Tanks for Afghanistan

[Skybird]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada/index.php

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-netherlands.htm

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/afghanistan_aid_57703.html

While German media so far do not say much about the 100 tanks Canada will buy from the Netherland (20 A6 and 80 A4 the Dutch have bought before from the Germans, other sources say it will be 40 + 60), it is clear now that Germany'S approach to Afghanistan will remain to be schizophrenic at best: it will loan the Canadians 20 Leopard-2A6, maybe currently the best protected tank with the greatest firepower in the world, and call it "alliance-solidarity". A long, loud and deep "hmmmmm" from me. Not about the Canadians, but about the Germans.

Although the delivery is free for Canada, and will be supported by training of the crews in Germany, and delivery of special equipment and items for maintenance, the German approach still is schiozophrenic, for the tanks will be given back at one day, but the treaty demands the Canadians to give them back unharmed and unchanged, in the state in wich they got delivered. That may proove to become a difficult task after their deployment in Afghanistan, to put it mildly. :dead:

The A6 incarnation, according to the little I know, is even more armoured than the STRV122, the A5-variant delivered to Sweden which was beefed up with even more armour protection. It offers superior crew protection and additional protection against mines and ATGMs, it also includes probably the most modern suite of sensors and SA-increasing information systems of any tank of the present, and has even further enhanced speed and mobility. It comes with a new tank-gun, too.

I hate it to see the Geman government to sneak around like this. They should make a clear decison and statement concenring the commitmeent in Afghanistan. I personally believe it is a folly to stay there even longer. Accepting risks is okay if there is something that makes up for compensation, but I do not see how the the war can be won anymore: too many moistakes have been made in the past 5 years, and now the situation is out of control. But not to say that, while thinking it, half-heartedly making lip-confessions and try to calm allies by doing little favours like sending (useless) Tornados (no digital life processing of DTV images, what gives Taleban hours of time to react to them), or lending tanks to the Canadians who have choosen to get involved in the dirty work, simply is mean and disgusting. It shows neither backbone, nor honour.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485289,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485299,00.html

[AntEater]

Disgusting
I mean it is one thing to question the purpose of the Afghanistan mission (I do) but another thing, to leave your allies to do the dirty work for you.
But this whole charade continues against the germans as well, until today, there has been no casualty list of germans in Afghanistan.
I am ashamed of how my government handles military affairs.

[Skybird]

There is a casualty list, and it reads "21". But that is not what it is about. I want Germany to make a clear stand either on this or on that side of the line. Instead, they zigzag around and try to please everybody, America, Canada, Britain, Afghanistan, Muhammedan givernments, and loose track of reality meanhwile. As I see it the troops are left in danger without a realistic mission perspective, and without the situation offering them a realistic chnace anymnore to accomplish the mission they had been sent for. the Pashtuns are more allied with the Taleban than they ever were before 2001, and major parts of the population in general have been seriously alienated by the many losses they suffered from mthe hands of coalition troops, and the low speed of progress made. Over 80% of their young men have no chance to find work and make a living for themselves, not to mention their families. This is too much as if the reconstruction aid can compensate for that ammount of alienation anymore. Afghnaistan literally has become a victim of the Iraq war 2003. All the effort that was put into Iraq by amrica -should have been focussed on Afghanistan exclusively. If that would have been done and the akistani would have been getting rid of, I am sure that the situation would look much, much brigther now. But as it is now, it is a victory that was follishly turned into a major defeat, at the cost of two countries being brought to total ruins.

Of all stupid defense minsters in Germany of the past 20 years, our current one, Jung, is by far the most idiotic and unrealistic one anyway. Redet der einen Schwachsinn, wenn man ihm ein Mikrophon hinhält!

[Heibges]

At least folks want to buy the German tanks.

The turbine engine in the M1 scares many potential buyers away, due to increased mainentance requirements. I heard they were going to replace the turbine on hte M1 with an English-made V-12 in hopes of increasing exports (and keeping the factories open).

[The Avon Lady]

And not a word from Skybird about the Leopard tank's carbon footpint.

Pffffff

:p

[Oberon]

Don't you mean Carbon Tread AL? :lol:

[Skybird]

I did not want to go into specific details too much - if you want to set a forum on fire you just need to ask which tank is the best in the world, and off and high into the air blow all the turrets. Heads, I mean. :D

The tracks of the Leopard 2 are said to brake less easily than that of the M1, so AL has a point, though.

And Heibges:
selling the Leopard-series never was a problem, neither the Leo-1, nor the variants of the Leo-2. Leo-2 is far more widespread than the Abrams, and was delivered to more countries. The Chally-2 may have a bit more armour (at the price of less mobility), the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp), but the balance of these and other factors is what makes the Leopards so much wanted around the world. It is often said and written that it is the best balanced design worldwide. It's also offering the best mobility of the three leading western tank designs, despite it's very high armour level. I do not know much about the latest French tank, though - but it is said to also be an extremely advanced design.

[Happy Times]

I did not want to go into specific details too much - if you want to set a forum on fire you just need to ask which tank is the best in the world, and off and high into the air blow all the turrets. Heads, I mean. :D

The tracks of the Leopard 2 are said to brake less easily than that of the M1, so AL has a point, though.

And Heibges:
selling the Leopard-series never was a problem, neither the Leo-1, nor the variants of the Leo-2. Leo-2 is far more widespread than the Abrams, and was delivered to more countries. The Chally-2 may have a bit more armour (at the price of less mobility), the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp), but the balance of these and other factors is what makes the Leopards so much wanted around the world. It is often said and written that it is the best balanced design worldwide. It's also offering the best mobility of the three leading western tank designs, despite it's very high armour level. I do not know much about the latest French tank, though - but it is said to also be an extremely advanced design.


What about Merkavas? How do they compare to the ones you mentioned?

[Heibges]

I did not want to go into specific details too much - if you want to set a forum on fire you just need to ask which tank is the best in the world, and off and high into the air blow all the turrets. Heads, I mean. :D

The tracks of the Leopard 2 are said to brake less easily than that of the M1, so AL has a point, though.

And Heibges:
selling the Leopard-series never was a problem, neither the Leo-1, nor the variants of the Leo-2. Leo-2 is far more widespread than the Abrams, and was delivered to more countries. The Chally-2 may have a bit more armour (at the price of less mobility), the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp), but the balance of these and other factors is what makes the Leopards so much wanted around the world. It is often said and written that it is the best balanced design worldwide. It's also offering the best mobility of the three leading western tank designs, despite it's very high armour level. I do not know much about the latest French tank, though - but it is said to also be an extremely advanced design.


What about Merkavas? How do they compare to the ones you mentioned?

I rememember training with the Canadian Army about 13 years ago at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. We had M-60's, and very strict regulations about speed limit. But the Canadians in their Leo 1's would fly up those dirt roads balls to the wall.

The Merkava is really a revolutionary design in many ways. They put engine in the front, which adds to the frontal armor and therefore crew survivability. I believe they can also carry a couple of troops in the back, so it is also a sort of personel carrier. And since it is relatively light, it doesn't beat the heck out of itself like the M1's and M1 Heavies.

[Skybird]

Merkava-4 is the most modern of the series, featuring an American 1500 hp engine, a NATO-compatible 120mm gun (the earlier version all have a 105mm), additional armour on turret roof and reportedly modern comms and sensors (network-capable). With a weight of 65 tons, it really is no "light" solution. It has slower top speed and acceleration than the abrams or Leopard2A5 though.

And the following I found at Wikipedia (German). In the Lebanon war 2006, 50 Merkavas were hit and disabled by ATGMs and even IEDs, with many losses and wounded amongst the crews (over 130). Almost half of the tanks were disabled by hits that were able to penetrate the armour. Reasons for this relatively "sub-optimal" performance, according to the results of internal examinations of the Israeli defense minsitry were latest ATGMs delivered to Hezbollah, bad training standard and lacking experience of the crews, lacking mobility in tank tactics, and the units being fielded without smoke grenades. Also see here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html )

I also belong to those few sceptics suspecting that their armour technology is not en par with the most modern Western "recipes".

The article refers to military officials concluding that Hezbollah had thousands of modern ATGMs and excellent penetration capabilities, and that it also had the knowledge and training to know about the characteristics of the Merkavas, and where and when to hit them to acchieve maximum probability for a score.

Under such circumstances, every tank is vulnerable, and faces extremely tough fighting conditions. I wonder how the famous American "Thunder Run" at Baghdad would have gone if their enemy would have been better prepared, organized and armed woith modern ATGMs (as Hezbollah obviously has been). I think they would have had far higher losses then. It was said that the Thunde rrun has chnaged the way tacticians think about the idea of tanks versus infantry in cities (before it was considered to be a bad idea). I still believe it to be a bad idea, at least against a reasonably prepared enemy with reasonably adequate weaponry. Thunder Run should better not be understood as an example to be repeated, imho. but maybe that is just me.

I just finished designing a Steel Beasts scenario where these risks for tanks fighting against ATGM-sequipped infantry became (involuntarily) obvious for me once again. It is only a sim, yes, but nevertheless one with high educational value on the matter.

[Heibges]

Wow, I was surprised at how heavy even the Mark 1's were at 63 tons.

I think that anything over 60 tons and you are really asking for problems. The M60A3 was just under 60 combat loaded, and you definintely didn't break as many tortion bars as with the M1 and M1 heavies.

I think in the past, especially before the end of the Cold War, the Powers were scared about sharing their top anti-armor technology.

I know during the first Gulf War, the casualties would have been much higher if the Iraqi tankers had modern AP rounds. There is a picture of an Abrams with a steel training round stuck in the front skirt.

I've been attacked by hundreds of armor vehicles in an Line Formation (in SIMNET), and it is definitley an eye awakening expenerience. How was it we were going to stop the Soviets again? THREAt anyone?

[bradclark1]

the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp)
Just a trivia:
The Abrams turbine is a multi anything that will burn engine. Diesel, Gas, Av-Fuel, paint thinner, vodka, whatever burns.

[Heibges]

We always used diesel, but I heard the Army currently uses Av-gas as their standard fuel for the M1's.

[bradclark1]

We always used diesel, but I heard the Army currently uses Av-gas as their standard fuel for the M1's.
Yes, but the capability is their if and when needed. The M35 series uses a multifuel engine also.
Got to remember with the Merkava weight is that it also is a troop carrier.

[Skybird]

the Abrams may have slightly better acceleration and slightly less top speed (at the price of extremely high gasoline consummation of its turbine, compared to the Leo-Diesel with the same hp)
Just a trivia:
The Abrams turbine is a multi anything that will burn engine. Diesel, Gas, Av-Fuel, paint thinner, vodka, whatever burns.
Yes, but it burns immense ammounts of it, even when sitting still. Since it is a turbine, it burns roughly the same ammount when sitting still, as if it were going at full speed.
This makes a diesel engine the more interesting choice for an army expecting to fight in the defensive, with maybe stressed or sometimes interrupted supply lines.

Wow, I was surprised at how heavy even the Mark 1's were at 63 tons.
Yes, and only with 1200 hp. the British Chally-2, if I remember correctly, also has a 1200 hp engine - but with a weight greater than some 70 tons. If weight is an indicator for armour, than in it's maximum-armour configuration it probably is the most heavily armoured tank today. And not one of the fastest.
Münster, where I live, is the major base for the 1st Dutch-German corps, and seat of the British Royal Dragoon Guards, who are equipped with Challenger-2s. Unfortunately, they never show them :) - probably only playing with them hidden in the cellar.

The Brits will leave until 2009. No more loud yelling in my neighbourhood when the english football team again misses the final :lol:

P.S. 70+ tons for the Challenger = tank configurated with maximum additional armour.

[Happy Times]

Merkava-4 is the most modern of the series, featuring an American 1500 hp engine, a NATO-compatible 120mm gun (the earlier version all have a 105mm), additional armour on turret roof and reportedly modern comms and sensors (network-capable). With a weight of 65 tons, it really is no "light" solution. It has slower top speed and acceleration than the abrams or Leopard2A5 though.

And the following I found at Wikipedia (German). In the Lebanon war 2006, 50 Merkavas were hit and disabled by ATGMs and even IEDs, with many losses and wounded amongst the crews (over 130). Almost half of the tanks were disabled by hits that were able to penetrate the armour. Reasons for this relatively "sub-optimal" performance, according to the results of internal examinations of the Israeli defense minsitry were latest ATGMs delivered to Hezbollah, bad training standard and lacking experience of the crews, lacking mobility in tank tactics, and the units being fielded without smoke grenades. Also see here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html )

I also belong to those few sceptics suspecting that their armour technology is not en par with the most modern Western "recipes".

The article refers to military officials concluding that Hezbollah had thousands of modern ATGMs and excellent penetration capabilities, and that it also had the knowledge and training to know about the characteristics of the Merkavas, and where and when to hit them to acchieve maximum probability for a score.

Under such circumstances, every tank is vulnerable, and faces extremely tough fighting conditions. I wonder how the famous American "Thunder Run" at Baghdad would have gone if their enemy would have been better prepared, organized and armed woith modern ATGMs (as Hezbollah obviously has been). I think they would have had far higher losses then. It was said that the Thunde rrun has chnaged the way tacticians think about the idea of tanks versus infantry in cities (before it was considered to be a bad idea). I still believe it to be a bad idea, at least against a reasonably prepared enemy with reasonably adequate weaponry. Thunder Run should better not be understood as an example to be repeated, imho. but maybe that is just me.

I just finished designing a Steel Beasts scenario where these risks for tanks fighting against ATGM-sequipped infantry became (involuntarily) obvious for me once again. It is only a sim, yes, but nevertheless one with high educational value on the matter.

Thanks for your thoughts. I have personally thought that Merk 4 is more modern than Leo 6. As for Lebanon i think it would have been the same for any tank. There are just enviroments that are a kill zone for tanks. And i agree in the Iraq battles, i cant believe anybody would make any conclusions based on them.:doh:

[Skybird]

And i agree in the Iraq battles, i cant believe anybody would make any conclusions based on them.:doh:
2003 - probably not. 1991 - that is something different. There must have been some extremely sharp tank fighting taken place, with extremely bad visiblity and tank formations sometimes badly messed up, having enemy units and friendlies mixed at point blank range (referring to some according informations from "Into the Storm"). the Iraquis back then may have been technologically inferior, but tactically quite some of their commanders showed sharp teeth. If they would have had better weapons, it maybe wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, but the American losses possibly would have been very high in some areas of the battlefield. As General Franks, commander of VII corps, put it: that it went so fast should nobody lead to believe that it was easy.

[P_Funk]

You know as a Canadian I'm gald we're at least getting new equipment. The 90s saw a bad spree for the Canadian military. The absurd consolidation into a single armed force for one, the wholesale selling off of advanced equipment, then the disbanding of elite troops for no real purpose. But now we need all that back. I think I remember reading that Canadian troops were actually transported by Chinooks owned by the Dutch that we sold them years earlier in Afghanistan in the first part of the conflict.

[bradclark1]

If they would have had better
weapons,
logistics,
leadership,
training,
motivation,
patriotism.
If is a bloody big word. History doesn't march on if's.

[Skybird]

Youre right Brad, all I meant is that it does not sound smart to consider something that probably was an exception from the rule the basis for future tactics. For example try that thunder run on Berlin's city highway, or on the huge boulevards and alleys along "Unter den Eichen" or "Unter den Linden", that are wide streets, multiple lanes, with a green centrelane with bushes, parks, trees, and many tress on both sides of the streets, additonal to the buildings and side streets (Berlin is a very green city for it's size) . Imagine you are up against regular BW infantry and/or commandos armed with Panzerfaust-3 and Milans. An armoured column trying it most probably would get shreddered into pieces, I'm sure.

One should tailor one's tactics according to the assumed worst possible situation or enemy. If the actual enemy one is dealing with shows to be much weaker, good, then it is a welcomed bonus and thankfully accepted. But to implement tactics against a strong enemy that were designed to deal with weaker enemies may result in ultimate desaster.

:) BTW, for Steel Beasts, a guy called Daskal has set up a huge scenario, Thunder Run Baghdad. Go and buy SB, Brad, and then try that scenario as a constantly running armoured column ! :D

[bradclark1]

I think Thunder Run was an acceptable risk/gamble for speed to overrun. The Israeli's I believe use tanks in the cities effectively but as you say, a lot depends on how the enemy is armed.

[Happy Times]

The Arabs cant fight conventionally, when they do instead of terrorism, they get their ass kicked. Their culture and mentality doesnt enable them to look war or training for it, in a cool and analytical manner.

[Polak]

The Leo is a great machine, the Polish military is really satisfied with the A4. I believe that they even announced that they will be buying more A4's from German military stocks. A great decision since I think that the A4's are a bit sharper than our domestic designs. Too bad, that there is no money in the budget for the A6 version.

[Heibges]

The Arabs cant fight conventionally, when they do instead of terrorism, they get their ass kicked. Their culture and mentality doesnt enable them to look war or training for it, in a cool and analytical manner.

I think it is a matter of their leadership. Their officers feel entitled to their positions.

I went through my Basic Course with a couple of Egyptians in 1993. Many of the old tankers here remember the 10 Day War. (I've heard it's now the 7 Day War :nope:) The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

[Happy Times]

The Arabs cant fight conventionally, when they do instead of terrorism, they get their ass kicked. Their culture and mentality doesnt enable them to look war or training for it, in a cool and analytical manner.

I think it is a matter of their leadership. Their officers feel entitled to their positions.

I went through my Basic Course with a couple of Egyptians in 1993. Many of the old tankers here remember the 10 Day War. (I've heard it's now the 7 Day War :nope:) The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

Well that too, it relates to the serfculture they have. Ive allways liked systems where every man has to go through the same basic training and work their way up from there. We have that and so do the Israelis for exsample. I know US has that possibility, but i assume its more of an exception.

[Heibges]

The Arabs cant fight conventionally, when they do instead of terrorism, they get their ass kicked. Their culture and mentality doesnt enable them to look war or training for it, in a cool and analytical manner.

I think it is a matter of their leadership. Their officers feel entitled to their positions.

I went through my Basic Course with a couple of Egyptians in 1993. Many of the old tankers here remember the 10 Day War. (I've heard it's now the 7 Day War :nope:) The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

Well that too, it relates to the serfculture they have. Ive allways liked systems where every man has to go through the same basic training and work their way up from there. We have that and so do the Israelis for exsample. I know US has that possibility, but i assume its more of an exception.

You are correct about it being the exception in the United States, but really one of the smartest ways to pursue a military career in the American military.

If you earn a commission as an enlisted in the Regular Army, you will most likely be commissioned in the Regular Army. By going in as an officer, you may be commissioned into the Reserves or National Guard and serve no active duty time at all, or serve just a couple of years of active duty.

Even Academy graduates aren't guaranteed Regular Army any more.

[bradclark1]

36% of the junior officer corp are leaving when their commitment ends nowadays. Main reason sited is Iraq.

[Skybird]

The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

Gen .Franks wrote about his experience as corps commander, when he arrived in Saudi Arabia, inspected the already established sites and then was told of the training for the Kuwaiti of Saudi units in 1990/91 in one place. When he inspected the site, trainers complained that when they told their group to dig some foxholes for themselves, the troops said it would be offensive to their male honour to dig in the dirt or something like this. They got out their handies, called their families, and some time later servants of theirs tried to come in by car, to dig the foxholes for them. The US trainers of course went ballistic about this. And commander of VII. corps wrote he definitely was not pleased to learn about this.

another story he reported is this: that the first Kuwaiti or Saudi units (I forgot which one it was, I think it were Saudis), that recovered the Abrams in preparation for Desert Storm - jumped into the tanks, drove around like crazy or like being drunk, yelled like kids into the microphone and brought the whole radio network down. They also fired around blindly until the tanks ran out of ammo, like they use to shoot their rifles into the air during assemblies or festivities. It was a stockcar race. The tanks were scattered around over the whole training area, and finally stranded, out of ammo. Again, their US trainers went up into orbit... :lol:

[Heibges]

36% of the junior officer corp are leaving when their commitment ends nowadays. Main reason sited is Iraq.

That is very disturbing considering a few years ago they would have been killing each other to see their name on the Captains List in the Army Times.

[Heibges]

You know as a Canadian I'm gald we're at least getting new equipment. The 90s saw a bad spree for the Canadian military. The absurd consolidation into a single armed force for one, the wholesale selling off of advanced equipment, then the disbanding of elite troops for no real purpose. But now we need all that back. I think I remember reading that Canadian troops were actually transported by Chinooks owned by the Dutch that we sold them years earlier in Afghanistan in the first part of the conflict.

In 1993 (iirc) the Canadian Army got 6 T-72's for evaluation, and I got to climb around on them at CFB Gagetown. I think the Russians were selling them for $10K each plus Shipping and Handling.

[bradclark1]

36% of the junior officer corp are leaving when their commitment ends nowadays. Main reason sited is Iraq.

That is very disturbing considering a few years ago they would have been killing each other to see their name on the Captains List in the Army Times.
They are offering choices of training, $20,000 bonuses and some other stuff I can't remember for continuing service.


Edit: Here's a link with some information:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armybonuses/a/officerbonus.htm
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/04/army_facing_officer_retention_crisis/

[Heibges]

36% of the junior officer corp are leaving when their commitment ends nowadays. Main reason sited is Iraq.

That is very disturbing considering a few years ago they would have been killing each other to see their name on the Captains List in the Army Times.
They are offering choices of training, $20,000 bonuses and some other stuff I can't remember for continuing service.


Edit: Here's a link with some information:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armybonuses/a/officerbonus.htm
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/04/army_facing_officer_retention_crisis/

I find it interesting that it only applies to former Active Duty and not Reserve Officers.