazzlers, active armor, Arena
> > > defense, and Kontakt-5 armor comparable to the Leo 2 and M-1A2. The
> > > turret is especially protected against top-attack missiles.
> >
> > And how many of these wonder systems are actually in service? Plus,
Arena
> > alone would (if it *really* existed)add another 1.3 tons to the vehicle
> > weight...

How many again? How many tests or demonstrations have been conducted, and
were documented by who? Your silence is deafening...

> >
> > >
> > > M-1 series' armour is better.
> > >
> > > Says you.
> >
> > Can you refute that claim? What other tank has a combination of
composite
> > armor including DU?
>
> The Leopard 2A6 has laminate, spaced, and modular armor fitted- quite
> comparable to the M-1 which BTW was penetrated from the rear 4 times
> in OIF.

"Quite comparable", eh? Without using the tremendous qualities of DU? Please
show us where it has armor that is as capable or better than the M1A2, which
has the nifty laminated composites along with DU.

> >
> > >
> > > If the
> > > > former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue
> > losing
> > > > gunners from associated injury that's their business.
> > >
> > > The Japanese Type 90 and LeClerc use autoloaders and are ranked #3 and
> > > #5 respectively. No complaints there.
> >
> > Yet. And note that they are not the trashy Russian autoloader--unless
there
> > have been a string of Japanese and French gunners being inserted against
> > their will into cannon breaches with little publicity.
>
> Another idiotic response since an autoloader speeds up the process and
> saves another crewman's life by replacing him. Tanks DON'T need 4 crew
> anymore. Future designs could run with 2 if they had to.

Another idiotic response...is that the same as the trashy Soviet-designed
autoloader, or not?

> >
> > > >
> > > > As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal
with in
> > action
> > > > against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for
anti
> > > > aircraft etc.
> > >
> > > Brilliant explanation except that most future MBTs will have those
> > > systems as standard features.
> >
> > What "future" MBT's would you be talking about? ISTR you claimed the
germans
> > were developing a new MBT--where is it? You must have missed the FACT
that
> > most nations are leaning away from future heavy armor development in
favor
> > of lighter systems--including your vaunted Bundeswehr.
>
> The Bundeswehr has FOUR prototypes of different concepts with even
> more concepts being evaluated that haven't made it to prototype
> status. Most agree the German future MBT will be based on the EGS
> demonstrator or 140mm version of the Leopard 2.

"Most agree..."? Yeah, right. Odd then that the Germans seem to be sinking
their limited development money (which usually goes where one's mouth is)
into the lighter armored systems. How much have they committed to a new MBT?
Eh?

An excerpt from a recent article regarding German reorganization plans...

"The German Army will take the biggest cut in personnel. It already is
slimming down from a structure of 230,000 personnel to 132,000, but these
numbers will go down further by 2010, depending on how the new reduction of
30,000 soldiers will be distributed across all the services, Col. Carsten
John Jacobson, the German military defense attaché, told National Defense.
The heavy forces will be reduced by 45 percent. The number of Leopard main
battle tanks will go down from the current 2,500 to 852."
(www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1294)

So they are slashing their heavy forces back to under a thousand MBT's, yet
you see them embarking upon a new R&D program to develop a MBT? Up your
meds, man, your delusional tendencies are growing...


> >
> > Most deadly thing on the battlefield to
> > > an MBT isn't another tank but aircraft and helos when out in the open.
> >
> > And when you get to the point that you have a tank that can protect
itself
> > against the threat of modern air delivered standoff weapons by engaging
the
> > air threat directly, you no longer have an MBT, you have an AD vehicle.
Take
> > a gander at what the standoff ranges are for the newest air delivered
> > anti-armor systems entering into use by the US are...
>
> How do you arrive at this conclusion since the MBT will still have a
> main gun as primary weapon. Anti-helo and aircraft weapons are bolt-on
> defensive systems.

Idiot. When you have come up with a system that can defend that tank from an
air platform that can kill it from a range of 10 km or more, then you just
surpassed the mission (and likely carrying capacity) of the tank underneath
it. Care to guess what the range of JSOW is?

> >
> > > In street fighting its ATGWs and hidden mines.
> >
> > Nope. ATGW's are usually lower down the list in the true street fight;
> > engagement ranges are too short, backblast can be a real concern, etc.
The
> > threat there is the off-route mine and the light antitank weapons.

Where did you get the idea that the ATGM is the most lethal threat in the
close-in urban fight? Probably the same place you got the idea that germany
is keen to develop a new MBT... guess they'll dump a few billion Euros (out
of their already struggling R&D total authorization) into the R&D effort so
that they can procure a whopping 800 vehicles?

> >
> > Tanks need protection
> > > from all of these now... as well the future threats of loitering
> > > UCAVs, hunter-killer autonomous robot AFVs, KKVs (aka
> > > Swarmers),kamikaze top-attack missiles,etc...
> >
> > Congratulations on the development of the first modern 100 ton (plus)
MBT if
> > you think you are going to field a system that can reliable handle
*every*
> > threat--are you having flashbacks to that *marvelous* late-WWII German
> > behemoth's design...?
>
> First of all

My God, you actually *are* going to defend that misguided development effort
of your hero's (AH, right?), aren't you? Utter lunacy--both on his part, and
even more on your's.

Brooks

the current Leopard 2s and M-1s when fully loaded exceed
> 63 tons- that's the size of a WW2 Tiger I and close to a Tiger II.
> BTW, if you knew MBT history you would know that the majority of King
> Tigers were abandoned by their crews when fuel and ammo ran out. When
> engaged they were virtually impervious to all Allied tanks except the
> Russian JS-2 and T-34/85 at extremely close ran and usually from the
> rear where the armor was weak. When not engaged by other tanks the
> King Tigers that actually are shown in photos with severe damage were
> hit by rocket-firing Typhoons and 500 lb bombs! NO KING TIGER WAS EVER
> PENETRATED BY ANOTHER TANK FROM THE FRONTAL ASPECT- FACT! The post-WW2
> Russian photos at their testing grounds showed they had to use
> extremely large caliber guns at point-black range to achieve any
> piercing at all. But not one shot from the war ever did. All the
> Tigers needed was a 1000 hp engine and a new transmission. They WERE
> marvelous tanks considering their small numbers destroying huge
> amounts of enemy armor while under constant threat of air attack.
>
> >
> > Brooks
>
>
> Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 5/4/2004 4:32 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
>> >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no Western
>> >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
>> >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs, higher-hp
>> >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50 tons,
>> >crew of 3, autoloader.
>>
>> No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
>
>Not at all, but what was said in the earlier post is an outright lie.
>Check out Concord's book #7503 "Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank". In
>it is:
>
>T-80 BV/U/UK/UE/UM-1/UM-2
>T-84 Supertank/T-84U
>Ciorny Oryol (BLACK EAGLE)
>2S19 MSTA-S
>BREM-80U
>>
>> Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s. That was
>> "active" (correct term reactive) armour.
>
>Moron, the updated T-80U series has Arena defense that throws active
>explosive panels into the path of incoming missiles.

And what detects incoming? Radar, which has to be active to work. This makes
the tank more vulnerable since it is easily detected. Once the "panels" are
thrown those portions of the tank are vulnerable

The Drozd version
>also has 8 anti-missile launchers, dazzlers, active armor, Arena
>defense, and Kontakt-5 armor comparable to the Leo 2 and M-1A2. The
>turret is especially protected against top-attack missiles.

And what or who is going to operate all those systems? As an experienced TC I
can tell you it will be beyond most men's capabilities while under fire. Do you
have any idea what a TC's job is? If the system is automated what good are they
if the electronics fail? At least the main tube has optical sights as a back
up.

>
> M-1 series' armour is better.
>
>Says you.'

Prove otherwise.

>
> If the
>> former Soviet Bloc wants to continue using autoloaders and continue losing
>> gunners from associated injury that's their business.
>
>The Japanese Type 90 and LeClerc use autoloaders and are ranked #3 and
>#5 respectively. No complaints there.
>>
>> As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with in
>action
>> against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for anti
>> aircraft etc.
>
>Brilliant explanation except that most future MBTs will have those
>systems as standard features.

Says who? Is this another subject you are an expert in?

Most deadly thing on the battlefield to
>an MBT isn't another tank but aircraft and helos when out in the open.

That's what AD vehicles are for. This allows the MBT people to focus on their
jobs.

>In street fighting its ATGWs and hidden mines.

MBTs are open country animals. Since they are on the order of 85% blind they
aren't very good at street to street except as mobile artillery and even then
they have to be completely supported by infantry.

Tanks need protection
>from all of these now... as well the future threats of loitering
>UCAVs, hunter-killer autonomous robot AFVs, KKVs (aka
>Swarmers),kamikaze top-attack missiles,etc...

"Kamikaze top-attack missiles?" Hey, genius, when missiles are fired they are
on suicide missions. There already are munitions that attack from directly
above.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)


>Brooks you are really clueless. Russia lacks funding. No funding=
>little R&D plus no operational hardware.

Did it ever occur to you the West (including you Germans) aren't persuing that
stuff for a reason?

>
>The Leopard 2A6 has laminate, spaced, and modular armor fitted- quite
>comparable to the M-1 which BTW was penetrated from the rear 4 times
>in OIF.

All tanks are tender in the rear.


>Another idiotic response since an autoloader speeds up the process and
>saves another crewman's life by replacing him. Tanks DON'T need 4 crew
>anymore. Future designs could run with 2 if they had to.

Really? You'd get rid of the gunner? The driver? The TC? How long have you been
an expert on armour?

>> > > As for all those other widgets that is too much for a TC to deal with
>in
>> action
>> > > against enemy forces. That's why the U.S. has separate vehicles for
>anti
>> > > aircraft etc.
>> >
>> > Brilliant explanation except that most future MBTs will have those
>> > systems as standard features.
>>
>> What "future" MBT's would you be talking about? ISTR you claimed the
>germans
>> were developing a new MBT--where is it? You must have missed the FACT that
>> most nations are leaning away from future heavy armor development in favor
>> of lighter systems--including your vaunted Bundeswehr.
>
>The Bundeswehr has FOUR prototypes of different concepts with even
>more concepts being evaluated that haven't made it to prototype
>status. Most agree the German future MBT will be based on the EGS
>demonstrator or 140mm version of the Leopard 2.
>>

Most who agrees?




>
>First of all the current Leopard 2s and M-1s when fully loaded exceed
>63 tons- that's the size of a WW2 Tiger I and close to a Tiger II.
>BTW, if you knew MBT history you would know that the majority of King
>Tigers were abandoned by their crews when fuel and ammo ran out.

Or when they mechanically failed. Or when they got stuck because the engine was
underpowered. Or when the got stuck because the steering was so poor. Or when
they came across a river they couldn't cross because there were no bridges in
the area that could carry the 73 ton beasts. It had a nice gun, nice armour and
looked pretty. 483 were made and very few survived the war.

When
>engaged they were virtually impervious to all Allied tanks except the
>Russian JS-2 and T-34/85 at extremely close ran and usually from the
>rear where the armor was weak. When not engaged by other tanks the
>King Tigers that actually are shown in photos with severe damage were
>hit by rocket-firing Typhoons and 500 lb bombs! NO KING TIGER WAS EVER
>PENETRATED BY ANOTHER TANK FROM THE FRONTAL ASPECT- FACT!

True, but many were taken out by ass shots.

The post-WW2
>Russian photos at their testing grounds showed they had to use
>extremely large caliber guns at point-black range to achieve any
>piercing at all. But not one shot from the war ever did. All the
>Tigers needed was a 1000 hp engine and a new transmission. They WERE
>marvelous tanks considering their small numbers destroying huge
>amounts of enemy armor while under constant threat of air attack.

Better get a recount on the "huge amounts." The Pzkw 7 a major flop and a
complete waste of resources.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 15:44:08 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > > >Not so. Both the Ukraine and Russia are working on newer, deadlier
>> > > > >MBTs that have weapon systems and defensives aids that have no
>Western
>> > > > >equivalent like dazzlers, Arena defense system, active armor,
>> > > > >anti-helo missiles, 152mm main gun that can also fire ATGWs,
>higher-hp
>> > > > >gas turbines,etc... but still keeping the weight down to 45-50
>tons,
>> > > > >crew of 3, autoloader.
>> > > >
>> > > > No matter what anyone else says you are correct in all things?
>> > >
>> > > Not at all, but what was said in the earlier post is an outright lie.
>> > > Check out Concord's book #7503 "Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank". In
>> > > it is:
>> > >
>> > > T-80 BV/U/UK/UE/UM-1/UM-2
>> > > T-84 Supertank/T-84U
>> > > Ciorny Oryol (BLACK EAGLE)
>> > > 2S19 MSTA-S
>> > > BREM-80U
>> > > >
>> > > > Take a look at the big back pack looking things on late M-60A3s.
>That
>> > was
>> > > > "active" (correct term reactive) armour.
>> > >
>> > > Moron, the updated T-80U series has Arena defense that throws active
>> > > explosive panels into the path of incoming missiles.
>> >
>> > And is yet unproven, not to mention the fact it is dependent upon a
>radar
>> > mounted on the turret top--can you say, "Here I am boys, come and hit
>me!"?
>> > Somehow I dont think an omnidirectional radar transmitter is going to be
>> > *the* thing that everyone is going to be clamoring to put on their MBT's
>> > (and how many nations have bought this wonder weapon of your's???).
>Anywho,
>> > as one source puts it, "The status of the Arena E system is unclear,
>> > although the system was seen in public since the mid 1990s, it is
>believed
>> > that funding problems delayed final development and deployment of the
>> > system." (www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm ) More vaporware
>> > from Arndt?
>>
>> Brooks you are really clueless.
>
>No, as many others have pointed out, that would seem to be *your* bailiwick
>(state of cluelessness).
>
>> Russia lacks funding. No funding=
>> little R&D plus no operational hardware.
>
>Then stop acting as if this vaporware actually exists in the real world,
>idiot. You indicated it has already been fielded on this "updated
>T-80U"...which nobody seems to be abloe to verify as being true. Where are
>these wonder weapons?
>
>Many of the FSU's best
>> weapons were being developed to compete with the West at the time
>> Communism was falling. Since their defense programs were so huge just
>> about everything was affected by the fall. Still, Russia continues to
>> develop more sophisticated and better weapon systems in small numbers.
>> And as far as the original argument goes the Russian MBTs still are in
>> the Top 10 ranked by Forecast Int. and Jane's which are WORLD
>> AUTHORITIES on armaments... unlike you who just likes to attack
>> foreign equipement.
>
>I love good foreign equipment, and have used a bit of it in the past. That
>does NOT mean that the Russian armor systems are worth a crap, however, nor
>does it mean that the Germans, despite their hollow claim to the contrary,
>*may* (if it ever actually enters into service) someday offer the "first"
>weapons capable UAV within NATO with your rather underwhelming Taifun--that
>claim goes to the Predator.
>
>> >
>> > The Drozd version
>> > > also has 8 anti-missile launchers, dazzlers, active armor, Arena
>> > > defense, and Kontakt-5 armor comparable to the Leo 2 and M-1A2. The
>> > > turret is especially protected against top-attack missiles.
>> >
>> > And how many of these wonder systems are actually in service? Plus,
>Arena
>> > alone would (if it *really* existed)add another 1.3 tons to the vehicle
>> > weight...
>
>How many again? How many tests or demonstrations have been conducted, and
>were documented by who? Your silence is deafening...
>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > M-1 series' armour is better.
>> > >
>> > > Says you.
>> >
>> > Can you refute that claim? What other tank has a combination of
>composite
>> > armor including DU?
>>
>> The Leopard 2A6 has laminate, spaced, and modular armor fitted- quite
>> comparable to the M-1 which BTW was penetrated from the rear 4 times
>> in OIF.
>
>"Quite comparable", eh? Without using the tremendous qualities of DU? Please
>show us where it has armor that is as capable or better than the M1A2, which
>has the nifty laminated composites along with DU.


Even the report that started this thread said the M1A2 has better
armor. Best in the world. Any tank out there isn't going to be as
protected on the bottom and the rear as on the front and sides. I
notice he failed to point out the instances were they TRIED to destroy
an M-1 in place and ended up having to tow the thing off because they
couldn't. To my knowledge the only M-1 crewmembers ever killed while
IN the tank were those in an M-1 that hit three landmines stacked on
top of each other and even THAT was only because the blast tipped the
tank over a bridge. (I have to point out here that that's what they
*said*. The pictures I saw showed the turret laying about fity to
sixty feet away from the rest of the tank.)

[Scott Ferrin]

>When
>>engaged they were virtually impervious to all Allied tanks except the
>>Russian JS-2 and T-34/85 at extremely close ran and usually from the
>>rear where the armor was weak. When not engaged by other tanks the
>>King Tigers that actually are shown in photos with severe damage were
>>hit by rocket-firing Typhoons and 500 lb bombs! NO KING TIGER WAS EVER
>>PENETRATED BY ANOTHER TANK FROM THE FRONTAL ASPECT- FACT!


Heh, heh. And how much effect did the King Tiger have on the war? No
V-2 was intercepted either. How much effect did *it* have on the war?
The Germans should have been able to win the war with all the
technology and know-how they had. Fortunately they had a dumb**** for
a leader who made it virtually impossible for them to win. If he'd
just said "I wanna rule the world" and left his generals to it he'd
have gotten further than he did.

[Eunometic]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, The
> Enlightenment > writes
> >3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
> >tanks.
>
> How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
> are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
> Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
> immobile pillbox two days later.

Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel, less tankers,
less spare track, samller recovery vehicles.


>
> >The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
> >Russian style tank
>
> Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
> problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.

The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

The Autoloader on the T72 used a carousel of 22 rounds. To load the
breech the gun is returned to the zero elevation position and a round
ramed into the breech. Becuase the round is in the cabin penetration
of a round could cook of the amunition and kill the crew as the
Russians learn in Chechnya. The need to return the gun to zero
position also restricted rate of fire.

There are many lurid tales of the deadly loader removing legs and arms
of gunners but I find them ludicrous: there is probably no more than
100kg force on the loader. The loader probably is dangerous but I
doubt that it has so many tons of force to do that. In anycase a few
photobeams or safety light curtains in western tank could delay the
load if something like an arm obstructed the amunition load path
during the momments a load cycle was in progress.

The other problems are cramped crew compartment, a non seperate
magazine without blow of lid, low rate of fire, lower angle of
depression, less eyes on the looout in the tank, less amunition.

Armour thickness and weight are about the same and cannon power are
the same.

The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
targets.

To overcome their problems the Russians developed the T80UM2 Black
eagle.

It has a seperate amunition compartment suspended of the rear of the
turret to overcome the amunition killing the crew during 'minor'
penetrations and it has a bilenticular turret that allows much better
gun depression angles. The loader is completly different and allows
loading with without return to zero elevation and it draws its
ammunition from the magazine rather than the in turrent carousel.

>
> >Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
> >positioning tactic.
>
> And a bloody useful one.

True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
Russian/Ukranian philosophy.

>
> >Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
> >control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.
>
> So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
> of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
> to use Western professionals...

The problems can be overcome.

>
> (always the problem when you try to base your solution around technology
> rather than people)
>
> >I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
> >Fire Control and Multilayer armour.
>
> Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
> key factors for how the West fights.

The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
tanks in theater as against 3. In some cases it means having a few
tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
> > In message >, The
> > Enlightenment > writes
> > >3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
> > >tanks.
> >
> > How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
> > are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
> > Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
> > immobile pillbox two days later.
>
> Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
> crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel, less tankers,
> less spare track, samller recovery vehicles.

Let's see...75% of the weight still has to be transported, for only maybe 30
or 40 % of the capability of that western tank. Fuel? Probably not an
appreciable difference (thought the M1's do tend to be a bit more of a
guzzler) when comparing tanks-to-tanks. Spare track? How do you know there
will be a difference--and if you are still having to *fly in* your "spare
track", then something is wrong--the original track should get you through
that "early entry" phase where tactical airlift is handling your log flow.
Same-same for recovery vehicles--not a major priority during the early entry
phase of operations. In summation, it appears paul's points are
valid--especially when you consider that his angle is that you don't take
MBT's in during the early entry phase, but rely on the more air-friendly
light armored vehicles (which those Russian MBT's don't qualify as).

> >
> > >The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
> > >Russian style tank
> >
> > Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
> > problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.
>
> The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
> confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
> less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
> in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
> higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
> T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

But neither of the Soviet era designs offered good ergonomics or crew
comfort, and neither offered standard survivability features common to
western tanks (like the separate ammo storage area with blow-off panels).

>
> The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
> but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
> etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

Big "could be". Ask the Indian Army, or the Egyptian Army. Takes more than a
snap of the fingers, and a fair amount of money.

>
> The Autoloader on the T72 used a carousel of 22 rounds. To load the
> breech the gun is returned to the zero elevation position and a round
> ramed into the breech. Becuase the round is in the cabin penetration
> of a round could cook of the amunition and kill the crew as the
> Russians learn in Chechnya. The need to return the gun to zero
> position also restricted rate of fire.
>
> There are many lurid tales of the deadly loader removing legs and arms
> of gunners but I find them ludicrous: there is probably no more than
> 100kg force on the loader. The loader probably is dangerous but I
> doubt that it has so many tons of force to do that. In anycase a few
> photobeams or safety light curtains in western tank could delay the
> load if something like an arm obstructed the amunition load path
> during the momments a load cycle was in progress.

As could a fluttering paper map, or a bouncing expended shell case..."Sorry,
TC, couldn't engage that target because an MRE bag fell into the rear of the
compartment..." I'd think a decent western designed autoloader would be a
better solution.

>
> The other problems are cramped crew compartment, a non seperate
> magazine without blow of lid, low rate of fire, lower angle of
> depression, less eyes on the looout in the tank, less amunition.
>
> Armour thickness and weight are about the same and cannon power are
> the same.
>
> The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
> more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
> targets.

Not necessarily. The Soviet Army, and even moreso the Russian Army, have not
demonstrated a very exceptional operational readiness rate with their tanks
last I heard--that means *more* load on the logistics system in order to
handle the "fix" part of that whole fix/feed/fuelammo equation.

>
> To overcome their problems the Russians developed the T80UM2 Black
> eagle.
>
> It has a seperate amunition compartment suspended of the rear of the
> turret to overcome the amunition killing the crew during 'minor'
> penetrations and it has a bilenticular turret that allows much better
> gun depression angles. The loader is completly different and allows
> loading with without return to zero elevation and it draws its
> ammunition from the magazine rather than the in turrent carousel.
>
> >
> > >Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
> > >positioning tactic.
> >
> > And a bloody useful one.
>
> True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
> not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
> and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
> Russian/Ukranian philosophy.

I'd recommend reserving any real judgement until (and *if*) it is actually
fielded.

>
> >
> > >Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
> > >control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.
> >
> > So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
> > of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
> > to use Western professionals...
>
> The problems can be overcome.

Sure. Toss enough money and effort at them and you can solve a lot of the
problems--but then again, if that were the requirment, you'd be better off
just buying the better western equipment in the first place. Especially
because if you do all of the fixes, you are still left with a cramped crew
compartment and a less-than-stellar reliability record.

>
> >
> > (always the problem when you try to base your solution around technology
> > rather than people)
> >
> > >I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
> > >Fire Control and Multilayer armour.
> >
> > Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
> > key factors for how the West fights.
>
> The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
> less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
> tanks in theater as against 3.

No, because your premise about a somewhat smaller MBT requiring an
equivalently smaller logistics footprint is flawed. If you can only handle
the log flow to support three tanks on the ground, then three western tanks
at 100% capability is better than three Russian vehicles at some fraction of
that capability.

Brooks

In some cases it means having a few
> tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
> having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

[hlg]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
<snip>
> >
> > The Autoloader on the T72 used a carousel of 22 rounds. To load the
> > breech the gun is returned to the zero elevation position and a round
> > ramed into the breech. Becuase the round is in the cabin penetration
> > of a round could cook of the amunition and kill the crew as the
> > Russians learn in Chechnya. The need to return the gun to zero
> > position also restricted rate of fire.
> >
> > There are many lurid tales of the deadly loader removing legs and arms
> > of gunners but I find them ludicrous: there is probably no more than
> > 100kg force on the loader. The loader probably is dangerous but I
> > doubt that it has so many tons of force to do that. In anycase a few
> > photobeams or safety light curtains in western tank could delay the
> > load if something like an arm obstructed the amunition load path
> > during the momments a load cycle was in progress.
>
> As could a fluttering paper map, or a bouncing expended shell
case..."Sorry,
> TC, couldn't engage that target because an MRE bag fell into the rear of
the
> compartment..." I'd think a decent western designed autoloader would be a
> better solution.
>

Note: It is possible, though unlikely, that the British Army may go for an
auto-loader when it re-guns Challenger II. One was developed a decade or so
ago, for the 140mm. It had a useful rate of fire, and could load at any
elevation. However, the shells and separately-loaded charges were stored in
a carussel on the turret floor, which is not an ideal situation in terms of
protection. (It was also awkward to load manually, but I believe that the
auto-loader had a "reverse" gear, which allowed it to store rounds as well
as retrieve them.)

In any case, Challenger may require a fair amount of reworking. The turret
overhang, which is where M1 (and Leclerc) stow ammunition, is currently used
for comms gear, NBC kit and air-conditioning, and is not ideally shaped to
take NATO standard 120mm tank rounds. So, ammunition bins with some degree
of protection will have to be provided in the hull, or a new turret is
required.

And while the French have gone for a three-man crew in Leclerc, the British
will probably keep four. After all, the fourth crew member is useful for
keeping the brew going. ;-) On the other hand, the Jordanian Army, which
also has the problem of re-gunning its Challenger I's, is looking at a
three-man crew. See:

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr030801_1_n.shtml

[[email protected]]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>
>to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
>dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to "load"
>the gunner into the breach... :-)
>
>
>
Tell this to any finnish T-72 gunner and he will tell you that this is
a myth. Zero gunners have been loaded into or had any body part loaded
into the main gun breach. At least in here in Finland. He might also
tell you that it would take some considerable dedication to get in the
way of the loader.

Best regs
Frank

[Drewe Manton]

Could people please stop chipping in on this Brooks/Arndt contest, it's
muddying the entertainment waters? So far Brooks is ****ing further up the
wall but Arndt is making a bigger splash ;)


--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[[email protected]]

Drewe Manton wrote:

>Could people please stop chipping in on this Brooks/Arndt contest, it's
>muddying the entertainment waters? So far Brooks is ****ing further up the
>wall but Arndt is making a bigger splash ;)
>
>
>
>
all seems like just ripples in the pool to me :)

Going to wembley in september ?

[Drewe Manton]

wrote in :

> all seems like just ripples in the pool to me :)
>
> Going to wembley in september ?
>
>

And Birmingham. . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4...
> Could people please stop chipping in on this Brooks/Arndt contest, it's
> muddying the entertainment waters? So far Brooks is ****ing further up the
> wall but Arndt is making a bigger splash ;)

Words of...what? Not wisdom. Trying to figure out just what your intent is,
and coming up short. Did you have anything of actual substance to add to the
discussion? Nope? Incapable, or just ignorant?

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Regards
> Drewe
> "Better the pride that resides
> In a citizen of the world
> Than the pride that divides
> When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Eunometic
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
>> are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
>> Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
>> immobile pillbox two days later.
>
>Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
>crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel,

Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.

Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.

>less tankers,

Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
for these tanks, didn't you?)

>less spare track,

Why? Track life will tend to be similar, and generally long enough that
airlift won't be crucial.

>samller recovery vehicles.

Which are still large heavy vehicles needing C-17 lift, whether they're
recovering Western or Soviet designs.

>> Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
>> problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.
>
>The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
>confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
>less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
>in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
>higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
>T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

And the T-64 is more comfortable for Western-sized crews to operate for
sustained periods of time?

>The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
>but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
>etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
spending more money to get to where you already were before.

>The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
>more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
>targets.

Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
their Western counterparts.

>> And a bloody useful one.
>
>True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
>not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
>and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
>Russian/Ukranian philosophy.

How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)

>> So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
>> of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
>> to use Western professionals...
>
>The problems can be overcome.

Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?

>> Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
>> key factors for how the West fights.
>
>The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
>less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
>tanks in theater as against 3.

They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three) and
burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter. So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

Or you can take the losers and spend a lot of money adapting and
improving them... but why bother when you already operate the winners?

>In some cases it means having a few
>tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
>having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Eunometic]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Eunometic
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
> >> are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
> >> Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
> >> immobile pillbox two days later.
> >
> >Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
> >crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel,
>
> Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
> would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
> explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.
>
> Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
> the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.

The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

Diesel engines are more efficient at both the high power range and
when near idle. In fact when opperating at low power levels or near
idle gas turbines are particularly inefficient compared to diesels.
Modern hyperbaric diesels don't give up anything in engine power to
weight ratio or size either. Only noise is an issue and the smoother
power of the turbine provides for better track grip.

A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.

>
> >less tankers,
>
> Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
> removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
> for these tanks, didn't you?)

A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
Leopard 2 needs only 15.

I hardly think the food consumption of the crew will match their fuel
consumption in weight.


>
> >less spare track,
>
> Why? Track life will tend to be similar, and generally long enough that
> airlift won't be crucial.
>
> >smaller recovery vehicles.
>
> Which are still large heavy vehicles needing C-17 lift, whether they're
> recovering Western or Soviet designs.
>
> >> Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
> >> problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.
> >
> >The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
> >confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
> >less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
> >in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
> >higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
> >T64 (which is superior and is deployed)
>
> And the T-64 is more comfortable for Western-sized crews to operate for
> sustained periods of time?
>
> >The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
> >but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
> >etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.
>
> Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
> spending more money to get to where you already were before.

No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

>
> >The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
> >more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
> >targets.
>
> Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
> their Western counterparts.

First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
against up to date Russian tanks. Iraqi T72s were even downgraded
with less armour and were forced to fire steel penetrators.

By this time Russians were fielding T80 tanks with composit armour.


>
> >> And a bloody useful one.
> >
> >True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
> >not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
> >and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
> >Russian/Ukranian philosophy.
>
> How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
> man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
> right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)

Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
the T80.

>
> >> So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
> >> of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
> >> to use Western professionals...
> >
> >The problems can be overcome.
>
> Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?

I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
Russian hardware with western systems.

>
> >> Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
> >> key factors for how the West fights.
> >
> >The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
> >less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
> >tanks in theater as against 3.
>
> They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three)

That's a good thing.


> and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.

Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
single 63 ton tank.

A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
vehicles.


> So, if
> you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
> fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
of the same protective value.

>
> Or you can take the losers and spend a lot of money adapting and
> improving them... but why bother when you already operate the winners?
>
> >In some cases it means having a few
> >tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
> >having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.
>
> If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
> screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.

Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
are effected.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
> > In message >, Eunometic
> > > writes
> > >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them?
Tanks
> > >> are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
> > >> Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
> > >> immobile pillbox two days later.
> > >
> > >Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
> > >crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel,
> >
> > Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
> > would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
> > explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.
> >
> > Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
> > the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.
>
> The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
> tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

According to the Finns, their T-72's require between 240 and 450 l per 100
km; the M1A1 comes in at about 400 l per 100 km, which places it within the
rather large range specified by the Finns for the smaller Russian designed
tank (M1 data extrapolated from:
www.mobrien.com/twr/Gulfwar/pm4/notes/TWR15V2.txt ). Note that the M1A1/2
used today is not as fuel hungry as the original model courtesy of its
Digital Electronic Control Unit, which reportedly reduced the fuel
consumption by some 18-20% versus the earlier (M1 and M1A1 Block I) models.
You apparently like the T-80 an awful lot--you do realize it has a GT engine
(in most of its early production models at least), right?

>
> Diesel engines are more efficient at both the high power range and
> when near idle. In fact when opperating at low power levels or near
> idle gas turbines are particularly inefficient compared to diesels.
> Modern hyperbaric diesels don't give up anything in engine power to
> weight ratio or size either. Only noise is an issue and the smoother
> power of the turbine provides for better track grip.
>
> A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
> 56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.
>
> >
> > >less tankers,
> >
> > Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
> > removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
> > for these tanks, didn't you?)
>
> A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
> Leopard 2 needs only 15.
>
> I hardly think the food consumption of the crew will match their fuel
> consumption in weight.

You used the term "tankers"--Paul quite naturally took that to mean, given
the subject at hand, the number of tank crewmembers (known as "tankers"
hereabouts, though we used to also sometimes call them "DAT's", which equals
"dumb ass tankers"... :-) ).

>
>
> >
> > >less spare track,
> >
> > Why? Track life will tend to be similar, and generally long enough that
> > airlift won't be crucial.
> >
> > >smaller recovery vehicles.
> >
> > Which are still large heavy vehicles needing C-17 lift, whether they're
> > recovering Western or Soviet designs.
> >
> > >> Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
> > >> problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.
> > >
> > >The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
> > >confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
> > >less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
> > >in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
> > >higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
> > >T64 (which is superior and is deployed)
> >
> > And the T-64 is more comfortable for Western-sized crews to operate for
> > sustained periods of time?
> >
> > >The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
> > >but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
> > >etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.
> >
> > Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
> > spending more money to get to where you already were before.
>
> No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
> as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

A wee bit of a problem called "integration" exists. If you know of such a
simple way around that dilemma, start up a company quick and half the world
(those using the Russian equipment and desiring to upgfrade it) will beat a
path to your door, 'cause in reality it apparently is nowhere near as easy
as you seem to think, based upon past reports of "westernization" of Russian
MBT's.

>
> >
> > >The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
> > >more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
> > >targets.
> >
> > Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
> > their Western counterparts.
>
> First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
> against up to date Russian tanks. Iraqi T72s were even downgraded
> with less armour and were forced to fire steel penetrators.
>
> By this time Russians were fielding T80 tanks with composit armour.

For goodness sakes, the T-80 was their *first* production tank to have a
laser rangefinder and ballistic computer onboard (and since you want to make
the T-80 your model, you lose points on the fuel consumption fight, since it
too has a GT engine, at least in its original forms). The T-72, be it Syrian
going against Israeli systems (including their M60's...), or Iraqi facing US
and British weapons, has proven to be utterly outmatched. They could have
been equipped with the latest DU rounds during ODS and it would not have
made much difference, as they were often killed without ever having
*detected* the attacking tanks.
>
>
> >
> > >> And a bloody useful one.
> > >
> > >True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
> > >not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
> > >and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
> > >Russian/Ukranian philosophy.
> >
> > How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
> > man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
> > right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)
>
> Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
> the T80.

So they have moved from unconsionable to merely archaic?

>
> >
> > >> So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the
advantages
> > >> of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you
tried
> > >> to use Western professionals...
> > >
> > >The problems can be overcome.
> >
> > Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?
>
> I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
> entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
> Russian hardware with western systems.

You have been talking about dropping western systems into Russian tanks (see
your earlier comment about bringing them "up to western standards"). And
that has been the discussion topic for this branch of the thread. Going to
the "we could build new tanks using the Russian philosophy" is a bit
late--name any western new MBT development efforts currently underway or in
the immediate future? Nope. Because the emphasis is moving away from the
MBT, both in the US and in Europe, in terms of new armor development work.

>
> >
> > >> Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which
are
> > >> key factors for how the West fights.
> > >
> > >The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
> > >less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
> > >tanks in theater as against 3.
> >
> > They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three)
>
> That's a good thing.

Not for your logistics system. The daily allowance for reloads would be
calculated on a per-system basis--you just increased the ammo resupply
volume/weight by 33% by going from three tanks to four tanks in the TO.

>
>
> > and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.
>
> Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
> single 63 ton tank.

Toss the C-5 out of your calcs--it requires a big, long runway. The C-17 is
the rough field capable transport that will shoulder the burden for early
entry operations, along with the C-130 (which can't haul *any* MBT's, even
45 tonners).

>
> A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
> vehicles.

Or, it could bring an equal number of M1A2 or a Challeneger II's which are
definitely more capable than your Russian tanks.

>
>
> > So, if
> > you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
> > fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?
>
> They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
> of the same protective value.

No, it is not. Compare the external dimensions of the T-80 to the M1A1 and
you will find that other than height (2.9 meters versus 2.2 meters) they are
rather similar. Using that difference in height as a guage, your T-80 should
come in at 75% of the weight of an M1A2, which in its latest version comes
in at a hair under 70 tons (69.5 according to the US Army). But that would
mean your T-80 would have to weigh in at a bit over 52 tons. Seven tons
difference from the expected weight. So your "smaller" Russian design is
disproportionately lighter than the M1A1--wonder why? Less armor protection,
less emphasis on crew survivability, etc. Remember that the main armament,
fuel, ammo, etc., will tend to weigh about the same for both (and the T-80's
autoloader weight counts against it here as tank equipment weight you don't
have in the M1), so that weight difference does appear to be in the armor
protection area

Brooks

>
> >
> > Or you can take the losers and spend a lot of money adapting and
> > improving them... but why bother when you already operate the winners?
> >
> > >In some cases it means having a few
> > >tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
> > >having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.
> >
> > If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
> > screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.
>
> Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
> are effected.

[Drewe Manton]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

> Words of...what? Not wisdom. Trying to figure out just what your
> intent is, and coming up short.

Personal amusement really. IT's been a highly amusing ****ing contest, I
just wanted to say a hearty "bravo!" to the main players!

>Did you have anything of actual
> substance to add to the discussion?

Nope

>Nope?

Yep

>Incapable,

Nope

>or just ignorant?

Yup

The next round is called "Spot the sense of humour failure". You've just
taken the lead.



--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Words of...what? Not wisdom. Trying to figure out just what your
> > intent is, and coming up short.
>
> Personal amusement really. IT's been a highly amusing ****ing contest, I
> just wanted to say a hearty "bravo!" to the main players!
>
> >Did you have anything of actual
> > substance to add to the discussion?
>
> Nope
>
> >Nope?
>
> Yep
>
> >Incapable,
>
> Nope
>
> >or just ignorant?
>
> Yup
>
> The next round is called "Spot the sense of humour failure". You've just
> taken the lead.

I have a fine sense of humor--you just are not funny. Nothing more sad than
a guy who finds himself being the only one laughing at his own misguided
attempts at humor, is there?

Brooks

>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Drewe
> "Better the pride that resides
> In a citizen of the world
> Than the pride that divides
> When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>
>
>"Drewe Manton" >

<snip>

>> The next round is called "Spot the sense of humour failure". You've just
>> taken the lead.
>
>I have a fine sense of humor--you just are not funny. Nothing more sad than
>a guy who finds himself being the only one laughing at his own misguided
>attempts at humor, is there?
>
>Brooks

Yes there is. How about the person who started this thread who actually thinks
he knows what he is talking about?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Eunometic
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
>> would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
>> explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.
>>
>> Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
>> the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.
>
>The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
>tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

But you're not going to radically reduce fuel requirements, especially
if you're then bringing in more tanks.

>A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
>56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.

Trouble is, you're bringing more tanks so burning more fuel: and if fuel
economy is that critical there are several offers to replace the M1's
gas turbine with a diesel. (Or you could bring a LeoII or Chal2)

>> Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
>> removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
>> for these tanks, didn't you?)
>
>A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
>Leopard 2 needs only 15.

Again, cutting the M1A2's fuel consumption is an issue that's been
looked at in the past: if the need becomes pressing there are options
available to do so.

>> Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
>> spending more money to get to where you already were before.
>
>No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
>as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

The "fire control system" is the sight head and mounts, the gunner's
controls, the gun and turret drives, and a fair bit more besides (tilt
sensors, met sensors et al) plus increasingly often a commander's
hunter-killer unit too; it's not just a drop-in black box, but a complex
array of kit that's designed into the vehicle from the start and not
easy to retrofit.

For the most basic example, it's not too hard to bolt a laser
rangefinder, thermal camera and ballistic computer into a splinterproof
box on the roof: that'll give you decent gunnery performance on a static
range. Trouble is, unless your stabilisation system and gun and turret
drives are also designed for the task, firing on the move will be a
losing proposition regardless of how finely calculated the ballistic
solution is.

>> Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
>> their Western counterparts.
>
>First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
>against up to date Russian tanks.

One wonders why: surely *someone* must have wanted to purchase some
up-to-date Russian tanks.

>> How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
>> man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
>> right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)
>
>Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
>the T80.

Which means serious degradation of performance: you have to remember
that wars are fought by people first and foremost, and no matter how
marvellous the tank, it'll fail if the crew are exhausted, cramped and
hungier than their opponents.

>> Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?
>
>I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
>entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
>Russian hardware with western systems.

In other words, building a new tank from the tracks up?

Why, when we've got large numbers of thoroughly effective and
combat-proven tanks already, should we wish to throw them away and pay
for a new design based on the concepts that keep *losing*?

>> They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three)
>
>That's a good thing.

Not when you're having to airlift every round to the APOD and then haul
it forwards, it isn't. You win by scoring more hits, not just by
expending more rounds.

>> and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.
>
>Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
>single 63 ton tank.

If it struggles with 63 tons, how can it cope so comfortably with 84-90
tons?

>A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
>vehicles.

But why, unless it's got the same sort of combat power as the heavier
tanks it's supposed to replace?

>> So, if
>> you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
>> fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?
>
>They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
>of the same protective value.

Doesn't square with their mass, dimensions and armament.

>> If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
>> screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.
>
>Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
>are effected.

You're running up a lot of costs for this proposal, but so far the
benefits are nebulous and keep coming back to "all right, the Russian
stuff always lost in action, but that's because there's *other* Russian
stuff that's supposed to be far better but has never actually been
tested"

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[B2431]

>From: "Paul J. Adam"

<snip> a very logical argument.

The question I have is how did we get to theoretical improvements of Soviet era
tanks from "the superior Leopard 2?"

For that matter how did out National Socialist go from 'all things of value
come from German origins' to 'hey, the Russians are building tanks that can tag
out all western designs?'

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Drewe Manton]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

> I have a fine sense of humor--

Just REALLY well hidden apparantly . . .

> Nothing more sad
> than a guy who finds himself being the only one laughing at his own
> misguided attempts at humor, is there?

I wouldn't know, care to describe the feeling to me?


--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >
> >
> >"Drewe Manton" >
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The next round is called "Spot the sense of humour failure". You've
just
> >> taken the lead.
> >
> >I have a fine sense of humor--you just are not funny. Nothing more sad
than
> >a guy who finds himself being the only one laughing at his own misguided
> >attempts at humor, is there?
> >
> >Brooks
>
> Yes there is. How about the person who started this thread who actually
thinks
> he knows what he is talking about?

True enough. The Bozo even started *another* thread supposedly wreaking
havoc on my contention that the use of DU in the heavy armor upgrade of the
M1A1 left it in a superior position in regards to armor protection versus
the Leopard II--but he got confused and started yacking about DU APDS-FS
rounds instead. Surprisingly, I have yet to hear him claim that *both* were
really long-lost WWII German developments "stolen" by us eeevil 'mercans...
but I am sure that is coming soon.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "CKOMOPOX"

>
>> Yes, that's what Hitler thought.
>>
>> "How could ve lose? My vonderful Tigers, my Panthers, all gone! Vat
>> happened?"
>>
>
>Well...transmission problems aside, The Tiger was superior.

The tank teuton was referring to was the King Tiger which was a piece of junk
over all. The armour was good and the main gun was excellent. They were
difficult to steer, the engines were unreliable and under powered and the
beasts simply weighed too much. I put them in the category of flops along with
Ferdinand.

There just
>wasn't enough of them.
>German tanks had a gun sighting system far superior to anything the T-34
>had. They also had radios.

The main flaw with both Panther and Tiger 1 was they were built like fine
watches. When they worked right in proper numbers they were almost unstoppable,
Unfortunately the broke down too often and too many times had to be left behind
because the Germans never got the hang of tank recovery.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "CKOMOPOX"
>
> >
> >> Yes, that's what Hitler thought.
> >>
> >> "How could ve lose? My vonderful Tigers, my Panthers, all gone! Vat
> >> happened?"
> >>
> >
> >Well...transmission problems aside, The Tiger was superior.
>
> The tank teuton was referring to was the King Tiger which was a piece of
junk
> over all. The armour was good and the main gun was excellent. They were
> difficult to steer, the engines were unreliable and under powered and the
> beasts simply weighed too much. I put them in the category of flops along
with
> Ferdinand.
>
> There just
> >wasn't enough of them.
> >German tanks had a gun sighting system far superior to anything the T-34
> >had. They also had radios.
>
> The main flaw with both Panther and Tiger 1 was they were built like fine
> watches. When they worked right in proper numbers they were almost
unstoppable,
> Unfortunately the broke down too often and too many times had to be left
behind
> because the Germans never got the hang of tank recovery.
>

The real problem was that they were too damm complicated
and couldnt be delivered in the numbers needed

Germany managed to build around 4800 Panthers, 9000 Mk IV's,
6000 Mk III's, 1300 Tigers and 500 King Tigers

The USA built 48,000 Shermans, the USSR built 40,000 T-34
and 2,200 JS-2, the UK built 28,000 tanks including Churchill's
Cromwell's ,Matilda II's and Valentines

Being outnumbered 10-1 is not good.

Keith

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Willshaw > writes:

>> "B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...

>> The main flaw with both Panther and Tiger 1 was they were built
>> like fine watches. When they worked right in proper numbers they
>> were almost unstoppable, Unfortunately the broke down too often
>> and too many times had to be left behind because the Germans
>> never got the hang of tank recovery.

Keith> The real problem was that they were too damm complicated
Keith> and couldnt be delivered in the numbers needed

Keith> Germany managed to build around 4800 Panthers, 9000 Mk
Keith> IV's, 6000 Mk III's, 1300 Tigers and 500 King Tigers

Keith> The USA built 48,000 Shermans, the USSR built 40,000 T-34
Keith> and 2,200 JS-2, the UK built 28,000 tanks including
Keith> Churchill's Cromwell's ,Matilda II's and Valentines

For defensive battles, the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger were better,
as well as Sturmgeschutz III and IV. The Germans built a great
many of those too, although I don't have the figures handy (my
head leaks). I wonder if these suffered from the same problems, or
whether they were simplified and more reliable...

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[Keith Willshaw]

"Gernot Hassenpflug" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Willshaw >
writes:
>
> >> "B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> The main flaw with both Panther and Tiger 1 was they were built
> >> like fine watches. When they worked right in proper numbers they
> >> were almost unstoppable, Unfortunately the broke down too often
> >> and too many times had to be left behind because the Germans
> >> never got the hang of tank recovery.
>
> Keith> The real problem was that they were too damm complicated
> Keith> and couldnt be delivered in the numbers needed
>
> Keith> Germany managed to build around 4800 Panthers, 9000 Mk
> Keith> IV's, 6000 Mk III's, 1300 Tigers and 500 King Tigers
>
> Keith> The USA built 48,000 Shermans, the USSR built 40,000 T-34
> Keith> and 2,200 JS-2, the UK built 28,000 tanks including
> Keith> Churchill's Cromwell's ,Matilda II's and Valentines
>
> For defensive battles, the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger were better,
> as well as Sturmgeschutz III and IV. The Germans built a great
> many of those too, although I don't have the figures handy (my
> head leaks). I wonder if these suffered from the same problems, or
> whether they were simplified and more reliable...
>

The Sturmgeschutz III was based on the same chassis as the PkW III
and used its production facilities after the tamk went out of production.
Around 8000 of the Aus G models were built

They were simpler and cheaper than the Panthers and Togers. In
fact you could buy 4 for the price of 1 King Tiger.

Keith

[Mike Baudrillard]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "CKOMOPOX"
>
> >
> >> Yes, that's what Hitler thought.
> >>
> >> "How could ve lose? My vonderful Tigers, my Panthers, all gone! Vat
> >> happened?"
> >>
> >
> >Well...transmission problems aside, The Tiger was superior.
>
> The tank teuton was referring to was the King Tiger which was a piece of junk
> over all. The armour was good and the main gun was excellent. They were
> difficult to steer, the engines were unreliable and under powered and the
> beasts simply weighed too much. I put them in the category of flops along with
> Ferdinand.


Hitler had tankers who could hit first time and at long range and work
team minded. He needed adequate gun, good reliability, re-claimable
without a tug-boat, easy to make, lots of them. The 'too many Ivans'
problem in the east had to be fixed by using strengths against etc.

He needed something better than the IIIs and the IVs, it had to be
standard, easy to churn out, reliable, and arrive in time. It was
almost as easy to make a U-Boat as to fashion one big complex lump of
German precision engineeering on tracks. A simplified panther with
jpanzer derivatives possibly.

He needed to also Ford-T a Hetzer type vehicle. The Hetzer was almost
there but not quite, armour is irrelevent, if one can hit first and
the Germans could usually do that. The thick armour only came into
play because of the 'too many Ivans' equation, which would diminish if
there was more shooting back.