The best Tanks are they Russians? (1 Viewer)

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

I will say it again the Abrams rules Period. The Leos in Afghanistan are not being used as an offensive weapon against other Tanks so until it goes head to head with a modern MBT with a fully trained crew I will say its still untested. They will do very well against RPGs and AKs in the hands of the Guerrilla fighters but lets face facts its being used as an Infantry support system like the Brits used their Tanks in WWI.

So until it faces up to a T72 or T80 we'll have to give the Abrams and Challenger their dues.

Dave

 

[Capitolron]

Ron - in the spirit of full disclosure, what is your relationship to the Leopard II?

Why I am an unbiased Washington Representative for KMW

 

[Capitolron]

Hi Guys,

I will say it again the Abrams rules Period. The Leos in Afghanistan are not being used as an offensive weapon against other Tanks so until it goes head to head with a modern MBT with a fully trained crew I will say its still untested. They will do very well against RPGs and AKs in the hands of the Guerrilla fighters but lets face facts its being used as an Infantry support system like the Brits used their Tanks in WWI.

So until it faces up to a T72 or T80 we'll have to give the Abrams and Challenger their dues.

Dave

Dave

I agree that Abrams is a GREAT Tank - but, the Leopard II is a good too !

But, I must agree - the L II has not been battled tested - but give us some time....

 

[damian]

At the risk of being dismembered, I would like to enquire about the high fatalities associated with Improvised roadside devices and teh Humvee. My understanding is that it is particularly badly suited to this sort of attack. In southern Africa both in Zim/Rhodesia bush war and in the Namibian/Angolan war there was a lot of experience with landmines. That is why some of our troop carriers looked so funny. The idea was to have individual suspension with a triangular base to deflect the blast upward and outwards. I have spoke to veterans who claim to have driven over landmines and for the entire crew to have survived although being badly bruised.

I would be interested to hear a professional viewpoint on this

Regards
Damian

 

[Currahee Chris]

At the risk of being dismembered, I would like to enquire about the high fatalities associated with Improvised roadside devices and teh Humvee. My understanding is that it is particularly badly suited to this sort of attack. In southern Africa both in Zim/Rhodesia bush war and in the Namibian/Angolan war there was a lot of experience with landmines. That is why some of our troop carriers looked so funny. The idea was to have individual suspension with a triangular base to deflect the blast upward and outwards. I have spoke to veterans who claim to have driven over landmines and for the entire crew to have survived although being badly bruised.

I would be interested to hear a professional viewpoint on this

Regards
Damian

I will kindly provide that input- without dismemberment

A lot of the IED and DEEP IED issues that are being encountered have many many other variables at play than just simply how much armor is plastered on the vehicle. Some of the variables include- speed of the convoy, proximity of the blast charge, strength of the charge, etc. A hummer is designed to be the "jeep" of the modern day and there is no way on God's green earth a jeep of ANY sort would provide any chance of survival against an IED. Short of putting everyone in Bradleys or 113's even, the hummer is the best solution out there.

The DEEP IEDs (high speed military vernacular for IEDs that are bigger and buried deeper into the ground) are far stronger and have lifted LIFTED Bradley AFVs off the GROUND and thrown them all over the place. The halon fire suppresion system helps minimize burn damage to the crew but the initial shock can kill or severly incapacite the crew. A deep IED can obliterate a Hummer. Fortunately, there are some more obvious signs of a DEEP IED along the roadside. I have to think with this guerilla innovation, it is proving that the IED tactic is being neutralized to a substantial degree. The Bradley's do have some of the slopped outer armor designed like those vehicles used by the SA forces. Still the DEEP IEDs are blasting the Bradleys so I would have to think that they would obliterate a SA styled troop transport.

A good friend of mine ran over a land mine while operating a 113 tracked troop transport in Kuwait back in Gulf War 1 when he was with the Second armored. The thing went off right under him- he got bounced around quite a bit but the vehicle was ok- damaged but ok. The 113 is the tracked APCs you see in a lot of the Viet Nam pictures.

I believe the SA forces loose some manueverability with their vehicles because of the sloping factor but I could be mistaken. I would be VERY surprised if the Department of the Army isn't looking into some refits for the hummers similar to the deflection sloping armor you mention.

 

[Capitolron]

At the risk of being dismembered, I would like to enquire about the high fatalities associated with Improvised roadside devices and teh Humvee. My understanding is that it is particularly badly suited to this sort of attack. In southern Africa both in Zim/Rhodesia bush war and in the Namibian/Angolan war there was a lot of experience with landmines. That is why some of our troop carriers looked so funny. The idea was to have individual suspension with a triangular base to deflect the blast upward and outwards. I have spoke to veterans who claim to have driven over landmines and for the entire crew to have survived although being badly bruised.

I would be interested to hear a professional viewpoint on this

Regards
Damian

Damian

No worries on the question - the Humvee is just a jeep - not meant for frontline combat. In todays War Theaters - everywhere is a frontline !!

The V Shape on Personel Carriers is really a old system of protection - due to new developemts modern armor production. My Company KMW is in the forefront of this new development of armor protection and the DINGO is our vehicle which is being used today by NATO Forces in Afghanistan.

Take a look at our website for more information on the DINGO and other KMW Armor Products.

www.kmweg.com/gb

 

[damian]

I don't think the landmines used in SA and Zim in the 1970's and 1980's were anything as powerful as these IED's seem to be. Also being in rural areas where most of the war was, there was no blast effect due to explosions in confined spaces. War is a bit of game I suppose. The one side does somethong and it takes a while to develop a counter measure. The best book about the experience in our neck of the woods is Taming the Landmine by Peter Stiff
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[OzDigger]

At the risk of being dismembered, I would like to enquire about the high fatalities associated with Improvised roadside devices and teh Humvee. My understanding is that it is particularly badly suited to this sort of attack. In southern Africa both in Zim/Rhodesia bush war and in the Namibian/Angolan war there was a lot of experience with landmines. That is why some of our troop carriers looked so funny. The idea was to have individual suspension with a triangular base to deflect the blast upward and outwards. I have spoke to veterans who claim to have driven over landmines and for the entire crew to have survived although being badly bruised.

I would be interested to hear a professional viewpoint on this

Regards
Damian

The US Army has indeed finally realised that the Humvee is unsuitable for military operations in unsecured areas and has been looking for a suitable replacement.

And they have found it in the Bushmaster AMV (Assured Mobility Vehicle) that is designed and built by Thales Australia. In fact the Bushmaster has been in use by the Australian Army and Airforce in a number of countries, including Afganistan and Iraq, for several years.

A Australian Army Bushmaster AMV operating in Iraq.

However, as usual with most weapons and equipment used by the US forces there is usually a strong preference for in-house supply. Consequently the Bushmaster for US forces will be built in the US by Oshkosh under licence from Thales Australia. And apparently those crazy Americans drive on the wrong side of the road

Oshkosh "Bushmaster" brochure (pdf): http://www.oshkoshtruck.com/pdf/Oshkosh_Bushmaster_2007.pdf

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Two points: Dave, I agree with you the Abrams is probably the best tank in the world. It's just awesome. However, I'm not convinced even the Abrams has gone "head to head with a modern MBT with a fully trained crew". In the Gulf War the Iraqi tank crews, pilots and commanders were all second-rate - that's why they were slaughtered so easily. Basically until each of the Western tanks has a chance to face off on equal terms against a Russian-crewed T-90 or Chinese-crewed Type 98 (during Armageddon no doubt) then it's all conjecture which one is the best.

But good luck in trying to sell the Leopard to Washington Ron.

Damian, regarding your South African mine protection vehicles, the Canadian troops have been using them successfully in Afghanistan. Recently however one was blown to oblivion with the loss of all onboard when it encountered a powerful new IED which consisted of three bombs stacked on top of each other. The first two hits probably defeated the underside armor and threw the vehicle up in the air, flipping it over so the "V" was no longer facing down and then the final hit finished off the weaker side armor. Needless to say this has rattled the nerves of the media in Canada and no doubt the defence department as well though on camera they were very calm about the whole thing.

Basically warfare has always been a race between stronger swords and tougher armor and that holds true today as well. Returning to tanks, for a while the Abrams was touted as being basically invincible since no crew had been lost to enemy fire but I've read that during the present Iraq war the U.S. army was rather shocked how easily they fell prey to insurgent attacks on vulnerable areas like the tracks and rear engine deck. Same lesson they learned in WWII - tanks are always vulnerable in confined areas like cities and hedgerows.

 

[Capitolron]

Two points: Dave, I agree with you the Abrams is probably the best tank in the world. It's just awesome. However, I'm not convinced even the Abrams has gone "head to head with a modern MBT with a fully trained crew". In the Gulf War the Iraqi tank crews, pilots and commanders were all second-rate - that's why they were slaughtered so easily. Basically until each of the Western tanks has a chance to face off on equal terms against a Russian-crewed T-90 or Chinese-crewed Type 98 (during Armageddon no doubt) then it's all conjecture which one is the best.

But good luck in trying to sell the Leopard to Washington Ron.

Damian, regarding your South African mine protection vehicles, the Canadian troops have been using them successfully in Afghanistan. Recently however one was blown to oblivion with the loss of all onboard when it encountered a powerful new IED which consisted of three bombs stacked on top of each other. The first two hits probably defeated the underside armor and threw the vehicle up in the air, flipping it over so the "V" was no longer facing down and then the final hit finished off the weaker side armor. Needless to say this has rattled the nerves of the media in Canada and no doubt the defence department as well though on camera they were very calm about the whole thing.

Basically warfare has always been a race between stronger swords and tougher armor and that holds true today as well. Returning to tanks, for a while the Abrams was touted as being basically invincible since no crew had been lost to enemy fire but I've read that during the present Iraq war the U.S. army was rather shocked how easily they fell prey to insurgent attacks on vulnerable areas like the tracks and rear engine deck. Same lesson they learned in WWII - tanks are always vulnerable in confined areas like cities and hedgerows.

LOL

Selling a Leopard II in Washington would be like selling Ice Cream to an Ice Road Trucker !! (by the way have you guys been watching that series on the History Channel ?? - Its really interesting)

Most of our work with KMW in Washington is based on Armor Personnel Carriers and Artillery.

Abrams is here to stay in the USA.

Ron

 

[Currahee Chris]

Another very very key point to remember in this discussion is that the Australian army is world class,if not the best in adapting to guerilla warfare- most of our SF doctrine is based on lessons the aussies (and British) have taught us. We- the US- are still dogged in the conventional order of battle and TOE- based more in part to a strategic plan looking at the massive "armageddon" Scenario. This is a really key point in that the Australian military mindset is engaged in thinking of fluid, constantly adapting battlefields. The US, for the most part, really isn't- that is changing though and the biggest change we are seeing is the reduction in the division sized combat element being superseded with the Brigade combat teams.

The Australians and to a lesser extent the British can rely on the Americans to provide the firepower on a joint international operation, which is why we have heavy armor units, attack helicopters and artillery- the Australians don't really have that- the Aussies and Brits are focused more around manuerverability- which is why their defense planners look at things like the Bushmasters and ours look at new smart bombs and PGMs. It's going to require a massive change in command/ planning philosophy that will take years to implement (ie when the officer corps on the frontlines in Iraq are 3 and 4 star generals) till we get to this.

We have introduced the Stryker armored car into the mix but I think that plan fizzled. Not sure how they were supposed to play into the mix- smaller than a Bradley but bigger than a hummer- not really sure what they could do to stop an IED anyway.

A lot of the discussion over here has been on the body armor and body armor improvements- discussion about vehicle armor has been a close second.

CC

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

The points brought up are very interesting and I will concede that the tanks the Abrams faced recently were probably not the top of the line but the T72s were top of the line exports for the Soviets and the Republican Guard were well trained and motivated they were hampered by a lot of things technology wise but those tanks were the best they had and and the Abrams smoked them. T90s and Type 98 and a few others have yet to be used against us so we'll have to wait and see on that front. The Leo is a good vehicle and I am sure a lot of very good technology went into its build so we'll see what happens with it.

As for the Stryker, well I am not a fan. I have many reasons for this but first and foremost is the lack of armor protection and maneuverability. I have friends who have used this vehicle down range and they are ok with it because in the urban environment it is well suited for the needs of the Infantry but they all have said it has serious drawbacks when it is used off road. Not too mention its lack of suitable firepower to deal with heavily fortified positions. However dont get me wrong a tank isnt always the way to go and I know this we just need to find a more robust vehicle then the Stryker.

To replace the Hummer may take a while because there were a lot of issues when they replaced the jeeps boy do I remember that... However, the Bushmaster is a very good vehicle and is quite survivable and unfortunately the stacking of bombs in IEDs will probably defeat anything we have. This was used against our tanks and APCs in Vietnam so we have had some experience with it. Its going to be difficult to defeat these sorts of IEDs if they are buried and forgotten if they were remotely detonated thats a different issue.

The South Africans had a vehicle call a Buffalo I believe that was odd looking but was also quite well suited to defeat the mines they typically encountered and keep the troops alive. I will go through my Janes books and see if I can find the one I am thinking of.

Well I have to go and take care of a few things I'll be back later to chat.

All the best

Dave

 

[Louis Badolato]

Another very very key point to remember in this discussion is that the Australian army is world class,if not the best in adapting to guerilla warfare- most of our SF doctrine is based on lessons the aussies (and British) have taught us. We- the US- are still dogged in the conventional order of battle and TOE- based more in part to a strategic plan looking at the massive "armageddon" Scenario. This is a really key point in that the Australian military mindset is engaged in thinking of fluid, constantly adapting battlefields. The US, for the most part, really isn't- that is changing though and the biggest change we are seeing is the reduction in the division sized combat element being superseded with the Brigade combat teams.

The Australians and to a lesser extent the British can rely on the Americans to provide the firepower on a joint international operation, which is why we have heavy armor units, attack helicopters and artillery- the Australians don't really have that- the Aussies and Brits are focused more around manuerverability- which is why their defense planners look at things like the Bushmasters and ours look at new smart bombs and PGMs. It's going to require a massive change in command/ planning philosophy that will take years to implement (ie when the officer corps on the frontlines in Iraq are 3 and 4 star generals) till we get to this.

We have introduced the Stryker armored car into the mix but I think that plan fizzled. Not sure how they were supposed to play into the mix- smaller than a Bradley but bigger than a hummer- not really sure what they could do to stop an IED anyway.

A lot of the discussion over here has been on the body armor and body armor improvements- discussion about vehicle armor has been a close second.

CC

There's an ald adage that an army is usually designed to win the last war its country fought (probably because the 3-4 star generals were field officers in the last war). Apparently the present day army doesn't consider any lessons learned fighting Guerillas in Vietnam, and is taking the same approach it used in the Gulf War instead. Kevin (Panda1gen) was discussing the approach successfully taken by the British forces against muslim terrorists in a crisis a couple of decades back in a place called Aiden. I, sadly, had never heard anything about it. Apparently, our forces hadn't studied the successful approaches taken by British forces in these earlier conflicts as thoroughly as they should have. I hope they figure it out soon, because quite frankly every G.I. that dies in a country that has no appreciation for their sacrifices is one too many.

 

[debrito]

Between Germans and Soviets Tanks which one was more effective from 1941-1943

(Barbarossa 22 June 1941 and Battle Kursk summer 1943)?

Regarding the armoured shield, speed and power capability:

Germans

Panzer III
PanzerIV
Tiger I
TigerII

Soviets

T-34
KV-1
T-35

Cheers

Visit

It is so funny to see how we diverse the threads here in the T-forum.
I started this thread with the question which was the best WWII tank, starting with Operation Barbarosa June 1941. Now we are in Bagdad 2003.

I love that

Cheers

 

[Peter Reuss]

This thread has been great! Nothing like hearing from people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to vehicles!

Thank you, and keep it up.

 

[damian]

I must say that Bushmaster looks very much like the Caspers and Ratels I rememeber form my youth.
Regards
Damian

 

[Currahee Chris]

As for the Stryker, well I am not a fan. I have many reasons for this but first and foremost is the lack of armor protection and maneuverability. I have friends who have used this vehicle down range and they are ok with it because in the urban environment it is well suited for the needs of the Infantry but they all have said it has serious drawbacks when it is used off road. Not too mention its lack of suitable firepower to deal with heavily fortified positions. However dont get me wrong a tank isnt always the way to go and I know this we just need to find a more robust vehicle then the Stryker.

Funny thing about the Stryker but my NG battalion was one of the 3 that got those things- I know the Rangers- 75TH got one batt and I want to say someone at Hood as well then- well, the 56th Brigade out of State College !!! Rock on PSU!!!

ANyway- yeah, I have never been a fan of the armored car tactic. The Stryker is a lot of expensive electronics on wheels. Time will tell........

 

[Canadian Samurai]

This is a really key point in that the Australian military mindset is engaged in thinking of fluid, constantly adapting battlefields. The US, for the most part, really isn't- that is changing though and the biggest change we are seeing is the reduction in the division sized combat element being superseded with the Brigade combat teams.

Agreed - adaptability is key in both unconventional and conventional warfare. The larger the size of an army unit, the slower and clumsier it becomes, a lesson Hannibal taught the Romans at Cannae.

A lot of the discussion over here has been on the body armor and body armor improvements- discussion about vehicle armor has been a close second.

In addition to obvious upgrades like ever more slat armor, maybe the next-gen tank could adopt some of the features of the Israeli Merkava tank (designed specifically to fight an unconventional war) such as its modular armor plating that can be replaced in the field to reduce cost and turn-around-time if it suffers localized damage. I think the Merkava also had a good idea in carrying its own infantry support inside the back of the tank. Also the auto-loader in the French Leclerc may be the wave of the future because it allows for a lighter faster tank with a more streamlined profile.

There's an ald adage that an army is usually designed to win the last war its country fought (probably because the 3-4 star generals were field officers in the last war). Apparently the present day army doesn't consider any lessons learned fighting Guerillas in Vietnam, and is taking the same approach it used in the Gulf War instead.

This is absolutely true, however I fear this maxim heralds the Western armies swinging too far to the other extreme and configuring themselves entirely to fight unconventional guerrilla battles with disastrous results when it again faces a conventional enemy.

As the Iraq war was starting I understand Rumsfeld planned to phase out the tank as the centrepiece of the U.S. army in favour of the Striker. The rationale apparently was because it’s faster, suited to urban combat, easy on gas consumption, easier to maintain, but most importantly because it weighs less it would be much cheaper to deploy overseas in all the wars I guess he planned on waging. He basically said in no uncertain terms that the main battle tank was a relic of the stone age and had no place in 21st Century warfare (which apparently was going to be entirely unconventional).

Following the US lead, a year ago Canada was in the process of mothballing our Leopard I fleet (to be replaced by Striker mobile guns) until we realized that tank support was still sorely needed in unconventional fighting to protect convoys, intimate the guerrillas and increase troop morale – so one year later we’re in the process of buying our first new tanks in decades (Leopard IIs), ostensibly because of the air conditioning they provide in the hot Afghan summers.

But nevertheless I can see as the Iraq debacle wraps up the U.S. and allies are going to look back at what went wrong and conclude they need to overhaul their Cold War armoured juggernaut to resemble something closer to Rumsfeld’s vision of a high-tech, highly mobile force. This is fine and dandy until the day comes, and it will, when we again face an equal world power in the field (a showdown between the U.S. and China seems inevitable now). I can just picture thousands of U.S. infantry, outfitted with all the latest high-tech gear and supported by Strikers, trying to defend the South Korean border or stage an amphibious landing in Taiwan, only to be overrun by successive mass waves of Chinese armor resulting in a military defeat of epic proportions. The last time we fought the Chinese they nearly pushed as back into the sea- and that was without any of the legions of tanks they now have! As the Germans found out against the Russians in WWII, it’s not a question of whether you can easily kill enemy tanks, it’s can you kill them all fast enough before the survivors roll right over you?

I truly hope such a war never happens but I have little faith in the human race.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I hope war with China isn't inevitable, but waves of tanks might be a bit wasteful it we have air supremecy. All tanks are is expensive targets without air support, and I don't think China presently has a fighter than can compete with either the F15 or its coming replacement the F23.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I think the super-flanker family is easily superior to the F-15, and can also outfight an F-22 in a dogfight if it can close, which will happen because the F-22s don't carry enough missiles to shoot down all the flankers and various home-built fighters the Chinese can throw at them.