Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands

A veteran Leopard 2 tanker from The Netherlands has kindly accepted an interview for the blog. L. served in all 3 Leopard 2 variants operated by the Koninklijke Landmacht, so he can provice an excellent overview of how this tank is operated, together with it's strengths and weaknesses.

Hello L., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the Koninklijke Landmacht (Royal Netherlands Army)?

Joined the Air Force in 1988 and went to the army in 1996 when I had the opportunity to rise to the rank of sergeant with a lifelong contract. I had three options, Artillery, Infantry and heavy Cavalry. Artillery fell off because I didn’t have mathematics, Infantry, I liked,  but when orientating myself at the tank school  I was impressed by the 55 ton steel beasts also known as Leopard 2A4. What also influenced my choice was an old warrant officer who told ‘’Why carry a gun in the field when we have a gun that carries you in the field. Wise words and I never regretted my choice for heavy cavalry and the Leopard 2.

What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Leopard 2 versions you used?

Leopard 2A4
Strong points: the speed and manoeuvrability, the rate of fire, the reliability of the tank.
Weak point: the ammo storage in the left forward hull. Probably the best achievable solution in a defensive war, delaying the enemy from hull down positions. Later on in Afghanistan scenarios it was in my opinion a weak point.

Leopard 2A5
Strong points: the extra armour on the turret and forward turret sides. For safety and fire risk the replacement of the hydraulic system with an electrical system. As sideeffect it created some room in the turret for some more (personal) equipment, water and or luxuries.
Weak points: it accelerated slower and when driving in loose sand it was not that fast anymore as the Leopard 2A4. Ammo in hull still a weak point

Leopard 2A6
Strong points, the same as above, the biggest change was the L55 guntube in combination with the DM53 LKE round which was said enough to penetrate all known T-tanks with ERA. If I remember correctly the instalment of the longer guntube needed a extra sensor on the guncradle to get the stabilisation on the same or better level.

Weak point: The glass MRS mirror (in German the Feld Justier Anlage – FJA). This was on the A4 and A5 a polished metal mirror which never broke.  Around  September 2007, during the Bult Francis Cup (a Dutch tank gunnery competition) it was ‘’found out’’ that the  glass one, which was said by the could not break… well it broke almost immediately after the first few rounds creating several reflections or no reflection at all. An still the ammo storage in the hull.

Leopard 2A5 and A6 had extra armour among other improvements. Did it affect the chassis or suspension in any way? What about the mobility?

As mentioned above, the acceleration of the tank was less than with the A4 and in loose sand it was slower. A short period the army tried the single fuel concept replacing the diesel fuel with kerosene. In that period the opinion of us as users was that it was even slower than before and we experienced more leaks in the fuel system. According to higher level this had nothing to do with the kerosene. If this is true I don’t know , I’am not a expert on fuel  and seals. After several months they changed back from kerosene to diesel. We were happy when we could refuel by our German colleagues during gunnery training in Bergen because they still had diesel.  After several months the Dutch army changed back from kerosene to diesel.

When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

During training at Bergen, Germany, tank and non-tank targets (which were engaged with HEAT above 800 metres) were normally engaged between 1200 and 2500 meter, the shorter distances a nr.58 target and the longer distances  a nr.59 or nr.60 target. Dismounted infantry or soft –skin vehicles like UaZ and trucks below 800 meters were engaged with the coax machine gun. Sometimes long range firing with HEAT-TP was practised at ranges up to 3800 meter. When doing that you could see the tracer leaving the field of view and coming back and hit the target .This because the MZ was relatively slow comparing to the KE. Also, on a regularly base firing HEAT-T on a hard target was practised. Most of the time an old former East German T-72 at range 6 or 9 was used. Unfortunately this was never done with the DM33 which had to do with range safety. Only at range 19 or 20 (IIRC) it was allowed to fire DM33. This was always done before deployment

Leopard 2 uses a human autoloader. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved?

It was illegal, but one time in our battalion we managed a round every three seconds in a static situation at Bergen training area. The loader was a plasterer who was strong like an ox. He had one in the tube, the second one he held above the breech, the third was between his legs and the fourth was unlocked in the open bunker. All illegal as hell……but is was a nice sight. Unfortunately the officer of the Leopard 2 gunnery advice team was using a stopwatch to check the time between  firing. He stopped the exercise, called the battalion master gunner on the range tower and the crew and they had some explaining to do. The normal time (no round in the arms, rounds locked in the ready racks and bunker door closed,  which was trained was 6 seconds between each round which was manageable. One of the other positives about a human loader was that he could stand guard and help with maintenance.

What was the typical ammunition configuration (% APFSDS and HEAT)?

For the great game at the North German plain the load was 25% HEAT-T and 75% KE which is about 10 MZ (MehrZweck – Multifunctional) the German name for the HEAT-T)) and 32 KE rounds. When I joined the battalion in 1996 it was the DM33 KE round and the DM12 round. When deployed to Bosnia in 1997 with the Leopard 2A4 the tanks were 24/7 loaded with 21 HEAT rounds and 21 KE rounds, the complete load of 7,62mm ammunition for the coax and loaders machine gun, 4 fragmentation hand grenades, 4 blast hand grenades, 2 WP hand grenades for destroying the tank in emergency (one in the breach and one in the turret with all ammo exposed (if one had time therefore), green, red and yellow smoke hand grenades, the standard load of 9mm for the Glock 17, ammo for the C8 of the loader and for Bosnia the rest of the crew got a C7 rifle which was a pain in the … in the turret. Several were bend…… The load out on the Leopard 2A5 during SFOR-13 was the same with the difference that the team (A-team in Bugojno and FOB Suica) I was in had everything combat loaded in the tanks and that the team in Novi Travnik had the main gun ammo in the ammo bunkers at the base. It was just a difference in opinion of the platoon Sergeants. My colleague’s opinion was ‘’time enough when something happens’’ and my opinion was ‘’I don’t have to carry them on my back, better safe than sorry’’ and loaded everything in the tank.

The Netherlands is a country with a high population density where combat distances are likely to be small. Was this taken into account during training? Do you think the longer 120mm gun could have been a problem when manoeuvring?

For training there were tactical exercises without troop where the officers and NCOs were given a tactical situation (sometimes an historical example from WO 2) which they had to solve. This was done in the Netherlands. During this training the field of view was always hindered with fields of corn which were a little bit taller than the optics. The PRAT (an tracked AT-vehicle) had difficulties with the roads lined with trees and the endless fences with barbed wire. The farmland in the Netherlands is also riddled with small drainage ditches and small waterways. But the main task was on the North German plain. The countryside there is , I think, comparable with maybe less drainage ditches. In my time it was not allowed anymore to drive through farming fields and take up position in a village or cornfield. So training was limited to the various training areas such as Bergen, Klietz, Altmark, Drawsko and Zagan in Poland or Varpalota in Hungary. The longer gun gave in the beginning some problems on small forest roads or junctions. Later on, when the driver, gunner and commander got some experience in to when to steer in the hull and traverse the turret it was not a problem anymore. Of course sometimes with a inexperienced crew it still went wrong.

In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

Not really, when there was something broken you knew why, you did hit something very hard like a ditch or some rocks. Sometimes a malfunction of some sensor in which case a warning popped up and you had to act according to the checklist.  Most of the maintenance was regular and planned.
In the end of the Leopard 2 career we had some issues with spare parts. It had more to do with that the higher up powers didn’t see the need any more to keep large stocks of spare parts and ammo. At that moment it was peace keeping all over the place and  more with the absence of money and that they didn’t see the need to keep a large stock of spare parts because the cold war was over

KMW has established an operators club for Leopard 2 users. Did you ever come across it? Did you find it useful?

No, I never seen it.

Leopard 2 is equipped with thermal sights. Can you comment on the use, especially in night conditions? What is the maximum range at which you can identify vehicles/personnel in the different versions? Did you also use them during the day?

The thermal image for the gunner on the Dutch A4, A5 and A6 was the same and it was a good thermal in my opinion. You could identify a person at least 2 km away, see the engine heat of an Apache hiding behind the trees on at least 3000 meter (this although the exhaust was blown upwards and dispersed by the rotor, it was still observable) vehicles were no problem to identify, maybe not the exact type but it was more than enough. Problem was when a vehicle/launcher  was camouflaged with hessian and sometimes wetted with water. Especially a problem during exercises was the YPR-765PRAT. They took position reverse slope and raised the launcher just above the surface level. The launcher itself radiated no heat and they camouflaged it with a sort of ghilly suit. Nasty….. and very difficult to find with thermal. Same with the small anti-tank LSVs of the Dutch air mobile brigade. They camouflaged their vehicles with a ghilly suit made of hessian, wetted it, and hide in the undergrowth. They waited until you passed them, they popped out and fired their AT missile in your back…… And yes it was always used during the day, the gunner was trained to search with thermal and daylight optics during daylight operations. A lot of gunners in the battalion I served in had one hand of the switch TI/daylight and one hand on the gunners steer.

What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

It’s a long time ago but back in Bosnia-Hercegovina we did patrols lasting a day driving up and down hills and sometimes mountains without any problem. The rubber on the road wheels , top roller and the rubber pads suffered more on the rocky unpaved roads but not that it caused maintenance problems. Sometimes when driving in very dusty conditions (last tank in a column through the dry sand….) the engine management gave a signal that you had to clean the engine air filters. You had a little less power when the warning light went on but not troublesome. You had time to go to a safe place or assembly area and clean them.

Leopard 2A5 received a thermal sight for commander, improving the hunter-killer capability. Do you think it was worth the cost? A few years ago there was some debate about it because some thought that commander could be overwhelmed (he also has to control the tank and keep an eye on the BMS (Battlefield Management System).

The Leopard 2A4 had a daylight PERI for the commander and could use this for hunter killer operations or aiming and firing the main gun . On the A5 and A6 the PERI was modified and had a TI integrated. I personally found the quality disappointing. On closer ranges the picture was very clear and sharp, on greater ranges the quality of the image was not great. A larger magnification was just blowing up the pixels and the image was not getting that better. I found it useful during the night when in position to scan the surroundings of the tank for infantry sneaking up to your tank. The gunner was scanning his sector and I was scanning the surroundings of the tank.

Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach/procedure in these situations?

Yes, it was a standard drill which was practised regularly. Most of the times it was about a strike warning (or paddestoelbericht –Mushroom message in Dutch) that a NATO nuclear weapon was deployed in our sector or it was an enemy chemical attack with persistent and non-persistent chemical weapons.

Did you have the opportunity to train with other countries (NATO for example)? What was your impression about their training and equipment? Any tank (or other weapon) you liked or disliked?

With the Germans it was mostly against them because the were the trainings adversary during exercises at, for example GuZ (Gefechts Ubungs Zentrum – Combat Training Centre) Altmark. Between the Germans and Dutch there were a lot of similarities in training. As Dutch we participated in the German tactics course at GuZ Altmark which gave no problems because of the similarity. The only thing we noticed that during training they were less afraid for damaging the tank (light units, light armour plates etc) and that a Dutch gunner had a little bit more freedom in engaging enemy tanks without waiting for the ‘’fire’’ order  from the commander. We liked their MG3 turret- and coaxial machinegun for the higher rate of fire. In Bosnia we had a gunnery demonstration at Glamoc together with a British Challenger  1 platoon. Didn’t see any difference in the accuracy only a slower rate of fire which is probably due to the separate loading of the round and the charge and that they were slower off road.  Both German and British crews were trained well. Of course each country had its own way of operating.

Did you receive intelligence on potential threats (T-72, AT missiles, IEDs)? If so, how accurate was it once you got access to the weapon?

They told us they would come in masse but that our gun, armour and ammunition was superior. After the wall fell I did see some tests with, if I remember correctly DM33 ammunition. It was capable of penetrating but apparently not satisfactory enough for the Germans.

When you were deployed in Yugoslavia, did you receive any specific training or intelligence (on M-84 tanks for example)?

No, we received a little country book with language, customs, plants and animal life and the basics of material what was used in former Yugoslavia. Of course also briefings (with the old fashioned overhead projector) about rules of engagement, basics of equipment, various uniforms and ranks.

During the first deployment we encountered only T-35/85, M18 and M36 and during the second deployment there was an unit with one T-54 and about 12 T-55s near our base  of which we had a good relationship. According to the rules we had to do site inspections but this always happened in good corporation, most of the times ending in drinking the local spirits and telling (exaggerated)  tank adventures to each other.

Did the tanks receive any extra equipment for these missions (in Yugoslavia)? What about extra spare parts?

During SFOR-2 we got a short wave radio in the tank, so we could talk to each other in mountainous terrain. Personally I heard a lot of people from distant countries on that radio but never our own tanks, but that had probably more to do with my/our lack of knowledge about radio waves bouncing around in the atmosphere. Also the sergeant major of the technical troops did some changes to the engine settings so we had more engine power. This caused the engine to smoke like an old coal fired ship. Same was done with the A5s which were heavier during deployment with my battalion.

During your spell in the Koninklijke Landmacht conscription was abolished in the Netherlands. Did this have any effect on your unit? Do you think it was a good decision?

I only experienced conscription when in the air force. Some conscript were motivated but a lot of them only saw it as a hindrance of their work career and a reduction in income or a hindrance of their study. Personally I find a volunteer army a big improvement. With a volunteer army you can invest in training and people don’t leave after 14 or 16 months. Later on conscription was even shorter. Also, conscript could only send voluntarily abroad on missions. Now you have motivated people for longer a time which you can deploy around the world without problems. And I hope we never go back to a conscript army with unmotivated people who have to do their time. Go to the boy scouts when you want to teach time discipline but not in the armed forces. A waste of time for instructors and cadre. But that my opinion.

What is your opinion on turbines and autoloaders?

Only seen the turbine in action on a M1A1(HA) on a mobilisation complex in the Netherlands. It sounded great (like a jet fighter) and it moved the tank with the same speed as our MTU diesel. But for what I’ am been told it required more maintenance than our thrusted diesel. The autoloader, my only experience is sitting in a PT-91 Twardy at the commanders place and got an demonstration of the autoloader. I was afraid that thing was loading my left arm. I ‘am sure it has its benefits, but I’m used to a human loader who can act as extra pair of eyes on the lookout when driving from A to B. He can do (emergency) repairs and handle malfunctions of the gun and or coax, he can do maintenance or pull security with the turret machine gun when the rest of the crew is working at the tracks in an emergency. Then, unofficially, he was the cook on board of the tank. He had easy access on the unofficial box on the turret with eggs, ground coffee, hamburgers, mayonnaise, sausages, bread, frying pan etc. When the rest of the crew needed a sandwich, coffee or something else he was the man (no women on the tanks in my time) who provided it. So I prefer a human loader…….

What was your impression about Turkish Leo-A4 performance in Syria?

I have seen the pictures and for what I have read about it they were operating without, or with very little, infantry support.  As with most tanks, the sides of the hull are on certain locations not very heavy armoured so a hit with a modern anti-tank missile system together with the rather unprotected ammunition storage in the left forward hull could result in the damage you see on the pictures. But I have never seen official after action reports about this battle.
 
Photos

L. has shared a number of photos he took during his career. They were taken with an analogic camera  Canon ae-1 and Kodachrome 64 film.

In Novi Travnik with a MZ round (Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1998).

Livno pass (Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2003).

Transporting Leopard in Bergen-Belsen.

With a Leopard 2A4 in Bergen.

Leopard 2A4 in Bergen (7/1994).

Train Leopard 2A4s in Bergen.

Leopard 2A4 in Novi Travnik next to a bunker (Bosnia-Herzegovina, 05/1998).

Leopard 2A4 in Vogelsang (2/1999).

At Drawsko Pomorskie (6/2002).

At Drawsko Pomorskie (6/2002).

At Drawsko Pomorskie (6/2002).

T-55 inspection in Drawsko Pomorskie, Polan (6/2002).

Stuck in a ditch, Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland (6/2002).

Leopard 2A5 at Suica FOB, Bosnia-Herzegovina (03/2003).

Maintenance of a Leopard 2A5 in FOB at Suica, Bosnia-Herzegovina (03/2003).

Next to my loader, Bosnia-Herzegovina (1/1998).

Leopard 2A4 in Vogelsang (12/1998).

Leopard 2A4 in Vogelsang (12/1998).

Leopard 2A6 in Vogelsang (9/2004).

Leopard 2A6 in Vogelsang (9/2004).

Exercises at Belsen (1/2006).

Leopard 2A6 in Bergen.

Leopard 2A6 in Bergen.

Leopard 2A6 in Bergen.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot

A former Romanian MiG-29 pilot has kindly accepted an interview for my blog. V. flew in MiG-21 and MiG-23 before moving on to the MiG-29, and participated in the LanceR and Sniper upgrade projects. I would like to thank him here for his time.

1) Hello V., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Romanian Air Force?

Very briefly I started my activity in the RoAF in 1978 as a student of Air Force Academy ( at that time S Of Av- Air Force Officer School) graduated as fighter pilot in 1982 and retired from the Air Force in 2000. In my career during the RoAF I flew MiG 21 M , MiG 23 MF, MiG 21 LanceR  and last 10 years the MiG 29 A. Also in the last years of activity I was involved in the 2 upgrades programme of the RoAF – LanceR for MiG 21 and Sniper for MiG 29.

2)  Did you get trained in the Soviet Union before flying the MiG-29? If so, how did you find the training?

No I was not trained in USSR I was part of the first group of pilots that transit on 29 in Romania at the end of 1989 and beginning of 1990. Our teachers were our pilot colleagues that transit in USSR  in the Autumn of 1989.

3) What was your first impression of the MiG-29?  What were the main advantages when compared to previous generation fighters in Romania?

Up to MiG29 I was trained on the MiG 21 and MiG 23. Compared with those 2 aircraft this one was an advance aircraft. First and most important thing was the small to none restrictions regarded the engines , airframe etc. First good  impression I took was the cockpit that was not painted in that green as in 21 & 23 and the generous space from inside the cockpit. The instruments were grouped much more convenient and easy to reach , the HUD was impressive and the Caution panels were all gathered together . I was more than pleased to see this “ revolution ” in the cockpit. Than during first flights I realized other advantages like good and easy handling characteristics in any of the situation of flight ( it was like a glider when you came to land) , good acceleration ( from Idle to Military or from Idle to Full Afterburner ), impressive thrust/ weight ratio compared with previous fighters, extremely good visibility from inside the cockpit, very different armament philosophy and weapon system and many more.

4) What do you think were the strong and weak points of the MiG-29?

At the level of 1990 the strong points were the thrust/weight ratio used for engagements, the IR missile – R73, the good radar N019 and it`s mode of operation, the small rate of turn & radius, the SLEM ( the monocle on the helmet for guiding the IR missiles) and easy operation of the modes & submodes of the weapon system. The weak points were short flight range & distance, not so accurate navigation system, big fuel consumption

5) One of the issues with early MiG-29s was the lack of TWS in the radar (Track while scan mode). This meant that you lost situational awareness when launching a radar guided missile (R-27R). Can you confirm this? Was there any technique or equipment that could mitigate this problem?

Yes you are right. But coming from old fighters 21& 23 this one was much more advanced for us. And the mode of operations of the radar were not so advance to have RWS /TWS or others. We only had STT after lock-on. Very simple. As you probably know we relly on the GCI for all of our missions doesn`t matter if it is a high altitude intercept using the radar or low intercept using our IRST -KOLS till the moment we “ see” the target we were guided from the ground . The term SA wasn`t part of our terminology and we don`t aware about it. And the way we were trained was completely unrealistic. We use the aircraft mainly for interceptions at all altitudes and for these types of engagements the aircraft was more than good.

6) Could you describe the N019 operating modes? Did you combine modes with wingmen to be more effective?

The radar modes were : head-on, pursuit, automat and dog fight and the scales on the HUD for them changed accordingly – 150 , 50 , 100 and 10 km. We doesn`t  developed specific way to use combined modes with wingmen because the radar wasn`t so advanced ( as I noticed later

7) The N019 radar had good range characteristics. At what maximum distance you could detect a fighter? Was there much difference between MiG-29, MiG-23 or MiG-21 due to different radar cross section (or any other fighter)?

Well there are many things to say about it. I`m not sure that the good range were so good….but compare with previous obsolete radars used in 21 & 23 ( RP21 & SAFIR ) this one was far better in terms of acquisition/lock-on ranges. I remembered a sortie above the see ( were the noise is much bigger than above the land and the discovery range should be affected by the sea waves ) head-on at an altitude of 11000 m when I discovered the target , another MiG 29 at approximately 80 km. In the book it is written that the maximum acquisition distance at this altitude could be around 70 km… but above the sea this distance is reduced by 10-15% . Normal discovery ranges at high altitudes were 40-60 km and at low altitudes (below 3000 m ) were 30-40 km ( head -on) .In pursuit mode these figures drop to 25 – 40 km respectively 20-30 km bellow 3000 m . Compared with MiG23 armed with R23 the acquisition & lock on were almost the same. Compared to 21 it was completely different from the head-on hemisphere, to the presentation mode on the HUD to the end of the mission which on 29 and only on it was almost always done in tracking mode with simulated firing of the on-board gun after the intercept. Evan when we use like “targets” the 23 the situation was almost the same. We never used ( at least till I was in the RoAF) like targets the 21 because we don`t have it in our Base inventory. But I remembered that at least once I was target for the guys from Borcea Air Base who that year were preparing for a real firing at heights of over 14,000 metres (which, between you and me, was not at all realistic).

8) MiG-29 9.12A are known to have a short range. Did you find it enough for Romania’s air space?

Yes or no. It depends.

We have been deployed a few times to another airfield to do live firing in other air-to-ground range but not so far from MK (nickname 57th Air Base). No more than 150 km maximum. From there we had to find the range somewhere further east about 80 km from the take-off site. For this simple exercise gas was enough. But in combat conditions under the pressure of the situation and the air reality plus the quality of the GCI's guidance I think we would have looked more often at the fuel gauge. And let's not forget that on the manual the aircraft is declared as a front fighter.

In the internal tanks we could take around 4300 liters of fuel or 5800 liters with external tank ( 1500 liters, one single tank placed between the 2 engines under the belly and in this situation until the tank was jettison we could not use the gun!!).

9) At what distances you could engage objectives with the R-27R? Was the procedure more simple than in the MiG-23MF with R-23?

Nothing was like in the manual….where the lock-on distance was 40 km. In reality the distance ( head-on ) could be even greater let`s say more than 50 km for firing it. But as you know there are plenty of factors that could dictate these figures. And as I told you before .The procedure is almost the same at 23 because both missiles are SARH . You have to illuminate the target till the impact  moment or you loose it. Not so safety in nowadays.

10) How useful did you find the IRST? At what sort of distances could you engage targets? Was it very dependent on weather conditions?

I use to have something similar but not so advanced at 23 but I rather rare  used it because wasn`t so good.

This “new” IRST model consisted of 2 parts in the same enclosure. A sensor that "senses" the heat emitted by the engine and a laser rangefinder that gives you the distance to the target. In the manual it is written that it is effective on a target with a RCS=3 m² starting with 15 km and maximum presentation angle 3/4  from behind  but in reality the discovery distance was less then 10 km and it depends on many factors. And yes it depends on the weather (and not only ). I remembered a low altitude night  intercept ( 200-500 m ) using only passive acquisition system above the land in north of Dobrogea ( area where we was located ) in a late autumn when the paysans put fire on the vegetation on the ground and my target flew above these millions of false targets .Because it was almost impossible to discriminate between so many targets I asked my fellow to engage afterburner in order to see him….

11) Soviet and Warsaw Pact air forces used a Lazur GCI system to assist in intercepting objectives. Did you ever use it? How useful did you find it if so? Did it improve the situation awareness?

Starting with MiG21 we had on bord the LAZUR . At Mig21 I never used it in 23 it was supposed to used it 2 times but the system failed both times and wasn`t at all reliable. Actually the LAZUR system  was packed in , if I remembered well, 7 or 8 trailers and rarely it happens all of this to be  functional. But after ` 90 Romanian develop our own system if I remembered well named C802 and I used it several times and it worked perfect and of course was only 1 or 2 trailers. It is difficult to asses if this improved the SA or not ( more than that at that time we didn`t know what SA means).The system worked guided by a ground navigator and all the symbols and signs appear on the HUD making interception relatively easy. But if you didn't “see” the target, things got complicated…

12) Early RD-33 engine variants are famous because they are smoky. Did you find this to be a disadvantage when operating the Fulcrum?

Not really for peace time. But in a war during a real fight I guess this can be very dangerous. All you have to do is to see the trail smoke and you know where the enemy is….

13) How many hours did you fly per year in the MiG-29? Was it complemented with flights on the L-39 or other trainers?

We flew relatively less than 50 hours a year after a training course that was "borrowed" from the Russians and was not the most convenient for us. At one point the spare parts situation forced the command to make innovations so that we could keep our flight training. This led to the situation of completing flights on the L-39 aircraft.

For me it was a little better than for my colleagues left in the regiment. I had to requalify on the MiG21 in order to participate in its upgrade program. During this time I was also doing theoretical training for the first series of pilots who were going to switch to the upgraded 21.

MiG-29UB.

For the remaining MiG29 pilots, a program was developed to maintain flight training using the much larger flying resource of L-39 aircraft in the school. So they had to move from the regiment to Boboc (where the student planes were) and fly there. The situation with spare parts began to become troublesome and we were approaching the impossibility of using the planes because the Russians, seeing our westward orientation, did not deliver the orders placed to complete our stocks of spare parts. Slowly the planes began to suffer from the lack of spare parts and one by one they were grounded. To this was added the complete lack of vision of some Air Force commanders who did not know how to manage this situation differently. It was possible to use another source of supply at that time, namely from the Ukrainians who also operated this aircraft (slightly improved version 9-13) but who had the necessary experience in their factories to provide us with something. It was a period full of internal strife in which the pilots of the 29 felt betrayed by those who were supposed to ensure their continued training. The accession to NATO changed even more the perspective of the country and the lack of professionalism of those in charge hastened even more the "death" of this plane.

Looking back I'm not very happy with how our bosses handled the situation with a relatively new aircraft that was heading for certain "death".

14) Romania operated MiG-29s when Soviet Union collapsed, were there any issues with technical support/spare parts in those years?

As already explained in the previous question the stocks in the  "pharmacies" of the new planes were slowly running out and although there were responsible people in the regiment who tried to keep this under control most of the time the higher echelon did not bother to help us much. It was beyond us to do anything but complain. After 2000 (the year I retired from aviation) the situation started to become critical and one by one the planes stopped flying due to lack of spare parts. The agony lasted 2-3 years after which the last survivor had to remain on the ground. Sad. This only proves the poor commitment of the military-political leadership to properly manage the defence capability of the country.

Low pass at Borcea airbase..

15) In the 1990s Aerostar, Elbit (Israel) y DASA (Germany) developed the MiG-29 Sniper. What were the main advantages when compared to the 9.12A version?

I know a lot about this subject. When I participated in the MiG 21 avionics upgrade I realized how powerful a 29 could be with a custom avionics. And slowly, slowly, I worked with other pilots and engineers to put together an operational specification of how we wanted this aircraft to be and how it would meet the demands of modern warfare. Thus the Sniper was born. The first thing we wanted was to increase the flying time and range which would be done in the same style as Germany had done while they had the aircraft in their inventory. That is, we added to the aircraft's fuel system two additional tanks under the planes. Let's not forget that Germany after reunification kept this aircraft in its inventory until the Eurofighter appeared and more than that together with the MiG factory they brought the aircraft through a modernization program to NATO standards. Then we really started to replace everything in terms of avionics from the 1553B serial bus multi modular computer to the cockpit architecture that looks exactly like a multirole fighter should look like. And here we have put the dot on the "i" because it is known that the version flown by us and those that appeared later, i.e. 9-13, were not multirole aircraft. Or the concept of fighting a modern war obliges the participants to have such aircraft in their arsenal and to be able to change the mission in flight at any time by switching from air-to-air to air-to-ground or reconnaissance, SEAD, etc.

In 2000 Aerostar, Elbit and DASA Aerospace started the Sniper modernization program and in a very short time completed a mock-up that was not fully functional but at least in the cockpit was already a different aircraft. The same Jewish pilot that I trained in 1995 to fly the 21 I trained now for the 29 and this man has proved to be a great pilot and he has shown the qualities of the "new" planes that he flew and showed to those present. In the operational specification we focused on precision navigation ( we added an inertial navigation system based on laser gyroscopes and we would also have integrated a GPS receiver), correct identification, advanced frequency hopping radio communication systems, high performance radar warning receiver, a glass cockpit, HOTAS, etc. and we were thinking how to change the radar and integrate active guided air-to-air missiles as well as intelligent air-to-ground munitions and much more... If this program had come to life the aircraft would have become a formidable multirole aircraft increasing its value several times over- but it was not to be.

16) Was there any extra equipment considered (radar)? Perhaps later on if acquired?

The proposal was for the radar to be Pulse Doppler, all aspect, look-down shoot-down capabilities one like ELTA ELM 2032 fire control radar or better.

17) Why do you think it was not acquired by Romanian Ministry of Defence? Were there any potential issues with RSK MiG not supplying spares?

The biggest mistake was that we did not know how to manage the advantages given by this aircraft in close air combat. Our bosses were afraid of something happening but aviation by excellence is a dangerous craft. It's all about knowing how to educate pilots so that they don't look for the sensational elsewhere...The commanders who should have taken advantage of the “ youth” of this plane (don't forget that we got it at the end of 1989) and thought of solutions to exploit its potential and after the former USSR disappeared they indulged in aviation games...The transition to the West with the entry into NATO should not have ended the career of this plane so early. The sad thing is that even now I am not sure that what the Romanian Air Force is doing is the right thing. In the past the commanders ( with small exceptions ) did not think globally and in perspective...they just used to not register with serious problems.... totally unproductive for an aviation. According to the agreement with Elbit we were supposed to upgrade 6 MiG29 aircraft which would surely have made this aircraft the most feared MiG29...exactly what the MiG 21 LanceR was after modernization....

Sniper cockpit.

I think the real reason was that there was no one left to fight for it in the Air Force and the budget allocated for this modernization was never known . Simply after a lot of effort and money spent to bring a functional mock up to flying condition someone decided it was no longer worth the effort....Whether it was the right choice or not we will never know.  

18) What was your most challenging sortie in the MiG-29?

Perhaps not one, but several missions stick in my mind, the first being a deployment exercise at the Boboc Aviation Academy airfield at the beginning of the student flying year in 1992. We were a formation of 12 aircraft, and visibility was below critical.....luckily we had our people on the approach system who guided us well on course...otherwise we would have turned around and left the students with a bad taste.... Then there is another exercise done I think in 1993 when a formation of 12 aircraft ( 6 29 aircraft and 6 23 aircraft ) we were invited to fly in parade formation on the 100th anniversary of the Military Academy....The man directing us vertically was the flight deputy and he was perched on a block of flats. The misfortune was that the one who was reading the introductory word got the sheets he was reading mixed up and from about 2 km away the one on the block told us to make a 360° turn there over Bucharest with the formation....And from that moment the madness started...Being above in the last formation I saw how desperate they were trying to keep the formation . And during this 360° turn the radio controller on the roof of the block suddenly tells us now come back to me ...And that wasn't the end of the story...My wingman on the right declares that on the warning panel "Engine vibration" lit up ...that means he had to put one of the throttles at idle and if the lamp goes out leave the engine on this mode and fly the rest of the mission with only one engine...and we were 200 km from MK base ....

19) Is there any anecdote you would like to share before finishing the interview?

I'm not sure I know that. But as an anecdote you might take it when one of my engines shut-down during a high altitude intercept at 14,500 m...and I asked the flight controller for permission to continue flying...the aircraft was 67 red...which later became Sniper....

Finally, let me thank you for bringing back almost many fond memories .....                    

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former M60 tanker

A former M60A3 tanker kindly accepted an interview for the blog. I. served in the US Army in the final stage of the Cold War, and later on in the different conflicts that followed. I would like to use this opportunity to thank him for his time.

1) Hello I., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the US Army?

I entered the US Army in 1983 under the Officer Candidate Program. I went through basic enlisted combat training and then went to FT Benning Officer Candidate School where I was trained in Officer Basic and Infantry Leadership skills. After Completing I was selected for the US Cavalry Officers Basic Course starting in August 1984,

Being trained in the transitional period of our Armor/Cavalry branch where we had new systems coming into service and older systems in service depending on location assigned. I was trained on system and command and control of M113s, FISTVs, Bradly Fighting Vehicle/Cavalry Version.  Also familiarized with the M60A1, Sheridan, M1 and M60A3 (more extensively as it was the most numeric vehicle in service)and related service and support vehicles and capabilities. I was assigned to West Germany in February 1985 . I attended the Infantry Mortar Leaders course as well.

In total I served 28 years in US Army as an Armor /Cavalry officer. Served in West Germany, then Germany (After Unification), Southwest Asia (Multiple Tours and Years). Former Yugoslavia with a light Cavalry Reconnaissance element and another four combat tours in Iraq. Also commanded Joint Units and worked with NATO command and Multinational forces regarding doctrine and combat operations. 

In between assignments I attended additional courses Armor Officers Advanced Course, Combined Arms Services Staff School, Command and General Staff, Joint Forces Staff College. Naval Post Graduate School, Army War College. Royal Military Academy Senior Leaders Courses. Had a long and successful 28 year career retired as a senior field grade  Armor Officer , was further specialised in Joint, Multinational operations and strategic planning.

2) You served in a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

I found the vehicle to be a dependable and easy to use. The M60A3 had an excellent Laser Range finder and thermal sights, and gun sights. The gun stabilisation system was also very good. While the M1 Abrams is often credited for being the first US tank in service with a digital ballistics computer, a laser rangefinder, a passive thermal imaging system, and the ability to fire on the move at high speeds with great accuracy, the M60A3 actually had all of these capabilities before the M1 even entered production

Although the recommended firing of a moving target on the move was discouraged in training, an experienced Gunner could engage, and we did hit targets. Weak points may be an experience of the Israelis that the cupola for TC was a liability for it high visibility, The TC were subject to decapitation(but most fought with hatches open) better to acquire and engage targets. They did not have the thermals or laser in the A1 version though. We were top priority Tier I and were afforded all the repair parts as needed. We were always fully combat loaded due to being deployed at any moment to the border area to defend against invasion.

The M85 was sighted by many as a problem weapon, but it was lighter and more compact than the M2 Browning. I discovered it was subject to jamming if over cleaned, compared to M2 an occasional cleaning and simply putting oil on the parts in use kept it firing and no jams. It also had a higher rate of fire than the Browning machinegun. While the M1 Abrams is often credited for being the first US tank in service with a digital ballistics computer, a laser rangefinder, a passive thermal imaging system, and the ability to fire on the move at high speeds with great accuracy, the M60A3 actually had all of these capabilities before the M1 even entered production

3) When training, what was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Speed between 12-15 miles on tank engagements. As I said earlier the tables was firing on the move at stopped targets,Tanks ,BMPs, Personnel ,even helicopters(these aviation elements only on simulator).  We did fire moving targets at a short halt, but we did fire moving targets on the move. Range was also always terrain dependent  but average between 1200-3000 meters with main gun.

4) How was the night firing conducted (flares/projector)? What was the maximum distance at which you could fire?  

With the added DU round that was put into service in our combat load in May of 1985, the range of the round and successful armor penetration was expanded significantly. But the terrain in our area of hills and valleys made the ranges more limited. Our main gun engagements on our  terrain averaged between 1200-2500 meters, even target hit at 3000 m and further out was greatly improved with the computer systems ,optics and ammunition and could easily been done. If used in a desert terrain it could exceed these ranges, but not the case for training in the area we were to defend.

5) Other M60 veterans stated that for night fighting they preferred flares over the IR projector. What is your opinion?

Not used or needed on the M60A3, even though we did training on occasion with artillery flares , they were unnecessary with the excellent thermal sights for acquiring and engaging targets. We were trained to operate and utilize the cover of darkness as an advantage for battle. The starlight scope was used by the driver, not IR ,and it was very good after you trained them to understand the dept /distance  in night driving with scope. 

6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

The main component that failed was the heater! Not good in cold weather. I anticipated this need and trained my tank crews in the repair and provided replacement parts. We would collect scrapped heaters and repair as spares for quick substitution. A great trading tool for things you wanted from other tank units that did not have the extras and were literally in the cold in winter. The other parts were always sourced and provided as we were a ist Tier unit and always required to be ready to move into combat operation at a moment’s notice. As I sated before we were on the point of the spear in defending  West Germany and carried full combat loads 0f tank and machine gun munitions at all times ,except during target training, uncommon and not the case for all other units that would not have the ammunition in tanks until deployed to a war zone or imminent war.

7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

Carried 63 rounds of ammunition with 26 stored in the forward part of the hull, to the left and right of the driver's position, 13 in the turret for ready use, 21 in the turret bustle and the remaining three under the gun. Even though we were familiarized with the older behive round, the composition was of Sabot about 60% and remainder Heat rounds. No smoke required as we had Smoke generators and were also equipped with grenade launchers on the hull.  With the DU round none of the tanks fielded by the Russians including the still to be fielded T80, could be easily penetrated and destroyed. The DU round paper specifications on range and penetration were always underestimated for the  public unclassified data on all USA and NATO papers. I have had many discussions with Russian trolls trying to argue that the 105 gun would not penetrate the Soviet tanks, yet we still use the system on lighter tank variants, i.e. the Stryker and Centauro. Where as the Russians ,even today ,exaggerate the combat and protection capabilities of their systems. Much has been tested in active combat and proven to fall short of their hype.

8) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?

I do not recall the exact rate, I know that we were always trained to load and fire faster than any automatic loader on a Russian tank. I recall in the engagement tables for Platoon fires on Tank Table Twelve were trained in a full scale operation to engage a motorized tank/rifle regiment. We first engaged with artillery which I called in at long range, after that we fired about fifty percent of basic tank load (about 120 rounds)on range of tank and BMP targets in a few minutes,and quickly cross loaded ammunition in a short interval of minutes to equally distribute rounds. We then reengaged and destroyed most targets and then fire White phosphorus at on coming infantry from grenade launcchers and called in Attack helicopters as we displace. Of note my four tank Platoon won the TOP GUN Award  First  Armored Division in early 1986 after this engagement. The observers after reviewing all th tank units that were tested stated that we had fired upon and hit/destroyed more targets with our Platoon then the Berlin Tank Brigade! My soldiers were exceptionally trained, even though most were less experienced when assigned to me a year prior.

9) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

We covered routs of up to 10-12 hours per day. Average speed would be about 25 and up to 30 miles 48 Kilometers per hour. We conducted many long road marches across Autobahns and country roads as part of our training. This was done in all weather conditions and even included bridging exercises for tanks to drive over.

Our tanks were always well maintained in my unit and most of our Division as well,so in general did not encounter real maintenance issues in operations. The more common wear would be to the tank tracks and mainly the Rubber pads that would wear from driving and need replacement. In open terrain off road or in hills an occasional thrown track(many times the cause was poor driving or TC controlling driver). I had not had thrown tracks on my own tank ,because I learned from others in Armor school and in field what not to do!  In the rear , our  engine packs would be pulled/replaced when  they were getting close to end in life of engine. I can say our maintenance teams and M88s did a great  job in support to us in the field and at home.

10) The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?

It was an excellent defensive tank and was a bit larger and more comfortable inside. I feel even today the trained crews and this tank would have fared well against an attacking Soviet army and inflicted severe damage to the enemy. Even the newer variants offered in Isreal/Egypt and Jordan, it probably would with a well trained combined arms team fight well. (Of Course the M1 is still a super tank with its additional upgrades even on todays battlefield !)

11) The M19 commander cupola is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?

As noted earlier, the Cupola was deleted by the Israeli’s after the number of decapitations of TC in combat. Two reasons, One it is higher up on hull and additionally the Israeli’s found that fighting unbuttoned allowed the TC to acquire and engage more targets than inside. Especially in the M60A1 Rise passive version which they used. With thermal sites and also the Starlight scope for the TC 50 calibre M85 version, you could with training successfully acquire and engage enemy targets.  It was an older design and still provided protection against small arms and artillery. With the change to an above mounted 50 calibre on the M1 variants the cupola , is no longer was considered need with the optics inside and also to give better protection to the TC in the hull. That the  cupola could be an easier target and can be hit by RPG or main gun round, in forested woods or darkness probably not as big a danger in our time and location .

12) Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?

We always practiced NBC training and also decontamination as part of all of our exercises. We conducted gunnery and operations with full NBC equipment and masks, and although less comfortable than without, we were able to do all tasks to standard. This was an anticipated and potential use by Soviet forces, especially after the Arab Israeli war  in  1973 when the captured newer  Russian armoured equipment was discovered to have NBC seals for the vehicle and crew protection.

13) During the Cold War the US Army would organise REFORGER exercises to deploy troops in Europe. Did you participate in one? How was your experience?

We were always involved in REFORGER(Return of Forces to Germany). It was in February and allowed off road movement and large scale operations and exercises. We had one where the snow and ice was melting prematurely in 1986 and although we were not to go off road in many areas to avoid manuever damage, we were able to complete the exercise successfully. My own experience was pleasant, hard training but good results and spent time in the country and stops in towns, even for a quick run in a bakery or grocery store!

14) The Patton family has a reputation for being an ideal tank for a conscript Army, being sturdy and reliable. Would you agree? How long do you think it takes to train a crew?

I believe the term conscript or draft army is irrelevant, especially in this later variants like the M60A3. I can state that they intelligence requirements for an armor crewmen is much higher than that for a infantry unit due to the technical level of the equipment. Since the principle positions that a new soldier learning tank systems is assigned first as loader,then driver, later if they remain in service tank gunner and after that Tank Commander. The last two position require a full comprehension and ability that is acquired by those who serve more than a year and a half. Since we in the USA ended the Draft in 1975.  All the servicemembers that qualify as tank crewmen were volunteers and had a higher level of technical skills . When the M60A3 all the crews would have been volunteers, and also compared to the rise passive systems the A3 simplified the acquisition and firing process for the gunner and TC. In foreign armies where the conscript is or was still used the need to understand the first two key functions in the tank are fairly easy to lean and a capable gunner and TC must be further trained.

15) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

I trained with NATO  ,allied and foreign forces. I enjoyed most experiences. In general the NATO equipment was on par or all were pretty good. I recall going into the LEO2 for gunnery and was envious of the newer tank than what we had then with a a 120mm smoothbore. But it passed quickly and then we were scheduled to transition to the M1A1 in Nov 1987. I like the British Challenger as well and the older LEO 2s. In the foreign armies like Egypt and Jordan, seeing the upgraded M60 tanks was like seeing an old friend. Some of our allies had Russian tanks or variants like the M84 tank. They looked ok but not impressive overall. I did conduct exercises with most of NATO allies and was always  great experience. A bit harder with some countries as we were able to identify weaknesses and try to explain them at times was a challenge to their cultural views or perceptions.

16) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?

Aside from engaging and destroying them in later wars, I can say that they were unimpressive by technology and protection as well as crew comfort. Many later variants had upgraded Armor and optics packages but no better results on the battlefield. Some were even improvements to the Russian Versions like the later model M84s. We as the western opponents were initially in awe of the low profile tanks and carriers, but after the first captured ones were provided from Israel to facing them on the battlefield, they proved to be easy targets. We also face them in opposing forces exercises using captured equipment with John Deere diesel engines as replacements for training.

Their only advantage in the Warsaw Pct alliance was a large number of tanks. We as TCs and leaders trained all of crews to engage and destroy up to ten tanks at a time! T80 and 90 contrary to Russian trolls arguments are far more inferior to more modern NATO tanks and easily destroyed. The myth that the Russian units(which are first line active army units) are not the best or trained elements is a fallacy as well as their ability to operate as a combined arms team. So the claim that a Iraqi tank crew would not fight like a Russian Tank crew has proven wrong. I do believe that  even with our M60A3s we would have done significant damage to the invaders as we knew every inch of the battle area we defended and had preplanned artillery, air and defensive positions . My soldiers were prepared to fight to the last tank and death to hold ,slow  and destroy the enemy advance and allow reinforcements to arrive in Europe.

17) By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?

Yes we were provided and shared all the results of combat and intelligence  on vehicles and performance. In reality the US equipment used by Isreal provided critical results on the performance of equipment in battle. The elimination of the cupola on newer tanks can be seen as a direct influence of the Israel battle experience.  With the addition of thermal sights laser range finder and a morse sophisticated computer fire control made the tanks a faster and more accurate weapons system from acquiring to destroying targets even in large numbers versus your forces.  

18) What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?

I can not say much as the upgrade packages vary and some later variants even now have some good upgrades regarding gun and firing systems. I recall in 1987 there was a model with reactive armor for the Berlin brigade(No use giving them the newer tank) as they were encircled and would not last long if a Soviet attack had occurred. I can only say that I would probably prefer those variant  tanks if I had to choose versus to the T72  upgrades or even the T80( if an M1 version was not an option). I would believe they are going to work correctly and better than the opposing systems . As in all things a trained crew and effective combined arms tactical employment is central to success.

19) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

As we discuss older tank systems we all must realize that some were very good for the time frame and some not, but if you are facing any tank you must be prepared to deal with them.

I recall in the first days after the signing of the Dayton peace accords for the former Yugoslavia war, I and my team were one of the first elements deployed as a light cavalry element with armored HMMUVs mounted with a large MG and also with a dragon AT missile in each vehicle. In our entry in early days we encountered every kind of armored vehicle from tanks of modern manufacture to older US and soviet tanks  from WW2 being used in the recent combat. In the first days my units HUMMVS were assigned to escort supplies and equipment on trucks to build base camps throughout in Bosnia /Herzegovina . We had cleared the combatants and disarmed them in the Pasovina Corridor area or so we thought. When we came down a curve as I and my vehicles were leading a large convoy of trucks we observed two T34s pull out of what we believed was a cleared area. These were Serb tanks from the militia and had two nervous TC on top looking at us.  My driver said sir pull out the camera and take a picture, I said no we will have our Anti-Tank system ready to engage! I also called in Cobra Attack helicopters that were also quickly dispatched. Lesson learned even an old tank can do damage if they choose to a lighter armored type vehicle especially with the element of surprise.  You must always have the best intelligence on the area you are operating in ,from ground and air assets.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former Pakistani Type-59 crewman

1. Hello N., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Army of Pakistan?

Thanks dear,
I was commissioned in 1981 into Pakistan Armour Corps. I basically worked on Chinese tanks during my service. I briefly enjoyed working on US and Soviet tanks too. I retired as a full colonel in 2010.

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Type-59 tanks when you served?

Firstly, the strong points ;
It's a medium weight robust tank.
Gun accuracy can reach upto 80-90% under ideal environments.
It can travel at a combat speed of 30 Kmph easily under favourable environment.
It had dual communication system having different frequencies.
IR is provided to the driver with a range upto 30 meters for driving at pitch dark night.
Low silhouette presents a smaller target.

Now some weak areas;

Gets bogged down easily in swampy areas due to low hull clearance.
In our times we had 90 and 100 mm rifled guns. Perhaps now these are upgraded to 120mm smooth bore. But, in our times it's effective range was approximately 2000 Ms only. And best results were around 1800 Ms only.
NBCW kit wasn't installed.
Air filters were too big and required frequent cleaning.
Weak torsion bars.

3. When training or during the fighting, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired the main gun? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

With T-59, one can fire easily upto 2000 Ms. The olders versions of our times couldn't fire while moving.
The longest range achieved is around 2800 Ms (Static) using HEAT ammunition.

4. How did you find the Type-59 construction quality? How did it compare to the Soviet T-55 you used before?

Well the quality of T-55 was superior to T-59. Infact, I think Chinese copied this from the Soviet series so the original characteristics and worth of Soviet tanks is surely better.

A copy is still a copy but later modified versions of T-59 series were far superior. T-55 was little different as it had IR for the driver and gunner in those days and was installed with drift indicator and a deep fording kit to cross water obstacles.
Torsion bars of Soviet tanks were superior to Chinese.

5. Soviet/Chinese tanks are often criticised because of the ergonomics. How did you find them in the Type-59?

I agree. Chinese tanks of our times were quite rough and uncomfortable. But, now with the reduction of one crew member due to autoloading system, it's spacious and more crew friendly.

6. What was the typical ammunition load (% HE/AP/HEAT)? Was there a recommended type when facing other tanks? (In Yugoslav Army HEAT was main ammunition against tanks at all ranges and angles, AP for flank shots)

Well typically we used AP and HEAT against armoured targets and HE and HESH against infantry and other soft targets. But as things changed, the calibre of main gun was upgraded to 120 mm and APFS & APFSDS could also be fired in the later versions.
Effective range was also increased to approximately 3000 Ms.
There weren't any recommendations for tank types and approximately 2/3rd ammunition was for armoured targets.

7. What was the typical rate of fire and how did it vary as you used the different ammunition bins?

In our times, firing was manual. Loader used to load the round after throwing the empty fired cartridge out. At best, one would have been extremely lucky to have fired three rounds on a target in one minute. Ordinarily, it used to be one or two rounds in a minute. Ammunition bins didn't pose any problems to the rate of fire.

6. How was the firing conducted at night? What was the effective range of the IR sight?

Chinese tanks (older versions of our times) couldn't fire at night except HE under illumination.
IR was initially installed for drivers only to drive the tank at night. It's range was just 30 Ms the most.

8. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Did the tank struggle to needed any extra maintenance?

T-59 tanks can easily do upto 100 KMs in a day at combat speeds. In desert being unopposed it can manoeuvre upto 200 KMs. Extra maintenance is required mostly in desert terrain as the air filters can get clogged easily due to sand.

9. What about when operating in local conditions, especially high altitude or deserts, did the tank cope well? Were there any local improvements (filters)?

It has performed well in mountains and deserts both. It was employed astride Afghanistan's mountain region where it performed well during the recent global war on terror.

10. What was the maximum speed you reached? And going backwards?

It could touch upto 50 Kmph but under ideal environment only. Typically, it would move at 30-35 Kmph.
In reverse, I guess it could barely touch 15 Kmph.

11. T-55 is seen as a simple tank, ideal for a conscript Army. How long do you think it takes to train a crew?

I think a period of three months is enough for basic school training but it must be supplemented by another 6 months outdoor training to attain proficiency.

12. Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?

In our times NBCW equipment was not installed in Chinese tanks. Now they have it in newer versions.

13. Type-59s and T-55s have been used in a number of conflicts. Did you get any feedback/information from other operators on tactics/improvements/combat lessons?

Not really because of the language differences in our various armies.

14. Are you surprised about the Type-59 longevity?

I am not surprised but glad perhaps. After all, it was our beloved ride in those youthful days.

15. You spent some time attached to a Saudi brigade. Can you describe this experience? How did you find the equipment and training? Was there any lesson you took home?

I was there in Saudi Arabia in mid 80s as a captain. We were having French AMX-30 tanks.
These tanks were light weight and extremely agile in desert terrain. It had superior ballistic control computerized firing system. The targets up to 3000 Ms could be easily engaged.
Training standards were acceptable. AMX tanks were user friendly, comfortable and extremely well built.

16. What about in Australia and US (Fort Knox)?

In Australia, I did my command and staff college course in early 90s at fort queenscliff, Victoria. It was a good experience. I remember seeing a demonstration by the Australian army leopard tanks. It was fabulous as the Aussie girls were there too enjoying and cheering the armour boys.

I did my advance armour course from fort knox, Kentucky, US in 90s. Here, I worked briefly on Abraham tanks and it's gunnery simulators. It was a good experience too. I attended US mechanized exercises in the state of Mississippi after the course which was a great experience too.

17. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before we conclude the interview?

To conclude, I will thank you dear for enabling me to scratch my head about my yester years and experiences. It was good to intract with you and am glad to see you folks taking interest in the 'king of the battle' affairs.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Graph of estimated Russian missile launches into Ukraine since the start of the war

I have put together this graph using estimates of Russian missile launches into Ukraine since the start of the war. This category includes Iskander, Tochka-U, Kh-101, Kalibr... by the 19th of April the estimated number reached 1,670. Any correction or extra data would be welcomed.

In order to understand the data, 2 trend lines have been added, linear and polynomial. The latter allows for the datato increase and decrease. The match is better but very robust in both cases.

Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada

A former Leopard 1 commander kindly agreed to an intervire. B. served in the Canadian Army during the Cold War in a Leopard 1, a tank that equipped many NATO Armies.

1) Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Army of Canada?

I enrolled in the Canadian Army on graduation from high school in 1986 as an Officer Cadet.

In those days to be a combat arms officer you didn’t require a university degree.
After completing a generic all branches, Army Navy and Air Force Officer Candidate School
I went to the Royal Canadian Armour School to commence my training as an Armour Officer.
The school is a year long course focussed on leadership, armour tactics and combined arms operations. We spent most of the year on the Leo 1 but where qualified in the AVGP Cougar, think Lav 1 and the Lynx Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle as they served in our 4 regular Army Regiments.

On completion of the training I was commissioned and “badged” as an officer in the Royal Canadian Dragoons.

2) You served in a Leopard 1. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

I loved the vehicle. It was fast mobile and ergonomic.

In 1989 it was already being replaced in Germany by the Leo 2 and was outclassed by the M1 but against pear T-72 I think it would hold its own. The stabilisation system was excellent and in its time the fire control system was state of the art.

Weak points in my time was a very basic night fighting capability that used low light TV and a first gen thermal optics. We had a built in spotlight but that would be certain death to use in combat.

Leopard 1 s where always know to be lightly armoured giving up armour for speed and mobility.

The role of Armour is to defeat the enemy with shock action. Battlefield mobility and firepower. I think the Leopard 1 filled that role.

3) The reliability of components and ease of maintenance is typically pointed out as an advantage (quick engine change). Can you comment on this?

Tank maintenance is tough but Krauss Maffei obviously thought about crew maintenance. We could do a lot of the work ourselves without calling for support.

With the support and guidance of our maintenance team the crews would conduct power pack changes, repair torsion bars and final drives without a lot of experience .

Soldiers who had served on the Centurion told us how maintenance heavy that way compared to the Leopard

4) When training, at was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Typically in gun camps we would fire from pads out at static targets and some movers.
With APFSDS-T typical engagements where from 1000 meters to 2500 max.  

The TKL7A3 Was incredibly accurate. A rifled 105 mm gun.  When bore sighting the gun, a good gunner would frequently keyhole TPDS round at 1000 m. I shot better groupings  with the tank at 1000M than I could with my rifle at 100.

We would shoot on the move on a special range at a variety of targets, tank infantry etc using the main gun and the coaxial machine gun. Those where all done in the Battle Sabot range of 1000 m or less. Very direct fire. Typically on a “stab” run we would be rolling at 10-30 kmph.

For soft skin vehicles and bunkers we would use HESH.The goal with HESH was for gunners to get second round kills. The fire control system which is ancient buy todays standards would compute wind, temperature speed of the target etc and usually a good gunner could pull it off.

In the semi indirect mode, I.e using the sights but elevating the canon like an artillery piece ranges where out to 4000 meters. As luck would have it on one day where they put a brand new target on a hill at 4000m, a retired 2 ½ ton truck.  Nailed it with a first round hit. Pure luck. Range control wasn’t happy as they hoped it would last longer than the first round fired on it.

5) How was the night firing conducted (IR sight/illumination flares)? Was there an approach more effective than the others? At what sort of distances could you open fire effectively?

As I mentioned the night fighting capability was first gen. The driver and loader had night optics.

The gunner had a really effective low light tv camera that both he and the commander could reference and there was the search light built into the turret. There was also a thermal capability that basically put a white cursor on anything hot but had no resolution to show shape and identify anything but a heat source. At that time though I doubt the opposition, a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment, had as good as a capability. We where hover way behind our allies do to the Canadian government’s historic negligence of our Armed Forces.
It’s only the professionalism of our troops that keeps us relevant.

6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

 In the Canadian military we are always dealing with age in some component or another. We retired our Leo 1s after 35 years of service and pulled them out of mothballs for Afghanistan.

Largely because we had no internal air support in the form of attack helicopters or aircraft to support our troops. The old Leo’s did great service until replaced in the field with leased Leo 2’s.

7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APFDS/HE/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

We generally carried a mix of Sabot APFSDS for tanks, Hesh for Other AFVs and targets and White Phosphorus for smoke. No Heat.

8) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?

You could probably get out six rounds in a minute but it would only be for show and inaccurate.

With a tank target the idea is a first round hit with Sabot then back off and move to an alternate firing position and reengage other targets. Against the numbers of the Soviet opposition you wouldn’t survive if you stuck around for a second shot so you had to make the first round count.

We had 12 rounds in a ready rack by the gun and another 40 in the hull beside the driver. Totally unarmoured so if a kinetic penetrator or heat round made it inside the hull it would be catastrophic.

9) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

Normally 25-35 Km’s. The Tank was great and generally required just crew track maintenance and lubrication..

10) Did you train for NBQ scenarios? What was the procedure?

In the 80s and 90s NBCW was a big worry. We would train in our “bunny” suits. Charcoal lined coveralls gas masks and rubber boots and gloves. The Leopard had an over pressure system to keep contaminants out but with no air conditioning this was awful. Summer in Canada is generally hot in the 30s and well above that in the AFV.

We where frequently randomly gassed with CS grenades to simulate NBC attack. On one occasion in a hide I was hit with a CS generator that the training staff had snuck up on us. That could rapidly gas a grid square. It was impressive and immediate.

We would also train for the nuclear role as well. You might here over the command radio net that a nuke was imminent. We would take up a hide, disconnect the batteries and radios to protect from EMP and button up the hatches while donning protective gear.

11) In the mid 90s Canada upgraded the Leo 1 to the C2 variant. Do you think it was a good idea or it would have been better to buy a new type.

A new type would have been better. Procurement for military equipment is a disaster in Canada.

To give you an idea We are still fielding Browning Hi power side arms that where manufactured for WWII. How hard would it be for the government to just buy a few pallets of Glocks. There has been thirty years and a war in Afghanistan and they are still dithering and nothing new is in sight yet. The Canadian Army knows how to get the most out of their equipment however everything has a shelf life and our soldiers deserve decent equipment that would give them a chance to survive on the battlefield.

12) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

Canada has huge training areas that allow for excellent manoeuvre training. The British and Germans had full time battle groups training in Western Canada until recently. In my experience.

Personally I trained with American troops when I was a Recce officer in Fort Drum New York.

We where impressed by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle but thought it a bit large. The US Army had lots of resources and a different concept in that role. In their Cavalry with the Bradley they could fight for information. With us in our Lynx M113 Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle we focused a lot more on traditional observation and patrolling. Again we where limited by the equipment we had. Few thermal imagers but we had night observation and ground based radar.

It’s always good to train outside of your unit as you learn and see different concepts and approaches to similar problems.

13) Leopard 1 tanks were exported in large numbers. Did you get any feedback/information from other users?

We had exchange officers and NCOs from allied nations like the UK US and Australia.

The Aussies had Leopard 1 and loved it but upgraded to the M1 at the end of Leo 1 s service life.

It was a great tank in its time. Everyone I’ve talked since is totally enamoured with the Leopard 2.

14) Leopard 1 gave priority to mobility over armour. Do you think it was a good idea. Other NATO tanks (Chieftain) did the opposite.

It remained to be seen. Modern tanks are way more uparmoured than Leopard 1. It was found In Afghanistan to be very vulnerable to mines and IED’s. In its generation it was still lightly armoured compared to contemporary’s. What it gave up in armour it made up with speed and mobility. I thought at the time it could have had a longer service life if used in conjunction with reconnaissance units due to its outstanding manoeuvrability.

15) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?

At the time we where scared of T-72 and 80. They where the biggest threat. The shear numbers of armour that the Soviets would push against us was daunting. We relied on our superior training and freedom of command to defeat them. As a tank troop leader we had a fairly simple mission but within that I had way more leeway to accomplish that than my Soviet counterpart.

We where confident that we could attrit them but knew any WWIII scenario we would have a life span of days.

16) Newer models of tanks have incorporated turbines and automatic loaders. What is your opinion of them?

Gas turbine engines are great because they are multi burners. Ideally you would use Jet fuel to run them but in an emergency they can run on Mogas, diesel and kerosene. The downside is the consumption and the heat produced which is hard to mask.

As to autoloaders I would prefer to have that extra crew member. An auto loader is complex and doesn’t give you that extra set of hands and eyes you need. The operator/loader in our tanks was an experienced crew member getting ready to become a crew commander. They would help with navigatio, radios and feed the gun.

A tank is a piece of heavy equipment and the whole crew needs to service it. In a hide we would have one crew member on sentry duty all the time the other three would be doing maintenance, resting or off getting orders or preparing them. With three crew only it would be way more fatiguing crewing a MBT in my opinion.

17) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

I think there is definitely a place in the modern world for MBT’s. But like all the combat arms none survives on its own. We need infantry especially in built up areas, artillery for on call support and suppression, air, coms, maintenance etc.

I’d hate to be going up against tanks with just shoulder launched anti armour weapons or in a tank in a city without infantry clearing the flanks. Afghanistan showed the Canadian Army that we still needed the capability and skills of Tankers and couldn’t survive in just a Cavalry and light infantry role without some heavy armour in support.

My time as a tanker fills me with great pride and I am still passionate about it even though I am no longer directly involved. Being a member of a tank crew was highly rewarding and great fun.

I am an airline Captain now but still get a thrill when I see a Tank on the news or in a display and think, I served on those. I guess I like big machines.
 
Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes