Polish Military Modernisation : News & Discussions

[randomradio]

All the russian MBT turrets flying in the air in Ukraine is the best and definitiv answer. Not to speak of desert storm.

It has no bearing on capability. While a T type goes up in flames, there's no difference to the end result in a Western tank either, only the top doesn't blow up, but the crew still dies. It's 'cause temperatures inside a tank can become as hot as the sun, it's instant death.

The Deadly Darts Called 'Sabot' Could Liquefy Its Target

Sabot is a non-explosive tank round that releases a dart-like rod and annihilates everything and everyone along its path.

sofrep.com

According to a soldier in the American Heroes Channel, “when it hits the (target), it creates such force that it bores a hole through it… it liquefies everything inside. You can technically come in with a hose and hose out the enemy tank crew; it annihilates human matter.”

If you are a tank crew, you wanna survive a hit, 'cause penetration will kill you anyway.

A 45 tons russian MBT can't be superior to a western 60 tons one.

That's like saying a lighter Rafale cannot defeat a Su-35S. And you know that's false.

Russian tanks are light because they have one less crew, so the turret is smaller and lighter and needs less armour, hence less overall weight. The Leclerc Series 1 is also much lighter than other Western tanks due to the same reason.

Currently, the Abrams has the most firepower followed by the T-90M. All other tanks are below the T-90M, including Leclerc, Challenger 2, Leo 2 etc. Abrams is the best because of DU rounds. T-90M has both DU and tungsten. The tungsten round is marginally better than what's used on other European tanks, but the Russian DU round takes the lead. The T-14 has an even better round and gun, which gives it an advantage over the Abrams.

The T-14 is lighter than all Western tanks, but it's significantly superior, it's all due to design. So weight has nothing to do with superiority.

PS : about the Leclerc armor : the exact figures were NEVER released. It's a secret. It is why Leclerc lost the greek contest because we refused to give them the exact datas and greeks used the sole they knew about a french tank : AMX30 one... We loose on that. If not Leclerc was best on fire tests in all aspects (rate of fire, accuracy and range even moving)

Leclerc is still somewhere around the M1A1, probably better, but it's not as good as the latest tanks, including the T-90M.

And in Yemen, UAE had to up-armour the Leclerc with ERA.

Logbook Part II: UAE’s Army Leclerc MBT in Yemen

This is the second part of the catalogue of just some of the UAE’s military equipment in Yemen. This second part will be exclusively…

medium.com

But if I'm opting for a tank today, I'd choose the Leclerc over the T-90M. Leclerc has other features that are more important. And any attempt at modernising it will make it an overall superior tank.

While the Leclerc is the better tank, 200 still cannot take on even 300 or 400 T-90Ms, never mind thousands.

 

[Bon Plan]

Western, eastern, northern, southern oor mot, it doesn't matter which part of the world had produced a tank. A tank is bound to get evaporated in modern day battlefield.

See how many M1, Leo2, Challenger 2 were destroyed in combat, and how many T72, T80, T90 are.

The Leclerc Series 1 is also much lighter than other Western tanks due to the same reason

No.
Leclerc is lighter because it uses a smaller engine. I give a 1m lenght reduction. Smaller with same armor = lighter.

 

[Bon Plan]

All other tanks are below the T-90M, including Leclerc, Challenger 2, Leo 2 etc. Abrams is the best because of DU rounds. T-90M has both DU and tungsten. The tungsten round is marginally better than what's used on other European tanks, but the Russian DU round takes the lead.

All the western MBT are fitted with DU sparrow.
It was said when GB decided to gave some for the Challenger 2 sent in Ukraine. And the confirmation of the same was made in France for Leclerc.
The velocity of a Leclerc sparrow is > 1850m/s. Maybe only slightly beaten by last Leo2 because the canon is a L55 and not L52. It's more than the M1 muzzle velocity.

And in Yemen, UAE had to up-armour the Leclerc with ERA.

Of course.
watch how many Saudi M1 were destroyed, and how many UAE Leclerc were (only 1, repaired).

 

[Hydra]

See how many M1, Leo2, Challenger 2 were destroyed in combat, and how many T72, T80, T90 are.

No.
Leclerc is lighter because it uses a smaller engine. I give a 1m lenght reduction. Smaller with same armor = lighter.

How many times M1,Leo, lecrec, Challenger been in to battle against a worthy opponent? Even the mediocre Russian military gave a bloody nose to the so called superior western tanks.

I am not counting gulf war, yemen, Hezbollah & Afghan invasion are a real war, its more like a police action.

 

[randomradio]

See how many M1, Leo2, Challenger 2 were destroyed in combat, and how many T72, T80, T90 are.

No.
Leclerc is lighter because it uses a smaller engine. I give a 1m lenght reduction. Smaller with same armor = lighter.

An engine only weighs 1 ton, whereas the weight difference between Leclerc and Leo 2A6 is 7-8T. The weight reduction is due to the autoloader.

Forgot to add: Although the hull length is smaller, the main weight difference will be due to the turret, 'cause there's less volume to protect due to missing crew member. The turret weight is 18T, comparable to T-90A's 15T. The T-90M may be closer to Leclerc, possibly 17T. The hull length is also similar to the T-90. The Leo 2A6's turret weight is above 23T.

The T-90M has lesser volume to protect, so it has lower weight. Leclerc is similar, and Leo has more volume, so it needs more armour. It's like a 6 feet tall guy needs more cloth material for a shirt versus someone just 5 feet tall. It's the same principle.

 

[randomradio]

All the western MBT are fitted with DU sparrow.
It was said when GB decided to gave some for the Challenger 2 sent in Ukraine. And the confirmation of the same was made in France for Leclerc.
The velocity of a Leclerc sparrow is > 1850m/s. Maybe only slightly beaten by last Leo2 because the canon is a L55 and not L52. It's more than the M1 muzzle velocity.

DU will provide parity with the T-90M and T-72B3 then.

The tank gun itself isn't very important. The tank with the best DoP is still the Abrams, even though it uses an L44. The shell is more important.

Of course.
watch how many Saudi M1 were destroyed, and how many UAE Leclerc were (only 1, repaired).

It's a training issue.

Check out the post by Nick Pappas, the first comment.

Why are Saudi Arabia’s M1 Abrams tanks being knocked out so easily in the Yemeni War? How many have they lost, and are there any tactical...

Answer (1 of 43): Well, the Saudis aren't really losing tanks at a high rate, especially compared to Russia, in Chechnya, or some other countries. However , the M1 tanks , even the newer batch, no matter how many fun toys they have in or on them, are missing 1 critical piece of hardware. They ar...

www.quora.com

Simply put, Yemen is not Russia, and the Houthis are not the Russians. So success or failure there doesn't cross over into Europe.

Also the Leclerc is better armoured with an urban kit in Yemen. It's unlikely to be put to use against the Russians in the field, so even the threat environment is different.

 

[Bon Plan]

How many times M1,Leo, lecrec, Challenger been in to battle against a worthy opponent? Even the mediocre Russian military gave a bloody nose to the so called superior western tanks.

I am not counting gulf war, yemen, Hezbollah & Afghan invasion are a real war, its more like a police action.

1) lack of worthy opponent? Maybe because they are feared !
2) Ok for Yemen, Afghan. But Desert Storm saw fierce battles between T72 and M1, but also older AMX30 and challenger 1. The result was a total failure of T72, with the excuse that it was export variant. Something not possible in the ukrainian case...

 

[Bon Plan]

An engine only weighs 1 ton, whereas the weight difference between Leclerc and Leo 2A6 is 7-8T. The weight reduction is due to the autoloader.

Forgot to add: Although the hull length is smaller, the main weight difference will be due to the turret, 'cause there's less volume to protect due to missing crew member. The turret weight is 18T, comparable to T-90A's 15T. The T-90M may be closer to Leclerc, possibly 17T. The hull length is also similar to the T-90. The Leo 2A6's turret weight is above 23T.

The T-90M has lesser volume to protect, so it has lower weight. Leclerc is similar, and Leo has more volume, so it needs more armour. It's like a 6 feet tall guy needs more cloth material for a shirt versus someone just 5 feet tall. It's the same principle.

It's not only the weight of the Leclerc engine, but as it was a more compact engine, the frame of the MBT was shorter. Less armor due to smaller size = less weight.
Leclerc is 1m shorter than Leo2.

OK, russian tanks are less high than west counterparts. It is paid by less confort, less ergonomy. after hours your team is less potent.

 

[randomradio]

It's not only the weight of the Leclerc engine, but as it was a more compact engine, the frame of the MBT was shorter. Less armor due to smaller size = less weight.
Leclerc is 1m shorter than Leo2.

Correct figures--
Leclerc:
S1: Hull weight = 36T, Turret weight = 18.5T. Total = 54.5T
S2: Hull weight = 37.5T, Turret weight = 18.5T. Total = 56T
XXI: Hull weight = 39T, Turret weight = 20.5T. Total = 58T

Leo 2
A4: Hull weight = 39T, Turret weight = 16T. Total = 55.15T
A5: Hull weight = 39T, Turret weight = 20.7T. Total = 59.7T
A6: Hull weight = 39T, Turret weight = 21T. Total = 60.2T

M1A2 SEPv2
Hull weight = 38.7T, Turret weight = 24.4T. Total = 63.1T

You can see that the difference is in the turret, not the hull, 'cause armour will bring them on par for the same level of protection.

OK, russian tanks are less high than west counterparts. It is paid by less confort, less ergonomy. after hours your team is less potent.

The T-90M has a more roomier and comfortable turret for the crew, it's much bigger.

 

[Hydra]

1) lack of worthy opponent? Maybe because they are feared !
2) Ok for Yemen, Afghan. But Desert Storm saw fierce battles between T72 and M1, but also older AMX30 and challenger 1. The result was a total failure of T72, with the excuse that it was export variant. Something not possible in the ukrainian case...

1) who?
2)Its again a misconception that Iraq was fearsom in 91. No, the scenario of T72 facing Abrams in 91 is as equivalent as in a hypothetical scenario of T72 facing sherman tanks. Different era design, different capabilities.

The result was a total failure of T72, with the excuse that it was export variant. Something not possible in the ukrainian case...

Regarding export variant bla blah, that is my point also. You cannot survive modern battlefield. Ukrain war show that only, both side loses tanks to each other even though both sides armed with same/ similar tanks.

But today's scenario is different, no matter how advanced tank you brings, all will be knocked out by cheap ATGMs or relativity cheap action from an attack copter.

 

[Bon Plan]

Ukrain war show that only, both side loses tanks to each other even though both sides armed with same/ similar tanks.

Maybe because it was fights between russian tanks ! T72 vs T72.
As seen during all the israel wars, the west MBT were always superior to russian ones. Better range of fire, best optronic, often better armor.

 

[Hydra]

the west MBT were always superior to russian ones. Better range of fire, best optronic, often better armor.

Who is disagreeing with that? What i am saying is it is no longer matters.

 

[Bon Plan]

Who is disagreeing with that? What i am saying is it is no longer matters.

The ukrainian battlefield is something special. more a ww1 one than a ww2.
So MBT there are more used as slow moving bunkers. They are not made for such a purpose.

 

[Hydra]

The ukrainian battlefield is something special. more a ww1 one than a ww2.
So MBT there are more used as slow moving bunkers. They are not made for such a purpose.

U seriously thinks that your so called superior tanks can survive against modern ATGM?

 

[Bon Plan]

U seriously thinks that your so called superior tanks can survive against modern ATGM?

Not more than another west MBT.
I just say that ukraine battlefield is not made for MBT (nearly static battle), and that west MBT are better than russian ones. As seen since ww2 in all war.

 

[Hydra]

Not more than another west MBT.
I just say that ukraine battlefield is not made for MBT (nearly static battle), and that west MBT are better than russian ones. As seen since ww2 in all war.

Arabian horses are better than its central asian & European horses, will u take them to real battlefield today?

 

[Soldier35]

Military equipment of Poland. On August 15, a military parade took place in Poland, which the authorities consider the largest in the history of the country. The parade was timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Battle of Warsaw in 1920, also known as the Miracle on the Vistula. The parade was attended by about two thousand Polish military and NATO countries, as well as 200 units of military equipment. 92 helicopters and planes took to the skies. The parade was attended by armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, as well as HIMARS MLRS and Patriot air defense systems. Among the tank equipment were presented German tanks Leopard 2, American Abrams and Korean K2. In 2023, Poland will spend $34 billion on defense, giving four percent of national GDP to military spending. According to this indicator, Poland overtakes many countries - members of NATO.

 

[Ashwin]

Poland's Dilemma: Eurofighter Typhoon vs F-15EX Eagle II​

 

[Innominate]

Poland's Dilemma: Eurofighter Typhoon vs F-15EX Eagle II​

F-35 and there is no dilemma. Why the hell would they go back to 4th gen.

 

[Ashwin]

F-35 and there is no dilemma. Why the hell would they go back to 4th gen.

Same reasons why USAF procuring F-15EX ?