Tanks

So, I read in some tank enthusiast's forum that the Germans have the second best tank in the world (Leopard-2), behind the U.S.'s Abrams; the latter's ascendency largely due to its sophisticated electronics integration, apparently.

Now, the military expenditures of the respective nations could not have a bigger gulf: Germany ~$US43bil (1.4% of GDP); the U.S. ~700bil (4.7% of GDP). This, while the economic health of the said nations are near polar opposites.

My question is: how is it that the Germans seem to have the patent on building the best stuff? They owned the battlefield in WWII with their Panzers and today still seem to punch well above their weight. German ingenuity?

Why don't the U.S. get their stuff made in the Mutterland? Have the R&D done in the U.S. by Jews and Japanese, the manufacturing in Germany, all paid for by the exorbitant American military budget and... VOILA! The U.S. become the superpower they've so long postured as yet have failed to prove time and again; Korea after Vietnam after Afghanistan after...

reply to post by CristobalColonic


German tanks in WW2 were very advanced, but they were out numbered hugely, and worse, they were a bugger to maintain. So difficult were they to maintain infact, that they had to be dealt with by a full workshop. On the road or in the field, if something went wrong with a German tank, that tank stayed dead until a fully equipped machine shop was available, let lone a way of getting the bloody huge things from where ever they were to where ever they could be fixed.

Where as the US tanks of the period, and the British tanks also were often fixable at the roadside, by the crew themselves.

reply to post by CristobalColonic


The reign of the Tank is over. There really is no call for such a expenditure of money anymore. They've gone the way of the Battleship.

Some armor, combined with speed AND firepower AND the ability to transport troops is the way to go.

We should sell them all to others who think that they are the end all be all. With a hidden, secret kill switch as well.

reply to post by CristobalColonic


Almost all german military equipment is superior technologically to the US. At least what I've seen when I was stationed there. And I also don't know about the abrams being the worlds best tank anymore. There are many countries in Europe especially that have the same capabilities as the abrams with more advanced electronic GPS and targeting systems.

And I would say that the Leopard is right on par with the Abrams, not a second at all. And I say this as someone who was a US army abrahms crewman for 8 years.

And you do realize that the US would not get other countries to make its military equipment right? The US has this thing called the military industrial complex. With very powerful lobbyists that make sure that most all of the politicians in washington have some shares and kickbacks from it. America is also the worlds top arms dealer, so why would we want other countries cutting in on our action?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by CristobalColonic

 

The reign of the Tank is over. There really is no call for such a expenditure of money anymore. They've gone the way of the Battleship.

Some armor, combined with speed AND firepower AND the ability to transport troops is the way to go.

We should sell them all to others who think that they are the end all be all. With a hidden, secret kill switch as well.

People have been saying that for decades. But I disagree, there will always be a place for heavy armor and big guns on any battlefield. It takes 22 feet of solid concrete to stop a sabot round. Nuff said.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

People have been saying that for decades. But I disagree, there will always be a place for heavy armor and big guns on any battlefield. It takes 22 feet of solid concrete to stop a sabot round. Nuff said.

The M1128 Mobile Gun System (A Stryker with a 105mm) can accomplish that. And what good is a sabot against concrete? It's basically throwing a hyper sonic dart at a wall. It has light armor, speed and firepowere enough to take out a Abrams as well.

Two HE or AP rounds or the newer APHE would do the same trick with more damage to a fixed position. The logistics alone make the tank of today obsolete.

reply to post by CristobalColonic


2 words: German Engineering

My hat goes off for them... Seriously bravo guys/gals genius and well designed.

I see you never seen the VW comercials~

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by CristobalColonic

 

The reign of the Tank is over. There really is no call for such a expenditure of money anymore. They've gone the way of the Battleship.

Some armor, combined with speed AND firepower AND the ability to transport troops is the way to go.

We should sell them all to others who think that they are the end all be all. With a hidden, secret kill switch as well.

Right. Everything in the battle area needs to be able to outrun--out wit, rather--some sort of missile or another. We can add aircraft carriers along with battleships to the obsolete list of weapon systems. The a/c carriers will be the first things to go from massive missile strikes when a war starts.Possibly used as sacrificial ploys to start a major new war. That trick worked for getting us into WWII.

reply to post by Aliensun


There is a saying.

“The only thing in the Navy during war are targets and submarines.” And even that is dicey these days.

But Battlegroups do have surrounding ships to protect the carriers. That is their sole purpose. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be damage or even loss. But the Navy damage control crews are quite good.

That said, I see tanks going the drone route just like aircraft, so there will be a place for tanks in a future battlefield. But they will be less armored and expendable as well.

But there is also another saying;

“You don’t own the ground until you have a infantryman ON the ground holding it.” Drones won’t be able to do that.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior

People have been saying that for decades. But I disagree, there will always be a place for heavy armor and big guns on any battlefield. It takes 22 feet of solid concrete to stop a sabot round. Nuff said.

The M1128 Mobile Gun System (A Stryker with a 105mm) can accomplish that. And what good is a sabot against concrete? It's basically throwing a hyper sonic dart at a wall. It has light armor, speed and firepowere enough to take out a Abrams as well.

Two HE or AP rounds or the newer APHE would do the same trick with more damage to a fixed position. The logistics alone make the tank of today obsolete.

Like I said, I've heard that ever since 1995 when I was a 17 year old in Ft. Knox going through boot camp. Not going to happen anytime soon, even though the armys abrahms fleet is about 35 years old now. I'm not saying the strykers don't have their place, fact is armor is never going to be obsolete on any battlefield.



And fyi the stryker has a 120mm. Just like the M1A1.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Been there done that. Old Cav Scout here. The light kind...not the junior tanker kind. (Bradleys) And all the Stykers deployed to Bah'Q'Bah had 105's, not 120's. I know that they are looking into that. I would prfere that they put hyper-velocity 75mm auto cannon on them. They'll still punch through a M1A2.

After multiple tours, I can honestly say that tanks are obsolete and the logistics to keep them up are hindersome to say the least.

A HUMMV with a TOW can take them out quite easily...or a couple of unexpended artillery rounds buried under a road.

That takes a toll on troops morale when their armored beasts cannot defeat simple insurgents. AND that is the way war is evolving.

Speed is the new warfare, actionable intel, etc, etc. And being able to bring the force of arms in a swift and decisive manner will win any future battles. Of course, that won't win wars though. The US learned that in Vietnam.

Tanks are venerable except the desert or open terrain. And if you don’t have the airpower to control the skies, you’re screwed there as well.

I was in the first Styker Brigade in the Army (Ft. Lewis)...amazing how that interim vehicle has stuck around twenty years ain't it? All the while the M1 fleet has shrunk.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

Been there done that.

Old Cav Scout here. The light kind...not the junior tanker kind. (Bradleys)

After multiple tours, I can honestly say that tanks are obsolete and the logistics to keep them up are hindersome to say the least.

A HUMMV with a TOW can take them out quite easily...or a couple of unexpended artillery rounds buried under a road.

That takes a toll on troops morale when their armored beasts cannot defeat simple insurgents. AND that is the way war is evolving.

Speed is the new warfare, actionable intel, etc, etc. And being able to bring the force of arms in a swift and decisive manner will win any future battles. Of course, that won't win wars though. The US learned that in Vietnam.

Tanks are venerable except the desert or open terrain. And if you don’t have the airpower to control the skies, you’re screwed there as well.

I was in the first Styker Brigade in the Army (Ft. Lewis)...amazing how that interim vehicle has stuck around twenty years ain't it?

All the while the M1 fleet has shrunk.

OK, yeah, tanks are obsolete and are going to go away soon. Tell me that in 20 years when there are still M1A1s around blowing things sky high, like I said I've heard it for the last twenty. Like all soldiers you are just being partial to the equipment you were trained on. Just like I am probably. And I would also like to know what crystal ball that lets you see in the future to know that all future wars are going to be insurgent occupying wars like the bungled wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I never said tanks were awesome for an insurgency, I just said armor+big guns is never going to be obsolete on a battlefield. And it is an opinion that will not change no matter how many strykers you throw at me buddy And not trying to knock your stryker here, but the fact that its been around 20 years means nothing. The bradley has been around far longer and it is a huge pile of metal crap. If you truly are a scout you would know I'm not lying at all about that point.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Not a big fan of the Stryker either, but I would take 5 of them over a Abrams if I were a commander anyday. Even if they didn't have the 105 or 120.

Remember, I said I was a light fighter and am partial to asymetrical warfare. So you do have me there. I did that for three decades.

Tanks enmasse do have their uses, but we really haven't seen that since the Six-day war. Most conflicts since WW2 have been brushfire wars. Even the Iran-Iraq war did not prove any significant victory with armor.

But being a "crunchy or track grease", the only time I was afraid of tanks was when it was dark and foggy out. The tank does have its limited uses, but cost effectiveness is not one of them. HUMMVs, MRAPs and Stykers can do the job of most tanks today, with the exception of mine clearance.

The Germans have seen the writing on the wall as well. They're just too damned costly.

The fiasco that is going on with the F-35 reminds me of the Bradley. Keep throwing money at it until it's fixed. Though I still think the Brad is junk.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by CristobalColonic

 

And you do realize that the US would not get other countries to make its military equipment right?

To mention a few, the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun is the main armament of the Abrams. The Bofors 57 mm (2.2 in) L70 gun Mark 3 is designated as the US Navy Mark 110 Mod 0 57mm gun. The OTO Melara 76 mm gun is on (USCG)Famous-class and Hamilton-class cutters and on US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.

The Genius of Design (BBC)At the turn of the 20th century, Germany was known for producing shoddy and shabby products. They were known in Europe for making tasteless goods. Basically a sort of standards bureau was set up to change this and worked incredibly hard at ensuring German products were the best, if not overly engineered and manufactured goods in the world. Since then, they have really been that way.

I would argue the Challenger 2 is better than the Leo2. The Danish Leos have had some problems with heat saturation in A-stan. For a German, a hot day is 35c. For a Texan, a hot day is 47c. I've noticed German cars (I've owned two BMWs and a Merc) deal with heat extremely poorly compared to other brands.


www.youtube.com...

This tells all.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
reply to post by CristobalColonic

 

And you do realize that the US would not get other countries to make its military equipment right?

To mention a few, the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun is the main armament of the Abrams. The Bofors 57 mm (2.2 in) L70 gun Mark 3 is designated as the US Navy Mark 110 Mod 0 57mm gun. The OTO Melara 76 mm gun is on (USCG)Famous-class and Hamilton-class cutters and on US Navy Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.

Im aware that certain weapons and components are made by other countries. My point is that never will that be allowed on a grand scale to circumvent the profits of boeing, lockheed, general dynamics and all the others.

The United states still by far is the worlds largest exporter of armaments.

I think the US doesnt invest so heavily in the most advanced tanks as its old tech. Cmon when you have stealth fighters/bombers that are totally unmanned and can be controlled by a computer 1000 miles away would you use a tank?

Originally posted by armed2teeth
I think the US doesnt invest so heavily in the most advanced tanks as its old tech. Cmon when you have stealth fighters/bombers that are totally unmanned and can be controlled by a computer 1000 miles away would you use a tank?

Because at some point, armed conflict is going to come down to boots on the ground, and if you're going to put boots on the ground, the folks wearing those boots really appreciate some mobile, well protected firepower supporting them.

Remotely piloted vehicles and drones are great tools for neutralizing certain kinds of targets, but just like any other weapon from the assault rifle to the atomic bomb, they're only part of the picture.

Abrams and Lepard MBT's were a joint development to start with, main hull and drive train along share a lot of commonality. differances came about because the Germans were developing their tank for a defencive war of manouvere against the Russians, the US was looking at the followup attack plan. British, American and German forces were supposed to hold the line long enough to get the reserves mobilised and moved to europe. I remember being told that when it all went wrong and the Russians warsaw pact came rolling in we'd have about 24hrs before we'd be combat ineffective due to attrition.

Has anyone figured in the North Korea element into their thinking, 4,500 armoured vechicles to stop, fast jets and air power can only do so much, the best thing to stop a tank is another tank.

It's called a FO and a MLRS folks. Walking an tank saved my butt more than once and provided nice cover for me to spot and call. Strykers... I have mixed feelings about strykers, but they do get the job done.