ScottSA Posted April 15, 2007 Report Posted April 15, 2007 For some reason this is labelled "Iraqi war footage", but it's not of course. I'm just posting it so some of the less gifted here can see why troops can't always guarantee that they're not going to hit civilians and good guys in a firefight. In case you're wondering, the bad guys are shooting back, too. No blood and guts, but a bit of pottymouth. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 For some reason this is labelled "Iraqi war footage", but it's not of course. I'm just posting it so some of the less gifted here can see why troops can't always guarantee that they're not going to hit civilians and good guys in a firefight. In case you're wondering, the bad guys are shooting back, too. No blood and guts, but a bit of pottymouth. I have upgraded my Commodore 64 and now it is a TRS 80.....I have a tape drive just like they do a NASA...still though, the only sound I get is the ocassional *wirrrr, *click* *Bzzzzz*........... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ScottSA Posted April 16, 2007 Author Report Posted April 16, 2007 For some reason this is labelled "Iraqi war footage", but it's not of course. I'm just posting it so some of the less gifted here can see why troops can't always guarantee that they're not going to hit civilians and good guys in a firefight. In case you're wondering, the bad guys are shooting back, too. No blood and guts, but a bit of pottymouth. I have upgraded my Commodore 64 and now it is a TRS 80.....I have a tape drive just like they do a NASA...still though, the only sound I get is the ocassional *wirrrr, *click* *Bzzzzz*........... Just hit a snare drum in erratic bursts and invite someone with Tourettes to shout out the occasional bathroom word and you'll have the soundtrack at least. If you have gas it's better, because you can throw in the odd explosive sound too. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2007 Report Posted April 16, 2007 Heh...that LAV really lit the place up. Here's some footage from last November of the old Mk1 Leopards arriving in Laughghanistan. Oddly enough, we're going for some used Leopard 2s (lease and purchance)...which is OK, I guess...but you'd think we could strike a deal for some M-1-A1s. Buying these Leopards is kinda like buying a 1971 Boss Mustang...nice car...mean and fast...but still OLD. At least they'll be able to fit air conditioners into Leo2s...the old Mk1s apparently get to about 60C inside on a typical day in action. Egg fryin' hot. ---------------------------------------------------------------- If I owned Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell. ---Union General Philip H. Sheridan Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted April 17, 2007 Report Posted April 17, 2007 DogOnPorch: Oddly enough, we're going for some used Leopard 2s (lease and purchance)...which is OK, I guess...but you'd think we could strike a deal for some M-1-A1s. Buying these Leopards is kinda like buying a 1971 Boss Mustang...nice car...mean and fast...but still OLD. Actually the Leo's that are going to be leased are the Leo IIA6M the very latest in main battle tanks, much better in all aspects in regards to the M1 abrams be it the A1 or A2 models. The tanks we are going to purchase are old leoIIA4, that will be upgraded (torn apart and rebuilt) to what level A5 or A6 standards has not been released yet. but they will out perform any Abrams on the market today. Don't get me wrong the Abrams is a good tank, but even it's A2 SEP model is outdated and does not compare to the new LeoIIA5 or A6 models. When it comes to Armoured veh design Germany has always been on top of the pack, and judging by our purchasing practices these tanks will be in service for some time to come...so it actually a good buy, just not enough of them... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
DogOnPorch Posted April 17, 2007 Report Posted April 17, 2007 That's good. I thought they were all in mothballs...and those can always be a pickle getting battle-ready. I wonder what they'll do with the old Mk1s? ------------------------------------------------------------------- If we lose the war in the air we lose the war and we lose it quickly. ---General Bernard Law Montgomery Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
ScottSA Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Posted April 17, 2007 The tanks we are going to purchase are old leoIIA4, that will be upgraded (torn apart and rebuilt) to what level A5 or A6 standards has not been released yet. but they will out perform any Abrams on the market today. Don't get me wrong the Abrams is a good tank, but even it's A2 SEP model is outdated and does not compare to the new LeoIIA5 or A6 models.When it comes to Armoured veh design Germany has always been on top of the pack, and judging by our purchasing practices these tanks will be in service for some time to come...so it actually a good buy, just not enough of them... I'm no expert in armour, but I instinctively questioned the assertion that the LII was better than the MIA2, so I started reading an ADF forum about the LII(5-6)s, and the impression I get is that the MIA2s are better than the LII(6)s but more expensive. Link Meaning no disrespect, what is your info based on? Why the disagreement? Is this a Ford vs Chevy thing or are there specific tests concluding that one is better than the other and why? Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 17, 2007 Report Posted April 17, 2007 I'm no expert in armour, but I instinctively questioned the assertion that the LII was better than the MIA2, so I started reading an ADF forum about the LII(5-6)s, and the impression I get is that the MIA2s are better than the LII(6)s but more expensive. LinkMeaning no disrespect, what is your info based on? Why the disagreement? Is this a Ford vs Chevy thing or are there specific tests concluding that one is better than the other and why? I have also read that the logistical tail on the Abrams was quite a burden, but it has to understood in the context of a platform designed during the cold war, it probably wasn't meant to travel very far (west germany to westerner germany.... The other criticism is it's sheer size make it a liability in urban warfare (which is neither here nor there in the AFghan context....). The problem being once up a residential baghdad street it can't turn its turret. The lesson learned is, Abrams don't go up narrow baghdad streets. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ScottSA Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Posted April 17, 2007 I'm no expert in armour, but I instinctively questioned the assertion that the LII was better than the MIA2, so I started reading an ADF forum about the LII(5-6)s, and the impression I get is that the MIA2s are better than the LII(6)s but more expensive. Link Meaning no disrespect, what is your info based on? Why the disagreement? Is this a Ford vs Chevy thing or are there specific tests concluding that one is better than the other and why? I have also read that the logistical tail on the Abrams was quite a burden, but it has to understood in the context of a platform designed during the cold war, it probably wasn't meant to travel very far (west germany to westerner germany.... The other criticism is it's sheer size make it a liability in urban warfare (which is neither here nor there in the AFghan context....). The problem being once up a residential baghdad street it can't turn its turret. The lesson learned is, Abrams don't go up narrow baghdad streets. Yes, but that addresses the cost. What about its function as a main battle tank? There are other armoured vehicles for use in urban close combat, but in the initial invasion across Iraq, it certainly didn't have a lot of failings.What about the sand problem? I know the early M1As had problems with sand during GWI, and the problem was subsequently fixed, but what about the Ls? Have they been modified for desert warfare? Quote
Army Guy Posted April 18, 2007 Report Posted April 18, 2007 ScottSA: I'm no expert in armour, but I instinctively questioned the assertion that the LII was better than the MIA2, so I started reading an ADF forum about the LII(5-6)s, and the impression I get is that the MIA2s are better than the LII(6)s but more expensive. Link Meaning no disrespect, what is your info based on? Why the disagreement? Is this a Ford vs Chevy thing or are there specific tests concluding that one is better than the other and why? By no means i'm i an expert either, part of my job requires me to know what makes them tick and thier vunerabilities ..based on Experience,IE crawled around both versions, driven in both, had long conversations with crews. tech info, Tech upgrades that are in each. M1A1 1 st production ended in 1985, LeoII A5 1 st production ended in 1999 M1A2 1st production ended in 1992 Leo II A6 1 st production ended in 2001 M1A2SEP 1 st production ended in 1995 Leo II A6EX 1 st production is ongoing The reason i mentioned dates as it would put in ref the actual tech put into each, such as Fire control sys, etc etc M1A2 combat wieght 63,086 kgs..... LeoIIA6 combat wieght 59,700 kgs power to wieght ratio 23.77 HP .... power to wieght ratio 25.12 HP Fuel cap 1907 lts ...... fuel cap 1200 lts Range 426 kms ...... Range 500 kms The above shows that the Leo is lighter, with just as much armour, again new tech advances have save alot of wieght less, wieght is a huge advantage. The leo has more power, which is turned into speed, and power. a huge advantage on the battle field.. Fuel is very important, although the Abrams carries more it's range is less, in fact the leo burns 700 lts less and gets 74 more KMs another huge advantage... the Abrams burns JP-8 which burns hotter than reg dies, producing a huge heat signature, a big disadvantage on the battle field. JP-8 (a/c fuel) is not as stable as dies, something that comes into play when a Sabot round hits the fuel cell, this is a personal preferance i feel safer with 1200 lts of dies fuel than i do with 1900 lt of jet fuel... Other advantages the new leo's come with the L55 barrel, it is just over a meter longer which gives the round more range and accuracy...The Abrams SEP is suppose to install the L55 barrel but i'm unsure if they have... The germans have also developed a whole seris of new rounds which match or beat the US rounds, although the US has pretty much been forced to put more R&D into thier Tank rounds to keep pace so it is only a matter of time before they take the lead again. They have also developed a Urban Leo with a shorter barrel, more top armour etc ..although none are in production... As for test one again'st each other nothing official , but soldiers being soldiers always comparing and testing again'st each other. Canada already has experiance with older german tech and Leo's, and will only bennifit a choose to go with another leo...Not a big factor but one worth mentioning. You mention sand, the Abrams engine is a turbine eng and sand, and the fine powder reaks havoc on such engines, i believe thier fix was one of better filtration, very costly , and requires constant maintance, unlike a dies eng which is not as effected, that being said, that sand and that dust will eventually clog anything. Let me know if these links work, i got them off a DND site, and can print them up if required. Abrams My Webpage LeoII My Webpage Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ScottSA Posted April 19, 2007 Author Report Posted April 19, 2007 Well, that explains it about as well as anyone could have hoped. Thanks for taking the time. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 19, 2007 Report Posted April 19, 2007 Well, that explains it about as well as anyone could have hoped. Thanks for taking the time. Or you could have just taken my word for it.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ScottSA Posted April 19, 2007 Author Report Posted April 19, 2007 Well, that explains it about as well as anyone could have hoped. Thanks for taking the time. Or you could have just taken my word for it.... If you had inserted all that logistic stuff, I would have. Maybe. Quote
Army Guy Posted April 20, 2007 Report Posted April 20, 2007 Don't get me wrong both are very deadly, and very capable machines, i would not want to meet one on the battle field. And one could argue for years which one is better, there are others that are in the same class as well the Israelis Markarva 4 , the new russian tank seris, french leclerc...and a few others... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.