| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > Romanian modern tanks |
| Posted by: Eduard Chivu October 08, 2003 12:22 am |
| besides the stupid and useless "upgraded" t-55's, what are other romanian tanks in use today? are there any plans of buying new tanks from other countries?
thanks , eduard |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul October 08, 2003 01:59 am |
| We'll buy used knocked out or used Abrahams from the Iraqi campaign... |
| Posted by: Eduard Chivu October 08, 2003 02:08 am |
| abrams tanks wouldn't be bad at all! at least we would replace those rusting and useless russian tanks.
anyone else,any other opinions, eduard |
| Posted by: Florin October 08, 2003 03:32 am | ||
Dear Geto-Dac, It is very difficult to knock-out a M1A2 Abrams. It has a special armor which absorb the shock of anti-tank projectiles. The armor is special because it uses a special material, developed by the British scientists and given to the US as part of the close and traditional American-British friendship. Because of that material, the standard British tank of the moment is comparable in value with M1A2 Abrams. I think the name of this modern British tank is Challenger, but please check before believing. However, maybe you know the physical principle leading to the usage of the hollow charges. It was developed theoretically at the end of XIXth century and used by the Germans all over the war, starting with the conquest of fort Ebel-Emanuel in Belgium, in May 1940. I doubt any material on Earth could cope with a plasma jet developed by a hollow charge, unless it is thick enough. However, the thicker the layer the heavier is the tank (the big problem of the Tiger). However, the problem of the hollow charges are: 1. The speed through the air shouldn't be too big. (This means much lower then the speed of a canon shell.) 2. The projectile MUST NOT rotate around its axis. The stabilization is therefore done with little tails. If think the famous German "Fastpatronen" used hollow-charges. Again, please check before believing. When I heard about this special British material, I remembered in a flash about an article read in a "Magazin" published in late 70's, when I was in primary school: "The British scientists developed a plastic material ten times tougher than steel." And attached was a sketch with a car running through a brick wall and blowing it. I have a question to you: Did you heard about any M1A2 Abrams destroyed since April this year :?: Yes, there were news with them being hit, but this does not mean destroyed. Regards, Florin |
| Posted by: Florin October 08, 2003 03:50 am | ||
Hi Eduard, If Romania would be allowed to do whatever she likes, the best think would be to buy Russian tanks from the last generation. Becasue they are CHEAP, and also pretty good. You may be surprised. I agree the United States has the best equipment in the world, in all aspects. But it is expensive. You can buy ONE American helicopter of the last generation, or you can buy SIX Russian helicopters with same price. Each of the 6 Russian helicopters is not as good as that one American, but CLOSE. This is just in theory, or to read in bed if you are out of Diazepam. Even the kindergarden kids in Romania know that Romania cannot do what she wants. Thus Romania will buy her weaponry according to the politics of the moment. One of the most stupid and dumb thing the Romanian leadership did was to undermine Romania's military industry. Most of the Romanian experts who before up to 1989 researched and designed Laser guided missiles, anti-tank and anti-aircraft, as part of Romanian programs, work now in West, because they were out of job even before I left the native country. Florin |
| Posted by: PanzerKing October 08, 2003 04:28 am |
| The only M1 lost in combat so far in the 2nd Gulf War was destroyed by an anti-aircraft rocket! That's about the only thing that will take that mother out! And in the first Gulf War, T-72's were accuratly hitting M1's left and right, but only 4 were temporarily damaged! The Iraqis did not fair so well.
By the way, I just got done looking and "playing" on a M1 at my county fair a few hours ago! It was awesome, a real beast. I'd jokingly told my friend, "glad I'm not in a T-62". It's a very intimidating tank. |
| Posted by: Defender of Aiur October 08, 2003 05:06 am |
| I read somewhere Romania, in cooperation with Germany, is planning to build a new tank "from scratch" which will most likely replace the TR-85 models starting from 2005. Can someone add more to this? :? |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 06:42 am | ||
Not exactly, a HEAT round would take an M1 out, but it all depends on the impact position and angle. Maybe not from the T-55/T-62... But the T-72 have the capability. Third generation Chobham or not - hit it from the rear or sides and you're going to have a burning wreck. I disagree w/ the M1 being the best tank out there. Leopard 2A5 and newer generations have been winning the tank olympics for quite a while and even the official analyst of the US D.O.D. admitted that it has an edge over the M1A2 (http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm). With the future upgrades, like the M1A2 SEP program there is a chance this gap will be eliminated, however the germans are not sitting on their arses, they have already came out with the Leopard 2A6 and 2A6EX. Not to mention the swedes, who - at the moment - have the most advanced modified version of Leopard 2A6 named Strv (Stridsvagn) 122. Credit is due though, as the M1 is the first ever decent built tank by the US Army (interesting how though the cannon is a german Rheinmetall 120mm, british designed Chobham armour and the FCS (fire control system) is built by a software company in Ottawa). However, the logistics for maintaining the M1 are just a nightmare, since the gas turbine using huge amounts of gas, whether idling or at max power. As for what other options would be, the T-80 is a gorgeous machine, heavily armoured, fast and with many gadgets. The problems with the autoloader from the previous versions have been fixed, and with the placement of the ERA II (2nd generation reactive armour) even the M1A2 has problems taking it out frontally. |
| Posted by: Florin October 08, 2003 12:29 pm | ||
Hi, This reminds me on a post when Victor quoted about the 1000 HP - IAR Gnome-Rhone motor used to IAR-80 that it was lighter with 200 kg than its German counterpart, but was very thirsty for gasoline, using a lot more than the German motor. When the fuel is not a problem, because you have on hand whatever you like (Romania in 1940, or the United States today), and ecology or green house effect is not your concern (Romania in 1940, or the United States today), the fact that a motor uses its fuel with low efficiency, and waste a lot of it, doesn't bother too much. However, it can be a problem for an airplane. The range of the airplane is affected by a "thirsty" motor. But Victor wrote that the Romanian motor was with 200 kg lighter than the German one, so in a design you may use that weight saving to give more room for the fuel. I am taking the chance to write that the Nakajima Sakae motor used for the famous Zero (Mitsubishi A6M Reisen) needed only 65 liters of gasoline per 100 km. That allowed a range of 3200 km for the famous Zero. Also that Nakajima Sakae motor had a weight of only 533 kg for 1100 HP. In some matters the Japanese guys were not bad at all. Short reminder about a gas turbine, as that one mentioned by Cuski for M1 Abrams: during work it doesn't have the vibrations and the inertia problems of a piston motor. This allows a highest speed in revolutions per second. This means that for a given torque offered by the available dimensions, you have a higher output power, for the same available weight. And you can use that saved weight for something else. Since the turbine motor was used for cars (50's? or 60's?), always its efficiency in using the fuel was lower than a piston motor. And compared with a piston motor, as Cuski highlighted, uses a lot of fuel even in idle situations. That's why the best place to use a turbine motor (do not confuse with turbojet / jet motor) is on airplanes using helix for traction. Florin |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul October 08, 2003 04:29 pm | ||||
Florin wrote :
Oh yeah? 
A US "Abrams" MBT destroyed in Iraq by a rocket-propelled grenade. Another destroyed tank is seen in the background. (Photo sent by Dmitry Komolov) An M1A1 MBT destroyed in Iraq by an RPG round. The tank's armor contains depleted uranium - a radioactive, toxic and pyrophoric (can spontaneously ignite in air) substance. 06.05.2003 According to US Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks no US tanks were destroyed by enemy fire in Iraq... Source : http://www.iraqwar.ru/ DO NOT ALWAYS BELIEVE AMERICAN "SUPERIORITY" AND PROPAGANDA! Getu' |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 06:00 pm | ||
That's not entirely correct. The logistics of maintaining a tank platoon are a nightmare as they need to be resupplied at least twice a day - especially on the move. Do take in consideration what was the main problem in the Unternehmen Barbarossa - supply problems and the stretching of supply lines. For a localized conflict - yes, it's not an issue, but once you start getting on the move, those supply lines will not be easy to maintain. And we've seen even the Iraqis have posed a few threats to the supply efforts in GW2, imagine this against an organized enemy. Not to mention the shortage of supply equipment and personnel the US Army is dealing with. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 08, 2003 06:16 pm | ||
i belive it's reactive armour you're talking about. btw. russians are leading on this field. and it applies pretty much to HE projectiles. APs are still deadly. with the development of LOSAT, tanks will eventually become obsolete anyways. |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 06:27 pm | ||
No, he's talking about Chobham armour. Except for the russian tanks, it's being used in almost all NATO tanks. It's not just about the composition of the armour, it's also about the layering. It includes 2 layers of steel (in the case of US forces reinforced with DU (depleted uranium)) separated in the middle by a honey-comb structure of ceramics. I don't think tanks will become obsolete. They have and always will have a strong psychological effect on infantry. With the development of the Russian Arena system (which is already at the second generation) it will not be easy to take tanks out using missiles. For the uninformed, the Arena system is an active radar system coupled with directional explosive charges designed to destroy any incoming objects identified as being a threat to the tank. Also, another thing to consider is the electrical "shielding" system being developed and succesfully tested in Britain at the moment. They fired a salvo of RPGs at a Scorpion/Scimitar which normally would've torn the crew compartment to pieces however, it was in the end undamaged. If you want me to, I'll elaborate on this system. This will leave only SABOT rounds as threat - which takes missiles out of the question. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 08, 2003 06:35 pm |
| well LOSAT is a pure kinetic energy projectile and travells at mach 7+
given the problems encountered with intercepting incomming ICBMs which travell at comparable speeds i don't see any working countermeasure against LOSAT, except maybe...a gravitron shield? |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 06:51 pm | ||
I personally don't see the advantages of LOSAT except for the minimal loss of kinetic energy at long distances. It is not a fire and forget system so it needs constant input to direct the missile on target, good luck trying to disengage and engage a different target. And now with the heavy use of thermal smoke it will render infrared targetting systems completely useless. All the target has to do is pop smoke and shift position. One more thing about LOSAT, it takes about 10 minutes to reload its 4 ready-to-fire missiles. Now, on the battlefield, 10 minutes is an awfully long time. When you have a significant force of tanks on the offense putting out 4-5 rounds/minute each, you better have at least 4 times the number of LOSAT vehicles. Which, BTW, are defensive systems only. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 08, 2003 07:09 pm | ||||
1. at about 4000m the projectile needs less than a second to reach the target. that's why it's called Line Of Sight Anti Tank. LOSAT also doesn't correct its position during flight, because flight time is too short.
LOSAT is still in development. only prototypes have been used so far. you can fire the missiles from a jeep or BDRM whatever, while it is still way out of the range of a tank and retreat. 1 projectile is supposed to cost around 3-400 000$ and a hit ratio of 1:5 or so is expected. compare this to the cost of a tank ... |
| Posted by: PanzerKing October 08, 2003 07:30 pm |
| Damn there is a lot of American propaganda! I thought only one tank had been taken out so far...I wonder how many tanks were really knocked out in the first war? |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 07:42 pm | ||||||
Ummm, yes it does... extract from the Lockheed-Martin fact-sheet PDF:
1 out of 5? That would make it what, a waste of $1,600,000 for every 5 targets engaged? When a tank gunner can succesfully engage 10 targets in less than 2 minutes (with an average engage time of 3 seconds) with 100% accuracy? Not acceptable IMO. Especially when the whole attack sequence, from detection to destruction with the LOSAT is less than 5 seconds, as advertised. Not less than 1 second. And one huge problem remains. It's completely useless offensively. Really, we are comparing apples and oranges here. LOSAT is developed as a pure anti-tank weapon, when tanks have the flexibility of being offense/defense platforms. But with a succesful engagement ratio of 1:5 I truly don't see how it will render tanks obsolete. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me on this. You also have to consider as a threat the new generation of T-80 which, through their 125mm cannon are able to fire AP, HEAT and also missiles from a stand-off range of approximately 4,000m. To me, that is a more flexible platform than the LOSAT. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 08, 2003 07:54 pm | ||
at a range of 10km? i said the flight time is less than 1 sec. at 4km range (or 2 sec at 10km, that's why i don't see why it should be corrected in flight). when i read the data sheet (not from lockheed btw. there might be more than 1 version, it's still experimental after all) they said something like 4.5-5 km/s velocity at a range of about 10km. no tank today as a range which is comparable. it costs 1600 000$ worst case, to destroy a tank which costs how much? leopard2 is around 40 000 000€ or so. don't know exactly and i'm too lazy to bother to look up the exact figure. and why useless offensivly? you put 4-5 launchers on a humvee or any other fast recon vehicle and give it the posibility to engage a tank well outside of its operational range with plenty of time to retreat. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 08, 2003 08:01 pm | ||
i never claimed it is anything else than a AT weapon. it offers a low tech alternative for tank annihilation for countries which cannot afford competitive tanks to counter a todays MBTs. if you can use cars, jeeps, humvees...any recon vehicle as a viable anti-tank unit which is able to engage a tank at twice its range with a cost of about 1/40 or whatever it might very well render the tank obsolete. |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 08:07 pm | ||||||
Assuming that the targeting system is able to show targets at 10kms. But guess what? Even the new generation FLIRs are not able to show accurately targets past 4000km. After that everything becomes a blur and identification is almost impossible. Nice publicity, but really useless until targeting systems evolve.
The tank order for Leopard from the Greek ministry was of $2 billion dollars. The order was supposedly for 246 Leopard 2A5 tanks including 24 recovery vehicles, 12 bridge-laying vehicles and 12 driver-trainer vehicles. Not considering the latter, this brings the cost of a 2A5 to approximately $8 000 000 which would be a salvo of 20 LOSAT missiles. That could easily be worth one day of firing.
Great, how are you going to deal with infantry? Especially considering that a .50 cal will easily penetrate the thin armor? Hell, a sniper with a .50 cal Barrett could do the job. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 08, 2003 08:30 pm | ||||
| ok since we have a discussion here i did bother to check some figures. found a quote claiming that a leo unit is about 4.6 mio €, prolly w/o maintenance.
found, among other this:
when i first read about LOSAT in 2000 i remember having read something like 3-400 000$ cost/unit can't find any price quotes anymore. they might be obsolete as well, i don't know. anyhow it looks like it was field tested this year in june.
as i said, LOSAT proides you with a low cost AT capability at a level you couldn't afford by buying MBTs. if the tank has been taken out by LOSAT before he could provide support he's gone. once the system works as expected the tank cannot provide infantry support anymore if any LOSAT unit is in the area by the risk of being disabled. |
| Posted by: cuski October 08, 2003 09:12 pm | ||
Obviously, you haven't served in an armoured unit... Tanks are not supposed to provide support for the infantry... this is why you have now IFVs such as the Bradley, Marder, Warrior and BMP. The US army designed their tanks and tactics as infantry supporting units in WW2 and they suffered tremendous casualties when met with german armour. Ever since then, they learned their lesson and changed their tactics. Once again, you are making the assumption that - when used as an offensive force - the OPFOR for the LOSAT will be out in the open exposing themselves. Well, given the lethality of aerial threats on today's battlefield, tanks stay concealed most of the time. When placed in a defensive position, they usually stay in a turret-down position until the target is within firing range - maintaining observation either through the commander or optics (in the case of the M1A2 and Leopard 2A4+). Once the target is in range, the tank pops up in a hull-down position, takes a shot, backs up in turret-down position and displaces to another turret down position. At all times, the largest target that presents itself is only the turret and only for a couple of seconds. I have served in Lord Strathcona's Horse Armoured Regiment as a Leopard 1A3 gunner, had the fortune of evaluating a Leopard 2A4 and trust me... LOSAT will not render tanks obsolete. Same thing has been said when the attack helicopters showed up. |
| Posted by: dead-cat October 09, 2003 12:02 am | ||||||
again. if LOSAT is able to see you (IR, radar whatever) it can effectivly attack you from ranges around 10km with a projectile that can defeat any present armour. if you tell me the attacker leaves a thermal signature then so do you, unless you don't generate more heat than the absorbers can handle. LOSAT is about shooting a projectile that can kill every tank that exists today. LOSAT isn't about detecting the target. of course LOSAT units *can* be detected as well. if they're on a humvee they're a soft target which makes them vulnerable to artillery, if available. but nothing limits their use on say bradleys. maybe, if the system proves itself (and first steps seem to have been taken) there is a portable version for infantery also. whatever means of deployment you choose, it increases the risk up to an almost unacceptable level for expensive armored units like MBTs. it doesn't solve your tracking issues, it doesn't solve your tactical issues with infantery support and it doesn't cook and wash dishes either (you get my point). if enough armies deploy it en masse it will become very dangerous for tanks to operate even against a low tech opponent unless you increase the combat range of a tank to match the range of LOSAT. so either you develop countermeasueres agains LOSAT (and so far there arn't any. LOSAT i said, NOT target aquisition) or you stop deploying tanks because they'll get shot up at an unacceptable rate.
wether i served in an armoured unit or i just played "steel beasts" is irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. the tank was actualy invented as an infantery support weapon. and early PzIVs were pure infantery support tanks as well. however, i agree that the main role of the tank is to engage enemy armored units.
if you enjoyed it, i'm glad for you that you could experience this. still i don't see why the fact that you were a tank gunner makes your argument about LOSAT less speculative than mine. none of us saw it so far. actually few ppl did, but of those who did, most claimed that there is no countermeasure against it so far. as an engineer i find the idea intresting that with kinetic energy alone you can go past any armour defensive solution that has been developed in the last 10 years. i'm not a tank enthusiast and not a tank-hater. at best i'm occasionally a plastic tank modeller, albeit with a modest skill. i'm not in favour of scrapping tanks. if it was up to me, i'd rather scrap the entire armed forces alltogether and spend the money on something actually usefull. 'nuff for today, it's 2am |
| Posted by: inahurry October 09, 2003 08:56 pm |
| The most terrible weapon is the politician in power. Check Romania's case today. We don't need the best defensive/offensive system in the galaxy, even it's for free, what use for it when there's no weapon to protect us from politicians like these. Ok, someone could argue we're a country under occupation but is there really any country left with real independence? I believe Russia, despite tremendous financial problems, still develops excellent new weapons, so? Could a Russian sincerely argue those weapons or the brilliant engineers who made them protect them from the homemade economic disaster Gaidar and the like created? Wars were and are extremely expensive adventures, even more today when the war 10 years from now probably is won or lost now and only partly because how well or bad is the weapons industry and research. Check for the money bag, if it leaks a lot then the future wa is already lost.
Back to the on-going topic. I don't think tanks will become obsolete so soon. For the simple reason the projectile vs armor race takes place in the C4I era. I was browsing through some of the Israeli projections for the near future and while the Merkava 4 is probably a very good tank I was more interested the way its combat role is to be increased by being an APC, data gathering and transmitting unit, part of a real time centralizing of the on field information. Optical and electronical data gathering that is to be integrated with the infantryman gear will make of any grunt the eye of the central command. This with the already integrated systems of air and artillery support can make the outcome unpredictable. Complex systems may prove vulnerable but I wouldn't dispatch the tank so quickly. I think tanks are still cost effective, more than aircrafts anyway. You can't judge the efficiency of air supremacy when you have US vs Iraq but with roughly equal opponents it is far easier to replace a tank crew than a pilot, costs and production rates aside. Just my two cents. I enjoyed the posts, found them very interesting so keep the "duel" going, folks. |