Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 10/29/2019 at 12:58 PM, Beer said:

 

Unfortunately You didn't get the point of my post. I wanted to say that it's extremely difficult to define what does it mean to be the best and that even one against one comparison is not a good one. Even the very same thing can be the best for someone and a pain in the ass for someone else. Of course I also didnť try to claim that the T series tanks are the best :) 

 

With the T-90A example I tried to show an example of a scenario where such tank works maybe better than for example Abrams. The use of Abrams by similar military of Iraq has been rather problematic mainly due to claimed very low serviceable numbers. Regarding the actual combat loses I would say in both cases most of them can be attributed to an incompetence of their users. I know some T-90A were destroyed in Syria but despite having thousands of ATGM strikes on youtube we don't have any of a catastrophic explosion of a tank of late Soviet or post Soviet origin in Syria while we have tons of them with old T-72M1 or A models. 

 

By the way no T-90A loss is documented in Donbas among more than thousand of documented destroyed armoured vehicles. Only several T-72B3 and 72B mod.1989 from the relatively modern tanks. From what I have read the T-90A were used only briefly during the summer 2014 ofensive in Lugans area where they defeated the 1st tank brigade of Ukrainean army equipped with T-64BM in a night fight.  

 

Sure I understand that the Abrams M1A2S and Leopard 2A4 spectacularly destroyed on the videos were hits from side onto a tank sitting in the open. However to claim that the reputation for crew survivability of Abrams stayed intact after that is a bit too bold claim. In that very case if the crew was inside it was sure killed by the explosion. I am not saying the tanks are bad, I'm saying that a large part of their reputation comes from the fact that they have been mostly used by very potent militaries. When they are being used by less competent users the story changes. I think some Izraeli general said after Six day war that even if the militaries switched their hardware the result of the war would be most likely same. 

 

Thanks for the info about Leclerc in Yemen. 

 

Sorry for the late reply.. It does appear we agree on much. 

 

As for the T-90A in the UKR, a talk was given on youtube by a US adviser in the Donbas, he stated that T-90s were used in one the the battles for Donetsk airport and very hard to knock out. Perhaps he is mistaken. I will try and find he video

 

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 9:57 PM, SH_MM said:

Technologically, there is no lead on either side.

There used to be but one of the outcomes of the idiotic arrogant ITAR rules was the US lead being eroded.  I agree, state of the art, no lead for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve had no issues working with ITAR. Having almost two decades of firsthand experience exporting controlled/military technologies from the UK, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Israel, Canada, & the US, for both government & private entities, I’ll take ITAR/EAR any day of the week. There’s a lot of ignorance/assumptions/old wives tales about ITAR, generally by people who think that they can bypass/outsmart process process monkeys & fail dismally. 

Share this post


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

I’ve had no issues working with ITAR. Having almost two decades of firsthand experience exporting controlled/military technologies from the UK, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Israel, Canada, & the US, for both government & private entities, I’ll take ITAR/EAR any day of the week. There’s a lot of ignorance/assumptions/old wives tales about ITAR, generally by people who think that they can bypass/outsmart process process monkeys & fail dismally. 

Me too, slightly longer but different (about 25 years) experience on the receiving end in Australia.  Always injects big chunks of lost time and the rues are applied idiotically for maximum revenue tor US primes.  Got a cable connecting two ITAR items?  Congratulations, that is also an ITAR item and now costs 100 times a non-ITAR cable doing the same job,  A drawing of that cable (2 conductors in a sheath) is also ITAR controlled.  Ridiculous.

 

The organizations I work with these days go out of their way to eliminate any US ITAR related components at the design stage as far as possible.  Quite often cost dollars but significant de-risk.  The money spent drives competitive non-US solutions.

 

Any kind of dependency on the US is a risk - and we are bloody allies!

 

And a chuck of that experience was with night tubes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Me too, slightly longer but different (about 25 years) experience on the receiving end in Australia.  Always injects big chunks of lost time and the rues are applied idiotically for maximum revenue tor US primes.  Got a cable connecting two ITAR items?  Congratulations, that is also an ITAR item and now costs 100 times a non-ITAR cable doing the same job,  A drawing of that cable (2 conductors in a sheath) is also ITAR controlled.  Ridiculous.

 

The organizations I work with these days go out of their way to eliminate any US ITAR related components at the design stage as far as possible.  Quite often cost dollars but significant de-risk.  The money spent drives competitive non-US solutions.

 

Any kind of dependency on the US is a risk - and we are bloody allies!

 

And a chuck of that experience was with night tubes...

Sounds like the relevant TAAs weren’t sorted in advance, or they’re not applying the DTCT. 
 

Image Intensification tubes are now covered under the DTCT - no lead times, apart from production lead times. 

Share this post


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

are now

yeah, I am old....  Not so much the TAAs but how the vendors use "its ITAR" Much like Classification, everybody defaults too high, too wide etc,  The clear motive in the ITAR case is to tie customers into equipment that they must purchase (in a support sense) from the OEM in perpetuity with the associated immense cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing out this interesting side bar to the Leopard 2 discussion; the motives aren’t just commercial, they’re legal. Nobody wants to risk criminal charges by erring in applying export controls, so, of course they’re sometimes applied with more rigour than what’s strictly necessary. Also, violating the licence risks losing access to the technology and support. 

 

Anyway, back to over-engineered German tanks that still haven’t fought another tank in their 40-year history (kidding!). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the 40 year anniversary of Leopard 2 at KMW in Munich it had been announced that the German Army Leopard 2 A7 will get TROPHY from RAFAEL as an additional active protection system. The decision was made against the Rheinmetall ADS.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is typical "Welt" reporting. They have heard about the 17 units of Trophy purchased for the VJTF and thinking this is valid for the complete fleet...

 

Trophy's defeat mechanism isn't secret and KMW also isn't the one to decide which APS will be fitted to the Leopard 2 MBT, but the countries operating it. Stupid video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

This is typical "Welt" reporting. They have heard about the 17 units of Trophy purchased for the VJTF and thinking this is valid for the complete fleet...

 

Trophy's defeat mechanism isn't secret and KMW also isn't the one to decide which APS will be fitted to the Leopard 2 MBT, but the countries operating it. Stupid video.

I seems that you are the best IBD, now Rheinmetall supporter of this blog and unable to accept the reality that KMW is the prime of Leopard and Rheinmetalls only suppliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

I seems that you are the best IBD, now Rheinmetall supporter of this blog and unable to accept the reality that KMW is the prime of Leopard and Rheinmetalls only suppliers.

 

Or you could defend your position instead of going straight to ad hominem.

Share this post


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

I seems that you are the best IBD, now Rheinmetall supporter of this blog and unable to accept the reality that KMW is the prime of Leopard and Rheinmetalls only suppliers.

 

You are the only one in this topic who has some sort of fandom for one company instead of looking at all options. KMW announced at their "40 years of Leopard 2" event, that they will hand over the first Leopard 2 with Trophy to the BAAINBw in a few weeks. Welt stupidly took this is as "this means Germany will buy Trophy for all Leopard 2 tanks".

 

As a matter of fact not only Rheinmetall has developed its own APS, but also KMW and Diehl - so there is no reason to buy Trophy once the desired levels of technology readiness levels are reached. Even when buying a foreign system, Trophy should come as second choice behind Elbit/IMI's better Iron Fist system. But when the BAAINBw tested three types of APS (Rheinmetall ADS, Iron Fist & Trophy) for potential installation on the Leopard 2 tanks for VJTF, all of them failed to meet the requirements. Trophy however was rated with the highest level of technology readiness and therefore chosen as urgent material request for the Leopard 2. BAAINBw specifically announced that this is no final decision for the whole German tank fleet.

 

Speaking of 40 years of Leopard 2:

 

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-01.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-02.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-03.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-04.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-05.jpg

 

And Leopard 2A7V for Germany:

KMW-LEOPARD-2A7V.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

You are the only one in this topic who has some sort of fandom for one company instead of looking at all options. KMW announced at their "40 years of Leopard 2" event, that they will hand over the first Leopard 2 with Trophy to the BAAINBw in a few weeks. Welt stupidly took this is as "this means Germany will buy Trophy for all Leopard 2 tanks".

 

As a matter of fact not only Rheinmetall has developed its own APS, but also KMW and Diehl - so there is no reason to buy Trophy once the desired levels of technology readiness levels are reached. Even when buying a foreign system, Trophy should come as second choice behind Elbit/IMI's better Iron Fist system. But when the BAAINBw tested three types of APS (Rheinmetall ADS, Iron Fist & Trophy) for potential installation on the Leopard 2 tanks for VJTF, all of them failed to meet the requirements. Trophy however was rated with the highest level of technology readiness and therefore chosen as urgent material request for the Leopard 2. BAAINBw specifically announced that this is no final decision for the whole German tank fleet.

 

Speaking of 40 years of Leopard 2:

 

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-01.jpg

Spoiler


KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-02.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-03.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-04.jpg

KMW-40-Jahre-Leopard-2-05.jpg

 

And Leopard 2A7V for Germany:

KMW-LEOPARD-2A7V.JPG

 

 

So it seems that you got an invitation and had been there!

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...