Author Topic: Lwe - NATO Standard Tank  (Read 2876 times)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Lwe - NATO Standard Tank
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2016, 04:06:12 AM »
The Chieftain actually fits war time German thinking,

But didn't the Germans (and the British for that matter) tend to change their practices after WWII as a result of perceived lessons learnt?

They pretty much swapped doctrines relative to WWII, with the British going for slow, heavily-armoured defensive tanks and the Gerrmans going for 'protection through speed' on the grounds that ATGWs would kill anything they hit. The latter theory was pretty much BS and Leo I's were soon being up-armoured. You might easily see the Germans instead deciding that the Cold War scenario was pretty much a re-run of WWII, i.e. a defensive buying-time action and agreeing with the post-war Brits on a heavy tank with a big gun. A German engine in a Chieftain would be very formidable indeed. You don't have to imagine it either: Jordan bought 200-odd 'Khalids' in the late 1970s that were basically a late-model Chieftain with a Challenger power-pack (Rolls Royce Condor) under a raised engine deck. That's the kind of power/weight ratio you'd get with a Leo-1 tech engine.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Lwe - NATO Standard Tank
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2016, 10:35:27 AM »
Sort of, the new MBTs replaced the old medium and heavy tanks (cruiser and infantry for the UK) but the existence of soviet heavies, that NATO feared the 90mm and 20pdr weren't up to countering, led to the development of M-103 and Conqueror with their 120mm guns.

During WWII the Germans used independent Tiger companies to support some panzer divisions but more commonly independent battalions at army level, while the British had their independent tank brigades (infantry tanks) at corps or sometimes army level.  The US were different but when you look at it holistically the roles the Germans used the Tigers for wasn't that different to how the US used their tank destroyers (except obviously not for the breakthrough mission as they lacked the survivability for that). 

I suppose it is a bit of a stretch as looking it the Germans never adopted a post war heavy and the British issued nine Conquerors to each Centurion Regiment as a long range anti-tank system rather than concentrating them into regiments let alone independent brigades.  The US army however did deploy the M-103 in a single, large battalion in Europe, while the USMC assigned a company of them to each of their tank battalions.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Lwe - NATO Standard Tank
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2016, 10:41:55 AM »
The Chieftain actually fits war time German thinking,

But didn't the Germans (and the British for that matter) tend to change their practices after WWII as a result of perceived lessons learnt?

They pretty much swapped doctrines relative to WWII, with the British going for slow, heavily-armoured defensive tanks and the Gerrmans going for 'protection through speed' on the grounds that ATGWs would kill anything they hit. The latter theory was pretty much BS and Leo I's were soon being up-armoured. You might easily see the Germans instead deciding that the Cold War scenario was pretty much a re-run of WWII, i.e. a defensive buying-time action and agreeing with the post-war Brits on a heavy tank with a big gun. A German engine in a Chieftain would be very formidable indeed. You don't have to imagine it either: Jordan bought 200-odd 'Khalids' in the late 1970s that were basically a late-model Chieftain with a Challenger power-pack (Rolls Royce Condor) under a raised engine deck. That's the kind of power/weight ratio you'd get with a Leo-1 tech engine.

It has proven the case that irrespective of nominal road speeds the bigger heavier tanks (that on paper are slower) are as fast or faster cross country and are usually less effected by terrain than the lighter ones.  Conqueror for instance was I believe faster and more mobile cross country than the Centurions and Australian Centurions often were more mobile in Vietnam than the US M-48s.  The issue of extra weight (if not necessarily size) comes with strategic mobility relating to roads and bridge loadings, as well as the capacity of transporters, railways and sealift, Australia is struggling at them moment with the fact that their Abrams are too heavy for all the existing support and logistics equipment.  Even the purpose procured new LCMs are only able to move them on the flattest of seas.

I am thinking of doing something with my Dragon Leo 2 A5/6, that I have just started, and a Trumpeter Challenger 2 that's sitting on the shelf nearby.  Maybe the A6 L55 gun and some other bits and pieces to create a Challenger 2 AS1 for the RAAC Independent Tank Brigade, while the Leo can be finished as a modified Leo 2 A5 of one of the Beersheba Brigade ACRs.

Offline Feldmarschall Zod

  • Kitbasher extroinadaire
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I hope that's not the sound he makes...
Re: Lwe - NATO Standard Tank
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2016, 02:10:56 AM »
That is a great looking tank.
Every time you eat celery,an angel vomits in a gas station bathroom. Tanks rule. I know the load is late,but the voices tell me to pull over and clean the guns.