MBT's - Page 53

Suhiir · #**521** May 26th, 2016, 08:23 PM

When the USMC deployed to Vietnam it took it's M48A3s ... BUT the US Army logistic system in Vietnam apparently had primarily M48A2s.
So when the USMC needed to swap a tank due to battle damage/maintenance the replacement from the US Army was probably an M48A2.

My best guess why we have verifiable photos and such of USMC M48A2s.

Suhiir · #**522** May 27th, 2016, 03:22 PM

Heard back from Ken and:

"Well, we are back to recognition matters for the photos. Pappy's comment under the Saussy tank pic refers to the removal of the idler with the M48A2C and later. The photo label does not make it an A2. Hunnicutt is quite clear in his Patton that the A2s had the three return rollers, and since all USMC M48A3s were converted M48A1 tanks, all had the five return rollers, no exceptions. Most decisively is the travel lock on the Saussy M48. It is raised and stands up right behind the turret. The travel locks for the A2 and A3 were at the the very rear of the engine deck. It is an M48A1.

Pappy's other pic with the caption "M48A2 Rear Photo ?" does not seem to be a USMC tank by any markings I can make out. If you blow it up, you see the tank on the left rear displays a star on its turret, most un-USMC except for the Korean War. It does not look like any of the USMC tank parks of the day. Note the missing components of the subject tank. It might even be an M48A3 with the air cleaners stripped away. In short, a parts tank for some unknown unit. I don't know that the M48A2 and the M48A3 rear engine grills are at all different. Do you? Pappy's M48A3 pics from Vietnam are not very clear in the grill detail. Here's some of mine in the attached pic. There is no date on the "A2" photo, nor place. Pappy has been sloppy before on his blog."

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index...howtopic=41757

So basically we have a case of poor memory and a mis-labeled picture.

Suhiir · #**523** May 27th, 2016, 03:36 PM

I also found this for US Army tank info.

"Now,this is the tank list I have,which is the entire point:

M48A1 (until December 1979?)
M48A3
M48A5 (October 1975-mid '90)
M60 (fall of 1960-1963?)
M60A1 (1963-1972?) (basic version)
M60A1(AOS) (late 1972-1975))
M60A1(RISE) (1975-77?)
M60A1(RISE/PASSIVE) (1977-1997?)
M60A1 ERA (late '80)
M60A2 "Starship" (1974-1981)
M60A3 (May 1979-upgraded with TTS couple of months later?)
M60A3 (TTS) (August 1979-1997)
M1 (1984-1992?)
M1IP (1984-1992?)
M1A1 (August 1985)
M1A1 HA (October 1988)"

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**524** June 12th, 2016, 03:32 AM

Well this next from a reliable reference and sourced from the German Ministry of Defense ought to "shake things up" a little.

The highlights are from the German Ministry of Defense...

"The Germans are planning to upgrade the Leopard 2A4 tanks that remain in storage up to the 2A7 variant, and then to introduce them into the Bundeswehr’s inventory, so that the Army would have 320, instead of 225 tanks at its disposal." - This has been discussed for sometime now. Target dates for modernization are 2017/2018.

"The Germans had decided to procure around 100 additional Leopard 2A4 tanks from the defence industry companies. These tanks had been withdrawn from active use in April 2015." - Now this might have some game bearing, it I think would extend the end date for the latest version of the LEO 2A4. These tanks (In storage now.) would be the modernization platform to the LEO 2A7.

"Besides the stored Leopards, the Bundeshwehr is also willing to introduce 16 Dutch Leopard 2A6NL main battle tanks into active service.
Initially, the Dutch Ministry of Defence was planning to completely withdraw main battle tanks tanks from active service. Nonetheless, ultimately it was decided that a single company would become a part of the German-Dutch armoured battalion, formed within the framework of the Bundeswehr’s 414th Battalion, initially seen as a reserve unit which now has been reactivated." - The Dutch originally intended on selling these tanks as well, however due to questions concerning the potential buyers human rights record, the Parliament nixed the deal. Now the question becomes how do we treat these tanks in the Netherlands OOB? We've already set the precedence with the SADF Denel AH-2 Rooivalk, where as you might recall the "fleet" was grounded and modernized over an 18-24 month period. We set the end date of the AH-2 when officially grounded and added the new modernized version when it "re" entered service. Do we consider the same for the Dutch Leopard 2A6NL?

And you'll love this and I never really doubted it but...

"In order to fully equip the existing units of the Army, including six armoured battalions together with the training units, ca. 320 Leopards are needed. The German Army, at the moment, has a little more than 200 Leopard 2A6 tanks at its disposal, with minor quantities of Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A5 platforms complementing the above package." - The bold is mine. This does throw a wrench into the whole LEO 2A7 issue I believe the Germans had at least one or two (I think one to be "more" correct.) companies worth of them before the Qatar and Saudi deals fell through for these same tanks. Those deals were to help pay for the Bundeshwehr to acquire them in numbers. The LEO 2A5 we left in service I believe but, this needs verification.

Beyond the LEO 2A7...
Who knows but cooperation with the French to jointly development a MBT is currently still ongoing to include the forming of a company. But that you'll have to read for yourself. The rest is in the MBT/HELO and Patch Threads as discussed above.

Full article.
http://www.defence24.com/380302,germ...hin-the-media#

German OOB check results and please check me as I'm trying to beat the clock!!...

***LEOPARD 2A4 recommend UNIT 268 for service date extension to above date 04/2015. Currently at 12/2010, looks like this was the last one in service in the OOB.***

***LEOPARD 2A5 recommend UNIT 275 for service date extension. Appears last two LEO 2A5 (UNITS 273/275) came out of service in 2010.***

***LEOPARD 2A7 still in the game recommend no changes. I thought though at was discussed it would be put into the "HOLD" status when the topic came up whether they had them yet or not. I'm leave it.***

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #**525** June 12th, 2016, 08:07 AM

For now as the Dutch Leos are integrated into what is really a German unit and they are not independent of that organization so....... if someone wants Dutch Leos they can buy 2a6's from the German OOB as "captured"
..........and the 2A7 I have change to a code X3 so it's human player only

MarkSheppard · #**526** June 14th, 2016, 06:08 PM

The Germans just unveiled a new 130mm Main Gun intended to; far future, defeat the T14 Armata.

Right now, it has no official use; but maybe RecruitMonty will find this information useful.

MGCS = Main ground combat system = the supposed Leo III MBT.

http://defense-update.com/20160614_r...130mm-gun.html

The new 130 mm gun is a precondition for the future tank, known as ‘Main Ground Combat System’ (MGCS) being developed by Germany. MGCS is currently being developed by Germany and France as a future replacement for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks, considering the increasing threat posed by Russian systems such as the Armata (T-14) MBTs.

Rheinmetall unveiled the new weapon at Eurosatory 2016.

Rheinmetall unveiled the new L/51 130mm tank gun currently undergoing company testing. The new weapon provides 50 percent improvement in performance, over the current 120 mm cannon. It is intended for use in a new class of main battle tanks. Photo: Noam Eshel, Defense-Update

Suhiir · #**527** June 14th, 2016, 10:16 PM

130mm ... so they're outdoing the JagdTiger and Maus ...

I don't know about the rest of you but I've found myself somewhat amused by tank development these last few years.

MarkSheppard · #**528** June 15th, 2016, 03:46 PM

I think this is the latest iteration of the FUTURE NATO MAIN GUN effort (not an official name), to find a successor to the 120mm Rheinmetall in much the same way the 120mm Rheinmetall succeeded the 105mm L7 as the "standard" tank gun of NATO.

The earlier 140mm Tank Gun effort in Germany/USA in the late 1980s/Early 1990s was an earlier iteration of this concept.

FASTBOAT TOUGH · #**529** June 24th, 2016, 03:36 AM

Can't find the original discussion point from early last month, it might even be in this thread. Anyway the verdict is in concerning the second and most famous photo of the flag raising over IWO JIMA. In short the new claims made in the last few years and the forensic evidence shows that HM John Bradley USN was not at or in that picture (However he is positively identified as being in the first flag raising and picture of that event.) but, that Harold Schultz USMC was. The article speaks for itself.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-i...seven-decades/
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/marine...misidentified/

Regards,
Pat

DRG · #**530** August 13th, 2016, 07:11 PM

Something of interest

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0001066239.pdf

among other things.....

....Original armor penetration estimates were 600 mm for BGM-71A/B and 700–800 mm for BGM-71C. However, according to a now declassified CIA study, the true penetration values against a vertical target are much lower—just 430 mm for basic TOW and 630 mm for Improved TOW