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.

"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

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
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.

The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

Diesel engines are more efficient at both the high power range and
when near idle. In fact when opperating at low power levels or near
idle gas turbines are particularly inefficient compared to diesels.
Modern hyperbaric diesels don't give up anything in engine power to
weight ratio or size either. Only noise is an issue and the smoother
power of the turbine provides for better track grip.

A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.


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?)

A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
Leopard 2 needs only 15.

I hardly think the food consumption of the crew will match their fuel
consumption in weight.



less spare track,

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

smaller 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.

No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.


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.

First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
against up to date Russian tanks. Iraqi T72s were even downgraded
with less armour and were forced to fire steel penetrators.

By this time Russians were fielding T80 tanks with composit armour.



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...)

Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
the T80.


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?

I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
Russian hardware with western systems.


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)

That's a good thing.


and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.

Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
single 63 ton tank.

A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
vehicles.


So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
of the same protective value.


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.

Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
are effected.

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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.

The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

According to the Finns, their T-72's require between 240 and 450 l per 100
km; the M1A1 comes in at about 400 l per 100 km, which places it within the
rather large range specified by the Finns for the smaller Russian designed
tank (M1 data extrapolated from:
http://www.mobrien.com/twr/Gulfwar/p...es/TWR15V2.txt ). Note that the M1A1/2
used today is not as fuel hungry as the original model courtesy of its
Digital Electronic Control Unit, which reportedly reduced the fuel
consumption by some 18-20% versus the earlier (M1 and M1A1 Block I) models.
You apparently like the T-80 an awful lot--you do realize it has a GT engine
(in most of its early production models at least), right?


Diesel engines are more efficient at both the high power range and
when near idle. In fact when opperating at low power levels or near
idle gas turbines are particularly inefficient compared to diesels.
Modern hyperbaric diesels don't give up anything in engine power to
weight ratio or size either. Only noise is an issue and the smoother
power of the turbine provides for better track grip.

A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.


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?)

A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
Leopard 2 needs only 15.

I hardly think the food consumption of the crew will match their fuel
consumption in weight.

You used the term "tankers"--Paul quite naturally took that to mean, given
the subject at hand, the number of tank crewmembers (known as "tankers"
hereabouts, though we used to also sometimes call them "DAT's", which equals
"dumb ass tankers"... :-) ).




less spare track,

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

smaller 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.

No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

A wee bit of a problem called "integration" exists. If you know of such a
simple way around that dilemma, start up a company quick and half the world
(those using the Russian equipment and desiring to upgfrade it) will beat a
path to your door, 'cause in reality it apparently is nowhere near as easy
as you seem to think, based upon past reports of "westernization" of Russian
MBT's.



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.

First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
against up to date Russian tanks. Iraqi T72s were even downgraded
with less armour and were forced to fire steel penetrators.

By this time Russians were fielding T80 tanks with composit armour.

For goodness sakes, the T-80 was their *first* production tank to have a
laser rangefinder and ballistic computer onboard (and since you want to make
the T-80 your model, you lose points on the fuel consumption fight, since it
too has a GT engine, at least in its original forms). The T-72, be it Syrian
going against Israeli systems (including their M60's...), or Iraqi facing US
and British weapons, has proven to be utterly outmatched. They could have
been equipped with the latest DU rounds during ODS and it would not have
made much difference, as they were often killed without ever having
*detected* the attacking tanks.



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...)

Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
the T80.

So they have moved from unconsionable to merely archaic?



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?

I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
Russian hardware with western systems.

You have been talking about dropping western systems into Russian tanks (see
your earlier comment about bringing them "up to western standards"). And
that has been the discussion topic for this branch of the thread. Going to
the "we could build new tanks using the Russian philosophy" is a bit
late--name any western new MBT development efforts currently underway or in
the immediate future? Nope. Because the emphasis is moving away from the
MBT, both in the US and in Europe, in terms of new armor development work.



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)

That's a good thing.

Not for your logistics system. The daily allowance for reloads would be
calculated on a per-system basis--you just increased the ammo resupply
volume/weight by 33% by going from three tanks to four tanks in the TO.



and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.

Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
single 63 ton tank.

Toss the C-5 out of your calcs--it requires a big, long runway. The C-17 is
the rough field capable transport that will shoulder the burden for early
entry operations, along with the C-130 (which can't haul *any* MBT's, even
45 tonners).


A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
vehicles.

Or, it could bring an equal number of M1A2 or a Challeneger II's which are
definitely more capable than your Russian tanks.



So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
of the same protective value.

No, it is not. Compare the external dimensions of the T-80 to the M1A1 and
you will find that other than height (2.9 meters versus 2.2 meters) they are
rather similar. Using that difference in height as a guage, your T-80 should
come in at 75% of the weight of an M1A2, which in its latest version comes
in at a hair under 70 tons (69.5 according to the US Army). But that would
mean your T-80 would have to weigh in at a bit over 52 tons. Seven tons
difference from the expected weight. So your "smaller" Russian design is
disproportionately lighter than the M1A1--wonder why? Less armor protection,
less emphasis on crew survivability, etc. Remember that the main armament,
fuel, ammo, etc., will tend to weigh about the same for both (and the T-80's
autoloader weight counts against it here as tank equipment weight you don't
have in the M1), so that weight difference does appear to be in the armor
protection area

Brooks



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.

Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
are effected.

In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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.

The superior fuel consumption of a 45 ton tank as opposed to a 63 ton
tank derives from the lower mass of the former.

But you're not going to radically reduce fuel requirements, especially
if you're then bringing in more tanks.

A 45 ton tank with a hyperbaric diesel should consume 0.75 x 0.75 =
56% as much fuel as a 60 ton gas turbine vehicle.

Trouble is, you're bringing more tanks so burning more fuel: and if fuel
economy is that critical there are several offers to replace the M1's
gas turbine with a diesel. (Or you could bring a LeoII or Chal2)

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?)

A squdron of M1A2 Abrams needs 20 tanker trucks to support it and a
Leopard 2 needs only 15.

Again, cutting the M1A2's fuel consumption is an issue that's been
looked at in the past: if the need becomes pressing there are options
available to do so.

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.

No. The fire control system is merely an electronic device. It works
as well in 45 ton tank as a 60 ton tank.

The "fire control system" is the sight head and mounts, the gunner's
controls, the gun and turret drives, and a fair bit more besides (tilt
sensors, met sensors et al) plus increasingly often a commander's
hunter-killer unit too; it's not just a drop-in black box, but a complex
array of kit that's designed into the vehicle from the start and not
easy to retrofit.

For the most basic example, it's not too hard to bolt a laser
rangefinder, thermal camera and ballistic computer into a splinterproof
box on the roof: that'll give you decent gunnery performance on a static
range. Trouble is, unless your stabilisation system and gun and turret
drives are also designed for the task, firing on the move will be a
losing proposition regardless of how finely calculated the ballistic
solution is.

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

First of all we have never seen contemporary Western tanks battle
against up to date Russian tanks.

One wonders why: surely *someone* must have wanted to purchase some
up-to-date Russian tanks.

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...)

Confort is less but has been improved in the Black Eagle version of
the T80.

Which means serious degradation of performance: you have to remember
that wars are fought by people first and foremost, and no matter how
marvellous the tank, it'll fail if the crew are exhausted, cramped and
hungier than their opponents.

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

I am talking about using Russian tank designe philosophy in an
entirely western designe as opposed to modification to existing
Russian hardware with western systems.

In other words, building a new tank from the tracks up?

Why, when we've got large numbers of thoroughly effective and
combat-proven tanks already, should we wish to throw them away and pay
for a new design based on the concepts that keep *losing*?

They'll shoot off more ammunition (four tubes rather than three)

That's a good thing.

Not when you're having to airlift every round to the APOD and then haul
it forwards, it isn't. You win by scoring more hits, not just by
expending more rounds.

and burn off little less fuel, and still come in one per airlifter.

Clearly a C5 could carry two 42-45 ton tanks and struggle with a
single 63 ton tank.

If it struggles with 63 tons, how can it cope so comfortably with 84-90
tons?

A C17 could bring a 45 ton tank along with additional support
vehicles.

But why, unless it's got the same sort of combat power as the heavier
tanks it's supposed to replace?

So, if
you pursue this option... why bring in four tanks that keep losing
fights, when you can bring in three that keep winning?

They won't be loosing fights. Despite being 45 tons their armour is
of the same protective value.

Doesn't square with their mass, dimensions and armament.

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.

Its not just airlift but other aspects of mobillity and logistics that
are effected.

You're running up a lot of costs for this proposal, but so far the
benefits are nebulous and keep coming back to "all right, the Russian
stuff always lost in action, but that's because there's *other* Russian
stuff that's supposed to be far better but has never actually been
tested"

--
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

From: "Paul J. Adam"

snip a very logical argument.

The question I have is how did we get to theoretical improvements of Soviet era
tanks from "the superior Leopard 2?"

For that matter how did out National Socialist go from 'all things of value
come from German origins' to 'hey, the Russians are building tanks that can tag
out all western designs?'

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired