European vs. US Weapons Systems
Disraeli
With the expense of developing major weapons platforms rising
exponentially with each new generation, does it make any sense for
separate NATO members to continue funding their own national pet
projects? For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
what they do best--fight on land. The Amis will sometimes produce a
decent tank, but they are more a sea/air oriented military in any
case. Why not have the Germans (Kraus-Maffei) build the next common
armored vehicle for all NATO members? Yes, I understand that there's
always been differences in doctrine and how various weapons are
designed to be used, but these national differences seem to be fading
as everyone accepts the reality of the "new" RMA. That is to say, in
the case of tanks, most nations agree that the new generation of
armored vehicles must weigh in the 35-45 ton class, have some sort of
advanced caseless/electro-rail/ main gun and be more air transportable
than todays MBT's. As the 21st century goes on, I believe the western
militaries will find that their equipment and mission profiles will
converge more and more. Will the British require a new gen. tank that
is that different from the US Army's?
Like wise with C4ISR systems. It seems that all the Euro nations
agrree that without robust C4ISR, their power projection capability
extends as far as an infantryman standing on a hill with binoculors.
The JSF is a pretty good start at establisihing this commonality. It
seems that based on the experience of Kosovo and Afghanistan, the
requirement for hundreds of new British and French air superiority
fighters is a bit of overkill. What the Brits, and indeed, all NATO
nations need, is more high precision attack craft. Why not leave what
little air to air fighting there will be in any future conflict to the
Amis and let the Euros concentrate on ground attack? Its too late
now, but the Brits look like they'll get stuck with a Eurofighter that
will have little to do in future conflicts except fly figure 8's high
in the empty skies. Yes, it does have a ground attack cap. being
built in the upcoming tranche, but even then, I wonder what sort of
bomb load it will be able to carry.
The Rafale, as a carrier plane, appears to have a stronger case going
for it, but it, too, seems too light and too much of a compromise to
be much of a land attack plane. Again, I'm not saying that either
plane is badly designed or built, but that they were designed for
mission profiles that really don't exist anymore. I say cut the buys
of these planes as much as possible and load up on the JSF.
Peter Kemp
news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
>
<snip interesting but IMHO naive treatise>
One important thing you have to remember is that your allies will not always
be around. For example you suggest the UK stops buying air superiority
aircraft. What happens next time we go somewhere without the US?
Such as Aden, Oman, Malaya, Falklands, Bosnia (the UN rather than the NATO
mission), Suez etc in the last 50 years.
Common equipment makes sense, but unless the world changes an awful lot, you
will still need your own capability for likely national deployments. So each
country would have it's own Leopard IIIs or whatever, rather than saying the
Brits would bring the infantry, the US the air and the Germans the armour.
Just my 2p
Peter Kemp
The Raven
While I agree in a broad sense with your argument it assumes that all
defence forces who need such equipment have similar operating needs and
conditions. The reality is that many services have to deal with differening
evnvironments (eg. European environment vs semi-arid, long range vs short
range) and differing mission profiles. I'd hate to think how countries such
as Australia would deal with commonised equipment developed for a Eurpoean
evironment. The environment and operational parameters are totally unlike
those that may be implemented as part of the design of equipment aimed at a
European market.
Citing one of your examples, the JSF would be unsuitable for the
Australasian market simply because it could not provide the range required
to provide any creditable defence.
Another argument could be that if all defence forces operated the
same/similar equipment there would be no competitive edge other than their
ability to effectively apply the system and support it. With the JSF as a
common system, some countries would be severley disadvantaged due to
operational requirements of load and range.
The Raven
PV
> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
> what they do best--fight on land. The Amis will sometimes produce a
> decent tank, but they are more a sea/air oriented military in any
> case.
Ummmm ... I don't think I can get past this well enough to comment on the
rest. Germany's excellence at ground fighting hardly precludes the
development of superior land warfare systems elsewhere.
Ragnar
>For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
> what they do best--fight on land.
I'd question that, if only because Germany isn't the only "land power" in
the world. Also, considering that Germany does not actually make the "best"
land combat systems in the world, your argument dies before it can walk.
Before you ask, Germany does have some cool toys, but they do not excel at
everything. No one does. The USA has the worlds "best" MBT, but makes a
suck-ass IFV. Germany has the best modern SPG, but its so specialized for
Western European conditions, I would hesitate to use it anywhere else
without major work. Russia makes pretty good IFVs, decent MBTs, and
excellent artillery (the 2S19 for example). France, well, is France. They
make the world's best white flags.
> The Amis
? Do you mean Americans, or the Amish?
> Why not leave what
> little air to air fighting there will be in any future conflict to the
> Amis and let the Euros concentrate on ground attack?
For a start, don't assume the Amish will always fight your battles for you.
> The Rafale, as a carrier plane, appears to have a stronger case going
> for it, but it, too, seems too light and too much of a compromise to
> be much of a land attack plane.
And its French.
Disraeli
wrote:
>
>"Disraeli" <tk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
>>
>
>>For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
>> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
>> what they do best--fight on land.
>
>I'd question that, if only because Germany isn't the only "land power" in
>the world. Also, considering that Germany does not actually make the "best"
>land combat systems in the world, your argument dies before it can walk.
Well. I think you could make the argument that as far as MBT's go, the
Germans have prob. made the "best" tank of each successive generation
dating back to the WWII years (in the West, at least). The M1A1/A2
are good tanks as well, but please remember that they use a
Rheinmetall gun and british designed armour. Indeed, the main US
contribution, the orig. Avco Lycoming Turbine power pack, is
considered its greatest single drawback. Yes, the M1A2 is a good
tank, but the Leopard 2A5 is the current leader of the pack.
>
>Before you ask, Germany does have some cool toys, but they do not excel at
>everything. No one does. The USA has the worlds "best" MBT, but makes a
>suck-ass IFV. Germany has the best modern SPG, but its so specialized for
>Western European conditions, I would hesitate to use it anywhere else
>without major work. Russia makes pretty good IFVs, decent MBTs, and
>excellent artillery (the 2S19 for example). France, well, is France. They
>make the world's best white flags.
>
>> The Amis
>
>? Do you mean Americans, or the Amish?
Hmmnn...I'll let you decide that one!
>
>> Why not leave what
>> little air to air fighting there will be in any future conflict to the
>> Amis and let the Euros concentrate on ground attack?
>
>For a start, don't assume the Amish will always fight your battles for you.
>
>> The Rafale, as a carrier plane, appears to have a stronger case going
>> for it, but it, too, seems too light and too much of a compromise to
>> be much of a land attack plane.
>
>And its French.
>
>
Did I ever say that it was anything but French?
Let me repeat my main point here; Unlike the good/bad old days of the
cold war where there was a significant split between the mission
profiles of the US and its NATO partners (i.e. power projection being
the prime aim of US policy and territorial defense being the aim of
the Euros), the current RMA, along with a host of other post cold war
developments, dictates that the Euros, thru their rapid response
force, are also entering the power projection game. For the first
time in quite a while, the Amis and the Euros will be entering a phase
where military/political imperatives will conincide across a wide
spectrum of conventional weapons and force structure.
Thus, given this convergent evolution, wouldn't it make sense to
divide up national resources and let various countries specialize in
whatever fields they excel at and rationalize the weapons procurement
industry?
Under this sort of scheme, the US, for example, would continue to make
its own CVN's but perhaps rely on the Dutch or the Swedes for its
Coast Guard ships under 5000 tons. The Germans could build diesel subs
and the French could concentrate on land systems integration through
Thales...
It simply seems to me that with the Euros several yrs. behind the US
in terms of exploiting the recent advances in RMA and C4ISR, now would
be a good time to rationalize and re-order the entire
development/procurement cycle.
Hope that's clear enough...
Denyav
>>the world. Also, considering that Germany does not actually make the "best"
>>land combat systems in the world, your argument dies before it can walk.
Germany or in a broader sense,German speaking part of the world is also the
birthplace of Theory of Relativity,quantum theory,gas and diesel engines,
cruise and ballistic misilles, SAMs, AGMs,first operational jet plane,first
swept wing plane,composers like Beethoven,great physicists like
Einstein,Planck,Born,Heisenberg,Pauli,Schrodinger,Meissner,Hahn etc. not even
counting ours and soviets germans, but also greatest murderers of all times.
Quality and sophistication of Military hardware of a country correlates pretty
good with scientific and tecnological savvyness of its people,but this
statement is not true for Germany( for obvious reasons I guess.)
If I remember correctly,in1989 Mrs.Thatcher,terrified by german reunification
looming in horizon asked distingushed british scientists to analyse germans and
their future goals.Findings of this study have never been released to public as
far as I know.
Tony Williams
> "Disraeli" <tk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
> >
> > With the expense of developing major weapons platforms rising
> > exponentially with each new generation, does it make any sense for
> > separate NATO members to continue funding their own national pet
>
> While I agree in a broad sense with your argument it assumes that all
> defence forces who need such equipment have similar operating needs and
> conditions. The reality is that many services have to deal with differening
> evnvironments (eg. European environment vs semi-arid, long range vs short
> range) and differing mission profiles. I'd hate to think how countries such
> as Australia would deal with commonised equipment developed for a Eurpoean
> evironment. The environment and operational parameters are totally unlike
> those that may be implemented as part of the design of equipment aimed at a
> European market.
I agree with the general point that far too many competing systems are
developed in the West; the waste of resources is immense.
Furthermore, I don't accept much of the argument about different
conditions; the last battles the (European-theatre designed) British
armour fought were in the Iraqi desert, after all, and in these days
of global policing armed forces could end up anywhere.
If the Australians have a unique need for very long range then they
either have to design their own planes (hardly feasible) or kit out
for extensive in-flight refuelling - because no-one else is going to
bother to develop a plane specially for them.
The problem is of course a mixture of national pride and
self-interest, in retaining the design and manufacturing capacity to
produce weapon systems. Even joint projects like Eurofighter end up
with several production lines, greatly increasing the cost.
All is not entirely gloomy, though. The US has accepted that Mauser
make the best aircraft gun in the West, and has adopted the BK 27 for
the JSF.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy
machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
NOTE NEW ADDRESS
http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams
Gun and ammunition discussions at:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages
Keith Willshaw
> exponentially with each new generation, does it make any sense for
> separate NATO members to continue funding their own national pet
> projects? For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
> what they do best--fight on land. The Amis will sometimes produce a
> decent tank, but they are more a sea/air oriented military in any
> case. Why not have the Germans (Kraus-Maffei) build the next common
> armored vehicle for all NATO members? Yes, I understand that there's
> always been differences in doctrine and how various weapons are
> designed to be used, but these national differences seem to be fading
> as everyone accepts the reality of the "new" RMA. That is to say, in
> the case of tanks, most nations agree that the new generation of
> armored vehicles must weigh in the 35-45 ton class, have some sort of
> advanced caseless/electro-rail/ main gun and be more air transportable
> than todays MBT's. As the 21st century goes on, I believe the western
> militaries will find that their equipment and mission profiles will
> converge more and more. Will the British require a new gen. tank that
> is that different from the US Army's?
>
In fact there was an attempt at doing something like this
with the MBT70 program
It was a joint venture between the Germans and
US and was to be the Main Battle Tank of
the 70's. It was revolutionary in many of its
features, such as the gunlauncher, the suspension,
and the driver in the turret. It was very expensive-
$1.2 million per copy. The current M-1 costs about
$750,000 per copy. Congress canceled the MBT-70
project in 1971 because of the cost.
Had we adopted this approach it would likely mean that the
German and US MBT would not have Chobham armour as it does now since
that armour was developed for the UK Battletanks.
> Like wise with C4ISR systems. It seems that all the Euro nations
> agrree that without robust C4ISR, their power projection capability
> extends as far as an infantryman standing on a hill with binoculors.
>
> The JSF is a pretty good start at establisihing this commonality. It
> seems that based on the experience of Kosovo and Afghanistan, the
> requirement for hundreds of new British and French air superiority
> fighters is a bit of overkill. What the Brits, and indeed, all NATO
> nations need, is more high precision attack craft. Why not leave what
> little air to air fighting there will be in any future conflict to the
> Amis and let the Euros concentrate on ground attack? Its too late
> now, but the Brits look like they'll get stuck with a Eurofighter that
> will have little to do in future conflicts except fly figure 8's high
> in the empty skies. Yes, it does have a ground attack cap. being
> built in the upcoming tranche, but even then, I wonder what sort of
> bomb load it will be able to carry.
>
Assuming that you'll never fight an enemy with a
fighter capability or that somebody else will
provide the CAP for your faces is extremely foolish
IMHO.
As to the Eurofighter it has considerable air to
ground capability. See the website for details
> The Rafale, as a carrier plane, appears to have a stronger case going
> for it, but it, too, seems too light and too much of a compromise to
> be much of a land attack plane. Again, I'm not saying that either
> plane is badly designed or built, but that they were designed for
> mission profiles that really don't exist anymore. I say cut the buys
> of these planes as much as possible and load up on the JSF.
>
>
You are neglecting the major reason for the existence
of Rafale, Eurofighter, Leopard 2 etc
That is that neither Europe nor the USA wish lose the capability
to build such weapons which is what would happen if this
degree of commonality were to be accepted.
Even if you can guarantee that relations will remain cordial
its not normally considered a good thing to be in a
position were you are reliant on a single supplier.
Keith
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Jörg Bihlmayr
Ragnar wrote:
> "Disraeli" <tk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
>>the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
>>what they do best--fight on land.
>>
>
> I'd question that, if only because Germany isn't the only "land power" in
> the world. Also, considering that Germany does not actually make the "best"
> land combat systems in the world, your argument dies before it can walk.
>
> Before you ask, Germany does have some cool toys, but they do not excel at
> everything. No one does. The USA has the worlds "best" MBT,
Which is very arguable.
Jörg
> but makes a
> suck-ass IFV. Germany has the best modern SPG, but its so specialized for
> Western European conditions, I would hesitate to use it anywhere else
> without major work. Russia makes pretty good IFVs, decent MBTs, and
> excellent artillery (the 2S19 for example). France, well, is France. They
> make the world's best white flags.
>
>
<schnippschnapp>
Tarver Engineering
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:30:51 GMT, "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Disraeli" <tk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >
> >>For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
> >> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
> >> what they do best--fight on land.
> >
> >I'd question that, if only because Germany isn't the only "land power" in
> >the world. Also, considering that Germany does not actually make the
"best"
> >land combat systems in the world, your argument dies before it can walk.
>
> Well. I think you could make the argument that as far as MBT's go, the
> Germans have prob. made the "best" tank of each successive generation
> dating back to the WWII years (in the West, at least). The M1A1/A2
> are good tanks as well, but please remember that they use a
> Rheinmetall gun and british designed armour. Indeed, the main US
> contribution, the orig. Avco Lycoming Turbine power pack, is
> considered its greatest single drawback. Yes, the M1A2 is a good
> tank, but the Leopard 2A5 is the current leader of the pack.
Let's see, European ground war victories of the 20th century:
USA 2 Germany 0
Seems your data is in error.
John
PV
> divide up national resources and let various countries specialize in
> whatever fields they excel at and rationalize the weapons procurement
> industry?
The EU should probably worry more about actually becoming a unified union
before it considers 'force projection'. I'm also not sure what the U.S.
would really have to gain from this. The current system allows the U.S. to
build gems like the M1A1 using a little bit of this and a little bit of
that, and her arms industry is pretty damned good at making most everything
across the spectrum - and has the money to do so. These are things the EU
as a whole lacks. I can see your argument (though I disagree with portions
of it - perhaps the M1A1 isn't the _best_ tank, but it's most assuredly near
the top), I just don't see a big boon for the U.S., especially with the EU
taking a hostile attitude toward the United States in many respects.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
> With the expense of developing major weapons platforms rising
> exponentially with each new generation
The 'exponentially rising cost' may be misleading. I have seen
claims that in real terms, the price you pay for a certain /capability/
hasn't increased much. What has actually increased is unit cost,
in parallel with the capability of individual aircraft, tanks, etc...
And the cost of peacetime weapons development, while large,
is not that great compared to the total of the GNP of an industrialised
nation. If Sweden can afford to develop its own air defence fighters,
then most nations in Europe also could.
> For example, no one builds land weapons systems better
> than the Germans.
If the USA ever adopts a German tank it will have a 'Made in
America' stamp on it. Which means that it will lose 30%
capability by being 70% re-engineered. American industry
simply has a too big pull to be left out of the equation, and
the advantage of having a production line in your own country
is very real anyway.
> The JSF is a pretty good start at establishing this commonality.
It has been reported here that at least one US analysis of JSF
drily states that "it may succeed where F-16 failed and drive
the European aerospace industry out of business."
> Yes, it does have a ground attack cap. being built in the upcoming
> tranche, but even then, I wonder what sort of bomb load it will be
> able to carry.
AFAIK the RAF regards all Eurofighters as "Swing-role" aircraft,
capable of ground attack as well as air superiority missions.
(The service-introduction batch may be an exception because it
does not yet have the full avionics set.) It is the /pilots/ who are
regarded as limited in this respect! Typhoon will first be given
to fighter pilots and then to attack pilots; and if there are no big
problems the RAF will consider creating dual-role units...
I think that is an unduly pessimistic view.
> I say cut the buys of these planes as much as possible and load
> up on the JSF.
What guarantuee can you offer that JSF will be a better attack
aircraft than Rafale or Typhoon?
But it really is a political decision. When you buy military aircraft,
you make yourself dependent on the supplier; because you will
need technical support, spare parts, system upgrades, etc. For
European nations to standardise on JSF would mean that they accept
a completely subordinate role to the USA for the foreseeable future.
And while it would be very ungrateful to deny that Americans have
been great allies, on the whole, the cold fact remains that the interests
of Europe and those of the USA don't always coincide. Nor do
Europeans have a say in it who the next president of the USA will be.
That is the real motivation behind the development of Rafale and
Typhoon; not economics or technology, but politics.
--
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)
Emmanuel Gustin
news:953167.011129...@posting.google.com...
> The US has accepted that Mauser make the best aircraft gun
> in the West, and has adopted the BK 27 for the JSF.
Well... They have adopted an American development
of the version of BK 27 with a linkless feed. Mauser
is just one of the contractors.
Such redesign may produce a better gun. Or not. In most
cases the redesign of foreign hardware for the benefit
of domestic manufacturers (or pride) seems to result
in an inferior product (the Spey-Phantom and the HH-65
Dolphin come to mind as examples.)
PV
be.
> That is the real motivation behind the development of Rafale and
> Typhoon; not economics or technology, but politics.
You're telling us fear of attack (or denial of assistance) from America is
what drives the development of these airframes?
C.C.Jordan
[snip]
>as a whole lacks. I can see your argument (though I disagree with portions
>of it - perhaps the M1A1 isn't the _best_ tank, but it's most assuredly near
>the top), I just don't see a big boon for the U.S., especially with the EU
>taking a hostile attitude toward the United States in many respects.
I agree, the M1A1 is not the best MBT in the world today. That honor
belongs to the M1A2. Granted, the Leopard 2A5 is a terrific tank, however,
the Abrams has been proven in combat in one of the toughest climates
tanks will ever be employed in. Some "experts" claim that the M1A2
is better protected than its German counterpart. Of greater importance
(in my view) is the significant advantage the Abrams offers in mobility.
Governed to just 72 kph, it is capable of much greater speeds. I'll wager
that you will have a hard time finding an Abrams where the governor hasn't
been disabled. I recall the German Police complaining bitterly of M1s
blasting down German roads at speeds well in excess of 100 kph.
In addition, I know of several instances during the Gulf War where similar
speeds were reported. My personal opinion (and that of more than a few
others) is that the M1A2 offers the best combination of weaponry, armor
and mobility.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Korea.html
http://www.cradleofaviation.org
Peter Kemp
news:kLyN7.183687$IR4.68...@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
Suez. It's happened before, it can happen again.
Peter Kemp
Khan
"Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
fKjN7.13066$WC1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
You have a problem with the French ? ... Open your eye , the French lead
the europpean defense at the noise of all "American Pacificator" ...
Just the "weak" contry of europe like , italy and turkey have call the
americain for helping they poor nation ... not the other ... !
Let the nation make they own destiny less pissing them with you arrogance !
...
Jörg Bihlmayr
PV wrote:
> > Thus, given this convergent evolution, wouldn't it make sense to
> > divide up national resources and let various countries specialize in
> > whatever fields they excel at and rationalize the weapons procurement
> > industry?
>
> The EU should probably worry more about actually becoming a unified union
> before it considers 'force projection'. I'm also not sure what the U.S.
> would really have to gain from this. The current system allows the U.S. to
> build gems like the M1A1 using a little bit of this and a little bit of
> that, and her arms industry is pretty damned good at making most everything
> across the spectrum - and has the money to do so. These are things the EU
> as a whole lacks.
The money? The knowledge?
> I can see your argument (though I disagree with portions
> of it - perhaps the M1A1 isn't the _best_ tank, but it's most assuredly near
> the top), I just don't see a big boon for the U.S., especially with the EU
> taking a hostile attitude toward the United States in many respects.
From the .usian piont of view. The European piont of view may be vice versa.
Jörg
Jörg Bihlmayr
"C.C.Jordan" wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:03:11 GMT, "PV" <cee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >as a whole lacks. I can see your argument (though I disagree with portions
> >of it - perhaps the M1A1 isn't the _best_ tank, but it's most assuredly near
> >the top), I just don't see a big boon for the U.S., especially with the EU
> >taking a hostile attitude toward the United States in many respects.
>
> I agree, the M1A1 is not the best MBT in the world today. That honor
> belongs to the M1A2. Granted, the Leopard 2A5 is a terrific tank, however,
> the Abrams has been proven in combat in one of the toughest climates
> tanks will ever be employed in. Some "experts" claim that the M1A2
> is better protected than its German counterpart. Of greater importance
> (in my view) is the significant advantage the Abrams offers in mobility.
> Governed to just 72 kph, it is capable of much greater speeds.
The hp output of the Abrahms GT and the Leos diesel are the same, and I've heard
of Leos doing much more than their 72 km/h, too.
> I'll wager
> that you will have a hard time finding an Abrams where the governor hasn't
> been disabled. I recall the German Police complaining bitterly of M1s
> blasting down German roads at speeds well in excess of 100 kph.
> In addition, I know of several instances during the Gulf War where similar
> speeds were reported. My personal opinion (and that of more than a few
> others) is that the M1A2 offers the best combination of weaponry, armor
> and mobility.
And that's why Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland decided to buy the Leo and not the
Abraham after evaluating both. (Saudia Arabia and Kuwait buyed Abrahams without
evaluati other tanks before, Austria and the Netherlands buyed Leo, AFAIK also
without evaluating other tanks before.)
Jörg
Tomas By
> And that's why Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland decided to buy the Leo and not the
> Abraham after evaluating both. (Saudia Arabia and Kuwait buyed Abrahams without
> evaluati other tanks before, Austria and the Netherlands buyed Leo, AFAIK also
> without evaluating other tanks before.)
What about Greece?
(latest I've seen: http://www.kmweg.de/english/news/news11.html)
Both Germany and Holland have recieved their first 2A6's
apparently. Anyone know how they compare with Strv122?
Denmark and Austria are also getting ex-dutch Leo 2's. And Norway I believe.
http://eurosatory.janes.com/leopard.shtml
"best tank is abbrams" ha!
/Tomas
Emmanuel Gustin
news:kLyN7.183687$IR4.68...@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
> > That is the real motivation behind the development of Rafale and
> > Typhoon; not economics or technology, but politics.
>
> You're telling us fear of attack (or denial of assistance) from America is
> what drives the development of these airframes?
It would be incorrect to put it that extreme. Let's call it
a desire for independence. Selling weapons is a tool of
foreign policy, because your customers become dependent
on you. Producing your own weapons is a sign of sovereignty.
Stefan Diekmann
"Jörg Bihlmayr" <j.bih...@bsv-ammersee.com> wrote:
>
> "C.C.Jordan" wrote:
>
> > I agree, the M1A1 is not the best MBT in the world today. That honor
> > belongs to the M1A2. Granted, the Leopard 2A5 is a terrific tank,
however,
> > the Abrams has been proven in combat in one of the toughest climates
> > tanks will ever be employed in. Some "experts" claim that the M1A2
> > is better protected than its German counterpart. Of greater importance
> > (in my view) is the significant advantage the Abrams offers in mobility.
> > Governed to just 72 kph, it is capable of much greater speeds.
>
> The hp output of the Abrahms GT and the Leos diesel are the same, and I've
heard
> of Leos doing much more than their 72 km/h, too.
>
drive about 20 min at 100 kph before it's getting to hot inside the tank,
assuming normal German weather. At least that's what my friend told me.
And then there is the fact that the Abrams isn't nearly as loud as the Leo
II. And has a greater range.
And I've heard something about an engine upgrade program for the M1 family,
increasing power output and thereby maximum speed.. Anyone knows any details
how far this is?
Sure, both are good tanks, but the M1 comes out ahead in capabilities. It is
more expensive, too. And for many European nations it is political more
desirable to buy products within the union. Beside that, most countries in
Europe currently lack any possible opposition. Whatfore would they need a
top tank?
I have a hard time seeing a major groundwar near Europe in the next decade.
And all scenarios include massive US support, more precisely US/UK/French
forces doing most of the fighting, the rest supporting them. Normally
Germany should be included in this list, but the silly German policy of
keeping draftees in the force for ten months weakens their forces a lot. You
simply can't train people to be effective in 10 months. So they would have
to either deploty halve trained, or halve manned units. Both not really
useful if you can have all professional forces instead.
Regards
Stefan
C.C.Jordan
<j.bih...@bsv-ammersee.com> wrote:
>
>
>"C.C.Jordan" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:03:11 GMT, "PV" <cee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >as a whole lacks. I can see your argument (though I disagree with portions
>> >of it - perhaps the M1A1 isn't the _best_ tank, but it's most assuredly near
>> >the top), I just don't see a big boon for the U.S., especially with the EU
>> >taking a hostile attitude toward the United States in many respects.
>>
>> I agree, the M1A1 is not the best MBT in the world today. That honor
>> belongs to the M1A2. Granted, the Leopard 2A5 is a terrific tank, however,
>> the Abrams has been proven in combat in one of the toughest climates
>> tanks will ever be employed in. Some "experts" claim that the M1A2
>> is better protected than its German counterpart. Of greater importance
>> (in my view) is the significant advantage the Abrams offers in mobility.
>> Governed to just 72 kph, it is capable of much greater speeds.
>
>The hp output of the Abrahms GT and the Leos diesel are the same, and I've heard
>of Leos doing much more than their 72 km/h, too.
The Allison is governed to 1,500 hp. I believe that ungoverned, the output is
in excess of 2,000 hp. I remember reading that German Police measured
four M1s running in tandem at just over 115 kph. Perhaps they achieved
this via drafting (slipstreaming for you folks across the ocean). :-)
>> I'll wager
>> that you will have a hard time finding an Abrams where the governor hasn't
>> been disabled. I recall the German Police complaining bitterly of M1s
>> blasting down German roads at speeds well in excess of 100 kph.
>> In addition, I know of several instances during the Gulf War where similar
>> speeds were reported. My personal opinion (and that of more than a few
>> others) is that the M1A2 offers the best combination of weaponry, armor
>> and mobility.
>
>And that's why Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland decided to buy the Leo and not the
>Abraham after evaluating both. (Saudia Arabia and Kuwait buyed Abrahams without
>evaluati other tanks before, Austria and the Netherlands buyed Leo, AFAIK also
>without evaluating other tanks before.)
When a nation not a member or soon to be member of the EU buys the Leapard 2,
you will have a valid issue. However, at this point, this can be looked at as an
EU policy decision to keep EU funds within the EU members (I'll consider the
Swiss as part of the European community as they have always leaned towards
Europe as the major source for weaponry).
Finally, we know that the Abrams performed extremely well in the Gulf War,
utterly confounding its detractors. In combat against Soviet built export armor
it proved all but invunerable. Where has the Leopard 2 demonstrated its
real-world combat capability? On the test range? Peacetime maneuvers?
I think that the jury is still out on the Leopard 2. Naturally, I would expect
it to display stellar combat performance when, and if, it actually faces off
against other modern MBTs in real combat. Nonetheless, expectations
are not established facts. We know that the M1A1 shugged off direct hits
from 125mm APFSDS penetrators fired at ranges well under 1000 meters. As I
understand it, the M1A2 is the first modern MBT capable of absorbing a hit from
the same gun it carries (based upon frontal armor). Even the Tiger Mk VIB
could not keep out an 88mm round fired at close range. Then again, the
King Tiger was little more than a quasi-mobile armored pillbox, especially
the way it was employed against the western Allies.
Why would an army consider mobility as especially important? Let's look at
a practical example. Arguably, the finest tank to see service in WWII was
the PzKpfw V Panther (when they weren't broken down). Now, without
question, the finest Tank Destroyer fielded by the U.S. Army was the M-18
Hellcat. It was incredibly fast, able to reach 90+ kph on roads. Generally,
the Panther was limited to about 40-45 kph on roads at best. Being armed
with effective guns (the Panther having the long barreled KwK L/70, 75mm
gun, the M-18 armed with the M1A1 76mm gun), both could destroy each
other, although the lightly armored M-18 was more vunerable. One particular
engagement between the two types is well documented in Army records.
In October of 1944, two M-18s were positioned inside a woodline guarding a
road running through a farmer's field. Approaching their position was a mixed
group of German armor, including three Panthers and a heavily camo'd
Mark IV with several halftracks not specifically defined in the record.
Waiting until the German vehicles were within certain lethal range, both M-18s
opened fire, knocking out the leading Mk. IV and a Panther. Bursting out
from their concealment, the Hellcats rushed the rest of the German column.
Firing on the run, they killed two halftracks and continued to race around the
surviving Panthers. Try as they might, the two German tanks were finding it
impossible to bring their main guns to bear on the insanely fast Hellcats, which
circled the stalled column like wolves. Meanwhile, infantry poured out of the
halftracks and began firing at the two American TDs.
A Panzerfaust narrowly missed one of the Hellcats, causing the driver to swerve
into the sights of one of the Panthers. Snap-shooting, the 75mm armor piercing
round struck the .50 gunmount, carrying away the gun and wounding the TD's
commander. This Panther paid for his near miss when the second M-18 put a round
through its hull side, again, firing on the move. Even with its commander
badly injured by shapnel, the bruised M-18 stayed in the fight getting a
round into the remaining Panther, which struck the base of the turret,
apparently jamming the traverse gear. Fearing more hits, the German
crew abondoned their tank. Another Panzerfaust was fired but missed badly,
exploding in the trees.
Both Hellcats withdrew several hundred feet and the TD still retaining
its .50 cal. Browning, opened up on the infantry, while its gunner
blasted yet another halftrack as it retreated. Almost immediately thereafter,
American infantry began firing from the woods (where the Hellcats had been
hiding).
Within several minutes, the surviving infantry and tank crewmen tossed down
their weapons and surrendered. At the end of the column, the last two halftracks
managed to escape during the confusion while the Hellcats and Panthers
maneuvered.
Both M-18 crews were decorated for this action and the wounded crewman
recovered. It should be noted that the German infantry involved were not of the
highest quality, being from a very badly battered Volksgrenadier division
(I seem to recall that this was the 12th Volksgenadier Division). However, the
tank crews were well trained.
So, what does this example illustrate? Well, aside from the inherent advantage
of an ambush, it shows that speed and maneuverability (overall mobility)
combined with good weaponry can utterly overpower a better protected
adversary with all other factors being equal. Clearly, the tanker in command
of these two Hellcats realized that they must charge the Panzers rather
allow the Germans to exploit their superior armor by remaining fixed to their
ambush location.
Certainly, in a straight-up duel fought with both vehicles immobile, the Panther
has the advantage of its 100 millimeters of armor and its slightly more powerful
main gun. With only 25mm of armor and open top turret, the M-18 was
considerably more vunerable. Nonetheless, in a maneuvering fight, the Hellcat
has several key advantages. Extremely high speeds and startling acceleration
combined with a stabilized gun made it a formidible opponent for any enemy,
especially German Assault Guns (Tank Destoyers) which lacked more than
a few degrees of gun traverse. Even today, M-18s still serve in the Balkans
(formerly sold to Tito by the U.S. Goverment).
In 1944, it was decided to try upgunning the M-18 by mounting the entire turret
from the M-36 Jackson (also known as the "Slugger") to an M-18 chassis. Armed
with the powerful 90mm gun, this would give the renamed "Super Hellcat" the
ability to kill any German tank in the inventory. Gaining nearly 5 tons in
weight, speed and mobility suffered (speed dropping to just 63 kph). Since the
M-36 was now arriving in the ETO in significant numbers, the Super Hellcat
became less of a priority and the program did not proceed beyond the prototype.
When we look at the M1A2, we find a tank with even greater speed, the best
weapons system available and possibly the best armor protection of any MBT
on earth. How good is that protection? Well, against a HEAT warhead, the
M1A2 has more than twice the protection of an Iowa class battleship, effectively
equal to 1400 mm of steel armor (from "For Your Eyes Only"). IIRC, the Leopard 2
has armor roughly equal to the IPM1 (Improved M1) with 1000mm of protection
against a HEAT warhead.
Another point: A turbocharged diesel powered tank, such as the Leopard 2,
makes more power as the engine speed increases. Therefore, from idle, it
needs time to get the revs up. Unlike the diesel, the gas turbine in the M1A2
is nearly always making its maximum power, even at when standing still. This
provides for much better acceleration. Remember, the Abrams is always
making full power at all forward speeds from zero to maximum. A diesel does
not.
Tazio Secchiaroli
Okay, at the risk of getting my neck chopped off by angry partisans, I
submit the following list of weapons types, country of origin and what
I nominate as the best in its class...
Aircraft:
AWACS Boeing E3C USA
Ground Surv. JSTAR USA
Tanker VC-10 UK
Air Super. 4th gen. F-15C USA
Air Super. 5th gen. F-22 USA
Ground Attack 4th gen. Tornado Euro
Ground Attack 5th gen. JSF (?) USA
SEAD F-16 USA
Strat. Bomber B-2 USA
Land Systems:
MBT Leopard 2 Germany
IFV M-2 Bradley USA
Off-Road Vehicle Merc. GWagon Germany
Self-Prop. Howitzer AS90 UK
LAV Pirahna Swiss
Missile Systems:
WVR Air to Air Python Israel
BVR Med. Range Amraam USA
BVR Long Range Meteor Euro
Air to Ground anti armour Hellfire USA
Air to ground HE JDAM USA
Cruise Long Range Tomahawk USA
Ground to Air Manpads Stinger USA
Ground to Air Long Range Patriot Block 3 USA
Ground to Air Med. Range Rapier UK
Radar Systems:
Shipborne Surv. & Target Aegis SPY1D USA
Fighter Radar APG-77 USA
Ground Counter Battery Firefly USA
Airborne Surv. AWACS E3 USA
Rotary Aircraft:
Light Observation MBB-BK177 Germany
Light Anti-armour Tiger Euro
Heavy anti-armour AH64D LB USA
Light Transport UH-60 USA
Med. Transport EH101 Euro
Heavy Transport CH-47 USA
Small Arms:
Assault Rifle M-4A1 USA
9mm Handgun Sig Sauer Swiss
Integrated grenade Launcher M203 USA
HMG Browning 50 USA
SAW/LMG M249 Belgium
Transport Aircraft:
Light Shorts Sherpa UK
Medium C-130 Hercules USA
Heavy C-17 USA
Submarines:
SSN Attack Trafalgar UK
SSBN Ohio/Trident USA
Diesel ? ?
Ships:
CVN Nimitz+ USA
CV ? ?
Battlehips ? ?
Cruisers Aegis/Ticon. USA
AA Destroyer DDG51 USA
ASW Destroyer Spruance USA
Frigate PAAMs/Horizon Euro
Ragnar
"Tazio Secchiaroli" <taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
>
> Okay, at the risk of getting my neck chopped off by angry partisans, I
> submit the following list of weapons types, country of origin and what
> I nominate as the best in its class...
>
>
> MBT Leopard 2 Germany
Unproven in battle. Call back when it actually does its job. M-1A2 rules
the roost.
> IFV M-2 Bradley USA
Too tall and boxy. See them coming a mile away. The Russian BMP series is
a much better design if you're trying to avoid getting hit.
> Self-Prop. Howitzer AS90 UK
German PzH 2000. Autoloads and shoots to 40km, compared to AS90 range of
25km.
> Missile Systems:
>
> BVR Long Range Meteor Euro
Is it even in production yet?
> Submarines:
>
> SSN Attack Trafalgar UK
Seawolf class, USA
> Diesel ? ?
Kilo, Russia
> Ships:
>
> CVN Nimitz+ USA
Not exactly a fair contest. No one even makes (or can make) a 100,000 ton
carrier. But it is the best even if the Russians or French could figure out
how to build something that big.
> Battlehips ? ?
There aren't any left. No, mothballed storage doesn't count.
C.C.Jordan
>> IFV M-2 Bradley USA
>
>Too tall and boxy. See them coming a mile away. The Russian BMP series is
>a much better design if you're trying to avoid getting hit.
Yeah, but the BMP-2 can be penetrated by armor piercing .50 caliber rounds as
its armor is no thicker than 20mm, and the majority of the vehicle has only
15mm of protection. Compare that to the M2A1 with 60mm (including applique
armor on the front and sides). Likewise, the Warrior carries 40-60mm of armor.
While the Soviets introduced the IFV concept, they armored their vehicles to
keep out small arms and shell splinters, not light cannon rounds. In contrast,
the Bradley and Warrior are armored to survive hits from the BMP. Where the
Warrior falls on its face is that it was not designed for an integral ASTGM
system, nor was it amphibious. As far as I know, it still does not have any
ASTGM capability although I recall that the Brits were looking into fixing
this serious oversight. In the Gulf, Bradleys proved able to defend themselves
against MBTs using their TOW II missiles. Indeed, the TOW was vastly
superior to the AT-4 of the BMP-2.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> Okay, at the risk of getting my neck chopped off by angry partisans, I
> submit the following list of weapons types, country of origin and what
> I nominate as the best in its class...
>
> Aircraft:
>
> SEAD F-16 USA
YGBSM!!!
- John T., former *REAL* "weasel keeper"
Disraeli
"One Weasel, Bill Sparks, described the missions as "a 3-dimensional
chess game where cheating is legal!" Another, Jack Donovan, exclaimed,
"You Gotta Be S_ _ _ _ ing Me!" when told of the tactics and mission
details. "YGBSM" is a favorite of the Wild Weasels!"
-excerpted from Joe Shriber: WILD WEASEL Pilot
Bring back the Phantoms! Or convert the Tornadoes--either way, I'd
guess a two seater would work better than a single...
Disraeli
I wonder how contemporary Russian equipment would do compared to
recent western hardware. Some Russian defense staff claim that the
new s400 out performs even the latest block Patriots. Of course, there
are also claims made that the Russian r-73 and r-77's are the
deadliest air to air missiles, the Ka 50 and Ka-52 the most advanced
attack helicoptors, etc. I wonder how impartial these Russian claims
really are and whether or not they have been put to any sort of real
world test. It sounds like the Russian defense industry is coming out
with these "super weapons" on a monthly basis...
Did the Serb AF have any r-73/77's on their Migs during the Kosovo
campaign?
And does anyone have any idea on the acyual state of Russian fighter
radar systems? Are they developing any actual active phase array
units like the one in the F-22 or are they working on/currently using
passive array units and more importantly, how reliable are they?
Stefan Diekmann
> submit the following list of weapons types, country of origin and what
> I nominate as the best in its class...
>
> Aircraft:
>
> AWACS Boeing E3C USA
> Ground Surv. JSTAR USA
> Tanker VC-10 UK
> Air Super. 4th gen. F-15C USA
> Air Super. 5th gen. F-22 USA
> Ground Attack 4th gen. Tornado Euro
> Ground Attack 5th gen. JSF (?) USA
> SEAD F-16 USA
> Strat. Bomber B-2 USA
>
Fighter/Bomber F-16, USA.
SEAD Either F4-G Phantom II (Land based) or EA-6B (carrier based), both USA.
>
>
>
> Land Systems:
>
> MBT Leopard 2 Germany
M1A2. They have the same gun, but the Abrams has better armor, mobility,
range, sound characteristics, and communication systems.
> IFV M-2 Bradley USA
Depends on the requirements. If you want a fighting vehicle, i.e. a light
tank, yes. If you want a vehicle to deploy infantry savely and have them do
the fighting, the Russian BMP is better.
> Off-Road Vehicle Merc. GWagon Germany
> Self-Prop. Howitzer AS90 UK
PzH 2000, Germany.
> LAV Pirahna Swiss
>
>
>
> Missile Systems:
>
> WVR Air to Air Python Israel
> BVR Med. Range Amraam USA
> BVR Long Range Meteor Euro
Yet is service? I'd say it's still the AIM-54 Phoenix.
> Air to Ground anti armour Hellfire USA
> Air to ground HE JDAM USA
> Cruise Long Range Tomahawk USA
> Ground to Air Manpads Stinger USA
> Ground to Air Long Range Patriot Block 3 USA
> Ground to Air Med. Range Rapier UK
>
I'm no expert with missile systems, but what about the Russian/Soviet AGMs
and ASMs?
>
>
> Radar Systems:
>
> Shipborne Surv. & Target Aegis SPY1D USA
> Fighter Radar APG-77 USA
> Ground Counter Battery Firefly USA
> Airborne Surv. AWACS E3 USA
>
>
> Rotary Aircraft:
>
> Light Observation MBB-BK177 Germany
Can't find this one. Any other name it's known under?
> Light Anti-armour Tiger Euro
Not yet in service
> Heavy anti-armour AH64D LB USA
> Light Transport UH-60 USA
> Med. Transport EH101 Euro
> Heavy Transport CH-47 USA
>
Infantry support helicopter MI-24 / 25 D / 35 E HIND
Heavily armed and suited to deploy an infantry squad.
>
>
> Small Arms:
>
> Assault Rifle M-4A1 USA
> 9mm Handgun Sig Sauer Swiss
> Integrated grenade Launcher M203 USA
> HMG Browning 50 USA
> SAW/LMG M249 Belgium
>
>
>
> Transport Aircraft:
>
> Light Shorts Sherpa UK
> Medium C-130 Hercules USA
> Heavy C-17 USA
>
>
>
> Submarines:
>
> SSN Attack Trafalgar UK
Seawolf, USA. I don't think anyone challenges that. The UK has better
torpedos, though.
> SSBN Ohio/Trident USA
> Diesel ? ?
>
Diesel Kilo, Russia
But the Klasse 212, Germany isn't bad either.
>
> Ships:
>
> CVN Nimitz+ USA
> CV ? ?
CV-67 JFK, USA
> Battlehips ? ?
No BB left. So no contest.
Regards
John D Salt
news:3c06cc95...@netnews.worldnet.att.net:
[Snips]
> I agree, the M1A1 is not the best MBT in the world today.
> That honor belongs to the M1A2.
With British-invented armour and a German-invented gun, how could
it go wrong? ;-)
<Fetches coat>
All the best,
John.
Christoph Töpfer
M1A1 has the 120mm caliber built in license...
Submarine... The German 212 class with hybrid engine, they need no water,
the engine produce it...
Airbus A400M as tanker and medium transport...
Tornado ECR with US-built HARMs...
Greetz
CT
Christoph Töpfer
>
> USA 2 Germany 0
very funny, no real "combat coditions", the whole world against Germany,
Japan and Italy, real fine victory Big Brain!
Greetz
CT
Keith Willshaw
"Christoph Töpfer" <Christop...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3c08f61a$0$20936$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
Well now since Germany was foolish enough
to initiate hostilities against both the USSR
and the USA at a time when it was already at war with
Britain and the Commonwealth we might well
wonder who's brains were truly addled.
Keith
Stefan Diekmann
"Christoph Töpfer" <Christop...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Leopard 2A6 is best MBT of the world...
> M1A1 has the 120mm caliber built in license...
So, the Abrams has the same gun as the Leo II, so there is no difference
there. Let us compare the rest.
Armor? M1A2 has about 1400 mm equivalent, Leo 2 about 700 mm KE / 1000 mm
Heat
Speed? Abrams up to 115, Leo II 100 for 20 min, if you deactivate
air-condition.
Engine? Abrams always has full power available, and therefore can acclarate
faster.
Battle tested? Abrams performed very well in actuall combat, Leo II has not
yet prooven itself in combat.
Sorry, no luck. M1A2 comes out ahead.
>
> Submarine... The German 212 class with hybrid engine, they need no water,
> the engine produce it...
>
Yep, but not in service yet. And it remains to be seen if it can stand its
own against a Kilo.
> Airbus A400M as tanker and medium transport...
>
In some years, perhaps. Lets wait and see how it will actually perform.
> Tornado ECR with US-built HARMs...
Good, but hardly the top.
Regards
Stefan
Paul Holloway
>
> Okay, at the risk of getting my neck chopped off by angry partisans, I
> submit the following list of weapons types, country of origin and what
> I nominate as the best in its class...
>
> Aircraft:
>
> AWACS Boeing E3C USA
> Ground Surv. JSTAR USA
> Tanker VC-10 UK
> Air Super. 4th gen. F-15C USA
> Air Super. 5th gen. F-22 USA
> Ground Attack 4th gen. Tornado Euro
> Ground Attack 5th gen. JSF (?) USA
> SEAD F-16 USA
> Strat. Bomber B-2 USA
>
>
>
>
> Land Systems:
>
> MBT Leopard 2 Germany
> IFV M-2 Bradley USA
> Off-Road Vehicle Merc. GWagon Germany
> Self-Prop. Howitzer AS90 UK
> LAV Pirahna Swiss
>
>
>
The M1A2 is superior to the Leo2A5.
I don't know that the Bradley is that much better than the Warrior.
> Missile Systems:
>
> WVR Air to Air Python Israel
> BVR Med. Range Amraam USA
> BVR Long Range Meteor Euro
> Air to Ground anti armour Hellfire USA
> Air to ground HE JDAM USA
> Cruise Long Range Tomahawk USA
> Ground to Air Manpads Stinger USA
> Ground to Air Long Range Patriot Block 3 USA
> Ground to Air Med. Range Rapier UK
>
>
Is Meteor even in service yet? I don't think so, I've got to go with the
Phoenix on that one.
>
> Radar Systems:
>
> Shipborne Surv. & Target Aegis SPY1D USA
> Fighter Radar APG-77 USA
> Ground Counter Battery Firefly USA
> Airborne Surv. AWACS E3 USA
>
>
> Rotary Aircraft:
>
> Light Observation MBB-BK177 Germany
> Light Anti-armour Tiger Euro
> Heavy anti-armour AH64D LB USA
> Light Transport UH-60 USA
> Med. Transport EH101 Euro
> Heavy Transport CH-47 USA
>
>
>
> Small Arms:
>
> Assault Rifle M-4A1 USA
> 9mm Handgun Sig Sauer Swiss
> Integrated grenade Launcher M203 USA
> HMG Browning 50 USA
> SAW/LMG M249 Belgium
>
>
>
How about the Glock for 9mm? Just as good as the Sig, and cheaper to boot.
> Transport Aircraft:
>
> Light Shorts Sherpa UK
> Medium C-130 Hercules USA
> Heavy C-17 USA
>
>
>
> Submarines:
>
> SSN Attack Trafalgar UK
> SSBN Ohio/Trident USA
> Diesel ? ?
>
>
What makes a Trafalgar so better than a 688I boat? And they certainly
aren't better than a Seawolf.
> Ships:
>
> CVN Nimitz+ USA
> CV ? ?
> Battlehips ? ?
> Cruisers Aegis/Ticon. USA
> AA Destroyer DDG51 USA
> ASW Destroyer Spruance USA
> Frigate PAAMs/Horizon Euro
>
>
The best CV would be one of the American ones.....Kennedy, Independence,
Constellation.
No battleships left in active duty in any navy, it's a non-category.
Horizon isn't even in commission, think you need to find another one there.
Jörg Bihlmayr
Stefan Diekmann wrote:
<schnippschnapp>
>
>>Submarine... The German 212 class with hybrid engine, they need no water,
>>the engine produce it...
>>
>>
> Yep, but not in service yet. And it remains to be seen if it can stand its
> own against a Kilo.
Of which most are rusting pierside and have systems of the 80's..
>
>
>>Airbus A400M as tanker and medium transport...
>>
>>
> In some years, perhaps. Lets wait and see how it will actually perform.
>
>
>>Tornado ECR with US-built HARMs...
>>
>
> Good, but hardly the top.
But better than everything around at the moment.
Jörg
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
>
>
Paul Holloway
$9b62...@news.freenet.de:
> Leopard 2A6 is best MBT of the world...
> M1A1 has the 120mm caliber built in license...
>
I don't see how the 2A6 is superior to the M1A2. I *might*, grudgingly,
admit they're on par, but it would take some convincing. The A2 is better
protected and more mobile.
> Submarine... The German 212 class with hybrid engine, they need no water,
> the engine produce it...
>
> Airbus A400M as tanker and medium transport...
>
> Tornado ECR with US-built HARMs...
>
I can go with this one.
Denyav
>>
>> USA 2 Germany 0
True,but I think that some others for example
Brits,Russians,French,Canadians,Australians,New Zeealanders,Indians,South
Africans,Norwegians,Serbs etc.might have some objections.
Paul J. Adam
Ragnar <rwo...@earthlink.net> writes
>"Tazio Secchiaroli" <taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
>> MBT Leopard 2 Germany
>
>Unproven in battle. Call back when it actually does its job. M-1A2 rules
>the roost.
See your M1A2 (which is also unproven... it was M1A1s that got blooded)
and raise you a Challenger 2 :)
>> IFV M-2 Bradley USA
>
>Too tall and boxy. See them coming a mile away. The Russian BMP series is
>a much better design if you're trying to avoid getting hit.
But cramped, poorly protected and overgunned. Bradley and Warrior have
done a lot better in action than BMPs.
>> Self-Prop. Howitzer AS90 UK
>
>German PzH 2000. Autoloads and shoots to 40km, compared to AS90 range of
>25km.
?Que? AS90 is getting a 52-calibre barrel that gives it the same range
as PzH2000.
>> Submarines:
>> SSN Attack Trafalgar UK
>
>Seawolf class, USA
Oversized and very expensive for most roles (which is why the class was
chopped at three).
>> Diesel ? ?
>Kilo, Russia
Not a chance. German or Swedish, maybe.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Christoph Töpfer
Somalia? Was a desaster!
Vietnam? Apokalypse for the American...
Iraq? Training, A-10 and AH-64 done the ground job...
Afghanistan? Training...
"Ground-Power"?
Greetz
CT
Christoph Töpfer
> Speed? Abrams up to 115, Leo II 100 for 20 min, if you deactivate
> air-condition.
hot, the Leo engine not. The gas turbine eats fuel like the J57 power
plant...
> Engine? Abrams always has full power available, and therefore can
acclarate
> faster.
> Battle tested? Abrams performed very well in actuall combat, Leo II has
not
> yet prooven itself in combat.
M1 only testes in Desert Sword, but Desert Sword was a training, A-10s and
Apaches done the work and kill the tanks and APCs... The Infatry was done by
B-52 with Clusters...
Greetz
CT
Tomas By
> So, the Abrams has the same gun as the Leo II, so there is no difference
I don't think anyone believes you actually know the correct figures
for armour and speed etc.
One of the few things we do know about these vehicles is that several
countries (Greece, Sweden, Switzerland?, Spain?) have evaluated both
(plus others) and _all_ have said Leo 2 is best.
/Tomas
Yeff
Tomas By<to...@basun.net> wrote in
rec.aviation.military:
> One of the few things we do know about these vehicles is that several
> countries (Greece, Sweden, Switzerland?, Spain?) have evaluated both
> (plus others) and _all_ have said Leo 2 is best.
For their purposes.
Haven't we learned anything from the endless
which airplane is best threads? "Best" is a
relative term at best.
-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
Tomas By
> I don't see how the 2A6 is superior to the M1A2. I *might*, grudgingly,
> admit they're on par, but it would take some convincing.
Okay, 2A6 and Abbrams tied for 2nd
Strv 122 is the best
> The A2 is better
> protected and more mobile.
Not if there are rivers around, or the fuel supply is sub-infinite
> > Submarine... The German 212 class with hybrid engine, they need no water,
> > the engine produce it...
Best diesel sub is the Gotland class. Only operational AIP
/Tomas
Tomas By
> > One of the few things we do know about these vehicles is that several
> > countries (Greece, Sweden, Switzerland?, Spain?) have evaluated both
> > (plus others) and _all_ have said Leo 2 is best.
>
> For their purposes.
And your point is? :)
Okay fording might be less important in the desert but it's
interesting that Leo 2 consistently comes out first.
/Tomas
Stefan Diekmann
"Tomas By" <to...@basun.net> wrote in message
news:wk3d2ub...@basun.net...
> "Stefan Diekmann" <sdie...@gmx.net> writes:
> > So, the Abrams has the same gun as the Leo II, so there is no difference
> > there. Let us compare the rest. [...]
>
> I don't think anyone believes you actually know the correct figures
> for armour and speed etc.
>
served in the German Army (Leo II top speed, w/o aircondition, therefore
limited to 20 min).
> One of the few things we do know about these vehicles is that several
> countries (Greece, Sweden, Switzerland?, Spain?) have evaluated both
> (plus others) and _all_ have said Leo 2 is best.
>
> /Tomas
Yes, but their consideration included such things as price, and political
arguments as developed in Europe. Especially for EU members the later is an
important argument. And many states in Europe don't like to use DU, either,
like the US does.
Beside does the US offer M1A2 for export? I though they only offer the M1A1.
Regards
Stefan
Tomas By
> Land Systems:
> [...]
> IFV M-2 Bradley USA
Both Norway and Switzerland have recently selected Hägglunds CV-90
over Bradley (Norway), Warrior (both), and Marder (Switzerland).
It's also in service with Sweden and Finland.
There is even a version with a 120mm gun:
http://www.alvis.plc.uk/news/22_06_00.htm
http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/cv90120.html
But I guess that's not an IFV
/Tomas
Tomas By
> > countries (Greece, Sweden, Switzerland?, Spain?) have evaluated both
> > (plus others) and _all_ have said Leo 2 is best.
>
No. They run military trials, and then the politicians make decisions,
factoring in the stuff you mention. See eg:
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000531_1_n.shtml
| Between October and December 1998 six MBTs carried out extensive
| firepower and mobility trials in Greece manned by Greek Army
| crews. These were the French Giat Industries Leclerc; German
| Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5 in latest Swedish Strv 122
| configuration; Russian Omsk Machine Construction Plant T-80U;
| Ukrainian Malyshev Plant T-84; UK Vickers Defence Systems Challenger
| 2E; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.
|
| Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and
| technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%;
| M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19% The
| Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording
| capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during
| hunter/killer target engagements.
Note that Strv 122, which was used here, is apparently quite different
from (better than :) the 2A5 version.
/Tomas
Tom Schoene
C.C.Jordan <Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> wrote in message
news:3c084bb...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2001 02:55:03 GMT, "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Where the
> Warrior falls on its face is that it was not designed for an integral
ASTGM
> system, nor was it amphibious. As far as I know, it still does not have
any
> ASTGM capability although I recall that the Brits were looking into fixing
> this serious oversight.
As it stands now, the British are not seriously considering adding ATGMs to
their Warrior IFVs; they preferred to create more dedicated ATGM carriers
instead. They are looking to up-gun the Warrior (either with a fast-firing
stabilized 30mm or a larger caliber), but not add missiles.
Missile or no-missile is a design trade-off issue, not an "oversight". The
Bradley sacrifices a couple of dismounts for that missile system
(specifically the reloads), so that it carries only 5-6 instead of the
generally preferred 8 troops. Several armies don't think it's worth the
loss of boots on the ground.
Recent (post-Gulf-War) IFV procurements show a trend to bigger guns but most
leave off ATGMs.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the
past; and we must respect the past, knowing that once it was all that
was humanly possible. - George Santayana
Tony Williams
> I wonder how contemporary Russian equipment would do compared to
> recent western hardware.
Well, according to published specs the Tunguska gun/missile system is
the best short-range SPAA system by a street, and the naval equivalent
Kashtan is the best CIWS, although I appreciate that the finer details
of the FCS are of critical importance here.
The Russians also have guided AT missiles fired from tank guns, and
active tank defence systems, for which the West currently has no
equivalent.
As this is an aircraft thread, it might be worth adding that the
Russians make the best high-performance aircraft guns in the world.
The 30mm GSh-301 is the best fighter gun, and the GSh-30, GSh-6-23 and
GSh-6-30 are all phenomenal perfomers. The only ones to come close
are the Mauser BK 27, the Rafale's GIAT 30M791 and of course the
formidable Oerlikon KCA as used by the SAAB Viggen. This is one area
where the USA doesn't get a look-in....
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy
machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages
C.C.Jordan
>The Russians also have guided AT missiles fired from tank guns, and
>active tank defence systems, for which the West currently has no
>equivalent.
Tony, I suspect that you have forgotten about the Shillelagh gun/launcher
used on the MBT-70 program and on the production M-551 Sheridan. It
has since been abandoned.
As to "active tank defense systems", are you referring to reactive armor
and smoke dischargers, or some other technology?
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Korea.html
http://www.cradleofaviation.org
D. Scott Ferrin
<taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Okay, at the risk of getting my neck chopped off by angry partisans, I
>submit the following list of weapons types, country of origin and what
>I nominate as the best in its class...
>
>Aircraft:
>
>AWACS Boeing E3C USA
>Ground Surv. JSTAR USA
>Tanker VC-10 UK
KC-10 USA
>Air Super. 4th gen. F-15C USA
>Air Super. 5th gen. F-22 USA
>Ground Attack 4th gen. Tornado Euro
F-15E USA
>Ground Attack 5th gen. JSF (?) USA
>SEAD F-16 USA
>Strat. Bomber B-2 USA
>
>
>
>
>Land Systems:
>
>MBT Leopard 2 Germany
M-1A2 With M829A2 or better yet M829E3 rounds.
>IFV M-2 Bradley USA
>Off-Road Vehicle Merc. GWagon Germany
>Self-Prop. Howitzer AS90 UK
South Africa's G-6 (They have an even better on, one that outranges
Crusader, that they have recently tested).
>LAV Pirahna Swiss
>
>
>
>Missile Systems:
>
>WVR Air to Air Python Israel
AIM-9X
>BVR Med. Range Amraam USA
>BVR Long Range Meteor Euro
>Air to Ground anti armour Hellfire USA
>Air to ground HE JDAM USA
>Cruise Long Range Tomahawk USA
>Ground to Air Manpads Stinger USA
>Ground to Air Long Range Patriot Block 3 USA
PAC-3? It's a short range missile. PAC-2 with GEM would have been my
bet but IIRC GEM was cancelled even though it was great. For ground
to air long range I'd vote for SM-2 ER Block IV
>Ground to Air Med. Range Rapier UK
PAC-3
>
>
>
>Radar Systems:
>
>Shipborne Surv. & Target Aegis SPY1D USA
>Fighter Radar APG-77 USA
>Ground Counter Battery Firefly USA
>Airborne Surv. AWACS E3 USA
>
>
>Rotary Aircraft:
>
>Light Observation MBB-BK177 Germany
>Light Anti-armour Tiger Euro
>Heavy anti-armour AH64D LB USA
>Light Transport UH-60 USA
>Med. Transport EH101 Euro
>Heavy Transport CH-47 USA
Mi-26 Halo
>
>
>
>Small Arms:
>
>Assault Rifle M-4A1 USA
>9mm Handgun Sig Sauer Swiss
>Integrated grenade Launcher M203 USA
Check out OICW on FAS's site
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm
>HMG Browning 50 USA
>SAW/LMG M249 Belgium
>
>
>
>Transport Aircraft:
>
>Light Shorts Sherpa UK
AN-72 maybe?
>Medium C-130 Hercules USA
>Heavy C-17 USA
>
>
>
>Submarines:
>
>SSN Attack Trafalgar UK
Seawolf
>SSBN Ohio/Trident USA
>Diesel ? ?
>
>
David Bromage
> > MBT Leopard 2 Germany
>
> Unproven in battle. Call back when it actually does its job. M-1A2 rules
> the roost.
If you want heavy tanks for slugging it out. But hit and run tactics
with lighter tanks have a lot of merit.
Cheers
David
Ragnar
> > As to "active tank defense systems", are you referring to reactive armor
> and smoke dischargers, or some other technology?
>
There is a Russian system called Arena which is designed to shoot down
ATGM's in flight. Basically consists of a radar and several shotgun-shell
type munitions. Supposedly effective.
Tony Williams
> On 1 Dec 2001 16:20:02 -0800, a_g_wi...@lineone.net (Tony Williams) wrote:
>
> >The Russians also have guided AT missiles fired from tank guns, and
> >active tank defence systems, for which the West currently has no
> >equivalent.
>
> Tony, I suspect that you have forgotten about the Shillelagh gun/launcher
> used on the MBT-70 program and on the production M-551 Sheridan. It
> has since been abandoned.
>
> As to "active tank defense systems", are you referring to reactive armor
> and smoke dischargers, or some other technology?
I know about the Shillelagh (it was also used on an M60 variant IIRC)
but I understand it hasn't been in service for some time. I could be
wrong, but I also think that the missile wasn't "fired" by the gun but
just accelerated down the barrel under its own steam, which would
obviously lengthen flight times.
There are at least a couple of Russian active tank defence systems (I
don't have the references to hand) which detect incoming missiles and
shoot them down at close range from one of a ring of short-range
explosive charges around the turret. Tanks aren't really my thing,
but these have been written up quite a lot recently. I'm not sure of
their current service status, though.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
> SEAD F-16 USA
The German Tornado ECR is usually considered superior
for this role. It is really a task that calls for a fairly large
airframe and a two-man crew, and I wonder why the USAF
chose the F-16 for it.
--
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)
Paul J. Adam
<Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> writes
>Where the
>Warrior falls on its face is that it was not designed for an integral ASTGM
>system, nor was it amphibious. As far as I know, it still does not have any
>ASTGM capability although I recall that the Brits were looking into fixing
>this serious oversight.
It's a troop carrier, not an ATGM-shooter. The two roles are very
different.
In the Gulf, some Warriors _were_ re-roled and armed with MILAN ATGM,
but they weren't expected to also carry troops.
The downsides of putting ATGM on every IFV are capacity (Warrior carries
eight dismounts, compared to the Bradley's six) and vulnerability (the
Bradley is a big target, and firing wire-guided ATGM leaves you stopped
in the middle of a big firing signature for the missile's time of
flight: plus, all that explosive and propellant can be uncomfortable if
you get hit). It would become more attractive once you look at
fire-and-forget missiles like Javelin, though.
There's an export version of Warrior with two TOW launchers, but that's
just for those whose doctrine insists on hanging ATGM on everything.
Alex Walton
>"Christoph Töpfer" <Christop...@gmx.de> wrote in news:3c08f4f1$0$373
>$9b62...@news.freenet.de:
>
>> Leopard 2A6 is best MBT of the world...
Many would disagree...
>I don't see how the 2A6 is superior to the M1A2. I *might*, grudgingly,
>admit they're on par, but it would take some convincing. The A2 is better
>protected and more mobile.
On the subject of protection I don't think that anyone here is in a
position comment (and if they are, they certainly shouldn't), but what
makes you think an M1A2 is more mobile than a Leo2A6?
Also, why do you rate the M1A2 above the Leo2A6? The two are very
similar, execpt that the Leo has a better gun and lower fuel
consumption.
Alex Walton
----
Royal Navy & Fleet Air Arm pages:
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.c.walton/navy/navy.html
----
C.C.Jordan
>Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C.Jordan) wrote in message news:<3c0987e8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>> On 1 Dec 2001 16:20:02 -0800, a_g_wi...@lineone.net (Tony Williams) wrote:
>>
>> >The Russians also have guided AT missiles fired from tank guns, and
>> >active tank defence systems, for which the West currently has no
>> >equivalent.
>>
>> Tony, I suspect that you have forgotten about the Shillelagh gun/launcher
>> used on the MBT-70 program and on the production M-551 Sheridan. It
>> has since been abandoned.
>>
>> As to "active tank defense systems", are you referring to reactive armor
>> and smoke dischargers, or some other technology?
>
>I know about the Shillelagh (it was also used on an M60 variant IIRC)
>but I understand it hasn't been in service for some time. I could be
>wrong, but I also think that the missile wasn't "fired" by the gun but
>just accelerated down the barrel under its own steam, which would
>obviously lengthen flight times.
This was the M60A2 with the Shillelagh turret and short gun tube, which was
under 100 inches in length. Flight time was very similar to TOW II. Beginning
in 1997, the entire stockpile of Shillelagh missiles (10,000+) began the
disposition process with the warheads being removed and the propellent
being burned. It became obvious by the 1980s that newer designs
made upgrading the Shillelagh unnecessary.
>There are at least a couple of Russian active tank defence systems (I
>don't have the references to hand) which detect incoming missiles and
>shoot them down at close range from one of a ring of short-range
>explosive charges around the turret. Tanks aren't really my thing,
>but these have been written up quite a lot recently. I'm not sure of
>their current service status, though.
This probably explains why several major U.S. companies are working
on miniature jammer packages (about 1/4 the volume of your typical
automotive radar detector). Indeed, there is some promising work being
done on hyper-velocity, missile launched sub-missiles and ground skimming
ATGMs, which I suspect are being developed to defeat passive defense
systems.
Ragnar
"Emmanuel Gustin" <Emmanue...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:9ud2mv$7ja18$1...@ID-52877.news.dfncis.de...
> "Tazio Secchiaroli" <taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
>
> > SEAD F-16 USA
>
> The German Tornado ECR is usually considered superior
> for this role. It is really a task that calls for a fairly large
> airframe and a two-man crew, and I wonder why the USAF
> chose the F-16 for it.
>
Because they needed to give the F-16 yet another role for which it isn't
suited. It would've been way too sensible to make a SEAD platform out of
the F-15E.
rahmat iskandar khairul shazi
that Rockwell had proposed to the USAF the Tornado IDS airframe as a Wild
Weasel replacement. It would have been a better choice, but politics won.
Too bad, it would have been interesting to see Tornados in USAF service.
Give the F-111 a run for its money at low altitude.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> "Tazio Secchiaroli" <taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
>
> > SEAD F-16 USA
>
> The German Tornado ECR is usually considered superior
> for this role. It is really a task that calls for a fairly large
> airframe and a two-man crew, and I wonder why the USAF
> chose the F-16 for it.
No wonder at all. Every two F-4s kept in service meant that one less
of the sexy, little (and almost useless) jets could be purchased.
Tornado ECR is well suited to the job.
But a QF-4 with a dozen LGBs or CBUs would be better. Who needs
HARMs, when even the aircraft itself is expendable?
(It'll never happen though. A QF-4 carrying a dozen CBUs might
put six F-16 drivers out of business.)
- John T.
Tony Williams
> Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com (C.C.Jordan) wrote in message news:<3c0987e8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > On 1 Dec 2001 16:20:02 -0800, a_g_wi...@lineone.net (Tony Williams) wrote:
> >
> > >The Russians also have guided AT missiles fired from tank guns, and
> > >active tank defence systems, for which the West currently has no
> > >equivalent.
> >
> > Tony, I suspect that you have forgotten about the Shillelagh gun/launcher
> > used on the MBT-70 program and on the production M-551 Sheridan. It
> > has since been abandoned.
> I know about the Shillelagh (it was also used on an M60 variant IIRC)
> but I understand it hasn't been in service for some time. I could be
> wrong, but I also think that the missile wasn't "fired" by the gun but
> just accelerated down the barrel under its own steam, which would
> obviously lengthen flight times.
Oops, I was wrong (when all else fails, check your references...) the
Shillelagh was fired by the gun with the rocket taking over later.
However, a major disadvantage was a quoted 1,143m MINIMUM range before
the missile came under radio control. I don't know what the
equivalent figure is for the Russian missiles.
Yama
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:09:27 +0100, =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Bihlmayr
> >The hp output of the Abrahms GT and the Leos diesel are the same, and
I've heard
> >of Leos doing much more than their 72 km/h, too.
>
> The Allison is governed to 1,500 hp. I believe that ungoverned, the output
is
> in excess of 2,000 hp. I remember reading that German Police measured
> four M1s running in tandem at just over 115 kph. Perhaps they achieved
> this via drafting (slipstreaming for you folks across the ocean). :-)
Maximum road speed is fairly irrelevant as such for a tank. What matters is
off-road speed; and that is limited by quality of transmission and
suspension. Basically, all tanks designed since about 1960 pack so much
engine power their off-road speed is limited by crew's and tank's ability to
survive rough ride.
> When a nation not a member or soon to be member of the EU buys the Leapard
2,
> you will have a valid issue. However, at this point, this can be looked at
as an
> EU policy decision to keep EU funds within the EU members (I'll consider
the
> Swiss as part of the European community as they have always leaned towards
> Europe as the major source for weaponry).
>
> Finally, we know that the Abrams performed extremely well in the Gulf War,
> utterly confounding its detractors. In combat against Soviet built export
armor
> it proved all but invunerable. Where has the Leopard 2 demonstrated its
> real-world combat capability?
This is totally silly. By that, P-51 was better than F-106, because it was
proven in combat, Delta Dart never was...
> are not established facts. We know that the M1A1 shugged off direct hits
> from 125mm APFSDS penetrators fired at ranges well under 1000 meters.
If you are talking about Iraqi tanks, one should remember they carried
inferior, domestic ammunition. Mind you, I don't think that Soviet standard
(steel) ammo would penetrate M1A1 frontal armor either.
> As I
> understand it, the M1A2 is the first modern MBT capable of absorbing a hit
from
> the same gun it carries (based upon frontal armor). Even the Tiger Mk VIB
> could not keep out an 88mm round fired at close range.
We do not actually know whether this is true; but even if it is, it's not
that unique. IS-3 runs to mind immediately.
> When we look at the M1A2, we find a tank with even greater speed, the best
> weapons system available and possibly the best armor protection of any MBT
> on earth. How good is that protection? Well, against a HEAT warhead, the
> M1A2 has more than twice the protection of an Iowa class battleship,
effectively
> equal to 1400 mm of steel armor (from "For Your Eyes Only"). IIRC, the
Leopard 2
> has armor roughly equal to the IPM1 (Improved M1) with 1000mm of
protection
> against a HEAT warhead.
What Leopard 2 model?
Armor protection was greatly increased in 2A6; in fact it's probably
superior to that of M1A2. In addition, 2A6 has more powerful gun.
> Another point: A turbocharged diesel powered tank, such as the Leopard 2,
> makes more power as the engine speed increases. Therefore, from idle, it
> needs time to get the revs up. Unlike the diesel, the gas turbine in the
M1A2
> is nearly always making its maximum power, even at when standing still.
And this is the problem - it vastly increases the fuel consumption.
Especially as M1 does not have APU; meaning engine is the only source of
electric power, and needs to keep running all the time if tank is to kept at
standby.
Tomas By
> Armor protection was greatly increased in 2A6
Can you provide a source for this?
It seems to me armour is in fact the same in 2A5 and 2A6, but better
in Strv 122.
| The main part of this extensive upgrade [from 2A5 to 2A6] is the
| installation of a Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 smoothbore gun which, using
| the latest DM53 armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot
| ammunition, gives a higher muzzle velocity and therefore greater
| armour penetration. It retains the enhanced armour package of the
| earlier Leopard 2A5, which also has an improved sighting system.
(http://dsei.janes.com/show_daily/news13Sep2001_002153.shtml)
| A contract covering the fitment of the new 120 mm L55 gun to 180
| Dutch MBT Leopard 2 A5 is signed in The Hague today by Krauss-Maffei
| Wegmann and the Dutch contracting authority DM Directie van
| Defensie, which brings these main battle tanks to the configuration
| status of the Leopard 2 A6.
(http://www.kmweg.de/english/news/news19.html)
| The Leopard 2A5 was also the basis for the Swedish Leopard 2 MBT,
| known within the Swedish Army as the Strv 122. This has all of the
| improvements of the Leopard 2A5 plus a number of other improvements
| which make it the most potent Leopard 2 in service with any army.
(http://www.janes.com/micro_sites/eurosatory/leopard.shtml)
/Tomas
Peter Stickney
That'll make it real popular with the accompanying infantry, won't it.
Tanks are bad enough to be around, 'cause it's too easy to get
squished, without having one that decides at randam times to spray
buckshot right at you. Those anti-missile things sound neat, but as
soon as the Bad Guys discover the ways that they can be fooled into
setting themselves off, they won't look so good.
Similar devices were proposed and prototypes by the U.S. Army in th
e'50s, '60s, and '70s. We finally decided that it wasn't worth the
trouble. Reactive Armor has the advantage of needing a real missile
hit to zset it off, but even then it isn't too healthy to be next to.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Yama
"Tony Williams" <a_g_wi...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:953167.011202...@posting.google.com...
> Oops, I was wrong (when all else fails, check your references...) the
> Shillelagh was fired by the gun with the rocket taking over later.
> However, a major disadvantage was a quoted 1,143m MINIMUM range before
> the missile came under radio control.
The actual main disadvantage (other than that neither gun or missile AFAIK
never really worked properly) was that the gun was designed for missile,
resulting to a low-velocity weapon which could only fire HEAT ammunition.
Whereas with Russian systems, gun does not sacrifice any performance for
it's missile-firing capability.
Drewe Manton
2/12/01 8:58 pm:
> Can you provide a source for this?
>
> It seems to me armour is in fact the same in 2A5 and 2A6, but better
> in Strv 122.
He's probably thinking of the Leopard 2A6 EX, which is basically an
Strv-122 with the L55 gun and all the vehtronics upgrades (battlefield
management system etc.) The 2A6 currently entering service in Germany is
indeed little more than a 2A5 with the L55 gun.
--
regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"
John Cook
wrote:
>
>"Christoph Töpfer" <Christop...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Leopard 2A6 is best MBT of the world...
>> M1A1 has the 120mm caliber built in license...
>
>So, the Abrams has the same gun as the Leo II, so there is no difference
>there. Let us compare the rest.
>Armor? M1A2 has about 1400 mm equivalent, Leo 2 about 700 mm KE / 1000 mm
>Heat
>Speed? Abrams up to 115, Leo II 100 for 20 min, if you deactivate
>air-condition.
>Engine? Abrams always has full power available, and therefore can acclarate
>faster.
>Battle tested? Abrams performed very well in actuall combat, Leo II has not
>yet prooven itself in combat.
>
>Sorry, no luck. M1A2 comes out ahead.
Err your still forgetting the Challenger 1 which was used in the gulf
war...
It had the longest kill against a tank and the longest kill against
a soft skinned vehicule.
IIRC the T55 was taken out with a hesh round at 5100 meters and the
truck was destroyed at over 7km with a APFDS, the reason they were
engaged at these ranges were the gun was already loaded with the
wrong ammo type, so they just used it ;-).
These distances are _long_ probabley the rifling on the Challenger 1
barrel adds accuracy, if these figures are true then the Challenger
1 is theorectically capable of putting at least six rounds into a
M1A1 before the challenger comes in range....
There was a reference/rumour from a US tanker who disputed these
figures by stating the aiming dot on the M1A1 would be much bigger
than the tank at these distances, for which he was severly
repremanded for giving away secrets!!!.
>>
>> Submarine... The German 212 class with hybrid engine, they need no water,
>> the engine produce it...
>>
>Yep, but not in service yet. And it remains to be seen if it can stand its
>own against a Kilo.
>
>> Airbus A400M as tanker and medium transport...
>>
>In some years, perhaps. Lets wait and see how it will actually perform.
>
>> Tornado ECR with US-built HARMs...
>
>Good, but hardly the top.
Your right here, a Tornado ECR with ALARMS would be better...
better loiter capability for the missile, lighter and a bit more
intelligent.
Nuff said.....
cheers
>
>Regards
>Stefan
>
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :- Jwc...@ozemail.com.au
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter.pso-online.com/
Jörg Bihlmayr
Alex Walton wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2001 11:27:51 -0500, Paul Holloway <pau...@exis.net> wrote:
<schnippschnapp>
>
> Also, why do you rate the M1A2 above the Leo2A6?
Because it is :usian? ;o)
>The two are very
> similar, execpt that the Leo has a better gun
No. The M1A2 gun is a license-build Leopard 2 gun.
Jörg
Jörg Bihlmayr
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> "Tazio Secchiaroli" <taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>SEAD F-16 USA
>>
>
> The German Tornado ECR is usually considered superior
> for this role. It is really a task that calls for a fairly large
> airframe and a two-man crew, and I wonder why the USAF
> chose the F-16 for it.
Because they once decided not to buy the ECR... ;o)
(BTW: Does anybody know, why they didn't produce a SEAD version of the F
15E?)
Jörg
Tony Williams
>
> The actual main disadvantage (other than that neither gun or missile AFAIK
> never really worked properly) was that the gun was designed for missile,
> resulting to a low-velocity weapon which could only fire HEAT ammunition.
> Whereas with Russian systems, gun does not sacrifice any performance for
> it's missile-firing capability.
I thought that the big gun was too powerful for the lightweight
Sheridan as it was - the recoil was supposed to be really heavy.
Paul Holloway
news:3c0a4932...@news.btinternet.com:
I use the term mobile in the sense that the Abrams is faster with better
acceleration.
As I stated, I don't particularly rate the M1 over the Leo, if anything I'd
say they were on par.
Ragnar
"Jörg Bihlmayr" <joerg.b...@student.uni-ulm.de> wrote in message
news:3C0B703...@student.uni-ulm.de...
>
>
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> > "Tazio Secchiaroli" <taziosec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ttcg0ugdkl71joluo...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> >>SEAD F-16 USA
> >>
> >
> > The German Tornado ECR is usually considered superior
> > for this role. It is really a task that calls for a fairly large
> > airframe and a two-man crew, and I wonder why the USAF
> > chose the F-16 for it.
>
>
> Because they once decided not to buy the ECR... ;o)
>
> (BTW: Does anybody know, why they didn't produce a SEAD version of the F
> 15E?)
>
Because the Air Force and the manufacturer needed to justify the F-16's
existence by foisting onto it yet another role it is unsuitable for.
C.C.Jordan
>
>Err your still forgetting the Challenger 1 which was used in the gulf
>war...
John, if you're thinking of the Challenger circa 1991, I'm afraid that it lagged
well behind the Abrams and the Leo 2. Aside from be rather lethargic in
comparison to the others. According to what I have read, it suffered extensive
teething woes with the main gun and the fire control equipment. The latter made
firing at a moving difficult. However, this would prevent long range sniping at
immobile targets. Another area where the Challenger comes up short is in
protection. Its ability to keep out KE projectiles is somewhat less than the
M1A1. Its resistance to HEAT warheads is only about 60% of the M1A1.
As it stands now, the Challenger 2 is a much better machine. You can read
all about the Challenger 1 in "Challenger: Main Battle Tank 1982-1997",
available through Amazon or your local bookseller.
C.C.Jordan
>"Yama" <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message news:<9ueau3$ba2$1...@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>...
>>
>> The actual main disadvantage (other than that neither gun or missile AFAIK
>> never really worked properly) was that the gun was designed for missile,
>> resulting to a low-velocity weapon which could only fire HEAT ammunition.
>> Whereas with Russian systems, gun does not sacrifice any performance for
>> it's missile-firing capability.
>
>I thought that the big gun was too powerful for the lightweight
>Sheridan as it was - the recoil was supposed to be really heavy.
One problem with the Sheridan was the tendency of the turret to slew
upon being fired. Should the gunner maintain a grip on the traverse
wheel when fires the gun (via a footpedal), the wheel will rotate quite
violently, possibly leading to fractured wrist. Recoil was reported to be
extremely violent due to the small turret and light weight of the vehicle.
Another problem with the Shillelagh was frequently damaged electronics
in the missile guidence system as a result of being fired. It seems that
the art and science of "hardening" electronics was in its infancy when
the Shillelagh was developed.
Paul J. Adam
<Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> writes
>On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 17:18:53 +1100, John Cook <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>Err your still forgetting the Challenger 1 which was used in the gulf
>>war...
>
>John, if you're thinking of the Challenger circa 1991, I'm afraid
>that it lagged
>well behind the Abrams and the Leo 2.
...Which is why we bought Challenger 2, because Chal1 had done so
poorly?
> Aside from be rather lethargic in
>comparison to the others.
1200hp of propulsion isn't exactly "lethargic". You then get into the
argument about whether a tank's 0-30 acceleration matters when it's too
short of fuel to do more than sit tight and wait for resupply (compare
the refuelling intervals for Challengers and Abrams in Desert Sabre...
'desperate for a drink every six hours' versus 'forty-eight hours
between refuellings' is one comparison I was offered. That gives you a
_lot_ more tactical flexibility)
>According to what I have read, it suffered extensive
>teething woes with the main gun and the fire control equipment.
According to the crews who briefed me, they were content with it, though
the layout and ergonomics could have been rather better (hence much work
on turret interior design for Challenger 2) I trust the end-users'
version more, thank you.
>The latter made
>firing at a moving difficult. However, this would prevent long range sniping at
>immobile targets. Another area where the Challenger comes up short is in
>protection. Its ability to keep out KE projectiles is somewhat less than the
>M1A1. Its resistance to HEAT warheads is only about 60% of the M1A1.
I'd be interested in any source for this. (After all, who invented
Chobham armour in the first place?) Or is this just one of those
"unattributable rumours"?
How many Challenger 1s had armour penetrations from enemy fire? That's
the real test, after all... so where is this claim coming from? Is there
a source, is it a "really true, honest" story from General Dynamics, or
is there some evidence to back it up?
Enquiring minds want to know.
C.C.Jordan
wrote:
>In article <3c0c066...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, C.C.Jordan
><Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> writes
>>On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 17:18:53 +1100, John Cook <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>Err your still forgetting the Challenger 1 which was used in the gulf
>>>war...
>>
>>John, if you're thinking of the Challenger circa 1991, I'm afraid
>>that it lagged
>>well behind the Abrams and the Leo 2.
>
>...Which is why we bought Challenger 2, because Chal1 had done so
>poorly?
>
>> Aside from be rather lethargic in
>>comparison to the others.
>
>1200hp of propulsion isn't exactly "lethargic". You then get into the
>argument about whether a tank's 0-30 acceleration matters when it's too
>short of fuel to do more than sit tight and wait for resupply (compare
>the refuelling intervals for Challengers and Abrams in Desert Sabre...
>'desperate for a drink every six hours' versus 'forty-eight hours
>between refuellings' is one comparison I was offered. That gives you a
>_lot_ more tactical flexibility)
Let's be a little forthcoming. When we consider the range of the M1A1/A2,
we see that it is held to be 465 km. Therefore, should the Abrams be driven
at nearly 80 kph for six hours, then it would, indeed need to be refueled.
The Challenger 1, based on the data I have found (from several different
sources), lists the maximum range at 450 km. So, it seems that the Challenger
would likely run out of fuel first. Moreover, should an Abrams and a
Challenger both rush to a destination 450 km distant, the Challenger would
arrive (running at 55 kph) two hours later than the M1 and be out of fuel when
it finally did get there. Excuse me, but where is the tactical flexibility in
that?
>
>>According to what I have read, it suffered extensive
>>teething woes with the main gun and the fire control equipment.
>
>According to the crews who briefed me, they were content with it, though
>the layout and ergonomics could have been rather better (hence much work
>on turret interior design for Challenger 2) I trust the end-users'
>version more, thank you.
>
>>The latter made
>>firing at a moving difficult. However, this would prevent long range sniping at
>>immobile targets. Another area where the Challenger comes up short is in
>>protection. Its ability to keep out KE projectiles is somewhat less than the
>>M1A1. Its resistance to HEAT warheads is only about 60% of the M1A1.
>
>I'd be interested in any source for this. (After all, who invented
>Chobham armour in the first place?) Or is this just one of those
>"unattributable rumours"?
Before I get into sources, let me remind you that us Yanks have taken many
British inventions and improved upon them. I give the AV-8B as a typical
example. Range and ordnance both nearly doubled. Simply comparing the
GR Mk.3 with the Gr Mk.5 shows the improvement. When it came to Chobham
armor, U.S. manufacturers adopted the technology and improved it. Currently,
the M1A2 is the best protected MBT in the world, by a considerable margin too.
Back in 1991 author and war game designer, Frank Chatwick wrote several
soft-cover books on the Gulf War, placing much of his focus on the technology
of the air and land systems in use. He created some very revealing tables to
illustrate the various tank's ability to keep out both KE and HEAT projectiles.
His sources included Vickers, General Dynamics, the British Defense Ministry
and the U.S. Army. Though Chadwick is a Brit, I saw nothing in his work to
indicate any bias one way or the other.
According to Chadwick's sources, the following represents the armor capability
of the M1A1 and the Challenger 1.
|||||||||| = Protection Vs KE
//// = Protection Vs HEAT
KE HEAT
M1A1 600 mm 1300 mm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||////////////////////////////////////////
Challenger 500mm 800mm
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||/////////////////
M60A3 250mm 500mm* USMC with reactive armo
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||////////////
The difference can probably be found in the DU laminations added to the
Abrams' Chobham.
>
>How many Challenger 1s had armour penetrations from enemy fire? That's
>the real test, after all... so where is this claim coming from? Is there
>a source, is it a "really true, honest" story from General Dynamics, or
>is there some evidence to back it up?
We could also ask, "how many M60A3s had armor penetrations from enemy fire"?
The answer would probably be the same as for the Challenger, zero. However, the
M60A3 has a great deal less protection than the Challenger. I do not recall a
single Coalition tank being penetrated, although several suffered lost tracks
due to mines. The vast majority, if not all, hits on Coalition MBTs were
superfical. Let's face it, the Iraqi Army seldom realized what hit them when
their armor would get clobbered from ranges they could not even imagine.
By the way, there were several reasons that the Stormin' Norman put the
British 1st Armoured Division on eastern flank of the VII Corps. This placed
them as the hinge on which the whole Corps would pivot. Reason 1: They
are utterly reliable. Reason 2: They had the slowest MBTs in the Corps
and could not keep up with the M1s on the wide, fast sweep required of
the westerm flank. Placing them there meant that the Brits would likely see
action first, and that they would run into concentrated Iraqi armor before
the western flank was engaged. Indeed, they did, and steamrolled the
Iraqis in short order. The 1st Armoured held them by the nose, and the
24th Mech kicked them in the ass. Hammer and anvil.
>Enquiring minds want to know.
You may still be able to find Chadwick's "Gulf War Fact Book" although,
it is out of print. This slim volume contains the above mentioned tables.
Michael P. Reed
> Recent (post-Gulf-War) IFV procurements show a trend to bigger guns but most
> leave off ATGMs.
Is this a result of "lessons learned" or budgetary restraints?
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Michael P. Reed
> The downsides of putting ATGM on every IFV are capacity (Warrior carries
> eight dismounts, compared to the Bradley's six) and vulnerability (the
> Bradley is a big target, and firing wire-guided ATGM leaves you stopped
> in the middle of a big firing signature for the missile's time of
> flight: plus, all that explosive and propellant can be uncomfortable if
> you get hit). It would become more attractive once you look at
> fire-and-forget missiles like Javelin, though.
LOSAT?
Michael P. Reed
> Beside does the US offer M1A2 for export? I though they only offer the M1A1.
AFAIK, yes (Tom Schoene may have better knowledge here). IIRC, Kuwait recently
chose the -A2 over the Challenger II (or was it one of the other Gulf states).
Michael P. Reed
Peter Stickney
It would knock the alignment of the laser designator for the millile
all to hell. I've seen Sheridens shoot, and the thing rears back
until only the last 2 roadwheels are on the ground.
Another bad characteristic was that the combustable case of the gun
rounds wouldn't alway combust all the way. Opening the breech would
let in chunks of burning propellant, which would, of course threaten
the other combustible case rounds in the tank. (Excuse Me, Air
Transportable Tracked Armored Reconnaisance Vehicle, or as Tank Boy
refers to it, "Your Tank on Drugs") I watched a company shoot of
Sheridens, and by the end, every crew had bailed out.
Somewhere around I've got the owner's manual for the M60A2 (The
Starship) This had a somewhat longer-tubed version of the
gun/launcher. They had to do an awful lot of car and feeding to that
ammunition. It was real kid glove stuff. Not one of the brightest
ideas we ever had. I'm surprised that the Germans accepted it for teh
MBT-70.
Paul J. Adam
<Jor...@worldwar2aviation.com> writes
>>argument about whether a tank's 0-30 acceleration matters when it's too
>>short of fuel to do more than sit tight and wait for resupply (compare
>>the refuelling intervals for Challengers and Abrams in Desert Sabre...
>>'desperate for a drink every six hours' versus 'forty-eight hours
>>between refuellings' is one comparison I was offered. That gives you a
>>_lot_ more tactical flexibility)
>
>Let's be a little forthcoming. When we consider the range of the M1A1/A2,
>we see that it is held to be 465 km. Therefore, should the Abrams be driven
>at nearly 80 kph for six hours, then it would, indeed need to be refueled.
>The Challenger 1, based on the data I have found (from several different
>sources), lists the maximum range at 450 km. So, it seems that the Challenger
>would likely run out of fuel first.
However, tanks do not drive at full speed for hours on end. They *do*
spend quite lengthy periods at the halt, either in defensive positions
or for other reasons. At times like that, it's useful to have an engine
that understands the concept of "idle".
Hence the hasty post-war addition of an auxiliary power supply unit to
the M1. A shame that it's not inside the armour, and that the
under-armour APU was deleted from the M1A2.
"Engineering design problems encountered during developmental testing
with the UAAPU have led the program to delete UAAPU from the M1A2 SEP
production configuration. The program is not currently funded to
continue UAAPU development. The loss of UAAPU is unfortunate given that
it was intended to correct operational suitability shortfalls identified
during M1A2 IOT&E. For example, during this event, M1A2 experienced
frequent battery failures due to electrical system demands during
mounted watch operations. M1A2 also consumed approximately 15 percent
more fuel than the baseline M1A1 due to the increased frequency and
duration of engine idle time needed to keep the electrical system up and
batteries charged."
http://www.dote.osd.mil/reports/FY99/army/99m1a2.html
>>I'd be interested in any source for this. (After all, who invented
>>Chobham armour in the first place?) Or is this just one of those
>>"unattributable rumours"?
>
>Before I get into sources, let me remind you that us Yanks have taken many
>British inventions and improved upon them.
And others, you haven't, and in other fields you're ahead. (Some stuff,
you still source from us, other fields we're better at than you at the
moment - healthy competition, keeps us all on our toes)
> When it came to Chobham
>armor, U.S. manufacturers adopted the technology and improved it. Currently,
>the M1A2 is the best protected MBT in the world, by a considerable margin too.
According to its marketing division, anyway...
>Back in 1991 author and war game designer, Frank Chatwick wrote several
>soft-cover books on the Gulf War, placing much of his focus on the technology
>of the air and land systems in use. He created some very revealing tables to
>illustrate the various tank's ability to keep out both KE and HEAT projectiles.
>His sources included Vickers, General Dynamics, the British Defense Ministry
>and the U.S. Army.
I'm not minded to give absolute credibility to a wargame designer
working from "open sources", when his information contradicts sources
involved in the actual testing.
>The difference can probably be found in the DU laminations added to the
>Abrams' Chobham.
Never heard of Stillbrew? This isn't a new notion.
>>How many Challenger 1s had armour penetrations from enemy fire? That's
>>the real test, after all... so where is this claim coming from? Is there
>>a source, is it a "really true, honest" story from General Dynamics, or
>>is there some evidence to back it up?
>I do not recall a
>single Coalition tank being penetrated, although several suffered lost tracks
>due to mines. The vast majority, if not all, hits on Coalition MBTs were
>superfical.
According to FAS, eighteen M1A1s taken out of service by battle damage
in the Gulf War, of which nine were total losses. (Higher than I
expected, too - but mostly mine damage, apparently) I don't recall any
of them having their frontal armour penetrated, though, although a
number were hit.
Kerryn Offord
"Michael P. Reed" wrote:
>
> In message <9ubn4f$dpi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Tom Schoene" wrote:
>
> > Recent (post-Gulf-War) IFV procurements show a trend to bigger guns but most
> > leave off ATGMs.
>
> Is this a result of "lessons learned" or budgetary restraints?
Possibly for tactical reasons.
An IFV with autocannon and atgw has to compromise both dismount numbers
and reload capacity. Because it has to train as both a people mover and
an Antitank platform the amount of time that can be devoted to each task
is reduced.
Compare this to dedicated dismount carrier IFVs and dedicated ATGW
vehicles. Because they are dedicated the IFV can carry more dismounts
and the ATGW carrier can carry more reloads. Because they are task
dedicated they only train for one duty.
Also (IMO) you don't need all vehicles to have ATGWs nor equal numbers
of each. You can get away with having more IFVs than ATGW vehicles (cost
saving).
Query: How many Bradleys are need to lift an infantry Company/Battn (how
many men and what equipment) at 5 dismounts and 8 dismounts (assuming
the tow reloads can be replaced with 3 men). The difference is the
number of vehicles that could be dedicated ATGW vehicles....
Note that removing TOW from IFVs and only having dedicated ATGW vehicles
could save $xxx,xxx per IFV
Tom Schoene
Michael P. Reed <mpr...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:JoZO7.1892$Pb.4...@news.easynews.com...
> In message <3c092d6b$0$63807$45be...@newscene.com>, "Stefan Diekmann"
wrote:
>
> > Beside does the US offer M1A2 for export? I though they only offer the
M1A1.
>
> AFAIK, yes (Tom Schoene may have better knowledge here).
Me?
Yes, the A2 is available for export. IIRC, the Saudis ordered it even
before the US Army did. It's in service in both Saudi and Kuwait, and has
been offered most everywhere else that has run a new MBT competition
recently. For Turkey, IIRC, they offered an M1A2 with the Europack diesel
engine, which seems like a very good idea (M1A2 turret with a fuel-efficient
power pack).
> IIRC, Kuwait recently
> chose the -A2 over the Challenger II (or was it one of the other Gulf
> states).
Depends on your definition of recently; Kuwaiti M1A2s were delivered in
1994-96.
The tank field in the missile east is pretty mixed: M1A2 to Saudi and
Kuwait, LeClerc to the UAE, Challenger II to Oman, etc.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the
past; and we must respect the past, knowing that once it was all that
was humanly possible. - George Santayana
Tom Schoene
> In message <9ubn4f$dpi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Tom Schoene" wrote:
>
> > Recent (post-Gulf-War) IFV procurements show a trend to bigger guns but
most
> > leave off ATGMs.
>
> Is this a result of "lessons learned" or budgetary restraints?
>
Mostly the former, I think, but the latter is a factor as well. Italy is the
one example I know of where TOW was deleted from most of their IFV
procurement on cost grounds (IIRC, it is left on platoon commander vehicles;
possibly a reasonable compromise). Other nations don't seem to have even
requested it.
Tom Schoene
LOSAT is a big weapon, even larger than Hellfire. And it's not
fire-and-forget, though time of flight is pretty short.
Paul Holloway
@news1.denver1.co.home.com:
>> For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
>> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
>> what they do best--fight on land. The Amis will sometimes produce a
>> decent tank, but they are more a sea/air oriented military in any
>> case.
>
> Ummmm ... I don't think I can get past this well enough to comment on the
> rest. Germany's excellence at ground fighting hardly precludes the
> development of superior land warfare systems elsewhere.
>
>
>
>
Yeah, that had to one of the more inane contentions I've come across lately.
"....sometimes produce a decent tank.." Give me a break.
Sheeeessshhhh.........
Paul Holloway
news:d0jb0uotmki16lpv7...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:30:51 GMT, "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Disraeli" <tk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:nl7b0u08gotquf35e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>
>>>For example, no one builds land weapons systems better than
>>> the Germans. Germany is a land power, always has been, and that is
>>> what they do best--fight on land.
>>
>>I'd question that, if only because Germany isn't the only "land power"
>>in the world. Also, considering that Germany does not actually make
>>the "best" land combat systems in the world, your argument dies before
>>it can walk.
>
> Well. I think you could make the argument that as far as MBT's go, the
> Germans have prob. made the "best" tank of each successive generation
> dating back to the WWII years (in the West, at least). The M1A1/A2
> are good tanks as well, but please remember that they use a
> Rheinmetall gun and british designed armour. Indeed, the main US
> contribution, the orig. Avco Lycoming Turbine power pack, is
> considered its greatest single drawback. Yes, the M1A2 is a good
> tank, but the Leopard 2A5 is the current leader of the pack.
>
>
>
Actually, that would be the Leo2A6, and I think, overall, that the M1A2 and
the 2A6 are probably on par, generally speaking.
Also, although they use Chobham, they also use a DU layer that makes them
the best protected tanks currently in service (including the Leo2).
The use of turbines has drawbacks, primarily fuel efficiency and thermal
signature, but they also have many positives, mainly acceleration and speed.
Paul Holloway
$9b62...@news.freenet.de:
> Whats with the American?
>
> Somalia? Was a desaster!
Political disaster.
> Vietnam? Apokalypse for the American...
American forces won every significant battle, then the politicians decided
it was time for us to leave.
> Iraq? Training, A-10 and AH-64 done the ground job...
You need to polish up your knowledge of Desert Storm, you're way off base.
> Afghanistan? Training...
>
Not done, doing pretty good so far.
Funny how you left out the list of successes.
Paul Holloway
news:zLuN7.183054$IR4.68...@news1.denver1.co.home.com:
>> Thus, given this convergent evolution, wouldn't it make sense to
>> divide up national resources and let various countries specialize in
>> whatever fields they excel at and rationalize the weapons procurement
>> industry?
>
> The EU should probably worry more about actually becoming a unified
> union before it considers 'force projection'. I'm also not sure what
> the U.S. would really have to gain from this. The current system
> allows the U.S. to build gems like the M1A1 using a little bit of this
> and a little bit of that, and her arms industry is pretty damned good
> at making most everything across the spectrum - and has the money to do
> so. These are things the EU as a whole lacks. I can see your argument
> (though I disagree with portions of it - perhaps the M1A1 isn't the
> _best_ tank, but it's most assuredly near the top), I just don't see a
> big boon for the U.S., especially with the EU taking a hostile attitude
> toward the United States in many respects.
>
>
>
You're right, the M1A1 isn't the best tank..........the M1A2 is :)
Kerryn Offord
Paul Holloway wrote:
<SNIP>
> Actually, that would be the Leo2A6, and I think, overall, that the M1A2 and
> the 2A6 are probably on par, generally speaking.
>
> Also, although they use Chobham, they also use a DU layer that makes them
> the best protected tanks currently in service (including the Leo2).
>
> The use of turbines has drawbacks, primarily fuel efficiency and thermal
> signature, but they also have many positives, mainly acceleration and speed.
I thought that pure speed was not an important consideration compared
with cross country mobility (acceleration may be useful but does the
ability to do 70+kmh in good going provide an advantage over a vehicle
capable of 30-50kmh in bush/scrub/broken ground).
Tomas By
> "....sometimes produce a decent tank.." Give me a break.
> Sheeeessshhhh.........
yeah that's an exaggeration, nowdays
the sherman was ok though
/Tomas
Peter Stickney
M1s, at least, have very good suspension systems, and move quite sell
cross-country. By the way, there is no "Cross-Country Speed" for
tanks or other fast tracks. The limits for cross-country speed are
crew tolerance and mechanical failure. An M1 is perfectly capable of
becoming airborne while passing over small hills/large bumps. I've
seen them firing and hitting while doing this. It's absolutely
amazing. The M1 was a revolution in armored warfare. With the
ability to move quickly across almost any ground, With a gun system
that could reliably get hits while moving, and enough armor that it
didn't have to seek cover when fired upon, armored warfare took on an
entirely new dimension. The older jockeying for an ambush that would
turn into a slugging match was replaced with massive firepower that
hit, blew through, and reattacked from behind. SOrt of like Energy
Maneuverability for tanks. As much as anything else, this was a big
reason for the lopsided results of the second Gulf War. The Iraqis
showed up prepared to refight the first Gulf War, adn we didn't play
tht game at all.
If y0ou can avaid it, never fight the enemy's war. Change the rules,
and do it your way.
Christoph Töpfer
> >
> > Somalia? Was a desaster!
>
> Political disaster.
Ha, American troops landed in center of gunfire, very "professionell"!
> > Vietnam? Apokalypse for the American...
>
> American forces won every significant battle, then the politicians decided
> it was time for us to leave.
yeah, thats the reason why American troops get away by helicopter from the
roof of the embassy... and what the have won in vietnam? Nothing! Tons of
bombs for nothing, no success!!
> > Iraq? Training, A-10 and AH-64 done the ground job...
>
> You need to polish up your knowledge of Desert Storm, you're way off base.
So, in your opinion, Desert Strom was a hard fight? As I said, it wasnt hard
work for the ground troops only one tank fight at the airprt of Kuwait....
But the fight was done in 10 hours...
> > Afghanistan? Training...
> >
> Not done, doing pretty good so far.
OK, lets see, what theyre doing... I hope they catch bin laden...
CT
Brooks
"Christoph Töpfer" <Christop...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> > Whats with the American?
>> >
>> > Somalia? Was a desaster!
>>
>> Political disaster.
>
>Ha, American troops landed in center of gunfire, very "professionell"!
That is what our military gets paid to do. Unlike many nations, we cannot
always choose to employ our military only where gunfire is absent. But to
be honest, the gunfire for the most part erupted AFTER the troops hit the
ground.
>
>> > Vietnam? Apokalypse for the American...
>>
>> American forces won every significant battle, then the politicians decided
>> it was time for us to leave.
>
>yeah, thats the reason why American troops get away by helicopter from the
>roof of the embassy... and what the have won in vietnam? Nothing! Tons of
>bombs for nothing, no success!!
Uhmmm...those were for the most part Vietnamese civilians fleeing the "liberation"
of Saigon who were scrambling on those helos on the Embassy roof. Get a clue--US
ground troops had left Vietnam about three years BEFORE your heralded event.
>
>> > Iraq? Training, A-10 and AH-64 done the ground job...
>>
>> You need to polish up your knowledge of Desert Storm, you're way off base.
>
>So, in your opinion, Desert Strom was a hard fight? As I said, it wasnt
hard
>work for the ground troops only one tank fight at the airprt of Kuwait....
>But the fight was done in 10 hours...
Uhmmm...was 73 Easting near the airport? Nope? Seems your Gulf War history
is a bit lacking, huh? And how many more tanks and APC's were killed by the
ground forces? Uhmmm...and how many were killed by air only because they
were forced to move due to the ground assault? Geeze... another simplistic
"airpower did it all" EXPERT, huh? Ever heard of "combined arms" operations?
Read back over your own country's military history, and you will see that
they contributed quite a bit to that approach.
>
>> > Afghanistan? Training...
>> >
>
>> Not done, doing pretty good so far.
>
>OK, lets see, what theyre doing... I hope they catch bin laden...
I am surprised that you are in favor of catching OBL, given your obvious
anti-American slant.
Brooks
>
>
>CT
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
John Keeney
Christoph Töpfer <Christop...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3c125fed$0$30921$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
> yeah, thats the reason why American troops get away by helicopter from the
> roof of the embassy... and what the have won in vietnam? Nothing! Tons of
> bombs for nothing, no success!!
The only US troops to leave via the roof of the embasy were
the ones that flew the helicopters in and some Marine embassy
guards.