irish army mbt

kevinhalvey

i personally think that the irish defence forces should invest in the french leclerc

its one of the fastest mbts
it is the lightest mbt
it packs a punch
it only needs a crew of 3 because of its auto loading
its one of the most tec advanced tanks
its armour can be changed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawWnDRtQv8

check it out

tac foley

kevinhalvey wrote: »

i personally think that the irish defence forces should invest in the french leclerc

its one of the fastest mbts
it is the lightest mbt
it packs a punch
it only needs a crew of 3 because of its auto loading
its one of the most tec advanced tanks
its armour can be changed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawWnDRtQv8

check it out

Sadly, any main battle tank is a bit like a Pringles chip - you can't just have one.

Please read my post a few posts back - the Republic of Ireland would blow its entire annual military budget to pieces with simply buying just ten modern MBTs, and, as I tried to point out to you, you have absolutely no supporting infrastructure for such a vehicle. Figure on ten LeClercs and their compulsory spares costing eu50M and you be pretty much there.

...and just in case my type-face doesn't register, that's fifty million euros.

Mr manic moran and any other soldier would tell you, tanks don't operate by themselves, but with supporting elements, regardless what games you've played with.

It's fun to 'play' tanks, but please be realistic.

tac

Delancey

kevinhalvey wrote: »

i personally think that the irish defence forces should invest in the french leclerc

its one of the fastest mbts
it is the lightest mbt
it packs a punch
it only needs a crew of 3 because of its auto loading
its one of the most tec advanced tanks
its armour can be changed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawWnDRtQv8

check it out

Superb tank I agree but alas to my knowledge it's out of production and for reasons unknown to me ( but perhaps known to others here ) it achieved very limited overseas sales compared to , say , Leopard 1 and 2

tac foley

delancey42 wrote: »

Superb tank I agree but alas to my knowledge it's out of production and for reasons unknown to me ( but perhaps known to others here ) it achieved very limited overseas sales compared to , say , Leopard 1 and 2

1. It's French.

2. Until recently, when the French had another spat with NATO about commonality of equipment, it fired unique ammunition, unlike all of NATO except the British, whose tank, Challenger 2, also fires unique ammunition. The British are forgiven their weird ammunition because they have a 700-year long history of actually winning wars, particularly those against the French. Incidentally, the only British tank lost in battle in GW2 was a tragic blue-on-blue. No British tanks were lost in GW1.

3. As for LeClerc, did I mention that it's French?

4. As for the Leopard-series MBT, well, it is the most-purchased and most widespread MBT the western world, AND Australia, has ever seen, even including the various marks of Sherman during WW2.

6. And unlike LeClerc, it's NOT French either.

tac

kevinhalvey

well something tells me that since military cutbacks that our military will be investing in more of these they all ready have a few toy city are there manufactuer :p

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2007/Cutbacks.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2007/Cutbacks.htm&usg=__EnLuDzWZAxFJo5UiUqHAh3eK_7w=&h=336&w=500&sz=43&hl=en&start=0&sig2=uiZHJRMKOBQz3ybfPOPHjQ&tbnid=RugutTl57am9jM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=180&ei=Q_JeTLHcEdubsgbH5bjOBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmilitary%2Bcutbacks%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D610%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=965&vpy=89&dur=733&hovh=184&hovw=274&tx=209&ty=118&oei=Q_JeTLHcEdubsgbH5bjOBw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

Manic Moran

tac foley wrote: »

4. As for the Leopard-series MBT, well, it is the most-purchased and most widespread MBT the western world, AND Australia, has ever seen, even including the various marks of Sherman during WW2.

I'm not sure either version of Leopard quite had the same export success as Centurion. Bear in mind that despite the similarity in names, Leo 1 and Leo 2 are pretty much entirely different tanks. The Aussies went with Abrams to replace their Leo 1s.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure either version of Leopard quite had the same export success as Centurion. Bear in mind that despite the similarity in names, Leo 1 and Leo 2 are pretty much entirely different tanks. The Aussies went with Abrams to replace their Leo 1s.

NTM

Dear Mr Moran - I joined the Army in 1967, just as Chieftain was being phased in, and left in 2000, just as Challenger 2 was replacing all the Challenger 1s. I have driven every variant of Leopard on the planet, including the Hippo BARV, of which only four exist.

Figures from numerous sources show the following numbers, so I have lumped ALL Leopard-named tanks together, including all the many variants used by engineers, maintenance and mobile AAA -

Leopard tanks built -

Leopard 1 - 6485

Leopard 2 - 3480

I have similarly conjoined all variants of Centurion -

From 1945 to 1962 - 4423.

However, Centurion has taken a part in more wars/conflicts than any other tank in the history of warfare.

tac

Manic Moran

Interesting. I can think of a number of countries which purchased Centurion before purchasing Leopard (Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Netherlands Switzerland amongst others), a few which purchased Centurion without purchasing Leopard (Israel, South Africa, India), but not too many which purchased Leopard without purchasing Centurion (Greece, Turkey, Italy, Belgium).

My guess is that the Leopard-only countries purchased them in such raw numbers (3,600 going to Germany alone) that they made up for the apparently lower number of countries that actually bought them. I'll see what I can't track down.

NTM

tac foley

Dear Mr Moran - I'd agree that if numbers built count, then the Leopard-series tanks/variant-series wins paws down.

If the number of diverse overseas customers count, then Centurion wins by a country mile, even taking into account that Centurion had a near twenty-year head start in sales. Nobody, at home or overseas, bought ANY Leopard prior to 1965.

You win this one, although I didn't know it was a 'Ripley'.

tac

Delancey

What is the main advantage of the Abrams Gas Turbine engine over the more common diesel units in , say , Leopard ? I know the fuel consumption is savage but is there any particular upside to this engine ?

Manic Moran

It also has only one moving part, so the reliability isn't too bad either. On the downside, the blades are susceptible to damage, so the efficiency reduces a little bit over time. The lighter weight results in a slight increase in transportability when the fuel tanks are empty. Important when flying, indeed Crusader was to have a turbine engine for this reason.

I would make two changes to the Wiki article. At full tilt, the turbine is supposedly more fuel efficient than the diesel. This is somewhat academic, however, as the tank doesn't spend all that much time at full throttle.

The other change I would make is that yes, GDLS were looking at putting the MTU diesel into the tank, but that was for export sales purposes. The US Army actually selected the Honeywell LV-100 turbine to replace the AGT-1500, but the engine replacement programme was cancelled. Instead, the cheaper route of the TIGER rebuild of the AGT-1500 was taken.

Similarly, budget cuts also nixed the small auxilliary turbine designed to reduce fuel consumption when stationary. Instead they just threw a bunch more bateries in the compartment where the TAPU was going to go.

NTM

Delancey

Thanks for the replies ( though your post has vanished Tac ). I am fascinated to learn the engine can utilize different fuels as I had assumed it could only use jet fuel.
I still think the fuel consumption is a drawback though as has been pointed out by Manic the U.S. is in a position to provide the logistics required to keep a beast like the Abrams fed and watered.

Manic Moran

delancey42 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies ( though your post has vanished Tac ). I am fascinated to learn the engine can utilize different fuels as I had assumed it could only use jet fuel.
I still think the fuel consumption is a drawback though as has been pointed out by Manic the U.S. is in a position to provide the logistics required to keep a beast like the Abrams fed and watered.

He deleted it. No idea why, it was pretty accurate except for those two differences. JP8 is the standard fuel for the US Army. From the tank to HMMWVs. The only disadvantage of the change from JP-4 to JP-8 is that the vehicle smoke generators no longer worked. New Abrams rebuilds have a new VSS which can create smoke with JP8.

NTM

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

He deleted it. NTM

Confucius say - 'One expert on the spot is much better than one a long way off.'

Your post rendered mine unneeded and pointless.

tac

Delancey

tac foley wrote: »

Confucius say - 'One expert on the spot is much better than one a long way off.'

Your post rendered mine unneeded and pointless.

tac

Perhaps so - still it was a most informative post. Thanks

muppet01

they might get these...http://us.mbt.com/:D

Delancey

muppet01 wrote: »

they might get these...http://us.mbt.com/:D

Dead link I'm afraid...........

Donny5

muppet01 wrote: »

they might get these...http://us.mbt.com/

FYP

jw93

I found pics online of an Irish MOWAG equipped with a 30mm not exactly MBT I know but at least its something. To a civvie like me it looks mean enough

kevinhalvey

jw93 wrote: »

I found pics online of an Irish MOWAG equipped with a 30mm not exactly MBT I know but at least its something. To a civvie like me it looks mean enough

mowag is nice looking and would be twice as intimidating if it had a bigger gun that one looks like a stick mind you it is a apc so i doesnt need that much fire power

concussion

To be pedantic about it, it's a recce vehicle not an APC.

petergfiffin

kevinhalvey wrote: »

mowag is nice looking and would be twice as intimidating if it had a bigger gun that one looks like a stick mind you it is a apc so i doesnt need that much fire power

Saw this on Wikipedia:


It may have already been discussed but basically the Canadians have fitted the turret from a Scorpion onto a Mowag (a 6 wheel version at that!). Might be an interesting idea of the Scorpions reach end of life but maybe the cost would be prohibitive - these things are never as simple as they first appear are they!!

deise go deo

petergfiffin wrote: »

Saw this on Wikipedia:


It may have already been discussed but basically the Canadians have fitted the turret from a Scorpion onto a Mowag (a 6 wheel version at that!). Might be an interesting idea of the Scorpions reach end of life but maybe the cost would be prohibitive - these things are never as simple as they first appear are they!!

Well worth haveing a look at, if its been done already we at least know its possible

punchdrunk

76mm gun is crap though,and ammo is hard to get

tac foley

punchdrunk wrote: »

76mm gun is crap though,and ammo is hard to get

The Kings is a reservist unit, and I agree that the 76mm gun ammunition is now hard to find, especially as it has been obsolescent since the late 1970's wherever in was in use.

There are, however, some very fine guns of around the same calibre made by Oto-Melara, Tampella, Bofors and others, that would certainly do the job well.

tac

punchdrunk

tac foley wrote: »

The Kings is a reservist unit, and I agree that the 76mm gun ammunition is now hard to find, especially as it has been obsolescent since the late 1970's wherever in was in use.

There are, however, some very fine guns of around the same calibre made by Oto-Melara, Tampella, Bofors and others, that would certainly do the job well.

tac

it'd be cheaper in the long run to just buy off the shelf,with a turret thats got a bigger gun say 90mm or 105mm

BostonB

punchdrunk wrote: »

it'd be cheaper in the long run to just buy off the shelf,with a turret thats got a bigger gun say 90mm or 105mm

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/turrets/cmi/cmi1.html

Stovepipe

Hi there,
Whilst some modern tank engines are allegedly multi-fuel, they do require the stuff, be it diesel or kerosene or chip-fat, to be clean before it even gets into the fuel tank and especially before it enters the fuel system.naturally, in the field, this is not always possible.I seem to recall a story over on Arrse about a field experiment done by the British Army of trying out various fuels on Chieftains and all it resulted in was a pile of wrecked engines.As has been pointed out, tanks are great for propaganda but hurt the local defence budget like hell.
As for the post that said that the Df should have deployed tanks in Chad, well, they couldn't cope with what the Chadian "roads" inflicted on the wheeled fleet so God knows what would have happened to tracked vehicles.
regards
Stovepipe

Delancey

Stovepipe touches on something that I have heard about MBT's - fearsome they may look , devastating firepower they may pack but at the end of the day they are ' fragile ' machines which require constant and time - consuming maintenance.
I do know that in WW2 Geman and Allied tanks were Garage Queens - more recently the Chieftain was , I believe , a pig to work on and somewhat unreliable.
What are the maintenace needs of , say , Abrams or Leopard 2 ?

Manic Moran

Can't speak for Leopard, but Abrams isn't too bad at all. As long as you have the spare parts. Torsion bars, roadwheel arms, lots of spare roadwheels and so on. Hydraulic systems leaked a fair bit, but the engine itself rarely gave trouble.

NTM