For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

"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

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

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/milita...ons/m829a1.htm

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

"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

"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

"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

(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.