Low-IQ Mexican “Immigrants” Don’t Improve even after Three Generations in US, New Study Finds

Further proof that intelligence, social status, economic progress and social adaptability are inherent and unchangeable genetic attributes has come with the a new study that has found no appreciable difference in achievement levels between first and third generation Mexican “immigrants” in America.

Read more here from

The Daily Archives

We have similar problem with Arab and African immigrants.

Search PISA Programme for International Student Assessment, an OECD survey.

Results 

All PISA results are tabulated by country; recent PISA cycles have separate provincial or regional results for some countries. Most public attention concentrates on just one outcome: the mean scores of countries and their rankings of countries against one another. In the official reports, however, country-by-country rankings are given not as simple league tables but as cross tables indicating for each pair of countries whether or not mean score differences are statistically significant (unlikely to be due to random fluctuations in student sampling or in item functioning). In favorable cases, a difference of 9 points is sufficient to be considered significant. 

PISA never combines mathematics, science and reading domain scores into an overall score. However, commentators have sometimes combined test results from all three domains into an overall country ranking. Such meta-analysis is not endorsed by the OECD, although official summaries sometimes use scores from a testing cycle’s principal domain as a proxy for overall student ability.

Math
Country 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
 Singapore 564 1 573 1 562 1
 Hong Kong, China 548 2 561 2 555 2 547 3 550 1
 Macau 544 3 538 5 525 10 525 8 527 8
 Taiwan 542 4 560 3 543 4 549 1
 Japan 532 5 536 6 529 7 523 9 534 5
 China B-S-J-G[a] 531 6
 South Korea 524 7 554 4 546 3 547 4 542 3
  Switzerland 521 8 531 7 534 6 530 6 527 9
 Estonia 520 9 521 9 512 15 515 13
 Canada 516 10 518 11 527 8 527 7 532 6
 Netherlands 512 11 523 8 526 9 531 5 538 4
 Denmark 511 12 500 20 503 17 513 14 514 14
 Finland 511 13 519 10 541 5 548 2 544 2
 Slovenia 510 14 501 19 501 18 504 18
 Belgium 507 15 515 13 515 12 520 11 529 7
 Germany 506 16 514 14 513 14 504 19 503 19
 Ireland 504 18 501 18 487 30 501 21 503 20
 Poland 504 17 518 12 495 23 495 24 490 24
 Norway 502 19 489 28 498 19 490 28 495 22
 Austria 497 20 506 16 496 22 505 17 506 18
 New Zealand 495 21 500 21 519 11 522 10 523 11
 Vietnam 495 22 511 15
 Australia 494 25 504 17 514 13 520 12 524 10
 Russia 494 23 482 32 468 36 476 32 468 29
 Sweden 494 24 478 36 494 24 502 20 509 16
 France 493 26 495 23 497 20 496 22 511 15
 Czech Republic 492 28 499 22 493 25 510 15 516 12
 Portugal 492 29 487 29 487 31 466 35 466 30
 United Kingdom 492 27 494 24 492 26 495 23 508 17
International Average (OECD) 490 494 495 494 499
 Italy 490 30 485 30 483 33 462 36 466 31
 Iceland 488 31 493 25 507 16 506 16 515 13
 Luxembourg 486 33 490 27 489 28 490 27 493 23
 Spain 486 32 484 31 483 32 480 31 485 26
 Latvia 482 34 491 26 482 34 486 30 483 27
 Malta 479 35
 Lithuania 478 36 479 35 477 35 486 29
 Hungary 477 37 477 37 490 27 491 26 490 25
 Slovakia 475 38 482 33 497 21 492 25 498 21
 Israel 470 39 466 39 447 39 442 38
 United States 470 40 481 34 487 29 474 33 483 28
 Croatia 464 41 471 38 460 38 467 34
 Kazakhstan 460 42 432 45 405 48
 Argentina CABA[b] 456 43 418 49
 Greece 454 44 453 40 466 37 459 37 445 32
 Malaysia 446 45 421 48
 Romania 444 46 445 42 427 42 415 42
 Bulgaria 441 47 439 43 428 41 413 43
 Cyprus 437 48
 United Arab Emirates 427 49 434 44
 Chile 423 50 423 47 421 44 411 44
 Moldova 420 52
 Turkey 420 51 448 41 445 40 424 40 423 33
 Montenegro 418 54 410 51 403 49 399 46
 Uruguay 418 53 409 52 427 43 427 39 422 34
 Trinidad and Tobago 417 55 414 47
 Thailand 415 56 427 46 419 45 417 41 417 35
 Albania 413 57 394 54 377 53
 Argentina 409 58
 Mexico 408 59 413 50 419 46 406 45 385 36
 Georgia 404 60
 Qatar 402 61 376 59 368 56 318 52
 Costa Rica 400 62 407 53
 Lebanon 396 63
 Colombia 390 64 376 58 381 52 370 49
 Peru 387 65 368 61 365 57
 Indonesia 386 66 375 60 371 55 391 47 360 37
 Jordan 380 67 386 57 387 50 384 48
 Brazil 377 68 389 55 386 51 370 50 356 39
 Macedonia 371 69
 Tunisia 367 70 388 56 371 54 365 51 359 38
 Kosovo 362 71
 Algeria 360 72
 Dominican Republic 328 73
Reading
Country 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
 Singapore 535 1 542 2 526 4
 Canada 527 3 523 7 524 5 527 4 528 3 534 2
 Hong Kong, China 527 2 545 1 533 3 536 3 510 9 525 6
 Finland 526 4 524 5 536 2 547 2 543 1 546 1
 Ireland 521 5 523 6 496 19 517 6 515 6 527 5
 Estonia 519 6 516 10 501 12 501 12
 South Korea 517 7 536 4 539 1 556 1 534 2 525 7
 Japan 516 8 538 3 520 7 498 14 498 14 522 9
 Norway 513 9 504 20 503 11 484 24 500 12 505 13
 Germany 509 11 508 18 497 18 495 17 491 21 484 22
 Macau 509 12 509 15 487 26 492 20 498 15
 New Zealand 509 10 512 11 521 6 521 5 522 5 529 3
 Poland 506 13 518 9 500 14 508 8 497 16 479 24
 Slovenia 505 14 481 36 483 29 494 19
 Australia 503 16 512 12 515 8 513 7 525 4 528 4
 Netherlands 503 15 511 13 508 9 507 10 513 8
 Denmark 500 18 496 23 495 22 494 18 492 19 497 16
 Sweden 500 17 483 34 497 17 507 9 514 7 516 10
 Belgium 499 20 509 16 506 10 501 11 507 11 507 11
 France 499 19 505 19 496 20 488 22 496 17 505 14
 Portugal 498 21 488 31 489 25 472 30 478 28 470 26
 United Kingdom 498 22 499 21 494 23 495 16 507 10 523 8
 Taiwan 497 23 523 8 495 21 496 15
 United States 497 24 498 22 500 16 495 18 504 15
 Spain 496 25 488 29 481 31 461 34 481 26 493 18
 Russia 495 26 475 40 459 40 440 38 442 32 462 27
 China B-S-J-G[a] 494 27
International Average (OECD) 493 496 493 489 494 493
  Switzerland 492 28 509 14 501 13 499 13 499 13 494 17
 Latvia 488 29 489 27 484 28 479 27 491 23 458 28
 Croatia 487 31 485 33 476 34 477 29
 Czech Republic 487 30 493 24 478 32 483 25 489 24 492 20
 Vietnam 487 32 508 17
 Austria 485 33 490 26 470 37 490 21 491 22 492 19
 Italy 485 34 490 25 486 27 469 32 476 29 487 21
 Iceland 482 35 483 35 500 15 484 23 492 20 507 12
 Luxembourg 481 36 488 30 472 36 479 28 479 27 441 30
 Israel 479 37 486 32 474 35 439 39 452 29
 Argentina CABA[b] 475 38 429 48
 Lithuania 472 39 477 37 468 38 470 31
 Hungary 470 40 488 28 494 24 482 26 482 25 480 23
 Greece 467 41 477 38 483 30 460 35 472 30 474 25
 Chile 459 42 441 43 449 41 442 37 410 35
 Slovakia 453 43 463 41 477 33 466 33 469 31
 Malta 447 44
 Cyprus 443 45
 Uruguay 437 46 411 51 426 43 413 41 434 34
 Romania 434 47 438 46 424 45 396 45 428 33
 United Arab Emirates 434 48 442 42
 Bulgaria 432 49 436 47 429 42 402 43 430 32
 Malaysia 431 50 398 56
 Turkey 428 51 475 39 464 39 447 36 441 33
 Costa Rica 427 52 441 45
 Kazakhstan 427 54 393 59 390 54
 Montenegro 427 55 422 50 408 50 392 48
 Trinidad and Tobago 427 53 416 47
 Argentina 425 56
 Colombia 425 57 403 54 413 48 385 49
 Mexico 423 58 424 49 425 44 410 42 400 37 422 34
 Moldova 416 59
 Thailand 409 60 441 44 421 46 417 40 420 35 431 31
 Jordan 408 61 399 55 405 51 401 44
 Brazil 407 62 407 52 412 49 393 47 403 36 396 36
 Albania 405 63 394 58 385 55 349 39
 Qatar 402 64 388 60 372 56 312 51
 Georgia 401 65
 Peru 398 66 384 61 370 57 327 40
 Indonesia 397 67 396 57 402 53 393 46 382 38 371 38
 Tunisia 361 68 404 53 404 52 380 50 375 39
 Dominican Republic 358 69
 Macedonia 352 70 373 37
 Algeria 350 71
 Kosovo 347 72
 Lebanon 347 73
Science
Country 2015 2012 2009 2006
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
 Singapore 556 1 551 2 542 3
 Japan 538 2 547 3 539 4 531 6
 Estonia 534 3 541 5 528 8 531 5
 Taiwan 532 4 523 11 520 11 532 4
 Finland 531 5 545 4 554 1 563 1
 Macau 529 6 521 15 511 16 511 16
 Canada 528 7 525 9 529 7 534 3
 Vietnam 525 8 528 7
 Hong Kong, China 523 9 555 1 549 2 542 2
 China B-S-J-G[a] 518 10
 South Korea 516 11 538 6 538 5 522 10
 New Zealand 513 12 516 16 532 6 530 7
 Slovenia 513 13 514 18 512 15 519 11
 Australia 510 14 521 14 527 9 527 8
 Germany 509 16 524 10 520 12 516 12
 Netherlands 509 17 522 12 522 10 525 9
 United Kingdom 509 15 514 19 514 14 515 13
  Switzerland 506 18 515 17 517 13 512 15
 Ireland 503 19 522 13 508 18 508 19
 Belgium 502 20 505 22 507 19 510 18
 Denmark 502 21 498 25 499 24 496 23
 Poland 501 22 526 8 508 17 498 22
 Portugal 501 23 489 34 493 30 474 36
 Norway 498 24 495 29 500 23 487 32
 United States 496 25 497 26 502 21 489 28
 Austria 495 26 506 21 494 28 511 17
 France 495 27 499 24 498 25 495 24
International Average (OECD) 493 501 501 498
 Czech Republic 493 29 508 20 500 22 513 14
 Spain 493 30 496 27 488 34 488 30
 Sweden 493 28 485 36 495 27 503 21
 Latvia 490 31 502 23 494 29 490 27
 Russia 487 32 486 35 478 37 479 34
 Luxembourg 483 33 491 33 484 36 486 33
 Italy 481 34 494 31 489 33 475 35
 Hungary 477 35 494 30 503 20 504 20
 Argentina CABA[b] 475 38 425 49
 Croatia 475 37 491 32 486 35 493 25
 Lithuania 475 36 496 28 491 31 488 31
 Iceland 473 39 478 37 496 26 491 26
 Israel 467 40 470 39 455 39 454 38
 Malta 465 41
 Slovakia 461 42 471 38 490 32 488 29
 Kazakhstan 456 43 425 48 400 53
 Greece 455 44 467 40 470 38 473 37
 Chile 447 45 445 44 447 41 438 39
 Bulgaria 446 46 446 43 439 42 434 40
 Malaysia 443 47 420 50
 United Arab Emirates 437 48 448 42
 Romania 435 50 439 46 428 43 418 45
 Uruguay 435 49 416 51 427 44 428 41
 Cyprus 433 51
 Argentina 432 52
 Moldova 428 53
 Albania 427 54 397 58 391 54
 Trinidad and Tobago 425 56 410 48
 Turkey 425 55 463 41 454 40 424 42
 Thailand 421 57 444 45 425 45 421 44
 Costa Rica 420 58 429 47
 Qatar 418 59 384 59 379 56 349 52
 Colombia 416 60 399 56 402 50 388 50
 Mexico 416 61 415 52 416 46 410 47
 Georgia 411 63
 Montenegro 411 62 410 53 401 51 412 46
 Jordan 409 64 409 54 415 47 422 43
 Indonesia 403 65 382 60 383 55 393 48
 Brazil 401 66 402 55 405 49 390 49
 Peru 397 67 373 61 369 57
 Lebanon 386 68
 Tunisia 386 69 398 57 401 52 386 51
 Macedonia 384 70
 Kosovo 378 71
 Algeria 376 72
 Dominican Republic 332 73

Sturmtiger Action!

One of the weirdest tanks used by the Germans in WWII, the Sturmtiger was a massive rocket propelled mortar mounted on a Tiger I hull. Devastating when used properly, only 19 examples of this odd creation were built, all seeing action, particularly on the Western Front during the last months of the war.

Mark Felton Productions

Sturmtiger 2.jpg
Sturmtiger (German: “Assault Tiger”) was a World War II German assault gun built on the Tiger I chassis and armed with a 380mm rocket-propelled round. The official German designation was Sturmmörserwagen 606/4 mit 38 cm RW 61. Its primary task was to provide heavy fire support for infantry units fighting in urban areas. The few vehicles produced fought in the Warsaw Uprising, the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of the Reichswald. The fighting vehicle is also known under a large number of informal names, among which the Sturmtiger became the most popular.
Designer Alkett
Designed 1943–1944
Manufacturer Alkett
Produced October 1943 – January 1945
No. built 18 (using rebuilt Tiger I chassis)
Specifications
Weight 68 tonnes (75 short tons; 67 long tons)
Length 6.28 m (20 ft 7 in)
Width 3.57 m (11 ft 9 in)
Height 2.85 m (9 ft 4 in)
Crew 5
driver
machine gunner / radio operator
loader
2nd loader
commander / gunner

Armor max. 150 mm (superstructure front, at 47° from vertical)
min. 62 mm
Main
armament
380 mm RW 61 rocket launcher L/5.4
(14 rounds)
Secondary
armament
100 mm grenade launcher
(using SMi 35 leaping mines) 
7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 34 machine gun
Engine V-12, water-cooled Maybach HL230P45 engine
700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
Power/weight 10.77 PS/tonne
Suspension torsion-bar
Operational
range
120 km (75 mi)
Speed 40 km/h (25 mph)

Read more here

More WWII here

Maus

1 Tiger Tank vs 50 T-34s – A True Story

The German Panzer (WWII)

Panther Ambush – Normandy 1944

Tiger Ambush – Normandy 1944

Jagdtiger Ambush – Ardennes 1944

SS King Tiger Last Stand: Berlin 1945

About King Tiger

 

Schloss Callenberg

Schloss Callenberg Luftbild.jpg

Callenberg Castle (Schloss Callenberg) is a castle on a wooded hill in Beiersdorf, an Ortsteil of Coburg, 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) from the town centre. It was a hunting lodge and summer residence and has long been the principal residence of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. It is currently owned by Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha who created the Ducal Saxe-Coburg and Gotha House Order. A large and architecturally important family chapel is contained within.

According to the Schloss Callenberg web site “the castle became the property of Duke Johann Casimir of Saxe-Coburg in 1588, after the death of the last von Sternberg. Until 1825 the ducal treasury and the Castle of Callenberg were property of the Dukes of Saxe-Meiningen. It was only in 1826 that the Dukes of Coburg become owners of Callenberg Castle again. Until 1945 the castle was the summer residence of the Dukes of Coburg.”

History 

A hill castle here was first mentioned as Chalwinberch in 1122. It served as the main seat for the Ritter von Callenberg until 1231, when the lord sold it to the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg. The knight made use of the proceeds to participate in a Crusade. In 1317 the House of Henneberg purchased the property and gave it as a fief to the Sternberg family. This family died out in 1592. As a vacant property, it now fell to Duke Johann Casimir. He intended to use it as a summer palace and planned substantial renovations but during his lifetime only the castle chapel was rebuilt. 

Major construction work resumed only in 1827 under Ernst I. He had the castle completely redesigned, a landscape garden was created and an exhibit farm added, in which silk worms were bred. From 1842, Callenberg was the summer residence of the heir and future duke Ernst II. Today’s Gothic revival elements date to another renovation after 1857. From 1893, Callenberg served as dowager house for Princess Alexandrine of Baden, the widow of Ernest II. The last ruling duke, Carl Eduard used Callenberg as a summer residence. After his death in 1954 he was buried here. 

Post World War II, the castle fell into disrepair. It was first used by American troops and later served as a nursing home, housed a technical college and then a foundation. From the late 1970s, the castle stood empty and changed owners several times. 

Architecture 

The chapel features Gothic arches, Doric columns, Italian Renaissance parapets, medieval walls and a Baroque pulpit. 

Today 

Schloss Callenberg is once again owned by the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Due to its history and Gothic revival architecture it is a listed monument. Since 1998 it has displayed the ducal art and furniture collection and since 2004 it has also housed the German Rifle Museum (Deutsches Schützenmuseum). The cemetery, Cemetery Waldfriedhof or Waldfriedhof Beiersdorf, still remains, containing the remains of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, among others.  

German

A Sequoiadendron giganteum (giant sequoia; also known as giant redwood) in the castle garden.

Giant sequoias are the world’s largest single trees. Giant sequoias grow to an average height of 50–85 m (164–279 ft) and 6–8 m (20–26 ft) in diameter. Record trees have been measured to be 94.8 m (311 ft) in height. Claims of 17 m (56 ft) diameter have been touted by taking an author’s writing out of context, but the widest known at chest height is the General Grant tree at 8.8 m (28.9 ft). Between 2014 and 2016, specimens of coast redwood were found to have larger trunk diameters than all known giant sequoias. However, the trunks of redwoods taper more quickly, whereas sequoias have more columnar boles that maintain greater girth higher up in the tree.

The oldest known giant sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old. Giant sequoias are among the oldest living things on Earth.

Russia’s New Maritime Doctrine And Issues With The Surface Fleet

An expanded text version of this analysis can be found here

South Front

The junkie mentality:

“Despite being a replacement for many types of submarines, the Borei-class submarines are slightly shorter than the Typhoon class (170 m (560 ft) as opposed to 175 m (574 ft)), and have a smaller crew (107 people as opposed to 160). These changes were in part designed to reduce the cost to build and maintain the submarines. In addition, the United States and Canada provided 80% of funds for scrapping the older Typhoon-class submarines, making it much more economical to build a new submarine.”

Source

“At the end of the Cold War, the Zvezda shipyard was used to decommission Soviet nuclear submarines, with funding and support from the USA and Canada under the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction initiative.”

Source

“The decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels is an issue of major concern to the United States and to the Scandinavian countries near Russia. From 1950 to 2003, the Soviet Union and its major successor state, Russia, constructed the largest nuclear-powered navy in the world, more ships than all other navies combined: 248 submarines (91 attack submarines, 62 cruise missile submarines, 91 ballistic missile submarines and four research submarines), four Kirov class battlecruisers, and a missile test ship, as well as nine icebreakers. Many were or are powered by two reactors each, bringing the total to 468 reactors. With the end of the Cold War and with its navy chronically underfunded, Russia has decommissioned many of these vessels, and according to one report dated November 2008, intended to scrap all decommissioned submarines (more than 200) by 2012. However, the safety records of the Soviet and Russian navies and the budgetary constraints on the Russian government are matters of great concern. Ships awaiting decommissioning receive little maintenance, and there are insufficient waste storage facilities, raising worries about possible ecological damage from accidents or improper storage.”

Source

“The major issues are financial. In 1995, a Northern Fleet submarine based near Murmansk nearly suffered a nuclear meltdown when power was cut off due to unpaid electricity bills. Decommissioned vessels are often left in floating storage until funds can be allocated for their dismantling. As of November 2001, “up to 40% of the decommissioned submarines have been in floating storage without much maintenance for more than 10 years”.

The situation has caused concern in other countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Japan and the Scandinavian countries, which have contributed funding and assistance. The Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC) was a joint Norwegian, Russian, and American government consortium (later joined by the British) set up to deal with military environmental issues, mainly the dismantling of Russia’s nuclear submarine fleet in Europe. After the “somewhat acrimonious dissolution” of AMEC, the Norwegian and British governments shared the £3.9 million cost of dismantling a November class submarine. Under AMEC’s successor, Cooperative Threat Reduction, the British government financed the dismantling of two Oscar I submarines. The Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has been responsible for the deactivation and destruction of many weapons, including 33 nuclear submarines. With the “Star of Hope” program, Japan has funded the dismantling of five Victor III and one Charlie I submarines in the Far East.

Security is also an issue. Russian sailors have been convicted and jailed for two 1993 thefts of highly enriched uranium from fuel rods. In 1994, Russian officials caught two North Korean agents trying to buy submarine dismantlement schedules.”

Source

“A Russian government report acknowledged in March 1993, that “during the period of 1965 to 1988 the Northern Fleet had dumped four reactor compartments with eight reactors (three containing damaged fuel) in the Abrosimov Gulf in 20 to 40 meters of water.” Six other compartments, containing nine reactors in all, had also been dumped into the water in the 1960s and 1970s”

Source

Kursk wreck.jpg

US re-establishes naval fleet in Atlantic amid increased Russia threat

Russia’s Military Power (2017)

For decades, Russia’s oil giants have been polluting parts of the country’s once thriving landscape, often in secret, spilling oil onto the land and into the Arctic Ocean, poisoning the water and destroying the livelihood of local communities and Indigenous Peoples.

The Russian (((Bolshevik Revolution)))

Leopard 2

Leopard 2 A5 der Bundeswehr.jpg

The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei in the 1970s for the West German Army. The tank first entered service in 1979 and succeeded the earlier Leopard 1 as the main battle tank of the German Army. It is armed with a 120 mm (Rheinmetall) smoothbore cannon, and is powered by a V-12 twin-turbo diesel engine. Various versions have served in the armed forces of Germany and 12 other European countries, as well as several non-European nations, including Canada, Chile, Indonesia, Singapore, and Turkey. The Leopard 2 was used in Kosovo with the German Army, and has seen action in Afghanistan with the Danish and Canadian contributions to the International Security Assistance Force, as well as also seeing action in Syria with the Turkish Armed Forces against ISIS and the YPG.

There are two main development batches of the tank: the original models up to Leopard 2A4, which have vertically faced turret armour, and the “improved” batch, namely the Leopard 2A5 and newer versions, which have angled arrow-shaped turret appliqué armour together with other improvements. All models feature digital fire control systems with laser rangefinders, a fully stabilised main gun and coaxial machine gun, and advanced night vision and sighting equipment (first vehicles used a low-light level TV system or LLLTV; thermal imaging was introduced later on). The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain.

Weight 2A6: 62.3 tonnes (68.7 short tons)
Length 2A6: 9.97 metres (393 inches) (gun forward)
Width 2A6: 3.75 m (148 in)
Height 2A6: 3.0 m (120 in)
Crew 4

The Leopard 2 can drive through water 4 meters (13 ft) deep using a snorkel or 1.2 meters (3 ft 11 in) without any preparation. It can climb vertical obstacles over one metre high.

The German Army has prioritised mobility in its Leopard 2, which might be the fastest main battle tank in the world.

Read more here

Leopard 2AV 

In July 1973 German Federal Minister of Defence Georg Leber and his US counterpart James R. Schlesinger agreed upon a higher degree of standardization in main battle tanks being favourable to NATO. By integrating components already fully developed by German companies for the Leopard 2, the costs of the XM1 Abrams, U.S. prototype tank developed after the MBT-70, should be reduced. A German commission was sent to the US to evaluate the harmonisation of components between the XM1 and Leopard 2.   However, by American law it was not possible for a public bidder to interfere in a procurement tender after a contract with intention of profits and deadline was awarded to companies of the private industry. 

As a result, the modification of the Leopard 2 prototypes in order to meet the US Army requirements was investigated. Following a number of further talks, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed on 11 December 1974 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America, which declared that a modified version of the Leopard 2 should be trialled by the USA against their XM1 prototypes, after the Americans had bought and investigated prototype PT07 in 1973. The MOU obligated the Federal Republic of Germany to send a complete prototype, a hull, a vehicle for ballistic tests and a number of special ballistic parts to the USA, where they would be put through US testing procedures for no additional costs. 

The Leopard 2AV (austere version) was based on the experiences of the previous Leopard 2 development. It was created in order to meet the US requirements and the latest protection requirements of the German MoD. The turret T14 mod was used as base for the Leopard 2AV’s turret, but meeting the required level of protection for the hull required several attempts until the final ballistic trials on 23 to 26 June 1976.  Following the US’ preference of laser rangefinders, the turret of prototype PT19 was fitted with a laser rangefinder developed together with the American company Hughes.  In comparison with the earlier Leopard 2 prototypes, the fire control system was simplified by replacing the EMES-12 optical rangefinder and removing the crosswind sensor, the air-pressure and temperature sensors, the powder temperature sensor, the PERI R12 commander sight with IR searchlight, the short-range grenade launcher for use against infantry, the retractable search-light, the spotlight, the retractable passive night vision sight, the APU and the mechanical loading assistant. 

Due to the design and production of the Leopard 2AV taking more time than expected, the shipment to the US and the US evaluation was delayed. It was not possible to test the Leopard 2AV before 1 September 1976. Despite the German wish that the Leopard 2AV and the XM1 prototypes would be evaluated at the same time, the US Army decided not to wait for the Leopard 2AV and tested the XM1 prototypes from Chrysler and General Motors beforehand. 

Two new prototype hulls and three turrets were shipped to the US: PT20 mounting a 105 mm rifled L7 gun and a Hughes fire control system, PT19 with the same fire control system but able to swap out the gun for the 120 mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, and the PT21 fitted with the Krupp Atlas Elektronik EMES-13 fire control system and the 120 mm Rheinmetall gun. The Leopard 2AV fully met the US requirements. A study made by the American FMC Corporation showed, that it was possible to produce the Leopard 2AV under licence in America without exceeding the cost limits set by the Army.  But already before the trials were finished, it was decided that instead of the US army possibly adopting the Leopard 2AV, the focus was shifted on the commonization of components between the two tanks. FMC, after having acquired the licences for production of the Leopard 2AV, decided not to submit a technical proposal, as they saw little to no chance in the US Army adopting a vehicle not developed in the USA. 

The US Army evaluation showed that on the XM1 a larger portion of the tank’s surface was covered by special armour than on the Leopard 2AV. Differences in armour protection were attributed to the different perceptions on the expected threats and the haste in which the Leopard 2AV was designed to accommodate special armour.  On mobility trials the Leopard 2AV performed equal to better than the XM1 prototypes. The AGT-1500 gas turbine proved to consume about 50% more fuel and the Diehl tracks had a higher endurance, while the tracks used on the XM1 prototypes failed to meet the Army’s requirements. The heat signature of the MTU diesel engine was much lower. The fire control system and the sights of the Leopard 2 were considered to be better and the 120 mm gun proved to be superior. The projected production costs for one XM1 tank were $728,000 in 1976, the costs for one Leopard 2AV were $56,000 higher. 

After the American evaluation of the Leopard 2AV and the US army’s decision to opt for the XM1 Abrams, both American and German sources blamed the other side. According to American literature it was discovered, that the Leopard 2AV prototype used for mobility trials was underweight. 

In Germany the test conditions were criticised for being unrealistic and favouring the XM1. Instead of using actual performance data, the calculated hypothetical acceleration was used. The XM1 was found to have a slightly higher rate of fire despite having internal layouts similar to the Leopard 2AV, because the XM1 prototypes were manned by professional crews, while the Leopard 2AV had to be manned by conscripts in order to prove that the Leopard 2AV was not too complicated.  Firing on the move was demonstrated on flat tracks, which nullified the better stabilization systems of the Leopard 2AV.

Coat of arms of Jutland Dragoon Regiment.svg

In October 2007, Denmark also deployed Leopard 2A5 DKs in support of operations in southern Afghanistan. The Danish tank unit, drawn from the first battalion of the Jydske Dragonregiment (Jutland Dragoons Regiment), was equipped with three tanks and one M113 armoured personnel carrier, with an armoured recovery vehicle and another tank kept in reserve. The Danish version of the Leopard 2A5 is fitted with Swedish-made Barracuda camouflage mats, that limit the absorption of solar heat, thus reducing infrared signature and interior temperature. It also has a conventional driver’s seat bolted on the floor of the tank, wherereas in the Canadian 2A6M (as part of the mine-protection package) the driver’s seat has been replaced by a “Dynamic Safety Seat”,  which is a parachute-harness like arrangement that the driver wears around his hip; in this way, the driver does not have any contact with the hull except on the pedals and is out of the shockwave area of exploding land mines or IEDs.

In January 2008, Danish tanks halted a flanking manoeuvre by Taliban forces near the Helmand River by providing gunfire in support of Danish and British infantry from elevated positions. On 26 February 2008, a Danish Leopard 2 was hit by an explosive device, damaging one track. No one was injured and the tank returned to camp on its own for repairs. The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand Province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. On site treatment by Danish medics could not save him. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal and then later to FOB Armadillo for investigation and possible redeployment. During the same contact with Taliban forces, a second tank was caught in an explosion but none of the crew were wounded. Beginning on 7 December 2008, Leopard 2 tanks took part in Operation Red Dagger, firing 31 rounds in support of Coalition troops as they recaptured Nad Ali District. A press release from the British Ministry of Defence praised the tank’s fire accuracy and mobility, claiming the Leopard 2 was a decisive factor in the coalition’s success. Danish Leopard 2A5s are, as of 2013, still in Afghanistan, providing security cover for the withdrawal of British and NATO troops.

Operation Bøllebank

Tank Gun vs Armor: Tank Warfare Explained

Germany

Raketenjagdpanzer

German PzH 2000 – 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer

Flakpanzer Gepard Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun

German Infantry Fighting Vehicle

The Wiesel Tankette – Overview

German Divisions (Bundeswehr)

I. German/Dutch Corps

Tanks of the Future

Rheinmetall

Thyssen Krupp

Army hierarchy

Sweden

Advanced Mortar System (AMOS) – Twin Barrel 120mm Mortar

Archer FH77 Self-Propelled 155mm Howitzer

Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103) S-Tank

The history of Swedish iron and steel industry

South Africa

Rooikat Armored Fighting Vehicle – South African Firepower

 

South Africa: Seizure of White Property to Get Official Go-Ahead

The South African Parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee this week voted to proceed with a change to that country’s constitution which will remove all potential legal obstacles to the seizure of white property – on the basis that whites “stole” the land – even though well over 80 percent of the disputed land was unoccupied by blacks at the time of white colonization.

Read more here from

The Daily Archives

About South Africa