Your favorite Modern tank

Alas*sigh* I'm too polite to ignore a direct question directed to me. Indeed I do recognize that the "vehicle" has that capability..for the final time..my point was not about the vehicle alone but the other things that go along with it in the combined arms system of which the MBT is anly one component. There is no way to make it plainer or simpler than I already have. The Command and Control Architecture I referred to is not a part of the vehicle, but of the system.
To have that "capability" in the vehicle without the Command and Control Architecture to support it is like having a jazzed up GPS system.
Unless someone raises some new point I cannot keep rephrasing the same one because I have run out of ways to state it and even I am tired of hearing about "Command and Control" ..etc :roll:

 

That is what you previusly said Grieg.

The Leopard 2A5-6 has exactly the same capability !, And so does the Leclerc.

KBO

 

So with ''all the things that come with it'' you mean the support vehicles, like supply trucks, fuel trucks, scouts, C&C (=Command and Control) vehicles?

If so, Holland is a small country but we do have those capabilities, we have all the tools to support and COMMAND a full mechanised batallion.

 

Those kinds of support (logistics) are extremely important but not what Command and Control is all about. Think more along the lines of mobile artillery, top notch air recon, real time satellite recon, anti-armor helos and fixed wing assets, close cordination with infantry and mechanized infantry units combined with a battle doctrine incorporating a combined arms approach and all cordinated through a command structure advancing a battle plan while reacting to changes in the plan as they arise.

A fluid and fast moving battle involving large units cordinated through an overall command and control network is the justification for the expense of developing and maintaing a force of MBT's.
Their demise due to obsolesence has been predicted before and it is difficult to justify them for a small force.
Most European MBT's were designed to be a part of a NATO force wherein they could play a role in such a combined arms force.
It will be increasingly difficult to convince political leaders in the US and Europe both to commit funds to develop future generations of MBTs given the types of conflicts that are likely dominate the near future.

 

NO, European MBT's ain't designed to be a part in a NATO force, they are designed to be better in every expect than the enemies MBT's and other enemy ''heavy'' forces


''Those kinds of support (logistics) are extremely important but not what Command and Control is all about. Think more along the lines of mobile artillery, top notch air recon, real time satellite recon, anti-armor helos and fixed wing assets, close cordination with infantry and mechanized infantry units combined with a battle doctrine incorporating a combined arms approach and all cordinated through a command structure advancing a battle plan while reacting to changes in the plan as they arise.''

Also nothing special, hard job to cordinate all these units ofcourse, but we got all these things, we got our F-16's, Apaches, Cougars, Chinooks (with air mobile infantry) MBT's, IFV's, we got the M109 and even the most sophisticated mobile artillery piece ever made, the PZH-2000, we got our Fuchs for NBC, many different kind of vehicles that set-up radio and/or satellite communication, we also got our tracked comand and control vehicles wich cordinate the whole bunch.

 

Ahem.
Yes, MBTs are designed to be better than anybody else's, but are also designed to slot neatly into a NATO force. That is kinda the point.

 

THat is one of the things you can do with it, but designed for it is something completely different...

 

I keep mine short, I like the Abrams and Challegers simply because they were proven in the last 2 gulf wars, granted it was againts Iraq.

 

Proven is a big word, as they only where up against downscraped, old and bad maintaint tanks and other vehicles.

There where few Abrams taken out, but if they where taken out, they where taken out by the most simple weapons, old RPG's (mostly RPG-7's) shot at the back of the Abrams, the engine, witch burned out most Abras that where destroyed, there was atleast 1 incident where an Abrams was hit with a Russian anti-tank weapon (not an RPG) at one of the sideskirts, it penetrated the sideskirt and hit a hydraulic reservoir or something.

The Challenger 2 hasn't had many encounters with heavy weapony, I have only seen 1 picture of a challenger 2 that was downscraped by own Army.


They did a great job though, but I think other tanks like the Leopard2a6, Leclerc or Merkava mk. 4 would have done it as good as the Abrams and Challenger with the same weakspot (hull back and turret back)

 

the m1a3 abrams because its almost indestructible , theres 120mm on it and the sabot rounds it fires can penetrate the armour on every tank available on the battlefield

 

the M1A2

 

the m1a3 abrams because its almost indestructible , theres 120mm on it and the sabot rounds it fires can penetrate the armour on every tank available on the battlefield

Pressumably also the M1A3 then? As far as I've been able to gather the 120mm smoothbore cannon are not exactly a rarity on western MBTs anyway, so most tanks with a 120mm smoothbore by your own statement can penetrate the armour of the "almost indestructible" M1A3...

Any idea what upgrades have been made to the M1 in the A3 version? Were any of those the result of experiences in the most recent Gulf War?

 

As far as I can tell after half an hour's Googling:
THERE IS NO M1A3
M1A2SEP is the closest so far. M1A3, in the vast majority of cases on the net is a bunch of munchkins invading each other. (Including a nice report of a Chechen counter-attack with M1A3s
There's a lot of discussion on what M1A3 should have, including a different engine, but DoD sites and FAS refere to -A3 as a speculative future upgrade.
Oli
PS as far as "sabot rounds it fires can penetrate the armour on every tank available on the battlefield" - that holds true under the right conditions for every modern tank out there. There never was, and (WAG) never will be, an invulnerable tank, or guaranteed-kill gun.
PPS if there is an -A3 version could someone point me to a reliable site for the details

 

I love it when people that probably don't know anything about anything that has to do with armour talk this way :lol: :lol: :kill:

 

Bit strong. Who here is professional in the field of armour penetration? Anybody? (I think I know of one member on this forum). Practically everything posted here is based on what is available, and most armies and manufacturers always tout their products as the best - quick example:
in WWII the Brits were told their next tank was going to fully equal to the Panther, and what did they get? Cromwell :lol: :lol: .
We're all here to find out, and like I said in my previous post:

Oli

 

I also know a couple of tankers for some years now, I also get my information from them, but isn't it clear armyguy just doesn't know where he is talking about


(In about 7 monds i'm driving a Leo2a6 for anybody who wants to know )

 

1) It's not not clear he doesn't know what he's talking about, it is clear that he's going on what he's learnt so far - as are all of us.
2) Getting your information from tankers (tankies) is as only as reliable a source as any other! I knew a guy who worked in the BAe drawing office at Brough, and who swore on a stack of bibles that the Harrier weighed less than a tonne :lol: :lol:
3) I also worked with two guys from ROF Barnbow D.O. (where they built Chieftains) and they proved that nearly everything published in one of the military technology magazines was wrong about Chieftain. But that magazine was used as a source for other people's articles and assessments.
Just because someone builds/ operates/ whatever something doesn't mean that they are infallible or never bullsh*t.
Trust no-one :lol:
Oli

 

Than you are not that smart not believing the BUILDERS of the tank and saying THATS NOT TRUE, I will probably kick you out of my house of you would say that, about than 1ton, can't believe that story


I rather trust the people who actually work on the thing and know more about it than all of us together than some ''tank'' magazine with people who probably haven't even seen a tank from the inside...
The Germans say there tank is best the Americans say they got the best, I know only 2 or 3 articles about tanks ''top 10'' and they all, yes ALL rated the Leopard2a6 MBT at the top with Abrams 2nd and leclerc 3th... (Merkava MK4 4th and Challenger 5th place), but I don't believe that, there is no best tank and non of the builders can prove they have the best.

 

Yeah I agree, there is no "best".
But my stories are true and just show that:
the people that work it on are wrong and the magazines are right (Harrier)
and
the people that work on it are right and the magazines are wrong (Chieftain)
So who do you believe?
Me, I grab everything I can and spend far too long comparing statistics and figures then calculating from first principles in some cases.
Example, in 1985 I had an article published about Ka-50, where I suggested it had a 30 mm gun (after spending many hours researching and calculating), before it was published the editor had it "vetted" by his local expert, and added the comment at the end that everything I had written seemed reasonable except that everybody he had read or spoken to said the gun was 23mm.
Guess what gun it does have :bang:
Oli
Research and thought. Never believe the first, second or third source, compare and contrast. Work at it.

 

Maybe some things are theoretically (spelling?) true, but field experience from the crew of a tank or something else is what counts, and I'm sure the designers of the next leopard-upgrade will ask the tankcrews what they want to see changed!