Future of the EU

[El_Phil]

Now I think about it the German fighter thing was back in the cold war. Everybody who brought F-4s from the US (UK, Japan and a quite a few others) got Sparrow missiles except Germany, due to internal political arguments as I remember. The money was there (this was the cold war there was always the money ), no technical problems but bits of the goverment objected and so the Luftwaffe got no Sparrows.

I think they may have sorted that by now, but with the Green party in coalition goverment anything is possible (except common sense)


Interesting reasoning boran. I've heard people state the exact opposite, that it gives too much power to unions and will lead us all into German stylee recession and unemployment.

As for the non-millitary, the EUs "Nordic Battle Group" composed of Sweden, Finland, Norway (not quite sure why they're there, but they are) and of course the mighty Estonian army (both of them) has been announced and treatys signed. It's not an army, just troops wearing EU badges supporting the common foreign policy of the EU. Nope nothing army like about that at all....

And if you believe that are you interested in this fine Baghdad timeshare? A very up and coming area....

[Atrocities]

I say the EU should allow Germany to modernize their military and re-arm.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Let by-gones be bygones? Certainly.

[dogscoff]

Interesting and more-or-less on-topic article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4617721.stm

Yeah yeah, we do need armies and weapons and stuff, but wouldn't it be nice if some of that cash could be pointed in more constructive directions?

[Sabin]

Bah. People being scared of Germany after all these years? Quite...well, fearful, no? Unless Hitler is reincarnated, happened to live in Germany during yet another mega-depression and everyone ignores Germany, I don't really see how Germany is a threat. It is probably better to let Germany rearm anyway - surrounding nations and people would probably keep an eye on Germany - since it is known to be potentially armed, it would be best to watch it. However, if people thought Germany was helpless and not willing to make weapons...*smirk*...

Of course, a civilian or two might notice army movements and such...in this age, it would be fairly difficult to create a army. Then again, it is the risk of the Digital Age...which confers many advantages, and disadvantages. For example, people with an internet connection or cell phones can keep track of troop movements, with relative ease. Also, now everyone has cars, motor boats, and so on. If a war is started, secrecy would be a difficult thing to pull off. Therefore, deception would become the great shield.

Also, the ability to control communications, civilian properties, war management, and so on shall become critical. Currently, it is too easy for outside influences to affect warfare. I predict that World War III, along with other wars shall change warfare, not just in equipment and tactics, but also behavior and control.

[El_Phil]

I think it was Germans not trusting themselves. They could of brought them, their allies wanted them to buy them (take some pressure of the RAF and USAF if the cold war kicked off) and they had the money. But they didn't.

Random relavent(ish) point: The Abrams, main tank of the US army, has British armour and a German gun. It does have a US engine, that's why fuel economy is so poor

[Sabin]

Eh...perhaps. Then again, isn't the Abrahms pretty old, relatively speaking? Sure, there have been retrofits, but the design itself is old. (1980s design)

As to the powerplant...courtesy of Wikipedia.

------------------------------------------------------------
The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1500 hp (1119 kW) Lycoming gas turbine, and a 4-forward/2-reverse speed transmission, giving it a governed top speed of 42 mph (67 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country. Crews have often removed the engine governor and achieved speeds of around 60 mph (100 km/h) on relatively smooth cross-country ground; however, damage and instability to the drivetrain (especially to the tracks) can occur at speeds above 45 mph, resulting in severe danger for the crew. The tank can be fueled by diesel fuel, kerosene, JP-1 jet fuel, any grade of gasoline, or even (theoretically) alcohol.

Range:
M1 : 498 km (310 mi)
M1A1: 465 km (288 mi)
M1A2: 391 km (243 mi)
------------------------------------------------------------

[Thermodyne]

Sabin said:
Eh...perhaps. Then again, isn't the Abrahms pretty old, relatively speaking? Sure, there have been retrofits, but the design itself is old. (1980s design)

As to the powerplant...courtesy of Wikipedia.

------------------------------------------------------------
The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1500 hp (1119 kW) Lycoming gas turbine, and a 4-forward/2-reverse speed transmission, giving it a governed top speed of 42 mph (67 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country. Crews have often removed the engine governor and achieved speeds of around 60 mph (100 km/h) on relatively smooth cross-country ground; however, damage and instability to the drivetrain (especially to the tracks) can occur at speeds above 45 mph, resulting in severe danger for the crew. The tank can be fueled by diesel fuel, kerosene, JP-1 jet fuel, any grade of gasoline, or even (theoretically) alcohol.

Range:
M1 : 498 km (310 mi)
M1A1: 465 km (288 mi)
M1A2: 391 km (243 mi)
------------------------------------------------------------

The Abrams is a late 70’s tank and is powered by the Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. The Allison X-1100-3B transmission provides four forward and two reverse gears. The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust. The original M1’s are being upgraded to a2 standards, and are no longer deployed in theaters where tank on tank combat is expected.

As to the range, that depends on a lot of variables. The 137,000lb reported weight of the tank is as shipped. Field kits and reactive armor can add another 18,000lbs. And soft terrain such as sand or bog can more than ½ the range. But too much is made of this. When compared to the M60, it is shorter, but the M60 is a medium tank and as such expected to have longer legs at the expense of firepower and armor. Some Soviet tanks have very long reported ranges, but this includes external stores that would not be available during combat (I would hope), And it should be remembered that tanks are not intended to drive themselves 100s of miles into combat. They ride on wheeled carriers or trains.

Britain and Germany both field expellant tanks of their own, although neither has the field qualifications of the M1. But being close allies, I’m sure that the need for modifications has been passed along as they were discovered in combat. Also, the M1 costs a lot of money, and most 1st world countries would like to keep large purchases in their native economies.

Tanks have become land fighters, once the frame is developed; electronics become the area of advancement. The M1 is more or less the state of the art for large tanks. Any bigger, and you won’t be able to deploy it or use existing bridges in combat. The main gun can basically soot to the horizon, with is the limiting factor for direct fire weapons. Recent mods have been electronic in nature, and the all weather capability of the tank has been much improved. There have also been some changes to the exterior of the tank intended to harden it against small caliber rounds and light rockets. The track and road wheels have always been the place to disable tanks with light weapons. While tank killers get lots of press, lighter AP type weapons can do a lot of harm to armored columns.

The US is starting to deploy several wheeled armored vehicles. They are faster, longer legged, and most of all lighter and more air mobile. The M1 was built to go toe to toe with the Soviets on the German plain, and as such is over kill for most to the tasks it faces today. But when called upon to be a main battle tank, it has yet to meet its equal. I’ll quote some results from GW1.
[quote]

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).
As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.
The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks. {/quote]

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Side note: The Leopard tank is a German tank, and is more widely used IIRC than the Abrams - but that's probably 'cause the US military command is too stinkin' afraid to let anyone else, even their allies, even get close enough to the Abrams tank that they could see where to climb into it.

[El_Phil]

Honestly, you try for a joke and you end up with more than is healthy to know about US tank engines. Still interesting stuff.

Wouldn't most of the stuff about the M1 apply to the Challenger. Except the Challenger would have better armour, better gun, but slower to target.

Aren't they're Abrams in Australian service and a few other places? I think that was from Steel Panthers so could be utter rubbish.

Not being an expert on such matters can I confirm something, I have heard the LeClerc tank is the fastest main battle tank in the world. Light armour, large engine, etc. This seems too much like a dodgy fact cooked up to produce various bad jokes about French tanks being very fast as reversing so they aren't shot at before surrendering.