# Main battle tanks of today.....



## Lucky13 (Jan 17, 2008)

Which is best, all things considered, on the battlefield today?

Is the Leopard 2






Challenger 2





M1 Abrams





Leclerc





Type 99





T-90





Arjun





Merkava





Missed anyone...?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2008)

Battle Proven: M1 Abrams

Potentially the best: Lepoard II


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 17, 2008)

Isn't the Challenger II battle proven too as you say Adler? How does the Challenger II and M1 Abrams compare to each other?

My "vote" goes to Lepoard II....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2008)

To be honest I am not that sure. I am far from an expert on Tanks. That is why my post contained so little in it.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 17, 2008)

But, you know MORE than me about modern stuff though....


----------



## DBII (Jan 17, 2008)

I don't have the latest information in my head but at one time the German's tank had an edge. I don't know if that is the case with the current block. I will see what info the Armor Assoc has. 

DBII


----------



## Sgt.Rosey (Jan 17, 2008)

As an ex Canadian armoured corps Sgt. I go for the Leo2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2008)

From my understanding the new Leopard 2A-6 from my undestanding has the edge based on technology, armour, and capability. 

It is however not battle proven.

EDIT: The Leopard 2 has been in combat (just not tank to tank combat). The Canadians are using the A6 in Afghanistan.

Some Leopard 2's armament are to be replaced with a 140mm cannon.

Interesting tidbit is that the M1 uses the same cannon as the Leopard 2.

Some tidbits on the the Leopard 2.

_All models feature digital fire control systems with laser range-finders, fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machinegun and night vision equipment (first vehicles used a Low-Light Level TV system or LLLTV, thermal imaging was introduced later on). The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain. It can drive through water 4 meters deep using a snorkel or 1.2 meters without any preparation and climb vertical obstacles over 1 meter high. The tank is powered with a turbo-charged multi-fuel V12 diesel engine that produces 1,500 horsepower._

_All models feature digital fire control systems with laser range-finders, fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machinegun and night vision equipment (first vehicles used a Low-Light Level TV system or LLLTV, thermal imaging was introduced later on). The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain. It can drive through water 4 meters deep using a snorkel or 1.2 meters without any preparation and climb vertical obstacles over 1 meter high. The tank is powered with a turbo-charged multi-fuel V12 diesel engine that produces 1,500 horsepower._

Leopard 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparantly tests have shown that the Leopard 2 has slightly better armour protection, a more reliable engine that produces less heat but more noise and the armament is the same for both tanks.


----------



## DBII (Jan 17, 2008)

D%# I am getting old, 140mm. That is a big sabot. I have some catching up to do.


DBII


----------



## DBII (Jan 17, 2008)

You scared me for a minute. I did a little web searching. The Germans have replaced their L44 120 mm with the new L55 smooth bore 120mm cannon. The barrel is longer and it has a higher velocity than the L44. The M1A2 is using the smooth bore M256 120mm (this came out after my time). The US makes use a DU penetrator that flies at 1700 m/s. The L55 is using a politicaly correct penetrator made of tungsten that travels at 1800 m/s. Because of tungsten has less density, the L55 has less penetration power than the M256.

Tanks are rated on three factors: mobility, protection, and firepower. From what I read, the M1A2 SEP has better armour protection and better overall killing power. The A6 has a newer powerplant that uses less fuel and over all cost is 2/3 of the M1A2. It looks like the optics are better on the A6 but the thermals are better on the M1. With the latest bolt on armor, the A6 may have a better protection. Which one is better? The A6 would be a better buy, for the cost of three M1A2s one can have four A6s. As a tanker, I would want to be in the Abrams, but I would not complain if I had an A6.

DBII


----------



## seesul (Jan 18, 2008)

My favourite is Merkava Mk IV.
BTW, the only one Merkava out of Israel is in our country. Displayed in the tank museum in Lesany near Prague. It´s a Mk I version. Israel dedicated to us for our help to them i 1948.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jan 18, 2008)

I'll go with the Leopard on this one...it still hasn't had the chance to prove itself but I'm sure it will do great...Germans are not known for making poor quality military equipment.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2008)

Leopard here too, in the big overall view of things. The combat potential is very similiar with the top 3-4 Western tanks (Leo, Challie, Abrams, Leclerc), but the Leo has the best powerplant of all of them, and the Abrams looses out to it IMHO because of it`s gas turbine. It`s eats through gas like mad, gives a huge heat signiture, very loud and IIRC unlike diesels, you can`t run it idle..

From what I`ve heard, the newest Mark of the Merkava is quite hot, and it fixes the old points of criticism, but somehow, I`ve never liked that tank particularly.

Here`s a pic of a detroyed example - it`s huge armored vehicle :


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2008)

The Leopard II gives off less heat than the M1 Abrams but the Leopard II is louder than the M1 Abrams.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 18, 2008)

Are tanks really all that safe on the battlefield? With all the TOW rockets, laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, attack planes, etc., how safe is a tank? Do you think it's an outdated weapon?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2008)

From what armor estimation figures I`ve seen, modern tanks are pretty well protected against HEAT projectiles - from the FRONT, from any other angle they may resist smaller handheld RPGs and 20-30mm autocannons of IFVs.

Of the top of my head, I recall the Leo 2A5 had something like an equivalent of 1600-2000mm (!!!) rolled homegenous steel armor against HEAT projectiles in the front hemisphere. That`s pretty potent, and no wonder why tank vs tank combat it fought almost exlusively today with KE penetrator APFSDS aka sabot rounds. Western tanks reserved and carried HEAT against soft targets and IFVs, and no special HE shell at all, given the Red Armored Horde.


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2008)

I don't know if it counts for anything, but I believe that the UK have only lost two Challanger II's in action. One to a very large roadside bomb, and the other to another Challanger in a friendly fire incident.

Everything else has failed.


----------



## seesul (Jan 18, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Are tanks really all that safe on the battlefield? With all the TOW rockets, laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, attack planes, etc., how safe is a tank? Do you think it's an outdated weapon?



Yes, when I was in the army (´92-´93) as a tank driver (archaic T-55AM2) I was told that the calculated tank crew life in combat is 7 minutes...
I was lucky, never been in combat so a great experience as I really like each kind of off road drive...8)


----------



## seesul (Jan 18, 2008)

...and the pic from those times...8)


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 18, 2008)

Glider said:


> I don't know if it counts for anything, but I believe that the UK have only lost two Challanger II's in action. One to a very large roadside bomb, and the other to another Challanger in a friendly fire incident.
> 
> Everything else has failed.



... wasn`t there a nasty 'blue on blue' incident in the Gulf War of 1991 when a Abrams (or was it another Challie?) platoon shot up a Challanger platoon badly, tanks going off one after the other, with the ones that fired at them cheered ignorantly of what they were doing, only to find out later to their horror...?

Thing to consider though, none of these tanks (thank God!) ever went head on with anything like equal... the Iraqi T-55s and T-72s with decade old, aged Soviet munitions and fire control systems (if any! The 72`s are/were basically cheapo export versions for satellite states.. many models don`t even have a range finder laser, or a FC system..). Hardly an even playing field.


----------



## DBII (Jan 18, 2008)

Tanks will never be out dated. It is the same thing as the F4s being produced without a machinegun because missles had made traditional dog fights obsolete. Technology is always changing. The advantage is always changing between armour, firepower, mobility, and anti-tank weapons. Once the armour is improved, work is started designing better weapons to defeat it. Once the weapons are designed, new armour is developed to counter it. The new armour results in increased weight that leads to the design of new power plants. A never ending cycle.

The deployment and tatics of armour will change but they never will go away. Through out the history of armour, people have said that the tanks are no longer useful. At times, governments have gone with the smaller tanks to save money. No matter how the wheel get reinvented one fact remains, nothing can move and strike like an armour force. The best tank killer has always been the main battle tank. The small tanks cannot withstand the attack of the MBTs. Yes they are big, dirty and loud and so are it's crew. The engines drink as much fuel as the crew drinks beer. The MBT was not made for todays LIC (light intensity conflicts) but there are plans to modify the MBT for urban operations. The bee hive and HEP rounds are making a come back (bee hive 120mm flechette round, HEP high explosive plastic). The Ordance and Armour Corps has been developing counter measures since the 90s for laser guided missles. There is a projection system now being field tested to mask both the visual and thermal signature. An IFF system is in place and there is an IF supression system. How can a tank be safe on the battle field? How safe is anyone?

DBII
clank, clank, clank, clank


----------



## DBII (Jan 18, 2008)

Seesul, nice picture. I am also an old tanker. I trained on the M60 series and M1 series. 7 minutes...you are lucky. Our Col always said that if we did not destory 7 MBT and were dead in 2 mins we were not doing our jobs...
Our yearly evaluations would reflect our poor skills....lol

DBII
clank, clank, clank


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> ... wasn`t there a nasty 'blue on blue' incident in the Gulf War of 1991 when a Abrams (or was it another Challie?) platoon shot up a Challanger platoon badly, tanks going off one after the other, with the ones that fired at them cheered ignorantly of what they were doing, only to find out later to their horror...?
> 
> Thing to consider though, none of these tanks (thank God!) ever went head on with anything like equal... the Iraqi T-55s and T-72s with decade old, aged Soviet munitions and fire control systems (if any! The 72`s are/were basically cheapo export versions for satellite states.. many models don`t even have a range finder laser, or a FC system..). Hardly an even playing field.



There was a blue on Blue incident but only one Challanger was destroyed.

There is little doubt in my mind that the when you take the top three to five tanks they are all probably capable of destroying each other. They all have very powerful weapons and very sophisticated fire control systems. 
Unlike WW2 ,I feel that the difference these days is how important are the other factors that come into play. Not is my gun able to destroy your tank, because they probably can.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 18, 2008)

2 minutes.......7 minutes. 

IMO, and I may very well be wrong, that sounds like a waste of human, mechanical, and financial resources.


----------



## DBII (Jan 18, 2008)

Armour moves at a fast past. If you snooze you die. That is modern HIC, high intensity warfare. The reason why armour will always be used: speed and firepower. One overwhelms the enemy with concentrated fire power. That is why I get so crazy about the middle east. I was train to go in destroy everything in sight and move on to the next objective leaving the enemy wondering what just happened. Think of Sheman's march through the southern states. War has always been a waste of resources and human life. That is why it has to be used only as a last resort.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jan 18, 2008)

After reading this post I wondered myself what tank in the list is my country's "glorious" army is using...to my surprise and horror I learned not only that we have around 300 useless junks but there are no intentions to modernize our tanks...bloody hell they are using modified T55 and a couple of T72....


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 18, 2008)

LOL


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 18, 2008)

See how long it takes before tanks get something to deffend themself against TOW missiles etc., much like aircraft firing countermeasures (flares) against air to ground missiles....


----------



## DBII (Jan 18, 2008)

I vote we all go back to jousting.

DBII


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 18, 2008)

Ground effect hover tanks protected by electo-plasma force fields and armed with a particle beam and equipped with omni-directional targeting capability so no turret is necessary.

BTW..

Plasma force fields are not fiction. They are in their infancy.
using thicker / better armor to defeat AT rounds wont last forever.


,


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 18, 2008)

Pardon my French but, wtf is plasma force fields??


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 18, 2008)

new korean tank:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ1seG7MHZU_

.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 18, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Pardon my French but, wtf is plasma force fields??



There is a lot of research into developing "plasma windows"..
Certainly a long way off from being usable but its interesting:


Plasma window - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plasma Science and Technology - Basics - Overview


----------



## DBII (Jan 18, 2008)

The armor school was working on the Sci-fi version back in the 90s. They have to be getting close to completion. The MBTs are getting as complex as the aircraft. Audio detectors to locate firing positions. They are working on a system the project a digital image of the surrounding terrian on the sides of the tank. TOWs are opticaly guided and controled by wires. If the view of the BMT can be masked it will be harder to hit. Yes a stealth MBT. There is some sort of damping system to reduce the IR siggy. I have not figured out how that works. The noise level is still a problem. If helios can be made quite, I guess the MBT can be. I raid that the plasma, rail guns and lasers are being tested. My guess is that information released for the public is at lease 10 years old. 

DBII


----------



## seesul (Jan 18, 2008)

DBII said:


> Seesul, nice picture. I am also an old tanker. I trained on the M60 series and M1 series. 7 minutes...you are lucky. Our Col always said that if we did not destory 7 MBT and were dead in 2 mins we were not doing our jobs...
> Our yearly evaluations would reflect our poor skills....lol
> 
> DBII
> clank, clank, clank



think you´re right with two minutes, it sounds better to me...
Anyway, never in my life I had better fun behind the wheel (or levels) than driving a tank...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 18, 2008)

Well, Ive read all ur posts fellas, and it still goes back to the same old story for me:

Which one has performed better in armored conflict???

Simple answer.... The Abrams... Its combat record alone makes it #1, whatever the opponent dead tank is....


----------



## seesul (Jan 18, 2008)

...and what about Russian T2000 Black Eagle? Unfortunately there´s not too much infos about it on Internet...

BLACK EAGLE Main Battle Tank

Altough I know it never seen combat, it doesn´t look bad...


----------



## seesul (Jan 18, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Well, Ive read all ur posts fellas, and it still goes back to the same old story for me:
> 
> Which one has performed better in armored conflict???
> 
> Simple answer.... The Abrams... Its combat record alone makes it #1, whatever the opponent dead tank is....



yes, you´re right probably. In desert storm there were even some Abrams opponents to Abrams. Few Abrams destroyed by friendly fire...Don´t know if by Abrams or another gun. I don´t belive in wikipedia too much M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DBII (Jan 18, 2008)

seesul said:


> yes, you´re right probably. In desert storm there were even some Abrams opponents to Abrams. Few Abrams destroyed by friendly fire...Don´t know if by Abrams or another gun. I don´t belive in wikipedia too much M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There is always that OOPs factor 

DBII


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 18, 2008)

seesul said:


> yes, you´re right probably. In desert storm there were even some Abrams opponents to Abrams. Few Abrams destroyed by friendly fire...Don´t know if by Abrams or another gun. I don´t belive in wikipedia too much M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



. . . . and I don't know how much to believe Tom Clancy, but in his book _Armored Cavalry - A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment_ (1994) he mentions an Abrams that got stuck in mud and was not able to be recovered, even with two other Abrams tanks trying to pull it out. It was decided to destroy it with a thermite grenade, but the on-board fire suppression system put the fire out as soon as it started. Then it was deciced to destroy the tank with a couple of 120mm rounds from the other two Abrams, but none of the rounds fired from point-blank range penetrated the DU armor (supposedly). The tank was finally "destroyed" by an air strike (F-18's, I think), but the tank was later recovered and repaired.


----------



## Henk (Jan 18, 2008)

The Leopard 2 is the best all round tank.


----------



## SeaSkua (Jan 19, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> From my understanding the new Leopard 2A-6 from my undestanding has the edge based on technology, armour, and capability.
> 
> It is however not battle proven.
> 
> EDIT: The Leopard 2 has been in combat (just not tank to tank combat).* The Canadians are using the A6 in Afghanistan.*



Can you believe the IDIOTS up here are PROTESTING that we got them? They say that too many soldiers are dying in AFGANISTAN - - then complain that the Government bought the better armored LEP - 2's for the Army! Maybe we should go back to VALENTINE tanks!  Huh?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 19, 2008)

Aren't the Challenger II the fastest tank in the world, over rough terrain?


----------



## DBII (Jan 19, 2008)

I would not believe everthing in the book. If a tank was stuck and the Plt could not retrieve it, the normal procedure would be to bring in the Trp's M-88to pull it out. It that did not work then the Sqdrn's M88 would be brought in and the two of them could extract it. The M88 is a powerful mofo. It can drag a M1 across the ground without much trouble. The thermite is put inside the breach to destory the breachblock and maybe one on the engine. The helon fire surpression system is amazing. It detects fire in milli seconds. It was designed to reduce the damage to the interior electronics by removing the air from the crew compartments. If the M1 had the 105 mm cannon, it would have had trouble with a head on kill and 2 - 3 km but not at battle site, 800 m. Sounds like it was a good story though. It is hard to imagine a situation during the Gulf War when the area was not secured enough to extract an M1.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 21, 2008)

Was just thinking earlier tonight....(I know...just shut up will you!)... If Challenger II, Abrams and what not would be today's Sherman, T-34 etc.... what would the figures be for the equivalent of a Panther, Tiger and Tiger II if they'd have the same advantage today as they had in WWII?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 21, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Aren't the Challenger II the fastest tank in the world, over rough terrain?



I had heard it was the French Leclerc MBT due to it's high thrust-to-weight ratio; Wikipedia reports a top speed of 71 km/h for the Leclerc, v. 65 km/h for the Leapord II, 59 km/h for the Challenger II, and the Abrams a close second-place with 67.7 km/h. However, these are road speeds, not rough-terrain speeds; off-road speeds were not recorded for most of the tanks. I'm assuming there's a big difference between on-road off-road speeds due to the different suspensions; for instance, with the engine speed governor removed, Abrams tanks at the proving grounds supposedly acheived speeds in excess of 100 km/h on paved surfaces.


----------



## DBII (Jan 21, 2008)

Are you asking what the next generation of MBT will look like? The technology for the cannon is about maxed out with the 120mm hyper velocity rounds. The choice is to either increase the mass of the penetrator or the velocity. The big push since the 90s have been to design an energy based weapon system, ie a railgun using electro magnetic pulses, laser or a plasma based system. The power requirments and weight is still prohibitive. It is similar to problems that the Air Force has had over the years in their weapon programs. The Armour School is working on drone tanks and vehicles with a two man crew. The Cmdr and driver will sit inside of the hull. This will reduce the target size greatly in a hull down position. The current battle computer allows the tank commnder the select the targets on a touch screen and put then in order of engagement. The computer will line up the shots and the gunner does his thing. Once the target has been destroied, the computer will set up the next shot. I do not think that it will much longer that the gunner will be needed. The biggest draw back will be that there will no longer be 4 men to do the maintainance. The current line of Armoured Gun System would be worse than a Sherman. In order the save weight, the 105 mm guns are installed on light armour platforms. Yes, they are mobile and cheaper than a tank. Reminds me of the 1/4 tons armed with tow launchers. As soon as the losses start, the press will be crying that they have no armor. They will work well against Inf and the older armoured vehicles but no match against the latest MBTs.


----------



## DBII (Jan 21, 2008)

The stipped down M1 without all of the extra armor was rumored to have hit 100 mph back in the 80's. I do not know if it is true or what all was removed. My guess would be that the turret was not on the hull. The old M1 would a have no trouble keeping up with the posted highways speeds. 

DBII


----------



## Philgé (Jan 21, 2008)

Hi
It couldn't go over 71 km/h due to the tracks, this is the speed limit.

Regards


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 21, 2008)

DBII said:


> The stipped down M1 without all of the extra armor was rumored to have hit 100 mph back in the 80's. I do not know if it is true or what all was removed. My guess would be that the turret was not on the hull. The old M1 would a have no trouble keeping up with the posted highways speeds.
> 
> DBII



I believe you are correct about the turret not being on the chassis, I had heard something to the same effect a while back; however, as Philge pointed out, at those speeds the M-1 was in serious danger of throwing a track, even on a smooth, paved road. I'm guessing that, due to the high centrifugal forces at that speed, the track was probably hitting the bottom of the hull sponsons.


----------



## DBII (Jan 21, 2008)

It always sounded like a good story for the O' Club to me. I can see the tracks shooting off like a rubber bands now...

dbII


----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2008)

DBII said:


> The Armour School is working on drone tanks and vehicles with a two man crew. The Cmdr and driver will sit inside of the hull. This will reduce the target size greatly in a hull down position. The current battle computer allows the tank commnder the select the targets on a touch screen and put then in order of engagement. The computer will line up the shots and the gunner does his thing. Once the target has been destroied, the computer will set up the next shot. I do not think that it will much longer that the gunner will be needed. The biggest draw back will be that there will no longer be 4 men to do the maintainance. .



Sounds a bit like a Swedish S Tank with a few more electronic toys


----------



## DBII (Jan 21, 2008)

I always liked the S Tank. The S tank had limted traversing ablity, The next generation MBTs will rotate 360. I read where another country was working on a hydrolic system similar to the S tank. I am thinking Korea but that was years ago. I could bring a S-Tank to the local car show and have the hydrolics bounce it up and down. They home boyz would love that.

DBII


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 21, 2008)

I bet they would and you'd be DA MAN...!


----------



## HealzDevo (May 1, 2008)

That French Lecleric looks like a tank out of one of those sci-fi movies or pictures or books.


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (May 1, 2008)

For me the best is Leopard 2!
portuguese army is receiving 37 units of this beasts at last!!
the competition against the M1 and the Leclerc revealed the Leo 2A6 was the best, but i don`t know the details of the tests!

2 vedeos of the Leo 2:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMa9MhSSqzk_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao_


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2008)

Its hard to find, but there is considerable disatisfaction in Australia with the leopard Is that we have. I have heard from some ex RAAC men, that the so called superhardened face armour on the leopards has gone crystalline, making them unsuitable now even for training. Basically, hit em with a hammer, and you end up with a pile of rubble in front of you.

Australia has purchased Abrams as a replacement for the leopards. Crews as of last year were in the states doing the conversion training. I cant remember if these are the old 105 equipped units, or the newer 120 mm equipped types. Would seem a waste of time to acquire a weapon system that is already obsolete in my opinion


----------



## Matt308 (May 4, 2008)

All the 105s were replaced with 120s


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2008)

The Leopard I is one OLD tank by now, and I can for the love of god not understand why it took Australia that long to shift them out, and why they didn't opt for the Leopard 2 which came on the scene in the late 70's. At the time it carried the best main gun of any MBT in the world, the 120mm L/44 gun made by Rheinmetall, and in 1985 the US bought the gun and put it on their Abrams instead of the old 105mm gun. It wasn't until the Leopard 2A6 arrived with its new 120mm L/55 gun also by Rheinmetall that the 120mm L/44 was no longer the best in the world.

The Abrams is also soon to have the Leopard 2's 1,500 HP Diesel MTU 870 engine: http://www.mtu-online.com/en/produ/proddies/proddiesspec/proddies870/


----------



## Matt308 (May 4, 2008)

Really, Soren? The US is going to dump the turbine? Haven't heard of this. What is the rationale. Can't be maintenance. Fuel prices? Compatibility with other vehicles?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2008)

I have not heard whether they are going to or not but there are certain advantages to getting rid of the Turbine.

For instance the M1 gives off much more heat than the Leopard II because of the Turbine engines, the Leopard II however is much louder than the M1.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 4, 2008)

Isn't it the Challenger II that has the record for a kill over the longest distance?


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2008)

It isn't the sort of conversion that can be easily done. You would be talking about a whole new design


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Really, Soren? The US is going to dump the turbine? Haven't heard of this. What is the rationale. Can't be maintenance. Fuel prices? Compatibility with other vehicles?



The Turbine guzzles way more fuel, and like Adler pointed out it leaves an excellent heat signature for enemy missiles to lock on to. The MTU is also much easier to maintain.

Another advantage of the MTU 870 series engine is that it's a multifuel engine. 

German MTU also recently released their new engine, called the Europowerpack and designated MTU 883, it's a 1,650 HP Diesel Multifuel engine which is more compact than its predecessor, the MTU 873. Germany's new Leopard 2A6's are fitted with this engine and the British Challenger and US Abrams are to have the engine as-well. The French Leclerc Isreali Merkava have the old 1,500 HP MTU 873 engine.

As for the Diesel being louder, I don't know, I always thought that turbine engine was pretty loud, don't hear any significant difference - are you sure about this Adler ?


----------



## Kurfürst (May 4, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Really, Soren? The US is going to dump the turbine? Haven't heard of this. What is the rationale. Can't be maintenance. Fuel prices? Compatibility with other vehicles?



Russians are dumping the gas turbines in the T-80s or so I have heard.. they proved to be unreliable in Chechnia.. I guess constant high consumption of fuel just isn`t a good point operationally.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2008)

Glider said:


> It isn't the sort of conversion that can be easily done. You would be talking about a whole new design



I agree. The only reason I would not be suprised is because you know they are allready designing a replacement for the M1. It is a continual process.

That is if they are even going to replace it with a tradional "tank" at all...



Soren said:


> As for the Diesel being louder, I don't know, I always thought that turbine engine was pretty loud, don't hear any significant difference - are you sure about this Adler ?



It is only something that I have read. I do know that the Honeywell AGT1500 engine is very loud.

However the M1 Abrams Honeywell AGT1500 is a multifuel engine as well. Just like the MTU 870 so that is not an advantage of the Leopard II because they are both the same.


----------



## Matt308 (May 4, 2008)

And I was under the impression that the big sell for the turbine was ease of maintenance. I would find it hard to believe that a diesel engine is less maintenance, but then again I'm always up for a schooling.


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2008)

The Australians considered the Leopard II as a replacements for the IA4s currently on strnegth, however, they were ultimately rejected for a number of reasons. Most importantly was that we wouuld achieve commonality with the Americans, our chief allies. Also the Abrams has a proven track record, and quite successful at that. Thirdly as per my previous post, there are unconfirmed reports that the superhardened face armour on the Leopards has turned out to be a definite liability, with the armour having gone brittle. This has significantly shortened the operatrional life span of the Leopards. There is strong circumstantial evidence to support that, because there are no plans to on-sell the Leopards, or retain them in the reserves, they are going straight to the scrappers yards.

We were sold the Abrams very cheaply, and believe that there is still at least 15 yesrs service left in them. Lastly, although not stated, there is a perception that European suppliers have become very suspect suppliers. We all know what the french did to Israel back in the seventiesr regarding the mirage IIIs , basically embargoed the supply of spare parts to israel, in an effort to force the israelis to negotiate. The French applied similar pressure on the Australians during the Vietnam war, which was the main reason why our Mirages never saw service there. Germany's latest demonstrations pertaining to Iraq were factors that dissuaded the Australians from taking a risk with yet another dubious european supplier


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2008)

Dubious supplier ? That's pretty ridiculous as testing bought material would quickly reveal any weaknesses. But one also has to keep in mind when the Leopard I was introduced and the metallurgical technology available at that time. The Leopard 2 features different armor. 

Also what has the French got to do with Germany and the rest of Europe ??


----------



## parsifal (May 4, 2008)

I didnt mean that they were dubious suppliers from the point of view of after sales repairs, but rather along the lines of the french. In the case of the french, it was the government of France who were the problem. In the case of israel, they placed an embargo on the sale of spares and ordinance, hoping to ground the Israeli Mirages on strength at the time. this led to the Israelis stealing plans and producing their own spares and replacements.

In the case of Australia, the French government did the same thing, but the Australians, lacking as much indigenous aero -industry as the Israelis and not wanting to upset a major trading partner, acquiesced to the french demands. But it was a bitter lessen for the Australians, and one they are unlikely to ever forget. It will be a very long time before any further major purchases from France are ever likley to occur.

In the case of the Germans, their recent postionings regarding Iraq, at governmental level make them a suspect supplier for Australia,. the Australians do not want to be placed in the same situation as they were with the Mirages. There is nothing inherently wrong with the actual suppliers. Althoiugh I think on cost the Leopard II are a bit overrated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Dubious supplier ? That's pretty ridiculous as testing bought material would quickly reveal any weaknesses. But one also has to keep in mind when the Leopard I was introduced and the metallurgical technology available at that time. The Leopard 2 features different armor.
> 
> Also what has the French got to do with Germany and the rest of Europe ??



Chill the **** out Soren. Dont take it so damn personal. He is stating reasons why his country decided not to buy it.

Anybody says anthing negative about Germans or Europe and you go spastic. Seriously open your mind...


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

I was actually hoping to start a strand of this thread that looked a little more closely at this armour crystallization issue. how widespread is the problem, and how serious is it. It was a cue for the budding metallurgists to step forward


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

No words - just pictures of the "Two" best MBT's.

View attachment 62532


View attachment 62533


Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Chill the **** out Soren. Dont take it so damn personal. He is stating reasons why his country decided not to buy it.
> 
> Anybody says anthing negative about Germans or Europe and you go spastic. Seriously open your mind...



Come on! I was merely questioning why Australia would doubt any European supplier based on what the French once did. I'm not taking it personal. Geez, it seems that you get your panties in a bunch over nearly everything I say these days..

Problem with many governments today is that they're oversuspicious, heck take the US government, they want to sell the F-35 to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark, but they won't give them the vital upgrades (new blocks), as if they're not close Allies. It's ridiculous. 

There's a lack of trust which is disconcerning, esp. seeing that this is the 21st century.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Geez, it seems that you get your panties in a bunch over nearly everything I say these days..



Because I am tired of your ****. Now chill out...


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Problem with many governments today is that they're oversuspicious, heck take the US government, they want to sell the F-35 to the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark, but they won't give them the vital upgrades (new blocks), as if they're not close Allies. It's ridiculous.
> 
> There's a lack of trust which is disconcerning, esp. seeing that this is the 21st century.




```

```

Hello Soren,

That sounds very good for the Eurofighter, so please don't interfere 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I didnt mean that they were dubious suppliers from the point of view of after sales repairs, but rather along the lines of the french. In the case of the french, it was the government of France who were the problem. In the case of israel, they placed an embargo on the sale of spares and ordinance, hoping to ground the Israeli Mirages on strength at the time. this led to the Israelis stealing plans and producing their own spares and replacements.
> 
> In the case of Australia, the French government did the same thing, but the Australians, lacking as much indigenous aero -industry as the Israelis and not wanting to upset a major trading partner, acquiesced to the french demands. But it was a bitter lessen for the Australians, and one they are unlikely to ever forget. It will be a very long time before any further major purchases from France are ever likley to occur.



The French decision was indeed a very strange one, mind boggling to the rest of Europe to say the least. It's still a mystery what the reasoning behind the decision was.



> In the case of the Germans, their recent postionings regarding Iraq, at governmental level make them a suspect supplier for Australia,. the Australians do not want to be placed in the same situation as they were with the Mirages.



Now this I don't really understand as I see nothing about this which would make Germany a suspect supplier, could you please clarify it abit?



> There is nothing inherently wrong with the actual suppliers. Althoiugh I think on cost the Leopard II are a bit overrated.



The Leopard 2 is probably the safest deal out of every other available tank today, and it's definitely not overrated seeing that it has beaten every other tank in the world in the many tests conducted by the many countries who have bought the Leopard 2. 

As to the crystalization of the Leopard I's armour, well this is seriously completely new to me and I know people who maintained and operated this tank. But a simple explanation to the problem could be poor maintenance or a metal composition suffering from long term deterioration unknown to metallurgical science at the time - Perhaps a corrosive mix??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> There's a lack of trust which is disconcerning, esp. seeing that this is the 21st century.



Soren that is nothing new to the 21st Century and it is a normal practice to any country in the world.

You do not sell your best and latest technology to other countries, even your allies because you do not know what is going to happen in the future.

Do you think that the Germans sell there modern U Boots with the latest technology. No they sell them with lesser technology so that they keep an edge.

As for the US and selling the F-35 with lesser avionics and technologies, that is normal and the same reason as the Germans with the U Boots.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



Well Eurofighter SAAB will both supply all the new upgrades when they arrive, which is the sign of trust that is needed from Lockheed, otherwise they'll remain what I'd call a suspect supplier. I mean you don't offer to sell someone something and then deny them the evolutionary upgrades, that's like giving a guy who has just bought a whole aeroplane a set of wings instead and then there you go, have fun! 

Now I understand the deal with the F-22, all nations want something of their own that other nations don't have, but the deal with the F-35 is abit suspicious.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> Now I understand the deal with the F-22, all nations want something of their own that other nations don't have, but the deal with the F-35 is abit suspicious.



Why is it suspicious? Because it is the United States doing it? Read my post above Soren, all counties do it and there is a reason for it. There is nothing new about it and there is nothing suspicious about it.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

Hmmmm..

Not quite, Germany sold exactly the same technology to NATO partners. In the meantime the US took over the German U-boot shipyard to get that technology and they are not forwarding the latest technology to e.g. Greece. However Singapore received top notch F-15's including AIM 120's and they are demanding the same for their current F-35 involvment.

And do you seriously think that the "English Cousins" will ever pose negativley or develop to be a threat towards the USA ?

It is indeed a conceived US policy to whom to give what, unlike European ventures where off course all involved partners share the same knowhow.

So my Australian friends, don't hesitate and buy those Eurofighters and Leo 2A6.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

> Do you think that the Germans sell there modern U Boots with the latest technology. No they sell them with lesser technology so that they keep an edge.



The Italian Navy has recieved the same Type 212A's that the German navy operates, it is Korea Greece who have recieved the new Type 214's without some of the classified technology.

So I don't really see a comparison here, and like I said SAAB Eurofighter will both supply the new upgrades as they arrive. Lockheed's decision not to is suspicious. Like I said I can understand the deal about the F-22, but its not for sale like the F-35 is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Italian Navy has recieved the same Type 212A's that the German navy operates, it is Korea Greece who have recieved the new Type 214's without some of the classified technology.
> 
> So I don't really see a comparison here, and like I said SAAB Eurofighter will both supply the new upgrades as they arrive. Lockheed's decision not to is suspicious. Like I said I can understand the deal about the F-22, but its not for sale like the F-35 is.



I was referring to the Type 214. Did I ever say the Type 212? No. The 214 is based off of the 212 and is sold for export. It is basically the same as the 212 but with out the non-magnetic hull and the AIP propullsion system.

Why because you dont sell you top technology to other countries...

Again Soren, it is not a new idea and all countries do it.



Kruska said:


> " will ever pose negativley or develop to be a threat towards the USA ?
> 
> It is indeed a conceived US policy to whom to give what, unlike European ventures where off course all involved partners share the same knowhow.



Ofcourse the European Partners recieve the same technology? They designed it and worked on it together. That is completely different than say England building a new F-23000 Super Lightning (ofcourse this does not exist) and selling the there top technology to France who did not work on the project with them

So sorry that does not compare...


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

Hello D.A.I.G.

Again Hmmmm...

The F-35 project is actually a joint venture of many countries especially NATO partners. Singapore is very much even technologywise involved. It is not a sole US project such as the F-22 or B-2 etc. etc.

I do fully understand the US position of "protectionism", which is not shared by Germany on its products to NATO or ANZUC members.

So again my dear Australians, "Think it over" 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> And do you seriously think that the "English Cousins" will ever pose negativley or develop to be a threat towards the USA ?
> 
> So my Australian friends, don't hesitate and buy those Eurofighters and Leo 2A6.
> 
> ...



Re the F35 the UK had the idea that the USA were concerned that the UK would develop a better version. Sounds daft I know, but we did have a track record of doing this with Helicopters and developing better weapons / systems for the F4.
The technology that the US were denying us would have stopped the UK integrating new developments into the airframe, without having to hand the whole thing over to the US for testing. This was now been resolved and we now have the access required.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello D.A.I.G.
> 
> Again Hmmmm...
> 
> ...



Sorry but I find it very hard to believe that Germany does not have a position of "protectionism" and anyone who believes so is either naive or just does not wish to believe it for whatever reasons.

I will leave it at that and allow this to get back on topic...


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

> I was referring to the Type 214. Did I ever say the Type 212? No. The 214 is based off of the 212 and is sold for export. It is basically the same as the 212 but with out the non-magnetic hull and the AIP propullsion system.
> 
> Why because you dont sell you top technology to other countries...



Yet the Germans gave this technology to the US, and Italy actually have 212's in service.... Like I said it is only Greece Korea who are withheld the technology here.



> Again Soren, it is not a new idea and all countries do it.



I never said it was a new idea, but not all countries do it to their close *Allies*.


Anyway like you said lets get back on topic.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> I mean you don't offer to sell someone something and then deny them the evolutionary upgrades, that's like giving a guy who has just bought a whole aeroplane a set of wings instead and then there you go, have fun!



Soren, you are absolutely off base on this one. The US is not selling development partners the Mk I or initial version and then abandoning them. That is pure BS, poppycock and crap. You watch too much TV my friend.

The US is not willing to share stealth development information nor software source code. Member nations are certainly allowed to purchase future revisions, but the US retains the right to keep those portions mentioned above proprietary and sovereign. To do otherwise would require the direct transfer of the technology origins.

If member nations want to have upgrades or undergo MAJOR maintenance cycles, then the US is willing to provide that as part of the purchase agreement. We are not going to provide the world with the latest physical stealth development processes and the source code for the flight controls computer/flight management computer.

Get over it. As Adler says, you guys do the same damn thing. The difference is that everyone wants a piece of the stealth pie and the US is not willing to give it up.

This doesn't mean you can't upgrade your own aircraft. You just can't change the basic core software applications without lots of reverse engineering and decrypting state secrets.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Huh?

Matt, Lockheed doesn't want to upgrade the JSF-35's sold to the newest blocks, that's the whole problem, and the reason behind the many doubts expressed by the many supposed buyers of the a/c. Many potential costumers are for this reason starting to prefer the Eurofighter SAAB Gripen as their next generation fighter. 

If Lockheed would but agree to upgrade the a/c to the newest blocks then this problem would be none-existant.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Well if that is the interpretation, then have at the Eurofighter and Gripen. It would be an absolute shame that America's allies would turn a technical issue into political fodder.

However, I assure you that they never will. The F-35, and its upgrades, will be available to member nations. I have no worries. It's all political posturing.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

All I know is that there's allot of commotion around this issue at the moment, and it seems esp. SAAB is gaining an edge as their prize tag and delivery plan seems to fit more of the customers. 

Are you saying you havent heard about this before Matt ??


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

I absolutely have. And I understand the issue. It is not about upgrades, it is about indigenous maintenance at major checks for the stealth aspects and ability to modify core software. Both claimed as essential for an independent nation to upkeep their air assets and qualify them for future compatibility with different mission software, weapon payload and C4I. I understand.

But if no likey, buy Saab. And I would suggest, buy many.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

IMO Lockheed should make it available, they'd score allot of costumers that way I'm sure, esp. seeing many of the nations are really enthustiastic about the VTOL design as that will mean much smaller airfields are needed.



> And I would suggest, buy many.



Why buy many ?


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Because you get what you pay for.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Hehe not always..


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Okay buddy.

Where abouts in Germany do you live in Soren?


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Despite what you believe I don't live in Germany.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Oh. I saw Adler ask you a few times and you didn't respond. The Mods can trace your IP, so I just assumed.

Tell me my guess is right, you are a states boy.


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

Besides... I couldn't figure out why you would be prowling around this site at 0530 German local time. 

So whereabouts, Soren?


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Never told anyone and wont for some time  As I said in another thread, I appreciate my anonymity.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Besides... I couldn't figure out why you would be prowling around this site at 0530 German local time.



Well I do live within that time zone (It's 4:30 btw), and the reason I'm up this late is that I'm on watch


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2008)

And Soren, there you have a friend. Enuf said. May I ask your nationality though.


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2008)

> And Soren, there you have a friend. Enuf said.



What do you mean ?



> May I ask your nationality though.



You may ask, but I wont tell


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Where abouts in Germany do you live in Soren?



He does not live in Germany. He is in Denmark. 

Same timezone though.

Great place but very expensive. I was offered a job up in Denmark and I turned it down only because of the taxes.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

Is it true that the Canucks have not replaced their MBTs, instead opting for a 105mm armed vehicle called the "Stryker". The whole issue of MBT replacement is very topical at the moment. The US, has for example, found that it has never used more than 25% of the available tank forces at its disposal, whereas its Infantry formations are strained to the limit. The rough rule of thumb is that for every armoured formation available, there is a need for an equivalent three or four Mech inf formations. Neither the US nor Australia are able to field that many Mech Inf units, so the force structure appears to be "tank heavy". 

The other consideration is whether or not MBTs are now basically obsolete. I am personally completely undecided, but strong debate rages around this very issue. Are MBTs simply too vulnerable, given the multiple (and cheap) threats that can be brought against them. In Australias case, we have been involved in perhaps half a dozen limited wars since the end of Vietnam, and our tank forces have not been utilized in a single one. The US at least has used their armour, but it appears their forces are a bit top heavy, 

Its an interesting and as yet unresolved debate. The Australian solution has been to go for a half measure, we are replacing our 103 Leopard Is with 59 second hand, and cheap, Abrams tanks for the time being. Looks for all the world like a wait and see procurement to me


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2008)

Seems like a classic case of preparing for the last war and not the next. Current structures are to a large degree based on the Cold War and a clash of armoured forces.
The current conflicts are anything but.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

There are a number of unresolved problems with the MBT centred force structure. Firstly is the enormous cost of the MBT. It is vulnerable, despite the the sophisticated armour that is now being developed and employed. it has very limited applications in just about any battle environment, except the northern european plain. It cannot effectively engage in urban warfare, and its mobility in anything except the european context is very limited. It is a force structure heavily dependant on its support echelons. there are many who are beginning to wonder if the expenditure for such a limited weapons system is actually worth it


----------



## Soren (May 6, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He does not live in Germany. He is in Denmark.



For the time being, yes. Like you say the taxes are very high, although that does have its benefits. 

My biggest problem with this place though is when moving here I had to get used to driving much cheaper cars as the registration toll is so high.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2008)

Yes I would have had to get rid of my Jeep because they put a luxury tax on it.


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 6, 2008)

parsifal said:


> There are a number of unresolved problems with the MBT centred force structure. Firstly is the enormous cost of the MBT. It is vulnerable, despite the the sophisticated armour that is now being developed and employed. it has very limited applications in just about any battle environment, except the northern european plain. It cannot effectively engage in urban warfare, and its mobility in anything except the european context is very limited. It is a force structure heavily dependant on its support echelons. there are many who are beginning to wonder if the expenditure for such a limited weapons system is actually worth it



For the most part, this is true; however, we (meaning the Americans) don't currently have anything else that is as survivable as an MBT, even in an urban environment. An APC (such as the M2/M3 Bradley AFV) is probably more useful in the urban combat environments we are currently involved in (I'm thinking of Iraq, of course) since it is fairly mobile and has adequate firepower for the environment it is in, but it is not very survivable. The Bushmaster cannon on the M2/M3 series of vehicles is much more useful against the "soft" targets we are encountering, as opposed to the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore cannon on the M1 which is, to say the least, overkill against "soft" targets. Unfortunately, the aluminum armor on the Bradley is not as effective as the DU/composite "Chobham" armor on the M1.


----------



## parsifal (May 6, 2008)

one has to also say that the tanks still play significant roles in delivering firepower for the assault. I think the traditional exploitation role of the tank, developed prior to WWII is the role most under threat. Tanks in the modern battle environment appear to be just too vulnerable to race off in the lead towards the rear area. If ther are any Iraq vets, would not mind any comments on the veracity of this observation. I am not completely convinced by the arguments either way which is raging not just in this forum.


----------



## Matt308 (May 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> What do you mean ?
> 
> 
> 
> You may ask, but I wont tell



I too enjoy some anonymity in my internet forays. And that has not settled well with some of my Forum mates. That was all I wished to imply.

And... I will not ask again. May the Farce be with you.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2008)

Copy that Matt! And may the farce be with you as-well  Now lets toast on that!


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2008)

Cheers.


----------



## Kruska (May 7, 2008)

Stitch;*For the most part, this is true; however, we (meaning the Americans) don't currently have anything else that is as survivable as an MBT, even in an urban environment.*

Hello Stitch,

that was the reason why the German Army had the worlds best APC in Bosnia.

We took a Leopard and packed six infantry guy's into it.  it's true

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Aussie1001 (May 7, 2008)

I like the challanger, Because i think it looks cool, from a military standpoint i dont know enough to comment about it.


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2008)

Kruska said:


> We took a Leopard and packed six infantry guy's into it.  it's true
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



Huh? Explain.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2008)

I think he means they used Leopards as APC's - I've seen that before (Wont hold in combat though)


----------



## Matt308 (May 7, 2008)

What remove the turret like other attempts to use a common chassis? Sounds rather ponderous for a APC in all but the most extreme environments.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2008)

No he means they crammed 6 guys into a Leopard because of the protection. In combat it would not be very feasable because as your gusy are scrambling to get out of the turret hatches they will get picked off.


----------



## Kruska (May 8, 2008)

Hello Matt308,

No turret removed, the Leo was just taken as it is. The turret compartment is quite spacious for the crew, damn cramped with 4 extra infantry guys added (the tank crew then existed only by the driver and commander), so 2 crew + 6 infantry soldiers.

So the Leo was used in the function of an APC not as an AFV.

The Marder 1A3 APC/AFV was never further upgraded due to budget constrains in the years before, and since our loudmouth politicians wanted to “contribute” the Bundeswehr, the Leo was found to be the only save means of transportation in hazardous, landmine invested terrain. 
Mostly due to this "APC incident" a “special” budget was allocated to upgrade around 250 Marders 1A3 into Marder 1A5 which then resulted into actually only 100 1A5’s build due to the usual budget cuts.

Everybody is now waiting for the Puma AFV since the Boxer already ran into "unexpected" budget cuts.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kurfürst (May 8, 2008)

The Puma looks good and very useful... modular armor, high survivability, the autocannnon can also act as AA defense against attack choppers, air transportable. etc.


----------



## Kruska (May 8, 2008)

Hello Kurfuerst,

let's hope the Bundeswehr gets the necessary $$$$ alocated before 2015, because by then it would be as usefull/useless as a today's Marder 1A3.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (May 8, 2008)

Germans IMO make the best APCs in the world. there is only one problem, they cost a truckload of cash, meaning that peacetime armies have to spend a motza on battlefield transport, which might otherwise be spent on other items.


----------



## Haztoys (May 8, 2008)

Great info guys

I could be wrong but..........

I was thinking in this last round of fighting in the medeast last year ..Israel did loose a lot of tanks ...A lot more then they were thinking they would ...??

Am I right or .......?


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No he means they crammed 6 guys into a Leopard because of the protection. In combat it would not be very feasable because as your gusy are scrambling to get out of the turret hatches they will get picked off.




Exactly.


----------



## parsifal (May 9, 2008)

I think the Israeli Merkava has a limited proper APC capability. From memory i think it is about 4 combat troops, and this tiny little hatchway at the rear of the tank


----------



## Matt308 (May 9, 2008)

Its actually not so tiny. The engine, transmission and driver are in front. Ass end has limited APC capability.


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2008)

The most interesting thing about the Merkava is the emergency escape hatch, that's very smart.


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I think the Israeli Merkava has a limited proper APC capability. From memory i think it is about 4 combat troops, and this tiny little hatchway at the rear of the tank



Hello parsifal, 

The Merkava MK.1, 2, 3 and 4 do have NBC protection/overpressure systems, with air-condition added since MK.3. for the infantry guys. 
The rear hatch for the accompanying infantry also acts as escape/rescue hatch for in taking wounded soldiers.
Another very unique feature is the internal mounted 60mm mortar.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## raffyboy (Jan 2, 2009)

My personal opinion…..

Tanks are mobile armors that must protect the crew extensively during the assault with enough firepower to stop the enemies.

Leopard 2 has the latest technology when it comes to tanks but it has not yet extensively proven in the battlefield compared to M1Abrams, Challenger 2 and the Merkava. M1 Abrams and the Challenger has been proven extensively throughout the gulf wars up to today and even the Merkava has been proven since the Golan Heights War and ever adapting and changing up to today especially its survivability.

If I am a tank commander now, I want to be on an M1 Abrams as I know its proven capability. If I am a member of the IDF (Israel Defense Force), surely there will be no other tank for me than the Merkava. The Merkava is designed specifically for Israel and Israel only, that’s why there are no export customers for this tank. Some would say that the Merkava is too large and has a greater signature it’s because of the desert landscapes and the environment of Israel. It is designed for crew survivability first and foremost. As I have researched, Merkava is tank for defensive and small assaults and not to be used for large scale assaults like the Abrams and the Challenger.

By the way, if I have a son in his teens, I would recommend the Leo2 for it is the tank of the future.


----------



## walle (Jan 9, 2009)

I’d go with the Leopard 2, in a heart beat.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 9, 2009)

M1A2 SEP w/TUSK


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2009)

Merkava all the way, baby 

As for not being capable for a sustained battle, I'd like to see some proofs for that.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 18, 2009)

Thorlifter said:


> Do you think it's an outdated weapon?


It's difficult to see a future for MBTs now that the Cold War is over, certainly in the long term. War and strategy are moving away from classical battlefield engagements and into highly mobile war and/or counter-terrorism campaigns.

Likely, a terrorist is not going to confront your state-of-the-art MBT with another tank, he's going to ambush it with roadside devices and MBTs make for costly losses, especially when the people who did it are nowhere to be seen.

I work for a defence contractor and the next-gen vehicles that we are currently preparing a contract bid for are wheeled, rather than tracked; there is talk that Challenger 2 was the last traditional MBT that the British Army will receive.


----------



## F4Uftw (Apr 6, 2009)

Tanks do have a limited defense against laser guided munitions, many of the latest tanks have the ability to fir a spray of fog from their smoke grenade launchers intended to disrupt the beam from a guidance laser.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 6, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> It's difficult to see a future for MBTs now that the Cold War is over, certainly in the long term. War and strategy are moving away from classical battlefield engagements and into highly mobile war and/or counter-terrorism campaigns.
> 
> Likely, a terrorist is not going to confront your state-of-the-art MBT with another tank, he's going to ambush it with roadside devices and MBTs make for costly losses, especially when the people who did it are nowhere to be seen.
> 
> I work for a defence contractor and the next-gen vehicles that we are currently preparing a contract bid for are wheeled, rather than tracked; there is talk that Challenger 2 was the last traditional MBT that the British Army will receive.



You are definitely off base with that one. While you are right about the nature of recent engagements, that in no way negates a role that the tank plays in today's military. Highly mobile is exactly the type of war that the tank is suited to fight, and the ability to lead attacks with mounted or dismounted infantry makes them valuable combined arms assets. Not to mention it would be quite foolish for a military to rid themselves of all heavily armored assets, which would create a huge vulnerability.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 6, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Which is best, all things considered, on the battlefield today?
> 
> Is the Leopard 2
> 
> ...



is it just me or is the merkava kinda look like those new moblie artillary pieces


----------



## timshatz (Apr 6, 2009)

Yeah, it does. Heavily armored sucker, that's for sure. 

What I find impressive about the above photos is the only one that is an actual "in action" shot is the Abrams. Nothing like a battle tested machine to give it credibility.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2009)

Merkava looks like SP artillery piece since it has engine in front, like those. That obviously dictates the turret goes at the back.

Of course, along with Abrams and Challengers, Merkava has enough won battles under belt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Yeah, it does. Heavily armored sucker, that's for sure.
> 
> What I find impressive about the above photos is the only one that is an actual "in action" shot is the Abrams. Nothing like a battle tested machine to give it credibility.



Many of the tanks above have been battle tested including the Challenger, Leopard 2 and Merkava. Infact the Merkava probably sees more action than any of the tanks above.


----------



## mustangx9 (Jul 4, 2009)

[size=+2]*challenger 2*[/size] is better than other battle tanks. that's my choice.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Jul 4, 2009)

Tough one, I will have to go with two MBTs and those Leopard 2 and Merkava.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 4, 2009)

mkloby said:


> You are definitely off base with that one


Yeah maybe

New mini-tank 'will transform Army' - Telegraph


----------



## rickytractors (Jul 5, 2009)

Challenger 2 the best tank due to none been killed in battle, in Gulf took i think was 3 hour of RPG and gun fire all crew ok. 180 Challenger tanks were deployed to Saudi Arabia for Operation Granby, the UK operation in the Persian Gulf War. The Challenger claimed 300 kills against armoured vehicles for no losses. It also has the distinction of the longest range tank-to-tank kill in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of 5.1 km. Some say the abrams but they lost so meny in the gulf. Ricky


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

rickytractors said:


> Challenger 2 the best tank due to none been killed in battle, in Gulf took i think was 3 hour of RPG and gun fire all crew ok. 180 Challenger tanks were deployed to Saudi Arabia for Operation Granby, the UK operation in the Persian Gulf War. The Challenger claimed 300 kills against armoured vehicles for no losses. It also has the distinction of the longest range tank-to-tank kill in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of 5.1 km. Some say the abrams but they lost so meny in the gulf. Ricky



How were so many M-1s lost? 1,848 M-1 Abrams were sent to the Gulf and only 23 were taken out of action. Of the 23 and only a few of these were actually hit by enemy fire (most of the 23 were taken out due to mechanical problems which can happen to any vehicle). Only one resulted in the fatality of a crew and that was by friendly fire. All Abrams that were hit by enemy fire were repaired and put back into action (except three that became stuck in the mud and then were destroyed by friendly fire so the Iraqi's would not capture them).

There is only one confirmed Abrams that was put out of action by Iraqi tanks. It was hit by 3 rounds, but none of them penetrated the armor, and it was sent to a depot and repaired.

By the way, the Challenger 2 was not in the Gulf War. It was in Iraqi Freedom. Challenger I's were used in Operation Granby. The Challenger 2 was used in Iraqi Freedom and 3 have been knocked out of service.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jul 6, 2009)

All these tanks are wonderful but they have a one achilles heel - mines. If a track is blown off the tank is a mission kill. 
What is needed is a tank that can continue to operate even after it has struck one mine.


----------



## rahulhunt316in (Sep 13, 2009)

could anyone tell me , why is Indian Army hell bent over T-90 wen Arjun's a better tank... and even the tank commanders have said it on that its a better tank recently...
MBT ARJUN 
Engine Power = 1400 
Power to weight ratio(hp/ton) = 24 
ground pressure (kg/sq cm) = 0.84 
Ground clearance(mm) = 450-500 
max speed (km/h) = 70 
Cross country speed (km/h) = 40 
acc (0-32 km/h in sec) = 10 
gradient (degrees) = 35 
slide slope(degrees) = 25 
vertical obstacle (m) = 0.91 
trench (m) = 2.43 
Median Fording(m) = 2.15 
shallow Fording(M0) = 1.45 
Feul Capacity (Lt)
under armour = 860 
Track gaurd Tanks = 720 
Rear barrel = 400 
TOTAL = 1980 
Range: Feul consumption
on road(km) = 360:5.5 
Range:Feul consumption
cross country(km) = 210:9.6 
Transmission = Full Automatic l

Tracks Type = Rubberised double pin tracks 
with tracks padsand rubber 
 tyreload wheels 

Auxiliary Power Unit = For all Turret Loads 

T-90 MBT
Engine Power = 1000
Power to weight ratio(hp/ton) = 21.50
ground pressure (kg/sq cm) = 0.94 
Ground clearance(mm) = 404 
max speed (km/h) = 60 
Cross country speed (km/h) = 30
acc (0-32 km/h in sec) = 12
gradient (degrees) = 30
slide slope(degrees) = 25
vertical obstacle (m) = 0.85
trench (m) = 2.6 to 2.8
Median Fording(m) = 1.8 
shallow Fording(M0) = 1.2 
Feul Capacity (Lt)
under armour = 705
Track gaurd Tanks = 495
Rear barrel = 400
TOTAL = 1600
Range: Feul consumption
on road(km) = 410:3.9
Range:Feul consumption
cross country(km) = 220:7.2
Transmission = Mechanical

Tracks Type = Single pin rubberised tracks with
rubber tyred road wheels


Auxiliary Power Unit = No APU's


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 14, 2009)

Hi,
My guess is that, since T-90 is in the production for a decade and half, it was chosen for Indian units. The opposite is true for Arjun: after 2 decades of development, the production is a giant question mark.
About the comparison of the tanks, the commander was well aware about the consequences for his carreer when the statement was made.

Although Arjun _should _ be better then T-90 on paper.


----------

