Leopard 2 A6 Tank

[eckherl]

Not under any normal conditions. Not even the best sabot rounds from the 40mm gun on the CV90 can usually do this.

Rubbish, for someone with your lack of credentials to make that comment is absolutely bunk.

The next generation stuff is whats looking alot more interesting.

Care to elaborate.:roll

And arguing that the size of the supply chain is irrelevant, its just appallingly ignorant.

Then you shouldn't, because you and a bunch of other opinionated folks out there have really over hyped short comings of the U.S Army logistical footprint issue, it works just fine and has proven to be able to get the job done.

As to the M1's IR signature I've seen it through thermal cameras and while the exhaust plume is strong it is not bigger than the actual vehicle. The thing about any exhaust plume is it is rapidly 'consumed' by the air around it and with the engine off doesn't exist.
Perhaps you should instead see how that plume looks in a cold environment? Certainly alot bigger

So what, it is just as big as a diesel power pack heat signature not alot bigger. For target observation the turbine rules over the diesel. Your arguments are baseless and come from no real life experience.

More relevantly however in this case, is its difference to looking at a Leo2 with thermal reduction gear like the Strv-122 has and an M1, whose turbine engine means it CANT mount such gear for the engine(which means its almost useless to mount it for anything else either)...

And the difference is extreme to say the least. Under otherwise equal conditions, the M1 can be seen at least twice as far away as the Leo. Without thermal control gear the difference is much less, its visible somewhere a bit beyond the middle between the other two.

Hate to inform you of this but your glorified tank gillie technology isn't worth using when facing a modern opponent, its all in the modern cat eyes and and the way we roll. :roll

It seems the world overall doesnt agree. Noone else uses turbine, except the Russian T-80s, and they very markedly prefer NOT to use them and are even switching the turbines for diesels, despite the negative impact that has on the tank. In Georgia they even rather used T-62s instead of T-80s! Turbine engines are great, but not for tanks.

Ha ha ha, you threw that one out there without doing your homework, what a load of crap.

Your turn lets debate.

 

[Warwiz]

The A6 does not use the same cannon as the Abrams but an improved version.

=======================

Let’s not forget that no matter how good of a tank you have, if the crew is not properly trained they will lose to an inferior tank. Just look at the early Arab-Israeli wars. The Israeli used WW2 Sherman tanks against modern T-55, while it’s true that the Israeli improved the Sherman, it was the well trained, courage’s tank crew that won the day for them.

 

[Palnatoke]

Can you please explain why some fast ferries run on turbines and some on diesels? Are you aware that while many ships use two stroke engines for main propulsion but some use four stroke engines for main propulsion too?

Palnatoke, please look up the difference between four stroke diesel engines and two stroke diesel engines (see this link for some basics - please read up first before starting your lecture). There are some differences between them in different applications. Both types are used in many ships but only one of the two engine types are used to drive the Leopard 2 series. If you are interested in naval propulsion have a look here too. Generalizations are just that. BTW, long ago, I used to work for a company that at that time sold four stroke diesel engines and it had a subsidiary that also sold turbines. On occasion visited a ship yard or two with our application and failure analysis engineers.

Can you go back to the topic, which is the 2A6? I know you love to stir things up (as is consistent with your persona) but let us not confuse the issue as we are not even talking about the same type of diesel engine across the same application. Why are you using a two stroke engine as an example to compare in a tank's four stroke diesel engine?

Apparently your abillity to read and understand aren't as great as your ability to flame people.
It's like you completely misses the point, which, for you only my friend, is that turbine machinery is only efficient at a very limited range of RPM/Pressure (Velocity of media). This has to do with flow dynamics and the shape of the turbine blades.

With this simple piece of knowledge you, all knowing friend, are able - on the condition that you engage your brain - to answer your own question: why some (fast) ferries has turbines. That could f.ex. be because turbines has a small footprint (you want as much space for, f.ex. cars as possible) AND that the ferry will operate, for the most part, at a very specific speed while it goes from A to B and B to A. Let's make it clear for any simpleton: The ferry's turbine will, for the most part, work at design optimal RPM/pressure/speed of medium, to spell it even more out: the turbine will be efficient at that operating range (maybe you can also answer the question: Why do passanger air liners prefer to operate at a specific speed and height?)

Funny enough, I also imediately regretted that I wrote "two stroke" engines, since what I wrote was true irrespectable of 2 or 4 stroke.

The reason why I wrote on the subject at all where that Direwolf (also) got flamed, and I thought that unfair, since it's theoretically quite savory what he writes on fuel efficiency of turbines vs "Diesels" .

Mod edit: Palnatoke, confine commentary you are making to the thread topic at hand. In this case, the topic is the Leopard 2A6 MBT. Therefore, if one is discussing the relative merits of diesel or turbine engines, the applications cited need to involve tanks or at least ground vehicles. While there are indeed maritime applications for both turbine and diesel engines, they are quite different animals from ones that would be used in a tank. If you have further issue with this, please contact a member of the Mod team offline.
-Preceptor

 

[lobbie111]

This thread turned bad in a hurry, well I'd first of all like to extend an invitiation to DIRE WOLF, you can go sit in a Leopard while I shoot 40mm rounds at you, We can finally see what happens.

The choice of turbine vs diesel was again doctrinal as some have pointed out, the US has a more blitzkrieg style doctrine than other armies, saying one is better than the other because of x (as this thread has turned into) is a moot argument because 1. you are comparing apples to oragnes to pears etc. and 2. Tanks suit in the context of which that army attempts to use them, different strategies/terrain require different approaches its that simple.

Now lets all calm down and grab ourselves a cold one hey? :cheers

 

[Palnatoke]

Mod edit: Palnatoke, confine commentary you are making to the thread topic at hand. In this case, the topic is the Leopard 2A6 MBT. Therefore, if one is discussing the relative merits of diesel or turbine engines, the applications cited need to involve tanks or at least ground vehicles. While there are indeed maritime applications for both turbine and diesel engines, they are quite different animals from ones that would be used in a tank. If you have further issue with this, please contact a member of the Mod team offline.
-Preceptor

With all due respect.

One tank has a turbine the other tank has a traditional diesel. People are discussing properties related to these tanks and also their specific engines (fuel consumption, Heat signature etc).

True, but more is being discussed than just the properties of the different engines in these tanks.

While I specifically stated that I wrote on the engine part because I thought another poster got unfairly treated, I think it's quite ON TOPIC to outline some basics about engines (turbine/diesel) since some people quite apparently don't know the different properties of the two types of engines which have straightforward consequvencies for the tanks in question.

However, one is quite mistaken to attempt to "correct" another person with direct, professional and/or operational experience with the engine(s) in question when what they are posting is not incorrect.

OPSSG then jumps me, obviously because he don't like me saying anything that doesn't surport his and others, in my oppionen wrong, conclusions on engines, and that simply calls for an answer on my part.

Further more OPSSG attacks my person in a strongly patronising manner, also note his use of "dirty tricks":
Take a look at the two links which he pretends somehow show that I am not correct: The first is off topic, were some nobody discusses diesel engines for small motorboats and the second link (a much more serious article), simply surports what I am saying on diesels vs turbines.

See Warning issued below.

When you are discussing an engine, it's not very interesting wheter that engine is on a ship, a plane, a car (or tank) or on a testbed. The engine is the same and it retains it's properties. Though apparently a few people around here have proplems with such simple abstractions ("Arhhh I painted my little tank! Now I have to test the engine's output ... again!!).

The above is true only when the same engine is used in a ground vehicle, boat, aircraft or testbed. The example of maritime engines you cited involved a CODAG powerplant. One of the most common gas turbine engines used in CODAG/CODOG maritime powerplants that I am aware of is the GE LM2500, or license-produced versions. The LM2500 in maritime applications generates between ~16-30 megawatts, depending on version. This is significantly greater than the ~1.1 megawatts that the 1,500 shp gas turbine in the M1 Abrams or the ~1,500 hp diesel in a Leo 2 generates. This difference in scale, plus the fact that a CODAG powerplant has both GT and diesel engines means that the example cited is not relevant to the discussion at hand. If the discussion had been about the similarities and differences between diesel and GT engines it would have potentially been relevant, however that is not what the discussion has been about.

Also note how people are rudly treated in this thread. Somebody dares making a statement (obvious true) about the performance of the engine of a specfic tank, and is pushed aside with pseudo arguments in line with: "You know nothing about tanks since you never drove one".
Also when the poster tries to get a foot to the ground he's instantly shoot down with:
"Fuel consumption isn't an issue for this tank, since the logistics are good enough" (that's not an argument, that's solving one problem by inventing another).
Note the heat signature discussion: It's simple physics that, if you have an less efficient engine it produces more heat relative to it's usefull output (that's almost per definition, and in practice it is so). That waste energi HAS to be removed (That follow from the fact that even a tank is a cyclic machine, and somehow that machine has to return to it's initial state). Now this doesn't directly translate to heat signiture, since that, amoung other things, is also depending on the entrophy of the waste energy, though since the machine in question, a turbine, operates between a cold and a relatively hot ressoire, we can expect it's waste engery to have a high entrophy (for those who don't know what entrophy is, it has something to do with what temperature you have the energy at).
BUT the poor poster who raised this question was also rudely pushed aside by yet another number of non-arguments.

If one makes statements about the performance of a particular engine in a particular tank, and in then proceeds to make statements regarding the operational impact of said engine upon the tank, one should expect to be "shot down" by statements made by people who have personal/professional experience with the aforementioned engine/tank combination if their knowledge and experience indicates that the person who made the original statements is incorrect. In this case statements have been made about both the fuel consumption and the thermal signature of the GT engine in the M1 Abrams tank. Such factual statements have not been particularly challenged. What has been challenged is the conclusions reached about the effect a GT powerplant has upon the M1 Abrams operationally, instead of a diesel plant like in a Leo 2. Given that no evidence was provided to support such conclusions and that such conclusions need to be made at the system, not platform level, the poster(s) with relevant, practical experience disputed the conclusions that were asserted.

You might feel it wrong or inappropriate for someone with direct knowledge in such a situation to "call" the other person for either an explanation or to make a correction, but that is not the case. Nor is it wrong, rude or inappropriate for someone else to point out to another party that a person making such a correction or seeking clarification has relevant experience and therefore would be in a position to know what is correct or incorrect.

A reminder that when one posts to a particular topic, keep the post relevant to the thread topic at hand and any prior discussion that has already been going on. As has been indicated previously, discussion of maritime powerplants is not relevant to discussions about tanks or the operational impact particular types of engines have upon tanks, unless that exact same powerplant is being used in the same manner on the tank.

Lastly: Warning issued. You were instructed to take any further issues you had with the moderation of this thread and/or your posts offline to myself or another member of the Mod team. This was NOT a suggestion. Please feel free to PM myself and/or another member of the Mod team with any continued issues you have regarding the moderation, but failure to do so and posting such issues in the public forum will result in additional measures being taken.
-Preceptor

 

[eckherl]

Also note how people are rudly treated in this thread. Somebody dares making a statement (obvious true) about the performance of the engine of a specfic tank, and is pushed aside with pseudo arguments in line with: "You know nothing about tanks since you never drove one".
Also when the poster tries to get a foot to the ground he's instantly shoot down with:
"Fuel consumption isn't an issue for this tank, since the logistics are good enough" (that's not an argument, that's solving one problem by inventing another).
Note the heat signature discussion: It's simple physics that, if you have an less efficient engine it produces more heat relative to it's usefull output (that's almost per definition, and in practice it is so). That waste energi HAS to be removed (That follow from the fact that even a tank is a cyclic machine, and somehow that machine has to return to it's initial state). Now this doesn't directly translate to heat signiture, since that, amoung other things, is also depending on the entrophy of the waste energy, though since the machine in question, a turbine, operates between a cold and a relatively hot ressoire, we can expect it's waste engery to have a high entrophy (for those who don't know what entrophy is, it has something to do with what temperature you have the energy at).
BUT the poor poster who raised this question was also rudely pushed aside by yet another number of non-arguments.

No one is making a stand that a turbine is not fuel thirsty and runs hot, but to state that this is a major short coming of this type of engine for tactical vehicles is what we are debating, diesel engines for example purposes run hot also and can be detected just as fast on the modern battle field as a turbine powered vehicle, yes I do have extensive experience with tanks with turbine power. I do not live with a done this done that type of attitude and find myself rather willing to listen to other folks who contribute here, but to go on line and start reading materials by folks with rather biased opinions about certain subjects and think that it is the golden rule is purebunk.

@DIREWOLF,

Elaborate a little more on your responses to my posts instead of baseless one liners that keep folks wondering about your real motive.

 

[Palnatoke]

No one is making a stand that a turbine is not fuel thirsty and runs hot, but to state that this is a major short coming of this type of engine for tactical vehicles is what we are debating, diesel engines for example purposes run hot also and can be detected just as fast on the modern battle field as a turbine powered vehicle, yes I do have extensive experience with tanks with turbine power. I do not live with a done this done that type of attitude and find myself rather willing to listen to other folks who contribute here, but to go on line and start reading materials by folks with rather biased opinions about certain subjects and think that it is the golden rule is purebunk.

.

Well, I think I have said what I think of what you call "a debate". But let's let it go.

Anyway, to me it sounds like a major disadvantage to have a overly thirsty tank, and particular in the case of the M1 and LEOII series, the argument that it doesn't matter because the user has the logistic line in order doesn't sound convincing. These tanks weren't designed with the modern equvivalent of rifles against spear armed indians (GW1&II) in mind, but instead a dangerous opponent named the Warsaw Pact. And such a battle could f.ex. be fought after the nukes had started falling with a near total destruction of military as well as civilian infrastructure as a consequvence.

Now I don't know the fuel consumption profile of either the LEO or the M1, so I don't know how thirsty one is relative to the other. Though turbines doesn't sound right, if you care about fuel efficiency.
My quess is that the turbines on the M1 are the result of yet another engineering tradeoff. I quess that the designers favoured using the weight on armour, going for a lighter(weightwise) powerplant sacrificing range/fuel eficiency. Though I don't know the weigth of the M1's turbine relative to a diesel delivering the same power, so it could be all wrong.


in regard to heat signature, again I don't know the heat signiture of either tank, but a turbine ought to have a significantly higher heat signiture than a diesel, more so, the exhaust of a diesel should be esier to work with than a turbine - but that's just a feeling I got.
And in any case, I do not believe that different heat signitures is "same-same" on the battlefield.

 

[eckherl]

To all,

The tiger engine is at the present time a overhaul system in place for the AGT1500 engine currently be fielded on the M1 series vehicles. We call it Total integrated engine revitalization program. This will consist of better logistical support and engine components from Honeywell, we currently are getting approximately 700 hours out of each engine and with the new program in place we should more than double the operating hours, some of our allies have also signed on to this new deal as what can be seen inregards to Iraq who will also benefit from this program. Overhaul and support is the first phase with the second phase hopefully being that we will replace the AGT1500 with the new LV100-5, this is a outstanding engine pact that operates on 40% less engine parts, improve on reduction of fuel loss when engine is at idle by as much as 50% thus giving us a additional approximate 70 miles per tank operating range. The engine swap will not cause alot of modifications to the current engine pact bay configuration. Our new tiger program will extend the use of M1 series currently in U.S inventory by at least the year 2027.

This is something that I covered in one of the Iraqi M1A1SA threads, as I have stated we have knowned all along that the AGT1500 is fuel thirsty especially sitting at idle, with newer technologies that are floating around for turbines it is possibly to get the fuel consumption lowered, can we get fuel consumption to a level compared to a diesel power pact I do not know and I will leave that portion of the discussion with folks more qualified than me to comment on. As far as heat signature goes I have looked at vehicles that range in size compared to a Russian T series all the way up to a Leopard and Challenger size vehicle and I have never run into a issue of target detection all the way out beyond 2,500 meters, thats both in thermal black hot or white hot, vehicles with newer Gillie suites benefit only with extended target detection range at the current times and the vehicle has to be stationary. The only reason why Russia has decided to not stick with the T-80 turbine engine is due to cost factors not because they are junk, they like the U.S have found that they work rather well for the following reasons:

Better performance at all RPM ranges.
More reliable during extreme cold temperatures.
Less noise when operating, there are plenty of Iraqis who nicknamed our M1's whispering death.
Exhaust signature during daylight hours, diesels tend to be smokers.
Compact engine size, AGT 1500 compares to a Blackhawk helicopter engine.
Exhaust on a AGT 1500 tends to dissipate rather quickly.
Russian battle doctrine is the same as the U.S, lightning offensive.

So I think there are alot of benefits with still wanting to keep the turbine around, logistical support for the the M1 series tends to run large but not by much more than what other countries need for their armor, matter of fact there are alot of countries out there that admire and have studied the U.S logistical system.

 

[keiran3]

IMHO, the top Western (+ Japanese, South Korean and Israeli) tanks are generally equivalent, despite slightly different design philosophies. The MIA2 has an advantage in armour over the others, but a disadvantage in fuel efficiency. What matters is that these tanks all feature an optimal mix of Chobham armour, firepower and mobility, with a result no other design approach can match, largely because they tend to be in essentially the same class as old medium tanks, sacrificing armour protection.
As a Canadian, I'm very glad our military has ditched the silly idea that Strykers can fill in for MBT's and is buying new (to us) Leopard 2's (A5+A6).

 

[DIREWOLF75]

This thread turned bad in a hurry, well I'd first of all like to extend an invitiation to DIRE WOLF, you can go sit in a Leopard while I shoot 40mm rounds at you, We can finally see what happens.

The choice of turbine vs diesel was again doctrinal as some have pointed out, the US has a more blitzkrieg style doctrine than other armies, saying one is better than the other because of x (as this thread has turned into) is a moot argument because 1. you are comparing apples to oragnes to pears etc. and 2. Tanks suit in the context of which that army attempts to use them, different strategies/terrain require different approaches its that simple.

Now lets all calm down and grab ourselves a cold one hey? :cheers

Id be perfectly happy to allow you to shoot ONE 40mm round if you allow me my Strv-122.
I didnt say anything about what repetitive hits in the same place might do or not.
Still, 20mm shots shouldnt even be able to grind their way through unless the tank effectively sits motionless at point blank and the gun can just keep firing endlessly(but that way you can essentially destroy the armour with almost any gun at all given enough time)...

Of course, there is good reason for having a 3-round burst mode on the CV90s 40mm gun...

About "blitzing", just about ALL heavy tanks of today are rather unsuited for that really, you dont want anything bigger than at most the LeClerc or Type 90 for that, and "da blitz" is exactly what the Soviet/Russian tanks are made for, which is why the choice for them was strategic and operational mobility above protection and firepower.
Still, the M1s advantage is tactical mobility, not operational or strategic which is rather its weakest points. And i think the rather slight disadvantage the Leo-2 has tactically compared to the M1 is plenty well enough compensated for by its better Op/Str mobility.

A cold one? Mmm, keep a non-alcoholic chilled for me will you?

 

[DIREWOLF75]

Rubbish, for someone with your lack of credentials to make that comment is absolutely bunk.

And of course you know my credentials perfectly. Not that this forum has given me any reason to even state any credentials.

And the question i believe was about under "normal" conditions and regarding the turret, and unless i completely misrecall something my reply should be correct.
If you KNOW otherwise then i suggest you actually say so rather than simply claim that it cant be true because you dont have a clue who i am. Thats a complete failure in logic.
Its just as realistic to say as "i have an orange, ergo its my destiny to rule the world". Logical disconnect doesnt make a debate.

Care to elaborate.

In this case? Not really no. You can find enough rumours about it online. And there´s no guarantee that it will ever go beyond prototype anyway.

Then you shouldn't, because you and a bunch of other opinionated folks out there have really over hyped short comings of the U.S Army logistical footprint issue, it works just fine and has proven to be able to get the job done.

In the relevant case here, this was due to comparing the M1 and the Leo 2.
Simple fact of the matter is that my own country(like most others) could never afford the kind of supply structure USA is running, which means that the ability of USAs supply chain becomes a completely irrelevant argument for claiming that the M1 being "fuel hungry" doesnt matter.
And in reply to "works just fine", well sure it does but to take an extreme counterpoint my own country at one time managed to keep a PK mission in Africa supplied at less than 1/10 of the cost per soldier "on the spot" than what is normal for USA.

And yes, that IS a very extreme case, but the normal is still less than 1/2 the cost.
Works fine is great as long as you can afford to pay for it at that rate.

And to do a little quoteslinging myself, "amateurs discuss strategy, professionals discuss supplies", well paraphrased at least IIRC.

So what, it is just as big as a diesel power pack heat signature not alot bigger. For target observation the turbine rules over the diesel. Your arguments are baseless and come from no real life experience.

I suggest you first start off by not quoting yourself and attributing it to me.
Following that i dont have a clue what you mean with the above as its selfcontradicting.
And then i just want to add that your arguments are baseless and come from no real life experience.
Obviously...

Hate to inform you of this but your glorified tank gillie technology isn't worth using when facing a modern opponent, its all in the modern cat eyes and and the way we roll.

gillie?
I dont think you´re talking about the same thing as i am. Not much resemblence in any way at all to a Ghillie suit. The closest thing to that would be modern camouflage nets, which also include thermal and radar reduction, but those reduce useful mobility severely and isnt nearly as useful as the stealth kit, which only adds a bit of maintenance cost and lowers top speed a bit.
Either that or you havent actually seen the drastic effect it has through a thermal imager(or on a radar).

Ha ha ha, you threw that one out there without doing your homework, what a load of crap.

Noone has still answered why Russia started switching turbine engines for diesels.
And nothing i said was specifically AS STATED incorrect even if its interpretation may very well be a bit on the less than great side.
And well, i can add this at least, my own country quit using the Strv-103 in part because the turbines wasnt a happy thing on a tank. Although in this case because the tank ALSO had a diesel for all but battlefield maneuvers, the reasons for this wasnt quite the same(in short, having 2 engines to service gets expensive even if it saved alot of fuel).

Your turn lets debate.

I dont know if i care to bother.

No one is making a stand that a turbine is not fuel thirsty and runs hot, but to state that this is a major short coming of this type of engine for tactical vehicles is what we are debating, diesel engines for example purposes run hot also and can be detected just as fast on the modern battle field as a turbine powered vehicle

Whats relevant is that the turbine engine gives a small advantage and that very few involved in tank design thinks this advantage is worth the disadvantages any more.
You get a small weight and size saving and more usefully you get a slightly more "oomph" while driving around...
However, the improvements in the diesels for tanks has shrunk those advantages quite alot since the M1 was designed (and for that matter, even more so since the Strv-103 was designed with both diesel and turbine engines).
More importantly is that you NEED an extreme supply chain to keep ground vehicles with turbine engines running, and with oil inevitably getting more scarce and more expensive its a matter of the disadvantages overtaking the advantages.

My own experience in testing thermal imagers is that an M1 can be seen at longer range than a Leo 2(or other dieselpowered tank, the Leo 2 in original isnt exactly the least visible one), this is the opinion of myself and others based on real world conditions, you can disagree as much as you care but i simply dont have a clue how you can do that.
However, if then you strap on the full stealth kit on the Leo 2(or even better, on a LeClerc which is clearly less visible from the start), the full difference you get is enough that i can say that it gives a clearly valuable tactical advantage. Ie. if a Leo 2 with stealth kit and a M1-A1 hunts each other, chances are very good that the Leo will be able to start shooting potential killing shots before the M1 have seen it(of course, firing means being seen, VERY seen).

And the very basic reality is that you cant use the same kind of IR reduction gear that is part of the Leo 2 stealth kit on a M1, as the turbine engine prevents it. Or more correctly, if you modify it to work with a turbine engine, you kill off half the power of the engine. Leaving it without all the advantages that was the very reason for using it from the start.

This is something that I covered in one of the Iraqi M1A1SA threads, as I have stated we have knowned all along that the AGT1500 is fuel thirsty especially sitting at idle, with newer technologies that are floating around for turbines it is possibly to get the fuel consumption lowered, can we get fuel consumption to a level compared to a diesel power pact I do not know

While its truly a huge improvement, nope you cant(almost certainly at least, i wont say its impossible because it IS impossible to predict the future, but extremely unlikely at least) get it down to diesel range average fuel consumption. In part that is for the simple reason that the diesels in question are getting improvements as well.

As far as heat signature goes I have looked at vehicles that range in size compared to a Russian T series all the way up to a Leopard and Challenger size vehicle and I have never run into a issue of target detection all the way out beyond 2,500 meters, thats both in thermal black hot or white hot, vehicles with newer Gillie suites benefit only with extended target detection range at the current times and the vehicle has to be stationary.

In that case, as i already guessed above, you´re not talking about the same as i am for sure.
What im talking about does NOT require being stationary.

The only reason why Russia has decided to not stick with the T-80 turbine engine is due to cost factors not because they are junk, they like the U.S have found that they work rather well for the following reasons:

Who ever said anything about them being junk?
Excellent engines. Just like the one in the M1s. Cost however, oh yes.

Exhaust signature during daylight hours, diesels tend to be smokers.

Huh?!? NO WAY!!! WTF kind of diesel powered tanks have you been looking at? Or maybe it was you doing the smoking? :
But seriously, thats a matter of either poor maintenance, bad fuel or bad lubricants.
And i might add that you can easily get either a turbine engined T-80 or M1 to trail smoke the same way, even if they´re less sensitive to bad fuel.

More reliable during extreme cold temperatures.

Partially true. One of the main reasons why Sweden choose the Leo 2 over the M1 was the latters poor performance during the winter trials here. OTOH, the T-80 that was unofficially being tested as part of the trials did not have the same problems so the likely cause was narrowed down to lubricants, and the US manufacturer did guarantee that they could and would take care of that problem(regardless of Swedish purchase or not), so its quite possible that this is no longer an issue. I have simply not kept up to date with this part.

And it was an overall issue, that specifically wet & cold weather really hurt the M1 badly (well, deep snow really killed it as well), with even gunnery tests suffering alot, and i must say that seeing one getting towed out of heavy snow by the T-80(which while by far the most inferior tank overall, was the only one that moved through heavy snow unhindered) was quite amusing.
The Leo-2 meanwhile had what you might call "average" problems with heavy snow. It didnt bog down even if it got seriously slow at worst.

matter of fact there are alot of countries out there that admire and have studied the U.S logistical system.

Yes, with dread... :
If we had tried to copy that supply chain, we would have to cut active troop numbers by 2/3s or more. During the cold war that would have meant armed forces after mobilisation at at most 300.000 or less, not nearly enough to make reasonably sure to be a "too big bite to chew off" as was the basics of Swedish defence, because we well knew that trying to be impossible to invade would cost impossibly much both in money and in personnel.

 

[DIREWOLF75]

Mod edit: Text deleted following discussion amongst Mod team and Admin.
-Preceptor

 

[webmaster]

Direwolf, take a chill pill.

Instead of focusing on technical aspects of the thread, you keep on focusing who is insulting you and berating you. Is that your cover for lack of technical experience and knowledge on this topic?

WE will deal with who is insulting who and you and other members should focus on topic at hand. Share your experience (if any) and PROVE your point of view with facts and authentic sources rather than personal aspirations. If other party does not understand or comprehend that, then so be it. Why make matters worse by telling them they don't understand when its already apparent? Reiterate your point of view once more and hope for the best.

If other person doesn't understand or doesn't have the IQ to understand, why is that YOUR problem? Why make it your problem and then deal with "you are insulting me" crap?

Everyone needs to tone down the way they call on and debate with others.

Thread closed, pending discussion with mods.

 

[webmaster]

Thread opened.

All FYI,

Please do not comment on my post above and this one.

Also, those who want to know what happens when you bring combative, aggressive, opinionated and disrespectful commentary to threads, can see here:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/announcements/dt-hall-shame-ban-list-646-25/#post193077

Be respectful to each other and know that people read your comments and they report it if it is out of line. Its okay to disagree and present a different way of looking at things but not at the cost of insulting someone. If other person does not seem to understand you, try a different way to explain it, support your argument with facts and valid sources and if it still does not work out, just walk away instead of getting into the "you are too dumb to understand, etc." crap. Such actions will only invite mod/admin attention to the topic and get the thread locked down for few days and result in someone going into the dust bin.

Thanks and enjoy!

 

[bonehead]

I worked in the ATDU back in the 1980s when the british army were looking for a replacement for chieftain, we carried out a number of exercises with all the contending tanks, heat from engine exhuast ect was just one of the major factors we looked at, both on the ground and from the air, the M1 was by far the worst contender in this area compared with Leopard, the other area which we were not impressed with was the cross country driving both in distance fuel consumption and crew comfort, again the M1 proformed poorly in this area, though this was the M1A1 version.

another area was noise, the M1 could be heard for a considerable distance again when compared with the Leopard.2

we then under took a survey with all 18 armoured regiments, the Leopard was the British armys first choice, challenger 1 2nd, Upgraded chieftain (karlid) 3rd, the M1 came 4th with the french last.

several reasons were stated, speed, gun armour all being high on the list the british army had been working witht he german army for many years so we know the leopard well, on reforger 85 again the M1 proformed poorly, infact 2nd corps armoured units were outflanked buy 4 armd bde using chieftains, not one leopard was reported broken down during the whole exercise, in the first gulf war while challenger had a 94% availablity rate the M1 only managed a 67% due to engine (turbine)issues, while we cannot compare the leopard in the same situation the engine system in the leopard is considered highly reliable, even above challenger.

another concern with the M1 is the ease in which they were taken out by RPG in iraq, in a demo by the german army the leopard was engaged with milan as well as several other systems with out effect, one challenger recived 14 rpg hits as well as a milan rocket all at close range and still remained operational and was repaired and back in the line within 4 hours.

most us tankers i have met always discuss leopard and challenger and in general rate them better than there own. which was always a surprise. at catcup back in the 80s on range 9 at hohne a british challenger crew with no computer( as it had a faul)t, still out gunned leopard as well as the M1, However overall it was a leopard crew which won the cup, so from experiance i still rate Leopard as the best in the world closely followed by challenger.