Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202

FSV(Light Tank) variant interior - rear hull space.


IFV (Hitfist-OWS unmanned turret) variant interior.


FSV variant with addon armor modules presented on floor.


Prototype of the gunner primary sight for the FSV variant with 120mm gun.


RWS Kobuz with 12,7mm machine gun.


Ukrainian Zaslon active protection system - mockup.

Photos are courtesty of Paweł K. Malicki.

Oh BTW, WPB Anders have really interesting powerpack.

It use MTU 8V199 TE20 but, between engine and transmission, there is also Starter-Generator device. Also made by MTU. Among several usefull things, it also vehicle a capability to move only on electric power, very quietly also, usefull thing, especially for scout variant.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
BTW, CT-CV turret was also successfully integrated with Polish version of Patria AMV, Rosomak (Wolverine).




There are of course many different variants, both used by Polish army and several others as proposals. Rosomak is also very well protected, Militarysta posted somewhere photos of Rosomak hull front armor that can protect vehicle against smaller RPG's.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
@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?
Yes, but I can't agree about some of yours tekst in your post so I would like to reply... Besides we are form Poland so both of us have the same "national characteristics" ex - fondness for discussion.

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.
Well im really sorry that I can't post here smothing about WBG-X :) In abstract - it wasn't possible because of sevral resons first was minimum lenght between lens (quality case) second was requirement for complete isolation WBG-X from the crew. WBG-X had brilliant images in 1980s. but it have some disadvatages on of it is, how to say it, - noisiness as a jet taking off, and it's working under gass pressure to cooled it to -198C.
Sorry but it wasn't so easy as You wrote -all solutions have many aspects as I wrote. Im pretty sure that germans was able do bulid simpler thermal sight whit shorter optical channel and lower quality and ranges but germans requirement was really hight and they want to have the best night sight in that decade. And they got it. It was diffrent point of view where more sophisticated WBG-X was choosen despite its flaws to ensure a real advantage vs soviet tanks.
BTW: we shouldn't forgot that ranges in thermal sights are really dependent on weather conditions. The mean range of identification mens that in perfect wether it was up to 2000m (even 3000m for WBG-x), but during fog and stormy wether it was even less then 2000m (~1800m according to friends from Leo-2) .
And the most inportant for Germans was: image quality and simplicity and reliability.
And here You have how "simple" is shorter sight in M1 in compare to "long" EMES-15:



Remember that each lens causes a decrease in image quality! How mirrors - no idea but lenses - without any doubt made huge decrease in image quality.
In EMES-15 we have ~12 mirrors and ~7-8 lens
in M1 main sight we have ~ 16 mirrors and 18 lens
So it's not suprising that TIS have mucht worse imaging - more lens - worse imaging.
And in result we have:
Allerdings ist das Ziel der Entwickler, eine einfachere Konstruktion zu schaffen, nicht erreicht worden. Die Leistungsparameter liegen deutlich unter denen des Zielfernrohres, zum Beispiel, des Leopard 2. Allerdings, bei Hinnahme eines leichten seitlichen Zitterns des Strichbildes, kann mit dem Zielfernrohr des M1 durch geübte Richtschützen ausreichend genau geschossen werden. Im Rahmen der Modernisierung wurde in das Zielfernrohr des M1A2 eine echte Stabilisierung der Visierlinie in zwei Ebenen eingeführt.
And still Leopard 2 is inferior, end of discussion, it is!
LOL - when and where I ask. In erly 80s? No way :) Sorry but it's not true.

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?
Yes, but those countries wants Leopard-2 not M1. For many resons.
And I wolud like to remember You that in Swizterland, Sweeden and Greece when was normal (more or less) trades whit test Leo2 just win. Not Abrams.
Where, when was comparative tests, was choosen Abrams? Could You show me that case?

Soviets much earlier than Germans started to use trainers and non digital simulators.
And when ended? You know many yers ago was some article in RAPORT-wto where those soviet simulators and polish beskid was described. I have not met a person from 10Tk.Bde. who don't seay that 25 yers old germans simulators and whole treinig system was better then those ex soviets and ours systems. Sorry.

Challenger 1 yes, is a ergonomic nightmare because it inherited internal layout of turret from Chieftain tank, while Challenger 2 have improved ergonomics.
Slighty improvmend which proved test during greece trade. BTW: Chally2 ergonomy was modeled as Leo-2 ones - especially about FCS and comander sight.

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.
Damian, this upper does not matters. Really. In 80s' only Leopard-2 have H-K possibilities whit fully stabilized panoramic TC sight which allowed works in H-K mode on ABC battelfield. And You can't change this fact.

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.
My friend - It's make me sad when You are rude.
And here is first source:



And second in FAS:


And before You will start to blame Autors from NTW just answer yourself in how many book and periodicals You published a somewhat. And try to have minimum respect to the Autors. Those guys works meny yers with tanks - in our Armoured Corps.


Israelis never really cooperated with Germans... please explain me, how You could cooperate with people that wanted to exterminate Your nation?
Precisely for this reason. First example:
Altair - Atak niemieckiej opozycji
Do You want scans about Merkava Mk.III FCS and others? About ammo? :) Israeli industry have their own little dirty how-know with Germans.

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.
Well - B-S. Just compare T-90 (in fact Ob.184 and 188) to others tanks:

or with Leopard-2A4:

"Soviet tanks have acceptable ones" - joke of the week

During Greece trails M1A2 was better than Leopard 2. Of course You can belive German sources, but I do not belive these liers.
And this is according to what? Eacht person can checkt on otvaga and btvt dates about trials in greece:
Отчет об участии Т-80У в тендере на поставку основного танка для вооруженных сил Греции
Static target, fire during moving tank:
"Аbrams М1А2" - 17 hits for 20 shoots;
"Leclerck" - 20 hits for 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - 19 hits for 20;
"CR 2Е - broke up and don't pass;
Т-84 - 3 hits for 8 after that broke up

Fire at night during stand and moving, static targets:

"Аbrams М1А2" - 20 hits for 20;
"Leclerck" - 19 hits for 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - hits for 20;
"CR 2Е" - 10 hits for 10 , CR2E do not shoot during moving!

Shooting in hunter-killer mode (emerging targets):
"AbramsМ1А2" - don't shoot for lack od proper ammo ;
"Leclerck" - 13 hits for 20 effectiveness ~0,65
"Leopard 2А5" - 17 hits for 20 effectiveness ~0,85
"CR2 2Е" - 8 trafień na 20 effectiveness ~0,40
Т-84 - 9 hits for 19 effectiveness ~ 0,47


During FCS tests in moving distance was 1500m, the target was moving target whit size 2,3x4,6m. The target was moving whit speed 40km/h
Hydraulics are not dangerous.
On Mars maybe.
In Leo2 working hydraulic temperature is 65C. At 85.C there is warnning "WNA TEMP" and at 118.C system automatically turns off.
But this is in working pipes elements. Hydraulic pomp is diffrent story. Hydaulic pomp works under 6 bar pressure and about 160 C work temperature and have 32 litres of oil. So Yes "Hydraulics are not dangerous" -another good joke.
You shoud demarcation damage to hydraulic lines (A this is indeed not so dangerous) and hit hydraulic pomp which is heated to 160 C. and work up to 6 bar pressure whit 32L of oil. This is really danger and this threat is palced in Leo-2 under turret bustle blow out plate. I have hope that now I explain more abot hydraulic in tank. BTW_ im almoust sure that hydraulic pomp in M1 just must have simmilar temperature and pressure and L oil inside.

FCS of M1 was not worse than Leopard 2
Whithout PERI analog? Of it must be worse. Sorry - no HK mode = worse.

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.
Unfortunatly not exatly - it depends on three factors: distance, scattering of ammunition on target, stab.error. In fact eacht gunner aim in center of mass, byt chanse to hit in center is raher low - and this all 30mm auto cannon ant others have bigger chanse to hit smth on turret corners then near turret center for that resons. Aim point is always diffrent then drop point.

BTW:
About EMES-15:
Kanal mit der Okularbaugruppe des EMES verbunden. Das ermöglicht es dem Kommandanten, neben dem EMES-Tagkanal auch das Wärmebildgerät des Richtschützen zur Beobachtung und Feuerführung zu nutzen
Das Wärmebildgerät hat unter normalen Bedingungen eine Aufklärungsreichweite von weit über 3000 Metern. Die Sichtweite wird erheblich herabgesetzt bei natürlichen Nebeln mit hoher Dichte und relativ großen Tropfendurchmessern. Hier wird ein großer Teil der Wärmeabstrahlung der Objekte absorbiert. Dennoch ist das WBG gegenwärtig das beste verfügbare Sichtgerät für Nacht und schlechte Sicht. Auch bei Tageslicht kann es helfen, gut getarnte Ziele zu erkennen und sollte deshalb im Gefecht ständig eingeschaltet sein.
Of course it is only in very good wether conditions.


And here You have explanation abour TIS and 1200m range in M1:
So verfügt das Hauptzielfernrohr des Richtschützen des Panzers Ml Abrams (...) Bei ungünstigen Witterungsbedingungen sichert es die Sichtbarkeit zum gleichen Ziel auf Entfernungen bis 1200 m. Die Bilddarstellung im Wärmebildzielfernrohr wird von einem Elektronenstrahlindikator überlagert, auf dem gleichzeitig alle für das Schießen nötigen Darstellungen und Daten erscheinen. Bei Verwendung kombinierter, verschiedener Nachtsichtgeräte erhofft man sich eine Kompensierung einzelner Mängel in der Anwendung der Systeme im Panzer. Werden die Darstellungen von Wärmebildgerät und Restlichtfernsehsystem in einem Bild vereinigt, überschreitet die Grenzentfernung für die Aufklärung von Zielen merklich die Entfernungen der einzelnen Bildkanäle.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well im really sorry that I can't post here smothing about WBG-X In abstract - it wasn't possible because of sevral resons first was minimum lenght between lens (quality case) second was requirement for complete isolation WBG-X from the crew. WBG-X had brilliant images in 1980s. but it have some disadvatages on of it is, how to say it, - noisiness as a jet taking off, and it's working under gass pressure to cooled it to -198C.
Sorry but it wasn't so easy as You wrote -all solutions have many aspects as I wrote. Im pretty sure that germans was able do bulid simpler thermal sight whit shorter optical channel and lower quality and ranges but germans requirement was really hight and they want to have the best night sight in that decade. And they got it. It was diffrent point of view where more sophisticated WBG-X was choosen despite its flaws to ensure a real advantage vs soviet tanks.
BTW: we shouldn't forgot that ranges in thermal sights are really dependent on weather conditions. The mean range of identification mens that in perfect wether it was up to 2000m (even 3000m for WBG-x), but during fog and stormy wether it was even less then 2000m (~1800m according to friends from Leo-2) .
And the most inportant for Germans was: image quality and simplicity and reliability.
TTS (AN/VSG-2) is also noisy, but if You say that WBG-X is like flying jet then TTS is fairly superior to it in that manner. Crews described sound of TTS as it sound like loud clicking. And hey, TTS offering comparable (if not better but we do not know this) image quality to WBG-X do not need to be isolated from crew, just like TIS.

So if I can understand Americans why they didn't use TTS because it was expensive, I do not understand Germans why they didn't use TTS? It wasn't avaiable at that time? IRCC Americans allways saying that they could use TTS instead of TIS but they were unable due to costs savings.

Remember that each lens causes a decrease in image quality! How mirrors - no idea but lenses - without any doubt made huge decrease in image quality.
In EMES-15 we have ~12 mirrors and ~7-8 lens
in M1 main sight we have ~ 16 mirrors and 18 lens
So it's not suprising that TIS have mucht worse imaging - more lens - worse imaging.
As You can see my proposal do not change internal layout of EMES-15, IMHO from mechanical point of view it was possible to place this differently. The real problem was turret design. Germans were in a hurry to design their tank, especially that they wanted to show it to Americans, but they made mistakes (admitt it, they are also humans, they can make mistakes) and later to not increase costs and to no increase time for vehicle induction, they decided to left turret as it is.

LOL - when and where I ask. In erly 80s? No way Sorry but it's not true.
Well it is true. Sorry I understand that You defend Your friends, but everyone everywhere bash other designs, and Leopard 2 was never really criticized, it is time to criticize it in a way this tank deserves it.

Yes, but those countries wants Leopard-2 not M1. For many resons.
And I wolud like to remember You that in Swizterland, Sweeden and Greece when was normal (more or less) trades whit test Leo2 just win. Not Abrams.
Where, when was comparative tests, was choosen Abrams? Could You show me that case?
But You completely forget the context and history of these tests. In each test, Sweden, Greece, UK (I don't know about Switzerland) initial winner was M1A1 or M1A2. However Americans were unwiling to sold their tank with their newest DU armor, neither they wanted to sold it cheap. Germans used occasion and offered variants of Leopard 2 better than these ones used by Bundeswehr and not only they wanted lower price for them, but also offered additional older A4 variants from their own stocks.

So yeah, M1 was in most cases initial winner, but political and economic factors decided that cheaper Leopard 2 was choosen.

And when ended? You know many yers ago was some article in RAPORT-wto where those soviet simulators and polish beskid was described. I have not met a person from 10Tk.Bde. who don't seay that 25 yers old germans simulators and whole treinig system was better then those ex soviets and ours systems. Sorry.
Because Poland was in WarPac, because WarPac countries allways had weapons and equipment worser than Soviet Union. Never ignore the context.

Slighty improvmend which proved test during greece trade. BTW: Chally2 ergonomy was modeled as Leo-2 ones - especially about FCS and comander sight.
Challenger 2 FCS is not modelled on Leopard 2 because this FCS is modified M1 Abrams FCS.

My friend - It's make me sad when You are rude.
I didn't meant to offend You but You are using non reliable sources. For example:

This is so full of crap. When I read it I wonder if authors are completely unaware how much BS they are writing there, or there is some other reason why there is so many mistakes there, so many untruths. It is the worst monography about M1 tanks I ever read!

And before You will start to blame Autors from NTW just answer yourself in how many book and periodicals You published a somewhat. And try to have minimum respect to the Autors. Those guys works meny yers with tanks - in our Armoured Corps.
These guys do not know nothing about any tank that was not in LWP or WP service. Sorry this is the truth. When I read some time ago a fragment of that monography I allmost died laughing, seriously.

Precisely for this reason. First example:
Altair - Atak niemieckiej opozycji
Do You want scans about Merkava Mk.III FCS and others? About ammo? Israeli industry have their own little dirty how-know with Germans.
Israelis are buying subs from Germany because Americans definetly won't sell them one, and besides this Americans don't manufacture such small subs, they don't need things designed to operate on sea, they are building subs that are operating mostly on oceans, that might be too big and expensive for Israel. So what alternative Israelis have?

And what we know about Merkava Mk3 FCS... besides that it is far more advanced than that used on Leopard 2? And a fact that it's sight are using double axis stabilization don't make them German made, new sights for M1 series also have double axis stabilization and are made in USA, and are far more advanced.

Besides this if You compare old Merkava Mk3 and new Mk4, You can clearly see that Mk4 is reapeting FCS and even sights placement pattern from M1A2, not Leopard 2.

Well - B-S. Just compare T-90 (in fact Ob.184 and 188) to others tanks:

or with Leopard-2A4:
And did You compare other tanks than T-72/T-90 series? No, You see this is the problem, that You take one Soviet tank model and make conclusions about other variants. Let's take T-80A, T-80U and T-80UD. Each of them do not have weak zones that have T-72B and T-90. Or let's take more modern T-90A, it also don't have these weak zones presented on T-90. So can we be fair?

And this is according to what? Eacht person can checkt on otvaga and btvt dates about trials in greece:
Отчет об участии Т-80У в тендере на поставку основного танка для вооруженных сил Греции
Static target, fire during moving tank:
"Аbrams М1А2" - 17 hits for 20 shoots;
"Leclerck" - 20 hits for 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - 19 hits for 20;
"CR 2Е - broke up and don't pass;
Т-84 - 3 hits for 8 after that broke up

Fire at night during stand and moving, static targets:

"Аbrams М1А2" - 20 hits for 20;
"Leclerck" - 19 hits for 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - hits for 20;
"CR 2Е" - 10 hits for 10 , CR2E do not shoot during moving!

Shooting in hunter-killer mode (emerging targets):
"AbramsМ1А2" - don't shoot for lack od proper ammo ;
"Leclerck" - 13 hits for 20 effectiveness ~0,65
"Leopard 2А5" - 17 hits for 20 effectiveness ~0,85
"CR2 2Е" - 8 trafień na 20 effectiveness ~0,40
Т-84 - 9 hits for 19 effectiveness ~ 0,47


During FCS tests in moving distance was 1500m, the target was moving target whit size 2,3x4,6m. The target was moving whit speed 40km/h
And once again M1A2 was not worser than Leopard 2, and due to unfortunate circumstances didn't shoot at one competition due to lack of ammunition. That's all.

On Mars maybe.
In Leo2 working hydraulic temperature is 65C. At 85.C there is warnning "WNA TEMP" and at 118.C system automatically turns off.
But this is in working pipes elements. Hydraulic pomp is diffrent story. Hydaulic pomp works under 6 bar pressure and about 160 C work temperature and have 32 litres of oil. So Yes "Hydraulics are not dangerous" -another good joke.
You shoud demarcation damage to hydraulic lines (A this is indeed not so dangerous) and hit hydraulic pomp which is heated to 160 C. and work up to 6 bar pressure whit 32L of oil. This is really danger and this threat is palced in Leo-2 under turret bustle blow out plate. I have hope that now I explain more abot hydraulic in tank. BTW_ im almoust sure that hydraulic pomp in M1 just must have simmilar temperature and pressure and L oil inside.
I seen many damaged or destroyed M1's, I seen some reports few years ago. In not even single report, crew was injured by hydraulic oil leaking from hydraulic traverse system of turret. Not even single case. I seen reports saying about spall injuries, or broken limbs due to IED explosions or other similiar wounds, but not even a single one saying that someone was hurt by hydraulic oil.

Not to mention that US Armed Forces vehicles crews are far more better protected than their German counterparts. Heavy individual ballistic protection (in many cases not these small ballistic vests or plate carriers, but even IOTV ballistic vests), CVC helmets, on standard uniform there is nomex uniform. And such protection is not weared in combat zones but even during peace time, on proving grounds in US. While from what I seen, German tankers were some simple uniforms and berets... berets not CVC helmet but a beret even in peace time!

Whithout PERI analog? Of it must be worse. Sorry - no HK mode = worse.
This is like comparing a flamingo and ostrich, because ostrich can't fly it is worse than flamingo?

Unfortunatly not exatly - it depends on three factors: distance, scattering of ammunition on target, stab.error. In fact eacht gunner aim in center of mass, byt chanse to hit in center is raher low - and this all 30mm auto cannon ant others have bigger chanse to hit smth on turret corners then near turret center for that resons. Aim point is always diffrent then drop point.
Oh You are making ammunition dispertion way to big. But look on A5/A6 variants of Leo2 sight is on turret top, so what now Germans made that mistake and make sight more vurnable? Well they probably did, seeing how "solid" is it's "doghouse"...

BTW:
About EMES-15:
Kanal mit der Okularbaugruppe des EMES verbunden. Das ermöglicht es dem Kommandanten, neben dem EMES-Tagkanal auch das Wärmebildgerät des Richtschützen zur Beobachtung und Feuerführung zu nutzen
Das Wärmebildgerät hat unter normalen Bedingungen eine Aufklärungsreichweite von weit über 3000 Metern. Die Sichtweite wird erheblich herabgesetzt bei natürlichen Nebeln mit hoher Dichte und relativ großen Tropfendurchmessern. Hier wird ein großer Teil der Wärmeabstrahlung der Objekte absorbiert. Dennoch ist das WBG gegenwärtig das beste verfügbare Sichtgerät für Nacht und schlechte Sicht. Auch bei Tageslicht kann es helfen, gut getarnte Ziele zu erkennen und sollte deshalb im Gefecht ständig eingeschaltet sein.
Of course it is only in very good wether conditions.


And here You have explanation abour TIS and 1200m range in M1:
So verfügt das Hauptzielfernrohr des Richtschützen des Panzers Ml Abrams (...) Bei ungünstigen Witterungsbedingungen sichert es die Sichtbarkeit zum gleichen Ziel auf Entfernungen bis 1200 m. Die Bilddarstellung im Wärmebildzielfernrohr wird von einem Elektronenstrahlindikator überlagert, auf dem gleichzeitig alle für das Schießen nötigen Darstellungen und Daten erscheinen. Bei Verwendung kombinierter, verschiedener Nachtsichtgeräte erhofft man sich eine Kompensierung einzelner Mängel in der Anwendung der Systeme im Panzer. Werden die Darstellungen von Wärmebildgerät und Restlichtfernsehsystem in einem Bild vereinigt, überschreitet die Grenzentfernung für die Aufklärung von Zielen merklich die Entfernungen der einzelnen Bildkanäle.
Can You provide more credible source? For example M1 tank crew member manual about TIS and how effective it is? I said, Germans are not credible. I read too many German made reports about anything that were full of crap to take their claims seriously.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Meanwhile, HAPC Namer tested in USA for their GCV IFV program.



Photo is claimed to be made in USA.

I wonder if Americans use some of design solutions. Or if eventually GDLS would manufacture their Namer version as GCV and unify it's components with M1 tank.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
@Damian

TTS (AN/VSG-2) is also noisy, but if You say that WBG-X is like flying jet then TTS is fairly superior to it in that manner. Crews described sound of TTS as it sound like loud clicking. And hey, TTS offering comparable (if not better but we do not know this) image quality to WBG-X do not need to be isolated from crew, just like TIS.
Well Yes, WBG-X is therrible noisy. And TTS just mus be more quiet. I havent problem whit that sentense :)
But from who or where have you read that TTS is "comparable" to WBG-X? I have strong doubts.

I do not understand Germans why they didn't use TTS? It wasn't avaiable at that time?
Becouse they have they own WBG-x. Propably the best in imaging in 1980s.


As You can see my proposal do not change internal layout of EMES-15, IMHO from mechanical point of view it was possible to place this differently.
I don't think so. Evry problem is "easy to fix it" when we are sitting before PC's. You don't know how really it was in ~1979.
But as I proof on draw: main sight in M1 is shorter, but more complicated, whit at last 2 times more lens. So it just mus have worse imaging then WBG-x. It's not a big deal.
And as I said - it's always "something for something". In M1 we have shorter TIS whit worse imaging and range, but we have full frontal armour integrity (no metter that LOS is thinner in erly M1 then in Leo2). In Leo2 we have better night sight but we have also gap for optcal channel, and worse armour integrity. It was choise. For Germans more important was the best as it was possible FCS and night sight, for americans - frontal armour integrity.

Well it is true.
Damian in what aspect? Mobility? Almoust the same whit big atvantages disel engine (life time, tracks life time, etc). FCS was more sophisticated and better (PERI, WBG-X...) in Leo2 then in M1. Firepower was slighty better in leo2 for better main gun reson.
Armour protection? Better integrity in M1, but smaller LOS thickness (what is impotant according to Paweł Przeździecki Burlinghton study). Chanse to survive crew after perforation turret was the same in both tanks - there was no ammo and chydraulic pomp in crew comparment in turrets in both tanks. Hull in M1 havent so mucht ammo like in Leo2 but in leo2 this ammo racke is place in the best place. On the oher hand - in M1 we have hydraulic pomp in hull what is always danger for crew and tank.

But You completely forget the context and history of these tests. In each test, Sweden, Greece, UK (I don't know about Switzerland) initial winner was M1A1 or M1A2
So please give me a sourses that in:
1) Swizterland
2) Sweeden
3) Greece
"the initial winner was M1A1"
ok?
I just want to read this, becouse in other sources there was nothing about this.
In Sweeden as I read "Abrams was placed as a tank on the same operational and technical level as Leopard2KWS" (so no better!) but was rejected due to hight cost of using, and buy.

M1 was in most cases initial winner,
So please post any sourses about this victories, becouse it looks like old joke about ladas car on Red Squere :D


Challenger 2 FCS is not modelled on Leopard 2
at least partially it was:
According to: New Military Technique, Main Battle Tank Challenger-2, 1/2004, s.14 witten by Michał Nita
"Tank Comander have panoramic sight VS580-10(..) its implementation was called for the army and result analyst Leopard-2 FCS"
BTW, according to this article TK panoramic sight haven't their own night channel, so it's used as PERI - in gunner image preview.
In very good wather conditions sight can detect target from <4500m and identyfication range is possible <2500m.


And did You compare other tanks than T-72/T-90 series? No, You see this is the problem, that You take one Soviet tank model and make conclusions about other variants. Let's take T-80A, T-80U and T-80UD.
Yes I compare those tanks...
All soviet tanks whit cast turrets had bigger and weaker points then Leopard-2 or M1IP.
And this is conslusion after some yers.

If You asked about welded turret Ob.188A1, Ob.478, etc - that situation is diffrent, but we shoud compare it to the Leo-2A5 not 2A4.

And once again M1A2 was not worser than Leopard 2, and due to unfortunate circumstances didn't shoot at one competition due to lack of ammunition.
According to knowed Greek trial test, and CAT84 Leopard-2 was slighty better during fire exercise:

Greek:
comparable results day/night shooting:
M1 17/20 20/20
Leo2 19/20 20/20
Leclerck 20/20 19/20

in summary it gives:

M1: 37/40
Leo2: 39/40
Leclerck: 39/40

CAT84 (M1 and Leo2A3):


If You have other dates just post it.

I seen many damaged or destroyed M1's, I seen some reports few years ago. In not even single report, crew was injured by hydraulic oil leaking from hydraulic traverse system of turret. Not even single case. I seen reports saying about spall injuries, or broken limbs due to IED explosions or other similiar wounds, but not even a single one saying that someone was hurt by hydraulic oil.[/guote]
But question is if ydraulic pomp was hit. As I said same pipes elements ale not so dangerous due to lower presure and temperature.

Not to mention that US Armed Forces vehicles crews are far more better protected than their German counterparts. Heavy individual ballistic protection (in many cases not these small ballistic vests or plate carriers, but even IOTV ballistic vests), CVC helmets, on standard uniform there is nomex uniform. And such protection is not weared in combat zones but even during peace time, on proving grounds in US. While from what I seen, German tankers were some simple uniforms and berets... berets not CVC helmet but a beret even in peace time!
Damian, please - I know that Goebels said that hundret times repted lies start to be recognized as a truth, but please assimilate and remember that looks BW combat uniform:


This is like comparing a flamingo and ostrich, because ostrich can't fly it is worse than flamingo?
If we are talking about flying - Yes.

But look on A5/A6 variants of Leo2 sight is on turret top, so what now Germans made that mistake and make sight more vurnable?
I asnwer that yesterday. What was reson.

Can You provide more credible source? For example M1 tank crew member manual about TIS and how effective it is?
If I found that - of course Yes.

I said, Germans are not credible.
Becouse they are Germans? racism is always the same - stupid. I doesn't metter when or from who are fact if they had confirmation in others sources.
I read too many German made reports about anything that were full of crap to take their claims seriously.
So gve me examples of this reports - ok?

BTW: about TIS range You have three independent sources:
1. Monography M1 Abrams from Nowa Technika Wojskowa
2. This german tekst about night sights
3. FAS page fragment whit picture about M1 night sight only ~50% better then T-72M1 (600-800m)
Maybe hey are (without germans ones..) far from perfet, but hey are:
a) three
b) totally independent
So something's up - especially according to the excessive complexity M1 main sight whit 18 lens (more then two times more then in EMES-15) what just must have ratio in to image quality and range..
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well Yes, WBG-X is therrible noisy. And TTS just mus be more quiet. I havent problem whit that sentense
But from who or where have you read that TTS is "comparable" to WBG-X? I have strong doubts.
And why it can't be comparable? Or even better? because it is American made? Or because it does not have the same design as WBG-X?

Maybe I remind You that WBG-X is based on American technology (Hughes common parts as it was called somewhere).

Becouse they have they own WBG-x. Propably the best in imaging in 1980s.
Only because they had their own WBG-X does not mean that there were no alternatives, also foreing ones. And I do not understood this best in 1980's sentence? Why the best? Again because it is German made?

I don't think so. Evry problem is "easy to fix it" when we are sitting before PC's. You don't know how really it was in ~1979.
But as I proof on draw: main sight in M1 is shorter, but more complicated, whit at last 2 times more lens. So it just mus have worse imaging then WBG-x. It's not a big deal.
And as I said - it's always "something for something". In M1 we have shorter TIS whit worse imaging and range, but we have full frontal armour integrity (no metter that LOS is thinner in erly M1 then in Leo2). In Leo2 we have better night sight but we have also gap for optcal channel, and worse armour integrity. It was choise. For Germans more important was the best as it was possible FCS and night sight, for americans - frontal armour integrity.
Either way, Germans made a mistake. In Germany most combat ranges were below 2,000m's, why the hell they needed a sight that having better quality image in thermal mode, when it broke armor integrity, and they didn't had many occasions to use it's full capabilities in targets identification? Or why they didn't choose TTS (AN/VSG-2) if it had better thermal image quality than TIS (AN/VSG-X) yet being more compact than WBG-X?

Damian in what aspect? Mobility? Almoust the same whit big atvantages disel engine (life time, tracks life time, etc). FCS was more sophisticated and better (PERI, WBG-X...) in Leo2 then in M1. Firepower was slighty better in leo2 for better main gun reson.
Armour protection? Better integrity in M1, but smaller LOS thickness (what is impotant according to Paweł Przeździecki Burlinghton study). Chanse to survive crew after perforation turret was the same in both tanks - there was no ammo and chydraulic pomp in crew comparment in turrets in both tanks. Hull in M1 havent so mucht ammo like in Leo2 but in leo2 this ammo racke is place in the best place. On the oher hand - in M1 we have hydraulic pomp in hull what is always danger for crew and tank.
FCS in Leopard 2 might be more sophisticated but is not better. Stabilization in M1 is more precise, automatic lead is a better solution, it allows quicker firing while still maintaining precision. However You just need to train it, it might feel strange when You earlier used Leopard 2 FCS.

However on simulators I allways had better results with M1 than Leopard 2. Manual lead imput in Leopard 2 is serious bitch I must say. I never was capable to maintain steady lead, while on M1 it was easy, track target, lase it, automatic lead, 1,2 seconds of steady lead and fire, 90-100% accuracy.

So please give me a sourses that in:
1) Swizterland
2) Sweeden
3) Greece
"the initial winner was M1A1"
ok?
I just want to read this, becouse in other sources there was nothing about this.
In Sweeden as I read "Abrams was placed as a tank on the same operational and technical level as Leopard2KWS" (so no better!) but was rejected due to hight cost of using, and buy.
I didn;t say that in Switzerland it was initial winner. But on TankNet it was said that in Sweden M1A2 was preffered choice, IRCC same was in Greece. In UK M1A1 defeated Leopard 2A4. I dunno however if TankNet archieves weren't cleaned from these topics.

Yes I compare those tanks...
All soviet tanks whit cast turrets had bigger and weaker points then Leopard-2 or M1IP.
And this is conslusion after some yers.

If You asked about welded turret Ob.188A1, Ob.478, etc - that situation is diffrent, but we shoud compare it to the Leo-2A5 not 2A4.
Nope, roof weak zones were eliminated in T-80A, T-80U and T-80UD with cast turret.

According to knowed Greek trial test, and CAT84 Leopard-2 was slighty better during fire exercise:

Greek:
comparable results day/night shooting:
M1 17/20 20/20
Leo2 19/20 20/20
Leclerck 20/20 19/20

in summary it gives:

M1: 37/40
Leo2: 39/40
Leclerck: 39/40

CAT84 (M1 and Leo2A3):


If You have other dates just post it.
Later I will post from CAT, M1 with it's "inferior" FCS defeated Leopard 2.

But question is if ydraulic pomp was hit. As I said same pipes elements ale not so dangerous due to lower presure and temperature.
And where did You read that hydraulic pomp in M1 is in crew compartment? I never seen hydraulic pomp there, on any photo. I seen only oil reservoir that after being hit and damaged, and oil leaked to the crew compartment, did not hurt any crew member. Pump is as far as we can conclude, somewhere in engine compartment.

Damian, please - I know that Goebels said that hundret times repted lies start to be recognized as a truth, but please assimilate and remember that looks BW combat uniform:
You know that this ballistic cover is US made? ;)

It is exactly the same as US CVC helmet ballicstic cover.



If we are talking about flying - Yes.
But as being a bird, is he worser than flamingo or not?

I asnwer that yesterday. What was reson.
And they done that in 1990's, what they did not slightly redesigned the turret to put sight completely behind armor? Why they not even used newer sights? EMES-15 is allready outdated, big instead of compact, and inferior to newer sights.

Becouse they are Germans? racism is always the same - stupid. I doesn't metter when or from who are fact if they had confirmation in others sources.
Rascism? Hey as far as I remember not Poles tried to completely destroy Germans, but Germans were trying to completely destroy Poles, Jews, Russians and some other nations... and they allmost succeed, so who is rascist? Definetly not me! And belive me, You might shake hands with You buddies from Bundeswehr, but I seen examples when Germans come to our country and start to beat innocent citizens of our country.

So gve me examples of this reports - ok?
Heinz Guderian reports during Barbarossa when he was describing a new tank they encountered. T-34 in his description had small road wheels and machine gun mount on turret rear. Now use some books and search to what Soviet tanks such description feets... I tell it was not T-34, and this is how reliable are Germans.

BTW: about TIS range You have three independent sources:
1. Monography M1 Abrams from Nowa Technika Wojskowa
2. This german tekst about night sights
3. FAS page fragment whit picture about M1 night sight only ~50% better then T-72M1 (600-800m)
Maybe hey are (without germans ones..) far from perfet, but hey are:
a) three
b) totally independent
So something's up - especially according to the excessive complexity M1 main sight whit 18 lens (more then two times more then in EMES-15) what just must have ratio in to image quality and range..
Nowa Technika Wojskowa article is poor, I have it, I read it, and this is the worst monography about M1 I ever read.
German sources are not credible, in fact this is typical black PR made for possible competition.
FAS diagram do not show exact ranges, You are interpreting it in to Your favor when it is not said exactly what range it is representing.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
@Damian

And why it can't be comparable? Or even better? because it is American made? Or because it does not have the same design as WBG-X?
No, rather becouse it may replicate mistake from TIS - to many lenses, and quality goes down. But I don't know so any sources od draw will be welcome :)

Only because they had their own WBG-X does not mean that there were no alternatives, also foreing ones. And I do not understood this best in 1980's sentence? Why the best?
For range and quality resons.

Either way, Germans made a mistake. In Germany most combat ranges were below 2,000m's, why the hell they needed a sight that having better quality image in thermal mode, when it broke armor integrity, and they didn't had many occasions to use it's full capabilities in targets identification?
Becouse weather conditions in central Europe for hal of year are not so good - rain, mist, snow, etc. And they wanted to had sure identyfication range in all weather conditions on 1500m. Just this.

Ranges in thermal sights are really dependent on weather conditions. On part of german tekst about TIS (it's germans so for You it's crap and will not be interesting) have part when is decribe that in perfect weather TIS can recognize target from max 3000m but in bad weather conditions it can recognize target from less than 1200m.
That is influence weather for range - from 1200m up to 3000m for TIS.
For EMES-15 and WBG-x it is up to 3000m to lower 1500-1800m.

FCS in Leopard 2 might be more sophisticated but is not better. Stabilization in M1 is more precise, automatic lead is a better solution,
First- in Leo2 we have PERI in FCS. In M1 we haven't that. Second "automatic lead" is no easier in use then solutions in leo2. We had discuss this on NFOW. 5 steps in M1, 4 steps in leo2.

However on simulators
On Your pC, in Your home. Not " simulators" it had nothing common whit real tank and real manuals.

But on TankNet it was said that in Sweden M1A2 was preffered choice, IRCC same was in Greece.
So foud this posts. About Greece I don't found nothing like that. And in whole literature neither.

Nope, roof weak zones were eliminated in T-80A, T-80U and T-80UD with cast turret.
And only roof.

You know that this ballistic cover is US made?[/guote]
Maybe :)

And they done that in 1990's, what they did not slightly redesigned the turret to put sight completely behind armor?
Becouse it was economical nonsense. And in A5-A5 you have fixed that problem.

Heinz Guderian reports during Barbarossa when he was describing a new tank they encountered. T-34 in his description had small road wheels and machine gun mount on turret rear.
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA So Wermaht raport form september 1941 is example that all germans books about tanks, all studies, raport instructions, and other had wroten 40 years later are crap? buhahahahahahha funny, and comical
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
No, rather becouse it may replicate mistake from TIS - to many lenses, and quality goes down. But I don't know so any sources od draw will be welcome
In the same time people that actually used both TTS (AN/VSG-2) and TIS (AN/VSG-X) says that first one have very good quality image. So problem is not in lenses, rather resolution.

Becouse weather conditions in central Europe for hal of year are not so good - rain, mist, snow, etc. And they wanted to had sure identyfication range in all weather conditions on 1500m. Just this.

Ranges in thermal sights are really dependent on weather conditions. On part of german tekst about TIS (it's germans so for You it's crap and will not be interesting) have part when is decribe that in perfect weather TIS can recognize target from max 3000m but in bad weather conditions it can recognize target from less than 1200m.
That is influence weather for range - from 1200m up to 3000m for TIS.
For EMES-15 and WBG-x it is up to 3000m to lower 1500-1800m.
And in the same time Americans were able to fight in desert during desert storms (not Operation Desert Storm but desert storms!) on ranges beyond 1,500m. So TIS is not that bad.

First- in Leo2 we have PERI in FCS. In M1 we haven't that. Second "automatic lead" is no easier in use then solutions in leo2. We had discuss this on NFOW. 5 steps in M1, 4 steps in leo2.
Wrong You did not understand what I said then. In M1 You track target, lase it, fire + gunner need to choose what type of ammunition is fired, same thing in tanks with autoloaders for example, in Leopard 2 You track target, lase it, then You need press button so the computer will start to add lead, loader is choosing what ammunition is used on FCS software. So the number of done things is same.

On Your pC, in Your home. Not " simulators" it had nothing common whit real tank and real manuals.
It is the same software used by our and not only our tank crews.

So foud this posts. About Greece I don't found nothing like that. And in whole literature neither.
I do not promise I will find them.

Not maybe, but certainly, the same cover was used by US tank crews before anyone was even thinking about M1 or Leopard 2.

Becouse it was economical nonsense. And in A5-A5 you have fixed that problem.
It would actually simplify turret design and reduce costs because less welding and cutting small plates would be required. If not for old tanks, such redesigned turret could have been done for new builded ones. And problem still exist.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA So Wermaht raport form september 1941 is example that all germans books about tanks, all studies, raport instructions, and other had wroten 40 years later are crap? buhahahahahahha funny, and comical
There are many more. I have distance for them, because someone who claims that is specialist on tanks and is unable to properly identify tank type starts to be unreliable source for me. It is understandable that a simple trooper won't know what he sees but a General that is claimed to be one of the best specialists on tank don't have idea about what he sees?

So You allow me to doubt further in to German sources ok?
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
This is the latest update? Can You provide a link to the whole document. If this is the latest update than this is great news. There were rumors that someone decided to cancel whole program, because there were some news. But it seems that program is just continued under normal schedule and quietly. It would be good if they will also replace old M256/L44 gun with XM360A1/L48 gun... well actually they should do that, retrofiting M256 with ammo data link and ammunition programmer can be expensive, XM360A1 from start have installed both devices.
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
@Damian

You are saying that we cannot believe German sources in general when it comes to German/all tanks, but you still use American sources for American tanks...
You say that the 12x magnification of the EMES-15 is a drawback, but that 1,200 - 1,500 m range for a thermal imager is ok, when it is used in the same area where the EMES-15 is optimized for...

Strategic mobility does include logistics.
Tactical mobility = all what matters in a battle (speed, amount of fuel, ability to cross rivers)
Strategical mobility = all what matters when planning a war (ability to move tanks by train, ship or aircraft, amount of fuel trucks required, amount of forces required to protect the supply lines)

You say that the Germans were in a hurry to design the Leopard 2 for showing it to the U.S., but the turret is based on an older design already available back then.

You are claiming that the M1A1/M1A2 always performed better than the Leopard 2. This is not true.
Armour protection and composition remains secret in evaluations, at least proper data. Else the Greek government would know the armour composition and protection levels of all modern MBTs.
In the Swiss tests the M1 was having multiple times problems with the environment, at one time the brakes did not work in the mountains, which lead to an accident in which people got wounded and afaik also died.
In the Swedish test the M1A2 fullfilled 86% of the requirements, the Leopard 2 Improved 91%.
In Greece armour tests were only done after the tanks were already sold. Prior this armour didn't matter in the evaluation.
The only time the M1 won a contract over the Leopard 2 was for the Australian army, but according to some people the Leopard 2 and the M1 did cost the same sum, but in case of the Leopard 2 this were Euros and not Dollars. If this is true is another thing, nobody knows.

You are claiming that the U.S. would not be willing to sell DU armour and/or DU weapons - I have heard this very often, but I am pretty sure that close allies (NATO) would be able to buy them if they liked to. In the end the Americans have exported their BYG-1 combat control systems which is used on U.S. nuclear subs to close allies (Australia), which is far more important.

Isreal is having a long history of arms cooperation with Germany. Germany send them tanks (M48s) already prior 1967. The Isrealis send the Germans a number of captured equipment for analyzing - including a T-62 with APFSDS rounds during the 1970s. The Germans and the Isrealis used the same types of 105 mm APFSDS ammunition.

When it comes to flying the ostrich is worse. And when it comes to being a bird flying is essential when flying means identifying targets and aiming at them at a higher rate.

U.S. sights on M1 and M1A2 are stabilized in one axis, while the Leopard 2 sights are stabilized in two-axis.

If you post more about CAT 87, then don't forget the other CAT shootings where the Leopard 2 won.

I also think that you are to some extend a racist, at least if it helps you to win an argument about tanks.

When Heinz Guderian first described the T-34 he probably didn't see him from close. He was an important officer and the enemy had a tank nearly invulnerable.

Polish army uses SteelBeats? I thought they would have gotten their equipment from Germany, as they will be in case of a war where NATO has to defend themselves under command of the 1. Panzerbrigade in Germany.

You know that there is no part except the shape to identify the ballistic cover and it might just look similar? You that German companies make helmets and ballistic vests for more than 30 countries?
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,558
Country flag
This is the latest update? Can You provide a link to the whole document. If this is the latest update than this is great news. There were rumors that someone decided to cancel whole program, because there were some news. But it seems that program is just continued under normal schedule and quietly. It would be good if they will also replace old M256/L44 gun with XM360A1/L48 gun... well actually they should do that, retrofiting M256 with ammo data link and ammunition programmer can be expensive, XM360A1 from start have installed both devices.
Not much resource out there. The jpeg is from Mid-Range Munition (MRM). But the latest internet resource is from deagle.com XM1111 Mid Range Munition. It says there that the status of the program is "under development."
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
You are saying that we cannot believe German sources in general when it comes to German/all tanks, but you still use American sources for American tanks...
I use different sources, UK for example or my own observations.

You say that the Germans were in a hurry to design the Leopard 2 for showing it to the U.S., but the turret is based on an older design already available back then.
Americans before they inducted M1, tested several hull and turret designs, Germans had this ability also, but they choose a very strange turret design. They were in a hurry.

You are claiming that the M1A1/M1A2 always performed better than the Leopard 2. This is not true.
Armour protection and composition remains secret in evaluations, at least proper data. Else the Greek government would know the armour composition and protection levels of all modern MBTs.
In the Swiss tests the M1 was having multiple times problems with the environment, at one time the brakes did not work in the mountains, which lead to an accident in which people got wounded and afaik also died.
In the Swedish test the M1A2 fullfilled 86% of the requirements, the Leopard 2 Improved 91%.
In Greece armour tests were only done after the tanks were already sold. Prior this armour didn't matter in the evaluation.
The only time the M1 won a contract over the Leopard 2 was for the Australian army, but according to some people the Leopard 2 and the M1 did cost the same sum, but in case of the Leopard 2 this were Euros and not Dollars. If this is true is another thing, nobody knows.
IMHO M1 is more perspective tank than Leopard 2 when it comes to classic design. Seriously, You would want to fight in a tank where there is huge ammunition rack that is unisolated? I would make a shit in my pants on real battlefield sitting in that thing and knowing that if something wrong will happen I will be like fried chicken.

You are claiming that the U.S. would not be willing to sell DU armour and/or DU weapons - I have heard this very often, but I am pretty sure that close allies (NATO) would be able to buy them if they liked to. In the end the Americans have exported their BYG-1 combat control systems which is used on U.S. nuclear subs to close allies (Australia), which is far more important.
All M1's sold to US allies have serial numbers saying ther there is no DU in their armor.

I don't know if Americans would be willing to sell it to someone...

Isreal is having a long history of arms cooperation with Germany. Germany send them tanks (M48s) already prior 1967. The Isrealis send the Germans a number of captured equipment for analyzing - including a T-62 with APFSDS rounds during the 1970s. The Germans and the Isrealis used the same types of 105 mm APFSDS ammunition.
It's strange to cooperate with a nation that several years eralier wanted to completely destroy Your own nation... but hey, who can understand jews.

U.S. sights on M1 and M1A2 are stabilized in one axis, while the Leopard 2 sights are stabilized in two-axis.
Wrong! M1A2 when fielded in early 1990's recived sights stabilized in two-axis, in 1999 and in early XXI century both M1A2's (SEP upgrade) and M1A1's (SA and FEP upgrades) recived completely new FCS and sights with both two-axis stabilization and 2nd generation FLIR. Only prior 1990's M1 and M1A1 variants use one-axis stabilized sights.

If you post more about CAT 87, then don't forget the other CAT shootings where the Leopard 2 won.
Yeah, and still they lost with "inferior" American tank.

I also think that you are to some extend a racist, at least if it helps you to win an argument about tanks.
Hey remind me when I last time tried to completely eradicate some nation, not to mention that Germans and Poles are the same race... hmmm interesting argument, because I don't like German tank, I wan't to eradicate my own race... hmmm.

But this don't change a fact that Germans wanted last time to exterminate my own nation and several others + at the last time when Poland had it's independence day, some Germans come to my own country, to our capital and started to beat innocent civilians participating in our national holiday... then I ask who is still the rascist here and want to destroy other nation? Not to mention that these Germans called all Poles participating in our national holliday a fascists... I don't know like You but for this is sick.

When Heinz Guderian first described the T-34 he probably didn't see him from close. He was an important officer and the enemy had a tank nearly invulnerable.
This invurnable tank was KV-1, T-34 was preatty much failed design, if not war, T-34 would have been preaty fast replaced by other designs with improvements.

Polish army uses SteelBeats? I thought they would have gotten their equipment from Germany, as they will be in case of a war where NATO has to defend themselves under command of the 1. Panzerbrigade in Germany.
We use both equipment from Germans, AAT and similiar trainers + Steel Beasts Pro.

You know that there is no part except the shape to identify the ballistic cover and it might just look similar? You that German companies make helmets and ballistic vests for more than 30 countries?
You know that I also have books, and in 1950's-1970's period I did not seen even single German tank crew member with such helmet? But I seen similiar helmets from 1960's period at least used by US Army tank crews.
 

Articles

Top