NationStates Jolt Archive

Another random pointless poll thread brought to you by Hamilay, hurrah!

This kind: http://www.liv.ac.uk/images/newsroom/press_releases/2006/01/Ness%20tanks146.JPG

Abrams.

They run over freedom-hating terrorists.

T-90 all the way.

btw I believe the Soviet Union is comming back under Putin. Or he'll at least make it his own dictatorship if he hasnt already....

fish tank

Challenger II.

Best tank ever.

I was tempted to vote for the Merkava, but in the end I went with the Abrams.

The M1 is a far cry from today's M1-A2...and while the Abrams doesn't necessarily excel in any one area compared to some other tanks, it is an excellent all around tank.

Add in the fact that, for better or worse, U.S. tanks crews have seen much more active combat lately than any other nation's.

I'll take that experience in a "good" tank over inexperience in a "great" tank any day.

Renault FT-17. *nod*

I voted the Abrams though the Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and Merkava are all pretty bad ass tanks.

The LeClerc is actually the first French tank to feature a foward gear....in case they get attacked from behind while retreating.:D

Couldn't resist.

The LeClerc is actually the first French tank to feature a foward gear....in case they get attacked from behind while retreating.:D

Couldn't resist.

though it's funny because the french actually have put down an arab insurgency.

though it's funny because the french actually have put down an arab insurgency.

Who's tank also does not give off so much heat as the Abram's turbine preventing close infantry support. Buuuut whatcha gonna do, right? Oh I know, turn down the wrong street in Iraq, and meet a dead end and an ambush; Don't worry, you can reverse to prevent being hit from all sides! Oh wait... you disabled your reverse gear 'cause you didn't want to be as 'pussy' as the french!' Don't care how good your armour is... that point your dead.

basically... sthu when talking about the French Military, 'cause anyone who knows anything about modern warfare knows that they aren't to be laughed at.

though it's funny because the french actually have put down an arab insurgency.

They also got ran out of Algeria by an Arab insurgency.

Who's tank also does not give off so much heat as the Abram's turbine preventing close infantry support. Buuuut whatcha gonna do, right? Oh I know, turn down the wrong street in Iraq, and meet a dead end and an ambush; Don't worry, you can reverse to prevent being hit from all sides! Oh wait... you disabled your reverse gear 'cause you didn't want to be as 'pussy' as the french!' Don't care how good your armour is... that point your dead.

basically... sthu when talking about the French Military, 'cause anyone who knows anything about modern warfare knows that they aren't to be laughed at.

1.The Abrams has reverse gears (two in fact), my post was a joke, try looking it up online, you might learn something.
2. The US military doesn't tanks that much in Iraq these days, but an "expert" on warfare such as yourself would know that right?
3. The high heat signature of AGT-1500 was deemed an acceptable trade-off for much greater speed than a comparable diesel powered tank, which is inline with its primary mission to engage and destroy massed armor on an open battlefield.
4. The French have a great deal of capability to impose their will ontheir former African colonies, but conventionally their forces are quite lacking.

1.The Abrams has reverse gears (two in fact), my post was a joke, try looking it up online, you might learn something..
LOLZ O RLY? lol u doodz have reverse, u r teh pussies too lol!
Obviously every armoured vehicle in the world will have a reverse gear... but you are making jokes at the French's expense because of their 'wanton use' of their reverse geat... yet you defend the fact that you have reverse gears as well! Jokes are great and everything... especially when they offer a view of the persons actual opinions to tell said joke.

2. The US military doesn't tanks that much in Iraq these days, but an "expert" on warfare such as yourself would know that right?
doesn't tanks that much in Iraq? I'll assume you are saying that they don't use tanks that much In Iraq 'these days'. Thats a damn shame.. Tanks are great passifying weapons. Yes; even in Urban Combat. While you obviously cannot use an Abrams in a tight street, you can certainly use them elsewhere to ward off attacks.

3. The high heat signature of AGT-1500 was deemed an acceptable trade-off for much greater speed than a comparable diesel powered tank, which is inline with its primary mission to engage and destroy massed armor on an open battlefield.
Also very expensive, but a good way to keep that complex going. And really.. in the past decade have you seen any Kursk style confrontations? I'd really rather have a Diesel Engine in a street fight.. less explosive potential to insurgents weapons.

4. The French have a great deal of capability to impose their will on their former African colonies, but conventionally their forces are quite lacking.
And France has fought a major power to prove this recently? And the United States? It almost seems you folks can't deal with your own 'colonies' at the moment. Perhaps France understands where warfare is going... away from massive conflict between two super powers to small urban fighting and insurgency crushing.. US is still stuck in the cold war.

M1 Abrams of course

Strv 122, which is a modified version of the Leopard II featuring better targeting system, better armour and improved optics. It is, of course, used by the eminent swedish armed forces:)

LOLZ O RLY? lol u doodz have reverse, u r teh pussies too lol!
Obviously every armoured vehicle in the world will have a reverse gear... but you are making jokes at the French's expense because of their 'wanton use' of their reverse geat... yet you defend the fact that you have reverse gears as well! Jokes are great and everything... especially when they offer a view of the persons actual opinions to tell said joke.

I chose to make a joke because last time I checked most people weren't as fucking uptight as you.

doesn't tanks that much in Iraq? I'll assume you are saying that they don't use tanks that much In Iraq 'these days'. Thats a damn shame.. Tanks are great passifying weapons. Yes; even in Urban Combat. While you obviously cannot use an Abrams in a tight street, you can certainly use them elsewhere to ward off attacks.

In COIN operations tanks piss people off just as much as it pacifies them.


Also very expensive, but a good way to keep that complex going.
And really.. in the past decade have you seen any Kursk style confrontations? I'd really rather have a Diesel Engine in a street fight.. less explosive potential to insurgents weapons.

Google 73 Easting, Phase Line Bullet, and Medina Ridge and tell me manuevar warfare is obsolete.
Also, the Abrams uses JP-8 which is very stable fuel with a high ignition point.

And France has fought a major power to prove this recently? And the United States? It almost seems you folks can't deal with your own 'colonies' at the moment. Perhaps France understands where warfare is going... away from massive conflict between two super powers to small urban fighting and insurgency crushing.. US is still stuck in the cold war.

French troops fought with the XVIII Airborne corps in Desert Storm.

If the US is "stuck in the Cold War" why is it increasing the amount of light infantry, motorized infantry (Stryker Brigades) combat engineers, military police, civil affairs, PSYOP,and special operations forces you need for these types of wars?

It's becoming apparent your knowledge of modern warfare is nowher near as extensive as you think it is.

[QUOTE=Tolvan;12394088]



In COIN operations tanks piss people off just as much as it pacifies them.




QUOTE]

Yeah, alls you really do when you bring tanks into an urban area is make ALLOT of big easy targets for light manuverable guerrilas with weapons like the RPG-29, and for the tanks to respond effectivley they create allot of collateral damage.

Yeah, alls you really do when you bring tanks into an urban area is make ALLOT of big easy targets for light manuverable guerrilas with weapons like the RPG-29, and for the tanks to respond effectivley they create allot of collateral damage.

Plus the Abrams tends to destroy the less than great road networks of places like Iraq or Kosovo due to its high ground pressure and tread design.

Standard answer: the best tank is the one with the best crew in it. They're all so close in terms of performance that it really comes down to luck and a bit of skill.

But if I had to choose one, I'd pick the Leo. My reasoning is that it's the only tank in which the new L55 gun is actually used widely. Most Abrams don't have it yet, and neither does the Challenger.

In terms of armour the Leo and the Challenger are pretty close, so I'd give it to the former just because of the gun.

The Leclerc is interesting because of the autoloader, which might be useful in some situations. I would have rated the Merkava higher a year ago, but they didn't exactly convince in Lebanon.

The Abrams do everything pretty well, and have the best support structure and doctrine behind them.

The Russian stuff gets a big, fat "meh" from me. Even if it works on paper, maintenance is gonna be crap as is crew training and morale.

A secret tip for the next few years, by the way...the "Black Panther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther)".

This kind:
http://www.h-l-w.com/products/Miniseries/Water-Tank-web.gif

Joke option.

Think I would worry about myself if I did have a favourite tank.

Think I would worry about myself if I did have a favourite tank.
I'm sure if you are a guy, at some point you thought about driving a tank through the wilderness like a maniacal hoon. :p

my favorite modern tank would be a domestic water storage tank.

although i kind of like the one on the water heater and the one on the back of the crapper as well.

gas collectors in conjunction with mehtane digesters are pretty cool too.

my least favorite would be those used for storing oil and petrolium products.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm sure if you are a guy, at some point you thought about driving a tank through the wilderness like a maniacal hoon. :p

or someones home

It's too late for me to make my entire case but i'll put a basic brief down.

i voted for the Merkava.

Frankly this thing would be much better at the job the Abrams is being forced to do in Iraq at the moment than the american monster.

The Merkava is all about survivability and has been in almost constant action against insurgents and simple hostile crowds since it's initial deplyment. The inclusion of the engine at the front of the vehicle and the placement of the fuel storages to increase survivability show that it really was intended to put the crew first.

The Mortar can be fired from inside the vehicle and offers a halfway meassure between peppering something with a .50 and saying goodbye to half a block when you send a 120mm flying.

The crew compartment in the rear would be excelent for Iraq, While the M1A2 is not exactly intended to work up close with infantry the Merkava is with the capacity to carry them if need be.

As a stand up and fight tank the Merkava is probably inferior to the Abrams of the newer Leos but in MOUT or on terrain like the Golan Heights it can opperate like no other. Survivable, built for the terrain in the Golan heights that M1A2s would have trouble negotiating and designed with the experience that comes from having an armoured force that's been engaged in MOUT and low intensity conflict non stop for years and fought several major armoured wars.

Lets not forget that the Chariots APC adaptation is meant to be just about the most survivable APC in the world.

The Chariot of the IDF is derely beloved by all who have had the pleassure to work in, on or with them.

Strv 122, which is a modified version of the Leopard II featuring better targeting system, better armour and improved optics. It is, of course, used by the eminent swedish armed forces:)

Blaarrgh. Our upgrades are better, you silly Swede. Nyaah! :p

Joona

EDIT: Oh... favourite tank? Think tank.

FAVOURITE TANK!?

Weirdo

Damn it, I forgot to add cattank (http://memepedia.info/index.php/Image:Tankcat.jpg)! :mad:

Frankly this thing would be much better at the job the Abrams is being forced to do in Iraq at the moment than the american monster.
It didn't do too well in Lebanon against precisely the sort of irregular enemy that was expected. Many in the IDF aren't happy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1191051.php/Merkava_hunters_relax_looking_into_nearby_Israel
http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/israelattacks/Israel/10063993.html
http://conflict-religion.boker.tv/news/conflicts/judaism/israel_israel_s_halutz_resigns_over_lebanon_war

What sort of person HAS a favourite tank?!
Males. :)

Women don't understand. It's like hardware stores.

What sort of person HAS a favourite tank?!

Renault FT-17. *nod*
If we're getting rid of the 'modern' qualifier, then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DaVinciTankAtAmboise.jpeg) > all.

What sort of person HAS a favourite tank?!

The sort of person whose father was a tanker and although completely pacifist, still finds the purely technological aspect fascinating. After all, miltech is usually the cutting edge in human achievement. Unfortunately, yes, but no sense in denying the truth either.

Joona

Okay

The sort of person whose father was a tanker and although completely pacifist, still finds the purely technological aspect fascinating.
It's weird. I mean, I'm not the warmongering type, but somehow I still like the look of the things.

Though personally, if I wasn't at a safe distance from the conscription people, I'd have gone for the Panzergrenadiers rather than the outright tank forces. I'm not sure whether I'm small enough to be comfortable in one of those coffins-to-be.

EDIT: Or artillery! Boom! :D

My favorite happens to be the M1; but I mean that very narrowly. That is, the original M1 or M1IP Abrams featuring the M68 105mm rifled gun.:cool: This older version had th capability to fire HEP (HESH in British usage) or APERS-T (aka "Beehive") rounds, near-perfect for strongpoint-busting (HEP) and the old "whiff of grapeshot" (APERS-T) if the locals start getting too uppity; lighter weight so not quite so many roads are torn up as on the 67-70t M1A1+ versions; and still the same excellent user-friendliness, firepower (until recently 105mm APFSDS rounds routinely equalled or surpassed their 120mm brethren), mobility and (weakest here I'll admit, though still tough back in the day) survivability.
Note that my second-favorite will invite some lolz here, but meh: TR-85M1 Bizonul.:p Take a stock Russian T-55 that happens to be in Romanian service, and first GUT it until all that remain are the old 100mm gun and some minor hull details. Then install the German Leopard I engine with a revised six-wheel suspension to match, French AMX-30B2 fire controls, a new turret that only resembles the T-55's with integral composite armor over the frontal arc, and completely remanufacture the 100mm gun to Western barrel life and accuracy standards or very close at least. This tank is proof of just how far a classic design can be taken with enough imagination;); and though ICly my country stocks both in case I somehow face a pressing requirement for 125mm smoothbores in service all of a sudden, OOCly I actually prefer this 100mm rifle-armed baby to its supposedly "better" (almost certainly not by much) big brother the TR-125/T-72. Not least because of the safety improvements the blow-out panels, turret bustle and manual loading confer when compared to the workable-but-infamous carousel autoloader...

I'm sure if you are a guy, at some point you thought about driving a tank through the wilderness like a maniacal hoon. :p

Heheh. (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/224141/buffalo_soldiers_stoned_tank_crew/) ;)

edit - aww, shit. The video fucks up halfway though. See the movie. ;)

Rilly, I hate the military and all it stands for. I dodged conscript service, one of the reasons being a general disdain for the army as an institution of destruction that just should be taken for granted. No civilised country in the West nowadays has conscript service for everyone. At least not in practice. Even the frakkin Russkies don't really have to serve. Last time I heard their ratio was one out of ten. I am ashamed of my country being so backward in this matter.

But despite my own choice, I honour my heritage, and thus wear a black beret. Always. For I am a son of a mechwarrior ;)

Joona

tanks a pain in the butt when the enemys got them and you don't have AT weapons on you and there are no friendly armour or jets about to help you

oh an i wish this was real
http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/medium/1256.jpg

Abrams FTW!

Well, spamgirl, my lady. Go to Youtube and search fot "talvisota". You'll see how we greet tanks as "lawn drills" (Finnish term for infantrymen).

Joona

EDIT: Oh, and before any nitpicking about siding with "nazis", Russians attacked. Defence. Plain and simple. Besides, they were allied with Germany then and Western allies didn't do a fuckin thing.

I voted the Merkava because i like the concept around which it was designed (crew protection first and foremost) and also because it is, in my opinion, the tank best suited to operate in the scenario it was designed for.

Add in the fact that, for better or worse, U.S. tanks crews have seen much more active combat lately than any other nation's.

I pray, good sir, and the israeli have been doing what, lately?

I chose to make a joke because last time I checked most people weren't as fucking uptight as you.

You, sir, lack in sense of humor.

In COIN operations tanks piss people off just as much as it pacifies them.

And that's, obviously, why a Tank Urban Survival Kit has been developed for the M1A2.

Google 73 Easting, Phase Line Bullet, and Medina Ridge and tell me manuevar warfare is obsolete.

Those are all exemples of of Desert Storm in 1991. Besides, Wiki tells me 6 Apaches destroyed 38 tanks during the battle of Medina Ridge. The US seemed to have learned from that, because in the sequel they destroyed most tank divisions simply by air.

After the upgrade to the new Rheinmetall gun, then the M1 will be the winner, until then it's close tie between the M!, the Challenger II and the Leopard II.

The Tachikoma Think Tank (http://my.fit.edu/~jbobosky/Anime-fitssff/GitS%2002.jpg)

Yupple.

They also got ran out of Algeria by an Arab insurgency.Now, now let's not attack the French. They aren't here to defend themselves, and we all know how good they are at that. :p

Merkava. Why?

Crew survivability. Not only is it healthy for your tankers, but it says something about the country that designed it.

Crew survivability. Not only is it healthy for your tankers, but it says something about the country that designed it.
Most IDF casualties in the Lebanon war were tank crews...

I think that an M1 refitted with a flamethrower would be better for today's urban combat

Sherman. They may not have a lot of protection, or firepower but you can make a lot of them quickly. Eventually the enemy with run out of ammo and you win.:D

godIwin (http://www.modellbau-universe.de/uploadfiles/original/hg_600535.jpg)

I think that an M1 refitted with a flamethrower would be better for today's urban combat

Yeah, burn the whole town down! :eek:

Yeah, burn the whole town down! :eek:
Most people tend to run away when a flamethrower shows up.

Most people tend to run away when a flamethrower shows up.

I hope they run quickly enough...

But isn't a flamethrower unnessecary cruel? Probably they are outlawed in warfare like dumdum-bullets. Burning to death isn't the most pleasant death which I can imagine. And if you survive this - it's not much better either.

Merkava
Why? air conditioning :D

I hope they run quickly enough...

But isn't a flamethrower unnessecary cruel? Probably they are outlawed in warfare like dumdum-bullets. Burning to death isn't the most pleasant death which I can imagine. And if you survive this - it's not much better either.

I don't think they are outlawed, because the US still uses Napalm *its no longer the same Napalm of Nam, its kerosine based now, not gasoline based* But allot of countries have kinda lost interest in the flame thrower for one reason or another, what a shame, it is a fun weapon.

Oh hooray, a 'vote for your country's tank' thread. :rolleyes:

I'm quite fond of the Cold War era Russian T-series tanks. Specifically the T-62.

BTW: I'm British.

Go Leo! The adaptability, plus the cost makes it my favourite. The M1 is a nice ride, though. So is the Merkava... And the Challenger...

BTW, come to think of it, the coolest combat vehicle is probably your standard African technical. Talk about pimping your ride!

BTW, come to think of it, the coolest combat vehicle is probably your standard African technical. Talk about pimping your ride!

Yeah. Fit a recoilless rifle on the back of a pickup truck and you have a dangerous, maneuverable, relatively fast yet lightly armored APC and Tank destroyer.

Yeah. Fit a recoilless rifle on the back of a pickup truck and you have a dangerous, maneuverable, relatively fast yet lightly armored APC and Tank destroyer.

By and large recoilles rifles are worthless against anything with reactive armor, or anything with a .50 caliber machine gun, or even a .30 caliber machine gun.

By and large recoilles rifles are worthless against anything with reactive armor, or anything with a .50 caliber machine gun, or even a .30 caliber machine gun.

Possibly true, but how many tanks with reactive armour did you get in Chad/Libya during the late '80's? Heck, even if you end up facing one, you can call up you buddy with his guided missile mounted on the back of his pick-up for a top-down attack.

Possibly true, but how many tanks with reactive armour did you get in Chad/Libya during the late '80's? Heck, even if you end up facing one, you can call up you buddy with his guided missile mounted on the back of his pick-up for a top-down attack.

Poor reconnaissance and intelligence information allowed for the Libyan armor to be lured into ambushes which they were ill prepared to deal with. The FANT folks knew the land, had the cooperation of the people, access to French MILAN missiles and several other strong benefits. This situation showed why incompetence with leadership and poor intelligence and reconnaissance are important.

I don't think they are outlawed, because the US still uses Napalm *its no longer the same Napalm of Nam, its kerosine based now, not gasoline based* But allot of countries have kinda lost interest in the flame thrower for one reason or another, what a shame, it is a fun weapon.

Mainly because the circumstance that led to it's development, strong entrenched fortifications that needed to be advanced upon, are rapidly becoming obsolete. The flame thrower found itself increasingly out of date as mechanized warfare became increasingly central.

Furthermore, the US has discontinued it's use of flamethrowers, and action that was undertaken in 1978 for humanitarian concerns.

Possibly true, but how many tanks with reactive armour did you get in Chad/Libya during the late '80's? Heck, even if you end up facing one, you can call up you buddy with his guided missile mounted on the back of his pick-up for a top-down attack.

Assymetrical warfare. It's the new loud, baby;)

I voted for the challenger. I'm a big fan of the Sturmpanzerwagen, but it's not exactly modern.
http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/features/mephisto/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/A7V-U.jpg/300px-A7V-U.jpg
http://www.panzer-modell.de/berichte/a7v/f10g.jpg

This Panzer here (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/007g.jpg) and in case you couldn't really identify it, it's a Leopard 2 A6 (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/003g.jpg).

Do the other tanks also have Turnsignals (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/Bild_027.jpg)?

Those are all exemples of of Desert Storm in 1991. Besides, Wiki tells me 6 Apaches destroyed 38 tanks during the battle of Medina Ridge. The US seemed to have learned from that, because in the sequel they destroyed most tank divisions simply by air.

And the Abrams accounted for most of the other 277 tanks and AFVs (also using Wiki numbers). The Iraqis really didn't bother to deploy much armor the second time because they knew they were no match for the combination of US airpower, artillery, and most of all the Abrams. In Mahmudiyah, Abrams tanks destroyed seven T-72 and two BMPs in less than five minutes. Claiming that tank warfare is going away anytime soon is the height of foolishness, we'll proably never see a Battle of Kursk again, but we will plenty of tank on tank combat in our lifetimes. Also, read up on what happened when US Apaches attack the Medina Division this time around, it didn't go so well. Despite weeks of bombing and failed Apache attacks, it took the 3rd ID to finally wipe the Medina out.

You, sir, lack in sense of humor.

I make a joke, some fool goes apeshit and starts ripping on me, and I lack a sense of humor? Whatever.

And that's, obviously, why a Tank Urban Survival Kit has been developed for the M1A2.

Do you even know what the TUSK is? It does exactly what it sounds like it does, it improves survivability in urban combat, it does nothing to mitigate the fact that driving a tank down someone's street tends to piss them off.

Leopard 2A6

Too bad a battle like Kursk is very unlikley again, at least anytime soon. That kinda warfare kicked ass. Millions of infantry, thousands of tanks. Thousands of Artillery peices. I believe there was over 3,000 tanks in that battle....people think war is bad these days, HA! My god the insantiy of that type of conflict. The explosions, the death, the noise... ah Kursk....thats what a real war is. I can always hope....maybe I'll get lucky and someone will duke it out fist to fist again....

This Panzer here (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/007g.jpg) and in case you couldn't really identify it, it's a Leopard 2 A6 (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/003g.jpg).

Do the other tanks also have Turnsignals (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/Bild_027.jpg)?

Is it really a turn signal or just a warning light for night time driving on roads? Of course we're talking non-war driving.

I make a joke, some fool goes apeshit and starts ripping on me, and I lack a sense of humor? Whatever.



Do you even know what the TUSK is? It does exactly what it sounds like it does, it improves survivability in urban combat, it does nothing to mitigate the fact that driving a tank down someone's street tends to piss them off.

Again, I agree with you, tanks are way way more a sign of invasion than anything else. And I dont know much about the TUSK- but tanks cause so much colloateral damage in in urban combat to be effective its sickening, and they're still outmanuvered 10fold by guerrilas. Citing evidence from the Isreali-Hezbolla war- the RPG-29 is a very effective anti-tank weapon and was able to knock out several Isreali tanks which were using the most advanced armour yet... you get a Tank in a narrow corridor of fire in a place like an arab city (which are so very confusing- they're nothing like western cities with a symmertric layout- the city blocks and roads are in varying shapes and sizes and thrown out at random, and they have millions of places to hide and attack from) with a weapon like the RPG-29, and your bound to getsome.

Again, I agree with you, tanks are way way more a sign of invasion than anything else. And I dont know much about the TUSK- but tanks cause so much colloateral damage in in urban combat to be effective its sickening, and they're still outmanuvered 10fold by guerrilas. Citing evidence from the Isreali-Hezbolla war- the RPG-29 is a very effective anti-tank weapon and was able to knock out several Isreali tanks which were using the most advanced armour yet... you get a Tank in a narrow corridor of fire in a place like an arab city (which are so very confusing- they're nothing like western cities with a symmertric layout- the city blocks and roads are in varying shapes and sizes and thrown out at random, and they have millions of places to hide and attack from) with a weapon like the RPG-29, and your bound to getsome.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Tank_Urban_Survival_Kit_for_M1A2) is the Wiki article on the TUSK, and it's pretty much spot on.

Is it really a turn signal or just a warning light for night time driving on roads? Of course we're talking non-war driving.
It's the Bundeswehr. I'd be surprised if the thing didn't carry an "attention" sign in the trunk as well, just in case it breaks down and you have to stop on the sight of the road. :D

It's the Bundeswehr. I'd be surprised if the thing didn't carry an "attention" sign in the trunk as well, just in case it breaks down and you have to stop on the sight of the road. :D

Not to be an ass, but turn-signals, head-lights and break-lights actually have a function on a tank. To illustrate: immagine it's not war (or better, immagine your country is being defended against some despicable enemy or other). Now say you're driving your car down a road, and a 11.000 kg M-113 cuts infront of you. Now, picture the same scenario, but with a Leo II or anny other armored vehicle. Airbags will brobably not make much of a difference.

Personally, I'm happy that the Crown's armour are fittted with signals and lights.

The M1 is a far cry from today's M1-A2...and while the Abrams doesn't necessarily excel in any one area compared to some other tanks, it is an excellent all around tank.


I find that the typical NATO "only anti-tank" tank doctrine makes the western tanks a little less useful than the russian ones. Western tanks use only MG against infantry because they fire only HEAT and APFSDS, when the russian tanks can fire also HE, HE-Frag and guided projectiles/missiles like the Refleks.
Generally, I'd say that a T-90 has a broader range of attack capability compared to the M1 variants. It can engage any kind of target, including infantry and helicopters. It has the Arena antimissile system and a lower radar signature. And the autoloader - 3 shots of the main gun in 13 seconds while on the move.
The M1 is way too specialised.

The explosions, the death, the noise... ah Kursk....thats what a real war is. I can always hope....maybe I'll get lucky and someone will duke it out fist to fist again....

U trolling or trying to be funny at the expense of some miltech porn circle wankers here, right? If not, I can only hope that YOU will be in the frontline. Without a gun, let alone a tank.

Joona

U trolling or trying to be funny at the expense of some miltech porn circle wankers here, right? If not, I can only hope that YOU will be in the frontline. Without a gun, let alone a tank.

Joona

What he said.

I say Leopard II.

Not to be an ass, but turn-signals, head-lights and break-lights actually have a function on a tank.
I doubt they take the Leos out for a drive on public roads. The thing ways 63 tons or something, pretty much the same as an Abrams.

They couldn't pay the repair bills for the tarmac.

They actually do. The reason for my M-113 axample was that I drove one during my service, and we frequently maneuvered with the Leos, on and of the main roads. And if im not totally off, the Leo weighs app. 30 tonns.

What he said.

Welllll, dunno what he said. I see no comment on the matter after that. But whaever. Have noted before that some comments in these threads strangely disappear, judging by posts quoting posts that aren't there. :gundge:

Joona

You all need to STOP talking about tanks now...it's disturbing to normal people.

Hmm, the tanks thread is my most successful thread ever... interesting.

BTW the Leopard 2 is 63 tons, thanks to the almighty Wikipedia.

BTW again, Carisbrooke, this is nothing. Behold (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478771)!
All praise be to the Nakil.

You all need to STOP talking about tanks now...it's disturbing to normal people.

but no ones normal here :D

Hmm, the tanks thread is my most successful thread ever... interesting.

BTW the Leopard 2 is 63 tons, thanks to the almighty Wikipedia.

BTW again, Carisbrooke, this is nothing. Behold (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478771)!
All praise be to the Nakil.


I suppose that puts this into perspective...but once again...as a laydee, I find this whole tank thing very odd and strange....if you like them so much JOIN THE ARMY. :D

I suppose that puts this into perspective...but once again...as a laydee, I find this whole tank thing very odd and strange....if you like them so much JOIN THE ARMY. :D

middle of doing that just need to get around fininshing the paper work and send it in

I have waited for this thread to be on a forum like this for years.

Although not much of an answer, I like practically all Russian tanks. Always have, always will. They have this certain 'thing' about them that I've always observed in them much more so than in western tanks. Simple as hell these Russian tanks are, that's what I adore the designers for...legends, seriously.

I have waited for this thread to be on a forum like this for years.

Although not much of an answer, I like practically all Russian tanks. Always have, always will. They have this certain 'thing' about them that I've always observed in them much more so than in western tanks. Simple as hell these Russian tanks are, that's what I adore the designers for...legends, seriously.

easy to kill too

I suppose that puts this into perspective...but once again...as a laydee, I find this whole tank thing very odd and strange....if you like them so much JOIN THE ARMY. :D

Dear lady... as I already noted, I am a conscious (sometimes unconscious after a rough weekend) objector and a pacifist. That still doesn't mean one couldn't be interested in that stuff in a purely technological sense.

I am interested in art, too. Even in the styles that I object. And I can do that without being an artist, can't I?

Oops... WTF!? I AM a graphic designer! :p

Joona

Is it really a turn signal or just a warning light for night time driving on roads? Of course we're talking non-war driving.
No, they're real (http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a6/Bild_007.jpg). As are the license plates...
It's the Bundeswehr. I'd be surprised if the thing didn't carry an "attention" sign in the trunk as well, just in case it breaks down and you have to stop on the sight of the road. :D
Probably so. Don't want to risk a ticket... ;)
Not to be an ass, but turn-signals, head-lights and break-lights actually have a function on a tank. To illustrate: immagine it's not war (or better, immagine your country is being defended against some despicable enemy or other). Now say you're driving your car down a road, and a 11.000 kg M-113 cuts infront of you. Now, picture the same scenario, but with a Leo II or anny other armored vehicle. Airbags will brobably not make much of a difference.
If he cuts in front of me, I don't believe I wouldn't care much whether he's got the turn signal on or not!
Personally, I'm happy that the Crown's armour are fittted with signals and lights.
I was wondering which other MBTs had the whole signal/lights thing going - because the Abrams sure doesn't look like it has turn signals?
I doubt they take the Leos out for a drive on public roads. The thing ways 63 tons or something, pretty much the same as an Abrams.
They couldn't pay the repair bills for the tarmac.
Haven't seen any in a long time. But the roads sometimes sure look like they've been there all day...
They actually do. The reason for my M-113 axample was that I drove one during my service, and we frequently maneuvered with the Leos, on and of the main roads. And if im not totally off, the Leo weighs app. 30 tonns.
Even the Leo 1 weighed more than 40 tonnes.

I was wondering which other MBTs had the whole signal/lights thing going - because the Abrams sure doesn't look like it has turn signals?


I bet at least the late Swedish S-tank did. We can't have any fellow road users getting pissed in folkhemmet, can we?

As for Yanks, I guess the driver just sticks his arm out from whichever side when about to turn :D

Joona

Even the Leo 1 weighed more than 40 tonnes.

I was totally off then. But, now I have been educated.

I bet at least the late Swedish S-tank did. We can't have any fellow road users getting pissed in folkhemmet, can we?

As for Yanks, I guess the driver just sticks his arm out from whichever side when about to turn :D

Joona

would you Dare have a go at the driver of a tank when they cut you off

would you Dare have a go at the driver of a tank when they cut you off

Ah... I didn't mean road rage. Sorry, forgot not everyone knows just what "folkhemmet" means (literally and otherwise). In folkhemmet "people's home" such would not do because someone would feel bad. Maybe even start to cry. That won't do! Would be positively uncouth, I say.

(GDR when the next Swede pops in)

Joona

Personally I think the best all around tank is the Leopard 2. Abrams is a fantastic vehicle, but I think the Leo beats it by just a bit. In case you're wondering, I'm Canadian. My country doesn't use either (we have a whopping 66 Leo 1s upgraded to our own C2 standard, 15 of which are in combat in Afghanistan).

Otherwise, I'm a big fan of the Merkava. As for its showing in Lebanon, let's not forget that Hezbollah is a rather sophisticated force, and was armed with the latest and greatest in anti-tank weaponry. Despite that, they only lost a handful of Merkavas, and were shrugging off frontal hits with those latest and greatest weapons. As for casualties, most of the casualties were individuals who exposed themselves (I believe, might be wrong).

And as for the comment we should join the army, well, I did. Reserve anyways, but I didn't join an armoured unit, I saw the light and went infantry.

As for signals on tanks, I believe all Canadian vehicles have signals. In fact, so do our towed howitzers (I'm not kidding, when you see them driving down the highway, lights are mounted onto them)

And as for the comment we should join the army, well, I did. Reserve anyways, but I didn't join an armoured unit, I saw the light and went infantry.

Without infantry support, armor is useless! *looks envious at the cavalry's cool rides*

I like California tanks.

Rampaging through Escondido comes from happy tanks.
Happy tanks come from California.

They also got ran out of Algeria by an Arab insurgency.

After murdering hundreds of thousands of Algerian civilians...

After murdering hundreds of thousands of Algerian civilians...

And yet their actions never seem to merit a fraction of the scorn heaped on the US. The French are better imperialists than we'll ever be.

Personally I think the best all around tank is the Leopard 2. Abrams is a fantastic vehicle, but I think the Leo beats it by just a bit. In case you're wondering, I'm Canadian. My country doesn't use either (we have a whopping 66 Leo 1s upgraded to our own C2 standard, 15 of which are in combat in Afghanistan).

Canada is supposed to lease 15 Leo 2s for duty in Afghanistan and is talking about buying something like 80 to replace the Leo 1s. All they need now is a proper IFV and they're set.

You all need to STOP talking about tanks now...it's disturbing to normal people.
There is nothing more normal than admiring objects that destroy your fellow man.
Plus they are Phallic symbols.*nods*

Canada is supposed to lease 15 Leo 2s for duty in Afghanistan and is talking about buying something like 80 to replace the Leo 1s. All they need now is a proper IFV and they're set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28IFV%29

At least you know it'll work together with the Leos. :D

those polycarbonate ones are pretty good. but i don't think i'd use one for drinking water.

=^^=
.../\...

I can not believe that you are STILL talking about TANKS!!!!

I can not believe that you are STILL talking about TANKS!!!!

you females go on about hair and other things
we go on about tanks, power tools and other things

I can not believe that you are STILL talking about TANKS!!!!
All right, that's it. I'm making this my mission not to let this thread die until the weekend!

All right, that's it. I'm making this my mission not to let this thread die until the weekend!
I shalt assist you in this venture.

there are power tools and there are power tools.
so presumably you're talking about the tank on a pressure washer, right?

or the air tank on a compressor. or the tank of a hot water heater.
or some other sort of a storage vessle, ...

=^^=
.../\...

I shalt assist you in this venture.
Excellent.

So...I see lots of people are voting for the Abrams. What do those people think about the use of gas turbines then?

Unlike most tanks, the Abrams doesn't use a normal diesel engine, but a gas turbine. I never quite understood why...what are the benefits?

Excellent.

So...I see lots of people are voting for the Abrams. What do those people think about the use of gas turbines then?

Unlike most tanks, the Abrams doesn't use a normal diesel engine, but a gas turbine. I never quite understood why...what are the benefits?

more speed and lest noise

more speed and lest noise
I can't talk about the noise, but according to wiki...

Abrams
Power: 1500hp
Power/Weight: 24hp/t
Range: 465km
Road Speed: 72km/h
Off-Road Speed: 48km/h

Leo
Power: 1500hp
Power/Weight: 24.2hp/t
Range: 550km
Road Speed: 72km/h
Off-Road Speed: ?

Excellent.

So...I see lots of people are voting for the Abrams. What do those people think about the use of gas turbines then?

Unlike most tanks, the Abrams doesn't use a normal diesel engine, but a gas turbine. I never quite understood why...what are the benefits?
Well if you are after a heat seeking missle up the jacksy then the Abrams is your tank...
I am of the opinion that the Abrams gets much of its kudos for past actions and also because it is American...

Does anyone remember the American Muslim from Seattle that was prepared to sell(Or give away) the secrets of the Abrams vulnerability?
It was like 5 years ago and he got his chops busted by the authorites reall good.
------------------
Poll should have been public so we could analyis the bias.

I can't talk about the noise, but according to wiki...

Abrams
Power: 1500hp
Power/Weight: 24hp/t
Range: 465km
Road Speed: 72km/h
Off-Road Speed: 48km/h

Leo
Power: 1500hp
Power/Weight: 24.2hp/t
Range: 550km
Road Speed: 72km/h
Off-Road Speed: ?
going from what i recall
a gas turbines has lest noise then diesel , but has a high heat sgnature

has lest or has not got a idol time like a diesel

Wow this is a long thread. It's been here for a while. I'lld say that i dun like tanks so there :D

The Centurion because its been in service for last 60 years in some form or another

Bah, our LAV IIIs are wonderful vehicles. And quite frankly, there the only vehicles we're going to have for years to come. As for the new Leos, we're looking into leasing 20 for Afghanistan and purchasing another 80, I think the 2A6M version. However, this isn't finalized, and until the tanks are painted with CF markings, and are driving around the desert with canadian tankers in them, I'll be waiting to see if the government does an about turn on it.

Bah, our LAV IIIs are wonderful vehicles. And quite frankly, there the only vehicles we're going to have for years to come.
But they've got roadwheels! How boring.

As for the new Leos, we're looking into leasing 20 for Afghanistan and purchasing another 80, I think the 2A6M version. However, this isn't finalized, and until the tanks are painted with CF markings, and are driving around the desert with canadian tankers in them, I'll be waiting to see if the government does an about turn on it.
Well, the lease will go through, I'm pretty sure. Apparently the old C2's don't deal too well with the heat and the dust, plus the Taleban are using more and more advanced anti-tank weapons. If they don't get the 2A6M, they'll have to get something very similar some time soon.

The 80 others will be used A4 versions. Germany's got a lot to sell, they're getting rid of most of their tanks as part of the restructuring process.

Germany's got a lot to sell, they're getting rid of most of their tanks as part of the restructuring process.
Which makes me wonder how much I'd have to spend on a used Leo2A4 - and a paintjob. :p

Which makes me wonder how much I'd have to spend on a used Leo2A4 - and a paintjob. :p

same and how much to get it ship over here

Yay, people have resolved to keep my thread alive!

I've heard that you can buy used T-34s... is this actually possible? Does anyone know more? :)

Yay, people have resolved to keep my thread alive!

I've heard that you can buy used T-34s... is this actually possible? Does anyone know more? :)

if thats what you want ,but i would not mind a Type 88 K1 MBT

if thats what you want ,but i would not mind a Type 88 K1 MBT
I'm looking at this realistically, I doubt the Australian Army would be pleased with a private citizen owing a better tank than they did. :p

I'm looking at this realistically, I doubt the Australian Army would be pleased with a private citizen owing a better tank than they did. :p

it tanks now we have two kins now,you know the new one thats not second hand

Well if you are after a heat seeking missle up the jacksy then the Abrams is your tank...
I am of the opinion that the Abrams gets much of its kudos for past actions and also because it is American...


ALL tanks emit huge IR signatures. The Javelin has no problem homing in on Russian tanks.

Bah, our LAV IIIs are wonderful vehicles. And quite frankly, there the only vehicles we're going to have for years to come. As for the new Leos, we're looking into leasing 20 for Afghanistan and purchasing another 80, I think the 2A6M version. However, this isn't finalized, and until the tanks are painted with CF markings, and are driving around the desert with canadian tankers in them, I'll be waiting to see if the government does an about turn on it.

The LAV III is fine for many missions, I use them in my NS Army, but compared to a Bradley or Warrior it's sorely lacking in every major area save road speed and maintenance/logistical burden.

I can't talk about the noise, but according to wiki...

Abrams
Power: 1500hp
Power/Weight: 24hp/t
Range: 465km
Road Speed: 72km/h
Off-Road Speed: 48km/h

Leo
Power: 1500hp
Power/Weight: 24.2hp/t
Range: 550km
Road Speed: 72km/h
Off-Road Speed: ?

The Abrams is much quieter and I think has higher acceleration, though the Army doesn't publish 0-60 stats I don't think. Also, the Abrams is capable of much higher speeds but has a governer to keep it from throwing a track. Plus the turbine gives you better fuel economy at high speeds, it burns the same amount of gas idling as it does running at 70 kph, diesils require more fuel the faster they go.

However, the truth is diesils have advanced anough that the performance gap really isn't that big anymore, but whent he Abrams debuted it was a lot faster than anything else. The Army has even talked of replacing the turbines with diesils, but I don't know if they wanna spend that kinda money.

Bah, our LAV IIIs are wonderful vehicles. And quite frankly, there the only vehicles we're going to have for years to come.
But they've got roadwheels! How boring.


But they aren't tanks...

My favorite thing about tanks is that the lebanese wrecked quite a few "invicible god protected merkavas" during the Rape of Lebanon last summer.

same and how much to get it ship over here
My guess? A lot!
The Abrams is much quieter and I think has higher acceleration, though the Army doesn't publish 0-60 stats I don't think. Also, the Abrams is capable of much higher speeds but has a governer to keep it from throwing a track. Plus the turbine gives you better fuel economy at high speeds, it burns the same amount of gas idling as it does running at 70 kph, diesils require more fuel the faster they go.

However, the truth is diesils have advanced anough that the performance gap really isn't that big anymore, but whent he Abrams debuted it was a lot faster than anything else. The Army has even talked of replacing the turbines with diesils, but I don't know if they wanna spend that kinda money.
Here's some nice articles about the Leopard 2 in comparison with the Abrams...
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html
http://www.militaryperiscope.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/gcv/tanks/w0001000.shtml

The Abrams uses more gas than the Leopard 2 according to the articles...

ALL tanks emit huge IR signatures. The Javelin has no problem homing in on Russian tanks.

Yeah but they are Russian, they should have our contempt.http://209.85.48.10/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

Yeah but they are Russian, they should have our contempt.http://209.85.48.10/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

Russian tanks are notoriously crappy.:p

Yay, people have resolved to keep my thread alive!

I've heard that you can buy used T-34s... is this actually possible? Does anyone know more? :)

Oh oh! I do, sir!

http://www.russiantruck.co.uk/

They're a British company that specialises in extracting Ex-Soviet vehicles from Eastern Europe. They recently sold a T-34, but have found and are currently working on procuring a new T-34-85 that has been found in the Czech woodlands. I believe they also have a Hind gunship for sale.

I personally am considering purchasing one of their Uaz 469 Jeeps.

Oh oh! I do, sir!

http://www.russiantruck.co.uk/

They're a British company that specialises in extracting Ex-Soviet vehicles from Eastern Europe. They recently sold a T-34, but have found and are currently working on procuring a new T-34-85 that has been found in the Czech woodlands. I believe they also have a Hind gunship for sale.

I personally am considering purchasing one of their Uaz 469 Jeeps.

hell buying a Hind gunship would beat rush hour