NATO return to Cold War force structure

[bojan]

6 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Australia has operated them for a while,...

Australian M1s have no DU armor nor DU ammunition, or at least Australian government claimed so when questioned by some environmental group.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Australian M1s have no DU armor nor DU ammunition, or at least Australian government claimed so when questioned by some environmental group.

Ammo for sure, I don't think that anyone, even the Marine Corps has access to the US Army's most advanced kinetic penetrators. However I remember a conversation with a former tank mechanic who swears by those Australian Abrams having DU in their turret structure, this also explains their insistence on keeping that feature for their newly ordered units as well.

[bojan]

He says yes, Australian government says no. Who to believe? All M1s sold so far had "export" armor w/o DU. New Polish and Australian are unknown so far.

Edited February 23, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

On 1/7/2023 at 9:52 PM, Huba said:

Poland bought 250 M1A2 to replace the T-72s, and then got additional 116 M1A1FEP

Despite the rumours is it known if they actually have US-spec depleted uranium plating, if so do you suspect this will make them better protected than the already up-armored K2PL?

Edited February 25, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

53 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Martineleca

[James1978]

On 2/17/2023 at 4:19 AM, Martineleca said:

Egypt has a large tank plant that still churns out Abrams tanks, couldn't they be contracted to produce it for export alongside Lima and double output?

But is it still producing new M1s? I was able to find info on a 2015 batch, but nothing more recent. I found references to the Egyptian plant possibly being used to upgrade their M1A1s to M1A2s, but nothing about recent new builds.

And just how much "production" Egypt did is open to debate. I know the original plan was to gradually ramp up the amount of work done in Egypt, but I'm not sure they got as far as hoped. I can believe they've progressed beyond just assembling US-supplied kits, but I'm deeply skeptical they achieved 95% domestic as some sources claim.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Egypt isnt going to do the US any favours after Mubarak, and even if they were, they are not going to arm Russia's enemy. They have been buying KA52's off Russia IIRC, so there is an emerging relationship there that they are going to be reluctant to endanger.

[Martineleca]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They have been buying KA52's off Russia IIRC, so there is an emerging relationship there that they are going to be reluctant to endanger.

Well they've been having huge problems with the Alligators in desert conditions, also by now they should have suspended Abrams production in favor of the T-90M, a decision that was indefinitely delayed after the Nagorno-Karabakh war given the poor performance of similarly upgraded T-72s, with more recent action only confirming their caution. I think they're starting to recall why they originally moved away from total dependence on Soviet/Russian equipment and doubt they are alone in this realisation.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Martineleca

[James1978]

On 2/17/2023 at 4:19 AM, Martineleca said:

Egypt has a large tank plant that still churns out Abrams tanks, couldn't they be contracted to produce it for export alongside Lima and double output?

Quote

Well they've been having huge problems with the Alligators in desert conditions, also by now they should have suspended Abrams production in favor of the T-90M, a decision that was indefinitely delayed after the Nagorno-Karabakh war given the poor performance of similarly upgraded T-72s, with more recent action only confirming their caution. I think they're starting to recall why they originally moved away from total dependence on Soviet/Russian equipment and doubt they are alone in this realisation.

Which one is it? Are they still building/assembling M1s, or are they prepping the factory for something else?

If anyone has a source on if they are still building/assembling M1s, I'd like to know more.

IIRC, Egypt is also talking to South Korea about building K2s.

[bojan]

He is basically writing ill informed crap.  

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, James1978 said:

Which one is it? Are they still building/assembling M1s, or are they prepping the factory for something else?

They are not mutually exclusive, yes indeed they are still producing the Abrams, just completed another large order for their ground forces, also they wanted to move to something potentially more advanced before thousands of heavily upgraded T-type tanks popped their turrets and the handful of newer ones fared little better. Which is why they are looking at possibly sourcing the K2, but a decision is still years away. 

[Martineleca]

On 2/26/2023 at 10:26 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Egypt isn't going to do the US any favours after Mubarak, and even if they were, they are not going to arm Russia's enemy.

Their decision to extend M1 production, procurement of Rafale and further Apache acquisitions definitely demonstrate that they want to diversify the source of arms as much as possible. On that note if as a result of poor performance Russian military exports decline after the war is over, do you see increased global interest in Western armaments like their proven artillery and AFVs, maybe even for the Ajax and Puma once all the issues are resolved?

Edited February 28, 2023 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

After the press Ajax has got, I'm not sure even the British Army want it...

I'd like to think there is a market for Challenger 3, but I know our competitors  will strangle that first chance they get.

[Martineleca]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I'd like to think there is a market for Challenger 3, but I know our competitors  will strangle that first chance they get.

Well it seems like the main export tanks over the coming decade will be the Chinese VT-4, Korean K2, German Leopard/Panther and US Abrams. If the MGCS remains a West Euro project only, I definitely see an opening for a competing model to fill the void. Italy has long searched for a partner to develop a more capable MBT than the Ariete, could they do so jointly with the UK and their experience from the Challenger?

[bojan]

On 2/27/2023 at 4:18 AM, Martineleca said:

...., also they wanted to move to something potentially more advanced before thousands of heavily upgraded T-type tanks popped their turrets and the handful of newer ones fared little better. Which is why they are looking at possibly sourcing the K2, but a decision is still years away. 

K2 will also "pop turret" (suffer catastrophic ammo fire...turret remaining or not remaining attached to hull is irelevant) if hit at the unprotected hull storage. Same as Leo 2, same as Leclerc, same as Type 90/Type 10...

You really have neither clue (OK, we all start with zero knowledge) nor willingness to learn anything.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Bojan, that is   uncalled for. I know few if any people on this site can rival your knowledge, but there is no excuse for rudeness. He is a polite poster with a willingness to learn, so why be obnoxious?

Ultimately there is a major difference between T series tanks which pop their turrets  with wearying regularity and usually take their crews with them, and western tanks which seem on the best available evidence, to usually hold together long enough to get their crews off, or in the Abrams case, rarely if ever blow up at all. Yes, there is always the golden shot, but with thicker armour, far harder for one to do it to a Western Tank than a T72 or T64. There is about 20 tons difference in may cases.

Maybe in 3 months there will be a ton of evidence demonstrating that Leopard 2's and Challenger 2's are just as vulnerable to catastrophic detonation as Russian combat vehicles (The BMP 3 in particular is truly spectacular in this regard), but you know what, I frankly doubt it. Thre has been plenty of opportunities for that to be demonstrated over the past 40 years, and it hasnt.

[bojan]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He is a polite poster with a willingness to learn, so why be obnoxious?

Polite yes, second part hardly, since repeating myths and rumors w/o any proof is hardly willingness to learn.

Quote

Ultimately there is a major difference between T series tanks which pop their turrets  with wearying regularity and usually take their crews with them...

And you are again repeating that myth. you did not watch any videos from ukraine where crew of tanks hit multiple times escaped? You did not see data on tanker loss per tank that have been posted?

Quote

, and western tanks which seem on the best available evidence, to usually hold together long enough to get their crews off

If you are cherry picking go back to the photos of Turkish Leos, including video of instantaneous explosion of one when hit by AT-4.

Quote

...There is about 20 tons difference in may cases.

20t difference does not make 1% in survivability unless ammo is fully isolated, and it is not in either Leo or C2, or Leclerc, or K2 or Type 90/10...

Quote

...(The BMP 3 in particular is truly spectacular in this regard...

Every IFV with aluminium hull except those with fully separated ammo in RWSs will end up same.

Quote

...but you know what, I frankly doubt it...

You doubt what happened to Turkish Leos? Why, because western tanks are "magical" enough to overcome physics and chemistry?

Edited March 1, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

K2 will also "pop turret" (suffer catastrophic ammo fire...turret remaining or not remaining attached to hull is irelevant) if hit at the unprotected hull storage. Same as Leo 2, same as Leclerc, same as Type 90/Type 10...

I didn't mean that every single tank was lost in this manner, but that those vehicles seem to be terribly vulnerable to all manner of threats on the battlefield, from the most modern ATGMs to old recoilless guns and RPGs. Their ERA doesn't seem to be working as intended if at all, neither does the active protection, so many deficiencies have been revealed in the concept as a whole. Of course T-90M isn't the same as Saddam's knock-down kit T-72, but now both have been taken out by the TOW missile.

Edited March 1, 2023 by Martineleca

[bojan]

17 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

...but that those vehicles seem to be terribly vulnerable to all manner of threats on the battlefield, from the most modern ATGMs to old recoilless guns and RPGs.

Welcome to 21st century. Any tank hit in the flank by any kind of ATGM is going to have hard time. Even old ones like Sagger will easily penetrate any non-frontal area of the majority of modern tanks. Also RCLs/RPGs, side hull protection on "western" tanks is even worse than on Soviet/Russian ones.

Quote

Their ERA doesn't seem to be working as intended if at all...

Any proof?

Quote

, neither does the active protection,  so many deficiencies have been revealed in the concept as a whole.

There is no active protection on any tank in Ukraine.

As for deficiencies they were always there and will always be there, but what exact deficiencies do you have in mind?

Quote

Of course T-90M isn't the same as Saddam's knock-down kit T-72, but now both have been taken out by the TOW missile.

Which part of tank? Front turret and hull it will most probably survive, just as any other modern(ish) tank. Rest is vulnerable, but so is any other's tank flanks. How will M1 survive TOW hit anywhere other than front turret and lower front hull? Or Leo 2? Or C2? Or K2/Type 90/Type 10 with paper thin sides?

[Josh]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

K2 will also "pop turret" (suffer catastrophic ammo fire...turret remaining or not remaining attached to hull is irelevant) if hit at the unprotected hull storage. Same as Leo 2, same as Leclerc, same as Type 90/Type 10...

You really have neither clue (OK, we all start with zero knowledge) nor willingness to learn anything.

Wouldn't hull storage in those designs at least be optional? If a Leo 2 or K2 wanted to carry a less than full load of ammo, could not it carry all of its flamables in the turret instead? The Russian forces around Azov were rumored to cut their ammo load down to just 4-5 rounds and MG belts to increase survivability; couldn't a tank with a turret bustle adopt a similar practice with much more safety and a much larger combat load?

[BansheeOne]

Using bustle stowage only in the Leopard will give you 15 rounds (plus one in the gun, but I imagine swapping it around if you need another type for your first shot would be awkward). That's a lot better than just five, though employment will matter. If you're just running forward a couple clicks from your supply point to support friendly infantry in semi-static warfare, a handful of rounds is completely sufficient.

However, one main point in debate about the Leopards has been how they could be used for more mobile operations to counterattack and break through Russian lines to retake territory. For which you might want a greater loadout, as you might get into intense engagements without the option to replenish quickly. Though I guess carrying an extra five rounds in hull stowage spread apart as much as possible might be an acceptable compromise while being no worse off for crew safety than doing the same in a T-something.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

Using bustle stowage only in the Leopard will give you 15 rounds (plus one in the gun, but I imagine swapping it around if you need another type for your first shot would be awkward). That's a lot better than just five, though employment will matter. If you're just running forward a couple clicks from your supply point to support friendly infantry in semi-static warfare, a handful of rounds is completely sufficient.

However, one main point in debate about the Leopards has been how they could be used for more mobile operations to counterattack and break through Russian lines to retake territory. For which you might want a greater loadout, as you might get into intense engagements without the option to replenish quickly. Though I guess carrying an extra five rounds in hull stowage spread apart as much as possible might be an acceptable compromise while being no worse off for crew safety than doing the same in a T-something.

It's not an optimal solution compared to completely compartmentalizing all ammo, but it is at least a possibility I assume. Very limiting for offensive operations, like you say. Perhaps something adopted by lead tanks only in some circumstances?

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, bojan said:

And you are again repeating that myth. you did not watch any videos from ukraine where crew of tanks hit multiple times escaped? You did not see data on tanker loss per tank that have been posted?

I think Stuart meant that if the turret pops, a T-series tank will suffer 100% KIA for the crew.  

Edited March 1, 2023 by glenn239

[Josh]

34 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I think Stuart meant that if the turret pops, a T-series tank will suffer 100% KIA for the crew.  

Assuming the crew is in the tank at the time and that it isn't a fire that spread to the propellant post hit. I assume if the engine is hit, probably there is a fire that eventually claims the vehicle. I think even M1s tend to burn out when that happens.

[bojan]

@Josh

Exactly. We have seen dozens cases of tank being hit, abandoned by crew (often all 3-men, through we do not know if they are injured...) and then burning slower or faster until ammo goes off.