Quoted: The armor is flat because most composite armors can only be produced in flat panels.  It's turret is modeled after the German Leopard II which has the exact same vertical sides and has long been considered one of the heaviest armored MBT's...after the Merkava and Challenger II.  It evern beat out the M1A2 in a number of trials.  The armor packages on most newer MBT's are about equal.  The M1A2 is not invulnerable either.  One had it's rear turret penetrated by a 25mm APFSDS-DU round from an M2 Bradley in Iraq. Quoted: Quoted: I like the flat sides on the tank, it makes a good laser target. Is this thing supposed to be futuristic? I was noticing the same thing. Who in their right mind engineers flat, vertical armor anymore? Leave it to the Muslims.

Not strictly true… while the Leopard has very thick and heavy armour IT IS NOT Chobham Armor as fitted to the US M1A1 or British Challenger II. The genuine Chobham armor is a very closely guarded secret. Isreal and Germany use their own 'composite armour' but it is a very poor second. The rear turret of an M1A1 is desgned to be thinner than the main turret armor so that it will rupture and vent the explosion of the ammunition stored in the bustle  to the outside and so protect the crew.

The Leopard II has been fitted with a sharply angled extra armour package as it was found that its verticle armor on its turret front was able to be penetrated by the newer Russian tank rounds. This add on armor however has now produced a bad 'shot trap' on the front of the turret.  
The armor layout and shot deflection angles on the M1A1 and Challenger are far superior to the Leopard.



FACT: During GW I at least one British Challenger tank was hit by an M1A1 main armamenet but the round did not penetrate. A British Warrior APC also withstood a 120mm sabot round as well. Chobham armor is VERY tough stuff.

Quoted: Are you serious? The Indian goverment/military is fighting a war agaisnt Islamic fundamentalist groups in Kasmir.  How exactly is thier new goverment "Less Friendly To The USA"? Hell, we just did a major military exercise with the Indian military. Our relationship has not been this good since WWII.

Sadly, yes I am serious.

This article gives a little taste of the Congress Party attitudes (and as I said the Communists are an important part of their coalition):

www.expressindia.com/print.php?newsid=31695

GunLvr

Quoted: Quoted: The armor is flat because most composite armors can only be produced in flat panels.  It's turret is modeled after the German Leopard II which has the exact same vertical sides and has long been considered one of the heaviest armored MBT's...after the Merkava and Challenger II.  It evern beat out the M1A2 in a number of trials.  The armor packages on most newer MBT's are about equal.  The M1A2 is not invulnerable either.  One had it's rear turret penetrated by a 25mm APFSDS-DU round from an M2 Bradley in Iraq. Quoted: Quoted: I like the flat sides on the tank, it makes a good laser target. Is this thing supposed to be futuristic? I was noticing the same thing. Who in their right mind engineers flat, vertical armor anymore? Leave it to the Muslims. Not strictly true… while the Leopard has very thick and heavy armour IT IS NOT Chobham Armor as fitted to the US M1A1 or British Challenger II. The genuine Chobham armor is a very closely guarded secret. Isreal and Germany use their own 'composite armour' but it is a very poor second. The rear turret of an M1A1 is desgned to be thinner than the main turret armor so that it will rupture and vent the explosion of the ammunition stored in the bustle  to the outside and so protect the crew. The Leopard II has been fitted with a sharply angled extra armour package as it was found that its verticle armor on its turret front was able to be penetrated by the newer Russian tank rounds. This add on armor however has now produced a bad 'shot trap' on the front of the turret.   The armor layout and shot deflection angles on the M1A1 and Challenger are far superior to the Leopard. img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/Leopard.jpg FACT: During GW I at least one British Challenger tank was hit by an M1A1 main armamenet but the round did not penetrate. A British Warrior APC also withstood a 120mm sabot round as well. Chobham armor is VERY tough stuff.

The M1-series uses blast doors and does not rely upon the armor itself to open up to vent an ammunition storage detonation.  Any lack of armor on a tank is merely a tradeoff for additional armor in other places (sides, up front).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The M1-series uses blast doors and does not rely upon the armor itself to open up to vent an ammunition storage detonation.  Any lack of armor on a tank is merely a tradeoff for additional armor in other places (sides, up front).

I stand corrected Sir, I should have referred to the Blast Doors specifically  in my post, my post was badly worded. A better post would be  "the main armour is the front and and although it has thinner armour on the turret rear, the turret is so designed that a pentration into the turret bustle causing the ammunition stored there to detonate  is vented by the blast doors  in the bustle to the outside and so protect the crew." My reference to 'rupture' was to the way the blast doors will blow open and vent the explosion.

ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: Are you serious? The Indian goverment/military is fighting a war agaisnt Islamic fundamentalist groups in Kasmir.  How exactly is thier new goverment "Less Friendly To The USA"? Hell, we just did a major military exercise with the Indian military. Our relationship has not been this good since WWII. Sadly, yes I am serious. This article gives a little taste of the Congress Party attitudes (and as I said the Communists are an important part of their coalition): www.expressindia.com/print.php?newsid=31695 GunLvr

This is the opinion of ONE political party in India, not thier entire goverment.

The Warrior has Chobam armor?
I don't think the Bradley has it, judging by the applique armor and RA seen sometimes...please enlighten me

Quoted: The Warrior has Chobam armor? I don't think the Bradley has it, judging by the applique armor and RA seen sometimes...please enlighten me

I was thinking the same thing. A warrior survived a direct hit from a 120mm DS round?  I would like to see somebody prove this to me.

Quoted: The Warrior has Chobam armor? I don't think the Bradley has it, judging by the applique armor and RA seen sometimes...please enlighten me

Yes, Warrior and the Challenger have a War Suit of extra Chobham armour they bolt on when the shit starts flying. That's why Warriors don't get taken out by RPGs… the British Army reckons that its MICV's need to be able to stand up in a Tank on Tank environment. The British Army had some input into the Bradley design but decided it was not meeting their requirements and decided not to buy it.




The big boxes bolted to the side and front are the 'combat'  armor they don in a war zone. Same with a Challenger.





Notice the thickness of those side skirts on this Challenger? you may as well spit at it as fire an RPG at that side armor.

Found this interesting comparison on the Warrior?Bradley by a US Military guy. The problems he notes with the Warrior are now being addressed with a new fully stabilised turret with a 40mm Telescoped Round Turrret being ordered for retrofitting. The Warrior has now been fitted FLIR equipment for the driver, gunner and commander.

"Which is better British Warrior of U.S. Bradley?, August 27, 2000

Reviewer:
Sam Damon Jr. (Fort Bragg, NC) - See all my reviews
I have always been curious about the British Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle, so I bought the Foss book and began to see why the British Army selected the Warrior over the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV). Foss explains that the British Army was involved with the BFV's development and didn't like what they saw and came up with their own vehicle that is simpler and with a lower profile.

The Warrior has some features we could easily incorporate into our BFVs, if we would realize its an INFANTRY fighting vehicle not a wannabe-tank with gunnery driving training with the men in back as security guards. In contrast, the Warrior has always had bench seats to carry 7 men, has a low-pressure 30mm Rarden cannon so the infantry can have their heads out the top hatches to fire/see what's going on, while we tinkered with firing ports. What is amazing about Warrior is that it has rotating periscopes for the infantry in the back to see what is going on when "buttoned up" while in the BFV you are as blind as a bat. The Warrior has a full NBC protection system and even a toilet in the vehicle! If that were not enough Foss explains that the Warrior has a heater for meals and coffee/tea and a large power operated rear door and not a ramp--so the infantry in back can get themselves out quickly without having to beg the driver to open it like we do on the BFV. The British used CHOBHAM armor to applique to the outsides of their Warrior ICVs--this is the same stuff used to armor main battle tanks. When a warrior was hit accidentally by a tank gun round in the Gulf war, it glanced off doing only minor damage. When a tank round hit a BFV in the Gulf, it demolished the vehicle and killed/wounded the men inside.

Reading Foss' excellent work you wonder why we don't put a rotating periscope in the BFV on the top troop hatch, replace the rear ramp with the large power door, put a decent NBC over-pressure/air filtration system in, install a troop commode, and apply REAL armor to the outsides to include the lighter M113A3s? Why not replace the BFV turret with a low-profile one-man turret with a 30mm autocannon using the same low-pressure ammo as the AH-64 helicopter uses and return our BFVs to Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles--to their original purpose as infantry transports?

The faults of the Warrior are that it doesn't come with Forward Looking Infared (FLIR) or cannot fire on the move like the BFV, but must stop to shoot. This can be fixed by using a low-profile 25-30mm turret like the Desert Warrior improved version has that was selected by Kuwait over the BFV for its armed forces. Fire/Forget Anti-tank missiles like the Javelin would be easily attached to the turret outsides like the Desert Warrior has TOW ATGMs. These same things can apply to the BFV.

So which vehicle is better, Bradley or Warrior? Clearly they both could be equally as good if the best aspects of each one were integrated in the other. Both vehicles need to remove their fuel tanks from inside the vehicle which could incinerate the men and place them in the rear outsides like the M113A3 does. Clearly the British Warrior has more of an infantry purpose in mind with more field craft, as the tubes for camouflage net sticks around the vehicle facilitate. They do not curse their infantry by permanently assigning them to vehicles where they get lazy (or worse get assigned to a 2-man turret and become wannabe tankers obsessed with BFV "gunnery") and lose their light infantry skills--infantry is infantry and can be attached to helicopters or vehicles or "yomp" on foot as required. When Foss describes the infantry actions on foot to secure some objectives during Desert Storm, it makes you wonder about the U.S. BFV mentality. I admire the British tactically-oriented approach and wish we would emulate it.

My only fault with Foss is that he clearly misunderstands mobility issues having bought into the heavyist mentality that "bigger is better". Bigger is not better if it cannot get to the battlefield---one of the reasons why the British and U.S. Armies keep lighter AFVs like the FV 432 and M113A3 around. Foss never seens to mention/realize that the same technology that makes a Warrior fast could also make a FV 432 fast, like the U.S. Army has done to make the M113A3s keep up with the M1/M2s in the open desert.

Other than this, buy this book and compare the Warrior design to the BFV and the Russian BMP-3 and BMD-3 (see Zaloga's works) and ponder on British successes with their vehicle-encouraged infantry mentality and the troubles the Russians had early on in Afghanistan and Chechnya when the vehicle eroded infantry capabilities."


ANdy

Quoted: Quoted: The Warrior has Chobam armor? I don't think the Bradley has it, judging by the applique armor and RA seen sometimes...please enlighten me I was thinking the same thing. A warrior survived a direct hit from a 120mm DS round?  I would like to see somebody prove this to me.

It was a widely reported Blue on Blue during Gulf War I. A British Challenger fired an 120mm APFSDS round at a Warrior MICV by accident in an egagement with Iraqi armor, it suffered a dent but no penetration. Very seriously pissed off crew of the Warrior though!

Andy

Quoted: The Leopard II has been fitted with a sharply angled extra armour package as it was found that its verticle armor on its turret front was able to be penetrated by the newer Russian tank rounds. This add on armor however has now produced a bad 'shot trap' on the front of the turret.

There is no shot trap on the Leopard 2A5 and up (the models fitten with the wedge armor). It might look that way to you, but the fact is that modern APFSDS rounds do NOT deflect off like you would expect a bullet to do. The wedge armor is designed to induce yaw into a sabot penetrator, which would then impact at a very unfavorable angle into the flat armor behind it. It works very well.

While it is excellent armor, Chobham is nothing magical. I am personally a great fan of the M1 series (my favorite obviously), but to say that a tank like Leopard 2A6 or Strv 122 is not on par with the latest M1A2SEP is simply not true. If anything, Strv 122 has much better mine protection, as well as protection against ICM strikes.

Anyone interested in armor should visit www.tank-net.org, its like the ar15 of tanks. :)

I remember hearing about a Bradley on Bradley accidental engagement during Gulf War 1. Several infantry in the back of the Bradley were killed.

The Brads were not intended to go toe to toe with MBTs, when used as such they suffer accordingly, the WWI battle cruisers come to mind.  I'm all for the Warrior's protection, but in Iraqi Freedom the Brads dealt with RPGs just fine, though it won't stand up to a 120mm DU round.  To me the Brits kind of blurred the line between a tank and an APC, unless their doctrines strictly prohibit the use of IFVs against MBTs.  With MBT level protection but IFV armament, do you guys fear they might be misused and the crew might try to take on an MBT?  
The Bradley design appears to place firepower and mobility ahead of protection.  The Brads engaged Iraqi tanks in GW I not because the crews thought they had a real tank, but there they were, what else were they gonna do?  Chobam armor would have come in handy...

Quoted: There is no shot trap on the Leopard 2A5 and up (the models fitten with the wedge armor). It might look that way to you, but the fact is that modern APFSDS rounds do NOT deflect off like you would expect a bullet to do. The wedge armor is designed to induce yaw into a sabot penetrator, which would then impact at a very unfavorable angle into the flat armor behind it. It works very well.

I know modern APFSDS rounds can penetrate armor at shallow angles, but what you said is a bit confusing.  If the penetrator can't be deflected, then how can yaw be introduced into it?

I heard they will be all painted yellow and equiped with fare meters

Quoted: Quoted: There is no shot trap on the Leopard 2A5 and up (the models fitten with the wedge armor). It might look that way to you, but the fact is that modern APFSDS rounds do NOT deflect off like you would expect a bullet to do. The wedge armor is designed to induce yaw into a sabot penetrator, which would then impact at a very unfavorable angle into the flat armor behind it. It works very well.

Agreed, it 'may' work against long rod penetrators, but I'm unconvinced. I have seen Challengers firing at Chieftain hulks on Lulworth range and the rounds bore straight in at a 20-30  degree impact angle on the frontal armor.
However, against solid shot as fired by many el cheapo T55 type tanks you will have the same shot trap the Panther of WWII had, where the round could deflect down into the thin armor on the roof of the drivers compartment. It's a 'band-aid' for poor armor geometry. The Leopard II is pre M1/Challenger in its design, both the US and Britain trialed them and said 'no thank you'. As I said before, the M1 and Challenger have far superior geometry on their turrets to start with.

Andy

Quoted: The Brads were not intended to go toe to toe with MBTs, when used as such they suffer accordingly, the WWI battle cruisers come to mind.  I'm all for the Warrior's protection, but in Iraqi Freedom the Brads dealt with RPGs just fine, though it won't stand up to a 120mm DU round.  To me the Brits kind of blurred the line between a tank and an APC, unless their doctrines strictly prohibit the use of IFVs against MBTs.  With MBT level protection but IFV armament, do you guys fear they might be misused and the crew might try to take on an MBT?   The Bradley design appears to place firepower and mobility ahead of protection.  The Brads engaged Iraqi tanks in GW I not because the crews thought they had a real tank, but there they were, what else were they gonna do?  Chobam armor would have come in handy...

British tactics are that you do not engage in a slugging match in your IFV with a Tank. The gun is big enough to hurt the tank (they can slice trough a T55 without problem) and put it off but its primarily an infantry support weapon. The reason for the very heavy armor is so that the Warriors can go forward with the Challengers in the teeth of tank fire to deploy their infantry to protect the Tanks from ATGW teams. Tanks/IFV's are very tightly integrated in combat.

ANdy

Speaking only as an armor enthusiast, I'd say Vito is right about the Leopard II's inferior armor.  The basic design and shapes of both Abrams and Challengers have not changed drastically, they've been improved, but I'd say there are very few flaws in their original design, making these huge changes unnecessary
Say Vito, do limeys say el cheapo there too?  I remember another Brit saying something about you picking up our lingo, as if it were a bad thing lol.

I know modern APFSDS rounds can penetrate armor at shallow angles, but what you said is a bit confusing. If the penetrator can't be deflected, then how can yaw be introduced into it?

The penetrator will not bounce off, but it will deflect slightly (enough to make it impact the flat turret armor at an angle).

Agreed, it 'may' work against long rod penetrators, but I'm unconvinced. I have seen Challengers firing at Chieftain hulks on Lulworth range and the rounds bore straight in at a 20-30 degree impact angle on the frontal armor. However, against solid shot as fired by many el cheapo T55 type tanks you will have the same shot trap the Panther of WWII had, where the round could deflect down into the thin armor on the roof of the drivers compartment. It's a 'band-aid' for poor armor geometry. The Leopard II is pre M1/Challenger in its design, both the US and Britain trialed them and said 'no thank you'. As I said before, the M1 and Challenger have far superior geometry on their turrets to start with.

It is unlikely that even a APDS round would deflect off the wedge armor, it would more likely bore through and hit the flat turret (which it cannot penetrate). A smaller caliber AP should would deflect, that is true. But then again the Leo2 has no gap at the turret, while with the M1 you can hit the turret ring from the front.

Standby on the Panther shot trap, there was a humongous thread on that topic on tank-net, unfortunately the website has no search function... this will take a while!

You might be interested in this discussion: Shot traps

Red areas denote very low level of protection.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/modules/PNphpBB2/files/m1a1_114.jpg

Hm, I bet that illustration is intentionally inaccurate.

Quoted: Hm, I bet that illustration is intentionally inaccurate.

It is?

Note that the red color doesn't denote identical level of protection, it simply shows the areas that are very likely to get penetrated. Just follow the link above the picture, it explains a lot.

The manlet of the turret is typically the most heavily armored part, more so than the turret and hull, this is at least based on past designs.  Hard to image the manlet of the Abram is less protected than the turret itself and the hull.

Quoted: Say Vito, do limeys say el cheapo there too?  I remember another Brit saying something about you picking up our lingo, as if it were a bad thing lol.

We sure do! we have Wal-Marts as well and the same type of people shop in them!

ANdy

Quoted: This is the opinion of ONE political party in India, not thier entire goverment.

But that is the central party of the ruling coalition....

I just read that their new foreign affairs minister attended Beijing U back in the 1950s.

GunLvr

Smell like cabbage, do they?

Quoted: Quoted: Say Vito, do limeys say el cheapo there too?  I remember another Brit saying something about you picking up our lingo, as if it were a bad thing lol. We sure do! we have Wal-Marts as well and the same type of people shop in them! ANdy

I'm pretty sure that the Leopard II does have Chobam armor like the M1, M1A1, and Challenger I.  Only the Leopard II A6 has the additional wedge armor but it is not solid.  It is made of 1" (or so) thick steel and the wedges are hollow.

Quoted: Quoted: The armor is flat because most composite armors can only be produced in flat panels.  It's turret is modeled after the German Leopard II which has the exact same vertical sides and has long been considered one of the heaviest armored MBT's...after the Merkava and Challenger II.  It evern beat out the M1A2 in a number of trials.  The armor packages on most newer MBT's are about equal.  The M1A2 is not invulnerable either.  One had it's rear turret penetrated by a 25mm APFSDS-DU round from an M2 Bradley in Iraq. Quoted: Quoted: I like the flat sides on the tank, it makes a good laser target. Is this thing supposed to be futuristic? I was noticing the same thing. Who in their right mind engineers flat, vertical armor anymore? Leave it to the Muslims. Not strictly true… while the Leopard has very thick and heavy armour IT IS NOT Chobham Armor as fitted to the US M1A1 or British Challenger II. The genuine Chobham armor is a very closely guarded secret. Isreal and Germany use their own 'composite armour' but it is a very poor second. The rear turret of an M1A1 is desgned to be thinner than the main turret armor so that it will rupture and vent the explosion of the ammunition stored in the bustle  to the outside and so protect the crew. The Leopard II has been fitted with a sharply angled extra armour package as it was found that its verticle armor on its turret front was able to be penetrated by the newer Russian tank rounds. This add on armor however has now produced a bad 'shot trap' on the front of the turret.   The armor layout and shot deflection angles on the M1A1 and Challenger are far superior to the Leopard. img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/Leopard.jpg FACT: During GW I at least one British Challenger tank was hit by an M1A1 main armamenet but the round did not penetrate. A British Warrior APC also withstood a 120mm sabot round as well. Chobham armor is VERY tough stuff.

Ton of Tank info, mostly Lepard II VS. M1A2 stuff and tech specs and history....

www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf

www.tank-net.org/ubb/Forum13/HTML/001768.html

www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-570.asp

www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/478-183.asp

www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/

www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/tank.german.leopard2.thorough-description.1.html

S.O.

Quoted: Ton of Tank info, mostly Lepard II VS. M1A2 stuff and tech specs and history.... www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf www.tank-net.org/ubb/Forum13/HTML/001768.html www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-570.asp www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/478-183.asp www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/tank.german.leopard2.thorough-description.1.html S.O.

Not too sure I'd agree with that first link. It ranked the T-72 over the Merkava!

I didn't read all that stuff...just the result of a quick search for some interesting reading...

S.O.

Quoted: I'm pretty sure that the Leopard II does have Chobam armor like the M1, M1A1, and Challenger I.  Only the Leopard II A6 has the additional wedge armor but it is not solid.  It is made of 1" (or so) thick steel and the wedges are hollow.

Yes, the Leopard has 'Chobham like' armor. It's the Germans own composition. However, while the basic composition and concept behind Chobham armor are widely known, what makes 'Chobham' so special is the blend of materials and the spacing and angles of the armor 'sandwich'. This is covered by a US/UK agreement from some time back, it's a 'Non Export' technology like stealth and nuclear stuff.  

For political reasons the Germans cannot develop 'true' Chobham armor as they do not use Depleted Uranium.

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: Ton of Tank info, mostly Lepard II VS. M1A2 stuff and tech specs and history.... www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf www.tank-net.org/ubb/Forum13/HTML/001768.html www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/2-570.asp www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/478-183.asp www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/tank.german.leopard2.thorough-description.1.html S.O. Not too sure I'd agree with that first link. It ranked the T-72 over the Merkava!

Agree with you on that. It's a theoretical 'paper' exercise that both US and British tankers have called BS on. Both the M1A1 and Challenger are battle proven kings of the killing zone. The Leclerc, Jap T90 and Leopard have not been combat proven, in fact I don't think they have fired a shot in anger!

It's easy to say 'my tanks better than yours' on paper. Only the US/British tanks have passed the 'real' test of actual battle. If I had to go to war in a tank it would be in the 'Battle Proven' US/UK tanks not the theoretically better foreign ones.

Andy

Chobam does not have DU incorporated into it.  Later model M1's have a layer of DU armor added on top of the Chobam but only on the turrect face AFAIK.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm pretty sure that the Leopard II does have Chobam armor like the M1, M1A1, and Challenger I.  Only the Leopard II A6 has the additional wedge armor but it is not solid.  It is made of 1" (or so) thick steel and the wedges are hollow. Yes, the Leopard has 'Chobham like' armor. It's the Germans own composition. However, while the basic composition and concept behind Chobham armor are widely known, what makes 'Chobham' so special is the blend of materials and the spacing and angles of the armor 'sandwich'. This is covered by a US/UK agreement from some time back, it's a 'Non Export' technology like stealth and nuclear stuff.   For political reasons the Germans cannot develop 'true' Chobham armor as they do not use Depleted Uranium. Andy

Quoted:
Chobam does not have DU incorporated into it.  Later model M1's have a layer of DU armor added on top of the Chobam but only on the turrect face AFAIK.


Incorrect;  2nd Generation Chobham armour utilises DU rods incorporated in its matrix to defeat APFSDS projectiles.

ANdy

Quoted: Agree with you on that. It's a theoretical 'paper' exercise that both US and British tankers have called BS on. Both the M1A1 and Challenger are battle proven kings of the killing zone.

US and British tanks battle proven? Yes, there is no doubt about that. Kings of the killing zone? No sorry I wouldn't go that far. Here is why :

1)  The tanks they faced presented 20-35 years older technology.
2)  The tanks they faced had only BM-9 & BM-15 low tech APFSDS sabots that could barely penetrate the side armor of M1A1(HA).
3)  They had highly trained crews against perhaps the most poorly trained tank crews in the world(judging from the combat stories where Iraqi tanks missed their targets at ranges of 1km and less)
4)   Most of the combat occurred at night and/or long range.  The Iraqi T-72's were bought from Poland/Czech which means they couldn't really see anything with their IR-sights. Were they built in Russia they would've had longer range but still only 600-800m. Not to mention the fact that T-72 LRF accepts returns only from 3000m and below and that the LRF marker in T-72 is in different location than the aim point, which means that gunner has to raise his sight and move it slightly to the left, lase, wait that sight moves to new range and then put the aim on the target. Truly a terrible FCS.

It's easy to say 'my tanks better than yours' on paper.

Ineed it is, look at this joke comparison I made between T-72 and M1 :

T-72 vs M1A1(HA)

Main gun : 125mm 120mm = T-72 wins
Autoloader : Yes No = T-72 wins
HE-F rounds : Yes No = T-72 wins
Gears : 7 4 = T-72 wins
Weight : 42t 68t = T-72 wins
Smoke mortar range: 300m 60m = T-72 wins
Track weight : 1t 2t = T-72 wins
Ability to fire coax and main gun same time : Yes No = T-72 wins
Delta-D ability : Yes No = T-72 wins
Ability to block LRF returns below 1.2 and 1.8km : Yes No = T-72 wins
Height : 2.2m 2.7m = T-72 wins
Width : 3.59m 3.66m = T-72 wins
Length : 6.93m 7.9m = T-72 wins
Ground press. : 0.90kg/cm2 0.96kg/cm2 = T-72 wins
Max Range : 500km 460km = T-72 wins
Fording depth : 1.8m 1.2m = T-72 wins
Scraper blade to make own fire positions : Yes No = T-72 wins
FCS max range : 5km 4km = T-72 wins
Cost : 1 million $ 3 million $ = T-72 wins
.50cal pen. : 50mm 25mm = T-72 wins
Hunter-killer capability : Yes No = T-72 wins
TC has own night sight : Yes No = T-72 win

Remember, it's a joke. I know  there are comparisons that are just plain silly.

Only the US/British tanks have passed the 'real' test of actual battle. If I had to go to war in a tank it would be in the 'Battle Proven' US/UK tanks not the theoretically better foreign ones.

Forgetting our Israeli friends here? Merkava I's fought against T-72's 20 years ago. Also Danish Leopard I's engaged serbian tanks in Yugoslavia.

So we have vastly superior equipment and superb training that simply outclass and outfight any that stands in our way, how would this make US and British tanks NOT kings of the killing zone?  It precisely does just that.  Nobody seeks to fight a "fair" war, we go in with everything we got to win, fuck the losers.

Our tank crews killed the aholes that couldn't see and shoot, and when they could see and shoot, couldn't defeat  the armor.  I take it YOU would like the opposing force to be able to kill our guys, in the name of fairness?

As to Danish Leopart I engaging Serbian tanks, your guys were lucky to make it out alive.  Leopard I had woefully inadequate protection, it was based on the misguided concept that "speed is armor" that's been proven wrong over and again.  Funny how the dearly bought lessons of armored warfare were forgotten so quickly, the Germans had developed many very well protected tanks in WWII, only to forsake it in their first post war MBT.

Quoted: Quoted: Agree with you on that. It's a theoretical 'paper' exercise that both US and British tankers have called BS on. Both the M1A1 and Challenger are battle proven kings of the killing zone. US and British tanks battle proven? Yes, there is no doubt about that. Kings of the killing zone? No sorry I wouldn't go that far. Here is why : 1)  The tanks they faced presented 20-35 years older technology. 2)  The tanks they faced had only BM-9 & BM-15 low tech APFSDS sabots that could barely penetrate the side armor of M1A1(HA). 3)  They had highly trained crews against perhaps the most poorly trained tank crews in the world(judging from the combat stories where Iraqi tanks missed their targets at ranges of 1km and less) 4)   Most of the combat occurred at night and/or long range.  The Iraqi T-72's were bought from Poland/Czech which means they couldn't really see anything with their IR-sights. Were they built in Russia they would've had longer range but still only 600-800m. Not to mention the fact that T-72 LRF accepts returns only from 3000m and below and that the LRF marker in T-72 is in different location than the aim point, which means that gunner has to raise his sight and move it slightly to the left, lase, wait that sight moves to new range and then put the aim on the target. Truly a terrible FCS. It's easy to say 'my tanks better than yours' on paper. Ineed it is, look at this joke comparison I made between T-72 and M1 : T-72 vs M1A1(HA) Main gun : 125mm 120mm = T-72 wins Autoloader : Yes No = T-72 wins HE-F rounds : Yes No = T-72 wins Gears : 7 4 = T-72 wins Weight : 42t 68t = T-72 wins Smoke mortar range: 300m 60m = T-72 wins Track weight : 1t 2t = T-72 wins Ability to fire coax and main gun same time : Yes No = T-72 wins Delta-D ability : Yes No = T-72 wins Ability to block LRF returns below 1.2 and 1.8km : Yes No = T-72 wins Height : 2.2m 2.7m = T-72 wins Width : 3.59m 3.66m = T-72 wins Length : 6.93m 7.9m = T-72 wins Ground press. : 0.90kg/cm2 0.96kg/cm2 = T-72 wins Max Range : 500km 460km = T-72 wins Fording depth : 1.8m 1.2m = T-72 wins Scraper blade to make own fire positions : Yes No = T-72 wins FCS max range : 5km 4km = T-72 wins Cost : 1 million $ 3 million $ = T-72 wins .50cal pen. : 50mm 25mm = T-72 wins Hunter-killer capability : Yes No = T-72 wins TC has own night sight : Yes No = T-72 win Remember, it's a joke. I know  there are comparisons that are just plain silly. Only the US/British tanks have passed the 'real' test of actual battle. If I had to go to war in a tank it would be in the 'Battle Proven' US/UK tanks not the theoretically better foreign ones. Forgetting our Israeli friends here? Merkava I's fought against T-72's 20 years ago. Also Danish Leopard I's engaged serbian tanks in Yugoslavia.

The fact that any tank dumb enough to square up to a Challenger or M1A1 is little more than target practice does not change the facts… US/UK tanks roam the battlefield at will and destroy all comers, that may be 'unfair' because the other tanks are outclassed, but we don't fight fair.

Leopard 1, that tank was a joke!!!! 2"- 4" steel armor! That's little better than a Sherman! A leopard 1 versus a T55 is like two flyweights spitting at each other.

The Merkava is not a true tank in my opinion. It trades mobility for protection to an excessive degree. It is suited to semi-static defensive warfare in a specific (Israeli) environment, hence its armor being concentrated on the front. It is not a 'balanced design' unlike the Challenger, M1A1 or Leopard II. It's low speed would be a decided disadvantage in a classic manoevere tank action.

ANdy

Quoted: So we have vastly superior equipment and superb training that simply outclass and outfight any that stands in our way, how would this make US and British tanks NOT kings of the killing zone?  It precisely does just that.

Ok fair enough.

Nobody seeks to fight a "fair" war, we go in with everything we got to win

Nor anybody should seek for a "fair" war, but you don't always have the choice to do so.

I take it YOU would like the opposing force to be able to kill our guys, in the name of fairness? hr

hat

As to Danish Leopart I engaging Serbian tanks, your guys were lucky to make it out alive.  Leopard I had woefully inadequate protection, it was based on the misguided concept that "speed is armor" that's been proven wrong over and again.

 

"your" guys? I'm not Danish. Besides at it's making, concept "speed for amor" was not misguided. Back then penetrator technology was way ahead of armor so sacrificing armor for speed wasn't really that bad idea. If you look at Leo I's FCS and compare it to other fire control systems of its time(especially Soviet ones)it was vastly superior. As for proven wrong over and over again? Tell that to the Israelis who used light tanks quite efficiently.

Anyways Leopard I's concept isn't the point here. Point is what tanks are battle proven and Leopard I is. Besides I wouldn't underestimate the armor protection of modernized Leo 1.

Funny how the dearly bought lessons of armored warfare were forgotten so quickly, the Germans had developed many very well protected tanks in WWII, only to forsake it in their first post war MBT.

Those lessons weren't forgotten, times changed and so did the technology.

Quoted: The Merkava is not a true tank in my opinion. It trades mobility for protection to an excessive degree. It is suited to semi-static defensive warfare in a specific (Israeli) environment, hence its armor being concentrated on the front. It is not a 'balanced design' unlike the Challenger, M1A1 or Leopard II. It's low speed would be a decided disadvantage in a classic manoevere tank action. ANdy

This is why the Mervaka was rated 'below' a T-72 in the article criticized above.

The Mervaka is a great tank at what it does, but it just doesn't do everything well.  

Keep in mind, the Isrealis still have other tanks in their arsenal (mostly heavily modified M-60's) that they use to make up for the shortcomings of the Mervaka in certain instances.

Leopard 1, that tank was a joke!!!! 2"- 4" steel armor! That's little better than a Sherman! A leopard 1 versus a T55 is like two flyweights spitting at each other.

Leo I was far from joke, in a battle where armor can't defeat the penetrator superior FCS wins. Leo 1 had just that.

The Merkava is not a true tank in my opinion. It trades mobility for protection to an excessive degree. It is suited to semi-static defensive warfare in a specific (Israeli) environment, hence its armor being concentrated on the front. It is not a 'balanced design' unlike the Challenger, M1A1 or Leopard II. It's low speed would be a decided disadvantage in a classic manoevere tank action.

That's a common mis-conception. Merkava's mobility is actually almost equal with western tanks. And if you really believe that Israelis are gonna use it in semi-static role in case of large-scale attack, think again. Israeli tank officers could teach you a thing or two in that area.

All tanks have armor heavily concentrated on the front, just look at M1A2. Front armor stopped 2 Mavericks and a DU round, but side armor was penetrated by RPG-7.

Quoted: Leopard 1, that tank was a joke!!!! 2"- 4" steel armor! That's little better than a Sherman! A leopard 1 versus a T55 is like two flyweights spitting at each other. Leo I was far from joke, in a battle where armor can't defeat the penetrator superior FCS wins. Leo 1 had just that. The Merkava is not a true tank in my opinion. It trades mobility for protection to an excessive degree. It is suited to semi-static defensive warfare in a specific (Israeli) environment, hence its armor being concentrated on the front. It is not a 'balanced design' unlike the Challenger, M1A1 or Leopard II. It's low speed would be a decided disadvantage in a classic manoevere tank action. That's a common mis-conception. Merkava's mobility is actually almost equal with western tanks. And if you really believe that Israelis are gonna use it in semi-static role in case of large-scale attack, think again. Israeli tank officers could teach you a thing or two in that area. All tanks have armor heavily concentrated on the front, just look at M1A2. Front armor stopped 2 Mavericks and a DU round, but side armor was penetrated by RPG-7.

If you are in a battle were "armor can't defeat the penetrator' you are living in the past. Both the Challenger and M1A1 have armor AND a superior FCS…

The Leopard 1 was significantly inferior to the 1944 designed British Centurion. It was at best an 'adequate'  design that was reasonably cheap and well made. It was however fighting the wrong war. You seem to have forgotten that Britain was fielding large numbers of Centurion Mk10's and Chieftains with FAR superior armor and gunery systems as least as good as the Leopard. Like wise the US M60, it was a far better and balanced design than the Leopard. As has been pointed out by other contributors, speed IS NOT ARMOR… this has been proven SO OFTEN it should hardly need repeating. The T-72 also fell for this premise of speed is armor, the US/UK buy them up to use as targets on our tank ranges.

Isreal designed the Merkava after experience in the Yom Kippur war when it's tanks (mostly Centurions) fought a series of blocking actions in dug in positions, many of which on the Golan Hieghts became truly heroic last stands. They also lost many tank crews attemting to break through to the canal in the face of large numbers of ATGW's, these losses channeled their thinking to protection being the overiding feature of a tank design.

Israel actually originally wanted to build the British Chieftain which they helped design, prototypes had been tested in Israel and agreements were in hand to set up a production line in Israel when Arab protests and threats of economic sanctions forced Britain to pull out of the deal.

The Merkava is a slugger that stands it's ground and that is why the radical design of the hull and turret. From a hull down position the turret has excellent ballistics. Yes the Mk 4 Merkava has much better mobility than the prevoius models but it is a bigger and significantly redesigned tank, I still do nt accept it is a match for the US/UK designs. The Israelis however keep large numbers of M60's as well, a fast medium tank. Both the US and Britain have extensively studied the Merkava and decided the concept was flawed for a general MBT… somehow I don't think that the US/UK have gotten it wrong.

The issue with the thin skirts on the M1A1 is well know, however the British Challenger MBT and Warrior IFV have  9" thick Chobham armor skirts, these could easily be retrofitted to the M1A1 as well should the US choose to.

I don't think the British and US tank forces have anything significant to learn from the Israelis…  we demonstrated conclusively that we are the Masters of Tank warfare in GWI & II…period!

ANdy

I think the latest Challenger is one of sexiest looking tanks around, if you can call a tnk sexy anyway....

S.O.

Ditto. Challenger 1 particularly. I remember the first time I saw an M1 in real life, my first thought was that it looked like a large Tonka toy.

I believe the common conclusion amongst the armour community is that the overall best protected tank in the world is the latest version of the Leopard 2. It takes the best of the Spanish Leopard 2E, which itself was a very protected tank, and they have also added to some of them mine protection armour, which makes it vastly more survivable from the top and the bottom. Frankly, M1 roof and floor armour suck. Chally armour is also very thick on top.

However, ultimately, the question is not 'is Leopard armour more effective than M1 armour', it's 'Is it more effective than anything likely to shoot at it'. Basically, good enough will do.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: I'm pretty sure that the Leopard II does have Chobam armor like the M1, M1A1, and Challenger I.  Only the Leopard II A6 has the additional wedge armor but it is not solid.  It is made of 1" (or so) thick steel and the wedges are hollow. Yes, the Leopard has 'Chobham like' armor. It's the Germans own composition. However, while the basic composition and concept behind Chobham armor are widely known, what makes 'Chobham' so special is the blend of materials and the spacing and angles of the armor 'sandwich'. This is covered by a US/UK agreement from some time back, it's a 'Non Export' technology like stealth and nuclear stuff.   For political reasons the Germans cannot develop 'true' Chobham armor as they do not use Depleted Uranium. Andy

Ehh?   We are getting non DU M1's with chobham...

As for the Leo1, it suits our needs.  Nice and mobile, which we need for our countryside and outback.  Our Army cant go head to head with the larger armies so we are more orientated to less "confrontational" ways, hence the  "large" amount of recon and commando units compared to the size of our army.  

Any war in Aus would have alot of manouevring, because of our vast open spaces of nothing.  Not many cities either so a static war would be highly unlikely, unless they get to a population centre.  Indonesia is our main threat, and to get to a major population centre, they have to cross a shitload of desert (Darwin doesnt count, most of the pop is military methinks).

Quoted: You might be interested in this discussion: Shot traps Red areas denote very low level of protection. www.steelbeasts.com/modules/PNphpBB2/files/m1a1_114.jpg

Not quite sure what this guy was smoking when he made this up, but it must have been some good
stuff. I read the whole post, and this guy is basing his picture on theory, some studies done on
armor plate, and a COMPUTER GAME!

So his credibility is seriously circling the bowl with the Tidy-Bowl Man. Add to pile the fact that he's
French, so he's never seen any combat unless he was part of the Foreign Legion, and real-world
combat has shown the survivability of the M1-series tank....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ehh?   We are getting non DU M1's with chobham... As for the Leo1, it suits our needs.  Nice and mobile, which we need for our countryside and outback.  Our Army cant go head to head with the larger armies so we are more orientated to less "confrontational" ways, hence the  "large" amount of recon and commando units compared to the size of our army.   Any war in Aus would have alot of manouevring, because of our vast open spaces of nothing.  Not many cities either so a static war would be highly unlikely, unless they get to a population centre.  Indonesia is our main threat, and to get to a major population centre, they have to cross a shitload of desert (Darwin doesnt count, most of the pop is military methinks).

That's right Phil,

I read about the deal in Janes, Australia is getting an excellent deal and is being invited into the very exclusive  'Inner Circle' of Technology because of your total support in the War on Terror. However the 'other guys' only get M1 'lite'. It's a pretty safe bet you will also be sold the 'full stealth' version of the F-35 that US/UK are getting, not the 'Stealth Lite' version the other buyers will get.

For Autralia the Leopard was an ideal tank, vast distances to cover and it will overmatch any conceivable enemy. You also have the worlds best anti tank defence with that desert! However in Europe the Leopard was always 2nd Division stuff even when new.

ANdy

Here is how the LeoIIA5 wedge armor looks from the inside

Tanker06,

Actually I think Foanov is russian, and he is probably one of the more knowlegable people on the subject. Furthermore while Steel Beasts is a game, it is probably the best armor simulator that is available to the public. SB2 will be even better and is being sold as a training tool to militaries worldwide as we speak.

Quoted: That's a common mis-conception. Merkava's mobility is actually almost equal with western tanks. And if you really believe that Israelis are gonna use it in semi-static role in case of large-scale attack, think again. Israeli tank officers could teach you a thing or two in that area. ... The Leopard 1 was significantly inferior to the 1944 designed British Centurion. It was at best an 'adequate'  design that was reasonably cheap and well made. It was however fighting the wrong war. You seem to have forgotten that Britain was fielding large numbers of Centurion Mk10's and Chieftains with FAR superior armor and gunery systems as least as good as the Leopard. Like wise the US M60, it was a far better and balanced design than the Leopard. Isreal designed the Merkava after experience in the Yom Kippur war when it's tanks (mostly Centurions) fought a series of blocking actions in dug in positions, many of which on the Golan Hieghts became truly heroic last stands. They also lost many tank crews attemting to break through to the canal in the face of large numbers of ATGW's, these losses channeled their thinking to protection being the overiding feature of a tank design. Israel actually originally wanted to build the British Chieftain which they helped design, prototypes had been tested in Israel and agreements were in hand to set up a production line in Israel when Arab protests and threats of economic sanctions forced Britain to pull out of the deal. The Merkava is a slugger that stands it's ground and that is why the radical design of the hull and turret. From a hull down position the turret has excellent ballistics. Yes the Mk 4 Merkava has much better mobility than the prevoius models but it is a bigger and significantly redesigned tank, I still do nt accept it is a match for the US/UK designs. The Israelis however keep large numbers of M60's as well, a fast medium tank. Both the US and Britain have extensively studied the Merkava and decided the concept was flawed for a general MBT… somehow I don't think that the US/UK have gotten it wrong. ... I don't think the British and US tank forces have anything significant to learn from the Israelis…  we demonstrated conclusively that we are the Masters of Tank warfare in GWI & II…period!

The Neutral Observer will agree with the statement in red.  

Isreali tank design and usage has always been heavily influenced by the British.  That's why they used the Centurion.  Both Israeli and British tanks tend towards armor in the speed for armor tradeoff.  For the British it is probably something that goes back to the lessons from World War 2.  American tanks tend towards the speed side of the equation, usually, or at least it's been the case traditionally.  The use of a turbine engine for the Abrams (a novel, untested concept at the time) and the fortunate timing of the British discovery of the armor technology gives both.  Even so, the Abrams is a lot heavier than anyone originally intended it to be, and it was quite a hard sell at the time.

The speed advantage is most likely going to be minimal at the operational level, although it could make a difference at the tactical level.  Given units with commanders of equivalent skill levels, the Merkava-equipped unit is probably a match for US and British tank-equipped units.  The Isrealis have never really proven that they've adjusted to the new combat environment (ATGMs, etc), although they haven't been significantly tested since 1973.  They didn't do as well as they would have liked in Lebanon against the Syrians though.

The difference between the Centurion and the Leopard I is more due to the fact that the Centurion was an excellent design for it's time.  It's one of those platforms that was very forward-thinking and bold, and left plenty of room to develop.  Why else has it been able to withstand modification so many times?

Actually, contrary to public perception, the M1 was not the first production tank to enter service with a turbine engine.

Strv-103s (S-tanks) were running around with turbines from the 60s to the late 1990s. They're very maneuverable.

Personally though, I hate the things. Causing me much more trouble than a diesel would.

NTM