NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the topic for general discussion of modern tanks, of the sort with a gun and lots of armour, not the kind used to hold (for example) water.
Its not really an II thing, since it doesnt relate to RP in most senses.
Anyway, General needs something other than politics to debate :P

To start off discussion, what do you think is the best MBT (main battle tank) on the planet? Just in general, not in a particular area.
Personally, I think its a toss-up between the Abrams(US) and the Lepord 2 (German, I think). The British come in a close third with the Crusader series (I think thats what theyre called, if Im wrong its whatever their current MBT is).
The Russian T-series (IMO) basicaly tapered off around the T-72, and most of the other (non-rippoff) tanks on the planet are terrible. Though I hear the Japanses are pretty good with their tanks.

Russian T-90. M1 Abrams is good but can be taken out by a Kornet missile. Leopard II is quite good but not really proven. Don't know too much about the Crusader, I hear it's good though.

Personally, I think its a toss-up between the Abrams(US) and the Lepord 2 (German, I think). The British come in a close third with the Crusader series (I think thats what theyre called, if Im wrong its whatever their current MBT is).
I am inclined to agree. The Abrams is one hell of a fighting machine.

And if we're thinking of the same Crusader, those are pretty nice-looking, although I don't know much about their armament.

Challenger 2. Not crusader. Crusader was retired some time ago

Russian T-90. M1 Abrams is good but can be taken out by a Kornet missile. Leopard II is quite good but not really proven. Don't know too much about the Crusader, I hear it's good though.
Hm, I thought the T-90 was more focused on cheapness than quality. And I think the M1s problems will be resolved with the M1-A3, which (last I heard) will be better armoured in its vulnerable spots.
And thats how you spell leopard, I knew I was getting it wrong >_<

EDIT:
Challenger! I knew it was something with a C...the Crusader was WWII now that I think about it...

Challenger 2. Not crusader. Crusader was retired some time ago
Actually, it's Challenger 2E now. Briliant, and only beatable by another. Kick ass tank

M1 Abrams and Merkava Mk3

What about the Israeli tank (merkaba?) Isn't it supposed to have some of the toughest armor in the world?

Actually, it's Challenger 2E now. Briliant, and only beatable by another. Kick ass tank

Dude, I was closer than Crusader. I mean honestly DGNT, you should know everything about foreign MBTs. It's just not good enough.

What about the Israeli tank (merkaba?) Isn't it supposed to have some of the toughest armor in the world?

Not quite, but it's close

I'm gonna go with the Challenger 2E... though modern warfare is BORING.

The real age of armour was WW2, in my opinion. And the maus ruled all. All 2 of them.

Really though, it was the T-34 and all its incarnations. Though I do appreciate the IS-3m. what a machine.

Merkava Mk.4's better (than the Mk.3), but the Abrams SEP, the Challenger 2E, and the Leopard 2A6 are superb tanks.

I'm gonna go with the Challenger 2E... though modern warfare is BORING.

The real age of armour was WW2, in my opinion. And the maus ruled all. All 2 of them.

Really though, it was the T-34 and all its incarnations. Though I do appreciate the IS-3m. what a machine.
You mean the giant 1,000,000 ton monster that would be torn to pieces by one Sherman without its treads? :p

Yeah, wasnt the IS series regarded as the 'big step' towards really modern tanks? Sort of like the StG-44 and/or BAR is to assault rifles. Too bad the IS-3 never got to see combat. Nice looking for the time though.

T-80/72 all the way,
easy to use,
excellent
still respected by british tank commanders and
cheap
a good main battle tank for a 3rd world or 2nd world nation

pro and con with the all too common Abrams M1a2

pro: excellent armour
con: stright bore barrel- i mean come on guys
pro: lots of technology and planning
con: too much technology - modern nations armies rely too heavily on tech these days- i think


another fact, the british challenger 2 has a TEA MAKER IN THE BACK
how british of us to do so.

Cool armor pictures and links here:

http://www.armorinaction.com/

T-80/72 all the way,
easy to use,
excellent
still respected by british tank commanders and
cheap
a good main battle tank for a 3rd world or 2nd world nation

pro and con with the all too common Abrams M1a2

pro: excellent armour
con: stright bore barrel- i mean come on guys
pro: lots of technology and planning
con: too much technology - modern nations armies rely too heavily on tech these days- i think

I'm gonna go with the Challenger 2E... though modern warfare is BORING. well done jordaxia another great saying


another fact, the british challenger 2 has a TEA MAKER IN THE BACK
how british of us to do so.

T-80/72 all the way,
easy to use,
excellent
still respected by british tank commanders and
cheap
a good main battle tank for a 3rd world or 2nd world nation

pro and con with the all too common Abrams M1a2

pro: excellent armour
con: stright bore barrel- i mean come on guys
pro: lots of technology and planning
con: too much technology - modern nations armies rely too heavily on tech these days- i think

well done jordaxia another great saying


another fact, the british challenger 2 has a TEA MAKER IN THE BACK
how british of us to do so.


with out this level of britishness we wold not have had an empire

T-80/72 all the way,
easy to use,
excellent
still respected by british tank commanders and
cheap
a good main battle tank for a 3rd world or 2nd world nation

pro and con with the all too common Abrams M1a2

pro: excellent armour
con: stright bore barrel- i mean come on guys
pro: lots of technology and planning
con: too much technology - modern nations armies rely too heavily on tech these days- i think


another fact, the british challenger 2 has a TEA MAKER IN THE BACK
how british of us to do so.
Yes, but look at the Gulf War, the Abrams shredded Saddams T-72/80's, taking (according to the History Channel) four hits in the proccess, with on fatalities.
Im not sure what the figures from GWII are, but Im sure they cant be much worse.
As for the bit about the Challenger...
O_o
I mean, say your at some Kursk-esque battle, I can just imagine some sort of Victorian made lady sitting in the back of the tank and bustling up with some silver tea-instruments on a tray and saying 'Tea, love? Milk? Sugar?,' and then being killed when the tank gets hit by a KE round.
>_>
<_<

Challenger 2. Not crusader. Crusader was retired some time ago
Ah. Thank you kindly for enlightening us.

As for the bit about the Challenger...
O_o
I mean, say your at some Kursk-esque battle, I can just imagine some sort of Victorian made lady sitting in the back of the tank and bustling up with some silver tea-instruments on a tray and saying 'Tea, love? Milk? Sugar?,' and then being killed when the tank gets hit by a KE round.
>_>
<_<
Bwaha!
:D

Note to self:
'Maid' has an 'I' in it.
Work on spelling
Sleep tonight O_O

Yes, but look at the Gulf War, the Abrams shredded Saddams T-72/80's, taking (according to the History Channel) four hits in the proccess, with on fatalities.
Im not sure what the figures from GWII are, but Im sure they cant be much worse.
As for the bit about the Challenger...
O_o
I mean, say your at some Kursk-esque battle, I can just imagine some sort of Victorian made lady sitting in the back of the tank and bustling up with some silver tea-instruments on a tray and saying 'Tea, love? Milk? Sugar?,' and then being killed when the tank gets hit by a KE round.
>_>
<_<


You have to look at who was crewing Saddam's tanks. Those were not trained Soviet crews in tanks that they knew inside and out. The M1 wouldn't have (probably still wouldn't) tear through Russian manned T-80's like that.

with out this level of britishness we wold not have had an empire
.

I've gotta say Israeli Army Merkava 4.

A fantastic MBT.

You have to look at who was crewing Saddam's tanks. Those were not trained Soviet crews in tanks that they knew inside and out. The M1 wouldn't have (probably still wouldn't) tear through Russian manned T-80's like that.
Well, the Republican Guard was supposedly pretty damn good, especialy for 3rd World crews. I mean, Saddam wasnt an idiot...in that regard anyway :P

in tests (acording to the B.A.M.M)
the challenger 2 beat the abram in tests 5 to 4

.

...well its true

You have to look at who was crewing Saddam's tanks. Those were not trained Soviet crews in tanks that they knew inside and out. The M1 wouldn't have (probably still wouldn't) tear through Russian manned T-80's like that.
Am I mistaken, or do the T80s use an automatic loader? Isn't that slower than the manual loading in an Abrams?

The Abrams also separates the ammunition from the crew, making it less likely that the crew will be killed if the ammo compartment is hit.

I'd say those two things make it a better tank.

Well, the Republican Guard was supposedly pretty damn good, especialy for 3rd World crews. I mean, Saddam wasnt an idiot...in that regard anyway :P


This'll sound horribly racist, but whatever-the Republican Guard were still Iraqis. They're God awful soldiers, and I've heard this opinion expressed by several US military officers as well.

Am I mistaken, or do the T80s use an automatic loader? Isn't that slower than the manual loading in an Abrams?

The Abrams also separates the ammunition from the crew, making it less likely that the crew will be killed if the ammo compartment is hit.

I'd say those two things make it a better tank.

not neseserally (sorry about the spelling).
that would make it a tank with better ammo safety precautions not a better tank

Am I mistaken, or do the T80s use an automatic loader? Isn't that slower than the manual loading in an Abrams?

The Abrams also separates the ammunition from the crew, making it less likely that the crew will be killed if the ammo compartment is hit.

I'd say those two things make it a better tank.


The M1 probably is a better tank. But it wouldn't tear through Russian manned T80's the way it did to the Iraqis.

not neseserally (sorry about the spelling).
that would make it a tank with better ammo safety precautions not a better tank
Ok, but what about the first part of my post?

...well its true
I agree

Am I mistaken, or do the T80s use an automatic loader? Isn't that slower than the manual loading in an Abrams?

The Abrams also separates the ammunition from the crew, making it less likely that the crew will be killed if the ammo compartment is hit.

I'd say those two things make it a better tank.
Good point there, I imagine that a busted auto-loader in the middle of combat could be a bad thing ;)
The Abrams also has the blowout panels that channel most of the explsion from fuel/ammo upwards away from the crew, of course this leaves a few thin spots over the ammo/fuel, but I would say that not being incenerated by your own shells is worth it.

This'll sound horribly racist, but whatever-the Republican Guard were still Iraqis. They're God awful soldiers, and I've heard this opinion expressed by several US military officers as well.


the guard were amping the best 2nd-3rd world troops.in comparrison to british and american troops they are inferior but still good compared to most in simmilar enviroments

Ok, but what about the first part of my post?

...that bit i agrred on

Ok, but what about the first part of my post?


Auto loading cuts down on the number of crew members necessary, I believe, and it also allows crew members to focus on other functions. Also, smaller crew size allows it to be a smaller tank, it presents a lower, harder to hit profile than the M1 as far as I know.

I agree

...jolly good :)

not neseserally (sorry about the spelling).
that would make it a tank with better ammo safety precautions not a better tank

That's a matter of definitions. No matter how heavily you armour, eventually something is going to get through. The Soviet-era designs were very tightly packed, meaning that if something DID get through, it would be more likely to hit something irreplaceable-and having random stocks of munitions lying about means you're dealing with other threats-it gets hot inside an MBT. Powder doesn't like that...

Auto loading cuts down on the number of crew members necessary, I believe, and it also allows crew members to focus on other functions. Also, smaller crew size allows it to be a smaller tank, it presents a lower, harder to hit profile than the M1 as far as I know.
And then it breaks...what do you do?

The M1 probably is a better tank. But it wouldn't tear through Russian manned T80's the way it did to the Iraqis.
That's a given. Russians have developed good strategies for using their armor against Americans. After all, we were practicing to kill each other during the cold war.

Iraquis did not have T80s... The best they got was a few T72 with first generation night sights...
The republican guard was actually quite good, but without air superiority and intelligence to support them their fate was sealed...
A T80 with reactive armour, updated electronics and a good crew is actually able to match any modern tank, their 125mm cannon is still well able to cripple any MBT around, but the nightsight and tracking system is quite inferior to the western counterparts, so that it needs to be close or lucky to deliver the payload.

Auto loading cuts down on the number of crew members necessary, I believe, and it also allows crew members to focus on other functions. Also, smaller crew size allows it to be a smaller tank, it presents a lower, harder to hit profile than the M1 as far as I know.

It also means that you either don't have someone on overwatch when (not if) you throw a track, or you better have some damn beefy drivers and loaders to do it. The Soviets' doctrine didn't allow for field-repair on the advance, so it did not matter to them (Got enough tanks that losing one to a broken or thrown track didn't make that much difference), so the three-man crew isn't a big issue.

On Western designs that lack the Autoloader, the loader's job includes assisting the gunner and the driver in fixing things like broken tracks, while the Commander (he gets the .50 cal, in case you were wondering) does overwatch-so that enemy infantry might at least be discouraged from attacking the immobile, flammable pillbox until it can start going again.

What defines a "good tank" differs, then, based on your doctrine of what a Tank, and its crew, are supposed to do, and be able to do-without help.

And then it breaks...what do you do?

Switch to manual. We did training exercises with armor units, it was always fun to watch these things move and fire. Being able to see the new T-90 in action was quite something.

T-80/72 all the way,
easy to use,
excellent
still respected by british tank commanders and
cheap
a good main battle tank for a 3rd world or 2nd world nation
Of course it's still only target practice for a western tank.

pro and con with the all too common Abrams M1a2

pro: excellent armour
con: stright bore barrel- i mean come on guys
pro: lots of technology and planning
con: too much technology - modern nations armies rely too heavily on tech these days- i think

The reasoning for the straight bore barrel is because it maximizes muzzle velocity, which is important when punching through tank armor. Rifled barrels put energy into the spin that a smooth bore puts into forward motion. Beyond that, the effective range of the Abrams tank is comparable to that of any tank with a rifled gun.

And what's wrong with having more tech in a tank? Gives the drivers and gunners more capabilities.


another fact, the british challenger 2 has a TEA MAKER IN THE BACK
how british of us to do so.
That is perhaps the best option available on any tank, ever.

It also means that you either don't have someone on overwatch when (not if) you throw a track, or you better have some damn beefy drivers and loaders to do it. The Soviets' doctrine didn't allow for field-repair on the advance, so it did not matter to them (Got enough tanks that losing one to a broken or thrown track didn't make that much difference), so the three-man crew isn't a big issue.

On Western designs that lack the Autoloader, the loader's job includes assisting the gunner and the driver in fixing things like broken tracks, while the Commander (he gets the .50 cal, in case you were wondering) does overwatch-so that enemy infantry might at least be discouraged from attacking the immobile, flammable pillbox until it can start going again.

What defines a "good tank" differs, then, based on your doctrine of what a Tank, and its crew, are supposed to do, and be able to do-without help.

Beyond that, auto-loaders are notorious for being slower than a manual loader. If I remember correctly.

In my non-expert opinion, the best tank currently in operation is the Challenger II, but I'd suspect it will be equalled by the M1A3 when that comes out.

I'm not really an expert on these things, but I wanted to get some opinons from an Aussie point of view. Recently our government bought a bunch of M1s, which I respect as good tanks, but do we really need them? Australia would really only use tanks for peacekeeping and short-term operations in the Pacific, so I wanted to know what you more educated folks reckon would be the best tank for us. Personnally I like the Leopard II.

I'm not really an expert on these things, but I wanted to get some opinons from an Aussie point of view. Recently our government bought a bunch of M1s, which I respect as good tanks, but do we really need them? Australia would really only use tanks for peacekeeping and short-term operations in the Pacific, so I wanted to know what you more educated folks reckon would be the best tank for us. Personnally I like the Leopard II.
I dont think the Abrams would do very well in the Pacific, at least the areas near Australia. Isnt it mostly jungles, marsh, and mountains?

But most of Australia is pretty good tank country, I hear. Big and flat.

The top tank in the world is going to be the M1A2 Abrams, simply because crews from the United States are perhaps the best trained of them all. (In the end, among the "top ten" tanks, who wins isn't determined by what one is sitting in) Other than that, it's only real weakness when it comes to "comparison" with other tanks around the world is that it is extremely heavy and uses a large amount of fuel - only large, heavy-load bridges can support it (a problem in under-developed nations) and it will take around 16 gallons of fuel just to start that baby up... Exclusive of this, its armor, firepower, and speed make it an ideal MBT.

A few other honorable mentions (also given due credit in the thread) are the British Crusader-II, Israeli Merkava m.4 (quirky design with the engine in front), and the German Leopard-II (return to the 90-degree armor slope... Pz VI, anyone?)... Well, maybe the French LeClerc model (even though it's French).

As for the Russian (or predominantly Russian) T-series of tanks, like Andaluciae said, they're just target practice for Western armor. Even the T-80U with reactive armor (which doesn't protect against SABOT rounds, only HEAT, IIRC) isn't a match for an M1A2; and the T-72 is simply a good way to get three people killed.

I also saw the T-34 tossed around. The T-34/85 series was an excellent tank, but the German Pz V "Panther" series takes the cake. The type 'G' worked out all the kinks that its predecessor ('A') suffered from and was probably the best piece of armor in WWII.

Yes, but look at the Gulf War, the Abrams shredded Saddams T-72/80's, taking (according to the History Channel) four hits in the proccess, with on fatalities.
Im not sure what the figures from GWII are, but Im sure they cant be much worse.
As for the bit about the Challenger...
O_o
I mean, say your at some Kursk-esque battle, I can just imagine some sort of Victorian made lady sitting in the back of the tank and bustling up with some silver tea-instruments on a tray and saying 'Tea, love? Milk? Sugar?,' and then being killed when the tank gets hit by a KE round.
>_>
<_<

in the first gulf war, the M1-A1's were able to see the Iraqi tanks through the sand berms and were able to put Sabot tank rounds through the berms and take out the tanks. and if i remember right, the tank casualties in GFII are higher than they were in GFI

Not to mention, the Bradley IFV/CFV actually accounted for more enemy armor kills than the M1 tank.

I'm tempted to vote for the T-62...

But seriously, what do we say when we look for dem best tank?

Brute force, affordability, proliferation, some kind of compromise between them?

Personally, I like the Merkava. Its a very good design, with a nice low profile and some good capabilities. The Leopard 2A6, Challenger 2, and M1A2 are also very good machines, but the thing about them is that they lack range, and are also very expensive.

I think that Russia has come up with its fair share of effective tanks, but the problem is that we've rarely seen Russian hardware in the hands of terribly skilled commanders and crews. After all, its the crew that makes the difference, not so much the tank itself (within reason, of course).

The T-72 is certainly a proliferate tank. With applied upgrade packages, it appears to be a reasonable machine. The PT-91 Twardy is a nice vehicle, and India has done a lot with its T-72s. In my own nationstates experience, I don't use very many tanks, and rely instead on ATGWs and artillery, but the ones I do use are heavily modified T-55s and T-72s. Both are armed with, in my service, a 75mm high-pressure gun built for taking out tanks at long ranges. This 75mm gun also arms IFVs, and is similar in principle to the Israeli HVMC.

Besides the re-gunning, ATGW launchers are included as crew armement, and applique armor has been added in bulk.

The T-55 and T-72 are both affordable vehicles, and with the appropriate modifications they can remain useful for some years to come.

Big
Ugly
Main
Battle tanks :P

That wasnt such a good one, but Im no good with acronyms :P

You mean the giant 1,000,000 ton monster that would be torn to pieces by one Sherman without its treads? :p

Yeah, wasnt the IS series regarded as the 'big step' towards really modern tanks? Sort of like the StG-44 and/or BAR is to assault rifles. Too bad the IS-3 never got to see combat. Nice looking for the time though.


I don't know where you get your information, but the US-3M got to see combat.
Particularily against the Israeli's, used by the Egyptians and Syrians.


As for best modern MBT?

Performance wise,
Best: Leopard 2A6EX (Hands down)
Second Best: Merkava Mk.4
Third Best: Challanger 2E

Frankly, the M1 series has only proven itself in combat against older, cheaper, and "mass produced quickly, but of low quality" tanks. That or tanks that were obsolete decades ago. I don't call that a real test.

Looks wise, (Anything since 1980)
Best: Leopard 2A4 (That sexy piece of metal)
Second Best: Merkava Mk.III
Third Best: T-80

Nothing sounds, feels, or smells like a T-80.

Actually, it's Challenger 2E now. Briliant, and only beatable by another. Kick ass tankI'm not an expert on tanks, but I figured the Challenger 2E was. That's what I picked when I was deciding which tank to base the one I designed for my MBT on.

Smoothbores > Rifled.

Rifled guns can't take fin-stabilized munitions... Also, autoloaders suck, they require a round to be armed IN THE VEHICLE, AT ALL TIMES, not to mention they're generally slower than a well-trained soldier...

That said, I like the French Leclercs, even if they are expensive as all shit.

I don't know where you get your information, but the US-3M got to see combat.
Particularily against the Israeli's, used by the Egyptians and Syrians.

Frankly, the M1 series has only proven itself in combat against older, cheaper, and "mass produced quickly, but of low quality" tanks. That or tanks that were obsolete decades ago. I don't call that a real test.

Rephrase that as 'didnt see combat in WWII', I believe its first appearance was at a May Day parade in Moscow just after the end of the war or right before, IM not sure..

And who would you propose that we test the M1 against that has modern main battle tanks? The Leopard 2 (as was mentioned earlier) hasnt exactly 'proven itself' either.

As for 'obsolete' tanks, the M1A1 was produced in 1985, and used in the first Gulf War. The T-72 wasnt 'decades' old at the time.

Its most likely best to ignore me for now, its currently 1:10 here, and Im tired.

Anyway, heres some interesting reading on the tanks:
M1 Series (US)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Leopard 2 (Ger)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

Challenger 2 (UK)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

AMX-30 (Fr.) (*sounds of represed laughter*)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_30

Leclerc (Fr.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclerc

Ariete (It.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete

Arjun (Ind.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun

Merkava (Isr.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava

T-55 thru 90 (Sov/Rus.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

Tsar (Rus.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank
(Not really a 'modern' tank, I just think its funny :P)

IS-1 thru 3 (Sov.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosef_Stalin_tank

t-84 (Ukr.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84
(Modified T-80)

Just some random reading, eh?

The best MBT is probably a 3 way tie...since it all comes down to the crew.

Leopard series
M1 series
Challenger series

The latest incarnations of these tanks are all of extremely high quality, and theoretically could probably take on and defeat any other MBT in a combat situation a majority of the time.

Honorable mentions must go to the T-90, Leclerc and the Merkava. All great tanks, especially the Leclerc (wait, a complement to the French? What am I smoking? :p )

I hear the Japanese are also doing good things with their latest tanks designs as well, although I don't know any details.

Tsar (Rus.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank
(Not really a 'modern' tank, I just think its funny :P)



I happen to be somewhat of an expert on Great War era tanks.. particularily the rare and odd ones. And I can tell you, that article doesn't do Lebedenko justice.
What a cool tank that would have been...

I'm an A7V man myself. And I've only been commenting on "Post WW2" tanks... I can go off on an A7V tangent at any time.

Now, why do people think of the T-90 as a good tank?
It'sjust the modern variant of the T-72.. with less problems, and of a higher quality. It'sstill got nothing on the T-80, Russias top tank so far.

Anyway,I'll leave you to ponder a fight between one of Mendeleev's land cruisers, and the K-Wagen.

The top tank in the world is going to be the M1A2 Abrams, simply because crews from the United States are perhaps the best trained of them all.


And the British, Germans etc, are not?


A few other honorable mentions (also given due credit in the thread) are the British Crusader-II, Israeli Merkava m.4 (quirky design with the engine in front), and the German Leopard-II (return to the 90-degree armor slope... Pz VI, anyone?)... Well, maybe the French LeClerc model (even though it's French).


Challenger 2, not Crusader-II.

There are two variants of The Leopard 2, which have variants within themselves.

To simplify though, there's The Leopard 2, and the upgrade, The Leopard 2 Arrowhead.


The best tank in the world today is either Challenger 2, Leopard 2A, or The Chinese T-98, with the Russian Chiormy Oriol Black Eagle still pending being shown.


As for the Russian (or predominantly Russian) T-series of tanks, like Andaluciae said, they're just target practice for Western armor. Even the T-80U with reactive armor (which doesn't protect against SABOT rounds, only HEAT, IIRC) isn't a match for an M1A2; and the T-72 is simply a good way to get three people killed.


How about the T-90? and watch out for The Russian Chiormy Black Eagle....if The Russians can afford to manufacture it following the few demonstration models.


I also saw the T-34 tossed around. The T-34/85 series was an excellent tank, but the German Pz V "Panther" series takes the cake. The type 'G' worked out all the kinks that its predecessor ('A') suffered from and was probably the best piece of armor in WWII.

The Panther was a sweet tank, but it has agilty problems as well as suffering from what was called 'overproduced' meaning that it was fitted with too many new mechanisations that had not been tried out. It's wheels, which were overlapping like the Tigers, also seized up on cold winter mornings and evenings when the tanks was resting, rendering it immobile.

In comparison, the T-34/85, and indeed, it's predeccessor, the T-34/76, were reliable, rugged, basic and hard hitting, as well as being fast and agile.

The best tank of WW2 that saw action? The Soviet IS-2. A 122mm gun, that could blast away any German Tank, was classified as a heavy tank like the German Tiger I and 2, but actually weighed little more than a Panther, a Medium Tank.

*poke*

And the British, Germans etc, are not?


.
I think US tank crews get more time in the tank driving and shooting, and they practice against each other more often. It's a money thing. Running a tank costs money in fuel, parts, and maintainance, not to mention ordinance expended in training. Nobody spends more money on defense than the USA.

I think US tank crews get more time in the tank driving and shooting, and they practice against each other more often. It's a money thing. Running a tank costs money in fuel, parts, and maintainance, not to mention ordinance expended in training. Nobody spends more money on defense than the USA.

True, but that does not mean other Tank crews are inferior in training.

Take the British, I would say they have a quarter of the number of tanks the US does, which means that whilst they have a smaller budget, thus fewer tanks, they can afford to maintain them and train the crews.

In the end, this works out to a quality over quantity style.

I'd say the best Main Battle Tank in the world will be the T-95, equal if not better then the A1A3.

The T-95 is mostly classified, of course, there are also money issues with the Russian Military, which is the status quo.

The T-95 will feature the following...

The gun will be a 152mm smoothbore tank gun/ATGM launcher. The development of this system started as far back as end of the fifties for the heavy tanks (originally a rifled gun, probably M-69). The project was revived in the eighties and the gun was significantly redesigned. Even with ordinary powders a very high initial velocity of an APFSDS projectile is achieved. I could not, unfortunately, learn how the caliber increase is going to influence ammunition allowance and rate of fire.

This gun shall be located in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull with no crew access to it. This is likely to increase survivability and lower the silhouette even further. Again, that means NO CREW IN THE TURRET.

The fire control system will be multi-channel (optical + thermal + IR + laser + radar).

The carousel autoloader of previous generations is being replaced with a new, much faster and reliable auto feed system, which I believe will be as fast as manual loading.

Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in Russian tank designs. The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull. The crew are actually inside a double hulled capsule compartment. The ammo could cook off and the crew would just play cards untill the battle was over.

According to plans the crew will consist of a 3 man combat structure and one mechanic (not unlike the air force crew structure), who will be responsible for vehicle maintenance and will reside in a battalion service and repair company.

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-95_line.gif

Look at that outline! Beautiful. :)

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-95.htm

The jamming and counter-weapon systems were all designed to counter American military equipment.

This is the same Russian Plant which built the T-34s.

God help us all. ;)

IIRC the only real extra bit of training the US forces get is the massive open instrumented manouver ranges (can't remeber the name).
In terms of actual target practice etc i think the main NATO forces are all on a very similar level although there is acedotal evidence that british crews tend to more accurate at logn rnage shooting (but then the challenger 2 uses an old rifled gun that is designed to be deadly accurate at very long range it doesn't have punch of the german gun on the abrams (let alone the new L55 gun on the leo II) but it can use HESH and HEAT ammo very effectively agaisnt old cheap soviet junk at range where the effectivness of SABOT KE muntions could be suffering).
The US might also have a bit of a lead with thier simulators but the newest british ones look awesome (think really massive multiplayer computer games with, tanks, helos, jets and infantry, basically the battlef eild series but you can only play as a tanker and you play inside what looks identical to the inside of a tank).

True, but that does not mean other Tank crews are inferior in training.

Take the British, I would say they have a quarter of the number of tanks the US does, which means that whilst they have a smaller budget, thus fewer tanks, they can afford to maintain them and train the crews.

In the end, this works out to a quality over quantity style.
Yeah, but the US has a military unit who's sole purpose is to play the opposition in wargames. They're equipped with armor and weapons identical to, or extremely similar to what our enemies would have. Every armor unit goes against them in simulated combat. Does England have that? Plus the US has recently had the experience of defeating Saddam's armor. True England did too, but few other countries have recent real-world experience in armor warfare to draw on.

The US might also have a bit of a lead with thier simulators but the newest british ones look awesome (think really massive multiplayer computer games with, tanks, helos, jets and infantry, basically the battlef eild series but you can only play as a tanker and you play inside what looks identical to the inside of a tank).

You just described http://www.wwiionline.com/

The first and only true virtual battlefield.

Strategypage had a good artricle on this a few months ago, comparing the Abrams, Le Clerc, Challenger, Leopard 2, and the T-62/72/80/90 series.

Combat records put the Russians behind the others.
The Le Clerc has an autoloader - bad (slower and higher maintanance).
The Challenger 2 is slower and heavier than the Leopard 2 and Abrams M1A2, but has a longer engangement range (5km kills in the 1st Gulf War).
The M1A2 uses a quieter gas turbine, 3 MGs, auxilliary power, and a better interior layout (separate ammo storage and a a safer aluminum spall liner).
The Leopard 2 has a longer combat radius.

The conclusion there was
Best: Abrams M1A1
Close second: Leopard 2
Third: Challenger 2

Auto loading cuts down on the number of crew members necessary, I believe, and it also allows crew members to focus on other functions. Also, smaller crew size allows it to be a smaller tank, it presents a lower, harder to hit profile than the M1 as far as I know.

To date, a 19 y/o private can still load faster than an autoloader.

Nobody wants to talk about the T-95. :(

This is the topic for general discussion of modern tanks, of the sort with a gun and lots of armour, not the kind used to hold (for example) water.
Its not really an II thing, since it doesnt relate to RP in most senses.
Anyway, General needs something other than politics to debate :P

To start off discussion, what do you think is the best MBT (main battle tank) on the planet? Just in general, not in a particular area.
Personally, I think its a toss-up between the Abrams(US) and the Lepord 2 (German, I think). The British come in a close third with the Crusader series (I think thats what theyre called, if Im wrong its whatever their current MBT is).
The Russian T-series (IMO) basicaly tapered off around the T-72, and most of the other (non-rippoff) tanks on the planet are terrible. Though I hear the Japanses are pretty good with their tanks.
If I were running the war, I'd want M1As. The tanks have been battle-tested, the logistical requirements in the field have been established, and there are a lot of battle-experienced crews. None of the others can say that.

Plus, I'm a retired jarhead, so I'm biased.

The Abrams already has the crew survivability thing down. It was the primary design priority.

Between the fire suppression system, and the separate ammo storage with blowout panels, it has survived ammo fires in combat - the crew waits until the fire stops.

The Russian tanks have only one problem IMHO - the requirement for the size of a crewman to be very short in stature.

The other difference in tanks is the thermal systems. Not all are created alike. The TOGS on the Challenger is acknowledged by many to be the best. The further away you can see and shoot, the better.

There are additional advantages that the US gets in combat that other nations have not demonstrated yet - the synergy you get when US forces know where their opponents are, but their opponents have no idea where the US forces are. Many of the Abrams tank battles started with the US engaging first, and slicing through their opponents who had no idea where the US forces were (they could not get the range, nor could they engage at that distance).

The other problem is how effective the guns are. While the T-90 has a 125mm gun, it is still the Rapira. Unless you use the missile, it still has a limited range using sabot rounds. It's also unlikely to be able to use the missile out to its full effective range in all weather conditions, as their thermal sights are still behind.

It might not matter much in the future. US forces have favored not fighting tanks with tanks, but with more effective weapons - a five pound smart submunition fired from artillery or dropped from aircraft have been proven in combat to be far more deadly - and they will go through any tank's top armor. The Future Combat System the US Army is proposing doesn't even have a heavy tank - they're going with vehicles that are very light.

Here's something neat that seems apt for this topic:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-262.htm

I'd love to have a go!

T-95 (Objekt 775)
still under development
unmanned turret = autoloader - as has been said, slower and high maintanance
gun/ATGM launcher - tried by the US unsuccesfully (M551), so I'm sceptical (the dual system had problems with the gun propellant fouling the barrel, firing the gun was hard on the missile electronics, and there were serious recoil problems)

Yeah, but the US has a military unit who's sole purpose is to play the opposition in wargames. They're equipped with armor and weapons identical to, or extremely similar to what our enemies would have. Every armor unit goes against them in simulated combat. Does England have that? Plus the US has recently had the experience of defeating Saddam's armor. True England did too, but few other countries have recent real-world experience in armor warfare to draw on.

I am not privy to the British (not English, a large percentage of the British Army are Scottish and Welsh as well as English) standard military practice, but I do know they practice on moving targets.

Again, not proof that tank crews are neccessary superior to another because of spending put forward.

Oh, and anyone interested in this topic should check out the http://www.tank-net.org/ forums.

Nobody wants to talk about the T-95. :(

It's a nice tank, although I dare say little may be seen of it due to Russian military budget constraints. That and it faces competition for finance from the Chiormy Black Eagle, which looks beautiful.

http://www.twilightarmouries.ca/AFV/MBT/T-34.htm (Russian Tanks)

The Challenger 2 is slower and heavier than the Leopard 2 and Abrams M1A2, but has a longer engangement range (5km kills in the 1st Gulf War).


The Challenger 2 was not in the first Gulf War. The Challenger 1 was.



Close second: Leopard 2



Would that be the Arrowhead?

I am not privy to the British (not English, a large percentage of the British Army are Scottish and Welsh as well as English) standard military practice, but I do know they practice on moving targets.

Again, not proof that tank crews are neccessary superior to another because of spending put forward.

Temporary nations was refering to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
("Blackhorse"), a handpicked unit which provides a full time OPFOR at the NTC at Fort Irwin California. They were, in the mid '80s, known as the best (and most experienced) Russian Regiment in existance. They trained using Soviet equipment, uniforms, and doctrine (down to training manuals).
(Ft. Irwin is in the southern California desert, an the use of that site/environment for training goes a ways towards explaining the US successes in GWI and GWII.)

The Challenger 2 was not in the first Gulf War. The Challenger 1 was.



Would that be the Arrowhead?

the article (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=c:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\20051123.htm&search=abrams%20challenger) doesn't say.

the article (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=c:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\20051123.htm&search=abrams%20challenger) doesn't say.

Oh right. Well if it was the Leopard 2, and not the Arrowhead which was referred, then I would say the Arrowhead in turn would possibly be ranked higher if it was included instead.

i have a septic tank... yeah you can take it out with a missle... but hey biological warfare anyone?

Temporary nations was refering to the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
("Blackhorse"), a handpicked unit which provides a full time OPFOR at the NTC at Fort Irwin California. They were, in the mid '80s, known as the best (and most experienced) Russian Regiment in existance. They trained using Soviet equipment, uniforms, and doctrine (down to training manuals).
(Ft. Irwin is in the southern California desert, an the use of that site/environment for training goes a ways towards explaining the US successes in GWI and GWII.)
Thanks. I couldn't remember who they were, but I knew we had 'em.

No tank in the world could survive being hit by one of the Skeet warheads in one of these:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-108.htm

The BLU-108 contains 4 smart Skeet warheads. The Skeet's Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) is the lethal component of the warhead. The one pound copper EFP, moving at hypersonic speeds, performs a kinetic energy kill of the target, thus minimizing collateral damage.

Today's improved Skeet warhead incorporates a fragmentation ring to defeat soft targets and their ancillary equipment. The Skeet's center core projectile is designed to defeat heavy armored vehicles. Effective against both hard and soft targets, the BLU-108 target set includes:

Main battle tanks
Mobile missile launchers
Air defense sites
Parked aircraft
Armored personnel carriers
Littoral targets
Redundant self-destruct functions designed into each Skeet warhead allow for clean battlefield operation.

Each Skeet has two built-in self-destruct features to help reduce the risk of unexploded ordnance being left on the battlefield. A timeout feature instructs the Skeet to self-destruct within seconds if a valid target has not been detected. An altitude feature causes detonation to happen a short distance above the ground. These important features significantly reduce the potential for unexploded ordnance on the battlefield—an issue for many older submunition products.

Unlike older, traditional "cluster" weapons, each Skeet warhead features built-in, redundant, self-destruct logic. If the Skeet warhead does not detect a valid target over its lofted trajectory, it will self destruct. Each warhead also contains a timed self-deactivation mode which denies explosive activation should the self-destruct feature not occur. These safety features minimize post air strike hazards to non-combatants and civilians.

T-95 (Objekt 775)
still under development
unmanned turret = autoloader - as has been said, slower and high maintanance
gun/ATGM launcher - tried by the US unsuccesfully (M551), so I'm sceptical (the dual system had problems with the gun propellant fouling the barrel, firing the gun was hard on the missile electronics, and there were serious recoil problems)

Also, to date, the vast majority of Russian tanks are still the old, vastly outdated models (and many are simply nonfunctional). The "Modern" soviet tanks are only available in limited numbers (usually not for combat), the last I checked.

As far as gun-launched ATGMs go, the Israelis have developed a modern gun-launched ATGM ranged out to 8km or so. The LAHAT (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/anti-armor/lahat/LAHAT.html) seems very promising and its cross-platform abilities make it a promising candidate for widespread use.

As a 105mm basic missile (the tank version is closer to 120mm, thanks to modification), it could be fired from a range of weapons platforms (UAVs to helicopters to 106mm RRs to truck-based mounts) and only needs the target to be properly 'marked'. This capability and the long range also means that a LAHAT-armed tank could provide CAS-equivalent precision-strike capability to advance infantry elements against a range of enemy targets (True, the cost of the units would limit capacity to a couple of missiles per tank, but if it's needed, it would be worth it).

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm

The Leopard tanks (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:aPyIFeZUIKcJ:63.99.108.76/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ubbmisc.cgi%3Faction%3Dfindthread%26forum%3DForum13%26number%3D13%26thisthread%3D003042%26go%3Dolder +LAHAT+ATGM&hl=en) now apparently come LAHAT-optional.

So, to solve the debate once and for all, I used the mystical powers of the seer "google" and the amazing capabilities of it's "I'm feeling lucky" thing. I went to the site, entered the phrase "The best tank in the world" and hit the button. And I got this website. It will tell you all you need to know, as google is always right!

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004630.asp

So, to solve the debate once and for all, I used the mystical powers of the seer "google" and the amazing capabilities of it's "I'm feeling lucky" thing. I went to the site, entered the phrase "The best tank in the world" and hit the button. And I got this website. It will tell you all you need to know, as google is always right!

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004630.asp
I'm sure this is old news, but Google has low opinion of the French military, too.
If you aren't acquainted with what I mean, Google "french military victories" and use the 'feeling lucky' thing.

Just to make this relevant, do the French make tanks?

I'm sure this is old news, but Google has low opinion of the French military, too.
If you aren't acquainted with what I mean, Google "french military victories" and use the 'feeling lucky' thing.

Just to make this relevant, do the French make tanks?
Yeah, someone posted earlier a whole bunch of wikipedia entries about tanks, and there were two or three French tanks there, so, yeah.

statistically the challenger 1 in the CAT games lost and came last, but then proved itself in the gulf war a few months later. another fact off the discovery channel

I'm sure this is old news, but Google has low opinion of the French military, too.
If you aren't acquainted with what I mean, Google "french military victories" and use the 'feeling lucky' thing.

Just to make this relevant, do the French make tanks?

Yes, the Leclerc.

German tanks are great but I think that the U.S. built Abrams are the best MBT's in the world.

I happen to be somewhat of an expert on Great War era tanks.. particularily the rare and odd ones. And I can tell you, that article doesn't do Lebedenko justice.
What a cool tank that would have been...

I'm an A7V man myself. And I've only been commenting on "Post WW2" tanks... I can go off on an A7V tangent at any time.

Now, why do people think of the T-90 as a good tank?
It'sjust the modern variant of the T-72.. with less problems, and of a higher quality. It'sstill got nothing on the T-80, Russias top tank so far.

Anyway,I'll leave you to ponder a fight between one of Mendeleev's land cruisers, and the K-Wagen.


Because the T-90 has anti-air abilities, improved hard-kill and soft-kill countermeasures, increased accuracy, better firing capabilities, better targeting and electronics suite, and also has the ability to engage other armor not only with it's main gun but with other weapons as well-it is a step up, and the T-90 is only an interim tank being produced in small numbers until the new tank at Nihzniy Tagil can actually be developed and put under production.

Now, if you want to talk about anti-tank helicopters, have I got one for you-the Ka-52 Hokum.

The French tanks were some of the best during the Blitz, unfortunately the French military was a bit incompetent and was unable to use them effectively.

http://www.wwiionline.com is a realistic virtual battlefield of the early blitz war, and if you check the theatre map, the French are marching towards Berlin. We have the same historically accurate vehicles of our real counter-parts, but we have more of them.

Basically, instead of pissing away the french industrial infrastructure we have them turning out our heaviest tank. That and our fighters, such as the Dewo .250, are kicking major German bomber ass.

:)

Look up the S-35, fast, well armored, generally the best medium tank of the Blitz.

The Char B-1 Bis was a reject from the WWI tanks, extremely slow but they were basically an armored fortress, best the germans could hope to do was track them.

The Char B-1 Tis, my god. If only they had actually built more then the prototype.

Smoothbores > Rifled.

Rifled guns can't take fin-stabilized munitions...
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. As people have pointed out you get better range and flexibility with a rifled gun even if the direct anti tank capability is impaired. Also I believe that you can fit APFSDS rounds with some sort of slip ring which counteracts the effect of the rifling so that the fins can work.

I seem to recall hearing that the challengers are now going to be refitted with smoothbores.

My favourite tank! :) (http://www.jaboobie.com/pic/will_ferrell/frankthetank.jpg)

Smoothbores > Rifled.

Rifled guns can't take fin-stabilized munitions...
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. As people have pointed out you get better range and flexibility with a rifled gun even if the direct anti tank capability is impaired. Also I believe that you can fit APFSDS rounds with some sort of slip ring which counteracts the effect of the rifling so that the fins can work.

I seem to recall hearing that the challengers are now going to be refitted with smoothbores.

More importantly, rifled guns can't fire shaped charge ammunition (HEAT).

The effectiveness of shaped charge warheads is reduced when they are caused to rotate. Spin-stabilized projectiles generally cannot use shaped-charge warheads.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bullets2.htm

Oh right. Well if it was the Leopard 2, and not the Arrowhead which was referred, then I would say the Arrowhead in turn would possibly be ranked higher if it was included instead.

I assume you (and the others talking about the Arrowhead) are talking about the Leo 2 A6? That's the latest Leopard model, and I assume the one that the article refers to (the discussion of the article certainly refers to it). But I don't think I've heard it called Arrowhead before.

The A6 does have an auxilliary power source, but the other advantages stand.

I am not privy to the British (not English, a large percentage of the British Army are Scottish and Welsh as well as English) standard military practice, but I do know they practice on moving targets.

Again, not proof that tank crews are neccessary superior to another because of spending put forward.

It depends, do your crews get better training (thus, more skill) firing live rounds, and if so, how much more live ammo do you need to expend to make a difference? If it's a LOT, then budget DOES matter. Ditto for driver's training and Tactical training for Tank Commanders, unit collective training, etc. etc.

Units that spend a lot of time in the field get better. They know their machines better, they know what they are and are not capable of doing.
IIRC, the British also occasionally rent NTC and JRTC for training their units..
but the cost probably tends to be somewhat higher, and certainly the rotations are further apart.

(Ft. Irwin is in the southern California desert, an the use of that site/environment for training goes a ways towards explaining the US successes in GWI and GWII.)

No, I think it's more of the fact that the US was not alone and had quite a coalition with it when it went up against an army which in GW1 was low in morale and quality from their losses in the Iran-Iraq War, and in GW2, going up against an army which was underfunded, poorly equipped, low in morale, and had not posed a threat to any of it's neighbours since 1991, and were relying on the false claim that they had WMDS to keep them from having to fight invaders.

But that's another topic.

So, to solve the debate once and for all, I used the mystical powers of the seer "google" and the amazing capabilities of it's "I'm feeling lucky" thing. I went to the site, entered the phrase "The best tank in the world" and hit the button. And I got this website. It will tell you all you need to know, as google is always right!

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004630.asp

That article is out of date. The russians dropped using the 152mm gun as it's unreliable on the T-95, going for the 125mm instead.

It depends, do your crews get better training (thus, more skill) firing live rounds, and if so, how much more live ammo do you need to expend to make a difference? If it's a LOT, then budget DOES matter. Ditto for driver's training and Tactical training for Tank Commanders, unit collective training, etc. etc.

Units that spend a lot of time in the field get better. They know their machines better, they know what they are and are not capable of doing.
IIRC, the British also occasionally rent NTC and JRTC for training their units..
but the cost probably tends to be somewhat higher, and certainly the rotations are further apart.

The British know their tanks well. They have tea makers in the back for a long time training. They are very capable, as are all well trained Tank crews.

I assume you (and the others talking about the Arrowhead) are talking about the Leo 2 A6? That's the latest Leopard model, and I assume the one that the article refers to (the discussion of the article certainly refers to it). But I don't think I've heard it called Arrowhead before.

The A6 does have an auxilliary power source, but the other advantages stand.

Yes, the Arrowhead is the Leopard 2 A6, it's in reference to the sleek 'arrowhead' turret that it has, that the original Leopard 2 did not.

Challenger 2. Not crusader. Crusader was retired some time ago
Yeah like WWII! LOL

Hmm id say Leopard just because.

But i like the grace of the WWII tanks so id say the 38t but its/would not be much fun being in something stuck together with rivets which have a tendancy to fire into the turret(etc) and splatter the thing with your brains.
:(

More importantly, rifled guns can't fire shaped charge ammunition (HEAT).


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bullets2.htm
Ah yes, I see now. That's why they're changing to smoothbore, because of criticism over the use of DU rounds so they can still have a round with a good penetration against modern armour. But if they can counteract the spin enough to use fin-stabilized, why can't they do the same to HEAT rounds? It seems a shame to trade in the long range performance and versatility.

except HEAT rounds were the pirmary round used by the likes of the 105mm L7 the rifled gun that was the priamry tank weapon for most westen forces up until the mid 80s.

HEAT rounds are not new, the primary driving force behind smoothbore is the development of high velocity APFSDS ammo. HEAT is too easily defeated using reactive armour or new combiantion armour schemes.

Oh OK so they're changing the gun because the tungsten AP rounds need to travel faster than DU equivalent, which the rifled barrel can't deal with? Is that right?

Yes, the Arrowhead is the Leopard 2 A6, it's in reference to the sleek 'arrowhead' turret that it has, that the original Leopard 2 did not.

In which case I'll still go with the M1A2.



(Ft. Irwin is in the southern California desert, an the use of that site/environment for training goes a ways towards explaining the US successes in GWI and GWII.)

No, I think it's more of the fact that the US was not alone and had quite a coalition with it when it went up against an army which in GW1 was low in morale and quality from their losses in the Iran-Iraq War, and in GW2, going up against an army which was underfunded, poorly equipped, low in morale, and had not posed a threat to any of it's neighbours since 1991, and were relying on the false claim that they had WMDS to keep them from having to fight invaders.

But that's another topic.

Well I didn't say it was the only factor. But training against Soviet doctrine in the desert, then going up against the same, certainly made it alot easier.

mmm Anyone got production values for each tank? (How much it costs to build one given tank)

Because that introduces a new variable: Economics! Tank A may be two times better than tank B, but if costs three times more, Tank B is better. Why? because each tank A will fight 3 Tank B, but it will only be able to take out two before its fucked.

Basically, this reasoning led the Russian philosofy for most of the cold war.. Western material was better than Russian hardware, but the russians were counting on fielding lots of stuff into the battlefield, and win on numbers; They did this against the Germans.. each german tank was better than the T34, but each german had to fight swarms of russians.. they were good, but they got overwhelmed.

mmm Anyone got production values for each tank? (How much it costs to build one given tank)

Because that introduces a new variable: Economics! Tank A may be two times better than tank B, but if costs three times more, Tank B is better. Why? because each tank A will fight 3 Tank B, but it will only be able to take out two before its fucked.

Basically, this reasoning led the Russian philosofy for most of the cold war.. Western material was better than Russian hardware, but the russians were counting on fielding lots of stuff into the battlefield, and win on numbers; They did this against the Germans.. each german tank was better than the T34, but each german had to fight swarms of russians.. they were good, but they got overwhelmed.

Well, not exactly. The T-34 was a better medium tank thank the German Pz.Kpfw.llls and IVs.
The T-34 had sloped armor (the Germans didn't for the early part of the war), wider tracks (better mobility), were more reliable, and mounted a better gun than equivilant German tanks.

On 26 May 1942 the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres distributed the following "Instructions to units on the Eastern Front for Combating the Russian T-34 Tank with our Panzers":
The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.
http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html

The Sherman fits your description better.

.


Daistallia 2104 we meat at last...the only problem i have with the quik brew is its name sake

The Sherman fits your description better.

I'd disagree. The Sherman was not a bad main battle tank; it was superior to most (if not all) medium tanks fielded by Germany and her allies in any significant numbers right up into mid-to-late 1944 when the Panther and Tigers started rolling off the lines in greater quantity. Its armor was superior to the PzrIIIs and was virtually equal to that of the PzrIV (barring later variants), its gun was also superior to the PzrIIIs and was only outclassed by the PzIVf2, not the f1 with the short, low-velocity 75mm cannon.

You've got to remember that Panzers stuck with Panzer units; which weren't all that common. Infantry divisions fielded assault guns (the StuGs) or mobile anti-tank guns (Marder I&IIs)... Which would you rather be setting in, the Sherman or the lowly Hetzer?

Overall, I'd still stick with the Panther-G as the best tank of the second world war. Its high-velocity 75mm cannon had equal (or better if at shorter ranges, IIRC) penetration to its 88mm counterpart fitted on the Tiger, and the 85mm cannon fitted on the T-34/85. Its sloped armor was probably the finest of the war, it had a great deal of speed and maneuverability, improved optics (later models were outfitted with a crude night-vision system, IIRC), and a relatively low silhouette.

Oh OK so they're changing the gun because the tungsten AP rounds need to travel faster than DU equivalent, which the rifled barrel can't deal with? Is that right?

Nope the change was brought on by the introduction of SABOT/APFSDS rounds in general as opposed to ones made of any particular material.
IIRC the differences between current tungsten and depleted uranium long rod penetrators are minimal.
After ww2 the drive for higher velocity guns dropped of a fair degree due to the introduction of HEAT warheads and it wasn't really until the late 70s when israeli tanks demostrated the usefulness of reactive armour that the current quest for very high velocity rounds began in earnest.

I'd disagree. The Sherman was not a bad main battle tank; it was superior to most (if not all) medium tanks fielded by Germany and her allies in any significant numbers right up into mid-to-late 1944 when the Panther and Tigers started rolling off the lines in greater quantity. Its armor was superior to the PzrIIIs and was virtually equal to that of the PzrIV (barring later variants), its gun was also superior to the PzrIIIs and was only outclassed by the PzIVf2, not the f1 with the short, low-velocity 75mm cannon.

You've got to remember that Panzers stuck with Panzer units; which weren't all that common. Infantry divisions fielded assault guns (the StuGs) or mobile anti-tank guns (Marder I&IIs)... Which would you rather be setting in, the Sherman or the lowly Hetzer?

Overall, I'd still stick with the Panther-G as the best tank of the second world war. Its high-velocity 75mm cannon had equal (or better if at shorter ranges, IIRC) penetration to its 88mm counterpart fitted on the Tiger, and the 85mm cannon fitted on the T-34/85. Its sloped armor was probably the finest of the war, it had a great deal of speed and maneuverability, improved optics (later models were outfitted with a crude night-vision system, IIRC), and a relatively low silhouette.

Certainly the Sherman was a fine light-medium tank. It's just that the common form of employment (against German heavies) fits his description.

True that, Daistallia. American brass was a bit more idealistic the way it thought tanks and tank destroyers played their parts in a role - it's also a pity we didn't have more Pershings rolling off the lines sooner rather than later. Had they done so, they'd probably have been the "finest battle tank of the second world war"

I'd disagree. The Sherman was not a bad main battle tank; it was superior to most (if not all) medium tanks fielded by Germany and her allies in any significant numbers right up into mid-to-late 1944 when the Panther and Tigers started rolling off the lines in greater quantity. Its armor was superior to the PzrIIIs and was virtually equal to that of the PzrIV (barring later variants), its gun was also superior to the PzrIIIs and was only outclassed by the PzIVf2, not the f1 with the short, low-velocity 75mm cannon.

You've got to remember that Panzers stuck with Panzer units; which weren't all that common. Infantry divisions fielded assault guns (the StuGs) or mobile anti-tank guns (Marder I&IIs)... Which would you rather be setting in, the Sherman or the lowly Hetzer?

Overall, I'd still stick with the Panther-G as the best tank of the second world war. Its high-velocity 75mm cannon had equal (or better if at shorter ranges, IIRC) penetration to its 88mm counterpart fitted on the Tiger, and the 85mm cannon fitted on the T-34/85. Its sloped armor was probably the finest of the war, it had a great deal of speed and maneuverability, improved optics (later models were outfitted with a crude night-vision system, IIRC), and a relatively low silhouette.


the king tiger and tiger were superior tanks o the sherman. the shermans main problem being that it exploded and caught fire so easily compared to other tanks of that period.

How many Tigers/King Tigers were produced during WWII, when were they produced and deployed, how many were abandoned due to mechanical problems, and how many were knocked out by Sherman variants (the venerable Firefly)?

I'm not saying that there weren't better tanks than the Sherman; but I am saying it is given the short end of the staff as far as "props" go for it being an excellent battle tank. Right up until the mid-to-latter stages of '44-'45 with the heavier German tanks rolling off the line, it was equal if not better to other German tanks of the period.

How many Tigers/King Tigers were produced during WWII, when were they produced and deployed, how many were abandoned due to mechanical problems, and how many were knocked out by Sherman variants (the venerable Firefly)?

I'm not saying that there weren't better tanks than the Sherman; but I am saying it is given the short end of the staff as far as "props" go for it being an excellent battle tank. Right up until the mid-to-latter stages of '44-'45 with the heavier German tanks rolling off the line, it was equal if not better to other German tanks of the period.


no doubt that the sherman was a brilliant tank with the curchill croc coming in second, but the sherman, if put in tests against a tiger would lose..they do this every year at bovington tank museum and the sherman wins the straights race but loses in the other test..its a 7 round event and the sherman wins 3 every time! but then again the tiger does need a bit more mechanics than the quik brew

has any one ever heard of the tortoise tank?

has any one ever heard of the tortoise tank?
http://www.strange-mecha.com/vehicle/track/c-ht.htm

thats the one :D
it mounts a 6 pounder naval gun

the king tiger and tiger were superior tanks o the sherman. the shermans main problem being that it exploded and caught fire so easily compared to other tanks of that period.

Well yes, but that's like comparing an M551 to an M1a2. The Sherman was a decent match against the Pz.Kpfw.llls and IVs, which were of the same class. But the US tank to compare with the Tigers or King Tigers was the M26 Persing "Tiger Tamer". As Your NationState Here stated, if those had made it into the war earlier, they'd have almost certainly cinched the title for best heavy. (The JS-II would be either 2nd or 3rd - quibbles over the JS-II's reliablity problems vs the awsome sweetness of it's 122mm gun).

Well yes, but that's like comparing an M551 to an M1a2. The Sherman was a decent match against the Pz.Kpfw.llls and IVs, which were of the same class. But the US tank to compare with the Tigers or King Tigers was the M26 Persing "Tiger Tamer". As Your NationState Here stated, if those had made it into the war earlier, they'd have almost certainly cinched the title for best heavy. (The JS-II would be either 2nd or 3rd - quibbles over the JS-II's reliablity problems vs the awsome sweetness of it's 122mm gun).

o.k calm down..take a deep breath. i said that the sherman was a very good tank, although i prefer the churchil croc

has any one ever heard of the tortoise tank?

A39 Tortoise heavy assault tank - 75-80 ton Brit monstrosity with a 32 pdr, in the same class as the Elephant, JagdTiger, and JagdPanther. Never saw combat.

Hadn't heard of it before, but found some good sites:
http://members.tripod.com/~chrisshillito/a39/a39txt.htm
http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a39/

A39 Tortoise heavy assault tank - 75-80 ton Brit monstrosity with a 32 pdr, in the same class as the Elephant, JagdTiger, and JagdPanther. Never saw combat.

Hadn't heard of it before, but found some good sites:
http://members.tripod.com/~chrisshillito/a39/a39txt.htm
http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a39/

yep i love that tank :)
it mounts that huge naval gun :D

il stick wit da abram, lol,


oh yeah, on a side note, the main battle rifle for the US used to be the M-16 now its the XM8, its a new badass rifle, u should check it out on google images

il stick wit da abram, lol,


oh yeah, on a side note, the main battle rifle for the US used to be the M-16 now its the XM8, its a new badass rifle, u should check it out on google images

you mean this?
http://www.uzitalk.com/reference/shows/shotshow2004/xm8.jpg
its as ugly as sin

i prefer this

http://www.frag-ops.hu/ismertetok/weapons/rifles/terr/sa80-big.jpg

its a nice old gun :D

you mean this?
http://www.uzitalk.com/reference/shows/shotshow2004/xm8.jpg
its as ugly as sin

i prefer this

http://www.frag-ops.hu/ismertetok/weapons/rifles/terr/sa80-big.jpg

its a nice old gun :D

i dnt care, their are diff variations of the XM8, but it is still better then the sa80...by a long shot

i dnt care, their are diff variations of the XM8, but it is still better then the sa80...by a long shot

...in what way?
its ugly...and as a collector of weapons thats all i care about, as long as it shoots and fits to a wall mounting.

oh yeah, u might notice how the XM8 looks soo much similiar to the battle rifle in Halo 2 lol :)

...in what way?
its ugly...and as a collector of weapons thats all i care about, as long as it shoots and fits to a wall mounting.

haha lol, hey, if ur a gun collector
can i ask u somtin,well i need a rifle right,
in the form of a shotgun around there, wot do u recommend

oh yeah, u might notice how the XM8 looks soo much similiar to the battle rifle in Halo 2 lol :)

thats just another reason for me not to be to keen on it..simmilar to a rifle in a futeristic sci-fi game with a weak plot....
what is the clip capacity?

dnt know, i knew but forgot, i can get it l8er if u want...lol

haha lol, hey, if ur a gun collector
can i ask u somtin,well i need a rifle right,
in the form of a shotgun around there, wot do u recommend

that my freind depends on jow much you are willing to spend
in classic vintage shot guns i would recomend a perdy or something made by sopring feils..they cost a lot though
modern stuff i would say if you want a new really nice expensive but not to flash go for the sp12

hey thnx, i owe u one, see i movin to a "dangerous" place, and, well, with somtin nice i can protect mysef :sniper:

hey thnx, i owe u one, see i movin to a "dangerous" place, and, well, with somtin nice i can protect mysef :sniper:

i would not go for a shotgun in your case mate, you can find kaleshnikovs for £60 in napal, if you want something with stopping power go for either a shot gun or a british pistol
if you want round advantage i would say a cheap semi automatic :D

my dad keeps a walther and his old slr, unfortunatly in the U.K they are illegel :(

hey r u sure its sp12

i would not go for a shotgun in your case mate, you can find kaleshnikovs for £60 in napal, if you want something with stopping power go for either a shot gun or a british pistol
if you want round advantage i would say a cheap semi automatic :D

my dad keeps a walther and his old slr, unfortunatly in the U.K they are illegel :(

rly,lol oh well

hey r u sure its sp12

positive

rly,lol oh well

glad to be of assistance

ok thnx, well cya

ok thnx, well cya

you off?

Challenger 2. Not crusader. Crusader was retired some time ago
Challenger is a great tank! The reactive armor has stood up very well to everything from grenades to anti-tank missles.

Challenger is a great tank! The reactive armor has stood up very well to everything from grenades to anti-tank missles.
yep the C2 even has a tea maker..or so i am told

oh yeah, on a side note, the main battle rifle for the US used to be the M-16 now its the XM8, its a new badass rifle, u should check it out on google images

Not yet. Note that it's an X, meaning experimental. It hasn't been issued. The M16A1, M16A2/3, M16A4, and M4/M4A1 are the current issue rifles. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200410/ai_n9446457

The M-8 may be in general issue by 2007, but possibly in 6.8mm. But maybe not. As I understand it, the army has still not decided.

Also check out the SCAR - SOF Combat Assault Rifle.

daistillia you know everything, when does the B.A replase the SA80?

Oh, and since the Challenger's tea brewer5 has been brought up again, I understand that the Leopard 2 has, with an easy "field expiedient" mod to the air filters, a space for keeping a case of beer cold. That almost makes me want to put it above the Abrams. :D

daistillia you know everything, when does the B.A replase the SA80?


I wish I did know everything! :D
No idea. But I do know the SA80 is widely disliked. (UK SOFs, including the SAS, tend towards the M16, from what I know...)

I wish I did know everything! :D
No idea. But I do know the SA80 is widely disliked. (UK SOFs, including the SAS, tend towards the M16, from what I know...)

my coisen is an armourore in the T.A and he said that the sa80 is definately a step up from its predesessor, i thought the sas used those other things...ill google it give me a moment

the g 3

my coisen is an armourore in the T.A and he said that the sa80 is definately a step up from its predesessor, i thought the sas used those other things...ill google it give me a moment

The LA85A1 or the SLR (FN FAL)? I understood the SLR was pretty popular and more reliable. Could be wrong, though.

Despite the SA-80's many good points, it is interesting to note that the British Special Forces (including the SAS) tend not to use it due to the fact that the safety catch is operated by the trigger finger, apparently making it difficult to set the catch to 'Fire' and open fire very quickly, as well as the old reliability issues. They like the M16 because you can fit a grenade launcher to it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A653735

The LA85A1 or the SLR (FN FAL)? I understood the SLR was pretty popular and more reliable. Could be wrong, though.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A653735

cool. n=but i am sure that you can fit a grenade launcher to one of the sa8o variants, so sure in fact i have seen it with my own eyes at riat.
i think that slr must be rong. my dad was using them when they replaced the enfeild mk 4 , although because he was an officer he could keep his enfeild and webley, the slr is ancient

the g 3

?

The G3 was the German issue rifle.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as12-e.htm

The development of the SA80 (Small Arms for 1980s) system, which included two weapons - SA80 IW (Infantry Weapon) assault rifle and SA80 LSW (Light Support Weapon) light machine gun, began in the late 1960s when British army decided to develop a new rifle, which will eventually replace the venerable 7.62mm L1 SLR (British-made FN FAL rifle) in the 1980s.

The future of the L85 rifle remains unclear but there's some rumor that it could be retired from British service around the year 2006, and replaced by another design (most probably, the Heckler-Koch G36 assault rifle).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

Ooops. Looks like that bit about the GL may not have been accurate.
UGL (http://www.army.mod.uk/staffords/equipment/ugl_underslung_grenade_launcher.htm)

I Like the Al Khalid tank. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm)

?

The G3 was the German issue rifle.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as12-e.htm





http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

Ooops. Looks like that bit about the GL may not have been accurate.
UGL (http://www.army.mod.uk/staffords/equipment/ugl_underslung_grenade_launcher.htm)


when i looked it up it definatly did not look like that..think the sub-machine gun off of the hitman games

when i looked it up it definatly did not look like that..think the sub-machine gun off of the hitman games

Sorry, I'm confused? I'm not sure which rifle you're talking about.
Also, I'm not familiar with that game, but looking around, the SMGs used seem to be the H&K MP-5 and the Uzi.

bump