For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

"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