|
Welcome to Kurdistan sky scrapers forum. Hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Leopard 2; Greatest Tank Ever | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 11th February 2015 - 02:25 PM (12,194 Views) | |
| Jim M | 11th February 2015 - 02:25 PM Post #1 |
R. Sergeant Major
|
Canada Shopped all over the world and had the choice between the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 and others but chose the Leopard 2 which has also become the closest thing to a European standard. It has become the choice of 16 countries. |
 
|
 
|
| ALAN | 11th February 2015 - 03:17 PM Post #2 |
|
I would LOVE for Germany to sell us some since US wont sell us any M1s looks like iraqi Hizbullah are better having them 
|
|
|
|
| Jim M | 11th February 2015 - 04:38 PM Post #3 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
I think the Leopard 2 is the best MBT in the world and is a much better choice than the Abrams. In my opinion a mixed force of Leopard 2's, Rooikat, BMP APC and South African G6 155mm self propelled artillery (one of the most powerful self-propelled guns on a wheeled chassis). This artillery was designed by Gerald Bull a Canadian and one of the foremost artillery experts of his time. His career and mysterious death was made into a movie or if you prefer the book makes some excellent reading. 
Edited by Jim M, 11th February 2015 - 04:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Frenchy | 12th February 2015 - 08:20 AM Post #4 |
|
Well, being a froggy, I would say the AMX Leclerc, but it's a damn expensive tank. The Leopard is getting old, but has a good quality/price ratio. If only France and Germany had work together, we would have got the best tank ever... Sadly the cooperation failed. But let's face it, the Russian tank is their best choice, except if they can get second hand cheaper Leopard tanks. What do you think? As for the Canadian, well, like the Australian, they betrayed the crown by not choosing the British Challenger ^_^ (joke) |
|
|
|
| Jim M | 12th February 2015 - 09:33 AM Post #5 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
Canadians still swear allegiance to the Queen but the Queen is just a figurehead and Canada is an independent country. If a Canadian wants to emigrate to Britain we get no special treatment unless our parents were from there. Historically Canada is the most loyal of all the British colonies because Canada was a bastion for loyalists fleeing from the newly formed United States. Later in the War of 1812 Canada was invaded on two fronts by two separate armies of American regulars. Canada was defended with a few British soldiers and irregulars made up of indians, militia and armed civilians. Canadian defenders were severely outnumbered on all fronts but the defence was successful and the border that was formed stands to this day. Some say if that war hadn't been fought we would have become part of the USA because English speaking Canada was formed by successive waves of American settlers and because of that Canadians have closer family relations in the US than they do across the country. Just about everyone I know has relatives in the US and we are probably more like Americans than most Canadians like to admit. Canada today has a population of about 35 million roughly one tenth (1/10) the size of the US and in a land mass that is fractionally larger than the US including Alaska. 90 plus percent of the population lives within 50 kilometers of the US border and even for me it is only a 20 minute drive. I have heard a saying that the relation of Canada to the US is like being in bed with an elephant and a lot of Canadians you will meet and speak to have an inferiority complex with regards to the USA. Sorry if I digress Frenchy but in regards to your question if we really had any loyalty to anyone it would be to the US and we should have bought Abrams as the US are Canada's biggest trading partner. As well we would be getting a product that was strategically placed in case of war.
Edited by Jim M, 12th February 2015 - 09:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Halo | 12th February 2015 - 09:41 AM Post #6 |
|
Têkoşer
|
I digress, would like to visit pierre in Uranium city. |
|
|
|
| Frenchy | 13th February 2015 - 01:04 AM Post #7 |
|
^_^ Don't worry Jim, like I said, I was trolling you. I know all of that well, I've been studying history in Canada for 4 years (in BC and in Quebec). And it's sure that Canada almost became part of the USA, but they failed to take Quebec in 1775 and Montreal in 1813, thus saving the country from being an other star to the US flag. Just said that because in the past, they used to choose British military equipments. But they now are independent states and they can choose more freely.
Edited by Frenchy, 13th February 2015 - 01:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Jim M | 13th February 2015 - 02:19 AM Post #8 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the War of 1812 that took place in Ontario like the Battle of Queenston Heights and the destruction of Fort York (Toronto). Is that because you studied history in Quebec? Because I heard what is taught there is more like propaganda and omits most of what happened in the rest of Canada. I say all this because I've lived in Quebec and voted in the last referendum on separation. Just out of curiosity what do you think of Quebec separatism? In a way I wish they would have separated as I'm sure Canada would have disintegrated and been absorbed piecemeal by the US. Oh well maybe in my next lifetime. LOL |
|
|
|
| Frenchy | 13th February 2015 - 02:58 AM Post #9 |
|
Oh, no, I just made an historical shortcut. The Battle of Queenston Heights was very important. But Toronto was not a big city yet and the Battle of Queenston Heights was fought in order for the American to have a foothold in Ontario. In order to achieve victory over British North American colonies, the goal was to capture the two major cities (Quebec and Montreal): it was the US goal in 1775 and again in 1812-1813. This is why I just mentioned this two events (and it's also why Ottawa was created) From what I saw, there are also some kind of "propaganda" on the English Canadian part (like who discovered first Canada: depending from where you are in Canada, it's different). But yeah, for decades (less today), they studied in Quebec an other history than English Canada: it was pointed toward the fact they were French and that they must achieve independence. After WW2, their history was pointed toward the idea of the Quebecer nationality (they are not French, but Quebecers). They did some "propaganda" history, but like any countries wishing to built a nation-state / a nationality. Quebec feels strange for me, being French, I almost felt like at home, and yet, it's not France, it's so different... I loved both parts, BC and Quebec, but in the end, it felt like two completely different countries to me! I've mixed feelings on Quebec separatism: I wish for them to become independent, but will they achieve economical success if so, I'm not sure. And what of the other French Canadian who don't live in Quebec, they will be left out... Same question could be asked for Newfoudland (they were forced to join Canada) or for the Atlantic states (New Brunswick, PEI and Nova Scotia) who are always voting differently than the rest of Canada, haha. But like you said, I don't think it will happen any time soon  It's hard to say what I think on this subject (Quebec, separatism, etc), it's so complicated (British and French populations, politics and the very complicated federal systems, etc) Cheers 
Edited by Frenchy, 13th February 2015 - 03:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Jim M | 13th February 2015 - 08:26 AM Post #10 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
In my opinion if Canada isn't united it will not survive and the main reason being the juggernaut we live next to. I know most Canadians would disagree but because so much of the population lives so close to the US we are culturally like them anyway. I lived in the US and 90 percent of the people I met never knew I was a Canadian unless I told them. As a matter of fact when I am in the US I feel more at home because I grew up with the old Imperial form of weights / measures like miles per hour and gallons and the US shows no signs of giving it up. My personal feeling about Canada is that we would be better off without Quebec and if I lived long enough would look forward to Canada becoming part of the US.
Edited by Jim M, 13th February 2015 - 11:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Jim M | 13th March 2015 - 11:38 AM Post #11 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
German "Leopard 2 A6" vs. American "M1 A2 Abrams" A tank's qualities can be measured in three categories -- firepower, maneuverability, and armor protection -- and its "greatness" depends on how well it fares against its peers in these categories. In this regard, the M1A2 SEP, with its superior armor and lethality (compared with the protection and penetrating qualities of the A6's systems) might take the prize as the superior vehicle. But in the real world, politics and economics play a very important role in MBT design. While the M1A2 SEP is a physically superior vehicle, at $5 million a copy, it is also the most expensive, almost a third again as expensive as a brand new A6. The A6 also has an advantage in that it is a follow-on improvement in the Leopard II series, which means that countries currently fielding older versions of the Leopard II can simply have their existing fleet upgraded to the A6 standard. And since the M1A2 utilizes depleted uranium in its armor and ammunition -- a substance that most European nations (England being an exception) have chosen not to use in military hardware -- the A6 is the most effective, non-DU tank currently available. Finally, in simple terms of technology age, the A6 is a much "newer" vehicle than the M1A2. Why is this significant? The issue of "newness" has serious implications when applied to maintenance requirements and parts availability. The Avro-Lycoming 1,500 hp turbine engine that powers America's entire fleet of MBTs, for example, has been out of production since 1992, which makes finding replacement motors more difficult, and increases the cost of what spare parts are currently available. While the turbine powered M1 series has a higher acceleration and "burst" speed, this is at the expense of significantly higher fuel consumption rates. This may not seem like much, but fuel consumption is a very real issue for countries like Greece, which lacks America's deep fiscal pockets. Is the Leopard 2A6 the best battle tank in the world? As with a lot of things, it all depends on your perspective, but no one can deny its advanced design, its armor protection, its power, and its relative affordability. Put it all together, and you have the best tank which has ever been built! http://battletracker.com/forum/other/military-forum/97993-german-leopard-2-a6-vs-american-m1-a2-abrams/ |
|
|
|
| Chatulio | 19th March 2015 - 04:12 AM Post #12 |
|
Hello Jim, in October last year, the first Leopard 2A7 were handed over to the german army. As far as I could see, the base models were 2A6M (like Canada borrowed for the mission in Afghanistan). The M stands for 'Mine', the model has improved anti-mine protection, so that one of the borrowed Leopards even survived driving on several anti-tank mines stacked on top of each other (providing a surprise for the Taliban who attacked immidiately after the explosion). According to info on the web, they added more stealth systems, another cooling system for the internal space, new C3-system, additional internal computerization, Attica thermal optics for the commander and the main gun is fitted for firing HE-ammunitions as well as the classic kinetic-lances. Additionally the 2A7 are fitted for additional side-armoring. We'll see how it does in normal use. At the very least, the constant new versions indicate that the Leopard is no old design and is constantly brought up to date, with special versions on customer request (like the spanish 2A6E). The 2A6Ms that Canada used seem to have prevailed very well, though the german manufacturer's representatives were reportedly shocked at how aggressively the Canadians used the Leopards, driving spare-parts usage up considerably. As far as an article indicated, the Canadians deployed the Leopards with LAV III, which acted as infantry transports for attacks on Taliban hideouts. The LAV IIIs were neither terrain capable enough to handle the areas the Taliban preferred, nor sufficiently armored against the RPGs. Also the LAV IIIs weren't able to push through the walls common around afghan houses usually used by the Taliban. According to the report, the canadians let the convoys drive to the closest point the LAV IIIs could easily get, then the infantry disembarked and continued with the Leopard. The Leopard went ahead, cleared the way through walls and drew the fire of the Taliban while the infantry moved up to the hideout. The Leopard's gunner used the IR-system to 'see' silhouettes through walls and use either the coaxial MG or the main gun (Rheinmetal L55 120mm smoothbore) to take out Taliban who might've felt safe behind walls. The infantry would finally enter the hideout and take out remaining terrorists. This sounds considerably more aggressive than the approaches of the german army, but there was supposedly no arguing with the success. The 2A7+ that the Saudi-Arabian military wanted to procure, but didn't get (so far at least) was to be optimized for urban warfare. As such it was to have an additional 360 degrees camera-system, additional armor in the front, different NV/IR combo-system, additional combat-'periscope' for the commander,... With best regards, Chatulio
Edited by Chatulio, 19th March 2015 - 04:17 AM.
|
|
|
| Jim M | 19th March 2015 - 12:24 PM Post #13 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
A few lessons in tank design Engineering Disasters - The Sherman Tank of WW2 Following this is a video of the repair and overhaul of one of the rarest AFV's in existence, the Ferdinand Elephant. Another vehicle that was flawed but for significantly different reasons. My personal opinion of the Sherman is its flaws caused a lot of unnecessary casualties amongst tank crews because of its poor design and is directly attributable to Patton. But as a consolation even the best designs of the allies still weren't a match for the best the Germans had (with the exception of the Soviet Union). In the end the saving grace for the allies in the battle field was overwhelming air superiority. There are some who think overwhelming numbers of tanks made a difference but even this wouldn't have saved the Allies without control of the skies. My personal opinion is that AFV's especially MBT's need to have the optimum of armor protection because they are the cutting edge of armored warfare doctrine. Most other things about a tank are trade-offs or compromises to this important fact. I believe this was the overriding reason for the turbine engine in the Abrams. My personal opinion though is that this is a flawed concept just as it was on the Sherman. That is using an aircraft engine in a tank when the additional weight of todays diesel engines is not as big a factor as it used to be. The fuel consumption of the Abrams is a factor which has yet to be tested in combat against a formidable foe and this shortcoming may turn into a disadvantage when range and fuel supply could become critical. There is another factor that the turbine suffers from and that is the lack of density compared to the diesel's steel construction. In some tanks like the Israeli Merkava the front engine forms an integral component of armor protection for the crew and as the turbine engine is at the rear of the Abrams it makes that part of the tank doubly vulnerable.
Edited by Jim M, 20th March 2015 - 01:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Chatulio | 20th March 2015 - 03:53 AM Post #14 |
|
Hello kurdo82, naturally there are many aspects to take into account when it comes to selecting tanks for any nation (including available sources/models,...). Israel, for example, has created its own tank-industry as the models on the market did not fit their desired profiles. They don't need air-transportability since the Merkava-class is intended for defense and war with direct neighbours, not for expeditionary forces in other parts of the world. They put the engine in the front to maximize crew-survivability, added an infantry transport-bay and many modifications for the terrain and the opponents the tanks regularly face. The result is a tank not ideal for many other nations, but suited for the IDF's requirements. In wars, the Merkava acquitted itself well, though in the Second Lebanese War, the Hizbullah's more advanced anti-tank missles (probably supplied by the Iran) proved more dangerous than perhaps predicted. As long as a nation does not have its own tank (and tank components) industries, it naturally needs to get its tanks on the market and there is some selection there with a large variety. A principal difference, for example, between western and soviet/russia style tanks is in the lower mass and costs of the russian models trusting either in numbers and/or active defense systems to make up for lack of passive armor. There is, as far as I've seen, no solid, publicly available info on whether and if so, in how far, the Kontakt-type active defense systems are effective against modern kinetic lances as fired by many western tanks. And even when confronted with weapons against which they are effective, once the charges are used up, the tank 'only' has the relatively thin armor left. Within the western tanks, there is also some variety like the Abrahms with its gas-turbine and high overal price-tag (and license-produced variant of the Rheinmetal L/44 as a main gun), the Challenger II with heavy amour (whether it is really superior to others is naturally classified), the AMX Leclerc with heavy computerization (and relatively high price-tag) and the Leopard 2, with price-tags varying between versions and upgrades (for example, there are many upgrade packages for 2A4s that the german military sold in large numbers in recent years). Since the version 2A6 the main-gun is the Rheinmetal L/55, since 2A6M, additional anti-mine armor has been added. Naturally the originally intended mass is being exceeded with all the extra armor, but modern anti-tank weapons require increases in protection level. Increases in motor-power in turn again boost speed and mobility, countering the mass increases to some extent. The MTU-powerpack engines are, as far as I've seen, modular in the tank, so the entire engine can be lifted out of the tank and replaced with another with relatively little effort in a repair shop. It also seems the controls were styled somewhat after a car, so there's a steering wheel, a gas-pedal and a break-pedal. ( A part of the older documentary covering a swedish variant of the Leopard 2A5: ) With best regards, Chatulio
Edited by Chatulio, 20th March 2015 - 05:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Chatulio | 20th March 2015 - 09:15 AM Post #15 |
|
Hello kurdo82, I'm afraid I can't claim a military rank or service record. I am 'only' an interested citizen. Researching history always leads back to military questions at one point or the other, including what You mentioned earlier concerning pragmatic tank design vs. technologically superior but much more expensive tank design. It'd be difficult to explain historical developments without looking at such things as well. As such I can only provide insights I gain from other sources, that I try to specify for reference when possible. Coming more from the perspectives of economy, politics and history, I might sometimes take a more theoretical approach than others, but I hope these conclusions can be insightful nonetheless. From these perspectives I agree with the german government that its current course of action may be risky (what the greens and leftists like to stress), but is the right course of action to take and am pleased with how it works out so far. With best regards, Chatulio
Edited by Chatulio, 20th March 2015 - 09:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Jim M | 20th March 2015 - 07:22 PM Post #16 |
|
R. Sergeant Major
|
To All: Sherman vs T34 and other comparisons I would agree that the best or greatest tank is a relative term and taking all things into consideration it is necessary especially when comparing contemporary designs. The Germans during the second world war definitely had the most legendary tanks with the two Tigers and Panther models but they would never be considered the best simply because they were never produced in the quantities required to effect the outcome of the war. I think its best to compare the Sherman to the T34 as both were in the same relative weight class and produced in similar large numbers. Its surprising to me the US couldn't come up with a better design as they had some good designers and excellent new tank developments to use in their designs. We can only assume that Patton had too much say in the final configuration of the Sherman. in regards to design features we know that the T34 used Christie suspension which was an American invention so we know there was a great deal of new design features that were available for designers of all nations. It is also an interesting fact that the Sherman did not use this excellent system of suspension along with many other features that could have raised it to at least mediocre instead of atrocious. But all things considered almost anything you point at on the Sherman was substandard whereas the T34 while having several innovative aspects seemed to be much more than the sum of its parts. In the final analysis the context of the war they fought in brought these characteristics into extreme focus and in the end one was regarded as the absolute best and the other the worst of the war and possibly for all time. In a more contemporary comparison of the Abrams and Leopard it is seemingly much more difficult since neither of these machines have been used in comparable situations. It could probably be said that since the Leopard was considered and underwent testing by the US army that it was used as the basis for some of the later developments of the Abrams. In the end I believe most comparisons of these machines will be almost entirely subjective. The only thing I didn't like about this video is the music. I think it should have been "Panzerlied". LOL Regards, Jim M |
|
|
|
| Chatulio | 20th March 2015 - 07:34 PM Post #17 |
|
Hello Jim, The Abrahms and the Leopard 2 share the same lineage as they are both results of the US/German MBT-70 project that was originally intended to provide one tank for both participating nations. The project was cancelled, but the know-how transfer was naturally already done and prototypes remained in both nations. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70 ) Both parties designed their own tank-classes in the end, but the common lineage still shows. As such they may share more similarities than other modern tanks, though the engine is a major difference. The gas turbine is much smaller and lighter than the MTU-powerpack, but also has a larger fuel consumption and a high IR-profile (requiring heat scattering equipment at the exhaust). In contrast to a helicopter, a tank rarely reaches the highly efficient operating states of a gas turbine. I agree that any comparisons of many of the most modern western tanks (Abrahms, Merkava, Leclerc, Leopard II, Challanger II,...) will be very subjective as they are very close when going with publicly available information and the classified details that might allow a better differentiation are unavailable. The differences that exist and are publicly available are often neither entirely positive or negative and a matter of preferences, logistics and mission profiles of the militaries deploying these tanks. This situation could also lead to a certain degree of convergence as concepts invented by one tank-manufacturer can often be adapted by another and mission profiles for many NATO-members have certain similarities (air-transportability, assymmetric warfare,...), making the Merkava, for example, stand out a bit due to its different mission profile. Still, the Merkava's adjustments against RPG-weapons and experiences with active defense-systems might be of interest to other western tank-manufacturers as well. So, over time, tanks with the same mission profile may grow more similar. With best regards, Chatulio
Edited by Chatulio, 21st March 2015 - 12:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
| « Previous Topic · Kurdish Military · Next Topic » |
6:22 PM Nov 19