For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

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

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

Rob

"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.

"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

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" 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.

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

"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.

"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

"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

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