• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Leopard II top tank?

Jagd, we received a shipment a year or two ago, I'd have to double-check but IIRC the number was around 50 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 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.
Horses for courses I say.
:ernae:

I would concur, the M-1 is not suited for every country's logistics system and natural features. It is a great system but it is wide and very heavy at 70 tons. Heavy Armor & bulkiness these days(like the M-1) are really outlived themselves in that design train of thought.
 
I have to admit I can see the Aussies better with some of the wheeled stuff that's out on the market... I don't see where the M-1 fits into their style of operating. The Leopard 1 was heavy enough for SE Asia...
 
The M-1 production which ended in 2005 but it is now going to restart building the new M-1A3 which will be in service all the way to 2050. The US Army is going to fully upgarde the M-1A2's to A3 Standard.

Here's the Army Times Article: By Kris Osborn


The Army is reversing earlier plans to retire M1A2 Abrams tanks and now plans to upgrade the 70-ton battlefield behemoths, making them more lethal, better protected, more networked — and able to serve through 2050.

In 1998, the Army had all but written off the tank, which cannot go over most bridges and is too heavy to deploy quickly and expediently by air.


“We were going to stop producing Abrams in 2005. The line was supposed to go cold,” an official with the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command said.


But the Abrams’ thick skin proved valuable during the Iraq insurgency, fending off enemy rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs that crippled lighter vehicles. To prepare the tank for its next decades, the Army is planning improvements.


“If you are going to keep it, the status quo won’t do,” said Rickey Smith, who directs the Capabilities Integration Center Forward at TraDoc.


Early versions of an “M1A3” capabilities development document have traveled from the Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., to TraDoc at Fort Monroe, Va., and will soon go to the Pentagon. At this point, the ideas in the document are considered preliminary and not yet official.


The Army intends its 60-tank Heavy Brigade Combat Teams to work with the Future Brigade Combat Teams that will come on line in 2015, as Future Combat Systems vehicles arrive.


“We will have to be compatible with FCS. When FCS comes in, we are going to have a fleet of Abrams, Bradleys and FCS armored vehicles. The critical thing is to get a communications package so they can talk to each other,” said Pete McVey, vice president of Abrams and derivative programs, General Dynamics Land Systems.


Preliminary work is underway on a more-networked Abrams.


“We are working on an integrated computer system. Whatever you do, there is a requirement for integrated engineering,” the effort to build digitized and networked vehicles, Smith said.


Workers in Warren, Mich., are equipping several tanks for tests, giving them B-kits containing FCS-compatible software, computers and communications gear.


The capabilities description document calls for:


• Lower logistical costs.


• Potentially replacing the M256 smoothbore cannon with the lightweight 120mm cannon being tested for FCS. This could allow an autoloader to lift the burden of the tank’s four-man crew.


• Improved propulsion system, road wheels and suspension.


• A track that can go 5,000 miles between replacements. FCS officials are testing new track ideas at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., including band tracks composed entirely or partly of rubbery material.


• Lighter armor and other components to reduce the tank’s weight, making it more mobile with an improved suspension.


For example, a look at the cabling in the tank shows that if fiber-optic cable was used, 1 1/2 tons can be taken off the weight, McVey said.


• Precision munitions that can hit targets 12 kilometers away. Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, which aims to field its Mid-Range-Munition precision round by 2012, is testing two candidates: ATK’s millimeter-wave, kinetic energy round and Raytheon’s round with an infrared camera and laser detector.
 
There is a school of thought that we have seen the last days of the large main battle tank.

My own thought is that we are in perhaps a bit of a hiatus. Since the end of the Cold War no country really needs to pour funds into development and maintenance of these weapons systems. The U.S. Army's development of the Stryker (really just an updated Piranha) reflects this to an extend. The Stryker has performed well, and shown itself to be more suitable for the combat encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Infantry support role.

The problem I have with that though, is that the U.S. is also in a sort of doctrinal limbo. Which means requirements are rather made up as we go along. This just about guarantees the U.S. will have the wrong tools for the wrong war, in the wrong place.

Also, one should never say never. I've been told by some fellow officers that "we'll never see large tank on tank battles again".....yeah, right.....we wont', until we do.
 
I just checked, but the Leo 2A7 is wider, higher and longer than the M1A2 and just as heavy..

Anyway it doesn't matter what tank crew you talk to, they all know their tank is the best! (Even if they've never been inside another MBT..)
 
There is a school of thought that we have seen the last days of the large main battle tank.

My own thought is that we are in perhaps a bit of a hiatus. Since the end of the Cold War no country really needs to pour funds into development and maintenance of these weapons systems. The U.S. Army's development of the Stryker (really just an updated Piranha) reflects this to an extend. The Stryker has performed well, and shown itself to be more suitable for the combat encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Infantry support role.

The problem I have with that though, is that the U.S. is also in a sort of doctrinal limbo. Which means requirements are rather made up as we go along. This just about guarantees the U.S. will have the wrong tools for the wrong war, in the wrong place.

Also, one should never say never. I've been told by some fellow officers that "we'll never see large tank on tank battles again".....yeah, right.....we wont', until we do.

My issue with the Stryker is that like the old M113 and M551's they are deathtraps for crews and occupants due to their construction and poor protection(aluminum armor). In Vietnam, M551's and M113's were torn all to hell by box mines and RPG's. Iraq was no exception for the Stryker even with upgrades/addon armor. The loss/crew fatality rate was very high. The addition of Trophy AAPS helped greatly but they performed poorly compared to MRAP systems in dealing with multiple threats & IED's. The new M-1A3 is going to trim down the beast a good bit which I think is the right philosophy and greatly improve the battlefield SA(Situational Awareness) through new systems and improve protection with AAPS(Quick Kill) and the new gun & ammo. I'm not so sure we've seen the last large scale tank engagements. When I hear the word "Never" it makes me nervous as it always tends to bite you in the backside later.

Type_99_MBT_front_left.jpg
 
I can already see the autoloader not getting implemented.

The new gun will allow that. Of course things could change but if it improves the efficiency in combat, by all means make the change. This is one area many other nation's MBT's have an advantage over the M-1. Rate of fire is one thing but crew coordination and work load can make a huge difference too.
 
My issue with the Stryker is that like the old M113 and M551's they are deathtraps for crews and occupants due to their construction and poor protection(aluminum armor).

I would certainly agree with you on this point. The Army resisted this type of platform for years for exactly that reason. On a European battlefield facing T-72 tanks, no one wanted to put troops in these types of vehicles. The Sheridan was an attempt at making a sort of compromise between speed, firepower, and protection and the Army was not particularly pleased with the result.

The use of both the Sheridan and the 113 is another example of using what you have, since neither was designed to be used in the role they were put in during Viet Nam.

Like you, I always get a little nervous when I hear the word "never".

I'd like to comment on the use of auto loaders. The T-72 had a pretty efficient auto loader, but it could never match the speed and reliability of a human. Also, the ammunition had to be configured in such a way as to position a great deal of it in the fighting compartment inside the turret to feed the auto loader. This is what we call "stupid". I would challenge everyone to go back to the photo's of the T-72's engaged by U.S. and coalition forces during Desert Storm, and notice where the turrets of those vehicles are regards the hull.

Despite the interest in the concept, I don't see the auto loader getting implemented either. It would have to be a huge jump forward technically, and overcome a major prejudice. Too many Desert Storm vets still in the mix to allow it.

Notice we still want a 4 man crew. You tankers know that you need 4 guys to maintain a vehicle like this, not just operate it. And you need 4 men to allow someone to sleep on occasion.
 
I agree with your points. There is a tradeoff in making major system changes with such a complex & technical vehicle as an MBT. Yes, if you go with a 3 man crew, then you have one less to maintain it but most Tank field maintenance now seems to be shifting more towards Mobile CST's in conjunction with even 4 man crews and with future upgrades in Drive/Road Wheel/Suspension Systems and newer Low/No Maintenance Tracks, that again reduces downtime and workload on both crew & vehicle. So from a support/maintenance side it's possible to shed the Loader(even though I understand quite clearly the resistance to the idea). The current state of capability/efficiency of autoloaders make sense when the new influx of Tactical Battlefield Information Systems/Self Protection Systems will shift the workflows more towards automation anyway. I have a lot of respect for Tankers and Tank Maintenance Crews. It's a hard job for sure even with improvements in gear. Such turned me away from being so S*** Hot in wanting to be a Tanker many moons ago. I ended up going 11H/11M after 11B training(11H/11M now merged with 11B). To give an idea of my age, I worked with TOW's, Dragon's(Piece of S***), M40A1(106m Recoiless Rifle), M67 90mm RCL, and M72 LAW and Swedish 84mm Garl Gustav launcher.

I did get to see the M-1's fire and watch the crew do it's thing. Scary how tight it is, especially for the Loader. If he even leans a hair too much towards the breach block when it fires, OUCH! CRUNCH! Like I said, Tankers have my respect!
 
Regards the crew drill on firing, I was in artillery units (155 SP) for several years and watching those crews is the same sort of ballet.

It terrified me....but they seemed to take it in stride.

My point on the crew goes beyond the operation and maintenance of the weapons system. I'm really saying that to operate on the modern battlefield, you need more than 4 folks on this kind of weapon. There's more involved than simply operating it.
 
As a loader in the M60A1 I learned to lean back towards the turret and put one foot up to kick that damn shell casing down and away from me,it was fast and hot as the devil out of the breech.:jump:
 
As a loader in the M60A1 I learned to lean back towards the turret and put one foot up to kick that damn shell casing down and away from me,it was fast and hot as the devil out of the breech.:jump:
The old 60 was a good tank albeit a tad high in profile. I remember numerous REFORGER Exercises and all the vast number of Armor around. The thing I distinctly remember is the NATO Bridge Weight badges on the Glacis Plate. Seems they were amber/gold colored? Been a long time ago.

The thing that always was very sobering was the vast numbers of Soviet/Warsaw Pact Tank & Motor Rifles Divisions that outnumber NATO. Seems one briefing a Bird Colonel stated it was something like 55 divisions to 9 if that number is true. We would never have stopped them head to head. It would have gone Tac-Nuke if they came through the Gap in a sudden blitz. Speaking of Nukes there, long before GLCM and Pershing II, I remember the Pershing I's, Lance, M110's and there was a "secret" number of portable Nukes that supposedly were hidden in plain site around Germany that the 12 Bravo's would deploy if it went to Broken Arrow. I remember several ranking Officers speaking one evening saying that "if" there was enough intelligence advance warning, NATO could have slowed or stopped a major blitz with deep air strikes into Warsaw Pact & Soviet Territory. The reason behind that thinking was that the road and railways from the Russia through Ukraine were highly vulnerable and if interdicted properly, it would bottleneck heavy supply feed across the frontier. The flanks were impassable due to the vast swamps and dense woodlands. At the same time, the forward airfields and highway airstrips would be hit hard to prevent them from coming into play. Like they said, for such a scenario to play in NATO's favor, it would have to be executed perfectly and well before hand based on intell proof they were coming in. It was also said if NATO did eke things out, the Soviets would have just raked most/all of Europe under a shower of IRBM's. Geez, I haven't remembered any of this until this evening since 25 years ago or more(I hoped to forget it all). Scary days I don't miss at all.

Speaking of the portable Nukes in Germany, I just looked it up, they were called:
Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) Mk-54
View attachment 20401
 
I have to admit I can see the Aussies better with some of the wheeled stuff that's out on the market... I don't see where the M-1 fits into their style of operating. The Leopard 1 was heavy enough for SE Asia...

My first Viet Nam tour was 'interesting' as our tracks were used offensively, and after a number of operations extensively re-manufactured to do so.

The Armoured Regiment's Centurions were nicknamed 'Koalas' by the non-tankers, as in "Never to be shipped overseas and never to be shot at!"
(This was a law regarding those cuddly little marsupials that get stoned on Eucalyptus leaves and piss on humans.)

After a few years the Centurions did arrive and performed remarkably well, despite being designed for the ETO and using petrol instead of diesel, allied to their remarkable ability to generate a huge thermal signature (overly warm and toasty through an entire night even when shut down!!) as well as being bloody noisy.
Modifications improved their 'off road' performance and there was nothing as effective as a Cent delivering a 'shotgun round' into the bamboo that impressed me so mightily!!

However, the tracks remained in use as 'Light Cavalry' despite their drawbacks, and to be honest, I was happy to be out of them!

Jungle warfare is not the right environment for an MBT, even our 'Leopolds', good as they were, laboured under those conditions, and there is no way an M1 could be operationally effective in say, East Timor or Indonesia, except as a mobile strong point restricted to prepared surfaces.
In my opinion the ASLAV series of vehicles fitted out with a variety of MRIKs are the best solution for a Nation such as Australia, as proved by the performance of 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry) in Iraq.
:ernae:
 
Viet Nam was not particularly suited to armor, being both mountainous, swamp, and jungle at the same time.

Ironic though that when the North invaded the South in 1975, they attacked with 12 Divisions. 10 of them were armor divisions.

T-55's though....very small tank.
 
Viet Nam was not particularly suited to armor, being both mountainous, swamp, and jungle at the same time.

Depends what the job is. If you're defending against guerillas and terrorists, you're right.

Ironic though that when the North invaded the South in 1975, they attacked with 12 Divisions. 10 of them were armor divisions.

T-55's though....very small tank.

Ideal for a roadborne burn down to the capital. Lots of shock and awe and speed, very little messing about in the bushes.
 
The new gun will allow that. Of course things could change but if it improves the efficiency in combat, by all means make the change. This is one area many other nation's MBT's have an advantage over the M-1. Rate of fire is one thing but crew coordination and work load can make a huge difference too.

Advantages of a loader:

- One more brain
- Two more arms (help with repairs)
- Two more eyes (VERY important when driving through forest clearings)
- One more with basic knowledge about gunning (loaders are gunners who didn't pass the exam)
- Two more legs (to fetch diesel, food, drinks, etc...)

And with a well working crew, workload actually decreases since you won't have to worry about that autoloader failing.



And you need 4 men to allow someone to sleep on occasion.

Actually, it's to get the gunner more sleep. In the field, commander and driver are number one on the sleeping schedules, gunner and loader are number two.
 
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.

Both systems are quite interesting, and obviously quite effective when on "active duty." However, when they are said to handle "mutiple threats," that says nothing about how well they would work to protect against "simultaneous" threats, much less "multiple-simultaneous" threats...

Further, both systems have a finite (and apparently small) source of "shots" so to speak. In the case of "Fist," that appears to be only four. Presumably they carry additional munitions on board, but someone would have to expose themselves to rearm them.:ernae:
 
Ideal for a roadborne burn down to the capital. Lots of shock and awe and speed, very little messing about in the bushes.

Good observation, as are Bjorn's.

Try pulling a camo screen across a tank with three folks, while one does security......
 
1) Build model.
2)Place on shelf.
3)Every two to three years, blow off with the air-in-can stuff.
4)Enjoy!

Hehehe :icon_lol:

My models don't last two months if I leave them on the shelf.

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.....

Two kits I wouldn't mind building are the DML BMP-2 and the Tamiya T-72M1 with a scratchbuilt T6-52 turret.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1270.html

Regards,
Stratobat
 
Back
Top