NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Carnage1138
Master Sergeant
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 19:59
Location: Northern Virginia, CSA
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby Carnage1138 » Wed 29 Feb 2012 21:27

Gronank wrote:I used to use Abrams and m113s but the fuel needs were as crippling as an arrow to the knee.


Well.....considering that the Abrams does use a jet engine its no surprise that it goes through fuel like a sword to the chest. :lol:
Image

User avatar
IR0NMIKE 6
Warrant Officer
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 07:05
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby IR0NMIKE 6 » Thu 1 Mar 2012 00:53

ikalugin wrote:Can you please specify time period? I am interested as in cold war era, how many prepared positions and to what depth would a unit have :)



At the lowest level (Tank PLT, 4 tracks NATO) in the defense you would have alternate and supplementary positions.

- Alternate positions had the same field of fire as your original primary positions, but back a ways, (usually around the effective range of your main weapons system ~500-1000-2000m ish depending on terrain, LOS etc) so you could move to those positions and be covered even if the enemy is doing a pivot-steer on your position.

- Supplementary positions cover a different engagement area, typically on a flank or a possible, but not likely avenue of approach. The general concept would be positions if the enemy did something weird - a tank company crashing along a little goat trail in the woods.


How many of these? A Mech Infantry company in a deliberate defense would have at a minimum one alt position for every track and dismounts, and at least one set of supplementary positions. You would also have beefed up protected hide positions to weather the arty barrages, then move to primary fighting positions when the arty stopped.


In Europe there was positions mapped out for many scenarios and alot of them improved. You can see something similar in S Korea today.

Uniform764
Warrant Officer
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 02:49
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby Uniform764 » Thu 1 Mar 2012 19:46

bentguru wrote:I believe they call it "advancing to the rear"


You never retreat. You just withdraw to a better fighting position ;)

User avatar
KungFu
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed 15 Feb 2012 09:01
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby KungFu » Thu 1 Mar 2012 23:36

When you say leopard, do you mean leopard 1 or leopard 2?

I used to have Abrams in my deck during the beta. I've since switched to leopard2s because they are faster and use much less fuel with comparable armor + weapon.

The Abrams have better side armor and stabilizer so they are better off in mid range fights where you might get flanked and have to maneuver a lot.

Carnage1138 wrote:
Gronank wrote:I used to use Abrams and m113s but the fuel needs were as crippling as an arrow to the knee.


Well.....considering that the Abrams does use a jet engine its no surprise that it goes through fuel like a sword to the chest. :lol:


Its a turboshaft engine. It has the advantage that it can run on nearly any type of fuel (gas, diesel, kerosene, marine diesel, probably vegetable oil if you blended it) but the disadvantage that it burned a lot of it.
Last edited by KungFu on Thu 1 Mar 2012 23:47, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Uniform764
Warrant Officer
Posts: 413
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 02:49
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby Uniform764 » Thu 1 Mar 2012 23:38

KungFu wrote:When you say leopard, do you mean leopard 1 or leopard 2?


They mean Leo 2.

ZombieRommel
Sergeant
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 04:56
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby ZombieRommel » Fri 2 Mar 2012 00:08

KungFu wrote:When you say leopard, do you mean leopard 1 or leopard 2?

I used to have Abrams in my deck during the beta. I've since switched to leopard2s because they are faster and use much less fuel with comparable armor + weapon.

The Abrams have better side armor and stabilizer so they are better off in mid range fights where you might get flanked and have to maneuver a lot.

Carnage1138 wrote:
Gronank wrote:I used to use Abrams and m113s but the fuel needs were as crippling as an arrow to the knee.


Well.....considering that the Abrams does use a jet engine its no surprise that it goes through fuel like a sword to the chest. :lol:


Its a turboshaft engine. It has the advantage that it can run on nearly any type of fuel (gas, diesel, kerosene, marine diesel, probably vegetable oil if you blended it) but the disadvantage that it burned a lot of it.


The M1A1 is not only good in case YOU get flanked, it's good for flanking itself because of the stabilizer and side armor. Leopard 2's have comparably weak side plating but much higher speed so they are best used in a blitzkrieg style forward thrust. I have Leo2's and M1A1's in my deck. Basically I have the Leo2's a bit in the front, let the M1A1's bring up the rear, and keep Leo2's at max distance with armor facing forward while flanking with M1A1. You can remain constantly mobile with the M1A1, meaning you can screw with enemies' sight lines... cruising around a tree line so that enemy LOS is broken, letting those enemies shoot the Leopards, then backing up back into the enemy LOS to pop him while he's reloading ;)

Carnage1138
Master Sergeant
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 19:59
Location: Northern Virginia, CSA
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby Carnage1138 » Fri 2 Mar 2012 01:13

The M1A1 is not only good in case YOU get flanked, it's good for flanking itself because of the stabilizer and side armor. Leopard 2's have comparably weak side plating but much higher speed so they are best used in a blitzkrieg style forward thrust. I have Leo2's and M1A1's in my deck. Basically I have the Leo2's a bit in the front, let the M1A1's bring up the rear, and keep Leo2's at max distance with armor facing forward while flanking with M1A1. You can remain constantly mobile with the M1A1, meaning you can screw with enemies' sight lines... cruising around a tree line so that enemy LOS is broken, letting those enemies shoot the Leopards, then backing up back into the enemy LOS to pop him while he's reloading ;)


Speaking from a Warsaw Pact POV, oh how I love when people try that. It's when people try things like that that I have Mi-28 Havocs in my deck. If players don't have any Chapparral or Rolands nearby I can fire my super accurate Ataka Vs from far away and wipe them out.
Image

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby ikalugin » Fri 2 Mar 2012 02:34

IR0NMIKE 6
Thank you for reply.
I am correct to estimate 3 prepared positions with depth between 6-3 km for the company defense sector? Were there any battalion/brigade defensive pre prepared positions to a greater depth?

The reason why I ask is b/c for me it appears that a battalion would have 3 tactical defensive lines, while under attack by atleast a regiment sized force. This will lead to those 3 positions be overrun, prior to creation of new ones (ie within hour or so), within the main attack sectors of the WP.

They also appear to be closely spaced, which makes artillery maneuver easier.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

Dkong08
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 05:21
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby Dkong08 » Mon 5 Mar 2012 06:15

Froggy wrote:
bentguru wrote:I believe they call it "advancing to the rear"

Extrat from FM101-5-1:
delaying operation (JP 1-02, NATO) — An operation in which a force under pressure trades space for time by slowing down the enemy's momentum and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy without, in principle, becoming decisively engaged.

(Army) — Usually conducted when the commander needs time to concentrate, preserve, or withdraw forces; to establish defenses in greater depth; to economize in an area; to cover a defending or withdrawing unit; to protect a friendly unit's flank; or to complete offensive actions elsewhere. In the delay, the destruction of the enemy force is secondary to slowing his advance to gain time. See FMs 17-95, 71-100, 100-5, and 100-15.


Dude, that sounds exactly like some excerpts from Sun Tzu's Art of War. I took in a lot of what Sun Tzu has said into my style of play, and I hardly falter.

Anyways, to throw in to this discussion: Abrams are great and are my preferred main battle tank. The supply issues can be easily resolved with a cheap supply truck or a Chinook.

Furthermore, I don't think that the main battle tanks should be running all over the place-- that is the job of your Calvary or supporting armor. In my case, those are the Challenger II and Bradley filled with Dragon II. This idea that the Main battle tank needs to be constantly moving is laughable. Why risk your units exposed to being strafed by roaming helo's or AT squads? High value armor should advance only when there victory is assured. Why rush in swinging into a surprise ambush or unfavorable conditions?

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: NATO - Leopard vs Abrams

Postby ikalugin » Mon 5 Mar 2012 06:39

Art Of War is really common sense military principles used by all modern parties.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests