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

[a_majoor]

Now we need the complimentary thread: New IFV (PUMA, CV-90, Warrior or Bradley), HAPC (Achzarit), or new LAV?

I will be hiding in the corner!  ;D

 

[McG]

Tha Achzarit is the premier "HAPC" design

Not any more.  Google Namera

 

[geo]

Re Namera....
I see the same "problem" as with the Merkevah (?sp)
rear door appears to be relatively narrow... though I am happy to see that it is a ramp and not a door.... Ohh the times I would come out of the narrow door of a grizzly/cougar and get tangled up OR crash into someone ahead of me who got tangled up..... Grr..... Thank god the Bison & LAV went back to the M113 ramp system.

 

[McG]

This is an interesting concept, from the University of Tel Aviv, for next generation MBTs.  Note where the 3 man crew is.

 

[geo]

Heh.... I notice they have a fuel cell right at the front... interesting

 

[Malcycee]

This is an interesting concept, from the University of Tel Aviv, for next generation MBTs.  Note where the 3 man crew is.

It doesn't seem to matter which army we serve or have served in..............the same questions are echoed the world over....which is best? Which would we have? There was a time prior to Chally 1 where, the UK actually thought about 'Never building another MBT'. "Let's buy one in!" came the shout. At which point we were all shouting Leo 2 will do very nicely please!!! Much to our disgust, the only MBT ever mentioned from higher Echelons was M1. You guys are I think, getting the better of the 2 options considered even though your Leo's will be of the 'much loved and tended for' variety'.
Now.........as for the Israeli MBT concept......................OH DEAR!!!!!!!! ;D

 

[Shamrock]

Heh.... I notice they have a fuel cell right at the front... interesting

It's not uncommon.  Some vehicles have conveniently located the fuel inside the fighting compartment beneath the turret.  Seperate fuel tanks like that can be an incredible pain to refuel, especially if the vehicle draws from all three at once.

Anyone able to tell me the advantages of a split track like that?  Seems like a power waster.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It looks cool and different, however the Russian played with this idea in 1950's , Object ### it was called now on display at Kurbink

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html


Object 279 (1957) Troyanov super- heavy tank with double treads.

 

[Kirkhill]

Anyone able to tell me the advantages of a split track like that?  Seems like a power waster.

You could be right on the extra power requirement but I am going to guess that the trade-offs are an increased ability to tackle vertical obstacles (as demonstrated by the PackBot series of Tracked UGVs http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=109 ) and a greater opportunity to drag the vehicle out of danger when one of the tracks is blown off - reduced risk of a mobility kill.  The split track means that the front tracks can independently pivot to high angles of attack retaining contact and traction while keeping the centre of mass low - less risk of tipping as well.

As to the power question - power management and transmission, even with the duplication of drives, is still likely to be at least as good as that on the Leo 2 if only because of the advances in technology for the last 20 years.

Having said that......the crew behind the gun and inside the hull?  Why not go whole hog and put them in a separate vehicle?  They would have at least the same situational awareness and be safer.  They might even be able to handle two remote gun vehicles.

 

[ironduke57]

It looks cool and different, however the Russian played with this idea in 1950's , Object ### it was called now on display at Kurbink

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/

http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html


Object 279 (1957) Troyanov super- heavy tank with double treads.

But first the double track design of the Object 279, was to rise the groundcontact area to an point that it wouldn´t flip over if a nuke goes of in the relative near.

This desgin from the US (see Attachment) from Hunnicutts "Abrams - A History of the American Main Battle Tank Vol.2" fit´s better for an comparison.
(If it is to small to read, I can also provide an larger version.)

...
Having said that......the crew behind the gun and inside the hull?  Why not go whole hog and put them in a separate vehicle?  They would have at least the same situational awareness and be safer.  They might even be able to handle two remote gun vehicles.

That was tried in the swedish UDES-20 test vehicle:
See second attachment.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[a_majoor]

I see crew hatches in the front half of the UDXX 20 vehicle, but that's just a moot point.

Shouldn't we be taking these discussions into "Future Armour" instead?

 

[ironduke57]

I see crew hatches in the front half of the UDXX 20 vehicle, but that's just a moot point.
...

You need the possibility to have access for maintenance. Why not use the same hatches for part commonality. Also it was only a test vehicle.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[EX COELIS]

Challenger 2 - no way - too heavy (try an find a bridge that it'll take its weight) - cramped - speed slower - slower engagement times due to bag charges for the rifled 120mm (remember CAT competitions) - expensive - and British (think submarines, the bastards)

Leo 2 - good tank, however it's reached its potential regarding further upgrades, service life, production line etc - overseas re-supply

Anything with wheels is not even a contender.  Track man all the way.

Hate to say it, but the Abrams would win hands down - battle proven - latest technology - factory infrastructure ready to pound out as many as the need requires - close proximity for spare parts and potential upgrades (don't have to ship the parts from overseas) - crew safety (blow out panels) - spacious - a good combination of speed (Turbine engine potentially dual fuelled, logistical plus) – protection (well sloped Chobum Armour) – fire power 120 mm smooth bore and sight system (if you see it, it can kill it) – wide range of different types of ammunition available - ease of use (lets face it, if the Americans can operate the thing, anybody can, even the French, the overseas ones)

Down side – expense (though the Americans, have at different times, offered Canada whole regiments, if we would play into their political quagmires (perfect example, '91 Gulf War) – not made in Quebec - makes to much sense for our brainless politicans - reliant on Americans (they have enough influence on us already)

If we did, we'd have to make some common sense Canadian mods (ditch the turbine and put in diesel engine) to make it even better (example their M16A2, into our C-7)

Rebuttals?

 

[a_majoor]

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).

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.

 

[Malcycee]

Oh dear
Have we no friends out in the big wide world?!?

CAT cup?? Challenger 1? Problems with:
a: Inexperienced Cav crews not RTR - it was a fix up!! (The competition in general always was!!!)
b: IFCS - not improved from Chieftain....simply slung into CR1 - Total mismatch.

Split case ammo? Slow? My days of loading on Chieftain are long gone - currently same technique - will change when CR2 gets it's new smoothbore. But, I could achieve HESH 2 in the air and 1 up engaging at approx 2300 metres. Flight time just over 630mps. it's not the tank....it's the crew. Chieftain's average 'spot to shot' was not allowed to exceed 12 seconds.

Chobham armour?? Only CR2 has the real stuff - all else is known as 'composite'. Remember the subs? We ain't gonna give away ALL our secrets that quick. LMAO!

The other contenders?

Leo2 - Outstanding vehicle....had a cabby in Germany......most impressive. very user friendly...it had to be - given the German Conscripts abilities at the time. Not convinced about it's lack of remaining potential...........Leo 1 hung on for years with much retrofitting of this and that, you in Canada probably know that better than most. Leo 2 will probably do the same.....especially as they appear on the 'Used car' lots these days.

M1 - In my memories two things stand out.............."Ooops it's broke.......can't fix...call the mechanics and the ultimate crime............no turret boiling vessel!!!!!
Combined with fuel consumption equalling a combat jet and the American's propensity to write slogans on the back like.....'Whispering Death', never inspired me to have much faith in the vehicle but, once more it was not the vehicle..............................just the crews.

No matter what anyone ever extolls as being the 'best tank' at the end of the day it all comes down to 'The best crews' and how they're trained. I'm confident that Canadian crews will make Leo 2 the best solution to Canada's Armoured response.

Asked which tank I'd rather be sat in in the Middle East or wherever right now?? It may be heavy but, it's still unpenetrated by conventional weapons so
CHALLENGER 2 - got to be!! If you haven't.....you need to............hear the roar of that CV12 guys....it's heaven...........on tracks!!!

 

[Red 6]

From the standpoint of the fire control system and first round hit probability, the Challenger 2, M1A2 and the Leo 2 are all very close to parity. I will admit the M1 is a gas hog and there's no doubt about that. I wonder if the Army will re-engineer it for a diesel engine since it will be serving a lot longer than was intended originally? Also, on the issue of deadlines, there is a whole list of deadlines that make the tank NMC for peacetime that can be circle-x'd for combat operations. From the perspective of crew survivability, I would argue that the M1-series is among the best. It was specifically designed to provide the crew with maximum survivability in a catastrophic kill situation and was exhaustively destruction tested in the 80s and the combat experience of US armored forces only confirmed this. Heck, we had an M1 in my battalion that was hit by an Iraqi 125mm sabot round on the turret face in Desert Storm and it didn't even knock off their zero. The other thing that makes the M1 effective in combat is the maintenance crews, who can do amazing things with BDAR.

 

[ironduke57]

...

Leo 2 - good tank, however it's reached its potential regarding further upgrades, Not more or less as the M1. service life, Irrelevant for new build tanks. production line ? etc - overseas re-supply

...

Hate to say it, but the Abrams would win hands down - battle proven - latest technology - factory infrastructure ready to pound out as many as the need requires This also true for the Leo2. - close proximity for spare parts and potential upgrades (don't have to ship the parts from overseas) Just a question if you want to build your own production facility.- crew safety (blow out panels) Has the Leo2,too.- spacious - a good combination of speed (Turbine engine potentially dual fuelled, Leo2 engine is also multi-fuel. logistical plus) – protection (well sloped Chobum Armour) Well Leo2 armor isn´t that sloped but. if the enemy has modern round´s that is irrelevant. – fire power 120 mm smooth bore Which is basically the Leo2 weapon. and sight system Doesn´t the M1 just have an monocular commander peri.? (if you see it, it can kill it) – wide range of different types of ammunition available Ammo which work´s in the M1 works also in the Leo2. - ease of use (lets face it, if the Americans can operate the thing, anybody can, even the French, the overseas ones)

...

If we did, we'd have to make some common sense Canadian mods (ditch the turbine and put in diesel engine) There was already an M1 test vehicle with Europowerpack and an Renk gearbox. and  to make it even better (example their M16A2, into our C-7)

Rebuttals?

See red text.
--------------------------------------------

...
Asked which tank I'd rather be sat in in the Middle East or wherever right now?? It may be heavy but, it's still unpenetrated by conventional weapons so
CHALLENGER 2 - got to be!! If you haven't.....you need to............hear the roar of that CV12 guys....it's heaven...........on tracks!!!

So an RPG-29 isnt´an conventional weapon for you?
----------------------------------------------
[quote author=Red6]crew survivability ... M1[/quote]

What me personally disturb´s about this is that the driver has no emergency exit and IIRC he can only use the turret as an exit if the turret is in two or three position´s. So if he has bad luck he can´t escape his burning tank.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Shamrock]

Hate to say it, but the Abrams would win hands down - battle proven - latest technology - factory infrastructure ready to pound out as many as the need requires - close proximity for spare parts and potential upgrades (don't have to ship the parts from overseas) - crew safety (blow out panels) - spacious - a good combination of speed (Turbine engine potentially dual fuelled, logistical plus) – protection (well sloped Chobum Armour) – fire power 120 mm smooth bore and sight system (if you see it, it can kill it) – wide range of different types of ammunition available - ease of use (lets face it, if the Americans can operate the thing, anybody can, even the French, the overseas ones)
...
Rebuttals?

Plenty.

One of the few things I'll willing to publicly debate your statement is the logistical economy of the M1 vs. Leo 2.  Yes, it can be easier for us to ship parts from the U.S. to Canada, but you're forgetting one very important thing about the Leo 2: compatibility with the Leo 1.  This means we already have several parts in the system that will fit the Leo 2. 

Next is multi-fuel.  Yes, the Abrams can operate on diesel.  However, it will not run as well on diesel as a Leo 2 will, and this takes us back to logistical compatibility.

I'll address Ironduke's bit about the driver's escape hatch.  The driver can get out regardless of what position the turret or gun are in (unless maybe max depress at the 12).  In the case of a complete roll-over, the turret crew would traverse the hull and escape through the driver's hatch; the hull weighs less than the turret.

 

[[phil5]]

the m1a1 can be upgraded to m1a2 and they are currently upgrading some m1a2 to m1a3

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Down side – expense (though the Americans, have at different times, offered Canada whole regiments, if we would play into their political quagmires (perfect example, '91 Gulf War) – not made in Quebec - makes to much sense for our brainless politicans - reliant on Americans (they have enough influence on us already)

You know all my military career, I have been hearing how the US offered us this or offered that, but where is a link/documentation etc that proves this?