_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Best MBT Today
SS-74
Visit this Community
Vatican City
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 01:04 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

M1A2SEPs

Haven't heard of this guy Sabot, fill me in please


Quoted Text

Personaly, I'd rather use a tank with a good old diesel engine rather than a gas turbine... It doesn't run out of fuel so fast...


Ya it drinks, but it can drink anything. If you run out in a diesel you have to have diesel. If you run out in a turbine you can use just about any fuel you can get your hands on. Pretty big plus in my book. Also its much lighter and quiter.


Was the M1A1 dubbed as the "Silent Death" in the ODS? I saw some document footage of the M1A1, it's really neat that how quiet these machines are, and how fast they are. I suppose with the range/accuracy of the 120mm, the first thing the enemy gonna hear is the impact of the shell on the target rather than the tank itself..... If I ever come around and build anything morden, M1A1 or A2 will be my first choice, then Merkava, then the Leo A6, then the T80 or 90....
Clarkson
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: August 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 01:53 PM UTC
I just read Tom Clancy's Armored Cav and this thread reminds me of a supposedly true story he tells about an M1 in ODS:

"... one M1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted. With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull them out.

Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T-72 fired a HEAT round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage. At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm armor-piercing round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72's turret, blowing it off into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. That also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediately dispatched this T-72 with another 120mm round. After that the third and now last T-72 fired a 125mm armor-piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front armor plate. Seeing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraquis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe there. Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight (TIS) the hot plume of the T-72's engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully through the TIS, the M1's crew fired a third 120mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it."

Has anyone heard a story similar to this involving a Merkava, Challenger or Leopard?
drewgimpy
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
Armorama: 388 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 02:21 PM UTC
Clarkson, I have read that also. He put that in his Desert Storm book also if I recall. Thats a big reason I would put my butt in that tank. The other tanks we are debating are great, I am sure. But the M1A1 has passed some brutal tests and passed with better marks than anyone expected. We took that incredible machine and made it even safer with the A2 version.

P.S. Clarkson, welcome to the site. Hope to hear more from you
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 06:46 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

M1A2SEPs

Haven't heard of this guy Sabot, fill me in please

M1A2 Systems Enhancement Program, next generation of M1 improvements which includes FLIR, hull mounted auxillary power supply, digitized information system, etc. Remember, the M1A1s used during ODS have been updated and improved several times in the last decade as well as having at least 2 versions of the improved M1A1 in the field.

As far as speed and horse power, I doubt any other MBT can touch the M1A1/2 in this area. The main gun is basically the same as many other MBTs, it's the depleted uranium armor as well as the depleted uranium penetrators in the sabot rounds that make this tank untouchable. As far as accuracy, we currently have the ability to detect and engage targets out farther than we can positively identify them. Of course with the ability to electronically track friendly vehicles, it is easier to know that something out there is definitely hostile.
stavka2000
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 10:28 PM UTC
Gents,


SS-74, Sabot, you were right, Iraq didn't use T90 in ODS, I wasn't thinking.

Ranger 74: Thanks for shedding light on the SABOT rounds and their impact. I did not know about the slanting effect on sloped armor. They didn't tell me in infantry NCO school....

Drewgimpy: The Leo1 and 2 have multi fuel engines as well, they can run just about everything that burns

Catskinner: Our YPR765s eat dust too when they try to keep up with Leos. US M133s did too with their M1s. I think the M1 is the fastest, but that apparently is classified. Other sources I've read state the M1 accelerates faster, but a Leopard 2A4 outruns them by about 5 mph. If the Merkava's speed is also classified, we will never know who outruns what


Quoted Text

As far as survivability goes It will eat for breakfast any other MBT currently fielded

Let's hope you will never have to find out what is is like to be on the receiving end of the M1s used by other countries.

Sabot, I too think the M1s have the best armor protection out there. I have a question though. Since the M1 and the Leopard 2 shared their lineage to the MBT70 project they both had for instance the same chobham type armor. Did the early M1A1s have this depl. uranium armour plating already or was it introduced with the M1A1HA?

Thanks,
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 11:14 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

M1A2SEPs

Haven't heard of this guy Sabot, fill me in please

M1A2 Systems Enhancement Program, next generation of M1 improvements which includes FLIR, hull mounted auxillary power supply, digitized information system, etc. Remember, the M1A1s used during ODS have been updated and improved several times in the last decade as well as having at least 2 versions of the improved M1A1 in the field.

As far as speed and horse power, I doubt any other MBT can touch the M1A1/2 in this area. The main gun is basically the same as many other MBTs, it's the depleted uranium armor as well as the depleted uranium penetrators in the sabot rounds that make this tank untouchable. As far as accuracy, we currently have the ability to detect and engage targets out farther than we can positively identify them. Of course with the ability to electronically is track friendly vehicles, it is easier to know that something out there is definitely hostile.


We did not put DU on the original M1s.
DJ
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,065 posts
Armorama: 508 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 01:17 AM UTC

Are there any stats to compare what seems to be the 5 contenders; M1, Challenger, Merkava, T90, and Leopard?

Has the Leopard seen combat? Maybe as part of a U.N. force in the Balkans, etc.

Have newer Merkava's been involved in tank vs. tank combat? I've only seen them in support roles or used against fixed structures.

I know nothing about the T90. Maybe someone has some info on this one.

Steve
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,290 posts
Armorama: 658 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 01:25 AM UTC
Sniper - The only contender having seen combat is the Challenger 2 and that in the Gulf War. The M1, M1A1 (several variants) saw action in the Gulf War. The I do not believe that any variant of the Leo has seen combat, other than some possible run-ins with ground troops in the Balkans, no tank-to-tank. Neither has the LeClerc seen action, I doubt that there are enough T90s to fill a battalion (though I have no proof other than the sorry state of the Russain economy). The early Merkavas, I believe, saw some tank-to-tank action in the Bekaa Valley in 92?, but other than that it has mostly been in counter-terroism ops.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 03:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Sabot, I too think the M1s have the best armor protection out there. I have a question though. Since the M1 and the Leopard 2 shared their lineage to the MBT70 project they both had for instance the same chobham type armor. Did the early M1A1s have this depl. uranium armour plating already or was it introduced with the M1A1HA?
No,original M1s, M1IPs and M1A1s did not have depleted uranium armor. It did have the Chobham armor on the frontal slopes on the turret, forward hull and side skirts (ones over ammo and fuel areas). DU armor came with the M1A1HA, or as we called them "Heavy Common". Heavy meaning they had DU armor and "common" refers to the modifications made to the M1A1 to make it acceptable for the USMC. You can tell a DU M1A1 from an original M1A1 by the "U" in the welded serial number on the side of the turret and hull (i.e. L1234U or D5678U). The "D" means that the tank was made at the Detroit Tank Plant in Warren, MI and the "L" means the tank was made at the tank plant at Lima, Ohio. Rumor had it that Detroit tanks were better than Lima tanks, but I don't know if there is any grounds for this. Both DU and non-DU M1A1s were used during ODS.
penpen
Visit this Community
Hauts-de-Seine, France
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 04:28 AM UTC
i just took a look at Jane's IDR figures and I was surprised by the difference in weight among the MBTs.
Western MBTs all weight between 55 and 70 tons... russian, ukrainian and chinese are all 45 to 46 tons heavy.
Does anyone have an idea about the reasons for such a difference ?
drewgimpy
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
Armorama: 388 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 05:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text

i just took a look at Jane's IDR figures and I was surprised by the difference in weight among the MBTs.
Western MBTs all weight between 55 and 70 tons... russian, ukrainian and chinese are all 45 to 46 tons heavy.
Does anyone have an idea about the reasons for such a difference ?


The main reason I have heard is that the western countries put more value on keeping the crew alive. The weight difference is in the armor that protects the crew. I think that’s why nobody is really considering the T-90 in the ranks of the other 4. The soviet plan was to overwhelm with the number of tanks and large guns if I recall. Please feel free to correct anything that's not correct above (or anywhere else in my post for that matter).

Don't have the quote here, but thanks for letting me know that the other tanks can use other fuels also, didn't know that.

I didn't state that other countries don't use depleted uranium sabot rounds because I didn't have any documented information saying so, but I think it is the case. Could you clarify that for me Sabot? Also on the armor, does any other country use DU armor? If not that seams like enough to put it ahead of the others since so many other things are the similar.
sgtreef
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 05:12 AM UTC
I will take any onne that gets my butt into battle and back out of battle in one piece
sgtreef
Visit this Community
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 05:17 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

i just took a look at Jane's IDR figures and I was surprised by the difference in weight among the MBTs.
Western MBTs all weight between 55 and 70 tons... russian, ukrainian and chinese are all 45 to 46 tons heavy.
Does anyone have an idea about the reasons for such a difference ?


The main reason I have heard is that the western countries put more value on keeping the crew alive. The weight difference is in the armor that protects the crew. I think that’s why nobody is really considering the T-90 in the ranks of the other 4. The soviet plan was to overwhelm with the number of tanks and large guns if I recall. Please feel free to correct anything that's not correct above (or anywhere else in my post for that matter).

Don't have the quote here, but thanks for letting me know that the other tanks can use other fuels also, didn't know that.

I didn't state that other countries don't use depleted uranium sabot rounds because I didn't have any documented information saying so, but I think it is the case. Could you clarify that for me Sabot? Also on the armor, does any other country use DU armor? If not that seams like enough to put it ahead of the others since so many other things are the similar.


You are Right Drew The russians did not care how many troops wre lost as they got the job done the Communist way. The ends equal the means
penpen
Visit this Community
Hauts-de-Seine, France
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 05:56 AM UTC
France has used DU rounds for some years... but they were phased out.

From what I've read about american DU rounds, the industrials that sold the DU cheated. It should have been some rather "safe" material with few toxic chemicals in it, made from raw uranium... In fact, the DU used in the rounds is full awful products, residues from nuclear reactions in power plants...
Instead of making new material, they sold the crap that they had left from power plants...
And then, we wonder why the vehicles hit by such rounds have to be decontaminated.
stavka2000
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, September 06, 2002 - 09:54 AM UTC
Sniper,

Here are some links for the various tanks mentioned. Dunno which Merkava version they're talking about, but it isn't very fast.

Abrams
Leopard 2
Merkava

Ranger74 is correct, there have been no occurences of combat involving the Leopard 2 either tank vs tank or tank vs troops. I think they were afraid enough :-)


Quoted Text


I didn't state that other countries don't use depleted uranium sabot rounds because I didn't have any documented information saying so, but I think it is the case. Could you clarify that for me Sabot? Also on the armor, does any other country use DU armor? If not that seams like enough to put it ahead of the others since so many other things are the similar.

Andrew, Challenger and M1 have DU. Leopard does not. I do not know what our British friends use in their ammo, but the German sabots made for the leopard use tungsten alloys. I think my country uses these as well. Also, the leopard CAN fire the American M829 series. My guess is that this is a handy result of having the same tank gun.

Okay, I am back to playing Steel Beasts now :-)
Sabotshooter
Visit this Community
Mississippi, United States
Joined: May 11, 2002
KitMaker: 63 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 07, 2002 - 09:51 AM UTC
Hey don't know if this means anything but according to Armor magazine the Leo 2 A5 was the current #1 pick followed by the M1A2. I can't remember the order of the rest except that the T-72 came in 10th and it was listed only due to it's cost. Some of the other's I remember were the Leclerc,Challenger 2, and Black Eagle. Hope this is insightful to someone.

Stephen Magee
sniper
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,065 posts
Armorama: 508 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 03:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hey don't know if this means anything but according to Armor magazine the Leo 2 A5 was the current #1 pick followed by the M1A2. I can't remember the order of the rest except that the T-72 came in 10th and it was listed only due to it's cost. Some of the other's I remember were the Leclerc,Challenger 2, and Black Eagle. Hope this is insightful to someone.

Stephen Magee


Do you mean #1 as the "best tank?"

I would be interested to hear how they judged this and what criteria they used to come up with the rankings.

What reason for the Leo being ahead of the Abrams?

Thanks!
Steve
stavka2000
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 04:17 AM UTC
Sniper,

My guess is they looked at more than just firepower, top speed etc.

I think the M1 has better armor, but if we look at other stuff, there are tradeoffs. It is my understanding an M1 burns 55 gph even when sitting still as opposed to a Leo which burns about 5 gph on idle and 55 at top speed. While the US army has the best logistics of any Nato member, that could have been considered in the judgement. Also, a well trained crew could be better than a guy with the newest tank and the worst crews. Firepower is the same, so again it comes down to the protection and don't get me wrong, even having no DU doesn't mean it is a running deathtrap! I'd feel safe in any Western European tank.

I'd like to see a copy of the article that Sabotshooter mentioned. Would be interesting to see what they judged.

Meanwhile, I'll keep my money evenly between M1 and Leo. Aesthetically I like the Leo better, but that is all in the eye of the beholder. :-)

Cheers,
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 07:24 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Also, a well trained crew could be better than a guy with the newest tank and the worst crews.
No offense to our German allies, but you have to remember that the US has an all-volunteer force. The Abrams crew is there because they want to be a tanker in the US Army. Their morale is high, and if they are in a cavalry named unit, their espirit d'corps is among the highest in our armed forces. Most soldiers tend to enlist intially for a 6 year tour, giving the tank a crew that has trained together for quite a long while. Heck, I was an officer and had the same crew for 3 years. They moved with me from my platoon leader's tank to my executive officer's tank within the same company. It's not unheard of for a private to go through the ranks to staff sergeant on the same tank during his enlistment.

The Bundeswehr, on the other hand, has a conscript army and I believe some of the lower enlisted can serve as little as 18 months. And this includes basic training and specialty training. This puts turnover for the average tank crew at about one man per year (I assume that at least 2 of the crewmen stay past their mandatory time). Be hard to keep a crew trained with that much turmoil.

I believe they picked the Leopard 2A5 because of the fire control system, but I could be wrong. I've seen regular Leopard 2s in action and back then would not have traded my M1A1 for it and a new Mercedes of my choice. I'd put my money on an average M1A2 tank and crew over an average Leopard 2A5 tank and crew any day of the week.
Tiger101
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 08:46 AM UTC
Just my 2 cents... The T-90 is just a upgraded T-72. Due to the collapse of the Russian economy they could not afford to produce the T-80 in any quantity. As a non export item it was not cost effective. the T-80 and T-90 have not proven themselves against an armored force.(T-80's did not operate in ODS).

The M1A1, A2 is a fine example of the balance of firepower, speed, and crew surivability. It is the only PROVEN entity here.

That said the Upgrade program on the Leopard 2 (A5) seems to follow the M1 in the search for the holy grail (balance of firepower, speed, and crew surivability) it has not been given a chance to prove it self YET. The Bundeswehr has another upgrade up it's sleeve the Lep 2 A6 with a larger main gun.

Only time will tell who has the better tank. It really depends upon the ruler you use to measure the thing. What is important to you? Firepower, speed, or crew surivability.

Just my Humble opinion.
stavka2000
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:01 AM UTC
Hello Sabot,

I don't think the Germans are offended by your point but maybe some old Dutch conscripts that won the CAT with their 2A4s might Motivation was generally okay, they were unionized :-)

Before 1996 we typically trained the conscript crews during the training for tanks, then put them in a line unit and after their time was up the unit would automatically rotate into a mobilisation unit. Theoretically, these guys would then reunite whenever there was war in the same unit. Granted, their skills deteriorated, but that's the same with a volunteer what went into inactive reserve. You would have a typical warning time before a major war during the cold war anyway to get up to snuff again. After 1996 this changed as we got all volunteer too.

Of course, inactive reserve is a problem the US doesn't have with their force structure I think. I sometimes wish my own government would do the same.

I served in 1993-1994 as a conscript SGT and I would say that it was one of the best times ever. I heard about other countries with their motivation problems but I'd say that although sometimes the BS factor was high, when the tough stuff needed to be done, our people delivered.

Tiger101, A6 doesn't only have the longer gun, but the Battlefield Management System similar to what the US have is installed as well a smaller engine with higher output which leaves room for airconditioners. They considered an autoloader for the A6 but it luckily wasn't implemented. Yet.

Cheers,
Tiger101
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: March 02, 2002
KitMaker: 902 posts
Armorama: 628 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:14 AM UTC
Stavaka2000 thanks for the info. This link gives the backround on the 2 A5 & A6 you might like it. Leopard 2A5
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 11:44 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hello Sabot,

I don't think the Germans are offended by your point but maybe some old Dutch conscripts that won the CAT with their 2A4s might Motivation was generally okay, they were unionized :-)

Hmmm, I just reviewed my previous post and did not notice anything directed towards the Dutch, specified or implied. Not that I have anything against the Dutch, my parents are from Gouda and the majority of my family still lives there. (Do a search of my last name for people in the Netherlands and everyone you find is either an uncle, aunt or cousin).

I am unaware of the current organization of the Dutch military forces and their method of manning. Unionized army? I'd think the overtime pay would break your country's treasury if you were ever forced into full mobilization.
stavka2000
Visit this Community
Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 09, 2002 - 10:42 PM UTC
Hi Sabot,

I hope you know I was joking! I know you didn't direct anything against the Dutch but we have those Leos and had conscripts too. I felt I had to stick up for my German friends too

The current organization is all-volunteer, with the volunteers going to inactive reserve at the end of their term (couple of years).

The union was for conscripts, obviously overtime was out of the question in wartime

I always suspected your name was Dutch, but then once you mentioned being from Hungarian descent etc so I figured it wasn't. Do you still speak some Dutch? Come by on the Dutch part of the forum sometime then.

Thanks,
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 12:49 AM UTC
Nope, not Hungarian, nor have I ever stated I was. My parents used to yell at us in Dutch and I used to be able to converse with some broken Dutch to my relatives I visited while stationed in Germany. Never learned to read or write the language and since it's been 12 years since I talked bad Dutch to a relative, I doubt I would be able to participate in even a rudimentary means.

Our country was a draftee army back in the day. I know we have better trained crews today than we did back in the days of the draft.
 _GOTOTOP