Tanks that were never build... [Archive]

Hakonarson

06-01-2003, 12:24

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/su100y/su100y_04.jpg

The sole example of the Soviet SU-100 made - completed in 1940 with a 130mm B-13 naval gun.

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/kv_exp/kv3_02.jpg

Wooden mockup of the KV-3 armed with a 107mm gun from 1941. The armour basis of the hull was 90mm (vs 75 for the KV-1), the weight was 62 tons and the V-5 engine delivered 700 horsepower.

The one KV-3 hull completed was fitted with a KV-1 turret and was deployed along with some other KV replacements to the 124th tank Brigade. It was destroyed in combat in December 1941.

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/t34m/t34m_2.jpg

T-34M.

Contrary to popular belief, the T34 was beset with problems, and could have been an awful lot better - the T-34M was an early attempt to rectify those, and was approved for production in January 1941 after only a few T34's had been made - the Soviets were well aware of the shortcomings of the original design

Specifically:

1/ It had torsion bar suspension giving a much better ride than Christie, taking up much less internal space, providing 50mm extra ground clearance, and that was much more battle-worthy (ie it was harder to damage).

2/ Turret and hull front armour were increased to 60mm, vertical side armour to 40mm.

3/ Turret ring was expanded to 1600mm

4/ Ammunition stowage for the main gun (76mm) was 100 rounds instead of 77, and for the machine guns 4500 instead of 2800 (roughly)

5/ Commander's cupola was fitted

6/ the original gearbox was retained but fitted with a new de-multiplyer giving 8 forward and 2 reverse gears.

The new engine for this vehicle was fitted transversly instead of longitudinally, so the tank was shorter than the original despite the increased ammunition load, and weight was restrained to 27.5 tons.

Fortunately for the Axis this vehicle never made full production - the factory at Mariupol was preparing for mass production in May 1941, having produced 5 prototype turrets and 50 production turrets, and the KhPZ factory had produced 3 hulls by April 17 1941.

However development problems with the engine delayed final assembly and mass production, and when the factories were evacuated all attention went to the T34 and no further production was attempted because it would have interferred with the flow of T34's.

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is4/last_is279_1.jpg
Included just for fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif This is "Object 279", built in 1957. The gun is 130mm M-65, and it could carry all of 20 shells for it

The glacis is 269mm thick and the turret front 305mm thick. The hull is also covered by a thin eliptical shield that is designed to prevent HEAT rounds penetration and also to stop it being tipped by a nuclear explosion.

The 4 tracks gave it very low ground pressure and it could easily operate in swamps and other soft ground where most tanks couldn't. The engine was 950 or 1000 hp.

But it's about 12 feet high

It's now on display at the Soviet Tank museum at Kubinka, as are many other experimental vehicles.

Stefan the Berserker

06-03-2003, 16:29

Tank that is going to be Build...

Leopard 2 A6:

http://www.wehrtechnik.net/wehrtechnik/leo2_04.jpeg

Newest Leopard 2 Edition from 2001 with an 120mm L/55 Gun. And new KE Munition.

Actual Plans show that this ->

http://www.wehrtechnik.net/wehrtechnik/leo2_140mm.jpg

Is the Future of the Leopard 2 Series. Shortly after the Leopard reached Production, plans were made to upgrade it with 140mm Guns. These Plans seem to be reactivated, through Leopard 2 A6 is just a "Compromise" between our Gouverment and Kraus-Maffei-Wegmann (Tank Producer). The Company wanted to make a Contract for the Development of a completely new Battletank (Leopard 3?), but Defense Minister Struck said that this was too expensive...

Hakonarson, what do you say...

If I was Struck, I had decided for the new Battletank. Featuring the new 140mm Gun, I had also given the task to improve the Leopard Series' Dive Ability. The Leopard is already capable for full diving, but just with the dive Coupula...

They should be able to cross Rivers without Bridges (allows very heavy tanks)...

Hakonarson

06-03-2003, 22:23

Yes I've seen some stuff about the 120mm L55 in the 2A6, and the 140mm - I wonder if it will ever get built tho - there's not a lot of info out there about it other than the photo you have put up and some brief reports from a year or 3 ago.

Deep wading (dive) is pretty common these days- although you need a snorkel to fully submerge a tank

And you still need good conditions on the river bed and entry & exit points - although a tank is a bit lighter underwater than on top http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

DemonArchangel

06-04-2003, 01:06

well, here's a tank that was good but has never been built

The Red Alert Mammoth Tank

rasoforos

06-04-2003, 12:21

hehe , i loved those mammoth tanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
, the dune II harkonnen devastator tank was even bette though

the Leo 2 A6 is a real beauty , i look forward to see one of those soon.

Stefan the Berserker

06-04-2003, 19:32

The Snorkle -> The Leopard 1 and 2 need a Snorkle put on the Coupola, thats what I ment. If you use the "Russen Granulat" from the Mir Space Station and Soviet Submarines (as a Surivial System) you can completely leave out the Snorkle. It's a Powder that reacts with Water and turns into Oxygen, with a special Device which is not Larger than your PC you can save "Powder-Oxygen" (own created word) for about three weeks.

I suppose this was a good Standard Application to an Leopard 3... Simply Imagine the Scene: The Tank is hiding in a Pond to Lurk up for enemys, or simply just for fun drives through the Rhine...

But what about a Secondary Arnament with TOW or Milan Rockets... Also an evil idea... Carrying a Coaxial Rocket Launcher in Turret, or a Rocket Launcher in Hull...

It's Technologically Possible, and acctually if it was properly deployed the Tank was advanced to his foes.

Acctually there was some Russian Tank with two Coaxial Guns that was the Original to Westwood when Designing the Mammoth... I simply don't remember it's Name, was T-55 based...

Hakonarson

06-04-2003, 22:28

You're not thinking of the ZSU-57 AA tank are you - with 2 x 57mm AA guns? ZSU-57-2 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/zsu-57-2.htm)

I don't know anything about the fantasy vehicles so can't imagine what it would be from sight

There have been numerous gun/rocket launchers - at best of marginal usefulness (Shillaleigh, and the Rusian 125mm ones), while AT rockets are generally kept to infantry vehicles that otherwise lack heavy AT capability - the gun on a MBT is almost always good enough in that respect and there's no need to add cost, complexity, vulnerability and reduction of conventional ammo by adding rockets.

DemonArchangel

06-04-2003, 23:58

or the tank in my alternate history....

Kataphraktoi Mk. VIII

3 180mm cannons arranged chain gun style or 1 miniature ion cannon (i'll explain later)

2 turret mounted 227mm or TOW rocket launchers

3 nozzles spraying greek fire

2 40 mm chainguns

1 driver mounted 8.91 mm machine gun

125mm of armor

is about 3-4 times larger than the abrams

Hakonarson

06-05-2003, 01:09

only 125mm of armour?? Why bother? lol

LadyAnn

06-05-2003, 01:29

My dream tank:
Equiped with a reactive force-field that will send the projectile back exactly where it comes from.

:joker:

Annie

Stefan the Berserker

06-05-2003, 09:34

Fantasy Vehicles ->

The RA1 Mammoth Tank is very large and has four Chain Sections instead of just two, it was being designed to be an In-Game Representaive of Soviet Super-heavy Tanks...

It mounts two 120mm Guns coaxial to each other, and two AA Rocketlaunchers mount on left and right side of the Turret. Additionally it regenrates Armor... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

ZSU-57 AA tank -> After you named it, they used Videos from Redsquare Parades in RA1. This tank was the Original they took for the Soviet's Tanks in RA1. Westwood simply took the Tank Designs they preffered, because it looked nice. Realism isn't part of C&C, in RA1 you get Apaches and Hind Helicopters aswell as Migs... And the Story of RA1 is set in 1946...

But an realistic and Effective version of a Tank with two Coaxial Main Guns was possible, perhaps even effective...

Take the IS2 Chassis, dismount the Turret... Now the Turret is redisigned -> Replace the 120mm Gun through two long Barreled 85mm Guns, increase Crew to have two Gunners. Then a small Generator powered by the main Engine is added to turn the Turret automatically (much faster)...

Then the new Turret is put up...

Hakonarson

06-05-2003, 22:29

The Russians actually had several designs in WW2 that had co-axial main guns -

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/hetzer/004.gif
I13.75SU - twin 45mm guns, drawing stage only

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/kv_exp/kv4_02.gif
One proposal for the KV-4 with a 45mm gun co-axial with a 107mm main gun. There were several other proposals that placed the 45mm in a seperate sub-turret either on the top of hte main turet, or in front of it.

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/kv_exp/kv7_02.jpg
KV-7-II heavy turretless tank with twin 76.2mm guns.

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/kv_exp/kv7_01.jpg

KV-7-I heavy turretless tank with 76mm gun and 2 x 45mm guns co-axially.

Stalins comment about this was "Who needs 3 cannons? It would be better to mount one, but a good one.", and that ended multi-cannon AFV development in the USSR

DemonArchangel

06-06-2003, 01:34

yea, the kilbanophori Ludicrously Heavy and Fast Mobile Battle Base has a good solid 2 meters of armor on it and 6 ions cannons mounted chaingun style plus inumerable missle launchers, chainguns, greek fire nozzles, machine guns, mortars and VTOL airplane launch pad, plus has a top speed of 70 miles an hour.

but of course, it's support costs are about 1000 per turn for each one

A.Saturnus

06-06-2003, 12:57

You can say what you want but the Leo 2 is one of the most beautiful tanks in history.

Nowake

06-06-2003, 16:16

as far as I know, the Leichter

DemonArchangel

06-07-2003, 01:48

as far as i'm concered, the kilbanophori mobile battle base can crush the leopard 2 like a tin can and run the mammoth tank right over, but hell, i doubt it'll ever be built, mainly because the byzantine empire ceased to exist a while ago.

Knight_Yellow

06-07-2003, 02:28

the most buetiful tank in all history?

a tank that would melt the heart of any allie and break the heart of any enemy?

*MY OPINION*

as proven in the 2nd gulf war

http://www.mikekemble.com/1RTR/images/challenger1.jpg

Challenger 2E is a variant of Challenger 2 and has all the features that make the Challenger the world's most reliable and technically advanced main battle tank. It has been specifically enhanced so that it now represents the highest state of armoured technology, purpose designed for the most severe operational and climatic conditions.

The integrated weapon control system has the latest generation of gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the commander and gunner, which allows full hunter-killer operation, day and night, under all battlefield conditions, with a common engagement sequence. These assets, together with the fully integrated battlefield management and navigation system, enhance both the commander's situational awareness and mission planning capability.

Challenger 2E is equipped with the new high-pressure 120mm L30 rifled gun and ammunition, which provide the highest possible levels of penetration, accuracy and consistency. Additional firepower is provided by an electrically operated 7.62mm co-axial machine gun and pintle-mounted 12.7mm Browning machine gun operated by the loader from an opened-up position. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow its operation independently from the turret. This enables simultaneous accurate engagement of fast-moving targets, such as helicopters, as the system is effectively stabilised and reaction time is very short.

im trying to get this baby added to the desert combat mod for battlefiled 1942 Desert Combat (http://www.desertcombat.com/)

any man who thinks that the "tank" is obsolete in the modern battlefield is a FOOL.

Hakonarson

06-07-2003, 02:31

Seems a bit odd for a British tank in 1942 - I mean all that stuff about reliability, penetration, big gun - that's just not British old boy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Stefan the Berserker

06-08-2003, 13:25

120mm L30 rifled gun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And then the Challenger 2 shall defeat an Leopard 2???

Some Education:

The Code L30 stands for the Length of the Gun. So the Challegers guns is 30 times 120mm long = 3,6 Meters long Gun. Great Britain is useing DU (Uranium) Bullets, not the Rheinmetall KE Munition of an Osmium-Carbidium Composal the Leopard has.

Then, if you follow the Data about Leopard 2 A6 you're told the Tank has an 120mm L55 Gun, which makes a Gun of 6,6 Meters length... So the DOUBLE size of the Challengers Gun.

With this more effective Gun (Length improves Range and Firepower) the Leopard 2 A6 fires a the Challenger before it's in Range of the Brits...

How heavy is Challenger 2 and how thick is the Armor? By taking a Look on this Photo the 120mm X 3,6 Meters Gun seems so large I guess the Challenger is smaller than the Leopard...

I13.75SU - twin 45mm guns, drawing stage only...

I LOVE THIS DESIGN

Acctually I would like it if we (the Germans) would try to build a modern kind of this...

I have two versions of it... To imagine...

One is based on this Tank:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/radargr....de.html (http://mitglied.lycos.de/radargrundlagen/kartei/battle/radar106-de.html)

The Flak Panzer Gepard on Leo1 Chassis... Giving the 47 tons Leo1/Gepard Chassis a new Turret with two 105mm L55 Guns for dual Purpose: AT Gun and Howitzers. Designing the Turret so the Tank can put up the Guns like a Howitzer (easy)...

Then Classify the Tank as a "Medium Tank" , simply put then the new Turrets on the remaining Leopard 1 we have. So the "new" Tank can easyly be introduced as an Supporter for Leopard 2 Tanks (Leo3 later?)...

I guess further development of the Multiple-Guns, Multi-Turret Ideas should be tried out. Most of these Objects were stopped after WW2, but acctually I13.75SU could have been an effective design...

For a WW2 Design I had perhaps made a Tank with 3 Cannons -> a twin 25mm AA Gun, and an 45/47/50mm (Variating with the Nation who build it) put in the middle of the two AA Guns. The Tank would then be used against Infantry very well, but diffrent to the german Ostwind or american Meat Chopper Tanks I needn't fear meeting another Tank...

rasoforos

06-08-2003, 13:48

hehe , the old 'Challenger2 is the best' argument again KY. I wont argue this time , i ll just say that its tragicall export history in connection to the fact that is the cheapest from all competition ( american , french , german , excluding russian) says it all. I would expect countries to rush and buy something that is both the cheapest and the best. why didnt they? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If by 'proven' you mean that it can kick ass against obsolete t-55 tanks with 20-1 number advantage , absolute air superiority and raiconessaince and with an excellent staff of engineers to repair it then it did kick ass. It will protect every country against those t-55 tanks of the enemy ( as long as we have enough of them)

71-hour Ahmed

06-08-2003, 16:30

Challenger has better armour than the U.S. Abrams has, as shown recently. RPGs stopped some Abhrams but not challengers.

Hakonarson

06-08-2003, 23:29

Quote[/b] (Stefan the Berserker @ June 08 2003,07:25)]120mm L30 rifled gun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And then the Challenger 2 shall defeat an Leopard 2???

Some Education:

The Code L30 stands for the Length of the Gun. So the Challegers guns is 30 times 120mm long = 3,6 Meters long Gun. Great Britain is useing DU (Uranium) Bullets, not the Rheinmetall KE Munition of an Osmium-Carbidium Composal the Leopard has.

Then, if you follow the Data about Leopard 2 A6 you're told the Tank has an 120mm L55 Gun, which makes a Gun of 6,6 Meters length... So the DOUBLE size of the Challengers Gun.
Usually this is so - but not in this case. The British being famous for their idiosyncracies this is one of them.

British guns have long been given "L" numbers that are a model designation, not the length of the barrel - eg the famous 105mm used in western tanks for 30 years was the L7 - and it was a LOT longer than 7 calibres

And so it is with the 120mm L30 - the L30 is simply the designation of the gun - it is, infact 55 calibres long, as this Memorandum from Vickers to the British Parliament (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmdfence/274/274we14.htm) states.

Characteristics of the Challenger 2:

• Crew 4
• Length Gun Forward 11.55m;
• Hull Length 8.3m;
• Height to Turret Roof 2.49m;
• Width 3.5m;
• Ground Clearance 0.5m;
• Combat Weight 62,500 kgs;
• Main Armament 1 x 120mm L30 CHARM Gun;
• Ammunition Carried Typically 50 rounds - APFSDS, HESH, Smoke;
• Secondary Armament Co-axial 7.62mm chain gun; 7.62mm GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence;
• Ammunition Carried 4000 rounds 7.62mm;
• Engine Rolls-Royce CV12 with engine management system;
• Maximum Road Speed 56kph;
• Average Cross Country Speed 40kph.

Leopard 2A5: (from a different site sorry)

Length: 9.9 m
Width: 3.7 m
Height: 3 m
Weight: 62 tons
Speed: 70 km per hour
Range: 550 km
Crew: 4
Engine: 1,500 hp

Hakonarson

06-08-2003, 23:55

Quote[/b] (71-hour Ahmed @ June 08 2003,10:30)]Challenger has better armour than the U.S. Abrams has, as shown recently. RPGs stopped some Abhrams but not challengers.
Really?

Where and when? The only photo I've seen of an M1 KO'ed by Iraq showed a hit on the side, and was, IIRC, credited to a modern ATGM of some sort.

What part of the tank was hit by these RPG's you say KO'ed the M1's?

Did any Challengers get hit by "RPG's"? On what part of the tank?

BTW Rasoforos - the "export success" of other MBT's is largely due to political factors rather than any great advantage or disadvantage of the tanks themselves.

Sales of M1's are usually made using US military credits that are only allowed to be spent on US equipment, while the Leopard scores well from being a continental vehicle - the LeClerc and it's derivatives don't sell terribly well either - again probably because they'r French http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

IMO the 3 heavy vehicles (M1A1, Chieftan, Leopard) are probably entirely comparable in all important respects.

The LeClerc is 8 tons lighter than the M1A1, Cheiftan & Leopard (54 tons vs 62-63 tons) so probably isn't really in the same class.

The M1A2 adds another 6 tons to the overall weight of hte M1A1, but I'm not sure what for All the documents I've read about the upgrade mention systems, and added generator, etc, but I'd have expected 6 tons to have involved some extra armour and that is never mentioned.

rasoforos

06-09-2003, 01:46

Hakonarson the political factors exist but when a country like Greece that does not really decide on weapons because of the country of origin ( french , german , U.S , russian platforms coexist ) , the number is sifficienlty high to rival the number of tanks of the original country ( the all time contract will probably exceed 400 in total ) , and extensive tests are made in all terain and shooting in various different contitions , i then tend to believe that the results are correct. This is not to say that politics dont play a role i say again.

BTW that 'akolouthos' over your nickname is greek...what sort of think are you a follower of? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

06-09-2003, 02:53

Raso the Greek tests were scored agaisnt a set of criteria that were considered important to the Greeks - other users might use different weights for the various criteria, and so the only thing that can be taken from the Greek choice of hte Leopard was that the Leopard fitted the Greek erquirements best.

To say that this means the Leopard is the best tank is nonsense - it is the best tank under the criteria used, nothing more or less. If those criteria changed tomorrow then it might not be the best tank.

Given that the Greek army already operated German and US tanks, and that the contract called for most of the vehicles to be manufactured in Greece, I'd have guessed that the German tank was a long way in the lead before any trials had been done.

The US is usually pretty reluctant to let "foreigners" actually build US-designed equipment - the US proposal was only for "assembly" in Greece.

Germany on the other hand has already set up co-production facilities outside Germany with the Swedes for their Leopard 2A5's.

Janes Defence article (http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000531_1_n.shtml) on the Greek selection - note the comments about offsets, Greek added value, and politics I don't know exactly what role those played, but they're always there

Another article on the Greek tank competition (http://www.ets-news.com/greektanks.htm) Again notice politics gets a mention - especially the bit about the Turkish competition

Here's an article on the Turkish tank competition (http://www.cacds.org.ua/dosle/1104a.html) - this makes the politics even more obvious

I also read somewhere that the US pressured Israel into removing the Merkava III from the Turkish competition......

Akolouthos was the title of the commander of the Varangian Guard at one stage - he was the "follower" of the Emperor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Knight_Yellow

06-09-2003, 14:54

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ June 08 2003,13:48)]hehe , the old 'Challenger2 is the best' argument again KY. I wont argue this time , i ll just say that its tragicall
If by 'proven' you mean that it can kick ass against obsolete t-55 tanks with 20-1 number advantage , absolute air superiority and raiconessaince and with an excellent staff of engineers to repair it then it did kick ass. It will protect every country against those t-55 tanks of the enemy ( as long as we have enough of them)
remind me how many challenger tanks have ever been lost due to enemy fire?

oh yes 0

whilst moving over rough terrain the challenger tank has been noted for its high rate of hits on other moving targets.

"The 1500bhp Europack gives Challenger 2E superior agility and motive force in the harshest terrains and environments. Its unique second-generation, rubber-bushed, double-pin track minimises noise and vibration. Hydraulic track tension adjustment is achieved from the driver's compartment.

The hull and turret have been designed to minimise millimetric radar returns, to avoid detection and lock-on by guided missiles. The infra-red signature is reduced to avoid detection by thermal imaging systems. All explosives are stowed below the turret ring. Fifty main armament rounds can be carried there."

"Challenger 2E is supported by a complete logistic package throughout its entire life. Immediate assistance from an in-country Vickers team can be provided. The logistic package provides ease of training, maximum operational availability and trouble-free whole life support.

Maintainability of Challenger 2E is facilitated by a comprehensive built-in test capability for the key vehicle systems. The use of Line Replaceable Units has been maximised and the systems diagnostic routines make performance testing and fault diagnosis an extremely simple procedure."

http://www.mikekemble.com/1RTR/images/challengerpoland.jpg

The main armament consists of a Royal Ordnance 120 mm rifled tank gun designated the L30. It also incorporates a McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems 7.62 mm chain gun, which is already in service in the British Army, being installed in the GKN Defence Warrior mechanised combat vehicle, and a 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun. The Challenger 2’s fire control system is the latest-generation digital computer from Computing Devices Company (CDC) of Canada and is an improved version of that installed in the US M1A1 Abrams tank. It also has growth capacity for future enhancement such as a Battlefield Information Control System and navigation aids. The Challenger 2 carries a crew of 4 and has a combat weight of 62.5 tonnes. It has a maximum road speed of 56 km/h and a range of 250 km cross country and 450 km on the road.

Combat Weight 62,500 kgs
Crew Size 4
Combat Weight 62,500kg
Length (hull) 8.327m
Length (gun forward) 11.55m
Width (over skirts) 3.52m
Height (to turret roof) 2.49m
Ground Clearance 0.5m
Max Road Range 450km
Engine Rolls-Royce Perkins Condor CV12 1200bhp
with new engine management system
Gearbox David Brown TN54 epicyclic, 6 fwd 2 rev
Suspension Hydrogas variable spring rate
Track Blair Catton hydraulically adjusted double pin
Speed 59 kph (road);
40 kph (mean cross country)
Main Armament Royal Ordnance 120mm L30 gun
Ammunition CHARM 1 and 3, HESH and Smoke
Ammunition Carried Typically 50 rounds - APFSDS, HESH, Smoke
Secondary Armament Hughes 7.62mm coaxially mounted chain gun and
7.62mm loader’s GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence
Ammunition Carried 4000 rounds 7.62mm;
Armour DORCHESTER
Smoke Dischargers Exhaust smoke injection and two sets of five L8 grenade dischargers
Commander Gyrostabilised fully panoramic site with laser range finder and thermal imager
Gunner Gyrostabilised primary site with laser range finder and thermal imager, and coaxially mounted auxiliary sight
Driver Day and night periscopes
Loader Day periscope
Total procurement cost £2.2 billion
Schedule Production Began 1990
Training Readiness Date achieved September 1997
Production Reliability Growth Trials completed November 1997
Batch Test 1 achieved November 1997
Batch Test 2 achieved March 1998
Quartering Readiness Date achieved April 1998
Batch Test 3 achieved June 1998
In-Service Date achieved June 1998
Batch Test 4 achieved October 1998
ISRD achieved January 1999
Operational Readiness Date due late 1999

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/chal2-1.jpg

there chew on that ya b*******

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Spino

06-09-2003, 16:00

Is it me or does the lower portion of the gun mantle/front turret design of the Leopard 2 look like a giant shot trap? What were the designers thinking? Imagine an armor piercing round ricoheting off the bottom slope of that front turret armor and into the point where the turret meets the hull. Hell, a HEAT round could cause some unforseen problems even if it doesnt' penetrate the armor. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

There was a similar problem with the lower gun mantle/front turret design of early series PZ-V Panther in WWII which led to unnecessary casualties. Personally, I'd go with the more 'comforting' lines of the M1, Challenger and Merkava.

Actually given the decidedly hilly and rocky terrain of Greece or Turkey and the fact that both nations do not invest in state of the art equipment as often as more industrialized nations both countries should look into buying fewer main battle tanks and purchasing more light or medium support tanks and lots of missile based dual purpose anti-tank/infantry solutions. Most modern battle tanks are so much meat against well trained anti-tank crews with state of the art missile systems. The latest generation of ATGMs, especially those with the ability to penetrate the top armor of a main battle tank, are positively frightening. The latest ATGMs are also pretty effective against infantry in hard cover and improvised bunkers as we saw in the recent Iraq War.

Brother Derfel

06-09-2003, 16:15

Hmmm, cool tank that was never made/

The MAUS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Although a failed design, the superheavy Maus has captured the imagination of many armor enthusiasts. Weighing 180 tons, it is one of the heaviest tank designs ever made. Various sources (both in print and online) differ in their accounts of the Maus's service record. Most indicate that only two prototypes were completed, but destroyed at the testing site. A few claim that the prototypes actually were sent into battle, but either broke down or were destroyed before engaging the enemy.

Not very Succesful, but a bloody big Tank.

Michiel de Ruyter

06-09-2003, 17:14

Raso, the Leo 2 A6 is now being introduced in the Dutch army...

Stefan the Berserker

06-10-2003, 10:31

Remember MBT70 Project, If the Leopard Series wasn't better why has the US tried to copy our Technology?

Perhaps you don't know it but acctually the M1 Abrahms Series is just an imitation of Leopard 2.

In 1970 america had the Idea and asked Germany if there wasn't an Interrest to develop a new Tank together. The Project MBT70 was started, which was based of mixing components of the M60 Patton, the Leopard 1 and a new 120mm Gun. Shortly after the Project was started the USA stopped it (after the neccessary Know-how was stolen).

A few Years Later the Leopard 2 A1 and the M1 A1 were build...

Anyway: Which is the Tank most Nations use? The Leopard 2.

Used by: Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, Japan (Named Type 90 MBT), Spain, Denmark, the Nederlands and Turkey...

And we sale the Tank's Components aswell. The M1's 120mm Gun is produced by Rheinmetall and all other NATO 120mm Guns are Copies of this Gun... Oh yes, and we sell the Leopard 2 Engine to China to enpower their Type 98 Tank...

Hmmm... Strange and all these shall just do that because a Political Reason? Poland and Turkey have no abilities to build any Parts of the Tank byself... And why is there this Type 90 from the Japanese which is absolutely identic to the Leopard 2 A4?

Leopard 2 Specifications:

Crew: 4
Engine: 2600 kW MTU, MB 873
Speed: 72 KmH (Road) ; 60 KmH Offroad
Range: 500 Kilometers (on Streets)
Wight: 59,7 tons
Length: 9,9 Meters
Main Gun: 120mm L/55 Rheinmetall
Secondary Arnament: 1 Coaxial 7,62mm MG, 1 7,62mm MG Coupula
Manufacturer: Kraus-Maffei-Wegmann
Armor: Compsite-aromor of Wolfram-Karbid and Chopham
Ground Pressure: 9,30 N/cm2
Nightwatchequip/Persicope, Driver: BiV-Fahrgerät
Nightwatchequip/Persicope, Loader: STN-Atlas, EMES 15,
WGB im Hauptzielgerät
Nightwatchequip/Persicope, Commander: Zeiss, PERI R17A2, WGB im Rundblickperiskop
Firecontroll System: Hybridrechner
Introduction of the produced Tanks within the Troops: 1995

Source: http://www.sipotec.net/Neu_Ausr/Waffensysteme/leo2a6_tdat.html

This Soucre is the Website of the Constructers

Through his nice Speed the Leopard's Commander perhaps drives some Circles around the Challenger before he fires his advanced Gun with KE-Munition...

rasoforos

06-10-2003, 12:25

Knight yellow remind me how many Challenger 2 tanks fought against fair odds? 0 as well , which might explain why the loss count is 0. As i told you earlier when you are fighting against t-55 and you have absolute air superiority , devastating strength of numbers , perfect reconnaicense and a full group of engineers following you its a bit difficult to lose any tanks. Its the same with 800 gothic knights attacking 100 peasants , unless you screw something up really bad you wont have losses.
By the way the challenger 2E is not the same as most Challenger 2 in services , for a first , as your post says it has adopted a different engine ( german i think and the one the leoppard 2 has) to solve the too weak engine/too heavy tank problems , it also has upgraded electronics and added armor ( i think)

hehe , lets not start this 'which tank is better' again mate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif , we know we dissagree http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

hakonarson : of course the criteria in every country are different but the criteria for the greek terrain cover a wide range of terrains and conditions ( temperature extremes , terrain extremes , hunter-killer ablitities , transportation etc) so the test is one of the most thorough ever done ( no test is perfect as you say)
Of course there are politics in arms trade but every country requires technology transfers , local production , and additional investments. If i remember correctly the offers were not far apart from each other. Concerning the fact that greece allready operates german and american tanks : it would be a strong argument if Greece didnt have this ( unreasonable to me) policy of not caring about uniformity when buying weapons ( a reason we have 2 different 3rd generation fighters , 3 different VSHORADS , had 3 different tanks ( m-60 leo-1 amx-30 20 years ago)). In addition the reason i mentioned the test was to show a specific case of the Challenger 2 failure to win any international export competitions ( and they tried hard in the greek competition) apart from the case of a dousen of tanks for Oman.
Concerning politics , of course they exist , and of course turkey's decision is a variable , but... well its no big guess to know what Turkey will choose , it will choose the contractor that will keep supplieing it with weapons no matter how many Kurds die. 2-3 years ago the Turks really wanted to purchace the Leo-2 A6 and it looked it was gonna win , the problem is that germany no longer provides them with weapons because they are used against the Kurdish population so the Leo-2 was out of the question , In addition the Leclerc would not be an option either because France recognises the genocide against the Armenians and is quite sensitive to the Kurdish problem as well so a potential embargo exists there as well. Finally since the Turkish Army is highly unified and prefers the U.S weapons then it is no secret that a U.S made tank will be chosen ( a Russian tank has slim to none chances to my oppinion) . The problem in their case of course is the money , you need those green papers to buy tanks and Turkey doesnt have any , a very good chance was the Iraqi invasion since the states offered money and military upgrades ( Turkish military controled newspapers were talking about $30 Billion , 500 MBT's , 200 JSF , and other weapons , of course all this for internal consumption since the U.S wouldnt pay that much but a search in armed forces forums will provide you with many turkish posts claiming this will happen) , the Turks to their honor rejected that deal so the financial problem still exists ( i dont know in what phase is their MBT program today though...). The concluding remark is that yes politics play a role , yes other variables exist , yes the tests are not perfect , but when a tank wins 12 international competitions and another wins 1 ( for 12 tanks i think) alhough it is much cheaper then there is for sure a performance advantage as well

Michiel de Ruyter : is it being introduced in the present time? Do you know for how many tanks the contract is?

Knight_Yellow

06-10-2003, 13:10

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ June 10 2003,12:25)]Knight yellow remind me how many Challenger 2 tanks fought against fair odds? 0 as well , which might explain why the loss count is 0. As i told you earlier when you are fighting against t-55 and you have absolute air superiority , devastating strength of numbers , perfect reconnaicense and a full group of engineers following you its a bit difficult to lose any tanks. Its the same with 800 gothic knights attacking 100 peasants , unless you screw something up really bad you wont have losses.
By the way the challenger 2E is not the same as most Challenger 2 in services , for a first , as your post says it has adopted a different engine ( german i think and the one the leoppard 2 has) to solve the too weak engine/too heavy tank problems , it also has upgraded electronics and added armor ( i think)

hehe , lets not start this 'which tank is better' again mate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif , we know we dissagree http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

hakonarson : of course the criteria in every country are different but the criteria for the greek terrain cover a wide range of terrains and conditions ( temperature extremes , terrain extremes , hunter-killer ablitities , transportation etc) so the test is one of the most thorough ever done ( no test is perfect as you say)
Of course there are politics in arms trade but every country requires technology transfers , local production , and additional investments. If i remember correctly the offers were not far apart from each other. Concerning the fact that greece allready operates german and american tanks : it would be a strong argument if Greece didnt have this ( unreasonable to me) policy of not caring about uniformity when buying weapons ( a reason we have 2 different 3rd generation fighters , 3 different VSHORADS , had 3 different tanks ( m-60 leo-1 amx-30 20 years ago)). In addition the reason i mentioned the test was to show a specific case of the Challenger 2 failure to win any international export competitions ( and they tried hard in the greek competition) apart from the case of a dousen of tanks for Oman.
Concerning politics , of course they exist , and of course turkey's decision is a variable , but... well its no big guess to know what Turkey will choose , it will choose the contractor that will keep supplieing it with weapons no matter how many Kurds die. 2-3 years ago the Turks really wanted to purchace the Leo-2 A6 and it looked it was gonna win , the problem is that germany no longer provides them with weapons because they are used against the Kurdish population so the Leo-2 was out of the question , In addition the Leclerc would not be an option either because France recognises the genocide against the Armenians and is quite sensitive to the Kurdish problem as well so a potential embargo exists there as well. Finally since the Turkish Army is highly unified and prefers the U.S weapons then it is no secret that a U.S made tank will be chosen ( a Russian tank has slim to none chances to my oppinion) . The problem in their case of course is the money , you need those green papers to buy tanks and Turkey doesnt have any , a very good chance was the Iraqi invasion since the states offered money and military upgrades ( Turkish military controled newspapers were talking about $30 Billion , 500 MBT's , 200 JSF , and other weapons , of course all this for internal consumption since the U.S wouldnt pay that much but a search in armed forces forums will provide you with many turkish posts claiming this will happen) , the Turks to their honor rejected that deal so the financial problem still exists ( i dont know in what phase is their MBT program today though...). The concluding remark is that yes politics play a role , yes other variables exist , yes the tests are not perfect , but when a tank wins 12 international competitions and another wins 1 ( for 12 tanks i think) alhough it is much cheaper then there is for sure a performance advantage as well

Michiel de Ruyter : is it being introduced in the present time? Do you know for how many tanks the contract is?
well the abrahams have lost at least 1 tank so its still the challenger in the lead

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Ithaskar Fëarindel

06-10-2003, 22:44

Guys you are taking this off-topic for the monastery. If this continues the thread gets moved. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

06-11-2003, 01:47

It should never have been in here anyway Ith - AFAIK TW doesn't cover any period that's got tanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Anyway - Stefan the British 120mm is not a copy of the Rheinmetal one, nor is the Swiss one.

The MBT70 project was a COLLABORATIVE one - that is both sides put into it - saying the Americans stole tech from it for the M1 means you must also accept that the Germans stole tech from it for the Leopard 2.

It was cancelled because of the cost - $1-1.2 million per tank viz $750k for the M1 That was 5 times the projected initial cost.

And it was GERMANY who backed out first - in 1969 - the US kept on with the project until 1971, but the expense proved too much for them too.

But the armour and various other technologies that were explored served both the US and Germany very well.

The type 90 is not a copy of the Leopard - for starters it only has a crew of 3 and uses an autoloader. The gun is hte Rheinmetal 120mm, but that's not quite the whole tank

Your rabid nationalism for all things German is rather touching, but narrow-minded and usually quite wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Michiel de Ruyter

06-11-2003, 07:55

Raso,

considering we have 3 Mechanized brigades it would constitute a fair number of vehicles (if the Leo 2 A5 we have now is fully replaced). My estimate would be a total of about 4 tank-battalions max. So somewhere up to 200 would be my guess.

As the marines are molded in the same fashion as the British Royal marines, there are no tanks there.

Hakonarson

06-11-2003, 22:31

Raso your argument is so one-eyed as to be almost blind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You should read it, and then compare it to what I actually said, especially about criteria. Sure hte Greeks tested teh vehicles over wide ranges of terrain, temperatures, killing ability, etc.

AND THEN THEY ASSIGNED SCORES to each according to how important THEY (the GREEKS) felt each capability was.

There's no reason on heaven or earth that the Greek scores would necessarily be the same as anyone else's - for example the Greeks might want to operate the tanks in hot and cold climates, in mountains and have other characteristics that would not be appropriate to Saudie Arabia........

I wonder how much benefit/disadvantage, for example, the British ammunition system was considered (seperate loading, combustible propellant casing so no empties).

One problem with the Challenger that emerged during the Greek competiiton was degradation of existing stocks of tungesten APDSFS rounds - they had gone through too many hot/cold cycles while stored in the open in the gulf, and accuracy suffered as a result. Now the British are happy enough to retain DU rounds for the gun, but perhaps not all potential export customers would appreciate this. there was some talk of devloping a non-DU round using new "green" materials, but this was apparently linked to winning the Greek order (which they didn't of course) in order to justify the expense.

What's the Greek attitude to DU?? (and the DU round was not actually authorised for export yet anyway&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Or if other nations might prefer a different mix of protection and mobility for their particular national doctrine.

Even then the scores only differed by what - 5-6% best to worst IIRC??

Saying the Greek test is objective and therefore shows the "truth" about the tanks in some absolute manner is pure nonsense - and far too common a trait these days I'm afraid - nationalism goes mad in so many little ways http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Your attempt to minimise the impact of politics is odd too - given that you then promptly maximise it in reference to the Turks

Stefan the Berserker

06-12-2003, 12:47

"Your rabid nationalism for all things German is rather touching, but narrow-minded and usually quite wrong"

Nice for you, and your protection of the M4 Sherman isn't Nationalitic? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Ithaskar Fëarindel

06-12-2003, 17:46

Quote[/b] ]Your rabid nationalism for all things German is rather touching, but narrow-minded and usually quite wrong

Hakonarson please refrain from this type of phrase... you are the one acting narrow-mindedly in this respect.

And yes you're right this isn't game related but it's history related. I might just have Tosa change the label to say "All things history."

Or I might not. Even so I don't mind anything historical.

Hakonarson

06-13-2003, 01:09

Stefan what I did was "defend" attacks on the Sherman as a poor tank - IMO it was "adequate" and people were using incorrect facts and assumptions to dis it that were utterly unjustified.

I'd do the same for any other argument based on what I think are errors - for German, French Italian or even Japanese tanks - or any other equipment for that matter.

It's hardly nationalistic - I'm in New Zealand, not America, and the only tank we made was truely, truely appalling - look up the Bob Semple Tank on the 'net - it's a great laugh and thank God no-one ever tried to use it in combat

Ith if you're going to tell me off for that then next time I'll make it worth my while

Knight_Yellow

06-13-2003, 01:43

i agree with hakonarson

also any leapord tank is bound by UN specifications witch automaticly makes it obsolete to the M1A1 or Challenger Mk2

also the size of gun means nothing or length of barrel for that matter (beyond a certian point of course)

and before some1 says im blind to other tank's reputations cos im so nationalistic im not, im proud of it cos its a f****** awsome tank witch just happens to have the best track record in the world.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Hakonarson

06-13-2003, 03:33

YK what are the UN specifications?

Do you mean NATO? AFAIK there's no specifications for NATO for tanks - other than a common standard for the gun - and even then the Swiss make a "NATO" 120mm but aren't in NATO, and the German smoothbore is completely different from the British rifled cannon

If there was a NATO specification it would probably have been written by the US and the M1 would meet it too

Stefan the Berserker

06-15-2003, 15:35

Let this topic about Challenger/Leopard stand still now...

Continue something I tried to start: Hakornason, if you were a Tank-Designer (acctually this Job isn't called this way) what would you build?

My "Dream Tanks"... starting with modern ones...

Wotan A1 ->

Acctually an enlarged Version of the Leopard 2 to carry an newly developed 160mm L/55 Gun.

160mm x 55 makes an 8,8 Meters long Gun (current Leopard Gun is 6,6 Meters long), so if the Chassis was made Larger it could mount this Gun... Was better to use an Autoloader, through the Bullets are quite heavy... But this 160mm Gun was strong enough to toast ANY Battletank

Säbelzahntiger (Sabretoothtiger) A1 ->

Impression by the KV-7 and fictive C&C Mammoth Tank. And refixed Gepard Chassis, carrying two 105mm L/70 autoloaded Guns...

Would be a nicely strong Medium...

Wotan 2 A1 ->

BLUSH 200mm L/45 Gun with 9 Meters Length. NOTHING surrvives a hit by that, but reload time is rather slow. Also I guess the Tank would become too large and too heavy... An Wotan 2 A1 would be nothing less than a modernised Tiger II...

Hakonarson

06-16-2003, 04:39

Stefan to my your poonderings on matching guns and chassis are pure fantasy - one could say anything one wanted - jsut add another 20mm to the gun calibre of het previous biggest "offering" and presto - you too can have the biggest baddest tank in fantasy.

There is no 160mm gun let alone a 200mm one.

Why on earth would you want 2 x 105mm guns on a Gepard when they can't penetrate most MBT's they'd be required to fight?

As Stalin said - better one good gun than 2 average ones - the 105 was great up to 15-20 yrs ago, but now it's only suitable for fighting obsolete or light equipment, and hte Gepard Chassis would probably be stretching to accomodate 2 of them anyway.

I'd like to continue discussions about tank designs that weer at least put on paper at some stage or other - but fantasy has never struck me as an area where comparative assessments of technology can be useful

Spino

06-16-2003, 21:22

Quote[/b] ]As Stalin said - better one good gun than 2 average ones...

Tragically this philosophy didn't apply to training Soviet soldiers...

Hakonarson

06-17-2003, 03:56

Given the constraints of the time the chices there were more along the lines of 2 conscripts or no-one at all.

Later on in the war Soviet training was at least as good as the new German conscripts coming to the front, while at het end of the war the various German militias (Volkssturm, VlksGrenadiers, etc) were comparable to the Russian conscripts of the dark days of 1941 - what goes around comes around

You can't conscript a tank tho - you have to build it, and so there is time to do things like consider it's armament.

DemonArchangel

06-17-2003, 20:13

well i still think the kataphraktoi can kick all those tanks asses

71-hour Ahmed

06-17-2003, 20:47

If you want to think of semi-fictional tanks, how about a light tank fitted with anti-tank missles and reactive armour (like the soviets use). I think that some sort of sacrificial vehicle like this could take out a couple of tanks before dying with modern missles and have the speed and sensors to get up to the armour and hit them before a response.

That said, tanks are the target for everything these days and no new tank seems to take that into account.

Hakonarson

06-17-2003, 23:31

I just read a couple of sci-fi books by a guy called John Ringo - I forget the titles, but the subject was an alien war/invasion of earth.

The bad guys are carnivorous centaurs who like their food live but aren't averse to butchering it (as in turning it into easily stored "cuts") right there on hte battlefield.

I quite liked it because it's set in 2004 - and the weapons are all "current" - the author was in Airbrone IIRC and his writing is ful of comments about the military organisation today....;)

But anyway - the bad guys come armed with anything from shotguns to plasma cannon - M1's etc can usually hand;e their "hypervelocity missiles", but their 3mm guns are a bit much - I forget what they're called but they fire a projectile by exploding a small amount of anti-matter as propulsion and the projectiles get up to about .3c (30% of the speed of light).

In a fantasy universe you can always make somethign bigger and badder - or smaller and badder

Pablo Sanchez

06-18-2003, 04:13

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ June 17 2003,17:31)]I forget what they're called but they fire a projectile by exploding a small amount of anti-matter as propulsion and the projectiles get up to about .3c (30% of the speed of light).
Using such a weapon for anti-tank work is just silly for a number of reasons:
1- As testing in the '30s on AT rifles proved, even if the realtively small caliber rounds succeeded in penetrating the armor, they still couldn't do much damage (in Soviet testing, I believe a BT-7 was penetrated 30 times with a 14.5mm rifle without a single 'kill' hit being scored--only simulated crew woundings and minor engine damage).
2- Even with the tiny caliber, the recoil will be absolutely unmanagable and probably dangerous to the user.
3- Anti-matter is too volatile and too expensive to serve as ammunition, even if you are an alien.

On the topic, my favorite unbuilt tank is probably the Maus: the most salient example of how vaunted German engineering was defeated by lamentable German idiocy. That's the story of their adventures in the two world wars; they came up with some great concepts and did well with them, but they proved to have rather poor judgement in the end.

Hakonarson

06-18-2003, 04:37

It's Sci-fi - the author can invent whatever technology he wants - so thank you for confirming my point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ATR bullets didn't travel at measurable portions of the speed of light.

IIRC the RoF of the weapon was thousands of rounds a second - getting several dozen hits wasn't a problem. Damage wasn't a problem wither because whenever the rounds hit anything substantial enough to stop them both they and whatever they hit tended to disintigrate into energy.

Ablation of the rounds in air was visible, so the fire looked like a laser beam and aiming was relatively easy

I don't think WW1 has too many examples of wonderful German technology made useless by internecine political back-stabbing - WW2 for sure, but WW1??

the Maus is a good choice IMO - not for any best tank award, but just for being BIG http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Pablo Sanchez

06-18-2003, 18:54

WW1 wasn't so much a technological failure for the Germans as a doctrinal one. They had excellent plans for the war but messed them up. For example, the von Schlieffen plan was very nearly successful and would have worked, if they hadn't weakened the thrust through Belgium and had used realistic estimates of Belgian resistance. Another example would be transporting Lenin into Russia: Ingenious in the short term, one of the worst ideas ever in the long term.

I hate the Maus, personally. It's obscenely large and clumsy, and if it had entered combat, it could only have embarrassed itself.

DemonArchangel

06-18-2003, 23:22

hmm... in my alternate history, the Iron Eagle tank for the germans is similar to the tiger tank, only with a heavier gun, modern electronics and better armor.

Stefan the Berserker

06-19-2003, 17:43

Aehm...

The two Maus Prototypes were chucked into Battle in Berlin and it was prooven that they were disadvanteged to the IS-2 they encountered. The Maus was only 20 KpH fast and had no Machine Guns.

The only good thing of it was 128mm Gun and, if it had been avarible, the 150mm Gun which was planned for the Maus in original... The Maus could shake Hands with the French B1 Bis -> Static Line Defender/Distance shooter, but not a manuferable MBT...

One Prototype was destroyed in combat, the other one was captured and is now in Kubinka Museum...

But some News on the 140mm Leopard:

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/rheinmetall/

Rheimetall is currently developing the 140mm Gun... We'll get it And our allies too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And I'm making Blueprints for the Wotan A1 Tank, even if it will never be Build it looks nice...