• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wm. Harris
  • Start date Start date
Flogging that well known horse, the CV 90 family fits inside that weight boundary, and engineering stronger decks for ships is a lot eisier than increasing the "lift" weight of an aircraft.

After the CV 90 family, a family of vehicles could be developed off the 30+ tonne PUMA IFV chassis, and farther in the future, the US FCS family of vehicles will come on line with weights between 20-30 tonnes. Setting an arbitrary weight limit on a ship is irresponsible, it restricts the future uses of the ship quite apart from limiting the type and size of Army equipment. Build in flexibility, don't factor it out.
 
One aspect of this lightness business that seems to continually be overlooked is that once an engineering problem is solved, creating a wider envelope, then that envelope will be exploited.

For example IMI working with Oto Melara developed the 60 mm HVMS round in the 80s to bring the 60 mm gun, which could be carried by an M113 up to the same lethality as the standard 105s of the day.  They succeeded.  An M113 with a 60 mm HVMS could outrange a T55.  IMI then went on to apply what they had learned on the 60 mm to their 90, 105 and 120 mm rounds making them more lethal and once again an M113 with a 60 mm HVMS was exceptionally vulnerable.

Likewise, as people develop lighter, more effective armours allowing for 20 to 30 tonne vehicles to be introduced, and let's stipulate that some magic wand is waved and they achieve the protection levels of the current M1A2 TUSK, some bright spark is going to suggest applying 60 tonnes of that stuff to the M1A2 running gear so that it is invulnerable to an even greater range of threats (promptly to be countered by someone with a man-portable chemically powered laser or some such).

The US and everybody else knows how to get 60 tonne vehicles into theater and support them there.  It is only going to get easier in the future (snap on armour, hybrid engines, chemically powered electro-magnetic rail guns etc.)  If it can be done, it will be done.  It may take three aircraft (vehicle, armour and crew with ammunition and supplies), or it may be done by prepositioning or by airship or high speed ships.  I dunno. 

But it can be done, therefore it will be done.

The only question is how much is it going to cost the enemy to defeat a 20 tonne, 30 tonne, 40 tonne or 60 tonne tank and how big a launcher do they have to bring up to destroy the vehicle.  The more expensive the weapon, the fewer you are likely to encounter.  The bigger the weapon the easier it will be to find and to counter.

I'm with a_majoor on this one, to an extent (there is still a place for classifying forces according to deployability of the platforms and designing accordingly), but given that it is relatively easy to transport extremely massive systems by sea it only makes sense that if sea-lift is to be supplied it should be as flexible as possible.

PS flexibility is not enhanced by grafting on entirely unrelated functions - such as supporting a land force (which requires a vessel to stay in place) vs supporting a naval force (which requires a vessel to move).
 
We got our Leopards to Kosovo (getting them back was an issue).  LAV's and tanks are both big and bulky, and the general impression I get is that transporting either is a major pain in the arse.  Movement by sea (or dirigible!  :)) seems to be the only way to get them off of Canada's shores in any meaningful number.
 
What about that:

-Start with the Leo 2A7 concept (with minimum armor).
-Place the engine in the front, fit an electrically operated revolving magazine so the loader can select semi-automatically the ammo type enabling super fast loading that no autoloader is going to be able to match.
-Up-armor it just like the 5 Leo SFOR (also add a mine protecting plate).
-The gun would be the L55, the commander sight and weapon would be LEMUR SW with a 25 mm gun ( http:www.boforsdefence.com/pdf/LEMUR.pdf ).
-Add GALIX with a laser detector and a missile approach warner.

I think this would be the best tank in the world...Abrams armor, Leclerc defence suite, Type 90 mobility, Leo 2A6 weapon and Merkava rate of fire. It would probably make my day for one year if we could have such a tank.

Watch out Black Eagle!!! The Canadians are coming!!!
                                                                                                                        Clément

 
"or dirigible!"

'Know what?  I am actually amazed we don't use these more.  The only downside is hanger space. 

Tom
 
I say we scrap the MGS and get a deal with the US for some Abrams.  Why spend more money when we can get good reliable tanks that we know work well in battle conditions. I dot understand the command. There always talking about saving money, but yet they want to take a more expensive path ???.
 
CanadianBoy92,

Before you get yourself into more trouble, go to the Armoured forum and spend a day or two reading all about the stuff you really know nothing about. Then perhaps you could, possibly, espouse a somewhat coherent and intellectual stance. Your wearing out your welcome fast. Stay in your lane, or you'll be gone.
 
What don't i know.  I actually do no something about this topic.  So why is everyone saying i don't, I'm basically writting what just about everyone is writting.  I just want to know why all of you guys pick on me.
 
"CanadianBoy92,

Before you get yourself into more trouble, go to the Armoured forum and spend a day or two reading all about the stuff you really know nothing about. Then perhaps you could, possibly, espouse a somewhat coherent and intellectual stance. Your wearing out your welcome fast. Stay in your lane, or you'll be gone."

CanadianBoy92 said:
What don't i know.   I actually do no something about this topic.   So why is everyone saying i don't, I'm basically writting what just about everyone is writting.   I just want to know why all of you guys pick on me.

Try using the search function first, then use the spell check before you post.  Other wise I would follow the advice you were given closely.
 
I do use the search.  I always for some reason get a bad remark or get in trouble just for posting something.  No one else gets in trouble for that.  I think everyone should share the right to post just like everyone else.  But enough of this i wouldn't want this topic to be locked for going off topic. I just wanted to let people no how there not showing a great welcome to me.
 
Possibly, the achilles heel (right figure of speach?) of the Abrams is fuel consumption, it sucks fuel like nobodies business.  In at least the first gulf war, that same problem was what stopped the blitzkrieg type advance by the Americans, they ran out of fuel for the tanks at the front, and had to wait for the logistics vehicles to catch up.  If you want to save money, why purchase a bunch of expensive uber gas guzzlers?  When we could take the hit upfront and maybe get a little repreive once the vehicles are in service?
Also, ever heard of the Gulf War Syndrome?  A lot (not most, so dont nail me to the wall) of cases were, and are due to the Depleted Uranium shells, and armour (when hit).  And yes, more cases are still ocurring in Iraq as they are still in country.
I am neither for, nor against the MGS, as I do not know enough about the proposal, or the vehicles.  So I will not talk about them.

Terribly sorry if my comment contributed in no way as well, I saw an opportunity to express my opinion.  Apologizing now, so I dont have to say anything later.
 
CanadianBoy92 said:
What don't i know.   I actually do no something about this topic.   So why is everyone saying i don't, I'm basically writting what just about everyone is writting.   I just want to know why all of you guys pick on me.

Well then, perhaps you would like to enlighten us with a factual narrative, discussing the pros & cons of the two vehicles. Maybe you could toss in how you would solve the transport problem, amongst other things.

See, posting something simplistic, along the lines of "get rid of this and get that" really doesn't add to your credibility. Given that that's been the timbre of most of your posts, you may be able to begin to fathom why we can't be bothered taking you seriously. You have refused to listen to the Staff which resulted in a "Verbal" and you continue to abuse the guidelines with your spelling and grammar. Your best advice at the moment, is just to sit back and read for a while until you get comfortable with the way we do things around here. Trust me, with only five posts, your riding a rocket.
 
So if i talk with more sense, and talk about pros and cons I will do well here.  Also if I compare the vehicles and transportation pros and cons it wont be a problem if I post.. Thanks for the advice thats what I wanted to know.  I will talk with more mature and sophistacted grammer.
 
So long as you know of what you speak, and don't just yank stuff out of your ass, you'll probably get some discussion. Unfortunately, most here speak from experience. Cutting and pasting something you read does not count as knowledge. Questions work, unsubstantiated statements don't. That should get you started. Try stay within those parameters for now. Out.
 
"Also, ever heard of the Gulf War Syndrome?  A lot (not most, so dont nail me to the wall) of cases were, and are due to the Depleted Uranium shells, and armour (when hit).  And yes, more cases are still ocurring in Iraq as they are still in country."

- I would lean towards the Anthrax cocktail injections as being more of a factor than the DU.  The French were exposed to a lot of the DU sites as well - no GWS for them, and they did not receive Anthrax vaccines.

Tom
 
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
What about that:

-Start with the Leo 2A7 concept (with minimum armor).
-Place the engine in the front, fit an electrically operated revolving magazine so the loader can select semi-automatically the ammo type enabling super fast loading that no autoloader is going to be able to match.
-Up-armor it just like the 5 Leo SFOR (also add a mine protecting plate).
-The gun would be the L55, the commander sight and weapon would be LEMUR SW with a 25 mm gun ( http:www.boforsdefence.com/pdf/LEMUR.pdf ).
-Add GALIX with a laser detector and a missile approach warner.

I think this would be the best tank in the world...Abrams armor, Leclerc defence suite, Type 90 mobility, Leo 2A6 weapon and Merkava rate of fire. It would probably make my day for one year if we could have such a tank.

Watch out Black Eagle!!! The Canadians are coming!!!
                                                                                                                        Clément

What you are describing isn't too far off from the Swedish-pattern Leopard 2A6. If I recall correctly, the Swedish 2A6's use the Galix smoke-dischargers (so do the Dutch-issue Leopard 2A5's). The Swedish tanks also use a STN Atlas Elektronik fire-control and command suite, just as the Germans do.

It's pretty sad, though, when a country like Spain, which doesn't have a Gross Domestic Product as large as Canada, can afford to buy the Leopard 2E, which has even greater armour protection than a 2A6. Then again, it's not the case that Canada cannot afford to buy top-line
main battle tanks. It simply chooses not to afford them, or to find intellectually dishonest reasons for not buying them, in an effort to satisfy a pre-determined political agenda.
 
I really dont think the Abrams is that good. I would much rather see if we were going to stick with tanks the Leopard 2 in whatever the latest version is (A6 EX) . why? we are already familiar with the leopard vehicle, there are already supply lines etc set up with manufacturers in Germany, we could probably be able to negotiate a decent deal as we are repeat customers, proven vehicle, Better fuel economy then M1, Leo has the same main gun as the M1, the M1 uses a JET engine which burns massive amounts of fuel. it takes 5 gallons just to start it up and then you have the super heated jet exhaust to deal with. you cannot operate it in a closed area because you could roast people just by driving and is also a mayjor tafget for heat seeking missles.

oh and the show "the Greatest ever" says the Leo2 is the best tank in the world ever.  ;D

 
ChopperHead said:
I really dont think the Abrams is that good.

How many have you driven/gunned/CC's?

When I drove the Abrams I was quite impressed.

Also spares for that tank are just across a border and, in some cases, already here as Canada makes quite a few components for that machine.

Slim
 
In reality it is powered by a Gas turbine.

Kind of like the difference between a motor and an engine.

I know little details.
 
Back
Top