At least East German tankers (T-55 and T-72) weren't chosen because of their height. They put everybody into them from 160 to 190+ centimeters.
I remember we had a pretty long and interesting conversation about the ability of russian tank designs to avoid hits due to their smaller silouette.
My opinion and that from several other was that such a small design has pros and cons of which hit avoidance is a minor pro if at all.
As for the other pros.
With a smaller tank one needs less armor to get the same protection over a given arc.
And overall weight can be kept down which has impact on bridge crossing capabilities but not so much on cross country performance as this is much more dependant on a good suspension, soil pressure per cm² and hp per ton.
The negatives are, as mentioned before, a cramped interior which degrades combat effectiveness, especially over a longer period as well as problems with upgrading the tank. The electronics also get problems in hot environments due to the small space in which they are located.
Another problem is gun depression. The low turret reduces the possible gun depression. Not only does this limit the number of usable fighting positions it also limits the ability to hit targets while moving over rough ground. This is IMO much more of a setback. The most limitiung factor these days is not the FCS. Modern FCS have no problem with engagements where both sides are moving but they are useless if the gun hits the maximum depression regularly during a cross country ride. I had never problems with hitting anything while moving as long as the gun stays withing the maximum depression/elevation, nevertheless such situations occure relatively often even with a Leo II. The small depression/elevation of a usual T is a real problem in these situations.
IMHO the French got it right with the Leclerc. They managed to keep the weight down not by making the overall tank or turret smaller but by using a short hull due to a modern turbobar diesel.
Modern powerpacks with good outputs like the mentioned turbobar or the Europowerpack by MTU are becoming smaller so cutting the hull is a good option for reducing overall weight.
As for the L/44 soldiering on.
Even countries which do not use DU ammo are keeping L/44 guns in service.
The Swedish Strv 122 and the Danish Leopard IIA5DK have a L/44 gun, albeit with the usual upgrades of the KWS I which allow the use of DM53/63 ammunition.
The Japanese Type 90 also got no upgrade to a L/55 gun as well as their new tank, the Type 10, although with the Type 10 keeping it small should be a major reason for this.
Not to forget all the Abrams users out there. Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Australia don't use DU ammo but are still keeping 44 calibre guns.
Note that 3+km kills are extremely rare if there is anything resembling vegetation. Even in the north german plain most kills are at 1km or less with long range shots being a rare exception.
Finally I want to congratulate you to your job wish. These days it seems that nearly all the kids want to go the light infantry/superspecialwhateversoldier route (Apart from the AF and Navy guys).
Good to see that there are still kids out there which are attracted by the iron horse cavalry!
If the sh** hits the fan we all know who is going to do the killing on the ground. The heavy combined arms units and not some slow and vulnerable crunchies.
Panzer Hurra!
From time to time I need to write some totally baseless infantry bashing sentences...
I remember we had a pretty long and interesting conversation about the ability of russian tank designs to avoid hits due to their smaller silouette.
My opinion and that from several other was that such a small design has pros and cons of which hit avoidance is a minor pro if at all.
As for the other pros.
With a smaller tank one needs less armor to get the same protection over a given arc.
And overall weight can be kept down which has impact on bridge crossing capabilities but not so much on cross country performance as this is much more dependant on a good suspension, soil pressure per cm² and hp per ton.
The negatives are, as mentioned before, a cramped interior which degrades combat effectiveness, especially over a longer period as well as problems with upgrading the tank. The electronics also get problems in hot environments due to the small space in which they are located.
Another problem is gun depression. The low turret reduces the possible gun depression. Not only does this limit the number of usable fighting positions it also limits the ability to hit targets while moving over rough ground. This is IMO much more of a setback. The most limitiung factor these days is not the FCS. Modern FCS have no problem with engagements where both sides are moving but they are useless if the gun hits the maximum depression regularly during a cross country ride. I had never problems with hitting anything while moving as long as the gun stays withing the maximum depression/elevation, nevertheless such situations occure relatively often even with a Leo II. The small depression/elevation of a usual T is a real problem in these situations.
IMHO the French got it right with the Leclerc. They managed to keep the weight down not by making the overall tank or turret smaller but by using a short hull due to a modern turbobar diesel.
Modern powerpacks with good outputs like the mentioned turbobar or the Europowerpack by MTU are becoming smaller so cutting the hull is a good option for reducing overall weight.
As for the L/44 soldiering on.
Even countries which do not use DU ammo are keeping L/44 guns in service.
The Swedish Strv 122 and the Danish Leopard IIA5DK have a L/44 gun, albeit with the usual upgrades of the KWS I which allow the use of DM53/63 ammunition.
The Japanese Type 90 also got no upgrade to a L/55 gun as well as their new tank, the Type 10, although with the Type 10 keeping it small should be a major reason for this.
Not to forget all the Abrams users out there. Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Australia don't use DU ammo but are still keeping 44 calibre guns.
Note that 3+km kills are extremely rare if there is anything resembling vegetation. Even in the north german plain most kills are at 1km or less with long range shots being a rare exception.
Finally I want to congratulate you to your job wish. These days it seems that nearly all the kids want to go the light infantry/superspecialwhateversoldier route (Apart from the AF and Navy guys).
Good to see that there are still kids out there which are attracted by the iron horse cavalry!
If the sh** hits the fan we all know who is going to do the killing on the ground. The heavy combined arms units and not some slow and vulnerable crunchies.
Panzer Hurra!
From time to time I need to write some totally baseless infantry bashing sentences...
