Malaysian Tanks
-
Aiyo, the Leo 2 is demonstrating it's superior gun depresssion which Russian design tank are poor in due to it's small turret.
Leo 2 has a Gun elevation/depression from 20 deg to -9 deg,
whereas T-72 design has only 13deg 47mins to -6deg 13mins.
It there a tactical advantages?
Yes, there was cases in the battlefield in certain height and distance where the western design tanks were in a lower ground could elevate the gun high enough to target the enemy and the Russian design tank in the elevated ground could not depress low enough to target back.
Similar to what happen in Grozny and I quote:This proved disastrous in Grozny where the high density of antitank weapons threatened armored vehicles, while the depression and elevation limitations of Russian tank guns kept them from engaging targets located in basements or in the upper floors of multi-storied buildings.
That is why having a better Gun elevation/depression is always better!!!
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Strforum/SF_38/forum38.html
Another advantage is during hull down position, with a limited depression, Russian design tank need to expose themselves more to engage the enemy.Western tanks have considerably more elevation range and can be parked in a hull-down position with just the gun and a tiny sliver of the turret showing, whereas Soviet designs under many circumstances cannot take up a hull-down position at all because they cannot depress their guns far enough to park behind a ridge and shoot down the hill. In the interest of fairness, the origin and true impact of this shortcoming should be noted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down
So with lower depression, Russian design tank is forced to expose their weak armoured underbelly to the enemy in the above situation. -
the one in the Polish army parade were PT-91... not PT-91M
-
OOT, but ....
notice the faded uniform the chap in the red beret and vest was wearing ? ....
looks remarkably like our number 4 at first glance hor .....
I'd give good money that there'll be mis-identification incidents in times of war .... -
hey what do you think of the chance of a tanks engagement, between the Ts and leo.
very low probability.... Why .... most will be destory by hellfires
-
These tanks are on loan from the polish army?
-
With higher elevation, a mortar may be more useful. The commander's 50cal with SLAP can equally effective.Originally posted by gary1910:Aiyo, the Leo 2 is demonstrating it's superior gun depresssion which Russian design tank are poor in due to it's small turret.
Leo 2 has a Gun elevation/depression from 20 deg to -9 deg,
whereas T-72 design has only 13deg 47mins to -6deg 13mins.
It there a tactical advantages?
Yes, there was cases in the battlefield in certain height and distance where the western design tanks were in a lower ground could elevate the gun high enough to target the enemy and the Russian design tank in the elevated ground could not depress low enough to target back.
Similar to what happen in Grozny and I quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down
So with lower depression, Russian design tank is forced to expose their weak armoured underbelly to the enemy in the above situation. -
Thanks, so the question is...why the Polish need Leo2 if they already have the PT-91? Why not just produce more of PT-91?Originally posted by Shotgun:Wah lao. ur eyesight is fantastic man! I would have missed it out.
-
my source tell me that its a big issue in poland right now. Big debate all over ...from the military to the politian regarding the PT91. ....And the malay PT91M were at the centered of the debate. If any of you guys can read polish you should know its a fierce debate in the internet forum too.
-
Can you post the debate from other forums here then maybe we can try translate the Polish content into English using some translation programme such as Babelfish?Originally posted by tankfanatic:my source tell me that its a big issue in poland right now. Big debate all over ...from the military to the politian regarding the PT91. ....And the malay PT91M were at the centered of the debate. If any of you guys can read polish you should know its a fierce debate in the internet forum too.
-
Becos they are now part of Nato, and one the of the plan is contribute one bde to be attached to 2 German Leo2 bde to form one Div during operation.Originally posted by tankee1981:Thanks, so the question is...why the Polish need Leo2 if they already have the PT-91? Why not just produce more of PT-91?
Thus they got the Leo2 relatively cheap from the German.
But you if have read some of the comments by a Polish tank commander abt Leo 2 vs PT-91, I believe they rather have all Leo 2 than having PT-91!!! -
aiya how to do that? here i post the link ok?Originally posted by tankee1981:Can you post the debate from other forums here then maybe we can try translate the Polish content into English using some translation programme such as Babelfish?
http://www.militarypedia.info/wiki/Kategoria:07.08.15_-_Święto_Wojska_Polskiego%2C_Warszawa
www.militarypedia.info -
That truck look like one of the Cold War era'sOriginally posted by MyVi:
Astross -
this is what my sources tell me
Thanks!
the comment by the polish officers about pt-91 (few years ago) were true the PT-91 (not PT-91M) were crappy..so the poland government were in the dilemma wether to buy a new leo or proceed with the upgrade (bulma labedy have proposed extensive upgrades for the pt-91m). But unfortunately the modernisation of the twardy cost money so they shelved it.
Guys here are waiting for the photos
In Poland there is a discussion now - buy more Leopards 2A4 or buy PT-91M (or modernise existing the youngest T-72 to PT-91M). PT-91 is much worse that PT-91M version.
regards,
T.M.
But when the malaysian inquiry and later select this tank and gave a very strict requirement for the tank upgrade...its like a dream came true for the poland gov. It means they can proceed the design development of the PT-91M using the malay money. So the PT-91M were in fact a new upgraded package alltogether.
Now the thing is there are people in Poland who wants to proceed with the more modern PT91M type tank (probably redesignated a different name) and there is another group who think it is cheaper just to buy the leo(which is very good tank especially if upgraded).
but most of the polish were not that eager working with the german and consider them a potential enemy. thats about it.About Panzerfaust-3 tests,
Wether they proceed with twardy developmen or leo is unknown yet. But my friend says it depend on the second tank regiment that the malay are forming. If they equip that with PT-91M he thin the poland will choose to proceed with the twardy.
Germans wanted to sell the Panzerfaust-3T something about year 2000 - polish land forces should have a next generation antitank grenade launcher. For RPG-7 there are some new tandem warheads with 500 RHA (cover by ERA) but not sold to forces yet (manufacturer site - http://www.dezamet.com.pl/dezamet/plakat11b/plakat10.html ).
Of course, Russians have their new warheads for RPG. Especially specialist say that RPG-7VR was the version of weapon used againg this ABRAMS tank, that was penetrated of both sides (http://www.altair.com.pl/files/r1203_abrams.htm). So MoD guys organized with Germans the tests of PF-3T, they cowered steel with ERAWA-2, and it was shoot from several angles. Germans claimed PF-3T to be able to penetrate 1000RHA behind ERA. After thest it appeared that half of it was achieved, 500 mm penetration in the steel. But there are also some mysteries with those tets - some of the bricks did not explode, yet it protected the steel. Anyway, Polish Land Forces did not buy the Panzerfausts, although this kind of weapon is very necessary - on west border we have Germans with amazing Leo2A6, Leo2A4, on easter border we have Belaruss and Russia, with thousands of T-80 and Poland cannot spent the same money as the Germans, and unfortunately does not have so weapon industry in very different areas. We have a peace now, but relations with Russia gets a little worse, and Germans now start to want some of their lands back. Who can images what can happen in 15 years. So effective grenade lauchers are very needed, especially with some programable amunition. As i read some military analyzis from polish land forces, they want to introduce a new kind of RPG successor with about 1000 meters range. -
M2 better or the other.???
-
It is old news abt the Polish decision as stated by a Pole it is matter of nationalisation or Leopardization.
If it is for political reason then go for upgrade of those old T-72.
But it it is military,reason, then Leo 2 wins hand down.
Reasons are:
1) Getting the firesales ex-German warstock Leo 2A4 ( < USD1m per unit) is actually much cheaper than to upgrades the T-72M1.
2) T-72 and PT-91 suspension are crap as compare to Leo2A4, likewise for PT-91M becos there is no upgrades done for it as well.
3) PT-91M has no opportunity to further upgrades of it's armour as it has reached the weight limitation for the T-72 design whereas Leo2A4 is designed to be able to handle even higher weight, from 55tons of A4 to 62tons A6, and A6M should be even higher due to more armour upgrades.
4) The infamous popping turret still exist in the T-72 and all it's variant including PT-91M( no upgrade could solve this unless you change the whole turret), the reason is the crammed turret where tank ammo are stored all over the turret, whereas the roomy Leo2 turret not only much more comfortable for the crew, all it's ammo is compartmentalised so lesser the chance of popping turret like T-72 that make it infamous in GW1.
5) The L44 is gun and ammo is already much better than in any T-72 variant, if you need better gun for Leo 2, you could still install the best tank gun in the world currently, the L55 gun.
For more info read this thread:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=86408
As for the original thread in the Polish forum abt Leo 2 vs PT-91 , this is the thread, btw in Polish:
http://www.nfow.pl/viewtopic.php?t=4022&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
So in reality, I think what your friend said is full of BS, regardless whether MY buy more PT-91M or not, becos getting ex-German warstock Leo 2A4 is still much cheaper than upgrading the T-72M1 to PT-91M and Leo 2A4 is much better than PT91M for some of the reasons I have given above!!! -
In short, the Poles got rid of their PT-91s to upgrade to Leo2s.
-
Actually they got rid of some the older T-72M1 when Leo 2s were inducted.Originally posted by Shotgun:In short, the Poles got rid of their PT-91s to upgrade to Leo2s. -
There is really no comparison when it comes to quality. Comparing the PT-91 to the Leopard is like comparing a Skoda to a Mercedes.
But, the Skoda still gets the job done, just less comfortable.
So it is an error to write off the PT-91 just because they are less well-built. If they are used well, eg laid well in ambush, they'll still kill Leos.
That you can count on. The 125mm gun is still a very powerful weapon. -
Powerful assuming using at least a good Tungsten round.Originally posted by chino65:There is really no comparison when it comes to quality. Comparing the PT-91 to the Leopard is like comparing a Skoda to a Mercedes.
But, the Skoda still gets the job done, just less comfortable.
So it is an error to write off the PT-91 just because they are less well-built. If they are used well, eg laid well in ambush, they'll still kill Leos.
That you can count on. The 125mm gun is still a very powerful weapon.
The Soviets aren't known for giving their allies any of their DU rounds or high performance ones.
If the Poles were given the T-72M, where M is for monkey model, they probably even got the steel rods. -
Polish T-72M1 is licensed production given by the Soviet to the Poles, so they are export model ie. monkey model.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Powerful assuming using at least a good Tungsten round.
The Soviets aren't known for giving their allies any of their DU rounds or high performance ones.
If the Poles were given the T-72M, where M is for monkey model, they probably even got the steel rods. -
tankfanatic,
Your friend BS insider info has been crashed completely.
Poland just announced the intention to buy an additional 123 Leo 2 just last month in addition to 128 order in 2002.
Here the Polish news link:
http://www.dziennik.pl/Default.aspx?TabId=14&ShowArticleId=43012
After perhaps the cash they got from sales of PT-91M!!! -
M1's in Iraq are being destroyed by mere RPGs. So it is premature to think our Leos are invulnerable to 125mm tank cannon - steel core or otherwise.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Powerful assuming using at least a good Tungsten round.
The Soviets aren't known for giving their allies any of their DU rounds or high performance ones.
If the Poles were given the T-72M, where M is for monkey model, they probably even got the steel rods. -
Fresh meat............
-
No one said the Leo2 armor was invulnerable. Not even the vaunted M1HA claims that.Originally posted by chino65:M1's in Iraq are being destroyed by mere RPGs. So it is premature to think our Leos are invulnerable to 125mm tank cannon - steel core or otherwise.
Anything under 1000meters pose a threat, frontal arc or not.
So the question is not just on armor versus projectile. First, its a challenge of the sensor suite, and the capability rapidly engage. Western Tanks like the M1, Leo2s, and Challenger 2 wins hands down in these comparison so far.
And I would like to state, RPGs are not Mere popguns. Those are indeed combat proven tank killers. Every tanker learns to respect that or face the fiery consequences. If you're exposed to a T-72 from the front, 1000 meters, and an RPG, to the side, less than 200meters, which is a bigger threat? Even money says the gunner would engage the RPG first.
Then we talk about crew survivability. Tanks can be cheaply replaced compared to human lives. Since GW1, we see how catastrophic failures commonly occur in Iraqi T-72s, T-55. Why? Because ammunition is not stowed separately and safely. You think any of those guys got out alive? Heh.
Test footage have shown that the compartmented ammunition storage in the Western Tanks such as Leo2s, can protect a crew from hellish ammo explosions.
Given a face off between the Leo2 and the PT-91M, my bet goes with the Leo2. -
There is no way any AFV has the same level of armour protection as the frontal armour becos by then it will be so heavy that it is almost immobiled.Originally posted by chino65:M1's in Iraq are being destroyed by mere RPGs. So it is premature to think our Leos are invulnerable to 125mm tank cannon - steel core or otherwise.
From Wiki, so far no M1 crew has beed killed by by enemy 's tank gun or ATGM, those killed are by some very large IED or by sniper fire or by accident.
As for RPG, it might cause some damage if it hit the rear or the top side , at the frontal armour, it practically has no chance at all, not even by Iraqi T-72.
Here more info from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#_note-14
and I quote:Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[4]
So far M1 is almost invincible when encountering T-72 even at range of 50y ards, is our Leo 2 has same level of protection?
Presumably the impacts set the storage boxes on fire. The tests at the impact point indicate the sabot shells were conventional, since no radiological trace was found there.
Other six M1As were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.........................
The most lopsided achievement of the M1A2s was the destruction of seven T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles south of Baghdad, with no losses for the American side (not surprisingly as a T-72 is unable to penetrate Abrams front and side).
Here some estiimates:
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
Currently, based on the above estimates, our LeoA4 should have protection level similar to M1A1HA.
And if we uparmoured our Leo 2 to A5 standard, should have similar protection to M1A2SEP!!!
All are estimates, true or not dun ask me but I will not surprised that the Leo2 and M1 have similar protection level, and if I am a betting man, I will bet on Leo 2 to win any time regardlss whether ERA protected T-72M1(PT-91M) or any new ammo for the 125mm gun!!!