Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

I have a question to Indian users, are there any Indian sources (or Pakistani ones that leaked to India) about Pakistan T-80UD (Object 478B/478BE) tanks?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I have a question to Indian users, are there any Indian sources (or Pakistani ones that leaked to India) about Pakistan T-80UD (Object 478B/478BE) tanks?

Such frivolity apart, the T-72 upgrade continued to be put on the backburner. The past delay has been inexcusable. Pakistan took the opportunity to beef up its armour force with T-80UDs/T-84s and continued to induct license manufactured Type 85-IIIs, eroding Indian armour superiority. China began a sustained modernisation campaign as well. On the other hand, India kept dragging its feet on re-equipping the Army. It took the Kargil War in 1999 to spark off a long overdue defence modernisation. Now, the situation has seen considerable change for the better (for instance - a fast track procurement mechanism to reduce, if not eliminate bureaucratic delay) and the Army can afford to hanker for the best deal. This is also because present inductions are adding sufficient 'punch' to Indian armoured formations. 310 T-90S tanks from Russia were ordered by the Indian Army and the induction is to be completed by 2005 (186 of the tanks are to be assembled at HVF Avadi). Thereafter, HVF Avadi will commence production of the T-90S at a rate of some 100 tanks per year. India's Defence Minister has noted that the T-90S will be the Indian Army's standard MBT and some 1000 tanks would be manufactured in India, beginning in 2006-07, apart from the present 310 tanks. Ultimately, the T-90S will make up 30% of India's tank fleet.

Bharat Rakshak :: Land Forces Site - Project Rhino - T-72 Upgrade


Little much..

 

[Damian]

Not much, and some informations there are not correct. For example:

Ukraine has also offered its latest laser beam riding 'combat' 125mm gun launched anti-tank missile to India. A derivative of the Russian Refleks, its heavier than the Russian round and is of similar configuration.

GLATGM "Kombat" is not Ukrainian derivative of 9M119 "Refleks", it is completely different GLATGM based on 9M128 "Agona".

 

[militarysta]

After hard day in work - back to the Leopad-2 thema


@Damian

You says that I have no knowledge about German tanks, in the same time You are making assumption about non German tanks also without that knowledge. Sorry I do not agree, I read too many books about their designs to prise them as some super vehicles.

Yes, indeed, but in Leopard-2 them I really know about what im posting. About more then 4 years Im "digging up" this thema. And I can post smth about M1, Merkava's, Leclefc, but my knowledges about Leo-2 is mucht more then about diffrent type of tanks, and im really confused when You post smth about Leo-2 always doing two the same mistakes:
a) You post smth without realized about 1979/1980 technology reality - ex: "in M1A2 in 1989 US do smth. like that, and this stupid germans in 1979 in Leo2 use other solutions so Leo2 sucks".
b) You choose only ONE aspects (crew protection, or only crew protections after perforation etc.) without try to look at many apsects of this solution in tank. And You have many aspects:
I. Mobility
a) tactical (on battelfield)
c) strategic (in whole caontry scale)
II. Firepower
a) gun + stabilisation
b) FCS
c) ammunition
III. Protection
a) whole tank survivality
b) maintenance combat capability after hit
c) crew survivality after hit or after perforation
IV. Comparison witch MBT's of a potential adversary:
a) 1975-1980
b) 1980-19850
c)1985 -1990
d) 1990 -
V. Operations and Production:
a) production in factories
b) operations in some army:
- cost of using
- ease of training
- doctrine of use
Actually most of the discussion solutions in Leo2 and other tans have many apsects.

ex: In Leo2A4 was very sophisticated FCS whit PERI which enabled full H-K mode without using hatches - in 80 of the planned nuclear and chemical battlefield it was very important. No other tank have this capabilites in 80.
ex.2: EMES-15 is -placed as It is But in erly 80. it allowed bulid solid, unerring mein sight whit great performances. Whit identyfiaction range more then 2000m. No other tank have this capabilites in 80.
BTW: before you start to undermine this I remember You this dicussion and Paweł Przeździecki and Arrakis posts:
Niezale�ne Forum o Wojsku :: Zobacz temat - Bro� pancerna na �wiecie
expecially about thema why in 80. For guys without polis language (99% on this forum ) resumee:
It was almoust impossible to made good night side whit thermo and "box" under turret roof.
If there is a growing number of lenses - quality drops. Each lens "absorbs" quality. etc. That was one of reasons to made EMES-15 whit "hole" for opticcal channel (Like in Leclerc). Second reson was shock resistance after hits and close explosives.

And what would happen if I would see Leopard 2 standing next to me? You think that such things make impression on me?

Raher thinking about angles and protections...

Tank crews are for most time ignorant and don't know much about tanks technology and design solutions.

I have doubts if officers who treind tans crews are "ignorant " and I will be really cerfull whit sucht clams...

Yeah, because Germans are so genius that they were not even thinking about completely isolate hull magazine from crew.

LIKE IN ALL OTHER TANKS IN WHOLE WORLD Just think why in Soviet Union, Germany, UK, France, and in 90. in India, Korea, Japan, and others no one construction have this solution. Just think and don't write tht only Americans have brains ant other 90% of tank industres are moorons. Only M1 have this solution and in rest of tnaks there is no completely isolate hull magazine. Think why.

Let me put this straight, You can allways replace tank or repair it, but a well trained crew, where huge pile of money was spent on their training, to feed them, give them medical care, pay them etc. Is not that easy to replace, and experienced crew is even more precious.

And it Your mistake. Now - in 2012 it's true, but in 80. nobody give f*** about this - especially in armies whit conscription system - like Frencht, Bundeshwer, Spviet Union etc in 80s'. Crew from conscription was cheap and after 8-12 weeks was ready to fight. And I wolud like to remember that in Bundeshweer after first 4 years rotaring new crews in unit using Leo-2 they have more then 2 crews for one tank...like in other conscription armies. So this what is NOW important it was not more then 25 yers ago. Diffrent times, diffrent reality and army working model.
BTW: Even in "proessional" BAOR they don't use solate hull magazine from crew. -so they don't care about tank crews life? ;-)

You think that optical channel lenght to the gunner ocular is a factor that determines quality of optics itself? Please Jarek without such crap... Optical channel don't have anything to the sight itself. In Leopard 2 main sight could have been placed in the same way as in M1.

Yes I do - as I wrote -check arrakis posts on NFoW, or sent him PM If there is a growing number of lenses - quality drops. Each lens "absorbs" quality. etc

ou think that todays much better M1A2SEP main sight than sight in any Leopard 2 variant also needs such long optical channel to the gunners ocular?

And You again made the same mistake - you compare TODAY whit technology reality 25 yers ago. These things are not comparable!

Besides this from where You taken 1200 range of target identification? From NTW monography that is full of crap and mistakes?

Offcial US pdf abour ODS - whit that draws:

(BTW: T-72M1 nightvision (active) is 600-800m so how long is M1 night vision on this draw? 1200m? rathaer that

No, You completely ignore the fact that most of ammunition in Leopard 2 is not isolated from crew, and semi combustible ammunition cases means that ammunition is far more vurnable to cook off when in contact with any hot object, be it projectile, shaped charge jet or spall or fire.

This ammo is in the best place when we consider ammo hull store. And chcanse to ignit this ammo after HEAT perforaton whithout hit this ammo rack (what is very low possible scenario) is very very LOW. After APFDS hit and perforation - crew will be dead no metter if ther is hull ammo or not.

But turret is more safer for crew then in M1 - no ammo, no hydraulic. In M1 there is hydraulic and how many ammo for coaxial MG?

But if that armor was never sent to USA, we never know if it was inferior or not

So please don't wrote about "inferior" Leo-2 armour.

 

[militarysta]

part two:

@Damian

Yeah right, because they just can't use armored "doghouse" for main sight? It is another lame excuse from Germans.

So go back to Wiśniewski book and read how many weight and how thick should be this armour to protect by smth more then Ak-47 fire.
BTW - and it's about armoured "doghouse" in M1:

""doghouse" for main sight is not perfect solutions but now when armour integrity is on the top is only choise. In 1979 it wasn't best prioryty - more importnad was ex: fire power, or night vision quality

Placing sight in such place forces to make a hole in armor for sights optical channel. So we have several problems with this.

Sight is vurnable to be damaged and disabled with any hit in this area. There is high probability that armor there will be penetrated (weak zone),

This chanse is less then 1,5% So about what we are talking?

What we know from recent conflicts is that:

Vehicle can survive armor perforation and be repairable.
Crew can survive vehicle armor perforation not matters HEAT or APFSDS (not all of them of course but even half of crew is a success).
Vehicle and crew will not survive if ammunition start to cook off, such cook off is allmost immposible to be extuinguished.
Fuel fire accidents are less violent and possible to be extuinguished.

So islating ammunition from crew is very important, everybody knows that. Look at Russians, they are taking the exactly same root as Americans, if possible complete isolations of ammunition from crew.

Wong.
1. Crew can survive vehicle armor perforation but is critical what kind of ammo do perforation. Crew have great chanse survive perforation made by HEAT and ONLY HEAT. If jet made from SC don't hit directly in tank men then all should be OK. And many examples from both Chechen wars and Iraq (M1) and Liban shown that. Only two problem's are to reduce the likelihood of hit ammo store, and do smt whit debris made by SC jet. And that all.
2. Chanse to survive after perforation made by APFSDS are very very low - no matter if there is ammo inside or not. To be extremly brutally - there is no there is no difference between cooked crew to dead and shredded crew to dead by APFSDS debrits. For APFSDS reason there is no diffrensce between perforation T-71M1 hull and M1 hull - crew will be dead in one way or another - if APFSDS pass the armour of course

We should remember that numbers of tanks and tank crews during cold war in German Bundeswehre was allready incredibly small compared to Soviet Union or USA.

Again - wrong. During cold war, BW allways have more tank crews then tanks. In fact BW had more humans reserve in tank crews then had tanks.
And You try to level tank survivability on the battlefield whit crews survivability after perforation. These are two different things.

 

[militarysta]

BTW I forgot:
In thema of the effects after shaped charge jests perforations
important, and good pdf:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008ballistics/Thursday/Held.pdf


btw: Methos - it may be interestind for You:

Disturbance of Shaped Charge Jets by Bulging Armour

http://higherintellect.info/texts/t...e of Shaped Charge Jets by Bulging Armour.pdf

well it's not "wedges" known from KWS program, but...


Armour Protection and Affordable Protection for Futuristic Combat Vehicles:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA494187

Protection capability of dual flying plates against obliquely
impacting long-rod penetrators:
http://ciar.org/shotmagnet/Armor and impactor studies/IJIE_Vol-30pp55.pdf

 

[Damian]

a) You post smth without realized about 1979/1980 technology reality - ex: "in M1A2 in 1989 US do smth. like that, and this stupid germans in 1979 in Leo2 use other solutions so Leo2 sucks".

They had other options, they could do this, they don't, so maybe at least one time stop defend them because You have buddies in Heer.

b) You choose only ONE aspects (crew protection, or only crew protections after perforation etc.) without try to look at many apsects of this solution in tank. And You have many aspects:
I. Mobility
a) tactical (on battelfield)
c) strategic (in whole caontry scale)
II. Firepower
a) gun + stabilisation
b) FCS
c) ammunition
III. Protection
a) whole tank survivality
b) maintenance combat capability after hit
c) crew survivality after hit or after perforation
IV. Comparison witch MBT's of a potential adversary:
a) 1975-1980
b) 1980-19850
c)1985 -1990
d) 1990 -
V. Operations and Production:
a) production in factories
b) operations in some army:
- cost of using
- ease of training
- doctrine of use
Actually most of the discussion solutions in Leo2 and other tans have many apsects.

I look at all aspects.

Leopard 2:

1) Mobility:

Tactical - same as other modern MBT's

Strategic - Same as other modern MBT's.

2) Gun & Stabilization system - comparable with other modern MBT's, FCS comparable yet obsolete for todays standards, no advanced optics, no 2nd generation FLIR, no autotracker or semi autotracker, it is still 1980's technology in case of Leopard 2.

3) Survivability:

Armor protection - pure armor quality comparable for other tanks however big weak zones are present.

Maintainign combat capabilities after hit is same as other tanks... or even less because in case of Leopard 2 and other tanks where FCS components or turret traverse mechanisms are stored in weakly protected and exposed turret bustle.

Crew survivability is completely inferior in all tanks compared to M1.

4) Comparing Leopard 2 to tanks of it's generation is fair, and there are better designs than Leopard 2.

5) Operations and production:

Please, don't compare Germany with it's meaningless production capabilities to USA or Soviet Union. Germany didn't mean anything, it was just a bufor area for battles between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces.

b) operations in some army:
- cost of using
- ease of training
- doctrine of use

Costs of perations depends on each country capabilities, this don't mean Leopard 2 is some sort of uber tank because it is using preaty fuel efficent engine.
Ease of training, and You think other NATO MBT's are difficult in training? Yeah yeah I know the old song that only the germans are capable to easy train their soldiers... when in fact USA and Soviet Union much earlier builded the whole effective training system for their tank crews. You think that AAT was the first turret trainer? Nope there are photos from Fort Knox where in hangar there were row of M48 tanks turrets used as trainers.

ex: In Leo2A4 was very sophisticated FCS whit PERI which enabled full H-K mode without using hatches - in 80 of the planned nuclear and chemical battlefield it was very important. No other tank have this capabilites in 80.

Wrong again, because with Your focus on that German fairy tales You completely ignore history. In fact the whole H-K system was builded not around PERI and similiar sights but tank commander cupolas. Unfortunetly due to cost saving M1 cupola was a simplified type without the connection with FCS, so as It could have been used as a PERI, TC needed to use it's joystick to control the turret, and traverse it in a right place.

ex.2: EMES-15 is -placed as It is But in erly 80. it allowed bulid solid, unerring mein sight whit great performances. Whit identyfiaction range more then 2000m. No other tank have this capabilites in 80.

Listen I do not know where You read such BS that other thermal sights back then couldn't affor 2000m identification of targets range. Christ TTS sight for M60A3 is at least a half smaller sight than You beloved EMES-15 and have similiar quality of dispplayed image. And is going through turret roof of a tank.

I say that Germans just have inferior technology in such situation if Americans were able to design smaller sight that could have been placed in a much logical way. If not decision of senate to use cheaper parts, then M1 would not use TIS but TTS.

You see, You do not have slightest ideas about development of countries other than Germany, and if someone knows that history, Germans are just inferior, as they allways were.

Can we stop then beliving in that idiotic myth of Germans making good weapon systems? It make me sick.

BTW: before you start to undermine this I remember You this dicussion and Paweł Przeździecki and Arrakis posts:
Niezale�ne Forum o Wojsku :: Zobacz temat - Bro� pancerna na �wiecie
expecially about thema why in 80. For guys without polis language (99% on this forum ) resumee:
It was almoust impossible to made good night side whit thermo and "box" under turret roof.
If there is a growing number of lenses - quality drops. Each lens "absorbs" quality. etc. That was one of reasons to made EMES-15 whit "hole" for opticcal channel (Like in Leclerc). Second reson was shock resistance after hits and close explosives.

Really and TTS I mentioned above? Oh wait I get it, when You will repost You will say "but no, these damn Americans could not develop good thermal sight... europe uber alles!" and such bollocks...

Raher thinking about angles and protections...

I would rather think how to redesign it in such a way that it would be much better tank than it is.

I have doubts if officers who treind tans crews are "ignorant " and I will be really cerfull whit sucht clams...

And how many of them had chance to compare Leopard 2 to other modern tanks, not PT-91 and T-72M1? Eh?

You should have more scepticism.

LIKE IN ALL OTHER TANKS IN WHOLE WORLD Just think why in Soviet Union, Germany, UK, France, and in 90. in India, Korea, Japan, and others no one construction have this solution. Just think and don't write tht only Americans have brains ant other 90% of tank industres are moorons. Only M1 have this solution and in rest of tnaks there is no completely isolate hull magazine. Think why.

I know why, because Americans had opportunity to design a new tank, more they had both data from Israeli conflicts, real battle data, and had data from their own conflicts, and also have experiences from WWII.

Yeah it might be a shock for You but M4 Sherman with safe ammunition storage was safest tank of WWII, when crews of Panthers and Tigers after penetration of armor and ammunition ignition were mostly fried like chickens, M4 crews losses were very low, even if their tanks were not the best armoured. You see, and not only that crews were surviving, but also tanks were more often good for field repairs. You see how important is safe ammunition storage?

History is important, You can't go forward if You don't know the past. Americans done their homework, while other started to do so much more later.

And it Your mistake. Now - in 2012 it's true, but in 80. nobody give f*** about this - especially in armies whit conscription system - like Frencht, Bundeshwer, Spviet Union etc in 80s'. Crew from conscription was cheap and after 8-12 weeks was ready to fight. And I wolud like to remember that in Bundeshweer after first 4 years rotaring new crews in unit using Leo-2 they have more then 2 crews for one tank...like in other conscription armies. So this what is NOW important it was not more then 25 yers ago. Diffrent times, diffrent reality and army working model.
BTW: Even in "proessional" BAOR they don't use solate hull magazine from crew. -so they don't care about tank crews life? ;-)

Well I do not see a conscript army as something great. Americans learned after Vietnam that conscript Army is not a good idea. And BAOR, but they indeed seen the same problem as Americans, only their approach was different and not successfull. They used outdated battleships ammunition sotring system, where projectile is stored separatly from propelant charge and propelant charge is stored in armored container with extuinguishing liquid. General idea was the same, to preserve crews lifes, however how it was done was different and in the end American idea of completely isolated magazines with blow off panels was more succesfull. Look at Russians, Object 640, Object 195, "Armata", damn even T-90MS partially, all are using the same idea or at least some parts of it.

Yes I do - as I wrote -check arrakis posts on NFoW, or sent him PM If there is a growing number of lenses - quality drops. Each lens "absorbs" quality. etc

So damn, these Americans are incredible with TTS, doing something as capable and much smaller... yeah Germans are inferior.

Look at TTS and day main sight "doghouse", very small eh? And goes through turret roof, not turret front armor weakning it.

And You again made the same mistake - you compare TODAY whit technology reality 25 yers ago. These things are not comparable!

Ah at last! You finally admitt that Leopard 2 use up to this day obsolete sights and FCS?

Offcial US pdf abour ODS - whit that draws:

(BTW: T-72M1 nightvision (active) is 600-800m so how long is M1 night vision on this draw? 1200m? rathaer that

Yeah I wonder where You see that it is 1200m and not 1800m for example? And maybe there is 2000m?

This ammo is in the best place when we consider ammo hull store. And chcanse to ignit this ammo after HEAT perforaton whithout hit this ammo rack (what is very low possible scenario) is very very LOW. After APFDS hit and perforation - crew will be dead no metter if ther is hull ammo or not.

But turret is more safer for crew then in M1 - no ammo, no hydraulic. In M1 there is hydraulic and how many ammo for coaxial MG?

1) It is not safe... You know what, we will do a test, You agree to sit in a Leopard 2 full of ammunition when I outside will play with RPG-29? And we will see what happen... there is another Leopard 2 lover that is so sure that ammo will not be ignited?

2) Oh so now these 15 rounds in Leopard 2 turret is non existing?, and there is really no hydraulic? You see You start to completely mess things up, in M1 there is no hydraulics in turret, they are in hull, while in the Leopard 2 there are hydraulics in weakly protected bustle.

And what have machine gun ammunition to this? Oh this will be surprise for You, ammo for machine guns in M1, is stored in armored boxes (TC have armored box for his MG on his left side, loader stores coax and his MG ammo boxes under radio, there is sort of a rack for ammunition boxes), even coax ammo box in M1 is a solid steel.

So please don't wrote about "inferior" Leo-2 armour.

Well I will be because armor protection is not only armor quality (and I never said that quality of Leopard 2 armor is bad, to the contrary), but also size and placement of weak zones. This makes Leo2 inferior in terms of armor protection. ANd I won't change my mind. This is my opinion, based on my research. Everyone can agree with it or not.

 

[Damian]

@Militarysta, You again manipulating everything.

Don't You ----in see that "doghouse" was opened and in fact was not perforated? You think that such thing would not happen to Leopard 2? And it is more difficult to hit intentionally such "doghouse" than unintentionally by accident hit main sight placed in turret front armor cavity.

This chanse is less then 1,5% So about what we are talking?

About this that some idiot in Germany belive that this 1,5% chance will never happen. It can happen, and if something can be completely eliminated, then it should be.

Wong.
1. Crew can survive vehicle armor perforation but is critical what kind of ammo do perforation. Crew have great chanse survive perforation made by HEAT and ONLY HEAT. If jet made from SC don't hit directly in tank men then all should be OK. And many examples from both Chechen wars and Iraq (M1) and Liban shown that. Only two problem's are to reduce the likelihood of hit ammo store, and do smt whit debris made by SC jet. And that all.
2. Chanse to survive after perforation made by APFSDS are very very low - no matter if there is ammo inside or not. To be extremly brutally - there is no there is no difference between cooked crew to dead and shredded crew to dead by APFSDS debrits. For APFSDS reason there is no diffrensce between perforation T-71M1 hull and M1 hull - crew will be dead in one way or another - if APFSDS pass the armour of course

No You are wrong, again You don't know history.

There were accident in Iraq that M1 was disabled by enemy or friendly hit, and this was APFSDS, there was even list of what tank, was where hit and when and by what. There were APFSDS hist reported and guess what, crews survived.

But yeah I know I know, we should belive in only these claims that makes Germans not inferior eh?

Again - wrong. During cold war, BW allways have more tank crews then tanks. In fact BW had more humans reserve in tank crews then had tanks.
And You try to level tank survivability on the battlefield whit crews survivability after perforation. These are two different things.

I don't care what structures had Bundeswehre, it was meaningless. In fact BW was just a war meat... even WarPac countries without support of Soviet Union would defeat West Germany by sheer numbers. So why we should even take Bundeswehr as something significant or that they allways had right?

 

[Damian]

Another argument that safe ammunition storage is important. It is from WWII (from a Polish forum about WWII).

It was reported that in M4 Sherman tanks with safe ammunition storage (Wet) in case of armor perforation in most cases less than 2 crew members (from 5) died, and we should remember that back then armor piercing ammunition was dangerous than these days ammunition because a full bore AP rounds had also small internal explosive charge that exploded after armor was pierced.

As for sights placement. As we can see on this drawing, it is completely possible to shorten optical channel of EMES-15 without degrading it's performance because internal mirrors are placed in such a way, that shortening optical channel won't affect their placement. It will also not affect the placement of tank commander PERI.



So in fact any arguments that Germans could not do that is just lame excuse for very serious mistake making vehicles front armor full of not needed holes.

In fact the whole EMES-15 could look very similiar to the sight used in M1 Abrams series, going through turret roof.

So it was possible, I just wonder why Leopard 2 lovers just don't admitt that?

Another argument is superiority of Leopard 2 FCS that is a pure myth. For a very long time German FCS lacked a very important element... MRS or Muzzle Reference Sensor. It is a very helpfull device that allow for consistent accuracy during repeated fire by calibrating the tank barrel to the sighting system.

This means that when barrel starts to deform when heating up after each shot and decalibrating, MRS help to compensate this effect without a need for making boresighting after several shots.

When both M1 and Challenger 1 when were fielded had MRS as their FCS component, Leopard 2 recived MRS probably when 6th Batch of these tanks were manufactured.

So there was no real superiority of Leopard 2 FCS over FCS of M1 besides a bit better quality of image shown by EMES-15 thermal sight.

 

[militarysta]

They had other options, they could do this, they don't

So just write here what options have Germans in 1976-1979
If You wrote that they have other options so just enlighten me.

I look at all aspects.

You completly don't understand me, or rather my english is still to weak
I was thinking that all one solution in tank:
a) that engine
b) that gun
b) that placed main gun or main sight
etc
have many aspects - I mentioned it, and eacht one main part of tank shoud be analysed by this aspects, and whole thing is connected.
You can't break out of context one thing and start to analysed it.

Costs of perations depends on each country capabilities, this don't mean Leopard 2 is some sort of uber tank because it is using preaty fuel efficent engine.

According to the Austalian "Supreme Control" Leop-2 are 40% cheapper then M1 in using. And propably most of other nations share this point of view. Leo2 is using buy how many countries? Turkey, Spain, Singapour, Sweden, Swizterland, will be form Saudi Arabi, Portugal, Poland, Austria, Norway, Niderlands, Canada, Greece, Finland, Denmark, Chile, Germany. All 17 countries.
And M1 in how many countries? USA, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabi,Austarlia, and will be by Greece (6). Almoust tree times less.

Ease of training, and You think other NATO MBT's are difficult in training? Yeah yeah I know the old song that only the germans are capable to easy train their soldiers... when in fact USA and Soviet Union much earlier builded the whole effective training system for their tank crews.

Bullsith, I saw and I had heard (and see) this "soviet union" "he whole effective training system for their tank crews" bullsith. If You can You can ask guys forkm 10 TkBde on NFoW about trening system for T-72 and PT-91 and what they got for Leopard-2 from Germny. Sorry but Leo-2 "Der Shimpanse" is mucht easier for trenning then PT-91/T-72 T-55, T-55AM Merida, etc. Like in compare to M1 -i don't know.
BTW: Chally-1 and 2 it's tankers ergonomic nightmare so yes -it's ifficult in training when we compare CR1 and CR2 to Leopards-2.

Wrong again, because with Your focus on that German fairy tales You completely ignore history. In fact the whole H-K system was builded not around PERI and similiar sights but tank commander cupolas. Unfortunetly due to cost saving M1 cupola was a simplified type without the connection with FCS, so as It could have been used as a PERI, TC needed to use it's joystick to control the turret, and traverse it in a right place.

It does not metter - no others tank in 80s. have this capabilities. And comparing PERI to commander cupolas is riddiculous. Just read this stupid article from btvt about PERI and stop writing nonsens...
ИСПЫТАНИЯ ЗАПАДНОГЕРМАНСКОГО ДНЕВНОГО КОМАНДИРСКОГО ПАНОРАМИЧЕСКОГО ПРИБОРА-ПРИЦЕЛА

Listen I do not know where You read such BS that other thermal sights back then couldn't affor 2000m identification of targets range. Christ TTS sight for M60A3 is at least a half smaller sight than You beloved EMES-15 and have similiar quality of dispplayed image.

WBG-X have >2000m identyfiaction range
TIS in M1 have ~1200m the same.
M1 night vision was worse, and You cant change it. Sorry - TIS suck. And I US stupid ideas build new tank whit weak FCS don't change it. EMES-15 was far better (espacially ij night) then solution from M1.

Really and TTS I mentioned above?

We are talkin about TIS, btw -Have You proper dates for TTS?

And how many of them had chance to compare Leopard 2 to other modern tanks, not PT-91 and T-72M1? Eh?

Yes, they have.

I know why, because Americans had opportunity to design a new tank, more they had both data from Israeli conflicts, real battle data, and had data from their own conflicts, and also have experiences from WWII.

No Damian. Gemrans have storn how-know whit Israeli during 80 and 90, and so what? Germans submarines, armour, amunitions, etc. And?
The reson of so that atention about crew survivality in M1 is caused by Wietnam. US have'n toleration for many bodybags returning home. The crews loses are more dangerous then whole tank loses - but not for tactical but rather political resons...
BTW: about weak spots - M1 have there like all other tanks.

So damn, these Americans are incredible with TTS, doing something as capable and much smaller... yeah Germans are inferior.

So give me article about TTS And as I said we dont discuss about TTS but TIS in M1. And Yes It was stupidy - make a good tank (M1) whit bad thermo (TIS). Yes I know - Money reson, but it was stupidy.

You finally admitt that Leopard 2 use up to this day obsolete sights and FCS?

Rather You havent Idea about Leo2 FSC.
What You want to compare? FCS from Leo2 in 1979 to 1988? In that period M1 FCS lose in almoust all parametrs.
If You want to compare FCS in Leo2 between 88 and 1994 then those in M1 coud be better. But in Leo2A6 and Strv.122 and Leo2A6HEL You have diffrent many parts in FCS and defently not "obsolete sights and FCS" It bullshit.
BTW During trade for Greece in fire exams Leo2A6 was better then M1A2 - slighty but better

Yeah I wonder where You see that it is 1200m and not 1800m for example? And maybe there is 2000m?

No It's enother exmaple that TIS range is 40% worse then WBG-X. 1200m vs >2000m.

1) It is not safe...

Is in best place when we consider hull ammo store. And if jet don't hit this rack - it's safe. Sorry test prove its. Even on T-72B in Chechenia.

Oh so now these 15 rounds in Leopard 2 turret is non existing?, and there is really no hydraulic? You see You start to completely mess things up, in M1 there is no hydraulics in turret, they are in hull, while in the Leopard 2 there are hydraulics in weakly protected bustle.

Rather You miss that both of danger factor (ammo and hydraulic) ar in Leo-2 under blow out plates and fully separated from the crew. In M1 You have only ammo separated from the crew. Super, it really big advantage M1, but second danger was missed - hydraulic.

Well I will be because armor protection is not only armor quality (and I never said that quality of Leopard 2 armor is bad, to the contrary), but also size and placement of weak zones.

Yeeah but You completly exaggerate this weak zones and chanses to hit ther. Yes, less then 1,5% for EMES optical channel is so f**n big problem so Leo2 protection sucks... In my opinnion worse FCS in M1 during 1979-1986 then in Leo2 was far dangerous then this ~1,5%. Or problem whit fire in ATG-1500. 400 fire accidents before 1990! God Christ - US even don't need Soviet to lose tank. This is problem more serious then small optical chanell in EMES-15 and less then 1,5% chanse to hit it.

And it is more difficult to hit intentionally such "doghouse" than unintentionally by accident hit main sight placed in turret front armor cavity.

Just think Damian. What is easier to hit - "doghouse" possible to hit from all degree becouse it is on TOP of the roof and without any cover for other then bottom side, or EMES-15 in frontal armour when it is cover from all then front side?

About this that some idiot in Germany belive that this 1,5% chance will never happen. It can happen, and if something can be completely eliminated, then it should be.

I suppose then they realized this, but it was less dangerous then danger ATG-1500 whit 400 fire accident (whithout any war...) or weak TIS or leess H-K capabilities on ABC battelfield. So You see trifle in Leo2 but don't see beam in M1 designe.

There were accident in Iraq that M1 was disabled by enemy or friendly hit, and this was APFSDS, there was even list of what tank, was where hit and when and by what. There were APFSDS hist reported and guess what, crews survived.

Each and wher it's perforate armour? Or I wonder If this APFSDS even perforated armour...

I don't care what structures had Bundeswehre, it was meaningless.

And it mistake. You try to judge Leo-2 but You haven't idea about Bundeshweer. This tank wasn't developed on mars but in Germany for Germnas and their requirements.

ven WarPac countries without support of Soviet Union would defeat West Germany by sheer numbers.

Bullshit. In ours (polish) analyst made in 1980s. on Wyższa Szkoła Wojsk Zmechanowanych im. T. Kościuszki in Wrocław they have analyst that vs. Bundeshweer and Leo2 our (polish) forses lost 8 T-72M1 for 1 Leo2A4. And average life of NCO on frontline was estimated as 26min.
So Yes " would defeat" but like in old joke about Ladas on red squere - rather Germans would defeat WarPac countres without Soviets.

As for sights placement. As we can see on this drawing, it is completely possible to shorten optical channel of EMES-15 without degrading it's performance because internal mirrors are placed in such a way, that shortening optical channel won't affect their placement. It will also not affect the placement of tank commander PERI.

As I wrote -ask Arrakis on NFOW about thermal channel. You think that You are smarter then engenieers who project that solution. But You does not

Another argument is superiority of Leopard 2 FCS that is a pure myth. For a very long time German FCS lacked a very important element... MRS or Muzzle Reference Sensor. It is a very helpfull device that allow for consistent accuracy during repeated fire by calibrating the tank barrel to the sighting system.

This means that when barrel starts to deform when heating up after each shot and decalibrating, MRS help to compensate this effect without a need for making boresighting after several shots.

No, It true that FCS in Leo-2 by almoust decade was far better then in M1, and lack of MRS wasn't so important, becouse there was tabels (and they are stil in offcial instrucion for Leo2 Lh-44) by how long barrel will have propper shape and conditions for FCS. MRS is usefull but not necessary in european climate.

When both M1 and Challenger 1 when were fielded had MRS as their FCS component, Leopard 2 recived MRS probably when 6th Batch of these tanks were manufactured.

And As I remember during CAT Leo2 had better point in typical Europe range:




And during trade for greece:

Ogień do celu statycznego prowadzony podczas jazdy (jaka prędkość czołgu?)
"Аbrams М1А2" - 17 trafień na 20;
"Leclerck" - 20 trafień na 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - 19 trafień na 20;
"CR 2Е - nawalił (LOL);
Т-84 - 3 trafienia na 8 potem nawalił

Ogień do celu w nocy w ruchu i z postoju: (jaki dystans??)
"Аbrams М1А2" - 20 trafień na 20;
"Leclerck" - 19 trafień na 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - 20 trafień na 20;
"CR 2Е" - 10 trafień na 10 , nie strzelał w ruchu!

Strzelanie w trybie hunter-killer do pojawiających się celów:

"AbramsМ1А2" - nie strzelał z powodu braku amunicji (nie dostarczono na czas...);
"Leclerck" - 13 trafień na 20 skuteczność ~0,65
"Leopard 2А5" - 17 trafień na 20 skuteczność ~0,85
"CR2 2Е" - 8 trafień na 20 skuteczność ~0,40
Т-84 - 9 trafień na 19 skuteczność ~ 0,47



Podczas testów SKO w ruchu dystans wynosił 1500m, zaś celem była ruchoma tarcza o wymiarach 2,3x4,6m. Tarcza poruszała się 40km/h.
Każdy czołg oddawał 10 strzałów APFSDS podczas ruchu z prędkością 20-30km/h. Warunkiem zaliczenia było 9 trafień.

 

[methos]

I really don't like these "dick measurement contests", but I feel forced to comment on some statements.

LIKE IN ALL OTHER TANKS IN WHOLE WORLD Just think why in Soviet Union, Germany, UK, France, and in 90. in India, Korea, Japan, and others no one construction have this solution. Just think and don't write tht only Americans have brains ant other 90% of tank industres are moorons. Only M1 have this solution and in rest of tnaks there is no completely isolate hull magazine. Think why.

That does not mean that a completely isolated ammunition storage is bad. It only means that the other countries have other priorities.

I look at all aspects.

2) Gun & Stabilization system - comparable with other modern MBT's, FCS comparable yet obsolete for todays standards, no advanced optics, no 2nd generation FLIR, no autotracker or semi autotracker, it is still 1980's technology in case of Leopard 2.

3) Survivability:

Armor protection - pure armor quality comparable for other tanks however big weak zones are present.

Maintainign combat capabilities after hit is same as other tanks... or even less because in case of Leopard 2 and other tanks where FCS components or turret traverse mechanisms are stored in weakly protected and exposed turret bustle.

Crew survivability is completely inferior in all tanks compared to M1.

4) Comparing Leopard 2 to tanks of it's generation is fair, and there are better designs than Leopard 2.

5) Operations and production:

Please, don't compare Germany with it's meaningless production capabilities to USA or Soviet Union. Germany didn't mean anything, it was just a bufor area for battles between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces.

Militarysta just told you to look at tanks of the same time. If you compare the Leopard 2 with other tanks and say "Same as other modern MBTs", please provide the time. In fact the Leopard 2 did have in most aspects better performance than it's contemporaries until the Cold War was over!

Tactical - same as other modern MBT's

Strategic - Same as other modern MBT's.

Tactical mobility today is still top class (even if the others caught up: there is still no tank with much better performance). If we take a look at Leopard 2 and M1 only, then it depends on the situation. M1's turbine is less noisy, but has hotter exhaust gases. Until the introduction of the M1A1 the Leopard 2 was the only of the two tanks to cross rivers on it's own.
Other contemporary tanks (Challenger 1, Ariete, T-72A and T-72B, T-80 series, etc.) all had inferior tactical mobility.
The strategic mobility of the Leopard 2 is better than that of the M1, because this also should include the increased logistics needed for the M1's fuel.

2) Gun & Stabilization system - comparable with other modern MBT's, FCS comparable yet obsolete for todays standards, no advanced optics, no 2nd generation FLIR, no autotracker or semi autotracker, it is still 1980's technology in case of Leopard 2.

What parts are exactly "obsolete"? And to come back to the time: The Leopard 2 did have the best FCS of the Cold War. No other tank did have such sophisticated hunter-killer capabilites, high accuracy and sensor output.

Armor protection - pure armor quality comparable for other tanks however big weak zones are present.

It's allways interested to watch such arguments... didn't militarysta mention a few posts ago that the weak zones aren't bigger? In fact the armour at the weak zones is thicker than the armour of other tanks at the weak zones and in the Leopard 2A5 all weak zones are reinforced.

Wrong again, because with Your focus on that German fairy tales You completely ignore history. In fact the whole H-K system was builded not around PERI and similiar sights but tank commander cupolas. Unfortunetly due to cost saving M1 cupola was a simplified type without the connection with FCS, so as It could have been used as a PERI, TC needed to use it's joystick to control the turret, and traverse it in a right place.

I am sorry to have to react like this, but this is complete bullshit. Who told you that? There is a reason why M1A2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Arjun etc. all copied the periscope solution from the Leopard 1A4 (or to be more exact from the MBT-70, which wasn't fielded). Which tanks did have rangefinders in their cuppolas except the Conqueror (which also has that only for rough measuring, the gunner still needs to measure more exact)? Hunter-killer capability does not mean "one guy can see targets and tell the gunner where they are" - else just sticking the head out of a hatch would be enough. The commander needs to be able to aim at the target, to measure the distance and compute a ballistic solution. This has never been done in the cuppola of a Patton tank or the Abrams.

Yeah it might be a shock for You but M4 Sherman with safe ammunition storage was safest tank of WWII, when crews of Panthers and Tigers after penetration of armor and ammunition ignition were mostly fried like chickens, M4 crews losses were very low, even if their tanks were not the best armoured. You see, and not only that crews were surviving, but also tanks were more often good for field repairs. You see how important is safe ammunition storage?

Fitting wet storage to the Sherman was as senseless as putting Zimmerit at the German tanks. All German AP projectiles except APCR ammo (which was limited for fighting heavy tanks only) greater than 20 mm did have a HE filler, enough to kill the crew of a Sherman for the typical 75 mm shell.

So damn, these Americans are incredible with TTS, doing something as capable and much smaller... yeah Germans are inferior.

TTS has been claimed at different places to be better than the thermal imager used in early M1 models.

 

[Damian]

So just write here what options have Germans in 1976-1979
If You wrote that they have other options so just enlighten me.

Simple, shortening optical channel in EMES-15 and placing it behind armor and through turret roof, it is as simple, and every drawing and scheme of that sight shows it was possible, only You don't accept this simple fact. I don't know why but I see here a hidden agenda to defend Your buddies in Heer.

You completly don't understand me, or rather my english is still to weak
I was thinking that all one solution in tank:
a) that engine
b) that gun
b) that placed main gun or main sight
etc
have many aspects - I mentioned it, and eacht one main part of tank shoud be analysed by this aspects, and whole thing is connected.
You can't break out of context one thing and start to analysed it.

And still Leopard 2 is inferior, end of discussion, it is!

According to the Austalian "Supreme Control" Leop-2 are 40% cheapper then M1 in using. And propably most of other nations share this point of view. Leo2 is using buy how many countries? Turkey, Spain, Singapour, Sweden, Swizterland, will be form Saudi Arabi, Portugal, Poland, Austria, Norway, Niderlands, Canada, Greece, Finland, Denmark, Chile, Germany. All 17 countries.
And M1 in how many countries? USA, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabi,Austarlia, and will be by Greece (6). Almoust tree times less.

And who said that they can't pay a bit more for Diesel version of M1 that was offered for Turkey, yeah, GDLS prepared Diesel powered M1A2 for Turkey, I even seen it's photos.

As for number of countries, this is insignificant because 90% of these countries use second hand tanks that are cheap, and how many tanks Germans sold to these countries eh? And how many of them were new builds? US only to Egypt sold 1,130 M1 tanks, all new builds not cheap tanks from cold war stocks. Saudi Arabia bought 373 M1A2's also new builds and currently is upgrading them, Kuwait bought 218 M1A2's, so in the end US sold 1,721 new builded M1's, add to this 199 sold from their stocks for Iraq and Saudi Arabia and You get 1,920 M1 tanks sold allready, and Greece can buy 400 more, this will end with total of 2,320 tanks sold. While Germans sold 2,532 and from that quantity only 889 were for sure new builds rest were tanks from stocks, some of them upgraded, some not. So Americans get in fact much better deals because first, each country ordered big quantities of their tanks, second if each of these countries will wish to upgrade their fleets, US factories will have much more work for much longer periods of time.

Bullsith, I saw and I had heard (and see) this "soviet union" "he whole effective training system for their tank crews" bullsith. If You can You can ask guys forkm 10 TkBde on NFoW about trening system for T-72 and PT-91 and what they got for Leopard-2 from Germny. Sorry but Leo-2 "Der Shimpanse" is mucht easier for trenning then PT-91/T-72 T-55, T-55AM Merida, etc. Like in compare to M1 -i don't know.
BTW: Chally-1 and 2 it's tankers ergonomic nightmare so yes -it's ifficult in training when we compare CR1 and CR2 to Leopards-2.

Again, You seems to be very ignorant about other nations developments. Soviets much earlier than Germans started to use trainers and non digital simulators. As well as Americans. As for Challenger 1 & 2, You again know nothing about history of these tanks. Challenger 1 yes, is a ergonomic nightmare because it inherited internal layout of turret from Chieftain tank, while Challenger 2 have improved ergonomics.

Listen maybe it's time to throw away German fairy tails and read books about others developments eh?

[QUOTEIt does not metter - no others tank in 80s. have this capabilities. And comparing PERI to commander cupolas is riddiculous. Just read this stupid article from btvt about PERI and stop writing nonsens...
ИСПЫТАНИЯ ЗАПАДНОГЕРМАНСКОГО ДНЕВНОГО КОМАНДИРСКОГО ПАНОРАМИЧЕСКОГО ПРИБОРА-ПРИЦЕЛА][/QUOTE]

Maybe it does not matters for You, but contrary to You I do not read claims of arrogant Germans that ignore others. Facts are facts, H-K systems were builded initially around rotating tank commander cupola, one of the first tanks having H-K system was Soviet Heavy tank, one of the later IS Heavy Tank variants.

WBG-X have >2000m identyfiaction range
TIS in M1 have ~1200m the same.
M1 night vision was worse, and You cant change it. Sorry - TIS suck. And I US stupid ideas build new tank whit weak FCS don't change it. EMES-15 was far better (espacially ij night) then solution from M1.

From where You have that data, You everywhere claims that it is 1200m but nowhere in any source it is said that TIS have identification range of 1200m. So stop lying.

We are talkin about TIS, btw -Have You proper dates for TTS?

I don't have dates about TTS because I'am not dating with tank sight. Tankers that have possibility to use TIS, TTS and seen WBG-X capabilities, say that TTS have better quality image than TIS and is not worse than WBG-X.

Yes, they have.

Yeah right... when the last time they have trained with other armies than Heer or other Leopard 2 users?

No Damian. Gemrans have storn how-know whit Israeli during 80 and 90, and so what? Germans submarines, armour, amunitions, etc. And?
The reson of so that atention about crew survivality in M1 is caused by Wietnam. US have'n toleration for many bodybags returning home. The crews loses are more dangerous then whole tank loses - but not for tactical but rather political resons...
BTW: about weak spots - M1 have there like all other tanks.

Israelis never really cooperated with Germans... please explain me, how You could cooperate with people that wanted to exterminate Your nation? And allmost succeed. In fact because of that, Germans should never have their own country. War is one thing, but... exterminating whole nations is, Germans like to call everyone primitive but in fact they are primitive and arrogant fools. These are politics and reality.

As for M1, every tank have weak zones in their armor, but M1 have acceptabale ones, just like Soviet tanks have acceptable ones. Leopard 2 have unacceptable just like Leclerc and to some degree Challenger 1/2.

So give me article about TTS And as I said we dont discuss about TTS but TIS in M1. And Yes It was stupidy - make a good tank (M1) whit bad thermo (TIS). Yes I know - Money reson, but it was stupidy.

It was not stupid, it was nececity, stupid is making tank with unnececary weak zone.

Rather You havent Idea about Leo2 FSC.
What You want to compare? FCS from Leo2 in 1979 to 1988? In that period M1 FCS lose in almoust all parametrs.
If You want to compare FCS in Leo2 between 88 and 1994 then those in M1 coud be better. But in Leo2A6 and Strv.122 and Leo2A6HEL You have diffrent many parts in FCS and defently not "obsolete sights and FCS" It bullshit.
BTW During trade for Greece in fire exams Leo2A6 was better then M1A2 - slighty but better

During Greece trails M1A2 was better than Leopard 2. Of course You can belive German sources, but I do not belive these liers.
As for FCS, Leopard 2 FCS was inferior, and is obsolete for today standards, You can not agree, You can lie, but these are facts, FCS from 1980's is obsolete, everybody replaced 1980's FCS systems with 1990's or newer technology. These are facts, accept them!

No It's enother exmaple that TIS range is 40% worse then WBG-X. 1200m vs >2000m.

Give me source, the source! But it can't be German source, I do not belive to their lies, give me manual for M1's FCS where there is directly said it TIS have identification range = 1200m.

Is in best place when we consider hull ammo store. And if jet don't hit this rack - it's safe. Sorry test prove its. Even on T-72B in Chechenia.

What test? Show me at least one vide or photo from Leopard 2 ballistic tests. Germans like to claim many things but they never show any proof.

Rather You miss that both of danger factor (ammo and hydraulic) ar in Leo-2 under blow out plates and fully separated from the crew. In M1 You have only ammo separated from the crew. Super, it really big advantage M1, but second danger was missed - hydraulic.

Hydraulics are not dangerous. Many M1's were hit, their armor perforated, in all these cases, not even single crew man was hurt due to hydraulic liquid. Yeah yeah, I know, You preffer what say Germans that don't have any real post WWII experiences with tanks, but I don't give a shit what they say if they don't have even smallest combat experience... they even do less in Afghanistan than our small contingent... pricks.

Yeeah but You completly exaggerate this weak zones and chanses to hit ther. Yes, less then 1,5% for EMES optical channel is so f**n big problem so Leo2 protection sucks... In my opinnion worse FCS in M1 during 1979-1986 then in Leo2 was far dangerous then this ~1,5%. Or problem whit fire in ATG-1500. 400 fire accidents before 1990! God Christ - US even don't need Soviet to lose tank. This is problem more serious then small optical chanell in EMES-15 and less then 1,5% chanse to hit it.

More lies before truth about Leopard 2 comes to light?

FCS of M1 was not worse than Leopard 2, You clearly seems to even ignore proper terminology, FCS is a whole system, while M1 thermal sight definetly had lower quality image (lower resolution). As for engine fires, 400 accidents occured in 1980-1985 period, before fielding of M1A1, it was clearly said in ARMOR Magazine that these were initial problems and most of these accidents were not serious. More accidents were fault of man, not machine.

Just think Damian. What is easier to hit - "doghouse" possible to hit from all degree becouse it is on TOP of the roof and without any cover for other then bottom side, or EMES-15 in frontal armour when it is cover from all then front side?

Definetly EMES-15 is easier to hit, because I know contrary to You, that when You are aiming at tank that is moving on the battlefield, You don't aim in such small object like a "doghouse" with main sight, but You aim at vehicles center mass.

I suppose then they realized this, but it was less dangerous then danger ATG-1500 whit 400 fire accident (whithout any war...) or weak TIS or leess H-K capabilities on ABC battelfield. So You see trifle in Leo2 but don't see beam in M1 designe.

As above, there were no serious problems with M1, there are serious problems with Leopard 2. In fact for Germany and whole NATO it would be better if Leopard 2 would never been inducted by Germans and anyone else. And this should be say loudly. I will be happy when finally Leopard 2's will be withdrawn from our Armed Forces and replaced with something else and better.

Each and wher it's perforate armour? Or I wonder If this APFSDS even perforated armour...

Side hull perforations occured, as well as at least one friendly fire incident when DU round perforated turret side. This is what I remember from list.

And it mistake. You try to judge Leo-2 but You haven't idea about Bundeshweer. This tank wasn't developed on mars but in Germany for Germnas and their requirements.

Germans are meanignless. As I said, Germany was insignificant bufor zone that was meant to be used a sa battlefield. Nobody cared about Germans, nor NATO, nor Soviet Union. So I ask, why we should even listen Germans? Because You have buddies in Bundeswehr? German armed forces are even less worth these days than during Cold War.

Jeez people, when our poor and small contingent in Afghanistan is fighting the war, Germans with their uber weapons mostly sit in their bases and do nothing.

Bullshit. In ours (polish) analyst made in 1980s. on Wyższa Szkoła Wojsk Zmechanowanych im. T. Kościuszki in Wrocław they have analyst that vs. Bundeshweer and Leo2 our (polish) forses lost 8 T-72M1 for 1 Leo2A4. And average life of NCO on frontline was estimated as 26min.
So Yes " would defeat" but like in old joke about Ladas on red squere - rather Germans would defeat WarPac countres without Soviets.

I think You don't understand what this analsys says. It is at tactical level, while I'am talking about strategic level. Our conscripts were no less trained than German ones. So by pure numbers we would defeat them, as Soviets were able to defeat IIIrd Reich by pure numbers.

Germans really had luck that Americans were standing behind them during Cold War, if not then west Germany would very quickly become part of DDR.

 

[Damian]

Tactical mobility today is still top class (even if the others caught up: there is still no tank with much better performance). If we take a look at Leopard 2 and M1 only, then it depends on the situation. M1's turbine is less noisy, but has hotter exhaust gases. Until the introduction of the M1A1 the Leopard 2 was the only of the two tanks to cross rivers on it's own.
Other contemporary tanks (Challenger 1, Ariete, T-72A and T-72B, T-80 series, etc.) all had inferior tactical mobility.
The strategic mobility of the Leopard 2 is better than that of the M1, because this also should include the increased logistics needed for the M1's fuel.

Strategic mobility means how well tank can be transported for greater distance. So tank is not traveling by it's own on these greater distances. Fuel efficency is responsible on vehicle maximum range on single refueling and how long it can operate between refueling.

What parts are exactly "obsolete"? And to come back to the time: The Leopard 2 did have the best FCS of the Cold War. No other tank did have such sophisticated hunter-killer capabilites, high accuracy and sensor output.

Main sight is obsolete, it's thermal sight as well as day sight with one single fixed magnification... even Soviet 1G46 day sight have two magnification levels.

As for sophisticated hunter killer capabilities. Even M60A2 had H-K system, and preatty good one.

It's allways interested to watch such arguments... didn't militarysta mention a few posts ago that the weak zones aren't bigger? In fact the armour at the weak zones is thicker than the armour of other tanks at the weak zones and in the Leopard 2A5 all weak zones are reinforced.

Many other tanks have their weak zones in places where weak zone is nececary, for example gun mount. While Germans done not only huge gun mount but also additional weak zone in turret front armor... this is idiotic in fact, not something smart that should be copier all around the world.

I am sorry to have to react like this, but this is complete bullshit. Who told you that? There is a reason why M1A2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Arjun etc. all copied the periscope solution from the Leopard 1A4 (or to be more exact from the MBT-70, which wasn't fielded). Which tanks did have rangefinders in their cuppolas except the Conqueror (which also has that only for rough measuring, the gunner still needs to measure more exact)? Hunter-killer capability does not mean "one guy can see targets and tell the gunner where they are" - else just sticking the head out of a hatch would be enough. The commander needs to be able to aim at the target, to measure the distance and compute a ballistic solution. This has never been done in the cuppola of a Patton tank or the Abrams.

What is funny, actually allmost all tanks with PERI/CITV don't have laser range finer in PERI/CITV, so yeah this is generally "one guy can see targets and tell the gunner where they are" system, without any other capabilities. When CITV/PERI acts as second main sight, it mostly use LRF of gunner main sight.

Fitting wet storage to the Sherman was as senseless as putting Zimmerit at the German tanks. All German AP projectiles except APCR ammo (which was limited for fighting heavy tanks only) greater than 20 mm did have a HE filler, enough to kill the crew of a Sherman for the typical 75 mm shell.

To the contrary. For example Soviet tank crewmen Dmitriy Loza wrote in his memoirs Commanding The Red Army's Sherman Tanks - The World War Two Memoirs of Hero Of The Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza that he and his fellow crew members not only survived thanks to safe ammunition storage, but were capable also to safely hide under their destroyed tank, contrary to T-34 for example where non safely stored ammunition exploded and to save their lifes they needed to run as far from burning tanks as possible, but this was also very dangerous because of enemy fire.

Everything was safer in M4. This was really great tank of it's period, better than comparable Soviet, German or British tanks.

TTS has been claimed at different places to be better than the thermal imager used in early M1 models.

And in the same time it have much smaller head assembly than both TIS and EMES-15.

 

[Damian]

And we should end this discussion. I won't change Your opinion, both of You won't change my opinion. So just let's agree to disagree shall we?

 

[Damian]

Only to make my arguments complete about EMES-15 sight.

Drawing shows where are mirrors inside sight.




So I shortened optical channel in such way that it will not affect original placement of mirrors in optical channel. You see, it was possible to do it that way, so main sight could go through turret roof. In fact, additional changes and it would be perfectly going through the roof and weak zone in turret front armor would be non existing.

To do so we should rise the upper assembly where day and thermal sights (cameras?) are placed, thus perhaps some place would be free to relocate that element on the sights side. Perhaps also gunner ocular could be relocated to a better place so it would fit better. But either way, it was possible to place sight in different way.

 

[Damian]

Meanwhile in Russia:

Gur Khan attacks!: Т-72Б2 "Рогатка" пойдет в войска. Неужели дождались?

And translation:

TBumacz Google

http://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-1564.htm

Seems that T-72B2 Rogatka (Slingshot) might be finally fielded by Russian Land Forces. It is very interesting tank indeed, and I agree that it is probably the best and most advanced upgrade of T-72B.

 

[Damian]

Altair - Kolejna odsłona Andersa

TÅ‚umacz Google

New version of Polish Universal Combat Platform WPB Anders will be presented on Eurosatory this year. Interesting, pitty that this is still technology demonstrator but perhaps soon OBRUM will present first prototype... however it is impressive that this demonstrator was successfully tested with 120mm, 105mm and 30mm weapon systems without any reported problems. Well I hope that this is the first step to improve our AFV's industry, and will end as a successfull platform for all tracked AFV's and support vehicles lighter than MBT's.

 

[asianobserve]

Altair - Kolejna odsłona Andersa

TÅ‚umacz Google

New version of Polish Universal Combat Platform WPB Anders will be presented on Eurosatory this year. Interesting, pitty that this is still technology demonstrator but perhaps soon OBRUM will present first prototype... however it is impressive that this demonstrator was successfully tested with 120mm, 105mm and 30mm weapon systems without any reported problems. Well I hope that this is the first step to improve our AFV's industry, and will end as a successfull platform for all tracked AFV's and support vehicles lighter than MBT's.

Damian, the guys at OBRUM must have asked for your inputs. It seems that the turret of this tank borrowed design cues from the Abrams tank...

(just joking) :thumb:

 

[methos]

Especially since the text mentions that the turret is not made by them...

 

[Damian]

Nah, they are just testing different weapon modules to see how well will they work with basic hull. It is actually preaty interesting vehicle, because even at technology demonstrator level, it is ver well suited for test with many even battle tested weapon modules.

Fire Support Vehicle (Light Tank) variant with both low profile turret (Polish designed) with 120mm CTG smoothbore gun, and CT-CV turret with 105mm Cockerill rifled gun.

Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant with Hitfist-30P manned turret armed with 30mm Mk44 automatic cannon, and with Hitfist-OWS unmanned turret also armed with 30mm Mk44 automatic cannon and with mockup of ATGM (Spike) launchers. Also besides Mk44 there is coaxial machine gun for all presented turret modules.