tank questions
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13572
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 19:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: tank questions
Posted By: xristar
Subject: tank questions
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 06:57
|
It seems that there are some people here who have served in tanks, or know quite much of them. Can someone explain to me the roles of the crewmembers of a tank?
I mean I know there's a driver, there's a radioman (?) next to him, there's a loader (apparently in the turret), and a gunner who aims and shots with the gun. But what exactly do these people do, and what happens when there are 5 crewmebers in a tank? Who of all these is the leader?
Ah, and another question, how many machineguns does a modern tank have? I think that the MG on the chassis that existed in WWII is no longer put on tanks. I assume there still must be the traditional AA MG on top of the turret (yes?) and is there some coaxial MG next to the gun? In a Tiger II model I have it doesn't have a coaxial MG.
Thanks in advance. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Replies:
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 09:00
|
in most modern tanks, you have 4 crewmembers. The commander. He is the officer commanding the other 3, he decides what's the general line the tank will follow. He tells where the tank goes and what it'll fire on, he is in charge of ordering the tank, without him the gunner could pick a target and the driver move toward another one (for example). The gunner, that one is easy to describe he aims for the targets, and fires. The driver, drives the tank lol. The loader, most modern tanks haven't adopted an automatic reloader, so you have a 4th crew member taking the amution and load them in the gun manualy. Tanks with an automatic reloader have a crew of 3 (and are often shorter as a consequence. Most tanks have one machine gun on the turret, some tanks have a coaxial machine gun next to the canon adding to the first one. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 13:20
|
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/US_tank_doctrine.html - http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/US_tank_doctrine.html
Thats a semi correct site. At least gives a general idea of American tankers and saves me time of typing  ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 14:36
|
5 crew tank:
The leader gives the orders. Something like:" Steer 270!. Full speed on!. Enemy At gun emplacement bearing 180! . Load HE!. Stop! Open fire!" (not very accurate, I admit, but I had an uncle who served as a gunner in a MkIV). Ah, the loader was not sitting in the turret, he actually was under it.
|
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 04:45
|
thanks
Cezar, the '2.machine gunner/radio', which machinegun operates? -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 11:55
|
most tanks today DON'T have the fifth crew i.e: radio operator/machine gunner. That's more common in WW2 tanks. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 12:21
Right front MG on the glacis. He is sitting beside the driver.
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 12:27
Actually the Germans first appearead with a 5 crew tank. It was a better solution for WWII in terms of job assignement for tank crewmembers.
Modern tanks have much better equipment to do some of the jobs people did back then. It seems that the planned T-95 will have only 2 crewmen.
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 13:10
The T-95 is a 3 man tank with no one in the turret. The americans are designing a 2 man tank but I dont think the funding will be there for it in the end for production. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2006 at 07:26
|
Most modern tanks have a crew of 4 only. Just check their stats on the net. Tanks with an automatic reloader reduced it to 3. About machine gun and radio, about the Leclerc, the machine gun is operated from inside, it can be directly handled by the tank commander. Radio is replaced by digital datas (which are sent by radio-frequenced systems indeed, but it's not radio in the meaning used) and Wifi for close infantry. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 02:52
|
As has been stated most modern MBTs have 4 members and MBTs with autoloaders have 3.
The driver is responsible obviously for driving the tank and is directed by the commander. He is also usually responsible for the mechanical maintenance of the tank and is assisted in this by the loader.
The loader loads whatever kind of round is requested by the commander.
The gunner engages targets usually under the direction of the tank commander who can also override the gunner using his own sight. The gunner also maintains the main and co-axial weapons.
The commander is responsible for the tactical employment of the tank, he decides where the tank goes and what it engages and looks for targets. He's usually responsible for maintaining the AA weapons on the turret roof also.
The loader, gunner and commander are located in the turret, and the driver is seperate in the hull front. ------------- |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 16:57
|
A 4 man crew is still the optimum number. The loader tends to act as the radio operator as well.
The 3 man crew with an auto loader seems to be a good idea on paper but in practice poses a lot of problems.
I can only go on my experience as a tank crewman on Chieftain tanks in the British Army in Germany. When going into "hides" ( a 3 tank troop disapperaing and hiding in a wood to avoid detection) radio communications needed to be maintained which meant a 24hr "radio watch". guards/sentrys had to be maintained in case of suprise attack, food preperation, vehicle maintenence and of course sleep, had to be sorted. there is no way in this world that a 3 man crew could have coped with all this. Shedding a track is a common event which needs four men to fix, two men to physically move the track onto the sprocket, one to give instructions to the driver (as he can't see what's going on) and of course the driver himself. Now many armies would simply expect their tank crews to sit and wait for a repair team, British army tank crews can and do many repair and maintenence tasks themselves which in other armies would require specialist repair teams.
In most 3rd world conflicts where the action is over in just 24 or 48hrs then a 3 man crew might get away with it, but in any prolonged conflict 3 man tank crews would suffer badly.
The French Leclerc is a prime example, "replacement crews" would travel behind the tank regiments to provide "instant" "fresh" tank crews when required. Anyone with any military experience (peacetime never mind real war) will tell you that that only certain thing is that these replacement crews will not be where they are supposed to be and the orginal crews will not be replaced when they are supposed to be. No pre war plan survives the the first shot fired!!
------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2006 at 18:34
|
The Soviets introduced the autoloader and 3 man MBT crews due to a shortage of qualified personel. Although(or maybe because) the Soviet army was huge it had serious problems holding onto experienced troops. Most conscripts did their 2 year service then got out of the military. The autoloader was supposed to reduce the manpower requirements of tank forces by 25% while still retaining the same capabilities. Like aghart says tho it never really worked and the tank commander often ended up acting as loader. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 09:17
|
Are you sure the Soviets were the first to put an automatic reloader? I thought the first tank with an automatic reloader was the AMX-13 produced in 1953. The goal was to put a canon comparable to heavy tanks on a light tank and it required an automatic reloader to make the turret short enough to fit the hull. Correct me if I'm wrong but the first Soviet tank with an automatic reloader was the T-72 and it was the early 70.. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 09:28
|
@Aghart The nature of conflict has evolved though, what you say is 100% true for real and large combat situation, but today we are in a new era of warfare. It is better for tanks to require less logistic and to have better communication devices. Into a real war of a large scale, it's hard to tell how tanks would act. A lot of them would be probably destroyed by guided missiles, artillery fires and anything designed to destroy tanks (and most powerful countries develloped a lot of weapons specificaly to destroy tanks). I think, personnaly, in a large war like WWII, that it's better to have a large production capacity and research centers. "No matter what you thought before the war, new weapons systems will soon assert themselves with superior or unexpected performances" says the highly contested James Dunnigan (but who has a very strong point here) in WWI it was tanks that changed the war (first designed as a support to infantry they bacme the main weapon), in WWII it was aircraft carriers (first designed as a support to battlecruisers they became the main weapon). That is, of course, if a new war broke out between major powers. And considering how bound we are to each others it would damages the world economy too much for any major country to proceed to a "casus belli" so we're really arming ourselves to fight martians. We'll most likely stick to banging 3rd world countries and terrorists for a while. This is why weapons like the Typhoon or F-22 are so contested, they were designed to counter a soviet plane that was never built... and the use of air-superiority planes of that power against third world nations may not be obvious. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 11:36
|
I think the T62 had automatic loader. -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 11:47
|
The problems with the auto loader were worked out by the T-80 and T-84. ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 12:59
|
I'm sure if your tank training is bad then an autoloader is the way to go. But the americans have NTC and it makes their tankers very well trained. The russian loaders are 7 second reload french one is 5 i believe. American standards are 4 seconds with a usual 2-3 reload. I'm sure British standards are the same. Also a human loader is usally better/faster at switching from AP to Heat rounds. Auto loaders may be more of factor as they introduce heavier rounds off of bigger guns. Right now their only real benifit is that they produce a lower silhouette as they can eliminate anyone from being in the turret. This also increases crew survivablity in someways.
What aqhart wrote is actually the biggest thing i've heard from tankers. The lack of the 4th strains a tanks crew in common details and daily maintenance of a tank. Loader is usually the lowest ranking as well like the kid out of training school. This alows for a more gradual assimilation into the tank. And perhaps provides incentive to excell so he can get out of the loader position. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 13:23
|
Actually most Western tanks were desined in the 1970's, when the auto loadr argument held true. All tanks designed in the mi to late 80's have auto loaders, no longer even a question. ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 13:53
|
How come the new leopards,Challengers and the newer Abrams dont have one? I know the leopard gun has 2 autoloaders designed for its gun and the Abrams has 1-2 yet they dont use it. It has nothing to do with design if it was a factor it would of been modified in the 90s. The abrams of 85 is no where near the same tank as todays abrams. Its still a big question for nations that actually use their tanks. I wouldnt want to be in a tank with an autoloader that has its breech jammed. Humans are faster and reliable which in war is better. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:05
The Soviets were the first to use autoloaders in all their new MBTs but not the first to use it.
It was introduced into Soviet forces in the mid-60s so it was either the T-62 or T-64. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:04
Are you sure about that? Wikipedia still gives it 4 crew including the loader, maybe they are wrong though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62 ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:05
Yes, it's the T-64 you're right. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:11
Those are based on older designs thought. I've not yet heard of jammed autoreloader on Leclerc or Type 90 (Japan) tanks. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 19:14
|
BTW the introduction of the autoloader to tank guns was really a revolutionary step in tank design. The absence of a 4th crew member saved alot of inside volume that have to be armored (infact, in one of the most well armored places-the turret), thus reducing both tank dimensions and weight, and also giving higher average rate of fire. The first MBT(main battle tank/AMX-13 is a light tank)is really the T-64(1967). Future tank configuration will be like that of Leclerc and T90, not that of Abrams or Leopard 2-the presence of loader is an anachronism and a major shortcoming. |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 01:03
The T-62 was the first to use a smooth-bore gun...that's probably how he got mistaken.
BTW T-62 was crap...give me a T-55 anyday...  -------------
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 06:19
Yes, the AMX-13 is a light tank, it still is the first tank with an automatic reloader though :). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 16:11
|
[QUOTE=Desperado] the presence of loader is an anachronism and a major shortcoming. [/QUOTE really!!!
Can the auto loader deal with a misfired round? can it deal with a machine gun stoppage? and that's just for starters!!! lets deal with the REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS. Can the auto loader help the driver with vehicle maintenence? can it make tea/coffee while travelling X country? can it make bacon or sausage sandwiches for the rest of the crew? and can the auto loader ensure the beer is kept cool and well stored in the tank? ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Desperado
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 19:06
|
Well i think the gunner or the commander can deal perfectly with an unfired round, it's infact a matter of battle compartment design(btw the loader usually has no access to MGs-old designs like Js-2 and Kv-1 aren't counted ). But just imagine this roughly 10 tons of armor needed for the protection of a loader placed on the front side of the turret or the hull-it gives a clear armor advantage with the same weight and dynamic characteristics, and a lower silhouette. The place of the loader will surely disappear in the next generation of MBT's, just like the one of the radio operator/front MG gunner.
Anyway, the new MBT's are just to appear so we'll see soon. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 04:13
|
Well, if there is a problem and the canon can't fire, I don't see why the gunner, why would have nothing else better to do, can't deal with the problem. As to change the tracks, I thought modern tanks had a 360° view angle using cameras... ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 04:25
The next Korean XK-2 should be equipied by an automatic reloader. It's actually a requirement in the devellopment of the tank. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 05:04
|
The T-80's aut loader is faster than the m1's, 10 rpm vs 5 IIRC.
The problem the T-72 had was that the ammo was in two parts.
------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 13:01
Try T-80 is like 4-5RPM and M1 6-8RPM. It actually gets worse for the T-80 with different rounds up to 12 second reload times on some. Thats not really the point of an autoloader though. I have read the T-80U gets up to 6-8RPM as well but i'm not sure how considering it uses the same carousel. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 13:44
|
T-72 was 3 or 4 rpms. T-80 UD used by the pakistan army has an rpm of 10, as does the new Khalid tank, but in practice the rpm is about 8. An m1 crew can get about 5 max, a really good 6, but I frankly doubt that they can do that under fire.
The reason the T-72 fires at a slower rate is again, since the ammo is in two parts, the shot, and then the charge/primer, while the m1 has a single piece ammo.
Both the Indian and Pakistani army, both of whom have fought army level tank battles recently and in practice are the only ones likely to do so again, are going to use auto loaders.
------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 14:18
|
I'm still seeing 6-8 RPM as the rate of fire even on the T-80UD. Are they not using the 28 round carasel?
American M1 loaders have no problem reaching that rate of fire. They train for it and can exceed it. They're well battle tested its documented. I've read the Khalid was so bad the Iranians sent the 3 test models they had back. And what recent large scale tank battle have India and Pakistan had? I've been reading closely on the T-90 and its problems in India and I dont see any mention of tank battles. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 14:39
|
Battle of Chawinda 1965, Battle of Chamb 1971, Khem Karan 65, barapind 71.
The Khalid Tank was never offered to the Iranians AFAIK. In fact the export (for the Saudi) has the 120mm Gun rather then the 125 mm gun.
The T-90 is a worked up T-72, and the problems the Indians have had are mainly logisticla ones, their taks are from different suppliers. Also the T-90's engine had problems in the desert. As did the Khalid's, initially, until the Ukranians came up with a better ones.
The m1 again, is unlikely to reach 8 rpms under war time conditions. From what I have read the best loaders can do 5 rpm's sustained. ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 14:55
|
T-90 Engine problem was the one that caught my eye. Not to concerened about the overheating sighting systems(not sure if fixed yet) or the ammunition difference problem which was corrected long time ago. It also has required an unusual amount of maintenance though that could be a breaking in period of the tank.
I thought you meant recent tank battles i've read about those. Recent would be 90s+. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 17:41
|
My god in heaven!!!! never i have I been confronted by "text book" warriors in such force and numbers. all of you and i mean every one of you STOP AND LISTEN!!!
let me tell you the real truth about being in a tank!!
So the gunner or commander can sort out a main ammunition misfire?.
You are going cross country, the main armament breech is going up and down like a yo yo, the gunner then climbs over the gun hoping not to be crushed between the gun and the top of the turret???. the gunner and the commander have nothing better to do???, the enemy are going to leave you alone because your main gun is out of action? communication messages are going to stop? searching for targets is forgotten, ? the war stops until you are ready to play again? get real!!
Who do you think loads and deals with machine gun stoppages? the loader of course. the loader does have access to the machine guns on a tank.
What is all this crap about how many rounds per minute a tank can fire? No tank fires again and again and again. Fire and movement is what it is all about. Fast firing times on the ranges count for nothing in war, hitting the target and not getting hit yourself are what it is all about. Tanks do not fire like artillery guns. you engage a target then move, even firing on the move your are not going to be firing one round after another like a heavyweight boxer slogging it out with another.
10 tons of armour being reallocated to the front of the tank because there is no loader?. So the side of the tank is thus protected by thin air??
TV screens and monitors so that the driver can see what he has to do? that is so funny I'm actually in tears.
Too many computer war game simulators i think people!!!
The golden rule of all warfare!!!
If you plan , organise , train and equip for a long war, then you will easily deal with a short war as well.
Plan. organise, train and equip for a short war and you have no chance of success when it turns into a long war!!
A 3 man tank is a recipe for disaster in a long war, do you think that the outstanding success of the Challanger & M1 tanks in recent years had nothing to do with the fact that they had 4 man crews.
British, American & German tanks all have 4 man crews and are not planning to change. Soviet or Russian tanks now go for 3 man crews but since 1945 soviet/russian tanks have been totally outclassed by western tanks every time they have fought a major battle .
So based on real time, recent experience who appears to know what they are doing, western or russian tank designers?
yes the french have gone for a 3 man crew, but what experience and knowledge of tank warfare have the french got? I'll tell you, absolutely none!!!!!! Don't forget the Isralies either !! are they going for a 3 man crew? no!! they have a 4 man crew!! well fancy that.
------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 18:08
|
Apologies if i came across as a bit angry in my last post, but it is a subject close to my heart and I get a bit upset when figures and statistics from books seem to count more than facts and experience. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2006 at 18:13
|
I can see the use of autoloaders for specialized purposes. The U.S. Army XM-8 would have had a 2 man crew with an unmanned turret containing an autoloader. The point there was to reduce the weight so the vehicle was light enough to drop from a cargo plane, and still have a weapon that was able to provide heavy fire support. It's soft recoil 105mm would have had the same punch as the late model M-60s did.
edit- I don't mind aghart, it's cool to get an inside view of what it's like to actually operate a modern MBT. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 00:56
|
Yes it is really good to hear a professional speak, sir. But I'll admit I am a bit biased because my boss like you is an ex tanker, and he is all for an auto loader.
------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 05:12
Yeah your post was angry. What was that: "The French have no experience in tank warfare comment?" If I may, the French created the first modern tank (with a turret and a rear engine) and the first succesful tank, this tank the FT-17 was also the tank adopted by the USA, China, Japan, Spain and Poland for first tank. Most powerful armoured division worldwide were started by French tanks.... Then, I can answer: what experience do the British tanks have? WWI, the first tank (if we can call that a tank of course) Landships were practice targets for the German artillery (hundred of them lost in the first day of battle)... WWII the Cruise tanks were disastrous. What's next? In the Gulf war the old French AMX-30 had an impressive record either used by France or by Saudi, but what about the British tanks? If you look at results and not at stereotypes you'll see the French tanks have had, through history, outstanding performances. WWII being the only moment they failed, and it was more about conservative old leaders than to the tank themselves, since they were taken by model by the succesful American tanks (the M3 Lee is clearly inspired by the B1 Bis). Beside, and as I adressed but you ignored that point, I've still not heard of a jammed automatic reloader on a Leclerc or a Type-90. I can understand the technology wasn't reliable in the old times but nowaday it progressed a lot. Then each countries have their own requirement on tanks, the Israelite put an engine in front of their tanks to allow the crew to escape from behind. While it is considered useful in guerillas warfare it's contested in a full scale war because a solid hit (like a anti-tank missile) in front of the tank can blow the engine... and kill the whole crew, does that mean it's a good or bad design? It just answers a need. South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan and Turkey are all going for automatic reloaders and they certainly have their points. I also mentioned there is no "long scale" war logic anymore, we're armed to fight martians, there will be no war between the west and China. At most we'll keep invading third world countries and that's it. Tanks, in a large scale war, would certainly suffer a lot with all those anti-tanks guided missiles, ogre shells and other stuff around. During the Cold War the French even designed 80Kton nuclear (Pluton and Hades) missiles designed to vaporise soviet tank divisions... It's not possible to expect a large scale war tomorow and imagine tanks won't be destroyed in a large scale. We just can't think in conventional war anymore. It's now all about third world countries and guerillas. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 05:19
Yes there are different schools, some pro and con. No need to get angered because people aren't on the same side. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 11:41
The British Challenger tanks performed excellently in the Gulf War. The longest range kill of an Iraqi tank was made by a British Colonel. He destroyed a T-72 from a distance of more than 3 miles. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 12:31
Thanks. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2006 at 17:29
Seems I have upset you but i stand by all that I have said. You talked about French tanks but not about the French use of tanks!!!
In 1940 France had some of the best tanks in the world but the worst tank tactics in the world. The result was a catastophe!!. I can't comment any further because as far I as know that is the limit of French tank warfare experience.
If the M3 was based on a French design then that is something to be ashamed of!! The M3 was a terrible tank!! it's only saving grace was it's 75mm gun, which was mounted in the hull ( what was the nationality of the idiot that thought of that ?)
British tank tactics in the early years of WWII were no better than the French but we did learn from our mistakes and gained much experience. ( did I mention the word experience before?)
In the first gulf war The US & British Armies deployed fully fledged armoured divisions which blew away all opposition whilst the French deployed a "light" division that was incapable of hands on, face to face, battle with the armoured units of the republican guard and was used instead as a mere flank screening force.
In Germany during the cold war, the running joke about the French AMX 30 was the the crews were all issued with umbrella's , BECAUSE THE ARMOUR WAS SO THIN IT COULD NOT KEEP OUT THE RAIN!!!
AMX 30 had an Impressive performance in the Gulf war?? I will have to accept what you say because i can't seem to remember AMX 30's doing anything in the Gulf war except losing possesion of a Saudi town at the start of the war!! (Hafji I think it was).
As for Auto loaders!! well what can I say!! Israel., The USA, The UK, the 3 countries with the most up to date tank combat experience on the planet think that auto loaders are a bad idea. But hey Pakistan and Turkey think they are great.
Don't you think that £££ or $$$ savings by only having a 3 man crew rather than military or tactical thinking are behind the idea of the auto loader.
Anti tank guided missiles "ogre" shells ( no idea what that is) and other stuff!!!
Thanks to the British invention of "Chobbham" armour and the improved variants that now exist the fact is that tanks are more likely to survive on the battlefield than at any time since 1945!!
But Exarchus!! at least you have the benefit of having a crystal ball and being able to see into the future.!!!
How else could you know how combat would evolve in the years ahead?
Glad to know that you can confirm that we will never have to fight China and that we will only engage 3rd world countries in combat in the future.
How I wish the UK had been in possession of that magical crystal ball in the past. You see our defective and clearly badly manufactured crystal ball told us in the 1950's that manned aircraft were obselete and that guided missiles were the future and you won't believe this and i know this is a shock but is was WRONG!!
That same misguided crystal ball also said that the UK would never have to launch an amphibious assault against an enemy shoreline without the backup of US or other allied aircraft carriers. Not quite sure then about the location of the US Navy's carrier strike force during the Falklands war? but I'm sure it was simply a map reading error!!
At least we now know for certain that we don't have to fight the martians (or the chinese) and simply concentrate on invading 3rd world countries and terrorists.
Think of the money we will save!! Here's silly old me thinking that if your armed forces are trained, have the equipment, are prepared and can actually protect your homeland from external attack (however unlikely) ( i assume that the 1st and primary role of the armed forces IS to defend the homeland) then they could adapt to fight any other threat that comes along. When all along the French crystal ball that can see into the future can GUARANTEE that we will only be facing the riff raff Islamic militants who are upset because they don't have cable or SKY TV and we do.
Knowing that a British Army issued with Land Rovers and Trucks and a few Apache helicopters is now never going to face anything more than a few half trained terrorist fanatics I feel so much better!!!
Just going to settle down and watch a DVD called ZULU Dawn, I have seen it before when the then modern and over confident British Army is defeated by the Zulu hoardes, but now with the French Crystal ball I fully expect to see a British victory after all they are only 3rd world savages!!!
------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2006 at 07:11
|
Crystal ball, personnal attacks. You're better at this than argumentating. Any source, beyond the British popular culture, that the AMX30 was a crap tank? Once again, it was a succes from a commercial and technical point of view. The AMX30 was succesfully used in Iraq when they met Iraqi tanks (and it did face tank divisions). So maybe it was created out of paper propaganda and that it never happened so the French tank experience ended at 1940, I don't know. France seen some action since WWII, not as much as Britain or the USA (which was litteraly in a war every year since the cold war). I have never heard of that umbrella story, do you have a reliable link to back that statement? The French forces protected the left flank, it's true they were used on the side... but if I may, the British forces protected the right flank was protected by the British. The French AMX-30 are lightly armoured, it's true, it was even the doctrine to make a far moving tank with a big autonomy. And it was a good idea, armours of its time all ended completly outperformed by guided missiles and attack helicopters... the light AMX-30 faced the 45th infantry division, totaly annihilated them. So maybe it's propaganda too. In 1940, the French had good tanks but a bad tactic, it's true. The British had bad tanks and a bad tactic... you can go in the "bulldog spirit" stereotype, in the Battle of France the British forces didn't do any better than the French one. Was the M3 Lee so worthless than the British forces prefered it to their own tanks in North Africa? The central canon was designed for artillery fire, the main canon for battle is on a turret, like the B1. The concept of a main tank canon set in front of a tank was the main British design during WWI (I'm suprised you don't know it) just look for pictures of British landships Mark I,II and so on. The French adopted a turret (check the FT-17). So I agree the man who decided to put the canon in front of the tank was an idiot (especially with the engine in front of the tank too, you'll understand why hundred of them were lost each days) but he was a British idiot since you ask for the nationality. Of course, it was easier for the British forces to adapt the tactic during the war, it's an island unlike France that couldn't fight anymore. During the Battle of France proper, Britain didn't do any better than France. An Ogre Shell, for your information, is an artillery ammunition that can be fired as far as 35kms, dispenses 63 bomblets, each of them capable to break 90mm of armour. Imagine then what a barrage strike of those can do to tanks. It needs a 155mm canon, 52 calibre, to fire though. Chobham is not a miracle solution, a Challenger II was lost in Iraq, destroyed in a friendly fire by another Challenger II. If it can be destroyed by a tank, it can be destroyed by artillery or by missiles. There is no armour than can remain invicible. That is a rule, you always find a way to break it. About China, do you consider it's a third world country? I don't think so, maybe you do, but that doesn't make it a third world country. It's standard of living is much in late but it's not Somalia or Sierra Leone. If you think Britain can take over it why didn't you fight over Hong Kong? As far as I remember, you didn't have to give it all back to China, there was a contestation. And what are you talking of WWII and third world countries? We're in 2006, WWII was more than 60 years ago. And it's better to have a crystal ball that living in the past... but you're wrong, I read future in chicken guts. Enjoy the movie. And please calm down, judging by your comments (I answered your points without going personnal) I see you are the upset one. Just because I prove you wrong when you claim the French have no experience in tank warfare doesn't mean you have to take it personnal. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2006 at 07:22
|
A research on the net tells me Khafji (and not Hafji) was a surprise attack and than the US marines were largely present in the town (I had a hard time to get the spelling, I have a video that talks to this battle at a point and the pronounciation is nothing like Khafji)... in that video (from Discovery channel, Armoured Vanguard) they say the AMX-30 played an important role in defeated the Iraqi (19 minutes of the video). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2006 at 13:36
|
France never had a chance in the early part of WW II to show what it could do with armor. Later in the war French armored divisions did quite well with American equipment. Charles de Gaulle was one of the first officiers to see the possiblities of the tank and his writings influenced armor leaders on all sides in WW II. As for the AMX-30 it did have fairly weak armor for it's time, something the Leclerc tank has rectified. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2006 at 14:46
Exactly, France aquired a lot of experience from Algeria and Indochina. There were a new kind of war that helped forging a new doctrine. As for the AMX-30, it was designed to be light and fast. The French doctrine considered armour could be obsolete in a matter of 6 years. You can even feel that on the Leclerc since the armour (which is unknown) isn't part of the hull but installed over it through packages (and can be replaced). ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2006 at 15:53
|
Light and fast is good for scouting and screening purposes, but in tank on tank combat it's deadly. The Iraelis have experienced some of the most intense armor battles in recent history and their MBTs reflect the lessons learned. Merkavas have very heavy frontal armor with speed being a secondary consideration. It's possible the French emphasis on lighter mobile tanks will be more appropriate in the future however. Deploying tanks like the M1A2 and other monsters takes alot of resources, so does keeping them supplied in the field. The M1A2 gets something like 2 gallons to the mile in fuel efficiency.------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 12:41
|
Merkavas are a not really heavy on the frontal armour, the engine takes up that space, the idea being that it'll absorb the blow. I wonder how it;ll do against a DU Shot, remembering they are pyrophoric. ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 14:40
|
From what I've read the frontal armor on the Merkava is heavy and the engine placement adds to it. Unless an AP round hit the fuel tank it wouldn't result in an explosion and the crew would have time to exit in the event of a fire. ------------- |
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 15:09
|
[ QUOTE]I have never heard of that umbrella story, do you have a reliable link to back that statement? [QUOTE]
no link I'm afraid, it was simply the joke we brits told about the French. We even said the same thing about the German Leopard I which had equally thin armour!! The Germans responded with " Chieftain" would be a war winning tank if could get out of barracks before breaking down!!!
Sadly there was a lot of truth in their comment. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 16:52
|
Does Leaopard2A4 have auto loaders? ------------- |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 21:05
The Canadian C1E is a highly modified Leopard 1, thank god we've rarely if ever had to face modern MBTs with them. ------------- |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 08:42
Not that I know. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2006 at 23:32
If they think they are great then why are they investing at Leopard 2A4?
"In November 2005, an agreement was signed for the sale of 298 German army Leopard 2A4 tanks to Turkey. Deliveries are planned for early 2006-07."
Source: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ - http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/ ------------- |
Posted By: raygun
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:00
|
About the autoloader thing, I believe Marsh Gelbart, author of the Merkava book commented about having less crew member to deal with the vehicle maintenance is viewed as unfavorable. Too much work for a smaller crew. Also, a loader can change type of ammo much quicker and in times of need can fulfill certain functions of other crew members, if I remembered correctly.
Anyway, the merkava book is a must get if your're a fan of that tank: http://www.mheaust.com.au/MHE/Books/IDF2.htm - http://www.mheaust.com.au/MHE/Books/IDF2.htm
cheers
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:33
|
The early reports coming in from the Leb are that the Merkava was not exactly the star of the show.
------------- |
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:56
their choice doesn't mean anything. What is economically better often takes priority over what is militarily the better choice. Not every country needs the worlds best tank. it depends on who the capabilities of their opponents and the geo-political climate that they reside in. |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 13:56
It might just be the kind of combat that's going on in Lebenon. No MBT is at it's best in an urban/insurgentcy environment, most are designed to kill targets from a distance. If you can get in close enough with an RPG, or get a side or rear shot with a ATGM you stand a good chance of taking the tank out. Thick frontal armor and a heavy main gun lose their advantage when the opposition pops up from concealed positions to engage from all directions.
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 17:16
|
I was just quoting from Exarchus!!! but countries like Turkey do tend to have a large mix of equipment and weapons with not too much in the way of standardisation. I suspect that you may find auto loaders in the non Leopard Tank regiments assuming Exarchus is correct. ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 05:46
The future Turkish MBT will be a variant of the Leclerc. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1137956&C=europe - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1137956&C=europe  ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 09:16
thats a bif IF not will I dont see the turks starting to buy or use lots of french equipmant in any big way. They will go back to the USA (esp with its new military head) or go east like korea. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 11:03
|
The big if started when France recognised the Armenian genocide. Although, as for march 2006, the project wasn't cancelled (maybe it's been since, but I don't think so). In contrary of rumors, when France passed its bill to recognise the Armenian Genocide, the prospect on the tank wasn't cancelled (but a sattelite was). But anyway, if they look toward South Korea it doesn't change the point since the next Korean tanks are also equipied with an automatic reloader. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/xk-2.htm - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/xk-2.htm PS: Turkey already uses French equipment, we sold them (thanks god we found a pigeon) used Avisos. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 16:23
|
I've heard the Leclerc was designed to shot at helicopters. Is it true or pure propaganda? ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 17:18
|
I never heard of that before. So I put that on the propaganda side. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 13:26
|
Turkey wants to develop a modern tank together with someone else. Pakistan was their first choice, Korea is however also likely. Both produce modern yet cheap weapons, that allow the not so strong turkish economy to support mass production. Of course these weapons are not as good as their american or german counterparts. Turkey bought the 300 Leo2A4 to counter the Greek purchase of 170 Leo2A6 and 183 Leo2A4 (+150 Leo1A5). I don't know if they plan to invest on them though (actually I doubt it). Turkey and France haven't had any cooperation in weapons until now. And I doubt they will, as France made a defensive agreement with Cyprus, and I guess that pissed of the turks.
About the AMX-30, I have to say that in Greece it was considered the best tank of the army in the late '60s early '70s, but it didn't survive anything near as long as the M60 and the Leo1. And as sated already, it's armour was regarded to be be far too weak. It still serves in the cypriot army though. -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 11:24
|
Spain too fielded ~100 AMX-30s, but were overshadowed by a larger contingent of M48s and M60A3s. Spain has around 109 Leopard 2A4s now, and I think just under 300 Leopard 2Es [Spanish version of the Leopard 2A6].
------------- |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 11:25
|
It really wouldn't be the first time. The Merkava IV has shot down helicopters on several occasions.
------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 13:29
|
Helicopters are fragile constructions. I guess it is possible with a .50 in MG to shoot down a helicopter. Of course modern tanks have also missiles. These missiles are AT but they can hit helicopters as well (some times at least). -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2006 at 14:17
|
I know that the Merkava has a modular package for the 12.7mm machine gun mounted besides the 60mm internal mortar. It's installed depending if they expect helicopters to be operating where their mission is headed. I know that the Soviets originally dropped the HMG, as well, given the altitudes and velocities CAS aircraft operated at the time, but when helicopters became a threat they were quick to reinstall the HMG on top. IIRC, there are several ammunition programs designed to make anti-tank missiles compatible with anti-helicopter operations. I've seen videos of the Merkava IV shoot down helicopters, and the LeClerc has a similar fire control system and battlefield management system as to the M1A2 Abrams and to the Merkava IV. ------------- |