ndicki
Charter Member 2016
Depends on doctrine and tactics.
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Leopard II top tank?
- Thread starter PRB
- Start date
Depends on doctrine and tactics.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
The Challenger's huge disadvantage is its engine. Only 1200 hp for 62.5t isn't that good for manouverability.
A huge advantage of the Leclerc is its relatively low weight. The horse power per tonne ratio is among the highest out there.
Oh, and another argument in favor of the Leo 2: Take a look a the japanese Type 90 and the indian Arjun and tell me that it doesn't look like a pre-wedge Leo.
ndicki
Charter Member 2016
Fine, the Leclerc is light. Light, by the way, equals reduced survivability on the battlefield, and that added to the legendary reliability of French automotive products and their electronics, means that I don't want one. Which was pretty much what the RAC had to say, too. You can see why.
The other thing is that the Leclerc has an autoloader. Now I don't want to sound superior or old-fashioned, but autoloaders are peacetime gadgets unless you're an expendable Sov. They can't be replaced on the battlefield. Human loaders can...
And I still come back to the other major source of concern after its survivability - it isn't soldierproof. That's really all that needs to be said.
The other thing is that the Leclerc has an autoloader. Now I don't want to sound superior or old-fashioned, but autoloaders are peacetime gadgets unless you're an expendable Sov. They can't be replaced on the battlefield. Human loaders can...
And I still come back to the other major source of concern after its survivability - it isn't soldierproof. That's really all that needs to be said.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Light doesn't necessarily mean reduced survivability. If it moves quicker, it's less likely to be hit.
And the "unreliable french" cars thingy is a classical example of "apples vs bananas".
I'm with you on that one. Autoloaders are simply too impractical and can't replace another pair of hands and eyes.
I wonder if this is really true... The navy thought the same thing and came up with this concept of the "battlecruiser" which, lighter than battleships, due to thin armor, were faster than the big dreadnoughts, and thought, therefore, to be better "protected" because of it. They were not. Turns out that "boolets" go faster than battle cruisers, and 10 knots of extra speed just doesn't make up for 6 inches of steel. Would not the same be true of fast thinly armored tanks?
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
Yes.
I don't feel there is a top tank,as a former armor crewman on M60A1's I have a bit of experience in this matter.The Soviet and now Russian armor did the light and fast routine with most of their stuff and it made great target practice as did the Sherman.
The Sherman was a death trap but it was cheap,fast and easy to build in large numbers,it also killed it's crewmembers in large numbers.There are always those who are willing to trade speed for armor and it rarely works out for them.The Leopard,Abrams and Challenger are the big dogs.
Nothing the Russians or Chinese have can compete in my opinion,which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Time will tell if the Arjun and the Leclerc can hang in a fight.Also the Merkava is a very specialized vehicle.What really matters is crew training and morale along with a good vehicle,there is no armored vehicle that can't be destroyed by the proper application of brute force.
The Sherman was a death trap but it was cheap,fast and easy to build in large numbers,it also killed it's crewmembers in large numbers.There are always those who are willing to trade speed for armor and it rarely works out for them.The Leopard,Abrams and Challenger are the big dogs.
Nothing the Russians or Chinese have can compete in my opinion,which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Time will tell if the Arjun and the Leclerc can hang in a fight.Also the Merkava is a very specialized vehicle.What really matters is crew training and morale along with a good vehicle,there is no armored vehicle that can't be destroyed by the proper application of brute force.
deathfromafar
Charter Member
All of these front line MBT's are excellent and I would not be so quick to say one is better than any other as such. However, not one of them is invulnerable by armor and systems alone. Threats these days are 100% lethal such that previous armor advances(Heavy/Advanced Armor Technology) really mean nothing. When considering the cost of and M-1A2, Leopard 2A5/6, Challenger II, Leclerc, Merkava IV, a cheap but high tech anti-armor missile is a cost effective way to counter an expensive MBT. The answer to such threats are Active Protection Systems. The Russians have a system called Arena(and the earlier Drozd system) but that system is not in widespread use and in actual combat, they have not shown to be very effective. The US had more than one AAP System in development in the early 90's but cut the funding later. Raytheon is currently developing a AAPS called Quick Kill but it is well behind schedule and is suffering a number of technical issues. Germany has a similar system in development called AMAP-ADS and Sweden the LEDS-150. Currently, Israel has the world's only "in service" full coverage AAP System which is called Trophy. They have another AAPS called Iron Fist. The US Army has field tested Trophy and combat tested it in Iraq with 100% Zero Loss Rate. With such developments in place, one must question if there is really any need for Heavy Armor MBT's as opposed to developing newer mobile combat systems that are lighter/faster, less expensive, and more effective in multiple scenarios.
Here's a demo of Trophy in action. BTW, the system is about to be fully certified against Kinetic Energy Rounds.
(EDIT) and Iron Fist.
Here's a demo of Trophy in action. BTW, the system is about to be fully certified against Kinetic Energy Rounds.
(EDIT) and Iron Fist.
1) Build model.
2)Place on shelf.
3)Every two to three years, blow off with the air-in-can stuff.
4)Enjoy!
Strat.
Been digital model building (for you guys!) the past severeal years. But I do want to get going on my Tamiya T-55, and Cromwell. And the Stryker. And the BMP-3, And the.....
Naismith
Charter Member
Interesting tank site http://www.tankmuseum.org/
They have a working Tiger!
Video links on YouTube from there.
They have a working Tiger!
Video links on YouTube from there.
ndicki
Charter Member 2016
That's Bovvie, or Bovington, the Royal Armoured Corps proving area - they are the people who test tanks until they stop working, and then give them to the museum. They broke the Leclerc without even trying that hard.
deathfromafar
Charter Member
Yeap, that system is combat proven both by the IDF and our combat tests in the box. When the field trials were held Stateside, there was 1 anomaly out of 40 test shots. The Trophy Interceptor round proximity burst slightly behind an RPG-7 round but the blast still hit the rear of the round knocking it off course (tumble) enough to fail. We're going to see a lot more of these types of systems come about for sure. Makes sense being that it is cost effective in protecting a very expensive piece of hardware and most important, the lives inside the armor!
I enjoyed the Trophy and Iron Fist videos. That's some awesome technology.
Bjoern
worst developer ever
Open water isn't really the same as open ground.
Even the desert provides dunes and hills to hide behind or go hull down. Change the sand with your standard soil and add some forests and villages and you'll see how important it can be to quickly move from cover to cover.
It's always in whether you use your advantages or not. If my mind doesn't fail me, the T-72s advantages for example are it's small size (really, this thing is awfully tiny for a MBT) and the long 125mm gun. The Leopard 2 was actually developed to counter the T-72, which had a huge range advantage and could pick off Leo 1s before they could hit back. The tradeoff for the T-72s size is its limited gun elevation range. It's really hard to find a good hull down position in one of those.
MBAPC. :d
And it looks kind of sexy to boot.
wombat666
Administrator
Jagd, we received a shipment a year or two ago, IIRC the number was 59 units.
Not very clever on the part of our DOD because the M1 is so bloody big it has been a disaster just to move from the docks to the 1st Armoured Regiment's home base.
Narrow roads, bridges and not enough railway freight cars to cope.
Very sophisticated vehicle but too big for our use, the 'Leopold' suits our terrain and any possible future scenarios in the region.
Most of them went through upgrades and remain very well liked by the regiment.
The M1 has 'replaced' the Leopolds' which are more or less moth balled for the Army Reserve
As in anything it's horses for courses.
:ernae: