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

[Infanteer]

The court jester speaks well: a common chassis is a desirable thing to achieve.

Well, I always knew I had a calling in life.... :warstory:

A fleet based on the Leo 2 chassis, even with the drastic modifications suggested, will be quite big in terms of logistics footprint. The vehicles would weigh in from about 40,000kg for Infantry assault carriers to 60,000kg for the 2A7 tank version.

Is 40,000 - 60,000 kg a good weight range for ensuring maneuverability and sustainability without inhibiting survivability or lethality?

(For maximum protection without paying a huge weight penalty, I would suggest the assault carrier not have a turret at all, but rather several banks of grenade dischargers on the roof to shower the bad guys with gifts of WP and Frag).

How about the Weapons Station that the American Stryker (ICV) uses?  Do we have to get rid of the turret?  The German Lynx suggests that the turret is still useful on an Infantry vehicle.

This will call for pretty impressive sea lift capabilities, lots of heavy duty tank transporters, a big fleet of fuelers when you hit the road and so on. The main reason to contemplate getting this fleet would be if there is a perceived need to crack hard targets, or swing Thor's hammer for the countermove.

Fallujia and the West Bank would indicate heavy armour still has a role to play, since even the threat of being able to go in with relative impunity seems to put a damper on the bad guys. In the two examples above, the leadership tended to flee, leaving the rank and file uncoordinated and probably demoralized. An all Cavalry formation such as suggested in the Armoured Cavalry thread will have lots of uses, but not be as threatening to insurgents holed up in an urban environment. The leaders might be tempted to hunker down, making the dismounted assault much more difficult against a confident and organized foe. Waiting for an allied heavy force to arrive may be impractical for many reasons, and the pause will give the bad guys more time to organize, and defiantly hand them the initiative. At least one battlegroup in Canada should be kitted out in the heavy role for this reason alone.

Agree 100%.  Although it may be costly to deploy and sustain, this should be Canada's "Ace-in-the-Hole" - it would be the perfect companion to the Cavalry Group.  Infact this is a model similar to that suggested by Douglas MacGregor in his Transformation Under Fire.  A mobile expeditionary force like the USMC maintains tracked MBT capabilities, so why shouldn't we?

 

[a_majoor]

How about the Weapons Station that the American Stryker (ICV) uses? Do we have to get rid of the turret? The German Lynx suggests that the turret is still useful on an Infantry vehicle.

A MG mount for close protection maybe, but not a big turret with a chain gun or 40mm cannon. That is why the UA Heavy has tanks attached. As for the weight issue, the ACHZARIT weighs in at @ 45,000kg, and I don't think too many people think they are being shorted on protection in one of those. My concern is the law of diminishing returns. A tank weighing 80,000kg will probably have even more protection than a 60.000kg Leo 2 or a 50,000kg "Ideal" tank, but it is much harder to transport, has less tactical and operational mobility, will be tied to a fleet of fueling vehicles etc. I would even suggest the "ideal" tank is at the edge of acceptibility at 50,000kg, and agressive signature management, engineering development and some very startling out of the box thinking is needed to get an effective fighting vehicle in the 30,000kg range that still has the speed, protection and punch of the "ideal" tank.

 

[12alfa]

Ouuuu. I love to jump in on this.


Most likely spent the most time in a M1HA and Leo2A4,5 and Leo1A4 than most (sim time that is), recce41 knows how much that time counts, heheheh.

But I'll keep my views to my self, as I tend to wind people up here.

But The M1. Leo would not make the cut in my View.

 

[Chimera]

A MG mount for close protection maybe, but not a big turret with a chain gun or 40mm cannon. That is why the UA Heavy has tanks attached. As for the weight issue, the ACHZARIT weighs in at @ 45,000kg, and I don't think too many people think they are being shorted on protection in one of those. My concern is the law of diminishing returns. A tank weighing 80,000kg will probably have even more protection than a 60.000kg Leo 2 or a 50,000kg "Ideal" tank, but it is much harder to transport, has less tactical and operational mobility, will be tied to a fleet of fueling vehicles etc. I would even suggest the "ideal" tank is at the edge of acceptibility at 50,000kg, and agressive signature management, engineering development and some very startling out of the box thinking is needed to get an effective fighting vehicle in the 30,000kg range that still has the speed, protection and punch of the "ideal" tank.

How about a RWS with a .50 and Javelin as the armaament on your IFV?  Covering fire and anti-tank in one little bundle.

http://www.gdlscanada.com/products.asp?ID=36

 

[a_majoor]

I see you've read some of my ADTB articles. That is another option more suited for a general purpose infantry fighting vehicle, but I am thinking of this as a special purpose vehicle, able to advance rapidly under fire while getting support fire from the tanks and SP cannons, then trigger a mass volley of grenades on the enemy position as the troops dismount. I am sure even the most motivated enemy will be going for cover at that moment, giving our guys the magic minute to shake out and advance.

 

[AZA-02]

the word which you cant see is the term used after inserting your mag, to then _ _ _ _ it, to allow a bullet into the chamber...

i should spell check it,but 2 lazee...

 

[Infanteer]

I asked you nicely the first time and then I had to go around erasing frivolous posts that disrupted a thread in the Infantry forum.   Are you not getting enough attention at school or something?

This is a warning.   Quit spamming threads with silly posts that use up space or else you will be on your way out of here.

 

[Bomber]

I think Norway is looking for someone to buy  a regiments worth of Pzh 2000's, as they have finished a defence review and deemed them surplus.  All 8 rounds hitting the ground at within one second of the first one, out to 24 km;s away, what a piece of kit, and only about 5 years old.  Maybe have a little bit of factory powertrain warranty left.  Sorry, I don't know how long comprehensive is on new self propelled howitzers.  Again, I have to look away from all this heavy armour, Maybe one single regiment at the most of these big tanks, but man look to the CV90 family, I hope the next one along has wings, cause those vehicles do everything else under the sun.  Or maybe just get 1000 of those little Weasels, 1 and 2, and then make a wall of super small tank killing two man wrecking machines.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Leopard? :boring:
What about the CV90 family in all its glory.They have a 120mm version and all the odds and sods to make your combat team a reality,. Oh visionless one. ;D
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...=126&start=2&prev=/images?q=CV90120&hl=en&lr=

 

[Lance Wiebe]

If we want a light, tracked, common chassis, then I agree, the CV90 family is excellent.  It may be the very best M113 replacement out there.

But if you want a Brigade's worth of  vehicles that can fight in a high intensity conflict, then a real tank is needed, not an MGS, whether based on a LAV III or CV90 chassis.  The problem is, what to use as a common chassis?  The SPZ 2000 uses a lot of Leo 2 bits and pieces, which is a good thing.  The same as the Leo 1 and the Marder shared some parts.  We now know that the Leo 2 can be made with a front mounted engine.  But can it be made with a much lower hull than the SPZ 2000 uses?  Maybe using the Europack, the entire chassis can be lowered too such an extent that a front engined tank, with a lowered turret, can weigh in at 50,000 Kg.  Not much more than our current Leo with its add-on armour package, which closes in on 45,000Kg.  Would the Germans be even willing to design such a vehicle?  Would export orders make it worthwhile?  Would many countries be willing to buy a 50 ton tank, with a 35 to 40 ton IFV?  I know if I was dictator of Canada, It would interest me!  However, I would keep 3 wheeled Brigades, and form one heavy brigade.  The "mailed fist" to backup the wheeled guys.  I'm afraid we can't always count on our allies to have the same priorities as us with the use of heavy armour.

 

[Shec]

I know if I was dictator of Canada, It would interest me!

Lance, if you were dictator of Canada,  it would interest me   ;D ;D

 

[a_majoor]

How can you be Dictator if I am the King?

The "cut down" Leopard concept is a way to think about rebuilding the Armoured fist in the "here and now" without getting into impossibly long time lines. Since we are already in the "impossible" time line era (i.e. even a comitment to rebuild the CF will require from 5-10 years just to get the core skills back), then maybe we should look farther ahead. These concepts are from the July-August 1997 edition of Armor Magazine, representing a Future Combat System with distinctly "tank like" qualities.

Of interest is the rear compartment which can hold a vertical launch missile cell, or be swapped out for a compartment for a team of dismounted scouts. The main weapon system is an electromagnetic "railgun", launching very small projectiles at astonishing velocities, and a laser weapon is also mounted (although I wonder if it will be technologicly feasable even then). If we empty the mid section, which houses the weapons mount and the associated energy storage systems, then we have the space for a conventional Infantry Fighting Vehicle, or other members of the Combat team.

 

[Bomber]

I was watching extreme machines about 3 years ago and they were showing concept US tanks.  There was one that was hybrid drive, and mounted a triangular rather than round barrel, it was 140mm.  The entire vehicle was about 4 maybe 4.5 feet tall, cause they showed the guys mounting it and when they were next to it they were about a foot taller.  The turret was only big enough to hold the breech and some loading equipment.  The vehicle was very angular, but the neatest thing was the hull down position, it would drop its suspension until it was only an inch off the ground.  making it 4 feet high, but when under way cross country it would rise up and stay a the elevated position.  It used band tracks and the suspension raised an lowered itself according to the vehicles speed.  I will start googling like mad to back up my "out there vehicle description"

 

[gunner56]

Having served for a short time in the KO CALG R, I can remember salivating over pix of the Leo's. I still haven't seen a real one outside of the display at the Calgary Stampede, but I still think Canada should replace them with M1A2's. Last I heard,they're still the best in the world.
Don't our troops deserve the best??

 

[Necro99]

Sorry if i sound smart-assed, i don't mean to step on any of you, since some of you have been in the Armor, but im just stating my opinion.

The M1A2 has in fact a very poor record. As what i've heard, it's unreliable in desert and artic (HI!) climates. It also weights around 70 tons. Also, it requires alot of  servicing , it drinks gas like no tomorrow and is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Not just that, it's armor is weak too. I know this sounds rediculous, but hear this.
It puts all of it's armor weight on the front turret plate, and almost nothing on the flanks, top and back. It can be disabled by a single RPG-7 (50ies vintage, BTW) in one of those "sweet spots". Even the Leo C1 has better armor! Oh sure, chobham. But it's all on the front plate!

Also, it has one BIG problem. It is GIGANTIC! Forget concealability, silhouette and easy transportation! It dwarves even the Leopard 2 in size. Let's compare it to the Russian T-90.

T-90:
Length 9.53 meters (w/ Gun)
Width   3.78 meters
Height 2.225 meters
clearance   0.47 meters  

M1A1:
Length 9.83 meters
Width   3.66 meters
Height 2.44 meters
clearance   0.48 meters  

As you can see, T-90 is wider (better ground pressure and weight distribution), lower (smaller silhouette) and less long (less cumbersome)
Also, the T-90 is better armed. It's 125mm can penetrate the M1A1's front armor using modern ammo (IRAQI 125mm AMMO WAS 60IES, BEFORE T-72 WAS MADE!). Also, it dosen't even need shells! It can shoot Guided Missiles throught it's cannon. The AT-11 Sniper, wich isin't the latest gun-launched ATGM, can penetrate 700mm of RHAe at a range of 4km.

The T-90 is also better protected!
It has the Shtora-1 Optronic Protection systems wich disperses smokescreens and flares when it detects incoming ATGMs. Also, it's equipped with the ARENA.
It's a system that detects incoming ATGMs and Tank rounds, then fires a projectile to destroy it, leaving only a rain of harmless sharpnel to hit against the tank. As for the Armor, the T-90 has an evenly distributed armor all around the tank. And when it's not enought, it has the Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor wich is effective against multi-staged HEAT and APFSDS. I've heard the Kaktus ERA is even better.

That was just my 0.2$...

 

[George Wallace]

Some good points comparing the M1 with the T90.  The next question is powerpack reliability.  How do former Warsaw Pact powerpacks rate against Western Powerpacks in reliability and servicing.  This is where I tend to lean towards German tanks.  They are designed with more concern towards the Maintenance side of Armour Crewman's life than any other nations.  Leopards are very simple to maintain compared to British and American MBTs and AFVs.  If your tank is a gas guzzler or spends more time broken down than on the battlefield, it may not be all that great a choice.

GW

 

[Reccesoldier]

Necro, the width of the vehicle doesn't matter for ground pressure, it is the width and length of the tracks (which in and of itself is constrained by two simple formulae less than 1:5 ratio track width to length = an unstable vehicle more than 1:8 makes the vehicle impossible to turn) and weight of the vehicle which will determine the ground pressure.

As for your comments on the armour protection of the M1 or any other tank for that matter most (if not all) tanks are designed around the Whittaker DPV which states that 1/3 of all attacks occur within the front 45degrees of arc and 45% of attacks occur within the front 60 degrees of arc. To protect the sides rear and top of a tank as well as that front arc would create significant changes in the rest of the vehicle.

More armour = more weight = larger powerpack =  higher silhouette
                                        = more fuel = larger logistical tail
                  =more ground pressure =  less mobility                                                             

As you can see a lot of things go into the design loop of a tank and each affects the other. You said that the T90 is a lower silhouette that means that they have had to give up a certain amount of main gun depression which will affect the employment of the vehicle ie. Our tactics in the defence is to shoot down into the low ground whenever possible, a reduced depression of the main gun will limit this ability.
Also a larger gun = a larger turret ring which means something else has been constrained to accommodate it (smaller powerpack? or less crew space? or Ammunition storage). A larger gun also means larger ammunition which means less rounds carried.

 

[Grom_PL]

Since you guys always manage to find a fault in every MBT ever mentioned in this thread. We should make our OWN tank, using the design of a successful MBT, making all the adjustments needed to make a PERFECT tank with no faults. Canadians then would be known as the best tanks builders in the world and our soldiers would get the best. For a second, i think this is why the liberals haven't bought any tanks yet, every tank has problems and it would cost 2 much 2 have a MBT program here, so the Liberals plainly say we don't need MBT's and gets LAV's thinking that they can take out MBT no prob, and also thinking that Leopard will stand a change against a Modern MBT. Instead I think we should sell all our Leo's, buy a MBT or make a different variant of MBT that fits our needs, and use it for our reserves and our regulars. Where will the $ come from u ask?, Give back the subs to the Brits, 900 milllion, sell our old tanks 100$, stop buying alot of Lav's 50 million, getting rid of the Liberals.......... priceless, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't we in this mess and we would be billion dollars richer.

Thats my 0.2 cents

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Necro99

While I hesitate about entering an equipment debate, I must disagree with you that the M1A2 has a poor record.  I have not been in a T90, but I have been in an M1 and have some time on the Leopard C1 and C2.  While no tank in invulnerable, the M1A2 has shown that it can withstand hits from 120mm DU at close range, never mind the Russian ammo.  The M1 can be disabled but the crew will usually survive.  RPGs can get it if they hit the right spot, but there are recorded engagements of the M1 withstanding multiple RPG 7 hits from several angles and staying in the fight.  I have met a US tanker whose M1 was hit by two 120mm sabot and a TOW through the rear armour.  He was wounded and his tank knocked out but the crew compartment stayed intact.  The M1 is very fast and actually has a fairly low silhouette (it is lower than the Bradley).  The gun is extremely accurate and destructive.

The Russian tanks in Grozny did not fare so well.  Single RPG hits caused catastrophic secondary explosions that blew the turrets off and killed the whole crew.  At this time I would take the M1A2 over any tank, although I would rate it with the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.  The latest Merkava looks attractive as does the Leclerc but I do not know enough about them.  I would place the latest Russian armour at least one rung below the latest generation of Western MBTs.

You are right about the high fuel consumption of the M1 but that is the price that is paid to move that much armour at that speed.  It does break down but so do all other tanks (even the German stuff).  It can be knocked out but I would argue that only the latest Leo 2, Challenger IIs and Merkavas could take the same punishment.  It is heavy (I do not think that it can be made any heavier) but again that is the price of protection.  I do not trust the high tech active armour defences we read about.  I would put my faith in DU and Chobham armour.  The M1 is not perfect but it is the dominant land system for the foreseeable future.  The US Future Combat System will not be on line any time soon (if ever).

This does not mean that the M1 can work alone on the battlefield.  It needs infantry to winkle out RPGs on the flanks, artillery to suppress the ATGMs, engineers to breach obstacles scouts to find the enemy and all the other supporting arms.

Bottom line, while I do not pick equipment I would take the M1A2 for our army in a heartbeat.  It is combat proven and is readily available.  I believe, however, that that ship has sailed.

Cheers,

2B

 

[12alfa]

Sorry if I sound smart-assed, i don't mean to step on any of you, since some of you have been in the Armor, but im just stating my opinion.

The M1A2 has in fact a very poor record. As what i've heard,

Data shows that it has the best record vs. RPG's. For mission kills vs. Rpg's fired at it. It has proven it can withstand 99% of all RPG's thus fired at it. What is your source?

It's unreliable in desert and artic (HI!) climates.

Could you post your source, seems strange that they operate in Iraq and Egyptian areas with very little climate problems not know of.

Even the Leo C1 has better armor! Oh sure, chobham.

The LeoC1 does not have Chobham armour, only Challenger's have, the Leo2A4/5/6, and M1 and it's models have a type of Armour developed at Burlington usually called chobham.

But it's all on the front plate!

Wrong

As you can see, T-90 is wider (better ground pressure and weight distribution), lower (smaller silhouette) and less long (less cumbersome)
Also, the T-90 is better armed. It's 125mm can penetrate the M1A1's front armor using modern ammo

I   see   that   at combat ranges (125mm BM-42M APFSDS (1998) 60-65cm@0km), this does not overmatch the armour on the A2 to a great degree that one could boast that it can penetrate the M1A2 every time   if any I would think..

(IRAQI 125mm AMMO WAS 60IES, BEFORE T-72 WAS MADE!).


Why would one make ammo before the wpn to shoot it, this does not make any sence! And the T-72 was developed in the 60"s.

Also, it dosen't even need shells! It can shoot Guided Missiles throught it's cannon. The AT-11 Sniper, wich isin't the latest gun-launched ATGM, can penetrate 700mm of RHAe at a range of 4km.

It carries a small amount of ATGM, that can be defeated.

The T-90 is also better protected!
It has the Shtora-1 Optronic Protection systems wich disperses smokescreens and flares when it detects incoming ATGMs.

This would have very little effect on most western ATGM's

Also, it's equipped with the ARENA.
It's a system that detects incoming ATGMs and Tank rounds, then fires a projectile to destroy it, leaving only a rain of harmless sharpnel to hit against the tank.

This is no good against Ke wpns, the main wpn for killing MBT's. Arena is for atgm's, and rpg's.

As for the Armor, the T-90 has an evenly distributed armor all around the tank.it has weak spots like all other MBT's tracks, sides, engine ect.

And when it's not enought, it has the Kontakt-5 Explosive Reactive Armor wich is effective against multi-staged HEAT and APFSDS. I've heard the Kaktus ERA is even better.

For your info.........

M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2
Ke wpn-Turret: 880-900
            Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Ce wpn-Turret: 1310-1620
           Glacis:510-1050
           front hull:800-970

T-90
Ke wpn-Turret: 700-740    
           Glacis: 670-710
         Lower front hull: 240
Ce wpn-Turret: 1040-1120  
           Glacis: 990-1070
Lower front hull: 380

These figures include Kontakt-5 second-generation ERA. Estimates without ERA are 560mm vs KE and 720mm vs CE.


Do you still think the T90 is better? These are just est's, but I think you can see the differances.



The short story is..............

The T-90 CAN penetrate the M1A2 over the frontal arc up to 2000m, But the M1A2 can engage far beyond this
if the figures for BM-42M (670mm RHA pen/2000m) and BM-32 DPU are Correct. However, the M1A2 with M-829A2 can do 740mm at 2km, so there is no real problem in each tank killing the other? Although the M1 has better optics and will find the T90 first.

That was just my 0.2$...

I can provide ammo data as well, but I think you get the point, you will live longer in a M1 my friend.


[Modified to so readers can see what is quote & what is poster's comment]