In your personal opinion which is the most effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE

[Stuart666]

_--__[]KITT;217835']Aww I gather now would be the perfect time for some rich Arab nations to buy Challenger 2 then?

You know to save them from being cut up?:frown:

(I don't think you cut up a tank)' date=' probably putting them in reserves basically just parking them without doing maintenance or minimal one. Unless the tank is old then it is stripped of its electronics and sold for scrap metal.

Eurozone is really in trouble huh. They are opening local investment office soon at the building where my parent works(and the company she work for owns). Rumor has it they are turning to Asia(including Indonesia) to make money(invest here) that situation there in the Eurozone is bad.[/quote']

It went back some years, I gather the idea was to buy more tanks than the British Army needed, because it was envisioned by a certain period we would go to FRES.(Yeah, right) The tanks of that batch could then be reduced, im not sure it was ever envisaged they would be cutup, but perhaps MOD had a plan for parts reclamation even then. I know some parts have been retained.

As I say, my impression is the process is ongoing, though the evidence is rather skanty so far. MOD acknowledge it (a friend of mine who saw the practice underway questioned his MP about it) but its really not something they want to shout about. After all, some of these tanks are going to be less than 15 years old, which is going to bring up a lot of questions about MOD procurement decisions.

Arabs wont want to buy them. Even if we could find a stable Government in the middle east we wont be fighting in 15 years, they wont buy it without a stable ammunition supply. Which has always been Challengers achillies heel really. It was the devils own job getting anyone to develop non DU rounds for it.

We will retain them for several decades anyway. I just see the numbers slowly dwindling along the way.

As for reserves I quite agree with you. Unfortunately MOD have this REALLY great plan to turn Ashchurch (the main MOD tank storage facility) into a housing estate......

[[]_--__[]KITT]

One Arab nation is now in the process of evaluating Leopard 2A6 for their army.

As for reserves I quite agree with you. Unfortunately MOD have this REALLY great plan to turn Ashchurch (the main MOD tank storage facility) into a housing estate......

That's...weird. Sounds as if the army was turning into a private business enterprise.

[Tjay]

As for reserves I quite agree with you. Unfortunately MOD have this REALLY great plan to turn Ashchurch (the main MOD tank storage facility) into a housing estate......

I don't know why the UK bothers having a defence force. It is now so depleted it could barely put down a riot in Croydon.

[Tjay]

_--__[]KITT;217837']

That's...weird. Sounds as if the army was turning into a private business enterprise.

Not far short of the truth. Like everything else in the UK, the accountants have taken over completely. Stuff 'lying around' that hasn't been used for months? Clearly surplus to requirements - so flog it off for whatever you can get. In the case of Challenger 2s, no one else wants them so they go for scrap.

[12Alfa]

Im not disagreeing or disbelieving you, I just find it impossible to corroborate. Its not in any of the manuals on Challenger 1, Chieftain or Khalid. Its not even in any of the Janes books ive got going back over 30 years, which include the AFV retrofit books which had the same data on autocannons. The data on L11A5 might be in the maintainance checklist of the Challenger1 but I cant find it at the moment. I rather doubt it because that would be mainly related to oil levels and other checklists.

You got a link for that because a friend of mine would find it very interesting.

As for the Rhinemetal gun, its been officially binned for some time according to a source of mine. I also gather Challenger 2s are still being cut up, and not just war damaged ones either.

Last I checked L28 is still under development though, and its got a penetration apparently higher than L27, which is not bad for a non du round.

It's not a link, how ever I can scan and send, got to do some scanning for V any how.

I read in another paper that the L30 is or was just beginning it"s life as a tank killer. The paper states that the growth is/was just beginning and more powerful ammo could be developed as well as the fine tuning of the propellent to reach the desired effects the new ammo would require.

This is now gone to hell as we know from the cut backs etc.

I'm deploying to the high Arctic for a while so the scanning is going to be a the coming months (Sept/Oct).

[Scrapper_511]

_--__[]KITT;217527']Oh Look M1A1(HA) is catching up :biggrin:

Tied it!

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Tied it!

Aiiiz I hate you :biggrin:

I'm going to try to be optimistic here that those who chose M1A1(HA) did so because the depleted uranium slabs on the turret front saved them many many times. Usually it saved me couple times but sometimes just didn't as the enemy shell hit the more vulnerable frontal sections. I just hope those choosing M1A1(HA) didn't do so because they were Americans LOL.

[MAJ_Fubar]

I know I chose it for its fightback capability. The M1 series degrade far more gracefully that most other vehicles when the rounds start flying. --Probably has something to do with its near stone age knobs and switches. Hell the gunner's station on an M1A2 looks like something left over from a bad fifties sci-fi film.--

[Azure Lion]

Though the DU armor is nice, as I mentioned earlier, I feel it has more to do with the ammo storage location in the Leopards. If it weren't for that, I feel the Leopards could take a lot more punishment. About a third of my single hit losses in Leopards due to enemy fire I'm staring at a turretless tank. That usually just translates into an immobile Abrams in similar cases. Medic!

And I agree with Maj Fubar, though I have had some Leopards take quite a punishment, I've had more Abrams take far more punishment... and I play Leopards more than I play Abrams. Though, if the M1A2 SEP ever makes it into the game as a playable tank, that may change.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Though the DU armor is nice, as I mentioned earlier, I feel it has more to do with the ammo storage location in the Leopards. If it weren't for that, I feel the Leopards could take a lot more punishment. About a third of my single hit losses in Leopards due to enemy fire I'm staring at a turretless tank. That usually just translates into an immobile Abrams in similar cases. Medic!

And I agree with Maj Fubar, though I have had some Leopards take quite a punishment, I've had more Abrams take far more punishment... and I play Leopards more than I play Abrams. Though, if the M1A2 SEP ever makes it into the game as a pilotable tank, that may change.

AH I see...the loading process in Leopards is indeed cumbersome but I'd assume it's for the safety of the tank. The rounds must be kept at protected stowage bay necessitating the turret to be turned backwards for reloading.

The question is whether the Leopard in action(not in loading process) is more protected than an M1A1(HA) in action with regard to the chances of its stored ammunition catching fire and exploding. If not then it's a matter of bad design of storage in the Leopard.

[Ssnake]

In practice, the reload process isn't cumbersome at all. You pull back into defilade, turn the turret and let the loader transfer as many rounds as time permits (or the turret stowage is full, whichever happens faster), then drive back into the firing position.

It's cumbersome to handle in SB Pro because you (usually) have no human commanders and human gunners to do all this while you as the platoon leader just give the command to some tanks to do the reload now. Instead you have to use the mouse, context menus, click the desired location (to which you must have a line of sight) etc., all things that you would eventually cover in the basic mission orders.

Whether or not the ammo in the hull was a "design flaw" is open for debate. Basically, as a vehicle commander you have to keep it in mind and to keep it covered from direct fire whenever you can.

The Leo 2 was originally designed to handle a numerically superior force in a high intensity battlefield from prepared defensive positions. As long as you can stay hull down you're pretty safe. Whether it's possible to stay hull-down all the time is the big question. Steel Beasts simulation results suggest that this isn't the case. The question is whether the simulation results represent reality well.

[Azure Lion]

No, not the loading action, the actual storage location without a blast shield in the leopard hull. And I agree, if you can get into position first then it's not an issue. However, when you are on the attack, and your hull becomes exposed, then the leopard gets that lucky hit in the hull where the ammo storage is, and I'm sitting with a turretless tank that's on fire. I feel even with the location of the ammo in the hull, if it had a blast door with relief blow out panels, then I feel the leopard would be on par with the Abrams in survivability, if not better, despite not having DU armor.

As far as it being a 'design flaw' I feel having the blast door in place would be a great improvement, how often would it need to be opened other than when you are in defile reloading or safely behind friendly lines prepping for the upcoming battle? The added security to the crew is worth too much in my opinion as far as my experience in SB Pro PE to not have the blast door in place with venting blow off panels.

As far as the reloading process, as far as I can tell the Leopard has the Abrams beat hands down by a long shot so long as you can find cover, which should not be an issue with a good commander. If not terrain, then other tanks in your platoon.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

In practice, the reload process isn't cumbersome at all. You pull back into defilade, turn the turret and let the loader transfer as many rounds as time permits (or the turret stowage is full, whichever happens faster), then drive back into the firing position.

It's cumbersome to handle in SB Pro because you (usually) have no human commanders and human gunners to do all this while you as the platoon leader just give the command to some tanks to do the reload now. Instead you have to use the mouse, context menus, click the desired location (to which you must have a line of sight) etc., all things that you would eventually cover in the basic mission orders.

Whether or not the ammo in the hull was a "design flaw" is open for debate. Basically, as a vehicle commander you have to keep it in mind and to keep it covered from direct fire whenever you can.

The Leo 2 was originally designed to handle a numerically superior force in a high intensity battlefield from prepared defensive positions. As long as you can stay hull down you're pretty safe. Whether it's possible to stay hull-down all the time is the big question. Steel Beasts simulation results suggest that this isn't the case. The question is whether the simulation results represent reality well.

Well some people would think pulling back and rotating the turret as cumbersome....In M1A1 you just tell the loader to start reloading from storage without needing to pull back or rotating the turret. If it gets into trouble it can fire at will without needing to rotate the turret back.

Anyway once the Leopard 2s bought from Germany arrives I'm going to post their pictures here in the Ground Zero. Seems it will be the Leopard 2A6 though I had some doubts. Personally I like Leopard 2A6 better than M1A1, just a more balanced tank overall.

Edited August 11, 2012 by []_--__[]KITT

[[]_--__[]KITT]

No, not the loading action, the actual storage location without a blast shield in the leopard hull.

No blast door? Then why do they need to rotate the turret to reload?

I was under the impression Leopards 2 came with storage blast door...

[Gibsonm]

_--__[]KITT;217970']Then why do they need to rotate the turret to reload?

Because there is a bunch of "stuff" in the front of the turret (like the recoil system, breech, etc.) that tends to get in the way when you want to pull out "awkward" items such as a 120mm single piece APDSFS round (roughly 24Kg and 0.9m long) and move it somewhere else fairly quickly.

We are not talking about passing rifle rounds here.

Traverse the turret and it becomes a fairly easy process of "pull, turn/lift, push" as you move it from the hull to the turret.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Gibsonm

[TankHunter]

So who else voted for the T-72?

[Ssnake]

_--__[]KITT;217966']Well some people would think pulling back and rotating the turret as cumbersome....In M1A1 you just tell the loader to start reloading from storage without needing to pull back or rotating the turret. If it gets into trouble it can fire at will without needing to rotate the turret back.

...until you realize that the process involves

1) The commander opening HIS blast doors,

2) Pulling out a round

3) handing it over to the loader

4) closing his blast door, so that

5) the loader may open his

6) Push in his round

7) close the blast door, so that the commander may go back to step 1.

Two crew members are fully occupied, the TC has to work through the whole process while remaining seated, while the ammo is behind his back (20 kg per cartridge...!)

THAT is cumbersome. You may not experience it due to Steel Beasts' simplifications, but reality isn't quite as appealing.

[Damian90]

No blast door? Then why do they need to rotate the turret to reload?

I was under the impression Leopards 2 came with storage blast door...

Hull ammunition magazine in Leopard 2 do not have blast doors neither blow off panels:

Turret ammunition magazine in Leopard 2 have blast doors and blow off panels:

[Damian90]

Sorry for a second post, I just can't place all photos in a single one.

In M1 series both turret ammo magazines are isolated and have blow off panels:

Also hull ammunition magazine in M1 series have blast doors and blow off panels, although photos are difficult to find.

I hope that this is clear enough.

[Azure Lion]

...I hope that this is clear enough.

Woot! Thanks for the pics!.

So back to one of my original posts. I think it would be great for the Leopards to have a blast door and blow off panel(s) for the hull ammo storage. It could rotate out of the way toward the port hull.

And on the topic of the Abrams, every time I've had the ammo storage hit, i've lost all my munitions instead of only 'half'. Is this the way the hit box(es) are setup, or have I just been that unlucky to have both storage areas hit at the same time all those times? '

[Ssnake]

I think it would be great for the Leopards to have a blast door and blow off panel(s) for the hull ammo storage. It could rotate out of the way toward the port hull.

I suppose there are quite valid (technical) reasons why the engineers didn't do that. Certainly not for curbing cost overruns (the Leo 2 development finished sooner than planned and (slightly) under budget).

And on the topic of the Abrams, every time I've had the ammo storage hit, i've lost all my munitions instead of only 'half'. Is this the way the hit box(es) are setup, or have I just been that unlucky to have both storage areas hit at the same time all those times? '

I think it's a bit of a simplification, but probably a justified one. The reality is that a tank which just survived a major ammunition deflagration would be out of combat action, no matter what.

[Azure Lion]

I suppose there are quite valid (technical) reasons why the engineers didn't do that. Certainly not for curbing cost overruns (the Leo 2 development finished sooner than planned and (slightly) under budget).

I think it's a bit of a simplification, but probably a justified one. The reality is that a tank which just survived a major ammunition deflagration would be out of combat action, no matter what.

Yeah, trouble is I don't always agree with engineers ideas. What's great in a controlled enviorn does not always translate over to the real world as expected. As you say though, they have their reasons. Still, would keep me on edge if I were in a Leopard.

And quite true with the on the ammo deflag.

With that, I will go back to my diet evil self, just one kilocalorie. Small fires. <chuckles to self> '

[Gibsonm]

So back to one of my original posts. I think it would be great for the Leopards to have a blast door and blow off panel(s) for the hull ammo storage. It could rotate out of the way toward the port hull.

Having half the glacis plate disappear beside the driver is probably not good for morale.

Having that plate likely damage the gun barrel as it continues its trajectory is also not such a good idea.

The M1's panels are on the back of the turret roof and tend not to have similar issues.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

Hull ammunition magazine in Leopard 2 do not have blast doors neither blow off panels:

Hey thanks for the pictures.

[Azure Lion]

Having half the glacis plate disappear beside the driver is probably not good for morale.

Having that plate likely damage the gun barrel as it continues its trajectory is also not such a good idea.

The M1's panels are on the back of the turret roof and tend not to have similar issues.

Actually, I was thinking of the blow off panels to be to the side and down. It'll more than likely destroy the port side tracks and a couple of road wheels, but better that than the crew. At least the crew would hopefully then be alive to have moral or the lack there of.