|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
May 2nd 04, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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  
|
|
#2
May 2nd 04, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
#3
May 2nd 04, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
|
#4
May 2nd 04, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
|
#5
May 2nd 04, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
|
#6
May 2nd 04, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
|
#7
May 2nd 04, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#9
May 2nd 04, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
#10
May 2nd 04, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
