For Brooks... The Superior Leopard 2

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.

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.

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

And a bloody useful one.

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...

(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.


--
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

"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.

On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:09:06 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:

What US tank has a crew of five? The M1 series has four crewmemebers--as did
the earlier M60 series vehicles.

It's been a long time since I last read "King of the Killing Field", but
didn't the Army specifically *want* four crew members? Something about two
of them being able to repair a track while one other was dismounted as a
guard while the other stayed with the tank to man the radios and a machine
gun?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

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 ?

"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"

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three years
running.

Rob

Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then, preaching
its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
years
running.

Rob

Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then,
preaching
its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...

Brooks

What is this fascination (obsession?) with tanks in a newsgroup labeled
rec.aviation.military?

Tex

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Forecast International's and Jane's Best Tank in the World... three
years
running.

Rob

Let me know the next time that either source gains some actual combat
experience with those parade-ground-wonder-weapons, OK? Till then,
preaching
its unsurmounted superiority is a bit premature...

Brooks

What is this fascination (obsession?) with tanks in a newsgroup labeled
rec.aviation.military?

What is this fascination (obsession) you have for being the newsgroup cop?
FYI, big guy, I have been furiously killfiling the numerous purely-political
posters who have been inundating us of late--only to periodically find their
messages still popping up because *you* feel you have to play cop, and then
you can't even figure out how to at least delete this NG from the address
line before you hit the send key. This armor-related discussion popped up as
an aside to another thread. If you don't like it, delete it and ignore
it--but enough of your personal NG cop routine, OK?

And just to really **** you off... have you been by the HANGER lately?

Brooks


Tex