Tanks for Afghanistan

[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?

[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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

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/0,7...297431,00.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?

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by 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/0,7...297431,00.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.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Heibges]

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

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Heibges

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

Originally Posted by Heibges

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

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