For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

When
engaged they were virtually impervious to all Allied tanks except the
Russian JS-2 and T-34/85 at extremely close ran and usually from the
rear where the armor was weak. When not engaged by other tanks the
King Tigers that actually are shown in photos with severe damage were
hit by rocket-firing Typhoons and 500 lb bombs! NO KING TIGER WAS EVER
PENETRATED BY ANOTHER TANK FROM THE FRONTAL ASPECT- FACT!


Heh, heh. And how much effect did the King Tiger have on the war? No
V-2 was intercepted either. How much effect did *it* have on the war?
The Germans should have been able to win the war with all the
technology and know-how they had. Fortunately they had a dumb**** for
a leader who made it virtually impossible for them to win. If he'd
just said "I wanna rule the world" and left his generals to it he'd
have gotten further than he did.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , The
Enlightenment writes
3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
tanks.

How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
immobile pillbox two days later.

Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel, less tankers,
less spare track, samller recovery vehicles.



The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
Russian style tank

Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.

The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

The Autoloader on the T72 used a carousel of 22 rounds. To load the
breech the gun is returned to the zero elevation position and a round
ramed into the breech. Becuase the round is in the cabin penetration
of a round could cook of the amunition and kill the crew as the
Russians learn in Chechnya. The need to return the gun to zero
position also restricted rate of fire.

There are many lurid tales of the deadly loader removing legs and arms
of gunners but I find them ludicrous: there is probably no more than
100kg force on the loader. The loader probably is dangerous but I
doubt that it has so many tons of force to do that. In anycase a few
photobeams or safety light curtains in western tank could delay the
load if something like an arm obstructed the amunition load path
during the momments a load cycle was in progress.

The other problems are cramped crew compartment, a non seperate
magazine without blow of lid, low rate of fire, lower angle of
depression, less eyes on the looout in the tank, less amunition.

Armour thickness and weight are about the same and cannon power are
the same.

The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
targets.

To overcome their problems the Russians developed the T80UM2 Black
eagle.

It has a seperate amunition compartment suspended of the rear of the
turret to overcome the amunition killing the crew during 'minor'
penetrations and it has a bilenticular turret that allows much better
gun depression angles. The loader is completly different and allows
loading with without return to zero elevation and it draws its
ammunition from the magazine rather than the in turrent carousel.


Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
positioning tactic.

And a bloody useful one.

True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
Russian/Ukranian philosophy.


Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.

So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
to use Western professionals...

The problems can be overcome.


(always the problem when you try to base your solution around technology
rather than people)

I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
Fire Control and Multilayer armour.

Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
key factors for how the West fights.

The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
tanks in theater as against 3. In some cases it means having a few
tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , The
Enlightenment writes
3 A C17 and certainly a C5 Galaxy could carry two maybe three 42 ton
tanks.

How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
immobile pillbox two days later.

Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel, less tankers,
less spare track, samller recovery vehicles.

Let's see...75% of the weight still has to be transported, for only maybe 30
or 40 % of the capability of that western tank. Fuel? Probably not an
appreciable difference (thought the M1's do tend to be a bit more of a
guzzler) when comparing tanks-to-tanks. Spare track? How do you know there
will be a difference--and if you are still having to *fly in* your "spare
track", then something is wrong--the original track should get you through
that "early entry" phase where tactical airlift is handling your log flow.
Same-same for recovery vehicles--not a major priority during the early entry
phase of operations. In summation, it appears paul's points are
valid--especially when you consider that his angle is that you don't take
MBT's in during the early entry phase, but rely on the more air-friendly
light armored vehicles (which those Russian MBT's don't qualify as).


The same fire control system seen on a Leo or Abrams can fit into a
Russian style tank

Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.

The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

But neither of the Soviet era designs offered good ergonomics or crew
comfort, and neither offered standard survivability features common to
western tanks (like the separate ammo storage area with blow-off panels).


The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

Big "could be". Ask the Indian Army, or the Egyptian Army. Takes more than a
snap of the fingers, and a fair amount of money.


The Autoloader on the T72 used a carousel of 22 rounds. To load the
breech the gun is returned to the zero elevation position and a round
ramed into the breech. Becuase the round is in the cabin penetration
of a round could cook of the amunition and kill the crew as the
Russians learn in Chechnya. The need to return the gun to zero
position also restricted rate of fire.

There are many lurid tales of the deadly loader removing legs and arms
of gunners but I find them ludicrous: there is probably no more than
100kg force on the loader. The loader probably is dangerous but I
doubt that it has so many tons of force to do that. In anycase a few
photobeams or safety light curtains in western tank could delay the
load if something like an arm obstructed the amunition load path
during the momments a load cycle was in progress.

As could a fluttering paper map, or a bouncing expended shell case..."Sorry,
TC, couldn't engage that target because an MRE bag fell into the rear of the
compartment..." I'd think a decent western designed autoloader would be a
better solution.


The other problems are cramped crew compartment, a non seperate
magazine without blow of lid, low rate of fire, lower angle of
depression, less eyes on the looout in the tank, less amunition.

Armour thickness and weight are about the same and cannon power are
the same.

The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
targets.

Not necessarily. The Soviet Army, and even moreso the Russian Army, have not
demonstrated a very exceptional operational readiness rate with their tanks
last I heard--that means *more* load on the logistics system in order to
handle the "fix" part of that whole fix/feed/fuelammo equation.


To overcome their problems the Russians developed the T80UM2 Black
eagle.

It has a seperate amunition compartment suspended of the rear of the
turret to overcome the amunition killing the crew during 'minor'
penetrations and it has a bilenticular turret that allows much better
gun depression angles. The loader is completly different and allows
loading with without return to zero elevation and it draws its
ammunition from the magazine rather than the in turrent carousel.


Either way the superior depression on NATO tanks was a defensive
positioning tactic.

And a bloody useful one.

True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
Russian/Ukranian philosophy.

I'd recommend reserving any real judgement until (and *if*) it is actually
fielded.



Given the same standard of composit armour, the same quality of fire
control and the same quality of barrel they would probably do better.

So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
to use Western professionals...

The problems can be overcome.

Sure. Toss enough money and effort at them and you can solve a lot of the
problems--but then again, if that were the requirment, you'd be better off
just buying the better western equipment in the first place. Especially
because if you do all of the fixes, you are still left with a cramped crew
compartment and a less-than-stellar reliability record.



(always the problem when you try to base your solution around technology
rather than people)

I said 'russian style' tanks by that i mean with westenised barrels,
Fire Control and Multilayer armour.

Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
key factors for how the West fights.

The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
tanks in theater as against 3.

No, because your premise about a somewhat smaller MBT requiring an
equivalently smaller logistics footprint is flawed. If you can only handle
the log flow to support three tanks on the ground, then three western tanks
at 100% capability is better than three Russian vehicles at some fraction of
that capability.

Brooks

In some cases it means having a few
tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip

The Autoloader on the T72 used a carousel of 22 rounds. To load the
breech the gun is returned to the zero elevation position and a round
ramed into the breech. Becuase the round is in the cabin penetration
of a round could cook of the amunition and kill the crew as the
Russians learn in Chechnya. The need to return the gun to zero
position also restricted rate of fire.

There are many lurid tales of the deadly loader removing legs and arms
of gunners but I find them ludicrous: there is probably no more than
100kg force on the loader. The loader probably is dangerous but I
doubt that it has so many tons of force to do that. In anycase a few
photobeams or safety light curtains in western tank could delay the
load if something like an arm obstructed the amunition load path
during the momments a load cycle was in progress.

As could a fluttering paper map, or a bouncing expended shell
case..."Sorry,
TC, couldn't engage that target because an MRE bag fell into the rear of
the
compartment..." I'd think a decent western designed autoloader would be a
better solution.


Note: It is possible, though unlikely, that the British Army may go for an
auto-loader when it re-guns Challenger II. One was developed a decade or so
ago, for the 140mm. It had a useful rate of fire, and could load at any
elevation. However, the shells and separately-loaded charges were stored in
a carussel on the turret floor, which is not an ideal situation in terms of
protection. (It was also awkward to load manually, but I believe that the
auto-loader had a "reverse" gear, which allowed it to store rounds as well
as retrieve them.)

In any case, Challenger may require a fair amount of reworking. The turret
overhang, which is where M1 (and Leclerc) stow ammunition, is currently used
for comms gear, NBC kit and air-conditioning, and is not ideally shaped to
take NATO standard 120mm tank rounds. So, ammunition bins with some degree
of protection will have to be provided in the hull, or a new turret is
required.

And while the French have gone for a three-man crew in Leclerc, the British
will probably keep four. After all, the fourth crew member is useful for
keeping the brew going. ;-) On the other hand, the Jordanian Army, which
also has the problem of re-gunning its Challenger I's, is looking at a
three-man crew. See:

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_fo...0801_1_n.shtml

Kevin Brooks wrote:


to find a five-man crew in a US tank. The Russian autoloader has a rather
dismal record (unless you count its tendancy to periodically try to "load"
the gunner into the breach... :-)



Tell this to any finnish T-72 gunner and he will tell you that this is
a myth. Zero gunners have been loaded into or had any body part loaded
into the main gun breach. At least in here in Finland. He might also
tell you that it would take some considerable dedication to get in the
way of the loader.

Best regs
Frank

Could people please stop chipping in on this Brooks/Arndt contest, it's
muddying the entertainment waters? So far Brooks is ****ing further up the
wall but Arndt is making a bigger splash


--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

Drewe Manton wrote:

Could people please stop chipping in on this Brooks/Arndt contest, it's
muddying the entertainment waters? So far Brooks is ****ing further up the
wall but Arndt is making a bigger splash




all seems like just ripples in the pool to me

Going to wembley in september ?

wrote in :

all seems like just ripples in the pool to me

Going to wembley in september ?



And Birmingham. . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

"Drewe Manton" wrote in message
. 4...
Could people please stop chipping in on this Brooks/Arndt contest, it's
muddying the entertainment waters? So far Brooks is ****ing further up the
wall but Arndt is making a bigger splash

Words of...what? Not wisdom. Trying to figure out just what your intent is,
and coming up short. Did you have anything of actual substance to add to the
discussion? Nope? Incapable, or just ignorant?

Brooks



--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
How much fuel, ammunition, spare parts et cetera come with them? Tanks
are logistic-hungry beasts and need more support than most imagine.
Flying in a tank or three isn't that much help if you end up with an
immobile pillbox two days later.

Clearly a tank that weighs 70-75%% as much as a Western Tank and has 3
crew instead of 4 would tend to require 25% less fuel,

Why? Fuel consumption at idle (where tanks spend most of their time)
would be similar if diesel-engined: for that matter, the inability to
explain "idle power" to a gas turbine doesn't scale down much either.

Doubling the horsepower of a typical automobile doesn't usually double
the fuel consumption. Increase it yes, but not in direct ratio.

less tankers,

Irrelevant - you've got so many warm bodies to feed and water that
removing a handful doesn't matter. (You *did* have supporting infantry
for these tanks, didn't you?)

less spare track,

Why? Track life will tend to be similar, and generally long enough that
airlift won't be crucial.

samller recovery vehicles.

Which are still large heavy vehicles needing C-17 lift, whether they're
recovering Western or Soviet designs.

Sure, but that doesn't fix the catastrophic ammunition explosion
problem, or the hideously cramped interiors.

The Soviets field two completely different tanks: the T64 (not to be
confused with the T62) and the T72. The T72 was meant to be a cheaper
less capable tank for export. As it turned out the T72 was exported
in a degraded form while the also produced in greater numbers in a
higher standard forms for Soviet use becuase it was cheaper than the
T64 (which is superior and is deployed)

And the T-64 is more comfortable for Western-sized crews to operate for
sustained periods of time?

The soviet tanks do have multilayer composit armour as thick and heavy
but apparently less capable, night vision systems, gyro-stabalisation
etc. All of these could be brough up to western standards.

Sure, just throw enough money at it. That's the problem - you end up
spending more money to get to where you already were before.

The tanks are lighter, faster, require less logistics and manpower,
more easily transported and ultimetly more mobile and make smaller
targets.

Unfortunately, they've demonstrated a persistent inability to outfight
their Western counterparts.

And a bloody useful one.

True but overcome in the T80UM2 black eagle. Admitedly this tank is
not deployed but it shows that the two main issues: seperate magaine
and a restricted gun depression can be overcome within the
Russian/Ukranian philosophy.

How well does a six-foot crewman fit into the T80UM2 and how well can he
man his position buttoned-up for 48 hours? (This was an acceptance test
right back in the 1960s for Chieftain...)

So, you're talking about "Soviet tanks blessed with all the advantages
of Western technology"? Except that the crews would mutiny if you tried
to use Western professionals...

The problems can be overcome.

Certainly. Is it cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives?

Why? Still not designed for survivability or crew endurance, which are
key factors for how the West fights.

The magazine is the main issue in survivablity but the smaller tank is
less likely to be hit. A lighter tank means you could have possibly 4
tanks in theater as against 3.

They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three) and
burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter. So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

Or you can take the losers and spend a lot of money adapting and
improving them... but why bother when you already operate the winners?

In some cases it means having a few
tanks at all instead of none at all and in some cases it means not
having to hold an advance to let your logistics catch up.

If you're trying to do an armoured advance based on airlift, you're so
screwed before you start that the choice of tank is irrelevant.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk