Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Serge said:

the best. 

OK, until we fight them against each other we won't know.  And even then, how do we arrange a fair fight?  So our judgements remain opinions and in my opinion, Leopard 2 is standard against which others are judged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Serge said:

The world standard in India. 

Nope.  The actual world standard - as in the one that others are benchmarked against (on paper anyway).  No nationalism in that assessment.  Its all a bit rubbery anyway.  What does "best " mean?  There is no single answer, no valid answer that is all encompassing.  Too many variables and too context dependent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaah ok. 

Something is something because it’s something. But, you know, it’s hard to define because maybe something else is something too. 

I know this theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DIADES said:

Nope.  The actual world standard - as in the one that others are benchmarked against (on paper anyway).  No nationalism in that assessment.  Its all a bit rubbery anyway.  What does "best " mean?  There is no single answer, no valid answer that is all encompassing.  Too many variables and too context dependent.


Interesting. From a purely combat-tested crew survivability perspective, I’d rate the Abrams series as superior to Leopard 2. Leopard 2’s completely exposed hull ammunition wine-rack stowage is an inexcusable flaw. 
 

In terms of sensors, the gen 2 FLIR on Abrams (about to be superseded by gen 3 FLIR), is highest performing thermal currently available. My experience with European sensor systems is that they are available, expensive, and adequate, but underperform US systems, remaining a generation behind in performance. My most recent exposure to leading US AFV sensors is 2015, so a little dated, but I’ve heard nothing that would convince me that there’s been significant changes in this regard. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Interesting.

Indeed - yes we can make valid comparisons feature by feature.  I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2.  Pretty much only the US can operate Abrams effectively due to fuel demand.  The US has the resources to lay fuel pipeline behind advancing armour - well at least if air superiority is held.  There is an argument that the turbine is not really a limit in US context.  In Australian context, the turbine is a dangerous limit - Australia cannot keep fuel up to Abrams in an serious advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DIADES said:

I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2

 

Problem isn't really that it's a turbine, moreso that the design for it dates back to the mid '60's. If the Abrams had the LV100-5 like it should have, there'd be no issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

LV100-5 l

Yep, would be a massive improvement but no matter what, turbines can't match Diesel efficiency under part loads.  Yes, a turbine at its set point will have outstanding absolute efficiency but at all other load points efficiency suffers.  Then lets talk air filter life....

 

Actually, we are headed off topic as this is a Leopard thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DIADES said:

Indeed - yes we can make valid comparisons feature by feature.  I would say the turbine power unit in the Abrams is a poor choice compared to the Diesel in Leo2.  Pretty much only the US can operate Abrams effectively due to fuel demand.  The US has the resources to lay fuel pipeline behind advancing armour - well at least if air superiority is held.  There is an argument that the turbine is not really a limit in US context.  In Australian context, the turbine is a dangerous limit - Australia cannot keep fuel up to Abrams in an serious advance.

Quote

Then lets talk air filter life....

 

I'm not sure you 1) are properly contextualizing how much of an army's fuel total consumption is taken up by its MBT and 2) have a solid grasp of field logistics.

 

Regarding air filters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I'm not sure you 1

I am certainly not any king of expert on US fuel logistics.  I do know a little about that particular topic as it applies to the ADF.  I can assure you that if our Abrams were ever deployed that we could not keep them fueled.

The total fuel required by an army is important but it is critical that any particular element, MBT for example, has the fuel needed as and when and where needed.  In the case of an armored advance, it is very easy for MBTs to out run fuel supply - as history shows us, over and over.  AFV fuel consumption is a tactical limit that translates directly into a strategic limit.  An Abrams burns more fuel per tactical track kilometer than a Leopard or a T90 or anything else Diesel powered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best tank and being the benchmark tank often are quite different.

Leopard 2 is a "better" tank than the T90/T72.  doesn't mean that the T90/T72 isn't the global benchmark tank.

Abrams is probably a "better" tank than a Leopard 2,  doesn't mean that the Leopard 2 isn't the western benchmark tank.

 

Egypt is supposedly buying some T90, despite getting near free Abrams, whatever the politics, I suppose ongoing costs are also large.  just how much training can a non oil state afford with an Abrams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that You can't say it even like this. The first thing is that you need to know your own doctrine and a way how you want to use the tanks. T-64/72/80 were built for completely different way of use than the western tanks. Comparing a one against one scenario is wrong for many reasons. 

 

We can see that T-90 and later models of T-72 were successful in Syria and suffered minimal loses despite the operational area being flooded with ATGMs, i.e. it looks like this tanks somehow work with the Arab armies which aren't known for being well trained and effective. As a result Uralvagonzavod won quite a lot of export contracts. On the contrary the reputation of Abrams and Leopard 2 was somewhat damaged in Yemen and Syria. Of course no tank is invulnerable and if it's sitting duck in the open it will be destroyed sooner or later in an ATGM-rich environment. However the long-built aura of invulnerability went to a trash bin. 

 

The media is a strong weapon today. Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no video of any catastrophic kill of T-90A from Syria. There are however several ones where T-90A or T-72B ob.1989 withstood direct hits from TOW 2 ATGMs to the turret and upper glacis covered by Kontakt-5. On the other hand the two videos with Turkish Leopard 2A4 and Saudi M1A2S exploding in a huge fireball after being hit by rather light Metis ATGM went viral very quickly. Interestigly there is no documented loss of Leclerc in Yemen (I remember only one damaged one by mine). 

 

Leopard 2 and Abrams are expensive, they have expensive mainteanence and need four crew members instead of three. The quantity is a quality of its own and no war ever was won by score of destroyed tanks or killed enemies. Also let's say that you are dealing with a civil war spreading over the whole country and the frontlines are thousands of kilometers long. Would you prefer to have 100 expensive and on paper fantastic tanks or 1000 old ones which cost few bucks and anyone can operate them? In this situation a T-62 can be a better tank than Abrams in the overal picture even though one against one the T-62 has zero chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 10:24 AM, DIADES said:

I am certainly not any king of expert on US fuel logistics.  I do know a little about that particular topic as it applies to the ADF.  I can assure you that if our Abrams were ever deployed that we could not keep them fueled.

The total fuel required by an army is important but it is critical that any particular element, MBT for example, has the fuel needed as and when and where needed.  In the case of an armored advance, it is very easy for MBTs to out run fuel supply - as history shows us, over and over.  AFV fuel consumption is a tactical limit that translates directly into a strategic limit.  An Abrams burns more fuel per tactical track kilometer than a Leopard or a T90 or anything else Diesel powered.

Just to get a feeling how much fuel does the M1A2 consume?

I know this is difficult to answer since this based on terrain but the Leo2 consumes around 10-12l Diesel when the Engine is running but the vehicle is not moving (this should be comparable independent of the terrain). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rico said:

Just to get a feeling how much fuel does the M1A2 consume?

I know this is difficult to answer since this based on terrain but the Leo2 consumes around 10-12l Diesel when the Engine is running but the vehicle is not moving (this should be comparable independent of the terrain). 

 

There is the results of the Swedish trials:

 

 

Leclerc

Leopard 2 Imp

M1A2

Körd sträcka

3.000 km

3.730 km

3.800 km

Använt bränsle

41.400 liter

26.874 liter

56.488 liter

Bränsleförbrukning

138 liter/10 km

72 liter/10 km

148 liter/10 km

Avlossade skott

235

271

289

 

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

 

So the answer is a lot more than a classic diesel but not much more than a turbocharged engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 3:09 AM, Beer said:

I think that You can't say it even like this. The first thing is that you need to know your own doctrine and a way how you want to use the tanks. T-64/72/80 were built for completely different way of use than the western tanks. Comparing a one against one scenario is wrong for many reasons. 

 

We can see that T-90 and later models of T-72 were successful in Syria and suffered minimal loses despite the operational area being flooded with ATGMs, i.e. it looks like this tanks somehow work with the Arab armies which aren't known for being well trained and effective. As a result Uralvagonzavod won quite a lot of export contracts. On the contrary the reputation of Abrams and Leopard 2 was somewhat damaged in Yemen and Syria. Of course no tank is invulnerable and if it's sitting duck in the open it will be destroyed sooner or later in an ATGM-rich environment. However the long-built aura of invulnerability went to a trash bin. 

 

The media is a strong weapon today. Correct me if I am wrong but AFAIK there is no video of any catastrophic kill of T-90A from Syria. There are however several ones where T-90A or T-72B ob.1989 withstood direct hits from TOW 2 ATGMs to the turret and upper glacis covered by Kontakt-5. On the other hand the two videos with Turkish Leopard 2A4 and Saudi M1A2S exploding in a huge fireball after being hit by rather light Metis ATGM went viral very quickly. Interestigly there is no documented loss of Leclerc in Yemen (I remember only one damaged one by mine). 

 

 

There have been a few T-90s destroyed in Syria and in the Donbass iirc. The Tow-2 should not be that effective against anything with K5. A Tow-2A should have little issue against K5 armored tanks.  A captured T-90A was knocked out by a T-72 for example. APFSDS impact from the side. I suspect it was probably a BM-22/42. That said their combat performance seems to have been very good, and excellent in certain roles. 

 

 

The videos we see are selection bias, tank hunter killer teams in Yemen knew rather well that shooting an Abrams from the front was a death sentence, as you would be spotted by the very good thermal sights rather quickly, a kill not being all that likely. The videos I have seen suggest that the hits to the Abrams occur from the side and near oblique angles to the turret armor. The Abrams reputation for crew suitability seems to be intact. 

 

The Leo-2A4 used in turkey have very poor armor protection, and its likely that it is Type-B. Not sufficient for even the late 1980s. It isn't being used as it would be in the late 1980s however. 

 

There was one Lecerc driver killed with a ATGM hit the hull front. Not sure where the impact was, some suggested it was near the edge of the composite array. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

There is the results of the Swedish trials:

 

 

Leclerc

Leopard 2 Imp

M1A2

Körd sträcka

3.000 km

3.730 km

3.800 km

Använt bränsle

41.400 liter

26.874 liter

56.488 liter

Bränsleförbrukning

138 liter/10 km

72 liter/10 km

148 liter/10 km

Avlossade skott

235

271

289

 

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm

 

So the answer is a lot more than a classic diesel but not much more than a turbocharged engine.

 

Very nice report for reading. That gives quite some input.

Besides that shows that the examinors from Sweden think that the Leo2A6 seems bit better than M1A2 (regarding the discussion above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...