Tanks

[Baff1 0]

Quantity has a quality of its own. All military should apply that to their doctrine/principal policy. If they want to save the Netherlands' date=' they should reïnstitute draft again. Good for youth teaching them respect, and manners, and good for defence against EU governing madman, selling our nations to OPEC behind our backs.[/quote']

Quantity can deploy in two places at once.

It can outmanouvre.

Nelsons Law of battlefield statistics shows that quantity also reduces casualties.

I'm not sure that I can agree that Hitler's wars failed because he chose the wrong tank design. Sorry.

I think that half of the population of the planet uniting to defeat him was probably a more significant factor.

---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

So all systems are doomed to fail but the militarized, nationalistic autarchy is forever? Don't count on it. Sparta falls first when the chips are really down.

Historically, Sparta always fell last. If at all.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Baff1

[JdB 151]

Historically, Sparta always fell last. If at all.

Good geographical location combined with superior command, training and mentality. The reason classical Sparta (or rather Lacedaemon) lost it's regional power was due to problems in society itself (the helots starting to outnumber the full citizens more and more, a similar problem with the loss of manpower as the Romans experienced).

[Baff1 0]

Not just that. Their limited ambitions kept them out of the way.

Prevented their armies from fighting in ground they were not suited for or did not know better than everybody elses.

It's like invading Switzerland. Ultimately it would be extremely difficult and not worth it, plus... they aren't a real threat to anyone else.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Baff1

[kireta21 13]

Back to tanks

There's something I saw on youtube recently

, it starts at 1:35. New turret for M1?

[Beagle 684]

Back to tanks

There's something I saw on youtube recently

, it starts at 1:35. New turret for M1?

looks like a mock-up or unfinished one...you would not see a "secret prototype" unveiled on a cargo bed. Edited January 16, 2011 by Beagle

[dm 9]

New turret for M1?

Interesting catch.

Lulz at the comments "omg its a 155 barrel", uh no kids, its still 120mm, just the yanks have finally caught up with the whole L55 thing :rolleyes:

Interesting turret design tho, looks somewhat like Challenger 2 from the rear, and somewhat like a cross between Leo 2A4 and Leclerc from the front.

Will have to dig around a bit and see what I can find.

[Beagle 684]

Maybe a new turret with autoloader. A autoloader was planned in the KW III update for the Leo II A5 back in the late 90's but cancelled due to budget shortness. that would explain the the "growth" of the turret for a larger magazine.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

It was discussed on militaryphotos.net. Apparently it's developed from the CATTB project from the 1980s for dual-calibre gun, autoloader and stuff.

It seems it's being used as a technology demonstrator for the Abrams Block.III/M1A3 program (i.e M1A3 may use the new gun etc) but the prototype itself is not completely new.

[dm 9]

So it is.

Some fairly interesting (and detailed, if poorly scanned) info on the CATTB project can be found here

[Pyronick 21]

Nothing! There is nothing special in a Abrams nowadays. The abrams is already too old and never got much upgrades. It is inferior to real 21. century MBT in production and fielded.

at current moment.

The Leopard 2A6 is also outdated, although much less than the M1A2 Abrams, which still depends on DU armour and first-gen gasturbine engines. Since then the Leopard 2 PSO (a modern rendition of the TUSK upgrade) and the Leopard 2A7+ have been developed. Modern tanks are the Japanese Type 10, Korean K2 Black Panther, Israëli Merkava Mk. 4, French Le Clerc and the British Challenger 2. Which will be joined by the Indian Karna and the Turkish MİTÜP Altay soon.

And I even think the Leopard 3 is not far away. But due to the austerities of customer nations (most EU countries, Chili and Canada) it is likely to be either postponed or maybe even cancelled.

Remember that the Leopard 2 still uses torsion-bar suspension (used only in cheap cars these days) designed in the seventies and is only now matched by modern hydropneumatic suspensions. Only the transmission is truely outdated (like most Western tanks) and will probably be replaced by a new EuroPower pack with hydraulic transmissions.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans would opt for auto-loaders like the French did. It does save space, weight and an expensive crew member.

Edited January 17, 2011 by SgtH3nry3

[Beagle 684]

I compare only Platforms in service, not any kind of experimental stuff. A Leo3 is far far away and the concept of a next gen tank was cancelled in favor for more Puma IFV to fullfill some of the roles the Leo A4 MBT and the retired "Jagdpanzer" had.

The A7+ and PSO are just private ventures made by KMW without any commisions and without customers for quite a while.

Armies all over the world (ecept China) will not get much new toys for quite a while, its simply a budget question...and why replace a system thats still does the job good enough.

The Luftwaffe still flyes F4 Phantoms, with APG-65 Radar and AIM-120B under the fuselage.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Beagle

[Pyronick 21]

I compare only Platforms in service, not any kind of experimental stuff. A Leo3 is far far away and the concept of a next gen tank was cancelled in favor for more Puma IFV to fullfill some of the roles the Leo A4 MBT and the retired "Jagdpanzer" had.

The A7+ and PSO are just private ventures made by KMW without any commisions and without customers for quite a while.

Don't forget the financial problems of KMW in the early 2000's. If it wasn't for the Puma things would have gone differently. Austerities have shaken up armed forces to the point they can't even comply to the bilateral NATO agreement. Which is devastating for the military industry and it's suppliers.

Armies all over the world (ecept China) will not get much new toys for quite a while, its simply a budget question...and why replace a system thats still does the job good enough.

You forgot about Brazil and Mexico, which are still in the process of modernizing their armies. Especially Brazil looking to upgrade their old stock of Leopard 1A1's and 1A5's.

The Luftwaffe still flyes F4 Phantoms, with F-15C Radar and AIM-120 under the fuselage.

The Luftwaffe also flew MiG-29's. But don't forget that the unification (or rather rebuilding) of Germany is still in progress. Which also explains the enormous economic growth and modernisation.

Those JG71 Phantom's will be replaced by Typhoons very soon.

[dm 9]

Nothing! There is nothing special in a Abrams nowadays. The abrams is already too old and never got much upgrades. It is inferior to real 21. century MBT in production and fielded.

at current moment.

Heh, chuckles.

Zomg Abrams sucks, leo rules!

Its almost as bad as all the russia strong bs.

Bottom line is, kids, they're all made by the lowest bidder.

If you want to talk age, Leo 2 is based on a design 3 years older than that of the Abrams, the Leo 2 design in turn based on experiences gained with the Leo 1. (First prototypes of the Leo 2 being worked on in 73, XM1 prototypes not being delivered until 76.) Technically speaking, however, this experience should produce a better design. BUT it all depends on how the designers comprimise between mobility, firepower and survivability. Which can have a HUGE effect on the quality of the vehicle.

The A6 upgrade features armour enhancements, L55 gun, software and FCS upgrades. Guess what, with the exception of the L55, so does the SEP/TUSK project.

At the end of the day, you can wave your nationalistic pride about until you're blue in the face, but until Leos go toe to toe with Challengers and Abrams and Leclercs and T-90s then there is no way of knowing which design is truly best. Believing the marketing gumpf is not a good point to start at, nor is the performance of CR1's and Abrams in the 1st Gulf War :rolleyes: (although longest range tank-tank kill is still rather neat, even if it was a sitting duck of a target)

[NoRailgunner 0]

...and I thought the "best tank" is only operated by the best trained tank crew and maintained by the best engineers. Damn why no one said that to the politicians - drop some empty but badass looking vehicles into a warzone - tata - peace. :cool:

[king homer 1]

And I thought this is not going to be another kindergarten tank comparison thread.

PS: DM, I'd choose the Abrams over the Leopard. ;-)

[dm 9]

And I thought this is not going to be another kindergarten tank comparison thread.

Show me a tank thread on the internet that doesnt, and I'll eat my hat :p

PS: DM, I'd choose the Abrams over the Leopard. ;-)

Hehe, well my nationalistic pride would make me choose Challenger 2, even tho like every other tank, it has its flaws.

[maddogx 13]

Hehe, well my nationalistic pride would make me choose Challenger 2, even tho like every other tank, it has its flaws.

No it doesn't! It is totally the awesomest tank evar!

[Baff1 0]

Heh, chuckles.

Zomg Abrams sucks, leo rules!

Its almost as bad as all the russia strong bs.

Bottom line is, kids, they're all made by the lowest bidder.

No. They aren't.

Because the lowest bidder doesn't sell to everyone. It only sells to it's friends.

I'll give you an example. Autoloaders. Many people here have been discussing the addition of autoloaders to western tanks.

Notably, no one has suggested buying them from Russia. The world leader in autoloader technology, the lowest bidder in the arms trade.

So if the lowest bidder won't sell to you, then you have to develop your own, which is more expensive, or buy from someone overpriced who is friendly towards you.

Because of the uncertainty of being able to buy weapons or ammuntion many countries prefer to pay more to develop their own so that they will always have access to the military technology they consider vital to their defence.

An example of this would be the British Challenger tank. They could have brought Abrams, or Leopard or Leclerc. They could have bought Merkava (or even T72 and T80 from the Ukraine). They could have bought Japanese or Korean.

But they didn't. They bought from the highest bidder of all.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Baff1

[dm 9]

No. They aren't.

Because the lowest bidder doesn't sell to everyone. It only sells to it's friends

Ok, clarification:

the lowest available bidder.

[Baff1 0]

If you take my example of the British Challenger, they went for the highest available bidder.

Price really isn't the only priority in arms purchasing. I concur with you to a great extent, but under closer inspection that old adage doesn't really hold up.

Our militaries have changed doctrine and downsized. Going for a few very expensive units over lots of cheap ones and more critically, protecting their own national industries to provide military independance.

In the Gulf War for example,... or was it the Falklands...the Belgians refused to sell the British ammuntion. Our suppliers cut us off because they did not agree with our war. So we have to be able to make our own equipment and ammo, even if it costs more to do so.

Also, if you have secret technology, can you put a price on it? British radar in WW2?

Would Russia have won WW2 if they were unable to produce their own tanks?

So many countries will choose to build domestically even if it costs more than their other options.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Baff1

[Tonci87 163]

For that reason you should always try to make equipment that is easy and cheap to maintain. Sadly many gear that is used in the western world has really enourmous maintainance costs

[da12thMonkey 1943]

If you take my example of the British Challenger, they went for the highest available bidder.

Everybody knows that British procurement isn't logical. You can hardly use it as any sort of basis for proving or disproving a point.

I'd agree though that most big contracts are awarded on a political basis, at least as much as they are economic. This doesn't mean though, that there wont be pressure on the manufacturer to try and cut manufacturing cost at the expense of quality.

You'd be surprised though, how much having a reasonable capability advantage over the competition does affect the MoD's opinion of your bid these days, in spite of cost.

[Pyronick 21]

For that reason you should always try to make equipment that is easy and cheap to maintain. Sadly many gear that is used in the western world has really enourmous maintainance costs

Because Western armed forces also complement the Western labour market. Also one of the many reasons why the NATO opts for professional armed forces instead of conscription based armed forces. It could actually be the only true reason why the alliance still exists.

Our entire western world is built on industrial and specifically service based economies. A product that is expensive, durable and reliable as long as you service it properly makes more money and jobs than a cheap product that is always reliable and free from maintenance.

Also every nation that joins the NATO or the EU or anything similar creates a huge economical boost. For instance Albania and Croatia are in the middle of a huge modernization project. Eventually that will deliver their citizens jobs for constructing new buildings, installing fiber optics for internet, developing new software, designing new clothes, etc. And eventually they earn enough to expand their expenditure themselves, creating new jobs for their new houses, etc.

Expensive maintenance is in our case an enormous advantage. That is until people start to stop maintenance contracts because the banking world collapses.

[Tonci87 163]

Man I'm from Croatia and i can tell you that maintenance costs can be a real pain in the ass. Croatia had to put their Hind Fleet out of service because of to high maintenance costs (financial crisis).

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Our entire western world is built on industrial and specifically service based economies. A product that is expensive, durable and reliable as long as you service it properly makes more money and jobs than a cheap product that is always reliable and free from maintenance.

Also every nation that joins the NATO or the EU or anything similar creates a huge economical boost. For instance Albania and Croatia are in the middle of a huge modernization project. Eventually that will deliver their citizens jobs for constructing new buildings, installing fiber optics for internet, developing new software, designing new clothes, etc. And eventually they earn enough to expand their expenditure themselves, creating new jobs for their new houses, etc.

That is a Keynesian fallacy built on creating a false aggregate demand that is sponsored by the government and helps them rationalize why they are entitled to your money (i.e. build bridges, roads, infrastructure and spend money on education and its bloated, inefficient bureaucratic system).

It Is Not the Aggregate Demand, Stupid!

http://mises.org/daily/4284

The only way that statement of yours would be true is if you are producing and selling this military hardware/technology to foreign countries.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Hans Ludwig