For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

"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

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

"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.

"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.

"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_fo...0801_1_n.shtml

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

"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.

"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:
http://www.mobrien.com/twr/Gulfwar/p...es/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.