What is the difference between modern battle tanks like the western battle tanks like the Leo 2, Abrams...

Leopard 2 sacrificed armor for speed and got shrek'd in Turkey. Both Germany and France (who also sacrificed armor for speed) are now planning to replace it.

Brits didnt develop HEAT and kicked HE out of actions. Only ammo their tanks use is APFSDS, HESH and smoke shells. Their tank doctorine is also laughable

Show me a tank that can withstand modern ATGMs.

what's so underrated about the leclerc?

Attached: leclerc.jpg (600x456, 31K)

jesus christ.

well to be fair maybe they neglected it cause they were not expecting much tank warfare going on their tiny island against the soviets.

Attached: 1420693674332.jpg (283x281, 19K)

German here, stop spreading nonsense.

We are not replacing the Leo 2 until 2030.

That is, the start of the PLANNING phase of a replacement is set for "2030",
therefore expect Leo 3 coming to you somewhere around the year 4690.

My dudes, where can I start learning about tanks? History, construction, tactics, models, everything.

Attached: image.jpg (640x898, 574K)

But you are planning to replace them, not because the Turkish models got rekt tho, and not anytime soon, but development has already started for the new family of Tonks to be adopted by both the Frogs and you.

>what's the difference

You can nitpick it, but at the end of the day it's a bunch of different countries designing a vehicle that's meant to fulfill nearly identical doctrine.

This is most typified by the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2. Both spawned from the same program and both meant to fulfill the same exact same tactical role of defense and rapid exploitation.

Leo 2 and Abrams are very similar actually, which makes sense since they came from the same design requirement. Abrams is said to have more comprehensive protection while the Leo focuses more on the front. The Black panther is probably the most up to date, but it's had some teething troubles. The Challenger 2 is obsolete garbage.

Of course there is always talk about replacing X and upgrading Y.

But it almost always is just that, talk.

This isn't a German or French thing, companies want to push their newest pipedreams and politicians are happy to announce reforms on paper only.

Just look at how many gorillion programs there were to replace the M16 and M4, and none of those became reality.

>Just look at how many gorillion programs there were to replace the M16 and M4, and none of those became reality.
true

I think the big difference here is we've reached the point of it being worth it to design a whole new platform for MBTs, where it wasn't (and still isn't really) for rifles.

Google tank encyclopedia. Most sources are reliable and theres pretty drawings to gawk at

To be fair, HESH was actually quite effective throughout most of the cold war due to everyones reliance upon RHA. Even when the T-64 was first introduced, it ended up getting sent back off front line service due to engine troubles so you had the T-62 being a frontline tank until the mid 70s. Meanwhile, HEAT was also extremely effective on both sides of the iron curtain and was generaly the preferred munition for a lot of instances due to its penetration not caring about range.

>Too heavy for the protection it offers
2 tons heavier than a abhrams once bot have all their add ons, not much difference in protection
>too heavy for its suspension
manages same off road speeds as M1A2 without difficulty
>serious large design flaws in the front armor resulting in large areas with little to no armor
no, firstly because the lower front glacis got up armored on all tanks in service and secondly because it wasnt exactly under armored to begin with, the same weapon as penetrated the Chally has manged frontal turret penetrations on M1s

>consumes a metric fuck ton of fuel
has longer on road operational range on internal fuel than M1A2 and thats with a smaller internal fuel stowage.
>drivetrain limited due to weight and the top speed is laughable
5mph slower at max than M1A2
>Two piece, manually loaded ammunition + a very outdated 120mm cannon that is uneffective againts modern armor
the closest thing to accurate you managed, the cannon is not actually ineffective against modern armor, the APFSDS rounds it fires will still penetrate a modern MBT, but do perform less well than smoothbore would, but difference is more like .303 compared to 30-06 than .22 compared to 5.56mm

>Limited to APDS and HESH (which is Usless againts modern IFV's and tanks)
HESH is used for taking out softskin targets and buildings, both of which it does well. tougher targets get APFSDS which will do the job.

yeah but still HEAT is objectively better, so there was no excuse to keep it

>wasting storage space so you can demolish fucking buildings with your MBTs
do brits not have ground pounder jets and an engineering corps?

>HESH is used for taking out softskin targets and buildings, both of which it does well.

In what LARP fantasy scenario are Cold War British tanks doing offensive urban ops?

>do brits not have ground pounder jets
Are you seriously suggesting wasting highly valuable aircraft on some frontline CAS against random buildings in probably contested airspace?
>and an engineering corps?
Needs to get close to do its work.

>not much difference in protection
The Challenger 2 has not had a base armor upgrade once since it entered service, and its protection wasn't great back then.
>HESH is used for taking out softskin targets and buildings, both of which it does well. tougher targets get APFSDS which will do the job
There is no point in using a round that was objectively obsolete by 1970 if it stunts the performance of Sabot, the most important ammo type.

>contested airspace
>MBTs anywhere near that

can you see how I can tell that you are making up bullshit cause somebody said mean things about your fav tank?

Explain to me why you think thanks would not be operating in an area with contested airspace?

>thanks
tanks

>cardboard CV90

Embarrassing.

there is this new fad called air-to-ground ordnance, all the cool kids are doing it

>In what LARP fantasy scenario are Cold War British tanks doing offensive urban ops?

any invasion scenario. its unlikely the chally will be deployed for much else, its kind of a pain to deploy tanks overseas so if not needed not likely to be sent.

>The Challenger 2 has not had a base armor upgrade once since it entered service, and its protection wasn't great back then.

it has a standard uparmor package for deployment, on initial entry to service its armor was roughly on par with the M1A2 the primary difference being tungsten instead of DU for the insert plate in the glacis.

And why do you think those would stop armor from operating?

ded tonks no go pew pew

And why do you think the existence of air-to-ground ordnance would destroy all tanks in contested airspace?

I'm guessing since you greentexted me you meant to reply, anyway:
>it has a standard uparmor package for deployment, on initial entry to service its armor was roughly on par with the M1A2
This isn't what I was talking about. I'm referring to the base armor, without any applique or ERA.

Anyways, here is what the Greeks had to say about the Challenger 2, after testing the Leclerc, A2 Abrams, Leo 2A5, T-84, and T-80 against it for their future tank competition:
>Challenger-2E was a negative surprise. Despite the fact that the version presented in the competition was equipped with a similar type of Europack-type military equipment, it was often spoiled when switching to high speeds, which was responsible for the transmission of the motorway from the machine. The 1200-horsepower engine with the Challenger-2 engine was replaced by a 1500 horsepower engine and did not have a proper study of the kinetic circuit and adjusted to the engine that caused frequent outflow from the car. It was also a disadvantage of his annexed armor. The car was distinguished with a relatively weak armor compared to Leo-2A5S and M1A2, while Leclerc even 10 tons was almost never behind British tanks.
>The car was not very precise, it was the only one that was equipped with a 120 millimeter stroke and was used in three parts (shells, sparkle and insulating capsules), while Ukrainians and Russians used both guns and rifles, Doing this with automatic charging). However, the car had a positive side: he served in the army with long military experience and was the only one who had a toilet in the tower and traditional British tea makers.

>In what LARP fantasy scenario are Cold War British tanks doing offensive urban ops?

Belfast

HESH is fucking amazing for infantry support, it absolutely demolishes fortifications and buildings.

Not much that matters (Chally is a bit different tho, and the Black panther has an autoloader like the Leclerk I believe). But people will rage and sperg over this because their country's tank has to be superior in their heads

>HEAT is objectively better

For heavy anti-armor use? Yes, but why is it that everybody seems to forget that tanks do things other than fight other tanks?
Against light-armor, light-skinned vehicles, fortifications, buildings, and targets in the open, HESH rounds are superior.

See image: Right hole is a HEAT shell, left hole is a HESH shell.

Attached: HEAT virgin vs the chad HESH.jpg (969x727, 108K)

Fucking derp, it's reversed. The left hole is a HEAT shell and the right hole is HESH.

Tanks 100 years of evolution by Richard Ogorkiewicz.

That HESH impact looks like the aftermath of an anal rape.

wasnt that because they want bigger 130mm gunz against ivan and the tonks we have cant fit them
Well, at some point you need a new frame, the leo 2 is almost 40 years in service now

Attached: laughing heavy.gif (300x168, 1.66M)

>here is what the Greeks had to say about the Challenger 2
Wow, Google translate must really fuck Greek up.

>tanks do things other than fight other tanks
Canister :)
youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8

Heat is great against light armor as well. HESH only shines when used against structures

is english your first language?

It's pretty bad but I think you can still get the gist of what they were saying.

The K2 Black Panther entered service in 2014 so that puts a bit of a hole in your theory but only a bit of one.

Thing is with the K2 Black Panther it was made by a nation that did have fears in facing the Eastern Block during cold war. When designing the K2 it was a lot of 'it would be real nice if our tank had this' and hopes for a export market. It was made under the same doctrine as the other listed tanks and had the same over all design para dime. That doctrine & design para dime came out of the M1 Abrams.

Before the M1 Abrams western battle tanks were not homogeneous. A great example would be the Chieftain v Leo 1. Very different tanks even though they would be facing the same enemy in the same region.

The type90 is in fact rather different when compared to the others you listed. It is less protected do to the fact it focus more on mountainous terrain. It handles far better then say the Abrams in that environment. In order to get that the Japanese made it 15 tons lighters then the Abrams.

It was made to fight a defense war in the home islands rather then a defense war in west Germany.

The entire front and side parts of the drivers hatch are only like 150mm RHA.