Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]

Leopard 2 MBT vs. T-72, T-72B or T-72M

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove these advertisements.
Soviet cogitations: 1236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2005, 05:12
Unperson
Post 12 Mar 2005, 03:25
Leopard 2 - German
Crew: - 4 (no autoloader)
Armaments: 1 Rheinmetall 120mm smoothebore gun, one MG3 7.62mm co-axial, 16 smoke dischargers
Armour: spaced multi-layered
weight: combat 55,150 kgs.
Ground pressure: .83kg/cm
Engine: MTU MB-873 Ka-501 12-cylinder liguid diesel developing 1,500bhp @ 2,600RPM.
performance: 72 km/h (road speed)

T-72, T-72B, T-72M Soviet-Russian
Crew-3 (autoloader)
Armament: one 2A46 125mm smoothebore gun, one PKT 7.62 co-axial machine gun, one NVST 12.7mm AA gun on turret roof.
Armour: choblam with optional 3rd generation ERA (explosive reactive armour)
weight: 41,000 kgs.
Ground pressure: .83kg/cm
Engine: 840 hp V-84-1 diesel developing
Performance: 80km/h

Comrades, recently another student at my school (a nazi at that) said that the "modern" Leopard 2 would rip through the latest Russian AFV, I of course won the discussion telling him about the Black Eagle and her specifications, the T-80 and the Chiormy Oriol BE mod for the T-72, but I asked myself, what the outcome would be if such a modern tank such as the Leopard 2 went head-to-head with the Russian mac-daddy T-72 tank, please, discuss.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 12 Mar 2005, 04:08
More detailed specifications:

T-72 MBT:

Weight (tons): 44,5
Speed (km/h): 60
Dimensions (m): 9'530/6'860 x 3'460 x 2'226
M./Engine: diesel B841, 840 hp
Crew: 3
Power-to-weight ratio (hp/t): 18.9
Ground pressure (kg/sm2): 0.9
Fuel capacity (L): 1200 +400
Range (km): 500
fording (m): 1.2/5.0
Armament: 1 x 125 mm smoothborne gun 1 x 7,62 mm MG coaxial 1 x 12,7 mm AA MG gun loading: a/m; stabilization: v/h; stowage: 45; coax.: 2'000; AA- 300; elevation/depres.: 5'4/ 13'; type of rounds: APFSDS HE-FRAG HEAT Guided missile
Fire Control System: Commander's: day-and-night, passive with stabilization of field of view in vertical plane;
Gunner's: day sight with two plane stab. of field of view incorp. a laser range finder and a missile guidance capability; night sight passive with stab. of field of view in vert. plane;
Ballistic computer: takes into accounts all topometeoballistic conditions affect. firing accuracy;
Thermal imager: provision is made of instal. of thermal imager
Protection: armour protection:from APFSDS, HEAT
dynamic protection:yes
radiation protection yes
thermal protection: yes
dazzle painting: yes
NBS system: yes
fire- suppres. system: yes
optoelectronic -sup. system: yes
A/C: yes

Kampfpanzer Leopard 2 MBT:

Date of production: 1979
Speed (km/h): 72 (45)
average, cross country: 40
Weight (t): 55.15
Crew: 4
Engine : 1,500-hp Diesel
Dimensions (m): 7.69 x 2.79 x 3.70
Ground pressure (kg/cm2): 0.83
Fording Depths (m): 1.0 Unprepared, 4.0 with snorkel
Range (km): 550
Protection 700 KE/1,000 against HEAT rounds,
Applique Armor (mm) Track skirt
Active Protective System Galix
NBC Protection System: yes
Smoke Equipment Smoke grenade launchers, 8 each side of turret
Main Gun Stabilization WNA-H22, 2-plane
Day: Krupp-Atlas EMES-15, 12x / FERO Z18 secondary, 8x
Field of View 5/10
Night Zeiss thermal imager
MAIN ARMAMENT AMMUNITION: 120-mm APFSDS-T, DM43 Maximum Aimed
Range(m) 3,500
Max Effective Range (m) Day 450 at 2,000 meters
Other Ammunition Types US-produced M829, M829A1 APFSDS-T; US M830A1 HEAT-MP-T (MPAT),
GE DM12A1 (US copy M830) HEAT-MP-T (MPAT)
Armament: 120-mm smoothbore gun M256
Loader Type Manual
Ready/Stowed Rounds 15/27
Elevation -9 to +20
Auxiliary Weapon Caliber, Type, Name 7.62-mm (7.62x 51) Machinegun MG3A1
Mount Type Turret Coax
Rate of Fire (rd/min) 1,200
7.62-mm (7.62x 51) Machinegun MG3A1 : Turret Cupola Rate of Fire (rd/min) 1200

-----

Quote:
Comrades, recently another student at my school (a nazi at that) said that the "modern" Leopard 2 would rip through the latest Russian AFV,


It would rip through anything other than the T-80, T-84, T-90, Chiormy Oriol [upgrade] & the proposed T-95-- what do you expect? the Leopard 2 is a fine piece of German technology, it's true that it is capable of taking out any armored vehicle from the Soviet era-- excluding some later vehicles, basically from before 1978 is easily destroyed a Leopard 2 [keeping in mind that this doesn't include the vast mods of the T-72; some of which haven't had there full ability tapped, hence making it unable to determine whether or not the Leopard 2 would effectively destroyed them.

The Leopard 2 also has around 100-150mm more armor in all areas compared to a standard T-72, hence giving it a distinct disadvantage-- also, the German ammunition, could be argued as being the best in the world. Also, the Leopard 2 was designed in order to destroy such tanks as the T-72s/T-62s, hence if it wasn't deemed capable it wouldn't have been put in service-- although it was quickly outmatched with the arrival of the T-80/90 [although that is my personal conclusion, that the T-90 is superior to the Leopard, this might be considered wrong by others].

Out of the T-72 series, I believe, the only modifications capable of 'dealing' with a Leopard 2 & surviving is the T-72B-- which is the last of the '(in)famous' T-72 series. It being fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA armor makes it incredibiley effective at surviving direct hits, this quote was made about a T-72U test involving Kotankt-5 ERA armor:

Quote:
Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.


Quote:
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. " - Richard M. Ogorkiewicz


this extraction from Vasiliy Fofanov's site:

Quote:
The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).

We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion.

Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2° yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67° slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.

Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.


The T-72B is also fitted with the 9K119M/9M119M Refleks-M ATGW-- capable of penertrating & destroying a Leopard 2.

-----

Never the less I believe that the T-72B is better, whilst other modifications would most likely be destroyed-- but never underestimate Germany armor power, they're experts at designing such weapons.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Mar 2005, 04:34
I don't think that you should compare the two, they are designed for differnt purpose, Leopard and any western tank from the Cold War era aren't really tanks, they were more like mobile anti-tank turrents, their design specification was that each western tank can counter 3 Soviet tanks, that's why western tanks a so heavy as they need extra armour and extra space for the crew. On the other hand, Soviet tanks were designed to crush enemy defences and breakthrough enemy lines, dealing with enemy tanks is only the secondary role, so they sacrificed armour for speed, mobility, crosscountry performances, and rivercrossing capabilities, and use add-on explosive armour to protect themselves from enemy shaped charge weapons
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 09:43
Pioneer
Post 12 Mar 2005, 12:51
Well, let's see and compare,

Leopard 2A4 :

It has dynamic lead which is applied only when gunner wants, the amount of lead is based on the latest angular speed of the turret, not 1.5sec avg like in Abrams, which makes it possible to fire at moving targets with great speed and accuracy. 12xmag only in day channel. Thermal imager which allows gunners to spot targets up to 4km and ID at 2.5km, has 4x and 12x mag. TC can fire the gun and lase himself in case gunner gets disabled or can't see the target fast enough, he can also view the gunners sight channel to confirm what gunner is seeing. TC also has his own sight with 3x and 9x(IIRC) magnifications, it is stabilized and can be used to designate targets to the gunner. If GPS gets buster, gunner has sturdy 8x telescopic auxiliary sight available. Very easy to maintain, for examble engine and main gun can be replaced in field conditions within couple dozen minutes. 4th crewman makes it easier to do maintenance, night watch and security and you can get off those very important first 4 shots within 15 seconds.

T-72/M/B :

No dynamic lead, on T-72 and T-72M the lasing marker does not move with the rest of the sight which makes lasing very awkward and slows engagement times. The marker is usually below and little to the right of aim arrow(in battlesight range of 800m), which means that gunner has to raise his aim, move sight left a bit, lase, then reverse this action to put the aim on target again. This problem was fixed for T-72B though. Stabilization on T-72/T-72M is awkward to use, any minor corrections in horizontal axis or in vertical axis from down to up are difficult to do because of a small delay. Gunner often ends up over-correcting his aim, this slows down engagements as well. It also limits your fire on the move to either smooth terrain and fast speed or bumpy terrain and slow speed to if you want accuracy. Tracking fast moving targets is made further difficult by having the turret speed jump from a 3 degrees of maximum controllable speed to uncontrollable 20 degree slew speed all of a sudden. Passive IR-sight is subpar, 800m maximum range and only in ideal conditions. On top of that night sight does not have LRF incorporated into it and is poorly stabilized. Also you can't use it to spot targets during day time like you can with thermal sight. TC can override the gunner, but can't fire the main gun and has no real control over to the gun other than the override speed. On T-72/T-72M TC has only 3x magnification and his sight is not stabilized. Autoloader is reliable and has 22 ready rounds compared to 15 on Leo 2, but is slower than human loader. This is especially true when the carousel has only few rounds left, on all T-72 models the autoloader rotates only in one direction and thus the loading can take up to 13 seconds. Basic maintenance is easy, but replacing engine or main gun for example takes several hours. Having said all that, T-72 carries HE-Frag rounds which make it far greater anti-personnel asset on the battlefield than its western counterparts.


Roy, I don't know what descriptions you have been reading, but every and each one I have read fits Leo 2 just as well as T-xx. Since your current reasoning on why Leo 2 isn't a tank doesn't make sense, can you elaborate a bit further?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Mar 2005, 09:25
Quote:
Roy, I don't know what descriptions you have been reading, but every and each one I have read fits Leo 2 just as well as T-xx. Since your current reasoning on why Leo 2 isn't a tank doesn't make sense, can you elaborate a bit further?


==There is no doubt that Leopard-2 is far better than T-72 on the aspects of armour, firepower and electonic equipments, but it was designed to be a defensive weapon, the L55 was an exellent piece of anti-tank weapon, thick armour so it can take some hit and protect the crew, roomy interior so te crews can fight inside longer, and manual loading to ensure higher rate of fire, but these are also problems, the HEAT-HE ammo used by the L55 is ineffective against soft targets, extra armour means extra weight which hindered both operational and strategic mobility, more room means larger size which means that it would be spotted more easily, and manual loading prevented the tank from firing while moving fast crosscountry (it's extremely dangerous to hold a shell while on a bumpy ride).

Tank is an offensive weapon, its purpose is to break enemy lines and smash targets deep in the enemy rear, so its primary targets would be enemy infantry, anti-tank weapons, and enemy strongpoints, it will need high reliability, fuel efficient, good river crossing capabilities, and good anti-personnel capability, as you said, "T-72 carries HE-Frag rounds which make it far greater anti-personnel asset on the battlefield than its western counterparts. ", and notice that Soviet tanks have always carried more HE ammo that AP ammo. And anti-tank capability should only be secondary, just enough to fend off enemy armour counter attacks, the last thing a tank should do is to assume defensive position, where its mobility and the ability to create"shock" is not fully exploited.

That's why I'd say that even though Leopard-2 is an impressive piece of anti-tank weapon, but it isn't really a tank.
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 09:43
Pioneer
Post 13 Mar 2005, 12:05
Roy wrote:
There is no doubt that Leopard-2 is far better than T-72 on the aspects of armour, firepower and electonic equipments, but it was designed to be a defensive weapon,


Actually, it was designed to be a counter-attack weapon to hit the flanks and rear of soviet tank formations. Best anti-tank weapon for last 60 years has been another tank.

Quote:
the L55 was an exellent piece of anti-tank weapon,


Leo 2A4 has L44 cannon, granted its not relevant in this matter.

Quote:
the HEAT-HE ammo used by the L55 is ineffective against soft targets,


Not really ineffective, but less effective than HE-F round yes.

Quote:
extra armour means extra weight which hindered both operational and strategic mobility,


It has 1500hp, that's almost double than on T-72 and it has excellent transmission. It's more mobile and agile than T-72. Strategic mobility is not hindered if you have engineer bridges that can carry your tanks weight. Leo 2A4 had only 10 tons more weight than T-72B.

Quote:
and manual loading prevented the tank from firing while moving fast crosscountry (it's extremely dangerous to hold a shell while on a bumpy ride).


Ok and you have personal experience on this matter? Both Leo 2 and M1 have a feature that locks the gun in certain angle. Leo 2 crews have it always on for safety reasons, M1 crews say they can load faster on the move without it. I'd say loading the main gun in T-72 is more dangerous in bumpy ride, because at 2 stages during loading the round is not held by anything(when the ramming chain pushes both the round and then the propellant into breech).

Quote:
Tank is an offensive weapon, its purpose is to break enemy lines and smash targets deep in the enemy rear, so its primary targets would be enemy infantry, anti-tank weapons, and enemy strongpoints,


That depends purely on your doctrine. For west tank was offensive weapon as well, for counter-attack maneuvers. That involves breaking enemy lines and smashing deep into enemy rear. Except for them primary targets were soviet tanks and armored personnel carriers.

Quote:
And anti-tank capability should only be secondary, just enough to fend off enemy armour counter attacks, the last thing a tank should do is to assume defensive position, where its mobility and the ability to create"shock" is not fully exploited.


Or priority, depending on your doctrine....Leo 2 and M1 were to be used in counter attacks, not static defense. Sometimes you would be forced to do that of course and Leo 2 is more suited to this role than T-72, because it has fast reverse speed and can low its main gun many degrees lower.

Quote:
That's why I'd say that even though Leopard-2 is an impressive piece of anti-tank weapon, but it isn't really a tank.


It has a big main gun, all-around protection with highly protected front armor, its turret can rotate 360 degrees, it's used for mobile offensive operations. It's a tank.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 13 Mar 2005, 12:47
McManus ir right, the best anti-tank weapon in defence or offence, is always another tank. And after WW2 no-one was going to wage war in static defence. It worked in WW1 but even at WW2 static defence was not sufficient to hold on massed attacks. Infantry alone cannot defence itself against combined arms attack.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Mar 2005, 00:48
Quote:
Actually, it was designed to be a counter-attack weapon to hit the flanks and rear of soviet tank formations. Best anti-tank weapon for last 60 years has been another tank.


==Flanks of advancing Soviet forces are protected by infantries and towed anti-tank guns, so a tank that is designed to take on the flanks of Soviet armour has to be good at dealing with soft tagets. And I never believed the idea of Best anti-tank weapon is another tank" stuff, I believe that the best anti-tank weapon is aircraft.

Quote:
Not really ineffective, but less effective than HE-F round yes.


==You are right, they do work, but just isn't as good.

Quote:
It has 1500hp, that's almost double than on T-72 and it has excellent transmission. It's more mobile and agile than T-72. Strategic mobility is not hindered if you have engineer bridges that can carry your tanks weight. Leo 2A4 had only 10 tons more weight than T-72B.


==of course Leopard-2 is faster than T-72, but by weighing more than 60 tons, the Leopard won't perform very well on roads with poor conditions, it won't be able to crosss most bridges(you won't get engineers when ever and where ever you like), it is almost impossible to airlift a leopard, 60 tons of metal is very hard to tow once immobilized, and extra weight means extra fuel consumption. 10 ton is a lot of weight, it's around 7-8 family sedans.

Quote:
Ok and you have personal experience on this matter? Both Leo 2 and M1 have a feature that locks the gun in certain angle. Leo 2 crews have it always on for safety reasons, M1 crews say they can load faster on the move without it. I'd say loading the main gun in T-72 is more dangerous in bumpy ride, because at 2 stages during loading the round is not held by anything(when the ramming chain pushes both the round and then the propellant into breech).


==Sorry I've never loaded a L44, but I have seen the loading of 105mm L119, the shell weighs 25kg, I can assure you that there is no way which you can hold it still and ram it into a hole with a diametre of 14cm while moving fast over rough terrain. Imagine you are about to load HE round, you pulled off the safe and is about to push it into the breech, the tank jumped and you bumped the nose of the round into something in the tank....

Quote:
That depends purely on your doctrine. For west tank was offensive weapon as well, for counter-attack maneuvers. That involves breaking enemy lines and smashing deep into enemy rear. Except for them primary targets were soviet tanks and armored personnel carriers.


==Interdiction attcks which would be conducted by Soviet frontline aviation would be a extremely serious problem for those 60 ton western tanks, as damaged roads and briges will make things even worse. I am not sure if their poor operational mobility will allow them to assume the role of "firebrigades" properly. And their heavy reliance on logistical support makes me doubt how deep into the enemy rear they can get, if a war did break out in Europe, western tanks would be in the same awkward positions as German Panthers and Tigers in the later stages of WWII.


Quote:
Or priority, depending on your doctrine....Leo 2 and M1 were to be used in counter attacks, not static defence. Sometimes you would be forced to do that of course and Leo 2 is more suited to this role than T-72, because it has fast reverse speed and can low its main gun many degrees lower.


==yes depending on my doctrine, according to the idea of large front, deep battle, breakthrough priority, offensive doctrine, tough tagets such as enemy armours should be avoided when ever possible.

Quote:
It has a big main gun, all-around protection with highly protected front armor, its turret can rotate 360 degrees, it's used for mobile offensive operations. It's a tank.


==You are talking about MBT in a broad sense, but their design and use does not fit into my idea of armoured warfare.
Soviet cogitations: 28
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 21:46
Pioneer
Post 14 Mar 2005, 03:55
If it's hard to load shells while moving why is it that most tankers in the US Army can do it in 5 seconds?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Mar 2005, 05:38
Quote:
If it's hard to load shells while moving why is it that most tankers in the US Army can do it in 5 seconds?


==I meant moving fast over rough terrain, it gets bumpy
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 09:43
Pioneer
Post 14 Mar 2005, 11:00
Roy, you are naturally entitled to your opinions, it's just that me and various military experts happen to disagree. And remember, that using the same logic that Leo 2 isn't a tank, one could argue that T-72 is not a tank either, it's an anti-personnel platform due to the fact that only small part of its ammunition carryout is pure AP.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 14 Mar 2005, 16:13
Quote:
==of course Leopard-2 is faster than T-72, but by weighing more than 60 tons, the Leopard won't perform very well on roads with poor conditions

Leopards ground pressure (0,83kg/cm2) is smaller than T-72 (0,9kg/cm2).
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Mar 2005, 23:34
Quote:
Roy, you are naturally entitled to your opinions, it's just that me and various military experts happen to disagree. And remember, that using the same logic that Leo 2 isn't a tank, one could argue that T-72 is not a tank either, it's an anti-personnel platform due to the fact that only small part of its ammunition carryout is pure AP.


==Indeed, I think along the lines of Soviet doctrine of large front, deep battle, it gives me a different idea on what tanks should be like and how should they be used.
Just keep in mind that during WWII, Soviet heavy tank units consumed 70%of HE ammo issued to them, while only consumed 30% of AP ammo issued. This helps understand where the Russians get their ideas from.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Mar 2005, 23:37
Quote:
Leopards ground pressure (0,83kg/cm2) is smaller than T-72 (0,9kg/cm2).


==Bridges collapse due to the absolute weight of the object, not the weight per unit of surface of contact.
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 09:43
Pioneer
Post 15 Mar 2005, 14:36
Roy wrote:
==Bridges collapse due to the absolute weight of the object, not the weight per unit of surface of contact.


You mentioned roads with poor conditions before, that's where ground pressure does apply. A 200 ton vehicle with ground pressure of 0.01kg/cm2 will be able to move better than a 1 ton vehicle with 10kg/cm2.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 15 Mar 2005, 22:49
Roy wrote:
Quote:
Roy, you are naturally entitled to your opinions, it's just that me and various military experts happen to disagree. And remember, that using the same logic that Leo 2 isn't a tank, one could argue that T-72 is not a tank either, it's an anti-personnel platform due to the fact that only small part of its ammunition carryout is pure AP.


==Indeed, I think along the lines of Soviet doctrine of large front, deep battle, it gives me a different idea on what tanks should be like and how should they be used.
Just keep in mind that during WWII, Soviet heavy tank units consumed 70%of HE ammo issued to them, while only consumed 30% of AP ammo issued. This helps understand where the Russians get their ideas from.

If you try to fought war like 60 years before, you will lose. The french tried WW1 tactics at WW2 and what happened? They lost because tehcnical advancements made old tactics obsolete.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Mar 2005, 08:30
Quote:
You mentioned roads with poor conditions before, that's where ground pressure does apply. A 200 ton vehicle with ground pressure of 0.01kg/cm2 will be able to move better than a 1 ton vehicle with 10kg/cm2.


==That's tactical mobility, I am more concerned about operational and strategic moibility, the damage to the road done by 100 50ton tanks will be far less than 100 60ton tanks
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Mar 2005, 08:36
Quote:
If you try to fought war like 60 years before, you will lose. The french tried WW1 tactics at WW2 and what happened? They lost because tehcnical advancements made old tactics obsolete.


==These tactics are inapplicable now, but they weren't obsolete in the age of T-72's, that's why I discussed about them here. Maybe I should open a new post to discuss about how today's wars should be fought.
Soviet cogitations: 40
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 09:43
Pioneer
Post 16 Mar 2005, 11:21
Roy wrote:
==That's tactical mobility, I am more concerned about operational and strategic moibility, the damage to the road done by 100 50ton tanks will be far less than 100 60ton tanks


There's more to that than just weight, like type of track for example. Leo 2 has rubber tracks and T-72 has steel, so Leo 2 will do less damage to the road. Not that it really matters in terms of operational or strategic mobility since you'd have to drive the same road with thousands of tanks 24/7 to make any difference in that aspect.
Soviet cogitations: 28
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 31 Dec 2004, 21:46
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2005, 20:35
Roy wrote:
Quote:
If it's hard to load shells while moving why is it that most tankers in the US Army can do it in 5 seconds?


==I meant moving fast over rough terrain, it gets bumpy


Yes, they do that too...you're point?
» Next Page »
POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.