Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I know nothing about tanks, but I work with a Frenchmen who was a leclerc commander. He said that the Leopard 2A6 and the M1A2 are equally worthless against the Leclerc. Can anybody give me some aguments that would prove the french guy wrong, please only constructive feedback.
Thanks, Thomas
The M1A2 TUSK and Leopard 2A6M are both newer than the Leclerc batch 10. They have better armor and weight of armor (Ceramic/DU and Appligue) both have a better gun/amo combination (L44/M829a3 and L55/DM63) Both have numerous other upgrades, both have 4 man crews with all the advantages that brings both during combat and during pre-combat, and both can fire more than 22 rounds beofre having to stop everything to reload.
M1A2 TUSK, satellite linked brigade level battle management system, worlds best tank mounted 2nd generation FLIR, newest armor composition to meat existing threats, combat experienced crews, extremely quiet engine.
Leopard 2A6, top down attack protection, massive new frontal appliqué armor, L55 gun.
Against these advantages the Leclerc has a slightly higher move/shoot envelope of 50kph vs 45, slightly faster acceleration and power to weight ratio.
i think that the leclerc is the lightest among the three mentioned & also the most agile
BTW anybody knows about the per unit cost of the leclerc??
as for the ultimate tank is concerned it really depends in which terrain you are fighting
in an urban combat scenario the leclerc scores over the rest bacause of it's relatively low signature & agility
NO NO NO
In an urban fight the M1A2 wins hands down
1- has the L44 gun vs the L52 of the Leclerc, shorter barrel= needs less open space to traverse
2- the turbine is quieter
3- the M1A2 TUSK has the commanders weapon as a remote unit meaning the tank can fire in mutlipe directions without exposing the commander
4- the M1A2 TUSK has a satellite linked brigade level battle management system meaning the tank commander knows where very friendly unit is and where every known enemy unit is.
In urban combat wouldn't the Merkava Mk 4 win? I'm thinking since it was designed with urban combat in mind. Maybe I'm wrong I haven't taken a closer look at it.
In urban combat wouldn't the Merkava Mk 4 win? I'm thinking since it was designed with urban combat in mind. Maybe I'm wrong I haven't taken a closer look at it.
Front mounted final drives, this is a critical flaw exposed during Lebanon. if you can be easily immobilized it doesn't matter how thick your armor is they can kill you.
Front mounted final drives, this is a critical flaw exposed during Lebanon. if you can be easily immobilized it doesn't matter how thick your armor is they can kill you.
However, if you hit the same front part as you would to hit a Merkava engine in a tank that has a back mounted engine, wouldn't it be likely that the tank be disabled because of a dead driver? There was an article on tanknet some months ago about a Chally 2 driver getting his toes blow off. And that was with additional armor.
I'm thinking that if Hizballah learned to aim for engine exhaust vents (which are on the side), there is no reason to think they wouldn't have the discipline to figure out and exploit the weak-spots of a back-engined tank.
Which goes to a different point. How well your tank can do depends on many factors, including technical specifications and crew training. Another important factor is, who is it going up against? Iraqi insurgents are probably not as menacing in the field as Hizballah or the Revolutionary Guards.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
Oh now that was mean, even I wasn't that cruel
On a serious note they use the Leo 1 as some sort of 2nd line support but the MBT is something called the C1 Ariete. On the face of it, it seems like a reasonably decent vehicle of which they have 200+
Oto Melara were involved in its development and construction (for the most part) and they are a good company. I have seen some of their work and it is quite good. You know I do believe its been a while since there was a half passable tank discussion round here, but if a thread for that is started it will have to be comprehensive, no half baked missing a few tanks here and a few tanks there lazy jobs :))
D
Wow I have never heard of this tank. Looks pretty cool. But the unit cost must be very high with only a 200 unit production run.
However, if you hit the same front part as you would to hit a Merkava engine in a tank that has a back mounted engine, wouldn't it be likely that the tank be disabled because of a dead driver? There was an article on tanknet some months ago about a Chally 2 driver getting his toes blow off. And that was with additional armor.
I'm thinking that if Hizballah learned to aim for engine exhaust vents (which are on the side), there is no reason to think they wouldn't have the discipline to figure out and exploit the weak-spots of a back-engined tank.
Which goes to a different point. How well your tank can do depends on many factors, including technical specifications and crew training. Another important factor is, who is it going up against? Iraqi insurgents are probably not as menacing in the field as Hizballah or the Revolutionary Guards.
A rear engoined tank has all its fragile pieces to the rear, and from that apsect they are not well protected. But the idea is to keep your front end with all the armor pointed at the bad guys. The Merkava fails becuase it points the fragile stuff at the bad guy as a design feature. A big enpough shock even if it does not penetrate can mobility kill the tank.
The Chally II that had a driver wounded was punched by an RPG-29. He only lost his toes vs a weapon that can according to some sources punch the front of a T-90A. And on top of that the front bow is the weakest part of the Challengers front armor aspect even with the Dorchester armor. Had that round hit the front of an Abrams it would not have penetrated. The Abrams designed in weaknesses are the rear and top.
I hadn't either but I discovered it funny enough on wikki
After having found the French armed forces wikki page in relation to another thread I went looking for the Italians and turned it up
D
I would say the British Challenger II tank is the ultimate tank (the British, remember, invented the tank in WWI).
The manufacturer claims that it is the world's most reliable main battle tank.
It's also almost impossible to penetrate the armour of a Challenger II - it's armour is the strongest of any tank in the world.
In addition to its Advanced Armour Technology the Challenger 2 also has a nuclear, chemical and biological attack resistant compartment for the crew.
As long as they have rations the crew should be able to remain in the tank for the duration of any chemical attack.
Only THREE Challenger II tanks have ever been lost in combat amd one of those was by ANOTHER Challenger II:
A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 mistakenly shot another, destroying the second tank and killing two crew members
August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger 2, Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 penetrated the frontal armour during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.
April 6, 2007 - in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank, resulting in the driver losing a leg and causing minor injuries to another soldier.
The 25th March 2003 was the first time that a Challenger II's armour was pierced.
In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation just six hours later after the repairs.
One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.
[QUOTE=Blackleaf;422241]I would say the British Challenger II tank is the ultimate tank (the British, remember, invented the tank in WWI).[QUOTE]
Like posters on an international defense and history forum ar enot awar eof who invented the tank.
The manufacturer claims that it is the world's most reliable main battle tank.
Most manufacturers make this claim, The Abrams has a better than 90% up time. Whats the Challengers?
It's also almost impossible to penetrate the armour of a Challenger II - it's armour is the strongest of any tank in the world.
No its not, the Challenger actually has weaker front protection (especially the front hull) than many tanks becuase of its emphasis on side protection.
In addition to its Advanced Armour Technology the Challenger 2 also has a nuclear, chemical and biological attack resistant compartment for the crew.
As long as they have rations the crew should be able to remain in the tank for the duration of any chemical attack.
standard fare for decades.
Only THREE Challenger II tanks have ever been lost in combat amd one of those was by ANOTHER Challenger II:
A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 mistakenly shot another, destroying the second tank and killing two crew members
August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger 2, Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 penetrated the frontal armour during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.
April 6, 2007 - in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank, resulting in the driver losing a leg and causing minor injuries to another soldier.
The 25th March 2003 was the first time that a Challenger II's armour was pierced.
In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation just six hours later after the repairs.
One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.
And the British have fewer of them exposed to the risks of Combat. Give the USMC a bunch and lets see how it does where the fighting is thickest. Don't get me wrong the Challenger is one of the top 4 tanks in the world, but there is no best of the best among those 4. All 4 represent differing philosophies about how a tank should perform.
Comment