The Germans are coming!

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4421
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 01:17

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:Nothing wrong with it, just that it's getting rather old.


And what's better than the Leopard 2 either currently fielded or under development??

I would say that currently the top 3 MBTs in the world are precisely the Leopard 2, the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 (and not by any particular order).

The French Leclerc is a 50 ton class MBT while all the 3 above (including the Leo2) are 60 ton class tanks so it likely not so well protected (armour wise).
The Israeli Merkava IV is a good contender but in the end this is a different beast - it can carry 4 soldiers plus the usual crew - so it's a bit of a mixture of a MBT with very limited IFV capabilities.

The Leopard 2A6 has the best gun of all MBTs, namely compared to all of the above.


But the Abrams has the best ammo. If they could fire the M829A3 through an L55. . .
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4421
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 01:19

SpudmanWP wrote:Speaking as an M1 tanker, the tracks make more noise than my turbine engine. The turbo diesel on my old M60A3 was MUCH louder than my tracks however.


My all time favorite Abrams vid:

:lmao:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3217
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 02:13

sferrin wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Speaking as an M1 tanker, the tracks make more noise than my turbine engine. The turbo diesel on my old M60A3 was MUCH louder than my tracks however.


My all time favorite Abrams vid :lmao:

You know, I don’t think the mud was the important part; it was more th at it was stuck in a rut.

Anyway, I look at the tank issue this way: when was the last “generation” of long haul trucks? Has anything fundamental changed in the last three decades, or has it just been upgrading features on the same basic design?

MBTs are a mature technology, and about all you can do is switch up the weight class you are aiming for or tinker around the edges. If you plan to design a new one from the ground up, it better be because you really need a feature that can’t fit into the old one.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2688
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 05:00

The M1A2 SEP3 is pretty much state of the art at the moment, and the SEP4 will be even more lethal/survivable.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1448
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 05:16

wrightwing wrote:The M1A2 SEP3 is pretty much state of the art at the moment, and the SEP4 will be even more lethal/survivable.


After googling M1A2 SEP3, I could find no mention of any sort of active anti-missile defense system similar to the Israeli Trophy system. Does SEPv3 include such a system? Or is one planned for SEPv4? Or...?

ETA: Found this story:
Missile Defense For Tanks: Raytheon Quick Kill Vs. Israeli Trophy
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on March 09, 2016 at 2:07 PM

WASHINGTON: After two decades of dithering and delay, the Army wants to give its armored vehicles the ability to shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles. What’s more, while the service will continue its own long-term, in-house research program, the Army is now willing to accept something “not invented here” so it can get an interim Active Protection System (APS) fielded in two years.

... blah blah blah < read it at the jump > ...

https://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/missile-defense-for-tanks-raytheon-quick-kill-vs-israeli-trophy/


Sounds like the USArmy has been creaping forward on this technology at its usual glacial pace and they are hoping to field something this year.
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 12:12

sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:Nothing wrong with it, just that it's getting rather old.


And what's better than the Leopard 2 either currently fielded or under development??

I would say that currently the top 3 MBTs in the world are precisely the Leopard 2, the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 (and not by any particular order).

The French Leclerc is a 50 ton class MBT while all the 3 above (including the Leo2) are 60 ton class tanks so it likely not so well protected (armour wise).
The Israeli Merkava IV is a good contender but in the end this is a different beast - it can carry 4 soldiers plus the usual crew - so it's a bit of a mixture of a MBT with very limited IFV capabilities.

The Leopard 2A6 has the best gun of all MBTs, namely compared to all of the above.


But the Abrams has the best ammo. If they could fire the M829A3 through an L55. . .


I can't see any reason why the L55 (Leopard 2A6 gun) couldn't fire the M829A3 round. The L55 is just a long barrel version of the L44 gun which is the same gun found on the M1 Abrams or the Leopard 2A4 and 2A5.
I would say that the only reason why the Leopard 2 doesn't use the M829A3 is political - their users don't want to use Depleted Uranium (DU) rounds on their tanks.
But yes, I agree that the M829A3 is the best Anti-Tank/Penetrating round.

And please note that when I said that the 3 best tanks in the world are the "Leopard 2, the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2", I didn't say this in any particular order. If one of you said that the latest version of the M1 Abrams is slightly better than the latest version of the Leopard 2, I likely wouldn't dispute that.
I would say that Leopard 2, the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 may have some advantages between each others but overall they are basically on the same/similar level.
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 16:07

This isn't tank-net.com
Offline

loke

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 09:46

mtrman wrote:
loke wrote:....

To NATO a few F-35 more or less would not make a big difference. How many F-35 will NATO countries have by 2030?

There will also be non-NATO countries that are nevertheless close allies of NATO countries that will also have quite significant numbers of F-35; in Europe there will be Finland (perhaps 64 F-35, one of the largest F-35 operators in Europe!?) and of course in Asia-pacific there will be Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, etc., in the ME of course Israel will have a huge F-35 fleet in 2030...

...



@loke, why don't you count possible 100+ F-35s of Turkey?


What do you mean?

I referred to all NATO F-35 in one line, and then I mentioned some specific non-NATO F-35 countries that are close allies of NATO.
Offline

loke

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 09:57

ricnunes wrote:Just because something was designed decades ago doesn't mean that this same something is obsolete and needs replacement. For example is the M-16 or M-4 Assault Rifles becoming outdated? I don't think so!

This just means that nothing newer and better has come.
Not all technologies evolves at the same pace. Just because current fighter aircraft are becoming obsolete doesn't mean that current MBTs (or Assault Rifles) are obsolete as well.

This is not tank.net and I am definitely not an expert however I would just refer to recent developments in the ME.

Air superiority may not exist in the future while until recently it was taken for granted; even terrorists in the ME are able to build drones that can attack Russian airbases.

What do you think a real country with resources will be able to do in the future?

If you consider that already today technology for "self-driving" cars is becoming widely available, how many years do you think it will take before countries like Iran (not to mention Russia and China) will be capable of developing drones with simple sensors and a neural network on a chip trained to recognize tanks, F-35 and whatnot on the ground, and just fire away when they see something? Cheap, mass-produced drones not in the hundreds but in the thousands that just fly around ready to attack. Not all countries will insist on "man-in-the-loop".

F-35 is great but on the ground it is very vulnerable. So is a Leo2 or Abrams, when the opponent can drop cheap bombs from cheap, autonomous drones with neural network chips.

Clearly we need lasers not just on the F-35s but also on the ground. Lots of lasers. And perhaps something to fry electronics. We also need more stealth and mobility.

If you want to plan for the future you have to make predictions of what the future will look like, and not just look at how it was yesterday or today....
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 02:42

@loke

I don't want to turn this into a tank.net thread/forum but I believe that your points need addressing:

You say that a modern MBT like the Leopard 2 or the M1 Abrams is vulnerable to airstrikes, being it fighter aircraft (like the F-35) or armed UAVs. But guess what? So is "your future stealth tank"!
And moreover, in order for your "future stealth tank" to be lets say more and effectively harder to find by opposing air assets (resuming, stealthier) you probably need a much lighter kind of vehicle which by its turn would make it much more vulnerable to enemy ground forces which are the tanks main threat since afterall tanks are designed to fight enemy GROUND forces and NOT enemy AIR forces.

Moreover and I don't think that on NATO perspective Tanks (being it lighter stealthier ones or current heavier ones) would never be sent if Air Superiority or something that resembles it still wasn't achieved.

So I would say that that "light stealth tank" would probably be quite vulnerable against even an enemy soldier armed with an RPG or a similar weapons. Now as opposed a modern tanks can withstand with literally dozens of RPGs and still continue fighting - for example at least one US M1 Abrams was known to be hit at least 18 times with RPGs during the Iraq invasion in 2003 and the tank just kept fighting with no harm to the crewman. Another example was, if my memory doesn't fail me, another M1 Abrams this time in 1991 during Desert Storm with took a direct hot from a SABOT round (with DU penetrator) and the crew survived and the tank was apparently put back into service quite soon afterwards. This is a level of protection that simply NO OTHER kind of armored vehicle can provide.

So, I believe that a short answer to why current MBTs such as Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 2 will likely continue to be in service for many years to come and likely nothing in the foreseeable future will likely replace them is IMO this:
- Current MBTs have an almost perfect balance between survivability and mobility.

So it's very, very hard to design something which is as resistant to enemy fire but at the same time as mobile as current MBTs (and at the same time "stealth"). I'm not saying that something won't come along in the far future but it will take quite some time, IMO.
Moreover, current MBTs have shown to have a tremendous upgrade capability, including modular kind of upgrades. The Leopard 2 in particular has shown how a modern MBT can easily be vastly upgraded. For example this, the basic Leopard 2A4:
Image

Compared in the next two pictures alongside with upgraded 2A4:
Image

Image

And to this (more upgraded Leopard 2A4):
Image

And this (more upgraded Leopard 2A4):
Image

And the above are all upgrades to a rather earlier variant of the Leopard 2, the AA4. Imagine the newer variants like the 2A5, 2A6 and 2A7!

I wonder if your future stealth vehicle/tank would be:
1- Just as upgradable as MBT (Leopard 2) above?
2- Just as resistant to enemy heavy fire as the above (namely the upgraded ones)?
3- Have a better balance between resistance to enemy fire and mobility (namely on rough terrain)?

By the way, you never wondered why a new MBT isn't being developed?
Perhaps because of the reasons above but again this is only my humble opinion :wink:
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 07:45

loke wrote:Since it seems they have decided to develop their own 5. gen fighter with France it would probably be cheaper to skip the F-35 alltogether and make do without nuclear bombs until the new 5. gen fighter is ready.

Some of the same thinking that was behind the UK's decision to drop carrier aviation for several years until the F-35B is ready (and the new carriers of course).

To NATO a few F-35 more or less would not make a big difference. How many F-35 will NATO countries have by 2030?

So much to do and so little money to spend...



....I'm not seeing a technological step up from the EU to get to Gen5. The F-35 is their technology "booster shot" to get them on to whatever they chase next. I personally like several of their missiles and sensor systems.
:)
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3217
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 15:48

hythelday wrote:This isn't tank-net.com

Well, more to the point, this is the F-35 Units board, while a discussion of tanks probably belongs in the Technology board.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7206
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 23:19

Technology subforum is for aviation stuff.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20533
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Jan 2018, 00:15

8) :roll: Tanks for the memory [Dean Martin]. Where are the German F-35 units? viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53630 :doh: :devil: :twisted:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3217
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post14 Jan 2018, 00:17

popcorn wrote:Technology subforum is for aviation stuff.

I suppose that’s true, but it has been a catch all for non aviation topics that no one complains about. The moderators have been known to drop the hammer on such discussions in the 5th gen boards.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests