• Publicidade

M1A2 vs. Leopard 2

Moderadores: Moderadores, Administradores

M1A2 vs. Leopard 2

Mensagempor dremanu » quarta 19 mai, 2004 2:10 pm

Battle tank Leopard 2
Kampfpanzer Leopard 2


The successor to the Leopard 1, the Leopard 2, was first produced in 1979. A variety of upgrade programs and options are available for the Leopard 2. These include the Atlas Elektronik Vehicle Integrated Command and Information System (IFIS), a digital command and information system. The Leopard 2 has had technical improvements under Upgrading Level I and Level II programs. A new smoothbore gun, the 120 millimetre L55 Gun, has been developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Ratingen, Germany to replace the shorter 120 millimetre L44 smoothbore tankgun on the Leopard 2. It permits effective use of a new APFSDS-T round, DM53 (LKE II), with a longer rod penetrator, and which is under development. The German Army has decided not to buy the DM43 APFSDS-T round (aka LKE 1), rather to wait and upgrade to the DM53.

VARIANTS


A variety of MBT variants from 2A1 to 2A4 denote minor changes, as well as FCS upgrades. Combat support variants include an armored recovery vehicle.

Pz87: Swiss variant with indigenous machineguns, communications and FCS, and improved NBC equipment.

Dutch Leopard 2: Uses indigenous equipment as noted above.
Leopard 2A5/Leopard 2 (Improved): Recent upgrade with spaced armor added to turret front, and increased armor on hull and side skirts. Other improvements include improved stabilization, suspension, navigation, fire control, and hatch design.

Leopard 2E: A derivative of the version A5a developed under a program of comanufacture between the industries of Spain and Germany. The program is developed within the frame of collaboration decided in 1995 between the Ministries of Defense of both countries, in which also the cession of use by a period of five years of 108 Leopard 2A4 from the German Army to the Spanish was. On 23 December 1998 the Spanish Cabinet approved the comanufacture contract, designating Santa Bárbara Blindados (SBB - Armored company Santa Barbara) as the main contractor. The Leopard 2E/ER and its elements will be made totally in Spain, with German technological support. SBB, a branch of the National Company Santa Barbara (Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara -ENSB) in Seville, is responsible for the final assembly, integration and tests of the vehicles.

Strv 121: The Swedish Army has taken delivery of 160 ex-German Army Leopard 2 MBTs under the designation Strv 121.
Strv 122: Early in 1998 the Swedish Army took delivery of the first of 120 brand new Leopard 2 MBTs, based on the German Leopard 2A5 but with many improvements, under the local designation of the Strv 122. This Swedish-licensed variant resemblies the Leopard 2A5 with an indigenous turret and other upgrades. The tank features French Galix active protection system and improved command and control. Sweden developed an HE-T round designed to range 2,000 meters or more for its Leopard-2 and Strv-122 tanks. With additional armor, Strv 122 will weigh 62 mt.

Specifications

Alternative Designations Swiss Pz 87, Swedish Strv 121
Date of Introduction 1979
Proliferation At least 7 countries
Description
Crew 4
Combat Weight (mt) 55.15
Chassis Length Overall (m) 7.69
Height Overall (m) 2.79
Width Overall (m) 3.70
Ground Pressure (kg/cm 2 ) 0.83
Automotive Performance
Engine Type 1,500-hp Diesel
Cruising Range (km) 550
Speed (km/h)
Max Road 72
Max Off-Road 45
Average Cross-Country 40
Max Swim N/A
Fording Depths (m) 1.0 Unprepared, 4.0 with snorkel
Radio INA
Protection
Armor, Turret Front (mm) 700 KE/1,000 against HEAT rounds
Applique Armor (mm) Track skirt
Explosive Reactive Armor (mm) N/A
Active Protective System Galix
Mineclearing Equipment No
Self-Entrenching Blade No
NBC Protection System Yes
Smoke Equipment Smoke grenade launchers, 8 each side of turret
ARMAMENT
Main Armaments
Caliber, Type, Name 120-mm smoothbore gun M256
Rate of Fire (rd/min) INA
Loader Type Manual
Ready/Stowed Rounds 15/27
Elevation (°) -9 to +20
Fire on Move Yes
Auxiliary Weapon
Caliber, Type, Name 7.62-mm (7.62x 51) Machinegun MG3A1
Mount Type Turret Coax
Maximum Aimed Range(m) INA
Max Effective Range (m)
Day INA
Night INA
Fire on Move Yes
Rate of Fire (rd/min) 1,200
Caliber, Type, Name 7.62-mm (7.62x 51) Machinegun MG3A1
Mount Type Turret Cupola
Maximum Aimed Range(m) INA
Max Effective Range (m)
Day INA
Night INA
Fire on Move Yes
Rate of Fire (rd/min) 1,200
ATGM Launcher N/A
FIRE CONTROL
FCS Name INA
Main Gun Stabilization WNA-H22, 2-plane
Rangefinder Laser neodymium
Infrared Searchlight Yes
Sights w/Magnification
Gunner
Day Krupp-Atlas EMES-15, 12x / FERO Z18 secondary, 8x
Field of View (°) 5/10
Acquisition Range (m) INA
Night Zeiss thermal imager
Field of View (°) INA
Acquisition Range (m) INA
Commander Fire Main Gun Yes
MAIN ARMAMENT AMMUNITION
Caliber, Type, Name
120-mm APFSDS-T, DM43
Maximum Aimed Range(m) 3,500
Max Effective Range (m)
Day INA
Night INA
Armor Penetration (mm) 450 at 2,000 meters
120-mm APFSDS-T, US Olin GD120
Maximum Aimed Range(m) 3,500
Max Effective Range (m)
Day 3,000
Night INA
Armor Penetration (mm) 520 at 2,000 meters
120-mm HEAT-MP-T, DM-12A1/US Olin M830
Maximum Aimed Range(m) INA
Max Effective Range (m)
Day 2,500
Night INA
Armor Penetration (mm) INA
Other Ammunition Types US-produced M829, M829A1 APFSDS-T; US M830A1 HEAT-MP-T (MPAT), GE DM12A1 (US copy M830) HEAT-MP-T (MPAT)

M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank

The mission of the M1A2 Abrams tank is to close with and destroy enemy forces using firepower, maneuver, and shock effect. The M1A2 is being fielded to armor battalions and cavalry squadrons of the heavy force. In lieu of new production, the Army is upgrading approximately 1,000 older M1 tanks to the M1A2 configuration. During the Army’s current M1A2 procurement program about 1,000 older, less capable M1 series tanks will be upgraded to the M1A2 configuration and fielded to the active forces. There is currently no plan to field the M1A2 to the ARNG. The Army has procured 62 new tanks in the A2 configuration and as of early 1997 completed the conversion of 368 older M1s to M1A2s. An additional 580 M1s are being upgraded to A2s under a five-year contract awarded in FY 1996, with a total of 998 M1 upgrades planned. In FY 1999, the Army will begin upgrading M1s to the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) configuration. This sensor also will be added to older M1A2s starting in FY 2001. When the SEP enters production, the Army will have a total of 627 M1A2s, all of which will eventually be converted to the SEP configuration.

Further M1A2 improvements, called the System Enhancement Program (SEP), are underway to enhance the tank's digital command and control capabilities and to to improve the tank’s fightability and lethality. The M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package), is the digital battlefield centerpiece for Army XXI. It is the heavy force vehicle that will lead Armor into the next century and transition the close combat mission to the Future Combat System (FCS). The M1A2 SEP is an improved version of the M1A2. It contains numerous improvements in command and control, lethality and reliability. M1A2 SEP is in final operational testing, and scheduled to start fielding in 2000. M1A2 SEP tanks are scheduled to begin fielding in 3QFY00. The M1A2 System Enhanced Program (SEP) is an upgrade to the computer core that is the essence of the M1A2 tank. The SEP upgrade includes improved processors, color and high resolution flat panel displays, increased memory capacity, user friendly Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) and an open operating system that will allow for future growth. Major improvements include the integration of the Second Generation Forward Looking Infared (2nd Gen FLIR) sight, the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU) and a Thermal Management System (TMS).

The 2nd Generation Forward Looking InfraRed sighting system (2nd Gen FLIR) will replace the existing Thermal Image System (TIS) and the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer. The incorporation of 2nd Gen FLIR into the M1A2 tank will require replacement of all 1st Gen FLIR components. From the warfighter perspective, this is one of the key improvements on the SEP. The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide. The Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range.

The UAAPU consist of a turbine engine, a generator, and a hydraulic pump. The generator is capable of producing 6 Kilowatts of electrical power at 214 Amps, 28 vdc, and the hydraulic pump is capable of delivering 10 Kilowatts of hydraulic power. The UAAPU can meet the electrical and hydraulic power to operate all electronic and hydraulic components used during mounted surveilance operations and charge the tank's main batteries. The UAAPU will reduce Operational and Support cost by utilizing the same fuel as the tank at a reduced rate of 3-5 gallons per operational hour. The UAAPU is mounted on the left rear sponson fuel cell area and weighs 510 pounds.

Another improvement in the M1A2 SEP is the Thermal Management System (TMS) which keeps the temperature within the crew compartment under 95 degrees and the touch temperature of electronic units under 125 degrees during extreme conditions. By reducing the temperature in the crew compartment for the crew and electronic units, this increases the operational capability for both soldiers and the vehicle. The TMS consists of an Air Handling Unit (AHU) and a Vapor Compression System Unit (VCSU) capable of providing 7.5 Kilowatts of cooling capacity for the crew and Line Repairable Units (LRUs). The AHU is mounted in the turret bustle and the VCSU is mounted forward of the Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS). The TMS uses enviromentally friendly R134a refrigerant and propylene glycol/water mixture to maintain the LRU touch temperature at less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The TMS is mounted in the left side of turret bussel and weighs 384 pounds.

The Army requires that all systems operate in the Army Common Operating Environment (ACOE) to improve combined arms operations. Digitization and information dominance across the entire Army for tactical elements is accomplished using Force XXI Battle Command for Brigade and Below (FBCB2) software. In Abrams, FBCB2 software is hosted on a separate card that enables situational awareness across the entire spectrum of tactical operation. It improves message flow, through 34 joint variable message formats, reports ranging from contact reports to logistic roll ups, as well as automatically providing vehicle location to friendly systems. The SEP allows for digital data dissemination with improved ability to optimize information based operations and maintain a relevant common picture while executing Force XXI full dimensional operation. This enhancement increases capability to control the battlefield tempo while improving lethality and survivability. Finally to ensure crew proficiency is maintained, each Armor Battalion is fielded an improved Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) with state-of-the-art graphics.

Changes to the M1A2 Abrams Tank contained in the System Enhancement Program (SEP) and "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" configuration are intended to improve lethality, survivability, mobility, sustainability and provide increased situational awareness and command & control enhancements necessary to provide information superiority to the dominant maneuver force. The Abrams Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle are two central components of the dominant maneuver digital force.

System Enhancement Program upgrades are intended to:
improve target detection, recognition and identification with the addition of two 2nd generation FLIRs.
incorporate an under armor auxiliary power unit to power the tank and sensor suites.
incorporate a thermal management system to provide crew and electronics cooling.
increase memory and processor speeds and provide full color map capability.
provide compatibility with the Army Command and Control Architecture to ensure the ability to share command & control and situational awareness with all components of the combined arms team.

Specifications

Manufacturer General Dynamics (Land Systems Division)
Crew 4: Commander, Gunner, Loader & Driver

Weight 69.54 Tons
Length (Gun Forward) 387 inches
Turret Height 93.5 inches
Width 144 inches
Ground Clearance 19 inches
Ground Pressure 15.4 PSI
Obstacle Crossing 42 inches
Vertical Trench 9 Feet
Power plant AGT-1500 turbine engine
Power Rating 1500 HP
Power to Weight Ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Hydro Kinetic Transmission 4 Speed Forward
2 Speed Reverse

Speed - Maximum 42 mph (Governed)
Speed - Cross Country 30 mph
Speed - 10% Slope 17 mph
Speed - 60% Slope 4.1 mph
Acceleration
(0 to 20 mph) 7.2 Seconds
Cruising Range 265 Miles

Main Armament
120mm M256
Smooth Bore Cannon
Commander's Weapon .50 Cal M2 Machinegun
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 M240 Machinegun
Loader's Weapon 7.62 M240 Machinegun on Skate Mount

NBC System 200 SCFM - CleanCooled Air

Inventory 403 USMC
Unit Replacement Cost $4,300,000
"Esta é a ditosa pátria minha amada."
Avatar do Utilizador
dremanu
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1296
Registado: quinta 08 jan, 2004 3:40 pm
Localização: Lusitania/Portugal
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 1 vez

Mensagempor dremanu » quarta 19 mai, 2004 2:11 pm

Defence Systems Daily: Germany's Leopard 2 remains the world's best tank

The Pentagon's gas turbine-powered M1 Abrams may be the first tank that comes to the minds of most Americans, but overall, Germany's Leopard 2 is the world's best. In a new analysis of the world tank market, Forecast International/ DMS finds that, based on an overall comparison in terms of lethality, fightability, mobility and survivability, the Leopard 2A6EX comes out on top. The annual tank analysis and ranking, the only one of its type available from open sources, is a product of Forecast International's Weapon Group.

Although the Leopard 2A6EX ranked above the M1 Abrams (in the A2 system enhancement package model), the gap between the two tanks remains exceedingly small. In this year's survey, the deciding factor was the Leopard 2's 55-calibre version of the Rh 120mm tank cannon and the formidable DM 53 long rod penetrating ammunition. The Abrams is slated to receive the same cannon, but not for several years.

New and improved fire control components, the addition of an auxiliary power unit, as well as overall performance helped push the Leopard 2 A6EX ahead of the M1A2 system enhancement package model in Forecast International's latest ranking. Even so, the M1A2 system enhancement package, which is bringing all M1 tanks to a single improved level, represents a major enhancement to the Abrams' already formidable proven fighting ability. Indeed, based on its superior performance during the Persian Gulf War, the Abrams stands at the head of the ranking in terms of combat performance.

In addition, the vacillating Russians aside, the M1 is still the only tank in production that firmly uses a vehicular gas turbine as its prime mover. The US Army recently selected the General Electric LV-100 vehicular gas turbine to re-power the Abrams.

Coming in at third place in the rankings is Japan's highly sophisticated Type 90, an amalgamation of German tank technology and Japanese expertise in advanced electronics. The Type 90 is followed by the Leclerc of France and the United Kingdom's Challenger 2, both in their latest versions.

Making a significant rise in the rankings this year is Israel's Merkava in the latest Mark III Baz model. Contributing to this rise in the standings is the enhanced armour protection and greatly improved fire control components of this latest version of the Merkava.

The latest analysis and ranking again has the omnipresent Russian tanks falling short of their Western counterparts, despite some recent major improvements as well as the continued lead by the Russians in active defence systems.

Forecast International/ DMS Inc is a leading provider of market intelligence and analyses in the areas of aerospace, defence, power systems and military electronics and specialises in long-range industry forecasts.

http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
"Esta é a ditosa pátria minha amada."
Avatar do Utilizador
dremanu
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1296
Registado: quinta 08 jan, 2004 3:40 pm
Localização: Lusitania/Portugal
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 1 vez

Mensagempor Spectral » quarta 19 mai, 2004 6:16 pm

Boa informação, mas para sermos justos, o M1A2 devia era ser comparado com o Leo2A6.

E depois temos esse já famoso estudo... Apesar de concordar com o 1º lugar, não concordo com alguns promenores, como a classificação do Type-90 japonês ( apesar da informação ser muito pouca).

E já agora, para mim a diferença (em termos operacionais) entre os tanques ocidentais mais modernos é tão pequena, que pode ser facilmente invertida por factores como o treino ou as tácticas empregues. Claro que existem outros factores ( preço, consumos de combustível) que poderão revelar diferenças, mas aí é a um nível mais económico.

Cumptos
I hope that you accept Nature as It is - absurd.

R.P. Feynman
Avatar do Utilizador
Spectral
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1462
Registado: terça 13 jan, 2004 11:31 pm
Localização: Bristol, UK // Aveiro
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Fábio G. » quarta 19 mai, 2004 11:54 pm

Munição:

Leopard (120L55) :

Imagem

Abrams :

Imagem
Avatar do Utilizador
Fábio G.
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1427
Registado: quinta 01 abr, 2004 12:27 pm
Localização: Portugal
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Fábio G. » sábado 29 mai, 2004 1:15 pm

Um texto interessante.

ARMORED WARFARE: Why The M-1 Is the Top Tank in the World


May 28, 2004: In the last two decades, there’s been a an enormous jump in protection technology for tanks. You can’t just call it “armor protection” anymore, because what protects a tank these days is not just thick slabs of steel. During the 1980s, composite armor and ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) were introduced. Composite armor was layers of metal, ceramics and other materials (the exact composition is kept secret). This combination proved much more resistant to all types of tank shells or missile warheads. ERA was blocks of explosives fitted to the outside of a tank. When a shell or missile hit a block of ERA, it exploded, and greatly diminished the penetrating effect. This complicated attempts to describe how “thick” armor was anymore. Thus began the practice of describing composite armor and ERA in terms if “equivalent” (to steel) thickness.

Composite armor and ERA made it safer to be inside a tank. For example, during the 1970s, the most common Russian 125mm tank gun shell, the BM-17, could penetrate 250mm of steel at 2,000 meters range. Russia also had a more expensive BM-12 shell (issued in smaller quantities) that could penetrate 350mm. The U.S. M-735 shell could go through 330mm at 2,000 meters. The most modern Russian tank at the time, the T-72, had maximum frontal armor of 350mm. But most of the T-72 was covered with thinner armor, and the most common Russian tank was still the T-55, with max armor of 200mm. The U.S. M-60 tanks had maximum armor of 260mm. Both Russian and American tanks used shaped charge (HEAT) shells, that could go through 400mm of armor.

Today, the composite armor of the U.S. M-1A2 has “equivalent” armor thickness of 960mm against shells and 1620mm against HEAT. The Russian T-90 (the latest version) has a max of 850mm and 1200mm. But the max penetration for a Russian 125mm shell is 650mm at 2,000 kilometers (the BM-42M). Ukraine says it has a 125mm shell that can do 760mm. The U.S. 120mm M829A3 can go through 960mm, although the most widely used shell is the M829A2, which can only penetrate 750mm.

Thus, while the M-1 has a reputation for being invulnerable, it isn’t. But as a practical matter, it has been because so far the M-1 has only encountered older tanks. In the two wars with Iraq, M-1s were facing T-72s, which had maximum armor of 430mm and a 125mm gun firing older ammo that had a penetration of 250mm or so. Iran or China, however, equip some of their tanks with ERA, giving them a protection of about 800mm. But more ominously, the 125mm guns of those tanks can use much better ammo, and get penetration of up to 700mm. The M-1 has a lot of thinner armor that can be ripped through with sells like that. However, the M-1 does, at the moment, have the best combination of combat proven armor protection, very effective shells and well trained crews, in the world. The M-1 is neither invulnerable nor invincible, no foreign tank crew would look forward to going into battle against M-1s.
Avatar do Utilizador
Fábio G.
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1427
Registado: quinta 01 abr, 2004 12:27 pm
Localização: Portugal
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Spectral » segunda 31 mai, 2004 8:32 pm

Este último texto veio do StrategyPage não foi ?

É preciso ter muito cuidado com o que se escreve por lá. Aqui há uns tempos eles juravam a pés juntos que a Marinha Francesa ia retirar o "Charles de Gaulle" ( não surpreendentemente, todas os "factos" nessa notícia eram falsos)...

Além que falar desses números de penetração e de blindagens é sempre muito manhoso. Os números disponíveis ao público são poucos e às vezes vêm muito "manipulados". A melhor fonte de informação nesta área é o fórum do TankNet, onde há gente que realmente percebe do assunto...

Cumptos
I hope that you accept Nature as It is - absurd.

R.P. Feynman
Avatar do Utilizador
Spectral
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1462
Registado: terça 13 jan, 2004 11:31 pm
Localização: Bristol, UK // Aveiro
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor JNSA » quarta 02 jun, 2004 2:24 pm

Este último texto veio do StrategyPage não foi ?

É preciso ter muito cuidado com o que se escreve por lá. Aqui há uns tempos eles juravam a pés juntos que a Marinha Francesa ia retirar o "Charles de Gaulle" ( não surpreendentemente, todas os "factos" nessa notícia eram falsos)...

Além que falar desses números de penetração e de blindagens é sempre muito manhoso. Os números disponíveis ao público são poucos e às vezes vêm muito "manipulados". A melhor fonte de informação nesta área é o fórum do TankNet, onde há gente que realmente percebe do assunto...


É verdade, Spectral - é preciso desconfiar deste tipo de informações e estimativas.

A capacidade da blindagem, juntamente com a eficácia dos projécteis, é um dos segredos mais bem guardados na indústria... E os materiais usados são tão diversos que é quase impossível fazer uma estimativa realista (sobretudo em relação à resistência a projécteis HEAT).

Quanto a estes dois blindados, há muito pouco a escolher entre eles... Para mim, o Leopard 2A6EX tem três vantagens sobre o M1A2SEP:
- um canhão melhor (por enquanto)
- provavelmente melhor protecção na zona superior na torre e casco
- um motor mais adequado a exércitos "reais" (ou seja, a todos menos aos EUA :wink: )

Assim, uma vantagem é temporária, a outra é uma suspeita minha, e a última é subjectiva ao exército que o usa... Provavelmente, em combate, a única coisa a fazer a diferença entre os dois será o treino da tripulação...
Avatar do Utilizador
JNSA
Analista
Analista
 
Mensagens: 849
Registado: segunda 05 jan, 2004 8:00 pm
Localização: Lisboa, Portugal
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Spectral » sábado 05 jun, 2004 9:16 pm

Bem, eu por acaso até ando a tentar coligir alguns números :wink: Mas as informações que se "pescam" na internet são um pouco contraditórias, portanto quero ver se abranjo um número maior de fontes.

1º uma clarificação : não existe propriamente um Leo2A6EX. Enquanto que todos os outros A6 são mais ou menos semelhantes ( o alemão, o holandês, o espanhol, etc) o EX é um demonstrador de tecnologia, ou seja uma plataforma da Krauss-Maffei para mostrar a possíveis compradores. Além de todos os apetrechos dos A6, tem pormenores como um motor principal novo, motor secundário ( para fornecer energia à electrónica toda quando o tanque está parado), um sistema de combate ainda mais avançado, ópticas à escolha do freguês, etc.

Continuando. Talvez a razão principal para que os M1 ainda não tenham o canhão L/55 é que os americanos usam munições com urânio empobrecido (DU), o que de facto conduz a uma maior perfomance frente a munições normais. Mas o L/55 colocou os alemães à frente.

Esta foi outra razão para não se ter visto uma nova blindagem no M1 visualmente tão dramática como no Leo. Por volta de 1990, tanto os Leos como os Abrams receberam blindagem extra. Os A4 alemães blindagem Chobham convencional, mas os Abrams blindagem com DU.

Assim, durante um certo tempo, os Abrams tinham alguma vantagem no capítulo da protecção. Mas passados poucos anos, os alemães iniciaram o upgrade A5. Os americanos não podem realizar algo semelhante, porque com a blindagem DU o ABRAMS já está no peso máximo permitido pela suspensão. Logo, parece que agora são os Leos os melhores protegidos, mas é dificíl de comparar pois as blindagens trabalham de modos bastantes diferentes.

Quanto ao motor, essa é efectivamente uma das lacunas do Abrams. No início dos anos 80 era a grande sensação ( os T-80 também têm uma turbina semelhante), mas as suas desvantagens ( assinatura térmica e consumo maior) não parecem compensar as vantagens (principalmente a nível da aceleração). Mas parece que seus motores também podem correr em gasóleo, embora com menores perfomances ( assim o dizem os australianos).
I hope that you accept Nature as It is - absurd.

R.P. Feynman
Avatar do Utilizador
Spectral
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1462
Registado: terça 13 jan, 2004 11:31 pm
Localização: Bristol, UK // Aveiro
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Spectral » domingo 27 jun, 2004 8:51 pm

Vejam aqui o interior da torre de um Leopard 2A5.

http://www.treff.bundeswehr.de/data/04_videos/_qtvr/leo_a2_HiRes.html
I hope that you accept Nature as It is - absurd.

R.P. Feynman
Avatar do Utilizador
Spectral
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1462
Registado: terça 13 jan, 2004 11:31 pm
Localização: Bristol, UK // Aveiro
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Rui Elias » segunda 28 jun, 2004 12:26 pm

Se optarmos definitivamente pelo Leopard julgo que ficaremos bem servidos.

Quanto ao Abraams, apesar de ser imponente, julgo que só se tirará proveito dele em cenários de campo aberto, e dada a orografia portuguesa (tirando o Alentejo) grandes Abraams não tirariam vantagem perante a necessária mobilidade necessária em manobras ou num conflito.

Quanto aos blindados de rodas e de transporte de infantaria, haveria que investir mais rapidamete que o previsto e programado, e de preferência anvançar para um modelo um pouco melhorado em relação ao actual blindado de lagartas para transporte:

Imagem
Não acham que apesar das suas virtudes se poderia pensar em algo melhor?
Editado pela última vez por Rui Elias em segunda 28 jun, 2004 12:48 pm, num total de 1 vez.
Avatar do Utilizador
Rui Elias
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1817
Registado: quarta 31 mar, 2004 11:49 am
Localização: Sintra, Portugal
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez

Mensagempor Spectral » segunda 28 jun, 2004 12:46 pm

Um Leo e um Abrams têm tamanho e mobilidade semelhantes.
É impressionante o tipo de terreno por onde eles podem passar :wink:
I hope that you accept Nature as It is - absurd.

R.P. Feynman
Avatar do Utilizador
Spectral
Investigador
Investigador
 
Mensagens: 1462
Registado: terça 13 jan, 2004 11:31 pm
Localização: Bristol, UK // Aveiro
Enviou: 0 vez
Recebeu: 0 vez


Voltar para Exércitos/Sistemas de Armas

Quem está ligado:

Utilizadores a ver este Fórum: Bing [Bot] e 0 visitantes

  • Publicidade