Operation Unthinkable...

[Red_Stinger]

Leopard 2 is too cumbersome, besides the lack of an auto-loading system and modern active protection.

Abrams and Challenger are pretty fine considering passive/active armor protection.

Best armored are the Merkava series and T-90 (the latter being difficult to detect moreover).

Leclerc tanks are quite nice too considering firepower and protection.

P.S: didnt participated to the discussion about Unthinkable, no time 

[Tico_1990]

RedGuard: if an Abrams starts driving in the US, and I shoot a heat seeking missile up into the sky in Europe, I'll hit it.

hah, thanks for the laugh. theres no MBT that can defeat the abrams in a slugfest.

the US military, is smarter than that and more experienced than you can obviously imagine. this abstract anti armor system you speak of would be long disabled/destroyed before they deployed/exposed their armored columns

And you obviously didn't understand that I was not speaking about some abstract anti armour system, but rather, in a humorous fashion,  about the enormous heat signature which an abrams gives of. Also, I think that in a pure slugfest, the Merkava would be able to beat an abrams and I also think that which one would win between those two would be dependant on the crew.

[tigerclawstyle]

In terms of actual engagement's with other tanks, the M1 Abrams definitely has the edge. It absolutely lit up the Iraqi tank's of Soviet design in the first Gulf War, but fighting conscripts with low morale and limited experience should be taken under consideration. Still, any tank with a barrel, should always be taken seriously, because it is still dangerous.

An old friend of mine is in the the 1st Armour Division based at Ft. Bliss, and has done 4 tours in Iraq. When the insurgency really kicked up in 2006, when he came back he told me he said he witnessed M1 Abrams being shot up by RPG's, and had their turrets blowing off and flying 50-60 feet into the air (his word's, not mine). Also I've spoken to soldiers from the Lord Strathcona's Horse here in my hometown, and they constantly get asked by tank crews in America to try out their Leopard C2's (upgraded Leopard 1's) when they go down their to cross train.

What I like about the Leopard 2 is the range of variants. Alot of nations use it and most look completely different to their counterparts. The Singaporean variant looks quite bad ass.

The Merkava is quite the machine as well, Israel knows that replacing experienced tank crews is important for it's force because of the limited number of people in Israel, but also because of the nature of the wars there. It's a small nation, and under certain circumstances could be completely overran in afew days.

The T-90 is a cool machine to, but has only been used in combat against the Georgians in the South Ossetia War, against older T-72 models. Definitely interested to see how it would perform against Western tanks.

Surprised to see no one has posted anything about the Chinese, South Korean or Japanese tanks. The Chinese Type 99 was designed after the Chinese observed how easily the Americans rolled over the Soviet designed tanks of Iraq during the first Gulf War. They watched that conflict and learned quite abit about modern tank warfare. Their most elite armored divisions are equipped with it. The Korean K2 Black Panther is a game changer as well and once it enters full production, will be a formidable force. The Japanese Type 90 hasn't been tested in combat, but once its complemented by the Type 10 will make the Japanese tank forces quite scary.

[RedGuard]

^^I dont call brave heros soldiers liars but i watched show in Iraq war that says not a single abrams was lost to enemy hostilitys

[tigerclawstyle]

Between 2005 to 2009, 80 M1 Abrams were heavily damaged and totally written off. Another 500 had been damaged to a certain degree and were taking off the line or sent back to the States to be repaired.

Their were no casualties inside the tanks themselves, but when tank crew's had to abandon their vehicles some did get killed in ambushes afterwards or IED's. Many were disabled due to enemy action, and following standard protocol for any army, they set charges or called in fire support to destroy the vehicles.

Interesting note as well, is that in Vietnam the M-48 put 5000 miles on between overhauls, when procedure dictated that after 2000 miles, it should be overhauled. In Iraq War 2, some tank units had get a new set of tracks every two week.

[Otto Halfhand]

@tigersclawstyle: Canadian EH. 
 Wiki alert! Caveat Emptor guys the Abrams article contradicts itself  several times!

Between 2005 to 2009, 80 M1 Abrams were heavily damaged and totally written off.

Of  the 80M1 Abrams KO'd in combat (up until 2005?) Only 2 were written off  AFAIK. When deemed unrecoverable the local tank crews used their own  primary armament to try to destroy the abandoned tanks. (They weren't  particularly effective as I understand; apparently demolitions and auto  destruct are not features the Amis use in their Tank program), Much,  (some?) of the data on RLA penetration of the 105/120 tank and defensive  effectiveness of Abrams various armor protection systems come from  these incidents. Most of the reported damage to tanks in THe American  Follies in Asia seems to come from close range urban assault type  operations. Amis countermeasures include providing carbines for each  tanker, Hand held AT weapons and the TUSK system (Tank Urban Survival  Kit). Apparently All Amis MBTs will be provided with TUSK. It is  interesting to note the Reactive Armor (read as skirts and Zimmerit) in  TUSK is left up to the tankers as a field applied solution) Note: in a  previous post I used the term ECMs improperly. I should have use the  term Countermeasures. 
 Two aspects of current Western Tank design concern me: 1. Use of  automatic Halon fire extinquisher systems; Which rapidly displace the  air and stop the fire but also rapidly displace the air and anesthetize  the crew. 2. The trend towards smaller crew sizes coupled with the  disappearance of autoloaders. I believe the Russians are going this  route too.
 
 A note or two on cost effectiveness. The Amis government seldom stints  on spending money in military matters. The various folks who have  addressed fuel economy and emissions have valid points but the cost of  maintaining 5 soldiers a year in Afghanistan is greater than the cost of a  new Abrams Tank. 1.2million US$/man/year! for any of you cut the budget  but don't tax the rich (corporations) congressmen who read these  forums.

[tigerclawstyle]

Yes Canadian 

I originally looked at wiki for the equipment losses during the Iraq War 2, but I also looked at the many Defense/Security reports that I frequently look at daily online. The Abrams damaged in combat are originally from a report from a think tank called the Lexington Institute, and its reports state that as of 2009, 80 tanks were destroyed. Their words not mine. The rest I gathered from online articles from newspapers and from a forum dedicated to tanks with men who served in Iraq. But perhaps I was abit hasty with the term "written off" and apologize for that. Finding accurate reports on these matters can be quite a hassle if they aren't directly from the military. I just wanted to establish to other readers, that the M1 Abrams or any other MBT for that matter, shouldn't be considered invincible. Millions of taxpayers dollars are being spent on overhauling these vehicles daily, and countless man hours dedicated to refitting them. For instance it takes a day and a half to remove a M1 turret and in 2007 they had to completely rebuild 1,400 turbine engines for them.

I agree with you on the follies of tank design fulls greatly on urban combat. From what I've studied, the insurgents in Iraq used tactics that were first mastered by the Afghans during the Soviet War, then the mujahedin in Chechnya, and Hezbollah in Lebanon during the many IDF incursions. Basically small teams of 3 more or less men, one rifleman, one machine gunner or sniper and an anti-tank man would operate together and simply wait for armor or whatever to pass by or be disabled by IED's. They'd coordinate their attacks with other small teams, and since urban combat is considered to be "Three Dimensional" worked quite effectively.

Also I've read numbers like that from many nations, regarding the cost of having a soldier deployed in combat zones. Any idea what the cost's of soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam?

Would you be interested in me sending you a PM with the different links of Defense/Security reports that I frequent? I'd definitely be interested in seeing what you read.

[Otto Halfhand]

Also I've read numbers like that from many nations, regarding the cost of having a soldier deployed in combat zones. Any idea what the cost's of soldiers in WW2 or Vietnam?

All numbers are IIRC $162,000-US/soldier/year in Vietnam; $40,000-US/soldier/Year in WWII. I'm stretching here but $1,000,000-US/ day/week(?) for US CivilWar - Federal. Somebody should try to make an honest man of me if they have better figures.

Operation  Unthinkable Early naval operations

Naval blockade would be instituted immediately. Most Soviet ports are vulnerable to blockade because of geography and climate. Early amphibious activities would probably be limited to the Far East. After Patch's landings in South of France most amphibious transport was earmarked for the Invasion of Japan. Redeployment would have been slow. In the west I would think an operation to pull Finland into the act would be ideal but I suspect the Soviets could have held their own on the North German Plain and East. Their submarine fleet should have been capable of blocking the Skaggerack (sic).
Could Sweden have been inveigled into the Allied camp?

[tigerclawstyle]

It would be a very serious threat for the Soviets that is for sure. Since the bulk of the Soviet forces would be concentrated in central Europe, and the other countries they occupied, their back doors would be vulnerable. I'd imagine an amphibious force of seasoned cold weather fighters (Royal Marines, Norwegians, Swedes, and Fin's) could possibly land in the Karelia or Murmansk region. The Fins already had much experience fighting in those conditions. Think Anzio or Incheon but on a much grander scale.

As for Sweden I'm not to familiar with their military during that period, although I do know it was mobilized in the event of an attack. Of course you hear about the neutrality, iron ore and the Jews escaping from the rest of Europe. They may have stayed out of the war with Germany, but if something like Unthinkable had happened, I'd imagine they would be hard pressed to join the allies. The country itself was relatively untouched (big reason why I want to travel there, no bombs dropped on old architecture), and the Swedes at one point were a major military power.

[Tankbuster]

I think the Swedes were a major power during the time of Empire Total War.

[RedGuard]

the swedes? they were never a power of any sort at any time frame

[GodlikeDennis]

Yes they were.

The Swedes in the 16th and early 17th century were a very powerful and militarily successful nation. The Russian empire became powerful after being invaded by the Swedes and eventually driving them back under Peter the Great. They gained much of their knowledge of warfare from them. St Petersburg was founded on the Baltic coast by Peter after pushing the Swedes back that far.

The Swedes are also mentioned in Hamlet, if you've read it, as being the source of many of the Danish troubles, since they lost control of Norway to them.

King Charles XII is credited as being one of the great European military leaders I'm pretty sure.

[RedGuard]

if the swedes dont stand out in my mind as any kind of a power at some time history they werent.

im a history fanatic

[Tico_1990]

And I'm a history student (university level). Sweden was a powerful nation once, even though you RedGuard might not be willing to aknowledge that. If you used to provide balance suggestions the same way "if I don't think/know then it isn't true" then I'm glad you aren't a part of the balance team anymore.

[RedGuard]

nations that were once powerful that stand out in my mind are along the lines of britain, france, germany, russia, spain, india, china, japan, greece, italy just to name a few and give you an idea

never once would sweden enter my mind. what did they do that was so great? who did they conquer? what did they invent that changed the world so drastically? nothing

if you provide stupid arguments they way you do now your head will melt down and you will make other mentally slow by looking at you. slughead
im glad i cant actually see you