Spot Your Country!

[Aaron]

I thought all current gen NATO MBT's (M1A1,Chieftan2, leopard 2) used the same style armour, I know its only a wiki but it does describe the way things work. Arguements between armies/ governments and chosen development paths etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

Not quite, the Challenger 2 uses the successor to Chobham (I foget the name), the M1A2 uses Chobham with a somewhat different composition (including a DU layer) and the Leo 2 uses perforated. They all give similar levels of protection. Armour makeup is also highly classified so there's no telling for sure what's in it.

The challenger is also surprisingly expensive.

Or maybe it's that the Abrams is "cheap" due to the larger production run, spreading out research costs and the like.

That's the exact reason. The Leo and Abrams are cheaper because of extensive production runs.

[sunnyside]

Actually I thought that, especially against shaped charged warheads, perforated armor was distinctly second class to chobham type varients. With its advantage being that its much cheaper to make.

[Aaron]

Actually I thought that, especially against shaped charged warheads, perforated armor was distinctly second class to chobham type varients. With its advantage being that its much cheaper to make.

Not exactly, the armour breaks up the jet less efficently than Chobham but not enough to make a massive difference. There's only so much we can do with live tests, though. Seeing as none of the major tanks have seen the enviroment they were intended for, we'll never really know until we get to have the Fulda Gap engagement. Or something very similar.

Unless the Iraqi's and Afghans suddenly get TOW's.

[sunnyside]

Actually the Abrams has seen some real action. As in they've been shot by enemy tanks. (And occasionally our own tanks and such).

They seem to do wonderfully against tanks. Their front armor simply holding up. Actually there have been quite a number of live fire hits on Abrams. Generally the deal is that RPGs and such aren't any good against the front and sides but the rear, top and tracks can be harmed. Even a DU-penetrator to the front failed to penetrate. But at least side hits with DU pentrators reliably fly through(we often shoot our own tanks to destroy them if they're already disabled).

Generally it seems that the way you lose one of these tanks is to take a hit in the rear and then a fire spreads inside.

The Challenger has seen some action. But not nearly as much. Their frontal armor has shown itself to be greatly effective against low calibre RPG shots. Though I believe there has been and instance of a frontal shot sneaking through in the area below the turret.

The Leopard 2 I believe has seen the least action of all of them only having gone up against small arms and a couple IEDs to my knowledge.

[Mikey]

AFAIK, the only real issue with exporting the Abrams is the phenomenal cost of operation - that gas turbine sucks gasoline like Ethiopian soil sucks water. The Challenger definitely wins on that front, but I don't know if it makes up for the Challenger's initial cost.

[sunnyside]

Yeah. Though it would be cool to get a chance to flick the governor off on the Abrams and get going over 60 in a tank like that. Tool around a bit.

Which, I suppose, is why the things have a governor in the first place.

Actually in a combat situation can they turn the governor off with a flick of a switch or do they have to physically remove it? Or do they just pull them before going into combat?

[Aaron]

Actually the Abrams has seen some real action. As in they've been shot by enemy tanks. (And occasionally our own tanks and such).

They seem to do wonderfully against tanks. Their front armor simply holding up. Actually there have been quite a number of live fire hits on Abrams. Generally the deal is that RPGs and such aren't any good against the front and sides but the rear, top and tracks can be harmed. Even a DU-penetrator to the front failed to penetrate. But at least side hits with DU pentrators reliably fly through(we often shoot our own tanks to destroy them if they're already disabled).

Generally it seems that the way you lose one of these tanks is to take a hit in the rear and then a fire spreads inside.

The Challenger has seen some action. But not nearly as much. Their frontal armor has shown itself to be greatly effective against low calibre RPG shots. Though I believe there has been and instance of a frontal shot sneaking through in the area below the turret.

The Leopard 2 I believe has seen the least action of all of them only having gone up against small arms and a couple IEDs to my knowledge.

Do you know what the difference bewteen the Fulda Gap and Iraq/Afghanistan is?

Thanks for the refresher in what happens to a tank tha gets hit, I used to ride around in armour. I know what happens.

[Aaron]

Yeah. Though it would be cool to get a chance to flick the governor off on the Abrams and get going over 60 in a tank like that. Tool around a bit.

Which, I suppose, is why the things have a governor in the first place.

Actually in a combat situation can they turn the governor off with a flick of a switch or do they have to physically remove it? Or do they just pull them before going into combat?

There's no point, going anything beyond thirty off-road and in combat and you risk destroying your vehicle and outstripping the logistics train and getting stranded. Which happened a few times in GWI and GWII.

[sunnyside]

Do you know what the difference bewteen the Fulda Gap and Iraq/Afghanistan is?

Thanks for the refresher in what happens to a tank tha gets hit, I used to ride around in armour. I know what happens.

It would involve closer to peer weaponry and a whole lot more of it instead of just taking a few hits from T-72s?

At any rate if you're a tanker shouldn't you be the one telling us about armour effectiveness tests and reports from the field. You'd think they'd tell you things like "if you hit a leopard 2 in the front armor with a penetrator it should go through" or, if they don't have info from leo testing, at least give you a briefing on what different types of weapon are expected to do to different parts of your vehicle.

[Aaron]

It would involve closer to peer weaponry and a whole lot more of it instead of just taking a few hits from T-72s?

Yes, the Soviets had a large number of tanks and anti-tank missiles. And they were top of the line, not the crude they sold to client states. The Class A T-72 is alot different from the Class C that Iraq was sold.

At any rate if you're a tanker shouldn't you be the one telling us about armour effectiveness tests and reports from the field. You'd think they'd tell you things like "if you hit a leopard 2 in the front armor with a penetrator it should go through" or, if they don't have info from leo testing, at least give you a briefing on what different types of weapon are expected to do to different parts of your vehicle.

I wasn't a tanker, I was a Radio Operator. We use armoured vehicles as well, at any rate there's not a whole lot of training against NATO vehicles. You know because we're allies and don't usually sell our stuff to countries on "bad guy list".

And yes they give you info on what does what when it hits where, it's nothing that isn't publicly available. There's such a thing as too much info BTW, a soldiers focus has to be on killing the enemy not "OMG he's got a Leo 2 with x MM of perforated armour, we're pooched!". You try for a side or rear shot whenever you can anyways. And if your equipment is inferior to your opponents, the Battle Groups plans section will be coming up with a way to get a tactical advantage over them.

[Captain Seafort]

It would involve closer to peer weaponry and a whole lot more of it instead of just taking a few hits from T-72s?

The kit would be more-or-less the same. The biggest difference would be in the scale and training. The terrain would also favour infantry with RPGs and anti-tank missiles far more than the Iraqi desert. The Soviet air force would have been a far more formidable foe than the relative pushover the Iraqis turned out to be, and so the troops on the ground would have to contend with attack from above as well as on the ground, and would not to be able to rely on air support (both in the form of attack aircraft, and target search/ID/painting by scouts) to te same degree it currently does.

[Aaron]

The kit would be more-or-less the same. The biggest difference would be in the scale and training. The terrain would also favour infantry with RPGs and anti-tank missiles far more than the Iraqi desert. The Soviet air force would have been a far more formidable foe than the relative pushover the Iraqis turned out to be, and so the troops on the ground would have to contend with attack from above as well as on the ground, and would not to be able to rely on air support (both in the form of attack aircraft, and target search/ID/painting by scouts) to te same degree it currently does.

The area was also extensively mined, to the point where it would be in the top ten of mined areas.