Best Tank

[Exel]

I beleive the Leo2 is the most popular tank for export. Not merely because it is a good tank but Britain/France/USA don't like giving all of their secrets away.

True, but it's not only because of the latter. One major factor without doubt is the relatively cheap price for the Leopard. Especially used Leopard 2A4s have enjoyed enormous export success recently because they are in abundance and sold for practically less than their worth in metal. Leclerc for example has a hefty price tag with plenty of R&D costs still included and while Abrams is not so expensive to buy, it is not exactly economical to run and maintain, largely thanks to the turbine engine.

Can you imagine the UK selling a tank full with Chobham2 armour to a potential enemy. The same would probably be true of the Abrams and leclerc tanks. As these three countrys are the only countrys in the world with any power to export conventional force, one would assume that they would remove a lot of the secret tech from their armour.

US, France and UK are indeed picky about their export customers, but not significantly more than Germany and other EU countries. Leclerc has been exported to UAE in an enhanced configuration, not a stripped one. Abrams has been exported to Saudi Arabia and Egypt without the DU component, but also more recently to Australia. The Australian tanks will not have DU armor or rounds either, but afaik this was only the result of the Aussies not wanting them. Both Leclerc and Abrams as well as the Challenger have been offered to numerous other countries, both members and outsiders to NATO, but the crude fact has been that Leopard 2 has prevailed over them in both tests and resulting bidding competitions. Countries to opt for Leopard 2 instead of Abrams include for instance Sweden and Turkey. Challenger 2 in turn lost competiton against the Leopard in Greece.

 

[unmerged(11339)]

Hi there,

I'm currently modding my HoI2 Doomsday a little bit. Therefor I'd like to incorporate modern Main Battle Tanks. And since there seem to be a lot of people with quite broad knowledge about tanks in this thread, I thought that asking here about a proper classifiction of current MBTs could be useful.

What I'm looking for is a preferably realistical classification with regard to approximate comparable overall performance and the approximate year the MBT appeared.

This is what I've done so far and what seems somewhat realistical to me:

Model-----------------Year-----USA----------------Germany
Early Modern MBT------1979----M1 Abrams----------Leopard 2
Basic Modern MBT------1986----M1A1 Abrams-------Leopard 2A4
Improved Modern MBT--1993----M1A2 Abrams-------Leopard 2A5 KWS II
Advanced Modern MBT--2000---M1A2 Abrams SEP---Leopard 2A6

Urban Warfare MBT-----2007---M1A2 TUSK---------Leopard 2 PSO

The Israeli tanks fit in at least approximately in terms of the years but I'm not sure whether the individual models could be considered comparable with their US or German counterparts.

Early-----------Merkava Mk 1
Basic-----------Merkava Mk 2
Improved-------Merkava Mk 3 Baz
Advanced------Merkava Mk 4

Urban Warfare--Merkava Mk 5

When it comes to the UK, French and Russian MBTs I'm at a loss.

Here is what I would have thought the Russian models could look like:

Early-----------T-72B
Basic-----------T-80U
Improved-------T-90
Advanced------T-90 Vladimir

Urban Warfare--No idea

How could the Challenger 1 and 2 (perhaps one could add the Challenger 2E) and the Leclerc (perhaps one could differentiate between Série 1 and 2) be integrated into this model concept? (I would have set Challenger 2 and Leclerc as imroved MBTs, i.e. on an equal level with the M1A2 with Challenger 2E and Leclerc Série 2 being advanced ones)

Does my model concept make any sense at all or would you change it? Which tanks (or variants) could be used to fill the gaps? What do you say to my US, German and Russian classification.

Please share your thoughts.

Thanks in advance and best regards,
Crawler

 

[unmerged(51702)]

For France try to incorporate the AMX-30 and it's versions.

1979: AMX-30
1986: AMX-30 B2
1993: AMX-30 BRENUS
2000: Leclerc

Urban...?

 

[unmerged(51702)]

And for british

1979: Chieftain
1986: Challenger 1
1990: Challemger 2
2000: Challenger 2 A2?

 

[unmerged(11339)]

I thought about using at least the AMX 30 B2 but was not sure whether it would be comparable to the M1A1 or Leopard 2A4. I have not yet heard of the AMX 30 BRENUS but just found out that it is an further improved version of the AMX 30. Thanks! Do you by any chance know which year the BRENUS was introduced?

With regard to the AMX 30: I did not use it because in my opinion it would have been on the same level as the M60 Patton or Leopard 1 and the year it first appeared was in 1966.

The urban warfare variant for the French would be the Leclerc AZUR (forgot that in my last post).

 

[unmerged(51702)]

My Guess is that BRENUS was introduced in the 1990´s because in the Gulf French used the B2 variant, which was the precessor of BRENUS

 

[unmerged(18602)]

Does my model concept make any sense at all or would you change it? Which tanks (or variants) could be used to fill the gaps? What do you say to my US, German and Russian classification.

Depend on your priorities - what matters most, year or technology?
Because French tank technology really lagged behind their US, German and UK counterparts until the late arrival of the Leclerc. You may use the never-released AMX-32 as a stopgap between the AMX-30 and the Leclerc for instance.
If it is about dates, Aldous' classification makes much sense. But you'll never have enough Leclerc versions anyway, mainly because the Leclerc is the youngest tank of this generation, and didn't need major upgrades yet...

 

[Exel]

If we are now talking about a game here, why not just put Leclerc where it belongs in the chart relative to the other tanks. It's up to the French player when he researches it, no?

Oh and btw, change "Leopard 2" to "Leopard 2A1". It was by far the most numerous variant of the early Leopards. Also leave out the "KWS II" from 2A5.

 

[Exel]

Few more suggestions.

Russian tanks:
Early (1979) ... T-72A
Basic (1986) ... T-80B
Improved (1993) ... T-80U
Advanced (2000) ... T-90

French tanks:
Early (1979) ... AMX-30B2
Basic (1986) ... Leclerc (Series 1)
Improved (1993) ... Leclerc (Series 2)
Advanced (2000) ... Leclerc (Series 3)
Or some better indication for the different series. In any case series 3 production started in 2004.

British tanks:
See Aldous list, but make Advanced model "Challenger 2 L55" or something for the gun upgrade until (if) it is given some formal designation.

Also I would suggest scrapping "Urban Warfare MBT" as a separate unit category altogether and rather have a "Urban Warfare Kit" tech to increase existing MBT urban performance.

If you wish to keep the Urban MBTs then I'd suggest replacing Merkava Mk.5 with "Merkava Mk.4 Trophy". It's not exactly accurate, but it is better than having an imaginary Mk.5.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Few more suggestions.

Russian tanks:
Early (1979) ... T-72A
Basic (1986) ... T-80B
Improved (1993) ... T-80U
Advanced (2000) ... T-90

French tanks:
Early (1979) ... AMX-30B2
Basic (1986) ... Leclerc (Series 1)
Improved (1993) ... Leclerc (Series 2)
Advanced (2000) ... Leclerc (Series 3)
Or some better indication for the different series. In any case series 3 production started in 2004.

British tanks:
See Aldous list, but make Advanced model "Challenger 2 L55" or something for the gun upgrade until (if) it is given some formal designation.

Also I would suggest scrapping "Urban Warfare MBT" as a separate unit category altogether and rather have a "Urban Warfare Kit" tech to increase existing MBT urban performance.

If you wish to keep the Urban MBTs then I'd suggest replacing Merkava Mk.5 with "Merkava Mk.4 Trophy". It's not exactly accurate, but it is better than having an imaginary Mk.5.

I don't know about the CH2 with the L55 gun. I'm still not convinced that they are going to replace it, afterall it's a British tradition and we all know how much we like our traditions. This combined with the range at which CH2s are known to swat the enemy with their rifled weapon.

I think the only major addition they could do to the CH2 is to upgrade the engine/Suspension system. that seems to be what is lacking at the moment.

 

[Exel]

I don't know about the CH2 with the L55 gun. I'm still not convinced that they are going to replace it, afterall it's a British tradition and we all know how much we like our traditions. This combined with the range at which CH2s are known to swat the enemy with their rifled weapon.

The L55 has extended engagement capability to 6 kilometers with APFSDS. The current longest tank kill record with the British L30 is something over 5 kilometers. There honestly is little to none rationale behind rifled guns anymore. It's not a coincidence that every other modern MBT in the world today uses smoothbore guns.

I think the only major addition they could do to the CH2 is to upgrade the engine/Suspension system. that seems to be what is lacking at the moment.

Afaik the Challenger 2 has more advanced suspension system than Abrams and Leopard. The engine could use more hp though. British tanks are still riddled with the "tradition" of poor power-weight ratio of infantry tanks.

 

[Easy-Kill]

The L55 has extended engagement capability to 6 kilometers with APFSDS. The current longest tank kill record with the British L30 is something over 5 kilometers. There honestly is little to none rationale behind rifled guns anymore. It's not a coincidence that every other modern MBT in the world today uses smoothbore guns.



Afaik the Challenger 2 has more advanced suspension system than Abrams and Leopard. The engine could use more hp though. British tanks are still riddled with the "tradition" of poor power-weight ratio of infantry tanks.

Ahh, I didn't know that about the L55. Still, we can debate the pros and cons of a rifled gun all day but for the Brits it's traditional so Im slightly confused by all the reports saying they are switching, it also seems like a logistical nightmare given how succesfull hte CH2 has been.

With regards to the suspension, if you replace the engine then you likely have to update the suspension and a whole other majority of subsystems. I cannot really see this happening without it becoming a Challenger3, but it does seem like the only major upgrade.

 

[Exel]

Ahh, I didn't know that about the L55. Still, we can debate the pros and cons of a rifled gun all day but for the Brits it's traditional so Im slightly confused by all the reports saying they are switching, it also seems like a logistical nightmare given how succesfull hte CH2 has been.

Considering the potential allies that UK might in the future go on campaigns with, I would say that the Challenger is much more of a logistical nightmare now than it would be with L55. Every other NATO member uses standard NATO ammunition in their tanks (excluding ex-Soviet equipment). UK needs its own ammunition. With L55 it will not only get a much more powerful and economical gun, but it will also get to use standard NATO rounds.

As for the likelihood of them adopting the gun? They're already testing it on the Challenger, so I really don't see them not adopting it.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Considering the potential allies that UK might in the future go on campaigns with, I would say that the Challenger is much more of a logistical nightmare now than it would be with L55. Every other NATO member uses standard NATO ammunition in their tanks (excluding ex-Soviet equipment). UK needs its own ammunition. With L55 it will not only get a much more powerful and economical gun, but it will also get to use standard NATO rounds.

As for the likelihood of them adopting the gun? They're already testing it on the Challenger, so I really don't see them not adopting it.

Yeah, I keep reading about the L55, but this is always from the same dodgey websites that say the SA80 will be replaced by the G36 even after BAe/HK redisgned the weapon and tests proved it was better etc.

I have read about trials using both the L30 CHARM3 and an L55 hibrid, this just means they are comparing the weapons ... UKMOD trialled the SA80 alongside an AK101 and it wasn't because they WERE going to adopt that. As for lacking power, it managed to severly damage one if it's own, given that it's quite probably the most heavily armoured MBT about, thats a pretty good argument for keeping it.

Until I hear officially that it is changing i'm not inclined to beleive they will change it. The logistical problem is that Britain cannot afford to replace all those shells :rofl:

And ammunition is generally non standard ... just look at the 5.56 round, every country has her own pretty much.

I remain pesimistic on the matter but will duely by you eine grosse bier if I am wrong

 

[String]

And ammunition is generally non standard ... just look at the 5.56 round, every country has her own pretty much.

I remain pesimistic on the matter but will duely by you eine grosse bier if I am wrong

ehhhh?

 

[Easy-Kill]

ehhhh?

I have seen 4 variations of a 5.56 round. The British one is slightly longer with a pointier nose. The American one is slightly dumpier and according to a british video doesnt have as much penetration (giggles), The french one seemed to be a lighter colour and the German one looked much like an american one (shorter and stumpier) but I have been informed that it is slightly different internally with regards to the weighting. They are all nato 5.56 and will work in every 5.56 weapon but have a totally different trajectory and you will need to re-zero the weapon if you switch to an another type.

The point is that I am assuming the same goes for tanks. You can't just bung a different round up the spout and expect it to go to the same place, which makes nato standards kind of redundant. I don't really see anyone wanting to use a shell in their tank different to the one they are used to, maybe someone can confirm this?

 

[Exel]

The point is that I am assuming the same goes for tanks. You can't just bung a different round up the spout and expect it to go to the same place, which makes nato standards kind of redundant. I don't really see anyone wanting to use a shell in their tank different to the one they are used to, maybe someone can confirm this?

It is true that the major NATO countries do manufacture their own ammunition despite the common standard. The Americans, Germans and French all have different 120mm rounds for the same standard, and normally they would be using their home-made rounds. However all the tanks' fire controls have been pre-set to use any other NATO standard round, so should the need arise the tanks could use any ammunition pretty much on the fly.

 

[Easy-Kill]

It is true that the major NATO countries do manufacture their own ammunition despite the common standard. The Americans, Germans and French all have different 120mm rounds for the same standard, and normally they would be using their home-made rounds. However all the tanks' fire controls have been pre-set to use any other NATO standard round, so should the need arise the tanks could use any ammunition pretty much on the fly.

I'm guessing based on my understanding of physics taht you couldn't swap and acheive any accuracy. If you can't hit anything with a gun it mecomes nothing more than a big firework. Hence nato standard is not as worthy as most people make out.

 

[unmerged(51702)]

I'm guessing based on my understanding of physics taht you couldn't swap and acheive any accuracy. If you can't hit anything with a gun it mecomes nothing more than a big firework. Hence nato standard is not as worthy as most people make out.

But British is, right?

I guess he means that the ammo data is stored in the fire control computer...

 

[unmerged(51738)]

I'm guessing based on my understanding of physics taht you couldn't swap and acheive any accuracy. If you can't hit anything with a gun it mecomes nothing more than a big firework. Hence nato standard is not as worthy as most people make out.

On a Leopard you need seconds to feed standardized ballistic data, or five shots to calibrate it "manually". I can see no problem.