M1A1, the indestructible Tank?

[Beatmaster]

Tanks in general play a vital role back in the past and at present day.
The combined mobility, armor and firepower should not be underestimated.
Most or nealry all modern MBT's are capable of multiple tasks and can do their jobs with such a accuracy and power that it really can turn the table.
They can cover huge amounts of ground and they can strike out of nowhere at long distance, providing direct and powerfull firesupport to allied ground units.

It is true that RPG's related weapons have become so mutch stronger and they can take out a tank, however this is based upon close and mid range.
A MBT however has enough systems on board to relay a complete and very accurate view of the battle field wich is a major boost to any ground offensive where heavy armor is going to be encountered.

So basicly the modern MBT can serve as a mobile and armored command post as it is capable of taking out enemy positions while relaying info and data/intel to land and airforces.
Therefor i believe that the role of a modern MBT should not be underestimated as they have a proven and devastating effect, not to mention the many roles they can play to make a offensive a succes.

Fighting a war without armor or MBT's is like fighting without a airforce, iam not saying that it cannot be done but its just a example leaving out MBT's is just to a great loss to the overall capabilities of modern armies.

However the increasing better equipped IFV and other vehicles do pose a serious danger to MBT's as they can nearly fullfill the same tasks.
But IMO a good MBT will always play a vital role and there is always need for some serious armor and firepower wich other vehicles cannot provide yet.

 

[Feanor]

A key question then if an MBTdoesn't posses the onboard C4I to serve as the command post you just mentioned, then it's not considered modern?

 

[Beatmaster]

A key question then if an MBTdoesn't posses the onboard C4I to serve as the command post you just mentioned, then it's not considered modern?

Thats not what i said, did i?

 

[Feanor]

Hence why I figured I'd clarify. Lets define the features of a modern MBT, or rather a late 3rd generation MBT.

 

[eckherl]

Having been in the demonstration team on the dorbann training area, where the mobility trails were undertaken in germany, i can tell you without doubt which tank was perfered and discussed, as well as inspected the most. like wise the survey carried out by the ATDU team with each regiment,( this was requested by the director of the school of armour in bovington along side the MOD) the results were leopard first option, while the gun ect may well also have played its part as well as national poltics, but the oveall view at that time was leopard.

The crews liked the mobility, ease of maintenace in the field, cant say other regments but mine was clear. we worked with the local german armour school a lot, the M1 demo team did not provide a very good demonstration, the same occured on the ranges, the gun was not a problem as at the time it was a british gun,.

As for british crews perferance for the M1 in 22 years never heard one, not even in the gulf, personally ive never been overly impressed by the M1 at all every time i see it ,i expect if we had taken leopard it would have had a british gun system anyway at the time. i would still place the leopard over the M1 to this day. if the M1 and challenger were both that good everyone would buy them, as it is, the NATO standard tank is the Leopard. with good reason.

I know for a fact that the UK would not even consider a LEO during that time frame due to a different armor configuration, the only tank that was even close to what the British was working on as far as protection level came from the M1 series, and their excuse for making this American design go away was due to our modifications with your armor design, don't forget that we are sporting your base level armor but with some added benefit, I do not understand why you keep insisting that the LEO had a chance of getting choosen for Britians new tank, pride alone would of prevented this, it took you how long to even consider a smooth bore gun, any testing by your unit was nothing more than a token gesture. What does a Leopard have over a M1 series and Challenger that makes it better, maybe better by a wee tad when it comes to mobility and that is it, it doesn't offer better armor protection nor FCS that would give it a edge over both our Chariots, that comment comes with experience and knowledge on the subject. The best protected tank in the world does not sport British tank badges. Also because your theater of operations in Iraq was less painful people need to quite using the claim that the Challenger is better protected over other NATO tanks because that is just not the case, I would wager that if British forces were up against the same threats as U.S forces that they would of also suffered the same fate as American tank units had. You can dislike the M1 series all you want but it is a proven design that will be upgraded to continue the spearhead for many years to come, it will continue to be one of the best tanks in the world like it or not. You are doing nothing more than splitting hairs when comparing all three tanks.

 

[eckherl]

I can also confirm that the decision was also made by the germans when they felt that one of the australian companies involved with negotiations to upgrade the leo 1's was regarded as fundamentally dishonest. They vowed to not deal in australia while the exectuive of that company remained in play.

they walked from further negotiations, and from my perspective, with good reason and justification to do so.

Also Abraham Gubler,

Yes, British and Americans looked at the LEO 2 series in the late seventies due to our aging tank fleets but the show stopper was the armor design, both U.S and British felt that there was something better than the laminated German design, thus one of the reasons why the U.S started working with the British. Germany wasn't too happy with us and demanded that we send back all their tanks that we were using for test purposes, I think last time I checked though a LEO 2 hull was still out in a certain companies bone yard.

We tried to get the British to buy into the M1 series to help with cost reductions but we know where that ended up, alas - Challie 1.

 

[eckherl]

@Abraham
The ballistic gap of the Leopard II A1-4 is not as bad as some want it to be.
There is an armor block behind the primary sight. So in order to get a penetration there one needs to hit the sight just in the right angle to hit the thin walls located at the side between the frontal armor and the armor block behind the sight.
It is evidently a weak point but let's not exaggerate it. It's still a golden shot. As you rightly said I would be much more worried about somebody penetrating the frontal hull and incinerating the whole crew.

As for the Australian evaluation.
For sure a Swiss Leopard is not comparable to a M1A1AIM. The Swiss tracks are basically plain normal A4s with some minor and irrelevant modifications. A fair comparison would have been something along the lines of the danish deal. They bought German A4s and immediately brought them up to A5DK standard. Add a battlefield management system and there you go. That would be a much better comparison.

The Australian decision was one between price or capabilities and not one over comparable tanks.

But to ensure that no one would have that option for a golden shot, the dog house was moved for A5 & A6 models.

 

[Feanor]

You are doing nothing more than splitting hairs when comparing all three tanks.

And there is the crux of the issue. Performance is really not the biggest criteria when comparing these two for acquisition purposes.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And there is the crux of the issue. Performance is really not the biggest criteria when comparing these two for acquisition purposes.

Well it was for Australia. In case anyone wants to refute my point here is a copy of the select diagram indicating why the Abrams was better than the Leopard 2. It pretty much sums it up. Leopard 2s are cheaper to drive but Abrams is more lethal and survivable. Take your pick...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, British and Americans looked at the LEO 2 series in the late seventies due to our aging tank fleets but the show stopper was the armor design

I was referring to the British program in the late 1980s, early 90s that lead to the CR2 which was the context of that discussion. The Brits assessed OTS tanks and the preference of the RAC was for the Leopard 2. This was based on their trial experience of it being an easier tank to maintain and operate. Fortunately for them they didn't get what they wanted because the overall analysis took into account that which was not tested with the RAC trial crews: exposure to live fire.

 

[Beatmaster]

Well it was for Australia. In case anyone wants to refute my point here is a copy of the select diagram indicating why the Abrams was better than the Leopard 2. It pretty much sums it up. Leopard 2s are cheaper to drive but Abrams is more lethal and survivable. Take your pick...

Iam not an expert on tanks however i think that the Abra, Leo, Challenger and Merkava are very close to eachother when it comes to overall performance.
However i think that the Abra is the better tank due the fact that its battle proven, however the newer leos have better mine protection and a L55 gun? (Not sure here)
Anyway anyone who claims that a Challenger or Abra can defeat a Leo just like that forget the fact that the Leo blue print was not some overnight project i mean Leo's are extreemly well build using the latest and most modern design standarts, having that said i think that that applies for all 4 tanks.
Also imo its hard to judge the leo on paper as it has not seen enough battle to seriously judge it.
However iam sure that if you are crew member of a abra or a challenger and you face a mad Leo then you probably sh*t yourself...lol (This applies for the Leo crew as well lol:jump2)
Those MBT's are overall equally strong, the one might have a better gun the other better design and the last one maybe a better armor suit......Still having one of those tanks makes sure that you have the latest and finest MBT's out there.
And it really does not matter wich tank you take as they are the top of the line

 

[Beatmaster]

Maybe offtopic but i found and intresting piece on the net:

The Merkava has components made in Germany and several other countries. so I don't know how "Israeli" it is. Haven't a few of them been knocked out by folks on the West Bank, or Gaza... with RPGs and Molotov cocktails? I saw a Web site where they were talking much a lot about the prowess of the Merkava. I think it's a good tank, but I don't think it's better than an M-1A2, or a Leopard II; especially the newest models. My main concern with an M-1 would be that it requires a huge amount of fuel to remain operational... many countries don't have the logistics to keep them "fed."

I don't see how any one can say that the Leopard 2 is a better tank than the M1a2. Especially since it has never been combat tested. It would also be hard to compare it to a Merkava since the IDF has not fought any significant opponents since their little adventure into Liberia back in the 80's. I know personally, if I had enemy tanks coming over the dune I'd want an M-1 giving me cover fire.

Several of the components of the tank are built in other countries, but the Merkava itself appears to be organic to Israel - it is constructed in Israel by Israeli Defense Industries. It utilizes the same 120mm smoothbore as found on the Leopard, Abrams, Challenger, etc. As far as I know they've only been knocked out in the W. Bank by 100kg packages of explosives placed under the road - striking the tank's vulnerable underside. As far as the other components of the tank - I was under the impression that the technology stuff was actually made in Israel itself and just wanted to see if anybody knew how it "really" stacked up against the Abrams. I was surprised by your experience with the Canadians though.

Someone that I know also raised a good point when he mention that the Leopard hasn't really been tested in combat - the analysis I was reading called the Abrams the best combat-tested tank in the world, but the Leopard the best tank in some sort of nebulous theoretical way. Tough to say "which is tougher" the Abrams or the Merkava. My impression is that the armor is similar. The 3 tanks that we've lost were to do 100kgs, blowing up under the tank.

Other than that they really haven't been tested in a real combat situation. One interesting aspect is the engine being placed in the front. The idea being that massive amount of metal up front further protects the crew. In the end..it's the crew, their motivation and their training.

Right now according to Armor Magazine the top tank in the world is the Leopard 2A6. The 2A6 has an upgraded gun that places it slightly over the M1A2 SEP. I asked a friend in the 1st Cav. if the Merkava Mk4 could beat an M1A2. He gave me a point by point comparison, comparing speed, ammo capacity, and power to weight ratio, secondary weaponry, and the Markova's mortar. His conclusion was that "the Abrams MBT is better then a Merkava"

Another point to consider is the engine. While yes it's a gas hog, the M1 is also extremely quiet. I was talking to my boss who was prior army Intel. She told about how they were nearly run over during a night training op because the first indication that they had of the tanks approach was when it smashed through the trees fifty feet ahead of them.

Those three tanks are my favorites. The Merkava Mk1 was combat tested in '73 against T-62s and T-72s. The armor, which included diesel fuel (I haven't figured how that one works) was easily capable of taking the punishment from the latest in Arab operated Russian equipment (I hope they read Russian). Only one thing bothers me about the M1A2 - the laser designator can burn out under extensive use, while those on the Leopard 2 (all models) shut down temporarily when overheated. The Leo.2 is also better optics wise for firing manually.

Not to discredit the Abrams or Merkava, but the newest Leo is nicer, incl. a longer gun barrel for higher velocity. IDI was considering designing another homegrown tank with a 140mm main gun! But because of such high secrecy, it's hard to tell what the newest Markova's armor is made of - every model has made improvements to it. DU armor is nasty for the Abrams to have - but it is penetrable by the latest AT shells.

The Leo. Has some shady secrecy about what they have for armor, so estimations would tell you that the have some advantages over the M1A2 and some important disadvantages. Just remember, a lot of European countries tested the M1A2, Leopard2A5, and Challenger2 (no one says much about those). The tank of choice was either home grown or the Leo.

Source

 

[Waylander]

But to ensure that no one would have that option for a golden shot, the dog house was moved for A5 & A6 models.

Sure, I never denied that it is a weak point and raising the sight was only a logical step when one puts a new armor design onto the track anyway.

I only wanted to emphasize that it is not that big a problem as some say it is.
The same with problems of other tanks for example the Challies weak lower hull armor or the missing hunter killer capabilities of the Abrams untill the A2 entered the scene.

And for sure a country like Australia is going to rate the network capabilities of the M1A1AIMv2 much higher than the one of a Swiss tank with a different BMS.
After all it's the US Army/USMC with which the Aussies are going to deploy their tanks if they ever do.

 

[Beatmaster]

Sure, I never denied that it is a weak point and raising the sight was only a logical step when one puts a new armor design onto the track anyway.

I only wanted to emphasize that it is not that big a problem as some say it is.
The same with problems of other tanks for example the Challies weak lower hull armor or the missing hunter killer capabilities of the Abrams untill the A2 entered the scene.

And for sure a country like Australia is going to rate the network capabilities of the M1A1AIMv2 much higher than the one of a Swiss tank with a different BMS.
After all it's the US Army/USMC with which the Aussies are going to deploy their tanks if they ever do.

Question:
If you look at the abra, challies, merkava and leo's then i wonder or their blueprints and overall design are maxed to the full potential yet? I mean what would be the lifespan of those blueprints?
As you see in the airforce and navy that tested designs get exploited to the max of its capability this happens with land vehicles as well, so when does the designs of those tanks reach its end?
Is there a certain lifespan connected to thos tanks in terms of tech and design?
As i assume that the industry will sooner or later come up with a better design wich maybe will make the current A-Grade tanks obsolete like we have seen with the centurion back in the day.

 

[Feanor]

Well it was for Australia. In case anyone wants to refute my point here is a copy of the select diagram indicating why the Abrams was better than the Leopard 2. It pretty much sums it up. Leopard 2s are cheaper to drive but Abrams is more lethal and survivable. Take your pick...

We would need a much more detailed chart then that to continue the discussion. That chart lacks any specifics regarding performance. I suspect interoperability with the US was a bigger factor then the raw performance.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We would need a much more detailed chart then that to continue the discussion. That chart lacks any specifics regarding performance. I suspect interoperability with the US was a bigger factor then the raw performance.

Not true. In the area of "overall survivability" it says "superior" for M1 and "not as competitive" for Leopard 2. You aren't going to get any more definitive than that in an unclass documentt. Plus this isn’t just some opinion laced document it has to be backed with fact as it goes through government for assessment.

 

[Feanor]

Not true. In the area of "overall survivability" it says "superior" for M1 and "not as competitive" for Leopard 2. You aren't going to get any more definitive than that in an unclass documentt. Plus this isn’t just some opinion laced document it has to be backed with fact as it goes through government for assessment.

The problem is that the assessment is non-transparent, and I have a natural distrust for any process of evaluation when we can't see what goes on inside. Only what goes in and comes out. You're right when you say we won't get anything more definitive then that, but that may well be the problem: in the unclassified world it's impossible to make the accurate comparison. In my opinion that's a much more fair and accurate conclusion from this debate.

 

[Waylander]

+1

We have no idea how much certain factors played into a decision and into an evaluation process.
There are enough evaluations out there where other tanks than the Abrams won as well as evaluations where it comes out top tank.

Not that evaluations have much influence onto the decisions of governments anyway...

 

[Feanor]

Yes I do concede my original point that performance is not the issue. I think a better way on my part would have been to word it as performance is not the MAIN issue for MOST countries making the selection between those tanks.

 

[eckherl]

I was referring to the British program in the late 1980s, early 90s that lead to the CR2 which was the context of that discussion. The Brits assessed OTS tanks and the preference of the RAC was for the Leopard 2. This was based on their trial experience of it being an easier tank to maintain and operate. Fortunately for them they didn't get what they wanted because the overall analysis took into account that which was not tested with the RAC trial crews: exposure to live fire.

The tests conducted in the 90's actually had the British government leaning towards the M1A2 regardless of what RAC wanted, but with the armor package that started to be implemented on M1A1 heavies up to M1A2 standard kind of killed the deal, the Germans never had a chance due to political reasons and British viewed Leo platform shortcomings, not implying anything negative towards Leo 2. Maintenance issues with late model M1 series up to the present model have been over blown, I would challenge any other tank that went thru the same type of missions in Iraq to perform any better.