New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[aesop081]

- and British (think submarines, the bastards)

The problems with our subs are in no way related to them being built by the british.  They sat for years and our government was too cheap to buy new stuff.  Stick to armour, naval stuff obviously aint your lane.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Just a couple of points, using my own opinion.

The CH2, Leo2A6 and M1A2 all weigh roughly the same.  Sights and FCS are comparable, although I personally think that the M1 thermal is not quite as good as either the CH2 or the Leo2A5/A6.

Perhaps the best protected tank is the M1A2 with the DU armour, with the CH2 coming in second, and the Leo last.  However, any round that can knock out one will knock out any of the three.  Remember, penetration is not a requirement to knock out a tank!

Both the M1 and the Leo are designed for conscript soldiers, with ease of operation being one of the prime design criteria.  The British and Canadian soldiers get much more time getting trained on maintenance, and rely less on the fitters and mechanics than the Germans of the Americans.  Having said that, the American mechanics are among the best in the world, their track record on keeping tanks on the road is astounding!

Logistically, as the Swedes proved during their tank trials, the M1 requires almost twice as much logistical support as the Leo2 requires.  The CH2 is not as good as the Leo, but no where near as bad as the M1!

Ex-Dragoon; during Gulf War 1, we in the Regiment were told that if the government decided to send us over, that we would crew American M1 tanks.  We were never told that we would get to keep them after it was all over, though!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ex-Dragoon; during Gulf War 1, we in the Regiment were told that if the government decided to send us over, that we would crew American M1 tanks.  We were never told that we would get to keep them after it was all over, though!

As a young Trooper at the time I remember being told that but since then I have never seen anything to document that offer. In the Navy we have been supposedly offered Spruance class destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates but its always been something passed verbally, never any headlines in a paper, a new report etc.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Well, that's what the CO passed on, and I had no reason to doubt him.  I never saw anything in writing, and I'm pretty sure that my O Group book from that era is long gone, so no luck there.

I was cursing the lieberals when they decided that too many of us would get killed for their approval ratings, and I was cursing NDHQ for producing those remarkably out to lunch figures.......if memory serves they said as high as 5% casualty rate.

 

[EX COELIS]

Since we now have the Leo 2A6, we should be concentrating on making it more effective through to at least 2020 with a program of weight loss, automotive improvements, upgraded FCS, comms, SA and adopting upgraded ammunition (including "smart rounds" or through tube missiles).

No Argument.  Though with the M1A2 allot of upgrades are top of line that have already been done that will take us to 2020 and then some. (We didn't do much to our first batch of Leo 1A3's until, what 1999-2000?) We wouldn't have to spend a great deal of uprading til much, much later.  And also eliminate the logistal cost and pain of oversea's source of replacement parts etc.  We're not in Germany anymore with the factories just down the road.  On another note did you know the American's are experimenting with putting a 140mm gun on the thing?

WRT tank vs tank comparisons, there is really only a few percentage points of difference between Generation 3 tanks, and even the LeClerc as a Generation 3.5 is more of a refinement than anything "new". If armies with Gen 3 tanks ever fought each other, the battlefield would be littered with destroyed vehicles and surviving crews would be fighting as Infantry.

Yep!

 

[Red 6]

Listen guys, it's real easy to overexaggerate the so-called maintenance problems with the M1. I don't know where Lance has the idea that M1s were designed for draftees, since we don't any have in the US Army and all our tankers are volunteers. I served in several heavy armored units during my career and I'll grant the M1 has its share of headaches and hiccups, but I remember a lot more of them running vs. broke down on the hard stand. In our weekly maintenance meetings in every Army unit, every deadlined vehicle was discussed by the bn/sqdn CO and what was getting done to fix it. Maybe it's because the US Army is used to the M1-series, but it never seemed like a huge pain in the neck issue, at least not anymore than the rest of everything :tank:

In terms of fixing broke stuff and repair, the M1 was designed so components can be pulled out and replaced quickly to get the tank back intot he fight. The days of crewmen fixing things on modern tanks with their tool bags are pretty much over anyway. If your fire control system or your TIS is down, the crew isn't fixing it, regardless of what tank they're on. They're calling the wrenches. Yeah, the crew does first echelon maintenance and basic replacement of broken parts, but anything beyond that needs to go to the mechanics.

In all honesty, most of this boils down to what people like and what they've worked with. The Canadian Army has an outstanding tank in the Leo 2 and I'm glad you guys are on our side. Or maybe I'm glad we're on your side?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Red, I was referring to way, way back when, in the late sixties and early seventies when the design specs for the M1 first came out.  Ease of conscript training was one of the criteria, believe it or not.  Now, I know, comparing an M1 to a M1A2 (turret wise) is like comparing a late sixties VW bug to a Taureg!  However, both the M1 and the Leo 2 were initially designed for conscript armies.

Edited to make the comment that it was Mulroney in power then, not the lieberals, sorry.

 

[TCBF]

The great thing about a conscript army is you get to put square pegs in square holes and round pegs in round holes: an HR dream.  Also, you get full spectrum recruiting - not just the dolts who walk in the door.

Considering the number of battles in which a conscript army (well led by seasoned professional officers and long-service NCOs) has handed us our butts on a plate in the past, one would think this "Superiority of the Volunteer" propaganda would die a natural death.

 

[Malcycee]

I find it highly amusing how this thread keeps bimbling along. Great stuff!!
Okay, I think there are a few points need highlighting from a British perspective!!

Multi-fuel capability?? Oh yeah that'll really work, Chieftain's L60 - <Hawk.Spit> was promised to be multifuel - "you only need to change the injector pack and it'll run on anything from Gnat's pi*s to scotch" came the claim from British Leyland (who struggled to even make a decent car!!!) for the next 20 odd years it failed to even run coherently on derv!!!! So, let's not talk about multi fuel capability.....it's tish and pish!!!! Unrealistic and impractical in reality. As far as I know all the contenders have easy pack change facilities........Chieftain was about a 31/2 hour job - CR1 was under 3o minutes I assume CR2 is also the same or faster, it helps when the whole kit and kaboodle can come out in one heave.

Guns - they all do the same job - kill and wreak destruction....just what we tankies want!!! : CR2's TOGS system used the first one on CR1 - is the Dog's bollox!!! It truly is like working in daylight! Maint heavy but worth the effort.

Armour - Irregardless of brandname, it's there for one thing - survivability.....make no mistake....of the weapons platform NOT the crew. The crew is quite simply what makes armour the queen of the battlefield.

The crew.....the claim when CR1 was brought in (on the sales film)was 'It only takes a few hours for the average driver to become proficient' well, that's true enough but, it takes a lot of experience for a driver to become truly a driver, terrain planning and awareness are not things taught in a classroom. His job has become easier with the hydrogas suspension units fitted on CR - The best system available anywhere - so if we want to rant about M1 and Leo's new technology shall we talk about torsion bar suspension? I think not. > Also don't go on about interchangeability in NATO - MBT70 proved that would never happen evryone running off and abandoning the project stealing each other's ideas (or so they thought) but it broke up because evryone thought their own ideas were best?!?!? There you have it, every nation has developed and built their Armour for what they deem to be the right reasons in their tactical doctrine, they all believe theirs to be the best. You lucky guys in Canada are in the fortunate position of having had a choice....it was Leo2 and I sincerely hope it will be as successful for you as Leo1 obviously was. I have a German son who completed his 18month conscription in a Tank Battalion recently - he loved Leo2 but, said, "It had it's faults....only niggly ones but......faults!!"

So, to round off, what are we debating??? Which is best???? There is truly no real competition we are all Tankies together and on the same side..........I'd fight with a Canadian by my side any day!!! 2 Years ago on holiday in the Bahamas an American (looked like a bodybuilder) approached me at the pool bar and enquired........."Buddy, I saw you admiring my 'tat', you in the Corps" I looked at the tattoo he was now displaying on his shoulder which was a USMC emblem......"Na" I replied " I did 15 years but, not in your forces" "Oh, yer a limey!" He said , crushed his beer can in his paw and beggared off somewhere towards women!!Need I say more?!?!?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Ah yes, the TOGS.  Absolutely magical, in its day by far the best thermal out there.  I'm not sure if there have been any upgrades to it, I would assume so.  I've never been on the CR2, only the CR1.

Multi-fuel in the case of the Leo 1 meant a choice of kerosene, jet fuel, or diesel.  No other choices.  The M1 had the same choices, but while we prefer diesel, they prefer jet fuel.

The poor old Chieftan, totally let down by the powerpack.  The later models were good tanks, but the engine was absolute crap.

 

[Red 6]

Lance, you made a good point about when the M1 was designed and the US Army still at the time being in draftee mode. Thanks.

TCBF– I wasn't commenting on whether or not a draftee army is better or worse than a volunteer. Each has strengths and weaknesses and in American history, draftee armies have performed have performed amazing feats in our wars.

 

[TCBF]

Right.  Sorry, I got off on another tangent - my old age showing?

Now back to our regular programing...

 

[Trooper Hale]

After reading through just about every page of this thread i've got to ask myself....
Why the hell arent i in Tanks instead of Cav!
Keep up the great work fellers, this is one of my favourite threads and your knowledge and observations are great.

 

[a_majoor]

No Argument.  Though with the M1A2 allot of upgrades are top of line that have already been done that will take us to 2020 and then some. (We didn't do much to our first batch of Leo 1A3's until, what 1999-2000?) We wouldn't have to spend a great deal of uprading til much, much later.  And also eliminate the logistal cost and pain of oversea's source of replacement parts etc.  We're not in Germany anymore with the factories just down the road.  On another note did you know the American's are experimenting with putting a 140mm gun on the thing?

As technology changes even the M-1 will be receiving new "bits" between now and 2020. Where these "bits" come from is somewhat irrelevant, back in the days of the Cold War the Cdn Navy still had vacuum tube components in many of their electronics which could only be serviced with parts supplied by Poland. Considering that was the other side of the Iron Curtain at the time, it makes you stop and think. On a more day to day level, international shipping is now so commonplace and inexpensive that many of the fresh cut flowers you see in the supermarket have been flown in that very day from Columbia or Kenya, extreme use of jet transport for a mundane product. Go to any Wal Mart or Canadian Tire and observe how many different products come from China.

As for the 140mm cannon, the work was started in the 1980's for the short lived "Block 3" M-1 replacement program. At that time it was considered a 140mm cannon mounted on an 80,000 kg armoured platform would be needed to deal with prospective Soviet armour like the hypothetical "T-80" (not the real one, as it turns out). How the wheel has turned! Consider the design specs for the FCS, which also is designed to replace the M-1......

In real life, there have been some experiments to mount a 140mm cannon on Leopard A2's as well (the Swiss seem to have done the most work, for some reason), but most armies seem to believe guns are reaching a point of diminishing returns, hence the current fascination with smart rounds and through tube missiles, and the longer term research into electrothermal cannons and weapons powered by electricity such as railguns.

As other posters have pointed out, the argument seems to have been settled already, and this thread is splitting into a popularity contest; a historical examination of the M-1, Challenger 2 and Leopard A2's design genesis, and bleeding into Future Armour

 

[Franko]

As other posters have pointed out, the argument seems to have been settled already, and this thread is splitting into a popularity contest; a historical examination of the M-1, Challenger 2 and Leopard A2's design genesis, and bleeding into Future Armour

That just about summed it up in a nut shell.

Regards

 

[Malcycee]

Before I disappear to warmer climes to get married, I just couldn't resist this fellas................................Canada...friends.........you know you really shoulda oughta have bought this beast!!! In a sort of typically understated British way?!?!? Hope you enjoy!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=08a_1182944093

 

[Canadian Mind]

yea, sorry, no way in hell... too slow.

Now, if we were to go out looking for more tanks, I'd hope we would buy some more Leo 2's from Europe, or rip apart a few of our own and reverse engineer the damn things... least thats what I hope we would do anyways, I'm not to fond of anything else.

I've heard other people say this, so I will repeat it, as I believe it to be true: Speed and firepower are more important that Armour. what good is an expensive, stationary mobile firing platform? If you can dodge and hide from most shots, you really don't need as much armour.

Then again, we are getting to the point where even with 60 tonnes of armour, speeds are governed to only 70 kilometers an hour... maybe the next step is to redesign the tracks and drive train to allow a tank to go much faster on smooth surfaces.

 

[a_majoor]

yea, sorry, no way in hell... too slow.

The IDF's Merkava is not very swift either, but is generally considered to be the equal to any Generation 3 tank design from other nations.

I've heard other people say this, so I will repeat it, as I believe it to be true: Speed and firepower are more important that Armour. what good is an expensive, stationary mobile firing platform? If you can dodge and hide from most shots, you really don't need as much armour.

Generation 2 tanks like the Leopard 1 or AMX 30 were built around that design philosophy. Since the Germans and French have moved away from that idea, and other nations like Japan and India are designing and building their own "Generation 3" analogues, maybe they know something you don't?

Then again, we are getting to the point where even with 60 tonnes of armour, speeds are governed to only 70 kilometers an hour... maybe the next step is to redesign the tracks and drive train to allow a tank to go much faster on smooth surfaces.

Most of the world isn't smooth

 

[Kirkhill]

"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed."

Newton #1

As CSA 105 was saying Geo, you also have to stop the things.

A Hovertank could get up an impressive head of speed even with a small power pack - assuming a "frictionless" surface and continuous acceleration over a long time.  Bringing it back to rest might be another matter.    Forward pointing rockets for crash action stops? Or perhaps throwing out an anchor might be more appropriate?  ;D 

Cheers

 

[geo]

Heh...
(possibly you missed the sarcasm hat I was wearing)
: