Romanian modern tanks

[Eduard Chivu]

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

[Geto-Dacul]

We'll buy used knocked out or used Abrahams from the Iraqi campaign...

[Eduard Chivu]

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

[Florin]

QUOTE

We'll buy used knocked out or used Abrahams from the Iraqi campaign...

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

[Florin]

QUOTE

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

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

[PanzerKing]

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.

[Defender of Aiur]

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? :?

[cuski]

QUOTE

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.

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.

[Florin]

QUOTE

..........  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.

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

[Geto-Dacul]

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

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.

QUOTE

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.

Oh yeah?

21.09.2003
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)


16.05.2003
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'

[cuski]

QUOTE

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.

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.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

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.

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.

[cuski]

QUOTE

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.

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.

[dead-cat]

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?

[cuski]

QUOTE

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?

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.