Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alexey K

"Die Welt" article.

Recommended Posts

I've found Russian translation of  German article:

German: http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article140083741/Bundeswehr-Kampfpanzern-fehlt-wirksame-Munition.html

Russian: http://inosmi.ru/world/20150427/227744613.html

 

Main point of article: Geman Leopard 2 tanks can not defeat modern Russian armour (T-80, T-90) with their obsolete tungsten carbide-based APFSDS rounds.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found Russian translation of  German article:

German: http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article140083741/Bundeswehr-Kampfpanzern-fehlt-wirksame-Munition.html

Russian: http://inosmi.ru/world/20150427/227744613.html

 

Main point of article: Geman Leopard 2 tanks can not defeat modern Russian armour (T-80, T-90) with their obsolete tungsten carbide-based APFSDS rounds.

 

Yeah I highly doubt that, the Leopard 2 is using the same SABOT style ammunition the Abrams uses, at least until that new US SABOT round is introduced in large numbers, remember the M1 uses the same gun. Not to mention the T-80 and T-90 are a generation behind and I highly doubt the west is using SABOT ammunition they know is hopeless against the horde of invincible Russian super (Last generation) tanks.

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I highly doubt that, the Leopard 2 is using the same AP SABOT ammunition the Abrams uses, at least until that new US SABOT round is introduced in large numbers, remember the M1 uses the same gun. Not to mention the T-80 and T-90 are a generation behind and I highly doubt the west is using SABOT ammunition they know is hopeless against the horde of invincible Russian super (Last generation) tanks.

 

Ummm, doesn't the USA use DU sabot rounds instead of tungsten like the Germans do?

From what I've read they did amazing work getting tungsten to have the "self sharpening" ability that DU has, plus they use the L55, but otherwise I doubt they use the same rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, doesn't the USA use DU sabot rounds instead of tungsten like the Germans do?

From what I've read they did amazing work getting tungsten to have the "self sharpening" ability that DU has, plus they use the L55, but otherwise I doubt they use the same rounds.

 

Whoops, yeah I just had a brain lapse there, I should have worded that better, they use different ammunition across the board, the main point I meant to make was that the cannon is the same.

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually this: "Main point of article: Geman Leopard 2 tanks can not defeat modern Russian armour (T-80, T-90) with their obsolete tungsten carbide-based APFSDS rounds." is not 100% accurate. The article quotes the german Ministry of Defense saying: "es kann im Einzelfall nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass es moderne Panzerungen gibt, die der Wirkung der gegenwärtigen Panzerbordmunition des Leopard 2 widerstehen",  which directly translated means: "it cant be outruled that in isolated cases some contemporary armor can resist the effectes of the Leopard 2s current ammunition.". This is a much more careful statement and it significantly lesses Die Welts generalized statement that the Leopard 2 cant penetrate T-80s and T-90s. It is more like "the Leopard 2 cant reliably kill T-80s and T-90s in all thinkable tactical situations".

 

It also needs to be noted that the germans use 2 different guns on their Leopard 2s: the 120mm L/44 on the A5, which is the same gun the M1 Arbams uses, and the 120mm/L55 which is used in the Leopard 2 A6 and A7. While the 120mm L/44 with tungsten core ammunation is indeed inferior to the US M256 using DU sabots, the L/55 is about equivalent in kinetic energy deliverd to the target, even with tungsten sabots.

 

According to Wikipedia (1) the german army has currently 232 Leopard 2s of which 125 are A5s, the rest are A6 (87) and A7s (20). The article probably is referring to the planned introcution of another 100 A6/A7 (modernized A4s) Leopard 2s which is supposed to start in 2017 (2).

 

(1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_equipment_of_the_German_Army#cite_note-7

 

(2)

http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_kpz_leopard_2_a6m-a.htm

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32257543

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again it's the difference between "turns T-90 crews into goo 95% of the time!" and "Turns T-90 crews into goo 80% of the time!"

 

As pointed out, the newer model Leo 2s with the longer barrels are about on part with the later model US rounds in terms of penetration, just at the expense of a larger weapons system.  You won't get the same firey death effect as often but in so many words a T-90 struck by a Leo 2A6+ is going to be fairly dead vs ultra dead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some political information: the minister of defense is currently under pressure for 'inadvequate' weapon system in the Bundeswehr (as was the minister before her and the one before, too - that minister position is known here as 'ejection seat'). Currently its about the G36 and its problems (which the press got awfully wrong).

The article in 'Die Welt' is also quite uninformed and tries to hook in with the general bad press about the ministry. It is also a pitch by a former ministry member to get DU munitions for the Leopard (DU is non-PC here).

 

Bad article - ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently its about the G36 and its problems (which the press got awfully wrong).

 

 

 

excuse me the ot - but I never quite understood why the BW picked the G36 over the G41.

imho, the latter is a better battle-rifle in every aspect. Maybe someone in these forums knows the capabilities of these weapons and the reasons why the G36 was selected, but as far as I can understand, the G41 would have at least same the combat effectiveness of the G36, but would be better in terms of overall costs, also considering that it keeps the same form of the G3 which it would had replaced, making the transition much less problematic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Die Welt article seems to be as well informed about technical matters as the BBC article we discussed in another thread. The bottom line is that the more technical an issue is, the less likely a mainstream publication is going to represent it correctly.

And as Poesel pointed out, let's not forget that weapons procurement by a government is a lot easier to secure when there is a problem to solve. If there is no problem, then one must be invented :D Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s "tank gap" argument made in the US know what I'm talking about.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If playing CM teaches us anything its that war is not particularly symmetric. Its not so much tanks versus tanks as tanks versus ATGMs / ATGMs versus artillery / artillery versus airpower / airpower versus AA missiles / AA missiles versus ECM, etc etc etc. I recall someone commented back in 2004-5 that the US went for a tank design optimized for toe-to-toe tank warfare, which during the Iraq occupation  was little more than a very large, very heavy LMG platform. Basically, we shouldn't be worried that the Bundeswehr fields Leopard II, we should be worried that they still field Milan ATGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently its about the G36 and its problems (which the press got awfully wrong).

i thought the reporting on the shortcomings of the G36 turned out to be true and the last i read was the BW is looking to have them all replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem of the G36 seems to be that during fully automatic fire, the barrel heats up and the plastic parts get soft, reducing accuracy. Tests that were conducted by the BW showed that after 90 shots of fully automatic fire, accuracy drops drastically, rendering the weapon ineffective at ranges beyond 100-150 meters. Many blamed HK for the shortcomings, but in fact the G36 in its standard version met exactly the specifications of the BW when it was introduced. The MG36 was developed for continous fully automatic fire, not the standard version of the rifle. That is why the MG36 has a much heavier barrel. There were also reports of the excessive heat development beeing the result of faulty ammunation, which was confirmed by the manufacturer of that ammo and some 70.000 rounds of the german troops in Afgahnistan were replaced by ammunation from a different manufacturer. But still the BW seems to be unsatisfied with the performance of the G36.

 

As far as i knnow, the BW is currently looking for either and updated version of the G36 or an entirely new weapon. I dont know if it has been decided yet what they are going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem of the G36 seems to be that during fully automatic fire, the barrel heats up and the plastic parts get soft, reducing accuracy. Tests that were conducted by the BW showed that after 90 shots of fully automatic fire, accuracy drops drastically, rendering the weapon ineffective at ranges beyond 100-150 meters. Many blamed HK for the shortcomings, but in fact the G36 in its standard version met exactly the specifications of the BW when it was introduced. The MG36 was developed for continous fully automatic fire, not the standard version of the rifle. That is why the MG36 has a much heavier barrel. There were also reports of the excessive heat development beeing the result of faulty ammunation, which was confirmed by the manufacturer of that ammo and some 70.000 rounds of the german troops in Afgahnistan were replaced by ammunation from a different manufacturer. But still the BW seems to be unsatisfied with the performance of the G36.

 

As far as i knnow, the BW is currently looking for either and updated version of the G36 or an entirely new weapon. I dont know if it has been decided yet what they are going to do.

German Defense Minister: G36 Has “No Future” With Bundeswehr

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/23/german-defense-minister-g36-has-no-future-with-bundeswehr/

 

effected by even ambient temperatures :eek: . how this took so long to finally come to light is interesting....

Edited by Saferight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exact wording of the minister were: 'the G36 in his configuration has no future in the BW'. There are many escape routes out of this.

No way the new gun, whatever it is, is not from H&K so she needs these routes.

 

Writing a spec, testing & buying to spec and then complaining it doesn't work in circumstances not in the spec is so moronic that it would be appalling if it wasn't so commonplace with customers.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the BW wanted to replace the cold war G3 with a "peace weapon", so the spec focussed on light weight and other features than combat performance.

Now times (and missions) are different but of course nobody in German politics wants to admit to this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and from what i read cost was a big factor in the quality of the materials mainly the polymers used. if i remember correctly H&K used lower quality polymers than were spec'd originally. this all has shattered my idea of the G36 being this expensive uber futuristic rifle.

some are saying the 416 would be the best choice for a replacement but i think that would be way too expensive. Is it even possible to refurbish these rifles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know many people in Europe who think that the americans love for guns is somewhat weird, and while i somewhat agree to this, i still love american gun shows :D. Here is a guy having fun with a G36:

 

 

It looks like a very comfortable gun to shoot, very controlable on full auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I remember when the BW was evaluating the G-36 was there was a lot of reluctance to get rid of the G3. The thinking from some was "now that the Cold War is over, why do we need new military equipment?" The thinking was that if the G3 was adequate to meet the needs of the Bundeswehr during a time when Germany needed to be on a war footing, why replace it when it switched to a peacetime footing? Of course us military nerds know why this is flawed thinking on many levels, but from what I remember of the debates this was a very strong argument pushing back against *any* new weapon. Because of this, and other arguments, the Bundeswehr was obligated to go with the least expensive weapon instead of the best one for the job.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) That was a 50 yard test vs the BWs tests which were conducted at ranges between 100 to 300 m (109 yards to 328 yards).

2) The gun possibly had time to cool down while they were setting up the camera. They mentioned that in the video, but we cant say anything about the significance of the cool down time bebause we dont know how long it was.

 

But great video, i hope he makes the 100 and 200 yards test as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...