Leopard II top tank?

[deathfromafar]

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:

Actually both systems can handle simultaneous threats. In the Trophy video you can see that. It's magazine size is more than adequate for dealing with multiple threats and it's auto-reloading system for the interceptors is incredibly fast. There was one test where Trophy engaged several threats attacking nearly simultaneously including a Top Attack(simulating a Russian Kornet) and 2 level KE rounds. That's very impressive full sphere protection. It's rare a single tank might be attacked in such a way but it has happened. As far as Iron Fist reloading, I think the tubes are disposable and they have an auto reloader for them. I'm not 100% on that as it seems the system is going through a number of upgrades.

 

[Bjoern]

Try pulling a camo screen across a tank with three folks, while one does security......

Camo'ing up your tank always blows, regardless of the number of people involved. :d




P.S: My favourite was covering up tracks and collecting 203428973425 tons of branches and small trees to cover the tank when parked in a forest. *Grr*

 

[ndicki]

Camo'ing up your tank always blows, regardless of the number of people involved. :d




P.S: My favourite was covering up tracks and collecting 203428973425 tons of branches and small trees to cover the tank when parked in a forest. *Grr*

Not to mention leaving tons of visible evidence in the shape of cut-off branches and trunks and damaged undergrowth... All there from the (footborne) recce people to find and evaluate.

 

[Major_Spittle]

I was stuck on an M1 from '89 to '97 and trust me when I say the M1A2 (latest variation while I was in) was not the best tank for most environments. Desert- Engine sucked, Wet- too heavy, Ice- too heavy, Snow- too heavy, City- too Large and poor visibility, Rivers- doesn't float and heavy for bridges..... With this being said if I ever had to fire on the move over rough terrain at a target 3000 meters away or sit in a tank taking fire I would choose no other tank. It was made to defend Germany (Woodland area with good infrastructure) in a slug fest against many crappy Soviet tanks with poor range that couldn't fire accurately moving or at a moving target. I was designed to move quick and hunt at night on a battle field that would be over-run in hours, and it's purpose was to stay operational and move through the enemy attacking behind the their lines. (see Desert Storm)

The Merkava is the the best desert/city Tank (best overall tank IMO). All Soviet hardware is crap. M1 is great in hilly terrain and it is very accurate, but the powertrain is crap. It drinks fuel, huge thermal signature, crappy to field service the track. Never been around the Leopard II or Challenger, but have heard good things about each. Think it would mostly come down to crew training with the Leopard/Challenger/M1 in most situations because all have pros and cons.

 

[Major_Spittle]

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!

Actually it was much safer than it looks.

I was 19K originally then changed to 11M after a 6 years. Loved the Bradleys. Loved firing that gun. It showed me just how outdated the M1 tanks were. The electric turret slew was quick and deadly. No use for tanks on the battlefield today. Need to sell off all the M1 tanks to Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia and pay down some debt. The tanks would look cool being blown to crap by our airforce and shoulder launched missles @ 3+ miles range next time we go back into the Middle east to destroy and rebuild their backassward societies.

 

[Stratobat]

No use for tanks on the battlefield today. Need to sell off all the M1 tanks to Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia and pay down some debt.

As long as your enemy has tanks, you'll need tanks.

You don't want to put your infantry into a position where they need armoured support and none is available. The quickest way to disenfranchise a nation to a given war is to let them see bodybags coming home.

Regards,
Stratobat

 

[Bjoern]

All Soviet hardware is crap.

For crappy hardware, western intelligence had an awful lot of interest in it...


P.S: Just because it's built with tolerances in the centimeter range doesn't mean it's crap.

 

[Piglet]

No use for tanks on the battlefield today

Maybe not today, but the next 20-30 years (the expected life span of M-1 type tanks) is plenty of time for some one else's tanks to rumble across some one else's plains...

 

[Ferry_vO]

For crappy hardware, western intelligence had an awful lot of interest in it...

The T-55 might not have been as good as it's western counterparts, but there were only a mere 95,000 of it waiting along the iron curtain..

The German Panther and Tiger tanks had a 5-1 kill ratio over the Sherman tanks, but were outnumbered by 10 to 1.

 

[Major_Spittle]

As long as your enemy has tanks, you'll need tanks.

You don't want to put your infantry into a position where they need armoured support and none is available. The quickest way to disenfranchise a nation to a given war is to let them see bodybags coming home.

Regards,
Stratobat

Not so much so when a soldier can take out a tank with a shoulder fired weapon at over a mile. PC carriers like the Bradley have a purpose still to move troops, but a tank doesn't. Tanks are for killing troops, not other tanks. We have choppers, arty, planes, and missles for that. Tanks were made to break up trench warfare on huge battlefields, this is no longer the battlefield of today and they are just big expensive targets. Now they might have a place for attacking civilians and other non-military targets like poorly armed terrorist.

 

[Major_Spittle]

For crappy hardware, western intelligence had an awful lot of interest in it...


P.S: Just because it's built with tolerances in the centimeter range doesn't mean it's crap.

I have been on T-72 tanks, they are crap. I can come up with real good ideas, build it, make it look good on paper, but when it is built like utter crap and doesn't work in real life it doesn't matter. All the soviet equipment I have seen is built like crap.

A lot of people online read about what weapon systems are designed to do, but don't put much thought into if they actually can do it, how well they do it, how practical it is, failure rate.........

Soviet tanks are small expendable inexpensive death traps. Their crews know this and will react on the battlefield accordingly. There may be a lot of them, but if the people operating them are jumping out of them in battle and running away like the " elite " Republican Guard tankers in Iraq did, well they are useless. Nobody wants to be just a number on a battlefield. Sure 20 people with sticks can take out 1 guy with a pistol, but 10 of the 20 must be willing to get shot.

 

[Ferry_vO]

Sure 20 people with sticks can take out 1 guy with a pistol, but 10 of the 20 must be willing to get shot.

At least those 20 with their sticks have a 50% chance of survival each, that one person with a pistol 0%..

:mixedsmi:

 

[Bjoern]

The German Panther and Tiger tanks had a 5-1 kill ratio over the Sherman tanks, but were outnumbered by 10 to 1.

Everything german had a higher kill ratio and was outnumbered in WW2! :d

...

You should read up on tanks, really.

A Bradley or any other APC with an autocannon and its two AT missiles can't and never, ever will replace the combat value of a MBT. Never!

Just because more recent conflicts have been carried out against small groups of opponents in an urban or otherwise hardly accessible environment doesn't mean that there's no more place for tanks. No one knows what the future brings, but there *will* be a requirement for a weapons system that can rapidly enforce and exploit breakthorughs.
A tracked tin can like an APC simply can't do this.

All the soviet equipment I have seen is built like crap.

The price-performance ratio is more than fair 'though. And apparently the stuff works well enough, otherwise half of the world wouldn't use it.

Soviet tanks are small expendable inexpensive death traps. Their crews know this and will react on the battlefield accordingly. There may be a lot of them, but if the people operating them are jumping out of them in battle and running away like the " elite " Republican Guard tankers in Iraq did, well they are useless.

Gulf War Two was a turkey shoot in every regard. Kind of like a hunter killing a very old, wounded lion.

 

[TeaSea]

Bjoern, while I agree with your central point regards the role of the MBT, I would caution you about being a little too cavalier regards our more recent engagements. It's very easy to talk of "old Lions" when you've not left the lodge house.

 

[Bjoern]

I would caution you about being a little too cavalier regards our more recent engagements. It's very easy to talk of "old Lions" when you've not left the lodge house.

I'm talking from an observer's perspective here.
That the grunt on the ground tells the story slightly differently is understood, but that doesn't give him/her the right to forbid me to say what I think. And based on what I've read about GW2, it *was* an unfair fight.

 

[TeaSea]

You are clearly entitled to your opinion... I seek only to advise prudence, however, I find it odd that anyone would think there's such a thing as an "unfair" fight in warfare.

As far as I know, it's each nation's desire and their doctrinal drive to make it as unfair as possible. I know in my own limited experience at combat (please note, it is limited) our command's attempts were to make it completely one-sided.

However, your points regarding the MBT are well noted and I am inclined to agree with you regards M. Spittle's contention. I do not see the demise of the MBT. M. Spittle's comments regarding tanks on the battlefield equally apply to airplanes, and I suspect we will be seeing airplanes flying around battlefields for a while yet. Tanks are just too versatile to abandon just yet.

Given that, and the cost of their production, the Leopard II does seem to be a pretty good platform.

I would add one thing though regards the U.S. Bradley...again, one of those systems designed for Defense (Hence the TOW II's on the turret). I do agree that one doesn't want to chase tanks around with APC's however The U.S. found the Bradley was more than a match for T-72's in the offense. Gunners abandoned the TOW in favor of the chaingun, which seemed to pierce the armor of the T-72's quite effectively.

 

[Bjoern]

I find it odd that anyone would think there's such a thing as an "unfair" fight in warfare.

As I've said: Outsider's perspective.

As far as I know, it's each nation's desire and their doctrinal drive to make it as unfair as possible. I know in my own limited experience at combat (please note, it is limited) our command's attempts were to make it completely one-sided.

Sure thing, since there's lives at stake.

I would add one thing though regards the U.S. Bradley...again, one of those systems designed for Defense (Hence the TOW II's on the turret). I do agree that one doesn't want to chase tanks around with APC's however The U.S. found the Bradley was more than a match for T-72's in the offense. Gunners abandoned the TOW in favor of the chaingun, which seemed to pierce the armor of the T-72's quite effectively.

I know, you're hinting at that firefight where a platoon of Bradleys held their own against a whole iraqi tank company or batallion.

However, if my mind doesn't fail me, the majority of T-72s sold to Iraq was the simplest export model the Russians offered. No upgraded reactive armor, simplified sighting systems, etc...
So that probably made it easier for Bradleys to kill off OPFOR tanks with the 30mm gun. I doubt that this technique would have worked against more up-to-date tanks.

Wikipedia says that M2s and M3s actually destroyed more iraqi armor than M1s, but suffered the highest loss rate among AFVs.

But to cut the tracked tin cans some slack, they work quite well in hunter-killer teams with MBTs since they're generally a bit more nimble than their big relatives.

 

[aeronca1]

There may be a lot of them, but if the people operating them are jumping out of them in battle and running away like the " elite " Republican Guard tankers in Iraq did, well they are useless. Nobody wants to be just a number on a battlefield. Sure 20 people with sticks can take out 1 guy with a pistol, but 10 of the 20 must be willing to get shot.

What if all 20 were "Kamikaze-like" highly motivated crewmen? Numerical superiority in the right hands can and does mean a lot.

 

[wombat666]

I find it odd that anyone would think there's such a thing as an "unfair" fight in warfare..

The only unfair fight is one where you lose.

 

[TeaSea]

I just want to note that I was being a little condescending to Bjoern, which really wasn't appropriate.

His use of the word "unfair" was clearly in reference to an MBT comparison.

But you're right, there's no such thing as unfair. When going to a knife fight....bring a gun.