Leopard 2 A6 Tank

[carman1877]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

[Waylander]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks
Borders a this vs that thread, doesn't it?
Anyway...

Whoever said that the Leopard IIA6 is superior to the latest M1A2SEP versions is clearly wrong.
First of all there are several more modern Leopard versions available and in service than a plain normal Leopard IIA6 like used by Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal.

The most modern versions in service out there are the Leopard IIE (Spain), Leopard IIHEL (Greece) and Strv122 (Sweden).

In the end KMW offers the Leopard 2A6EX which essentially is a Leopard II with all the latest updates and gadgets bolted onto it with the possibility to add additional stuff from the POS program (urban warfare).

There isn't much difference between that and the most modern Abrams version one can buy.
If the customer is not willing to use US M289A3 ammunition because of concerns about DU ammo the L/55 of the Leopard offers better penetration capabilities.
Protection levels are hard to estimate but none of them has a distinct advantage over the other and one is going to find areas where one ore the other is better protected.
But as the ammo of the Abrams is completely protected by blow out panels while the Leopard only has it's ready ammo protected like this the Abrams clearly has the better post penetration survivability.
Both feature modern TIs and optics for the gunner and TC and use latest digital fire control systems.
There are several battlefield management systems available for both tanks but such a system is an individual item anyway and a customer can choose or integrate whatever he wants to use.

The Abrams is more thirsty.
And while the Abrams accelerates faster the Leopard arugably rides a little bit smoother cross country.

I am not sure if the TUSK I or II kit for the Abrams includes a minne protection kit like the M package which is available for the Leopard.

So while both of them have little advantages in some areas they have very similar capabilities and defenitely none of them has any war winning advantages over the other one.

Note that many other modern MBTs also play in the same League.
Be it a Challenger IIE, Leclerc T10 or Merkava Mk.IV.

[kato]

The most modern versions in service out there are the Leopard IIE (Spain), Leopard IIHEL (Greece) and Strv122 (Sweden).

"Most modern" would have of course been KWS-II+III - if the latter hadn't been cancelled in '95. Especially the new IFIS, not the 140mm gun would have been the big force multiplier. Ah well, maybe we'll get it with UrbOp now. Other force multipliers - e.g. ZEFF - we'll probably wait another decade or two for.

[Waylander]

Don't get me started on that. 3-4 other countries field better Leopards than we do...

[carman1877]

I also realized that the Leopard is more user friendly since it has a sterring wheel and very easy to use controls. It also has things that not many tanks have(to my knowledge), such as the camera to use when backing up, or electronic drviers hatch that can now be more armored becuase a crew member does not have to move it. One thing i read is that even with the new gun it does not have as good penetration as the M1A2, becuase the M1A2 uses Depleted Uranium rounds and the Leopard 2 does not. Does anyone know if the Leopard 2 uses SABOT rounds?

[Waylander]

It defenitely is user friendly but I am not sure if there is much of a difference performance wise between the steering wheel of a Leopard II (Or a Leclerc, Merk, etc.) and the steering used in the Abrams.

There are also things in the Leopard which are far from being userfriendly for example the TC joystick. Instead of controlling the commanders independent sight or the turret by moving the joystick one uses a cooly head on top of it while the joystick is fixed. I have no idea why they came up with such a brilliant idea...

The camera for driving backwards is also used in several modern versions of other MBTs as are power operated hatches (For example turret hatches of the Strv122 or Merkava Mk.IV).

And yes the Leopard uses SABOT.
The right designation would be APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) or KE (Kinetic Energy).
Every tank uses such rounds these days.
The ones currently in use with the Leopard II are DM33, DM53 and DM63.
Nearly all users use these KE rounds with Spain being the exception. They use an Israeli KE of which I forgot the name.

Other ammunitions in use with the Leopard II or close to being fielded are:
- DM-12 MZ (HEAT)
- DM-11/SQ (A modern HE with programmable fuze)
- a dumb swedish HE (HE Mk.I IIRC)
- PELE (a brittle KE rod which is used against buildings/fortifications for minimizing collateral damage)
- M1028 (US canister round)

Many other rounds are also certified for use with the Leopard II but are not fielded so far like most 120mm Israeli and US rounds, LAHAT ATGMs, DM43s, etc.

Using DU as a base material for your penetrator rods doesn't automatically mean that they are better than other rounds. Modern conventional alloys like used for the DM53/63 are self sharpening, fast, have good bending qualities, etc.

You won't find many DU rounds out there which outperform a DM53 fired out of a L/55.
M298A3 may be one of them.

As I said before a modern Leopard II is for sure in the lead group but you are also going to find alot of things in other modern MBTs which are better than what you find on an Abrams or Leopard II.

[carman1877]

Thanks Waylander for the info, do you know of any videos online showing the leopard 2 in wartime(such as Afghanistan)? I was also wondering becuase I know that the Abrams uses an enhanced version but is the Mg3 up to par with the M240? Our those add on armor pieces on the side(that look like flaps) supposed to protect the crew when performing maintenance on the engine, becuase i read that on Fprado.com?

[Waylander]

Just recently I have seen a video of Danish Leopards giving fire support during a joint Danish-British Operation but I can't find it anymore.
Maybe Grand Danois or others can help...

The MG3 is defenitely on par with the M240, especially when used as a mounted weapon or as a coax.
It is reliable, accurate and easy to handle.
The high rate of fire, while being something of a double-edged sword when it comes to infantry usage, is also an advantage as it allows good bursts and a nice surpressing fire.
I also think that the Leopard II has the better layout with the coax being serviced by the loader and not by the gunner.
Maybe others disagree with that.

But in the end the difference in performance is marginal at best.

[Grand Danois]

Just recently I have seen a video of Danish Leopards giving fire support during a joint Danish-British Operation but I can't find it anymore.
Maybe Grand Danois or others can help...

I know which one you're thinking about. There is also another one of Leo2s firing PELE rounds from high ground, but the only place where I can find them are on a Danish Defence Media page, which is in.... Danish.

Try entering "kampvogne i ilden", "wellness for leoparder", "slaget om spin masjed", "leoparden og varmen" in the search field ("søg").

http://www.forsvarskanalen.dk/fmc.aspx?bhcp=1

It's in Danish, for more international material there is always youtube. :)

[carman1877]

What is the point of the armor on the side that looks like flaps?

Thanks

[Waylander]

Thanks Grand Danois for the immediate help. :)

@carman
Flaps?

You mean the ones above the tracks like can bee seen in this picture?
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/pix/bw_kpz_leopard_2_a6-048i.jpg

Or are especially referring to the camo suite of the Danish Leopard IIA5DK?

The ones above the tracks are plain normal light side skirts which are mainly there to reduce the dust produced by the tracks and offer some protection for the tracks against small arms fire.
The frontal heavy side skirts one the other hand (the thick ones in the frontal area) do add additional portection against KE and CE threats.

Heavy side skirts which cover the whole length of the track are available if wanted. There are several different versions of them.

The camouflage net of the Danish Leos is an advanced modern camouflage system which not only help to break up the silouette of the tank but also significantly reduce the IR-signature. A nice side effect of this is that they also help in keeping the interior of the tank cool which helps in theaters like Afghanistan.

[DavidDCM]

I think he means the "elephant ears", the additional turret side armor. well they are there to enhance the ballistic protection... what you read on fprado, that they are there to provide cover for maintenance crews during fieldworks at the engine is not their main purpose.

[carman1877]

Yes David i was talking about the "Elephant Ears", and thanks for the info. I was wondering after looking at pictures of the front of the turret that if another tank round hit the arrow shaped front turret does it impact or get diverted upward or downward? If it gets diverted downward it might be able to penetrate the weaker lower turret armor.

[swerve]

... if another tank round hit the arrow shaped front turret does it impact or get diverted upward or downward? If it gets diverted downward it might be able to penetrate the weaker lower turret armor.
I know little of this sort of thing, but IIRC the spaced armour should induce yawing in the rod, so that instead of hitting whatever is behind it cleanly, it strikes at an angle to the direction of travel. Its penetrative ability is thus reduced greatly, enough (fingers crossed) not to be able to penetrate any of the armour behind there.

Anyone with real knowledge please correct me gently. I make no claims to expertise.

[carman1877]

Does anyone know why the driver seat is on the right side and not the middle?

[DavidDCM]

Because next to the driver is the hull ammunition bunker with 27 main gun rounds. The Abrams for example does not have a hull bunker and thus has the driver in the center position.

[carman1877]

Are the Main and Comander sights the same as the Abrams? The day and thermal?

[Waylander]

Regarding optics/TI:
No, they are not. But the Laser is the same as it comes licensed produced from hughes IIRC.
There are several optics and thermals available and in service for the Leopard. The German Leopard II from A5 onwards have a 12x daylight channel as well as a 2nd generation TI-channel wuth 4x and 12x magnification.
The TI of the new PERI-R17A2 is a 3rd generation TI (4x, 12x, 24x).
The Spanish Leopard IIE for example have a 3rd gen TI for both gunner and commander and also allow for different magnifications of the daylight and TI channels and are comparable to what is fielded with the M1A2SEP.


Regarding wedge armor:
Swerve is partially right with it's explanation of how the armor works.
Modern rounds don't get deflected even when they are hitting at an extreme angle.
There are pictures of rounds having entered the gun tube of tanks at extreme angle as well as scratching the top turrets of T-72s without getting deflected.

The KWS II add-on armor of the Leopard II is not a solid block. This would be much to heavy. Instead it consists of several layers of solid plates arranged at different angles with some space between them. This arrangement is supported by some other capabilities of the armor about which we won't discuss here. ;)
A KE penetrator rod hitting the add-on armor is under immense pressure by the different angeld plates. This results in it hitting the main armor at a bad angle and so highly reduces the penetration capability of the rod. Depending on the round fired as well as the angle of impact the rod may also get blunted or brakes apart reducing penetration even further.

So instead of deflecting the round (which as I said modern rounds don't do anyways) the add-on armor "sucks in" the rod in order to break it apart.

[carman1877]

Doesn't the Leopard 2 lack in secondary armament to the Abrams becuase it lacks a .50?

[Waylander]

That's due to different philosophies of how one should lead a tank.

In Germany one thinks that the commander should command the tank, stay on the radios and search the terrain for enemies and for navigation. Still enough workload.
A weapon for the commander would distract him from this as well as limit the view out of the hatch.
The commanders hatch has provisions made for a MG but they are not used.

The americans think that a .50cal for the commander offers more advantages than disadvantages.
In certain situations (like a thunder run through Bagdad) it certainly does.
Fighting a maneuver battle against enemy mech forces it probably doesn't.

One also has to remember that the Leopard II had hunter-killer capabilities right from the beginning while the Abrams only got much later from M1A2 upwards.
Thus in a firefight the TC in a Leopard isn't able to use his MG anyway as he is using the independent commanders sight.

Any customer who wants to could add anything from a 5,56mm Minimi up to a 14,5mm Kord. This is no big thing as it is very basic engineering.

What I would prefer and what is available from several companies is an independent weapons steation with a GPMG/.50cal/AGL on the turret which can be controlled by both the commander and loader.

[eckherl]

Regarding optics/TI:
No, they are not. But the Laser is the same as it comes licensed produced from hughes IIRC.
There are several optics and thermals available and in service for the Leopard. The German Leopard II from A5 onwards have a 12x daylight channel as well as a 2nd generation TI-channel wuth 4x and 12x magnification.
The TI of the new PERI-R17A2 is a 3rd generation TI (4x, 12x, 24x).
The Spanish Leopard IIE for example have a 3rd gen TI for both gunner and commander and also allow for different magnifications of the daylight and TI channels and are comparable to what is fielded with the M1A2SEP.


Regarding wedge armor:
Swerve is partially right with it's explanation of how the armor works.
Modern rounds don't get deflected even when they are hitting at an extreme angle.
There are pictures of rounds having entered the gun tube of tanks at extreme angle as well as scratching the top turrets of T-72s without getting deflected.

The KWS II add-on armor of the Leopard II is not a solid block. This would be much to heavy. Instead it consists of several layers of solid plates arranged at different angles with some space between them. This arrangement is supported by some other capabilities of the armor about which we won't discuss here. ;)
A KE penetrator rod hitting the add-on armor is under immense pressure by the different angeld plates. This results in it hitting the main armor at a bad angle and so highly reduces the penetration capability of the rod. Depending on the round fired as well as the angle of impact the rod may also get blunted or brakes apart reducing penetration even further.

So instead of deflecting the round (which as I said modern rounds don't do anyways) the add-on armor "sucks in" the rod in order to break it apart.

Regarding wedge armor,:)

Now I do not know if it will suck in all KE penetrators and break them apart, but it sure in the hell does a good job of slowing the majority of them down to make the primary armor effective in stopping them entirely.

Which brings up another point, are the Russians worried about their reactive armor packages with the latest generation KE projectiles that very well could come equipped with one heck of a composite outer linning, it already is in use due to the length of the rods to help with flight improvements.:unknown

[Waylander]

Sure, as I wrote breaking the rod is the ideal outcome and is for sure not always achievable.
But it is defenitely going to slow down the rod as well as make it hit the main armor at a bad angle.

[Firn]

Any customer who wants to could add anything from a 5,56mm Minimi up to a 14,5mm Kord. This is no big thing as it is very basic engineering.

What I would prefer and what is available from several companies is an independent weapons steation with a GPMG/.50cal/AGL on the turret which can be controlled by both the commander and loader.

I think that most on the thread about the secondary armament of MBTs agreed on the last bit. With such a configuration you can have three sets of eyes independently scanning the environment 360° with great optics while driving.

All in all AMAP-ADS should be huge improvement for any MBT, forming another light and yet potentially very effective layer of armor on all the sides of the tank.

[eckherl]

Sure, as I wrote breaking the rod is the ideal outcome and is for sure not always achievable.
But it is defenitely going to slow down the rod as well as make it hit the main armor at a bad angle.

Which is how KE projectiles operate, energy and mass. If you deminish either performance value of the projectile then you have accomplished your goal inregards to the performance level of add on turret armor for LEO2A5 or 6 series. With Russian claims of being able to do *both* with some of their reactive packages, I and many others are skeptical of this, especially with some of the later KE generation rounds.

[Tavarisch]

Any customer who wants to could add anything from a 5,56mm Minimi up to a 14,5mm Kord. This is no big thing as it is very basic engineering.



Kords don't use 14.5mm the last time I checked. Sorry if I'm being bitchy, but I just had to point that out. :)

[Waylander]

Damnit. I always get confused with Kord, Dushka, NSW and KPW.
Not my first time and I assume not my last one. :D

Thanks for that.

Nevertheless my point was that one can put a TC MG of any size onto the Leopard if one wants to.

[momo]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

i don't really know but the challenger 2 has given better results in Iraq than the Abrams. I also don't know what makes the leopard 2 better than the abrams but as of today i haven't heard of any leo 2 tank being tested in battle, so i guess it's just pure speculation, unless someone posts any information that would prove it

[momo]

ups, i only saw the first message, i didn't realize there were two pages of replies

[Oce]

i don't really know but the challenger 2 has given better results in Iraq than the Abrams. I also don't know what makes the leopard 2 better than the abrams but as of today i haven't heard of any leo 2 tank being tested in battle, so i guess it's just pure speculation, unless someone posts any information that would prove it

For example:

I guess it`s pure speculation that the F22 and EF are actually the best because they haven`t been proved in battle.

:onfloorl:

[Firn]

Of course we don't know how the Leopard II fares in battle. Why do the Danes and Canadians just drive them (http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2008/05/canadian-armour.html) around for fun in Afghanistan when they did already so much to upgrade, transport and mantain them in the theater :confused:

[eckherl]

For example:

I guess it`s pure speculation that the F22 and EF are actually the best because they haven`t been proved in battle.

:onfloorl:

Isn`t modern technology something... its amazing what a computer and actual testing of a weapons platform under simulated conditions can achieve.

[jimbo1847]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

Hi carman1877
I`m not sure what computers the Leopard 2 has but the Abrams uses the same German manufactured gun that the Leopard 2 uses viz. 120mm smooth bore. The U.S. call it the M256 I think.
Jimbo1847

[eckherl]

Hi carman1877
I`m not sure what computers the Leopard 2 has but the Abrams uses the same German manufactured gun that the Leopard 2 uses viz. 120mm smooth bore. The U.S. call it the M256 I think.
Jimbo1847

M1A2 SEP V series are the most advanced tanks that are currently being fielded electronic wise, upgrades are based accordingly on how we like to fight our ground battle doctrine, augmentation into other U.S force structures.

German manufactured 120mm gun designations are: L44 and L55
American manufactured 120mm gun designation is M256A1, a new gun that is slated for future U.S M1 series that goes by the designation of M291 is the same length as M256A1 and L44 but is lighter in weight and can handle higher muzzle velocity projectiles, we just may see German Leopards with this gun also.

[kato]

we just may see German Leopards with this gun also.
With a US-designed gun ? No chance.

Before that would ever happen Rheinmetall will rather dig out the NPzK-140 L/45 with its 20 MJ muzzle energy again (L/44: 10 MJ, L/55: 13 MJ).

[Waylander]

When it comes to Land systems our NIH-Syndrome is as big as the US one's...

I also doubt that we will see a non-German gun in the future unless our companies really mess things up.

[eckherl]

With a US-designed gun ? No chance.

Before that would ever happen Rheinmetall will rather dig out the NPzK-140 L/45 with its 20 MJ muzzle energy again (L/44: 10 MJ, L/55: 13 MJ).

Can anyone really afford a recoil mechanism that can with stand (sustained fire) 20 MJ, is it really warranted. Why not just go with a dual caliber breach and recoil mechanism that can keep things under 15 MJ ie: M291. Germany and U.S have worked together in the past on this project and there has been the current announcement that U.S and German based companies are at it again in regards to working together on a lighter air transportable SPH. Would you and Waylander get a case of red ass if Germany would buy a U.S designed gun, can we not return the favor after shoe horning your design into our tanks. :D

[eckherl]

When it comes to Land systems our NIH-Syndrome is as big as the US one's...

I also doubt that we will see a non-German gun in the future unless our companies really mess things up.

You and Kato are party poopers.:p:

[kato]

Can anyone really afford a recoil mechanism that can with stand (sustained fire) 20 MJ, is it really warranted.
NPzK-140 would probably need a complete new turret anyway (due to an autoloader or semi-automatic loading assist being needed for the separate ammunition), would hence be no problem to integrate. Besides, with separated ammo, one could always just load the breech with a lower-powered charge for sustained fire. :rolleyes:

Besides, if low-recoil is really needed, Rheinmetall has the 120mm L/47 LLR in its portfolio for that. Designed for light tank hunters. The L/47 LLR actually is - in parts, anyways - a downscaled NPzK-140. 40% less recoil compared to L44 / M256.

there has been the current announcement that U.S and German based companies are at it again in regards to working together on a lighter air transportable SPH.
Donar? That's pretty much just sticking a German PzH2000 turret on a chassis built by certain European companies that were bought up by GDLS.

[Waylander]

Funnily enough this bastard child of an ASCOD chassis and a modified PzH2000 turret has better capabilities than the ugly NLOS-C while meeting all the goals of an air portable SPH.

While buying a US designed gun may be fair it may cost our industry in the long run.

Right now the German defence industry can (unlike the US one for example) deliver a top class vehicle in nearly every class of ground combat and combat support vehicles.
Our industry should at least try to compete in the fields it is world leading right now.

[DIREWOLF75]

But as the ammo of the Abrams is completely protected by blow out panels while the Leopard only has it's ready ammo protected like this the Abrams clearly has the better post penetration survivability.
That is probably not true because the "unprotected" ammo of the Leo is stored in the otherwise best protetected part of the tank, meaning that if something penetrates badly enough to make that ammo go off, the tank is almost guaranteed to be dead anyway so it doesnt matter.
Its a design tradeoff, not bad protection. Personally i prefer the M1 design choice in this but i cant say the Leo is truly worse.

The Abrams is more thirsty.
And while the Abrams accelerates faster the Leopard arugably rides a little bit smoother cross country.
The peculiarities of turbine engines is that at optimal RPM, the turbine engine draws less fuel per power output. Problem is that a tank will very rarely travel at a speed or required power output that allows optimal RPM to be maintained, which is why turbines on ships tend to be more or less complex combinations of diesels, electrical and turbine engines to allow the latter to be used at their highest possible efficiency and only there.

So, the M1 CAN be less fuel thirsty than the Leo-2, but usually isnt. The really big difference however is while standing still with main engine running, this is when the real downside of turbine engines rears its very ugly head, lousy low RPM fuel efficiency, Abrams vs Leo2 ready to move but standing still, the former will use several times more fuel over time.

With the advances in diesels in the last few decades, turbine engines in tanks no longer makes sense. My own country´s foray into this area even had a diesel alongside to allow for "cheap" lowspeed running as well as the high performance from the turbine, and while that was still shown as a better(cheaper and, less total maintenance) choice than turbine only, the current Strv-122(Leo-2S) that replaced those Strv-103 manage to have still lower maintenance requirements while being almost as highperforming, despite weighing far more.
Likewise, Russia aint too happy about its remaining turbineusing T-80s.

So while both of them have little advantages in some areas they have very similar capabilities and defenitely none of them has any war winning advantages over the other one.

Note that many other modern MBTs also play in the same League.
Be it a Challenger IIE, Leclerc T10 or Merkava Mk.IV.
LeClerc is aimed more towards mobility, Challenger towards protection and the Merkava towards survivability. To simplify. :D
But really yes, all have their design choices, and while they can all be berated or praised most are good ideas one way or another and its a matter of current situation if they´re a good idea in the here and now or not.


Which brings up another point, are the Russians worried about their reactive armor packages with the latest generation KE projectiles
From what i hear, no. They keep improving their ERA as well, but even against earlier types, the new KEs are not supposed to be so much improved.
Note that this is not reliable information however.


What I would prefer and what is available from several companies is an independent weapons steation with a GPMG/.50cal/AGL on the turret which can be controlled by both the commander and loader.
Quite so. A .50 could also double as basic air protection, which is why it would be my preferred pick. AGL would of course be the otherwise most useful.

[DavidDCM]

That is probably not true because the "unprotected" ammo of the Leo is stored in the otherwise best protetected part of the tank, meaning that if something penetrates badly enough to make that ammo go off, the tank is almost guaranteed to be dead anyway so it doesnt matter.
Its a design tradeoff, not bad protection. Personally i prefer the M1 design choice in this but i cant say the Leo is truly worse.

The crew operating the tank at the moment of penetration is probably dead anyway, no matter if it is a Leopard or Abrams.
But the unprotected ammo can cause a penetrated Leo 2 to be fully destroyed by that explosion where without that ammo it could possibly be repaired and returned into service.

[OPSSG]

So, the M1 CAN be less fuel thirsty than the Leo-2, but usually isnt. The really big difference however is while standing still with main engine running, this is when the real downside of turbine engines rears its very ugly head, lousy low RPM fuel efficiency, Abrams vs Leo2 ready to move but standing still, the former will use several times more fuel over time.

@DIREWOLF75, please note that eckherl, DavidDCM, and Waylander are good sources of info on the Abrams and the Leopards, given their prior experience in operating them. They have access to actual operation POL usage data. So think of them as an expert resources - they are well aware on the fuel consumption issues having served on tanks. Frankly, if you look at American logistics (they really have a fantastic system), they don't have a problem with POL resupply for the Abrams and fundamentally MBTs need support. So the fuel consumption is not an issue at an operational level. As as Singaporean, I constantly stand in awe of American logistics capabilities - it is way ahead of my country's army.

One of the benefits of taking part here is that I can turn around and ask someone who knows more than me. Good opportunity for me to learn.

Kindly note that there's something called an APU. It enables US Abrams tankers to turn off their turbine engine (if they are stationary) to conserve fuel and I also note that Singapore's Leopard 2A4s also have an APU on each. In fact, quite a few Leopards have APUs. IIRC, the Leopard 2A6 also uses a 20 kW APU (not really sure on this point). So what I'm saying is that fuel consumption is affected by other features and the nature of operational demands.

Cheers and enjoy learning from these guys.

[Waylander]

No APU on German Leopards so far but it is going to be implemented in the next upgrade.
Nevertheless the Strv122, Leopard IIE, Leopard IIHEL and Leopard IIA5DK feature an APU.

Well I think not putting an APU into our Leopard IIA6M is one of the biggest mistakes of the whole German tank upgrade programme.

[OPSSG]

No APU on German Leopards so far but it is going to be implemented in the next upgrade.
Nevertheless the Strv122, Leopard IIE, Leopard IIHEL and Leopard IIA5DK feature an APU.

Well I think not putting an APU into our Leopard IIA6M is one of the biggest mistakes of the whole German tank upgrade programme.

Thanks for the correction. :)

[kato]

But the unprotected ammo can cause a penetrated Leo 2 to be fully destroyed by that explosion where without that ammo it could possibly be repaired and returned into service.
Matter of doctrine.

Any war in Germany would have turned nuclear or been over anyway before any salvaged tanks could have returned to the battlefield. There are other fields where this also shows, e.g. in that the Bundeswehr has never had official guidelines for defining who deals with POWs (they're iirc still working on one for Afghanistan).
Also there were only a handful (six?) major maintenance/repair plants for tanks in Cold War Germany anyway, since then reduced to iirc only two.

Regarding fuel usage, similar things apply. Considering the CEPS network (which is still active with pipelines and fuel depots being maintained by a state-owned company, in peacetime mostly supplying airports) the moment a tank in Germany would run out of fuel would be the same point at which the entire military would have run out of fuel.

[DIREWOLF75]

@DIREWOLF75, please note that eckherl, DavidDCM, and Waylander are good sources of info on the Abrams and the Leopards, given their prior experience in operating them. They have access to actual operation POL usage data. So think of them as an expert resources - they are well aware on the fuel consumption issues having served on tanks. Frankly, if you look at American logistics (they really have a fantastic system), they don't have a problem with POL resupply for the Abrams and fundamentally MBTs need support. So the fuel consumption is not an issue at an operational level. As as Singaporean, I constantly stand in awe of American logistics capabilities - it is way ahead of my country's army.
USAs logistics are great yes, but obviously not great enough, in 1991 the original plan was to encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican guard units moving out of Kuwait, this however could not be completed because of fuel shortages.
This despite having spent 6 months stocking up 39.000.000 gallons of fuel and continually delivering more.
("On armour" B.I. Gudmundsson and "Final report to congress: Conduct of the Persian Gulf War)

An M1 uses around 2 gallons per mile travelled(up to 6 have been recorded but this is likely while running the turbine engine suboptimally), and uses 10-12 gallons per hour being immobile but combat and movement ready.
And please DO note that i didnt contradict Waylander when responding, i ADDED additional information to his. [Mod Edit: Rude text deleted. I see you discovered the joys of Google. Dial down your attitude and no further response is necessary.

Comparative fuel consumption has been subject to prior discussions in other threads in the forum. See here (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singaporean-leopard-2a4s-debut-australia-8344-6/#post162784) for the responses by eckherl at posts #80 & #86 and Abraham Gubler at posts #76 and #83. Feel free to have a look.

No need to take this attitude and such a response is a little bit over the top and not necessary.]

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm)
A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours
"On armour" states a similar figure, 500 gallons per day.

Kindly note that there's something called an APU
Kindly note that this was added in the M1A2 upgrade and that M1A1 outnumber -A2s by around 4 or 5 to 1. (although there are notes about it being added to -A1s as well i am unable to find specific information on wether this has happened at all or not)
Also kindly note that the APU replaces crew stowage space which could not be replaced elsewhere.
Also kindly note that running on APU does not mean combat readiness, because it still takes a bit of extra time to get the tank moving if main engine is turned off.

[Mod Edit: The part of your response that was deleted is a little bit over the top. Read the Forum Rules (http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php), in particular about respecting other forum members before posting again. Learn to engage in a discussion rather than attempting to trade insults.]

[eckherl]

From what i hear, no. They keep improving their ERA as well, but even against earlier types, the new KEs are not supposed to be so much improved.
Note that this is not reliable information however.


So what do you hear, I think with advancements in Tungsten, Poly type alloys that they have advanced alot more than what some folks may realize.

[STURM]

Gentleman, excuse me for butting in.

Can 20mm and 30mm AP rounds penetrate the rear turret on the Leopard 2A5/A6, Challenger 2 and M1A2? Is the German army taking any steps to better protect its Leopards against top attack missiles? Thank you.

[eckherl]

Gentleman, excuse me for butting in.

Can 20mm and 30mm AP rounds penetrate the rear turret on the Leopard 2A5/A6, Challenger 2 and M1A2? Is the German army taking any steps to better protect its Leopards against top attack missiles? Thank you.

All I will say is that a 25mm DU projectile is quite impressive. As far as Leo 2 goes yes they have packages that offer protection from top attack but I will let one of our German contributors to this site answer that question, its their sun shine and I do not want to steal it.:D

[Waylander]

Aaah, gratefull as always... :D

Yes, as Eckherl said there are armor packages available which increase the top protection of the turret.

I doubt that they prevent something like a Spike or Javelin from penetrating but older RPGs in an Urban environment as well as AT-bomblets should be taken care of.

Right now they are in service with the Strv122, Leopard 2E and Leopard 2HEL.

[STURM]

Appreciate the feed back. Thank you.

[Warwiz]

Why is the leopard 2 A6 considered to be the best tank, becuase I have always known the Abrams to be the best becuase of its hight tech computers, its great firepower, and protection? What does the leopard 2 A6 have?


Thanks

No matter which tank is better, in the end its the German gun thats the best, since they both use the same 120mm canon.

[Go229]

Donsen't the Leopard II have Chobham too? as well as Challenger II? And AFAIK the Leo 2A6's computers are as high tech as the latest american stuff.

[kato]

No matter which tank is better, in the end its the German gun thats the best, since they both use the same 120mm canon.
The A6 does not use the same cannon as the Abrams but an improved version.

[DIREWOLF75]

Gentleman, excuse me for butting in.

Can 20mm and 30mm AP rounds penetrate the rear turret on the Leopard 2A5/A6, Challenger 2 and M1A2?
Not under any normal conditions. Not even the best sabot rounds from the 40mm gun on the CV90 can usually do this.

Is the German army taking any steps to better protect its Leopards against top attack missiles?
Yes they are, although i dont know how far they´ve gotten with it. I know the Swedish army has "taken measures" in this area already and is working to greatly improve the top attack protection within the not too distant future.

Yes, as Eckherl said there are armor packages available which increase the top protection of the turret.

I doubt that they prevent something like a Spike or Javelin from penetrating but older RPGs in an Urban environment as well as AT-bomblets should be taken care of.

Right now they are in service with the Strv122, Leopard 2E and Leopard 2HEL.
The next generation stuff is whats looking alot more interesting.

Donsen't the Leopard II have Chobham too? as well as Challenger II?
Not exactly. Neither M1 nor Leo 2 actually has "Chobham". Both use armour based on the predecessor to the armour used on the Challenger 2, but both have been locally developed away from the original at the time direct cooperation ended or the basic specs finalised.
You could say that the M1 uses a local development based on Chobham version 1.3, Leo 2 the same but based on Chobham version 1.6 while the Challenger 2 uses the "real" Chobham version 2.0.
This was also one of the reasons for the changes brought in by the -A1 package for the M1.

And AFAIK the Leo 2A6's computers are as high tech as the latest american stuff.
And unless the current political idiots in charge here goes on yet another defence spending cutting spree, Sweden will keep its edge in the electronics package the Strv-122 has over the regular Leo 2A6... Of course, some of the differences to M1 is as much a matter of preference as anything that can be called "better" or "worse".

[DIREWOLF75]

Mod Edit: Rude text deleted. I see you discovered the joys of Google. Dial down your attitude and no further response is necessary.
Further response is certainly necessary. You mod a reply to yourself? Gives me alot of confidence indeed...

More importantly however, you post a rude and highly condescending reply to what is simply pure facts and expect me to be all flowers back?
And then you add ANOTHER insult in the mod editing berating MY "rudeness"? Marvelous.

Comparative fuel consumption has been subject to prior discussions in other threads in the forum. See here for the responses by eckherl at posts #80 & #86 and Abraham Gubler at posts #76 and #83. Feel free to have a look.
Do you even realise that much of what those posts say actually supports what i said?

And the rest is a matter of being considered unimportant or being ignored, neither of which i can agree with.
And arguing that the size of the supply chain is irrelevant, its just appallingly ignorant.

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 a lot bigger than the vehicle.
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.

I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.
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.


In another comparison, on the old Strv-103 here, the only tank ever used with BOTH diesel and turbine, it was not unheard of for the turbine engine to draw well over 10 times as much fuel over time as the diesel. While the turbine produced more power, that had little to do with the massive difference...

Mod edit: The point of contention, and the reason for the editing of the prior post, was that the response was felt to be uncalled for. One can disagree with someone else, but still response in a respectful manner which is a requirement of DefenceTalk, hence the reference to the forum rules (http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php). This is also why the reference was made to different poster backgrounds, i.e. Defence Professional, Senior Member, as such indicators can serve to let others know that the poster in question might have more familiarity than a regular person would with the topic in question. As a last note, the Mod team communicates with each other to resolve issues and act in concert. If a poster feels there is a problem with a particular Mod, please contact that Mod, another member of the Mod team, or Webmaster to get the issue resolved.
-Preceptor

[Palnatoke]

Just my 5 cents

Engineering science offers the following rules of thumb:

A turbine delivers very good power to weight/size or just "foot print".ratio.

A turbine not running at optimal rpm (which translates into to power output unless very complex geering is used, which defeats the original advantage of turbines) is inherritly fuel inefficient.

A two stroke engine (a diesel) offers very good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power output,

A two stroke engine (a diesel) is a complex and large machine compared to power output.

One sees this in warships:
Ships that need to have a good "stamnia" but with the ability to make short bursts of speed are usually equiped with a CODAG (combined diesel and gas). In this setting the ship usually runs on it's diesel machinery offering adequate power and good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power outputs(or speeds). When high speed is needed, the gas turbine is engaged.
The trick of the arrangement is that the turbine has a smal footprint (compared to power output) and hence, it's not infeasable to include it compared to including an extra diesel machinery to deliver the same power output (because the diesel has a larger footprint).

A ship that only needs good stamnia is usually diesel only.

A small ship that doesen't need good stamnia, but is likely to operate at high speeds can be COGAG (Combined gas and gas), here you exploit the fact that a turbine arangement has a small footprint, a design parameter for a small ship. You (always) have a dual configuration of one turbine optimized for one power output and another turbine optimized for another (higher) power output. this is f.ex. because the low output turbine can sustain normal operating speed at accetable fuel efficiency and have the high output turbine kick in when high speed is needed. (In fact the dual configuration offers 3 optimal speeds: two speeds with one of the turbines turned off and one with both turned on).

As I understand it, what I have learned about engines surport what DIREWOLF75 is saying. though I don't know much about tanks.

[Feanor]

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.


In another comparison, on the old Strv-103 here, the only tank ever used with BOTH diesel and turbine, it was not unheard of for the turbine engine to draw well over 10 times as much fuel over time as the diesel. While the turbine produced more power, that had little to do with the massive difference...

Rubbish. The T-80 is being phased out for the T-90 only because OTM is bankrupt, and the only factory for the T-80 left is in Ukraine. This includes their engine production. If the Indians had chosen a T-80 derivative in the late 90s (and saved OTM from bankrupcy), then the Russian Army would be getting new T-80 variants right now. The T-62s were used not because they didin't want to use the T-80s, but because before 2009 the former 42nd MRD was equipped with T-62s as their standard equipment. When the unit was formed in iirc the early 2000s it was activated from a storage base, rather then formed from existing units, and got subpar equipment as a result. This has nothing to do with the engines.

The T-90 doesn't feature the turbines, because once again design and production is in Ukraine. ;)

[OPSSG]

Just my 5 cents

Engineering science offers the following rules of thumb:

A turbine delivers very good power to weight/size or just "foot print".ratio.

A turbine not running at optimal rpm (which translates into to power output unless very complex geering is used, which defeats the original advantage of turbines) is inherritly fuel inefficient.

A two stroke engine (a diesel) offers very good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power output,

A two stroke engine (a diesel) is a complex and large machine compared to power output.

One sees this in warships:
Ships that need to have a good "stamnia" but with the ability to make short bursts of speed are usually equiped with a CODAG (combined diesel and gas). In this setting the ship usually runs on it's diesel machinery offering adequate power and good fuel efficiency at a wide range of power outputs(or speeds). When high speed is needed, the gas turbine is engaged.
The trick of the arrangement is that the turbine has a smal footprint (compared to power output) and hence, it's not infeasable to include it compared to including an extra diesel machinery to deliver the same power output (because the diesel has a larger footprint).

A ship that only needs good stamnia is usually diesel only.

A small ship that doesen't need good stamnia, but is likely to operate at high speeds can be COGAG (Combined gas and gas), here you exploit the fact that a turbine arrangement has a small footprint, a design parameter for a small ship. You (always) have a dual configuration of one turbine optimized for one power output and another turbine optimized for another (higher) power output. this is f.ex. because the low output turbine can sustain normal operating speed at acceptable fuel efficiency and have the high output turbine kick in when high speed is needed. (In fact the dual configuration offers 3 optimal speeds: two speeds with one of the turbines turned off and one with both turned on).

As I understand it, what I have learned about engines surport what DIREWOLF75 is saying. though I don't know much about tanks.

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? :rolleyes:

Palnatoke, please look up the difference between four stroke diesel engines and two stroke diesel engines (see this link (http://www.yachtsurvey.com/comparing_diesel_types.htm) 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 (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf6.htm). 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?

[OPSSG]

Do you know that I moderated at the request of other members? They felt you were offensive and reported your post.
Further response is certainly necessary. You mod a reply to yourself? Gives me alot of confidence indeed...

More importantly however, you post a rude and highly condescending reply to what is simply pure facts and expect me to be all flowers back?
And then you add ANOTHER insult in the mod editing berating MY "rudeness"? Marvelous.
Right now you are just throwing another tantrum.

The discussion in the previous thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singaporean-leopard-2a4s-debut-australia-8344-6/#post162784) was pretty heated basically because some forum members were perceived to be inaccurately disparaging the capabilities and choices of other nations. One of my friends felt quite bruised after the exchange. The main reason I did an initial quick post in reply because I was worried that this thread would likewise become heated given your style of writing and wanted you to avoid the same experience. In this forum, you can either post 'information' or ask questions - which was the point of my initial post. There will be others to interact with you. How you choose to respond is up to you.

Let me quote my former post in full here again (there is no malice in that first post to you), so that the other members can clearly see how badly you over reacted:
@DIREWOLF75, please note that eckherl, DavidDCM, and Waylander are good sources of info on the Abrams and the Leopards, given their prior experience in operating them. They have access to actual operation POL usage data. So think of them as an expert resources - they are well aware on the fuel consumption issues having served on tanks. Frankly, if you look at American logistics (they really have a fantastic system), they don't have a problem with POL resupply for the Abrams and fundamentally MBTs need support. So the fuel consumption is not an issue at an operational level. As as Singaporean, I constantly stand in awe of American logistics capabilities - it is way ahead of my country's army.

One of the benefits of taking part here is that I can turn around and ask someone who knows more than me. Good opportunity for me to learn.

Kindly note that there's something called an APU. It enables US Abrams tankers to turn off their turbine engine (if they are stationary) to conserve fuel and I also note that Singapore's Leopard 2A4s also have an APU on each. In fact, quite a few Leopards have APUs. IIRC, the Leopard 2A6 also uses a 20 kW APU* (not really sure on this point). So what I'm saying is that fuel consumption is affected by other features and the nature of operational demands.

Cheers and enjoy learning from these guys.
A mature critique on US logistics during the Gulf War would take the trouble to describe the concept of logistics support, the five phases of the CSS plan, the role of LTG Pagonis as theatre logistic commander and explain where the gaps occurred.

An accurate description of American CSS efforts would set the ground work for analysis and critique - this of course would have to include the acknowledgment that LTG Pagonis went beyond the doctrine at that time and constructed logistic bases in front of advancing troops so that supplies would be available as the forces advanced. Mobile supply points meant that logisticians could travel with combat forces; expendable assets meant that securing the bases was not an issue. LTG Pagonis assigned a specific CSS unit to run each logistic base and charged them with destroying the base if the enemy threatened to overrun it. However, IMO, you are not trying to conduct a mature critique in a constructive matter. Let me quote what you said:
USAs logistics are great yes, but obviously not great enough, in 1991 the original plan was to encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican guard units moving out of Kuwait, this however could not be completed because of fuel shortages.

This despite having spent 6 months stocking up 39.000.000 gallons of fuel and continually delivering more.
("On armour" B.I. Gudmundsson and "Final report to congress: Conduct of the Persian Gulf War)
You provide a sole source and disingenuously assert a point rather than present a case to support your point. I am not persuaded by your flimsy assertion which does not even even bother to 'quote' relevant sections from your source. In fact, taking a look at Gudmundsson's book that you cited, and I quote:
Page 216 - (http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=uSivaTC7tSgC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Gudmundsson+%22Persian+Gulf+War%22&source=bl&ots=6qYLMan-nJ&sig=HgyOG11oCnQvYdpmkdnaPk9u8i8&hl=en&ei=lYGLS-WmI4a5rAequ9jBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gudmundsson%20%22Persian%20Gulf%20War%22&f=false)

"2. Logistics units were hard-pressed to keep the rapid pace of maneuver units. Both logistics structure and doctrine was found wanting in the high tempo offensive operation... and MSRs into Iraq few and constricted..."
If you had bothered to present the information fairly via a quote of Gudmundsson's conclusions, it would be clear that the logistics units were hard-pressed but did not fail in their mission to keep up with the troops. In fact, if you bothered to read with more care, Gudmundsson was talking about the issue with limited MSRs. These are terrain driven constraints that any army would face in those specific sent of circumstances. Even a quick examination of your source shows your sloppy thinking and intellectual dishonesty - drawing an invalid conclusion from a limited set of facts without regard for real world constraints.

Further, you fail to connect the past to the present (ie. show that the current US logistics system has the same weakness). And finally unlike you, I provide a link so that others can draw their own conclusions from the source data.

Since this is not a thread on the US Army Logistics, your by the way comment on the M1's fuel consumption is really a barbed comment to troll for a response. If you have a genuine interest, feel free to start a thread looking at how logistics work for the US Army and in there you can also discuss its limitations. I see you have persisted with the same problematic behaviour in your last post that I would like to quote below:
DIREWOLF75 responding to a post made by eckherl (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singaporean-leopard-2a4s-debut-australia-8344-6/#post162784) in the 'Singaporean Leopard 2A4s debut in Australia' thread.
I also have to agree with Abraham Gubler that even though the AGT 1500 can be a little thirsty alot of the hype is over blown, the benefits that a turbine engine has to offer is still a good deciding factor to keep it.

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.
However, Feanor has pointed out that your above point is rubbish in post #58.

I'm glad that I intervened and discovered that it is the other forum members that need to be shielded from your toxic persona. Evidently you do not need the Mods to look kindly on your posts, given that you have revealed your persona and agenda.

-------------------------
* Note: This is a factual mistake and Waylander has kindly pointed out that the German Leopard IIA6M does not come with an APU.

[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? :rolleyes:

Palnatoke, please look up the difference between four stroke diesel engines and two stroke diesel engines (see this link (http://www.yachtsurvey.com/comparing_diesel_types.htm) 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 (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf6.htm). 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).