NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think is the best tank (overall) of today?

I say the Russian T-90.

It is protected from HEAT, laser guided missiles, and wire guided missiles. The Kontakt 5 Heavy era armor (2nd generation armor) can survie 120mm M829A1 rounds, it was proven in test.

It has a automatic loader, which means a smaller crew is needed unlike many western tanks. Shtora-1 defensive system can detect laser's pointed at the tank up to 2,000m. It alerts the crew after detecting the laser with noise and light. The commander can then launch flares to disrupt the laser and he can push a button that rotates the turret towards the threat. The Shtora-1 can even counter Hellfire and other missiles by sending out false signals and causes them to go off course. It has an anti air gun (12mm), it also is protected form nuclear, biological and chemical attack. It can also do mine sweeps.

I don't understand why so many poeple belive T-90s can not hold up to the abrams or other western tanks. It is also lighter and has better range than the abrams. We are also working on the new T-95 wich will be in our force in 2009.

It depends on the situation. And tanks almost never go one on one, they have an army, air force, and navy with them. An A-10 will kill anything that gets in its sights. But one on one, Id say the M1A2, just because American crews have experience from recent wars. The three western tanks are all pretty good, with the Merkeva just behind them.

if we are going by outright survivability then it has to be the Israeli Merkava just because thats its main design feature but if we are talking about outright best it has to be the Challenger for its tea facilities

however I must point out that tanks have a rather tough time in todays battlefield (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH4PkOhrSn0)

It is also lighter and has better range than the abrams.

which is a bit silly to say considering the Abrams has these attributes because what with the massive amount of support it has available...still I'm sure if your running in the opposite direction it won't do no harm :p

It has a automatic loader, which means a smaller crew is needed unlike many western tanks.

however people are less likely to suffer mechanical problems

however people are less likely to suffer mechanical problems

People get worn down, and reload slower and slower over time.

I say the Russian T-90.

Well there's a surprise. :rolleyes:

These best tank threads are always a total farce, because everyone just votes for their country's tank. What's the point?

All are inferior to CATTANK!
http://www.redkemp.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cat-magic-card.jpg

People get worn down, and reload slower and slower over time.

I'd personally rather have a gun that gradually slows over time to one that may jam when the shit hits the fan regardless of added weight

These best tank threads are always a total farce, because everyone just votes for their country's tank. What's the point?

well I can hardly help being British now can I? seriously though it becomes that due to different nations ideas of what a tank should be

People get worn down, and reload slower and slower over time.

yes except tank battles do not involve continuously firing for hours at a time, but firing for short burst of a few minutes then maneuvering for several minutes to the next target.


In my opinion the M! is the best tank. not because of any particular innovation with the M1 over other tanks but because of Depleted uranium Armour and rounds. more punching power and better Armour. how much so ? I am not certain as the info is classified.

Though having seen the effects of DU rounds on a hardened concrete bunker I dont think there is a tank around that has the Armour to take a direct hit.

well I can hardly help being British now can I? seriously though it becomes that due to different nations ideas of what a tank should be

I think the main annoyance here is that Soviet KLM has blatantly started this thread for no other reason than to do some more cheerleading for the Russian military.

I think the main annoyance here is that Soviet KLM has blatantly started this thread for no other reason than to do some more cheerleading for the Russian military.

well he does have to work of the whole male prostitution (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/russian-soldiers-sold-for-sex/) thing...

odds are you could hold a military Coup d'état with a bottle of Vodka and some of Her Majesties pounds these days :tongue:

I think the main annoyance here is that Soviet KLM has blatantly started this thread for no other reason than to do some more cheerleading for the Russian military.

No.

I gusse though anyone from the west who makes a topic about military equipment (dicussing which is better) could have the same said to them.

The little leopard tank that could.

http://www.deadtroll.com/index2.html?/video/liltank.html~content

I do not know enough of the subject matter to give a serious answer, but the topic reminded me of this gem.

What do you think is the best tank (overall) of today?

I say the Russian T-90.

It is protected from HEAT, laser guided missiles, and wire guided missiles. The Kontakt 5 Heavy era armor (2nd generation armor) can survie 120mm M829A1 rounds, it was proven in test.

It has a automatic loader, which means a smaller crew is needed unlike many western tanks. Shtora-1 defensive system can detect laser's pointed at the tank up to 2,000m. It alerts the crew after detecting the laser with noise and light. The commander can then launch flares to disrupt the laser and he can push a button that rotates the turret towards the threat. The Shtora-1 can even counter Hellfire and other missiles by sending out false signals and causes them to go off course. It has an anti air gun (12mm), it also is protected form nuclear, biological and chemical attack. It can also do mine sweeps.

I don't understand why so many poeple belive T-90s can not hold up to the abrams or other western tanks. It is also lighter and has better range than the abrams. We are also working on the new T-95 wich will be in our force in 2009.

But it's still got the same problem that all other tanks suffer,
the vulnerablilty to 500lb bombs ( from airplanes ).

I would like to see all the Great tanks of the world in a real toe to toe,
Abrams
T-90
Mervaka
Leopard
Challanger
Lecrec
The south Korean one who's name eludes me this early in the morning

Well there's a surprise. :rolleyes:

These best tank threads are always a total farce, because everyone just votes for their country's tank. What's the point?

I voted for the Mekava, and I am definitely not kosher.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/daemonhunters/gallery/images/land_raider.gif


Suck it.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/daemonhunters/gallery/images/land_raider.gif


Suck it.

Not silly thing built by people who had no concept of what a tank looks like
or how it works.

But thanks for playing,
your consolation prize is...

A poster of Epic fail, just what you need to hang up on your wall.

No seriously didn't you read this thread?
I like 40k but it's vehicle's are massively wanker.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/daemonhunters/gallery/images/land_raider.gif


Suck it.

Bah, I see your tank and raise you a:

http://www.cncden.com/cnc3_concept/cnc3_GDI_MammothTank_final.jpg

<snip>
I'm sorry, couldn't hear you above the noise of my four Godhammer Kz9.76 lascannons.

Say again?

The little leopard tank that could.

http://www.deadtroll.com/index2.html?/video/liltank.html~content

I do not know enough of the subject matter to give a serious answer, but the topic reminded me of this gem.
Ooh, wonderful! That one is really good. :tongue:
http://uk.games-workshop.com/daemonhunters/gallery/images/land_raider.gif

Suck it.
I'm sorry, couldn't hear you above the noise of my four Godhammer Kz9.76 lascannons.

Say again?
Hehehe. Super Jackhammer is proud of you!

Anyway, while I appreciate that the Leo2 is on the list - I truly believe you guys should read up on what it really is... Better than those others on the list, that is what!

I'm sorry, couldn't hear you above the noise of my four Godhammer Kz9.76 lascannons.

Say again?

You didn't want to play by the rules,

The Grown ups are having a discussion about what Real tank is the best.

Why don't you go out and play with some of your other friends?

Or are you here because you don't have any friends and this pathetic attempt at humor on your part only shows your complete lack on knowledge in the subject of actual vehicles.
You know what the most annoying part of 40k is?
Stupid people flock to that game and ruin it for everyone.

The Leo2 is a good tank, but it needs to see real front line combat.
that's the only way to really see if a tank is worth it.

http://www.core77.com/blog/images/Balloon-Tank.jpg
?

Seriously, though, asking which tank is 'best' is like asking which political party is 'best'. You're going to get different answers based on factors ranging from aesthetics to national origins.

The T-90 has its advantages, certainly, its more mobile than the Abrams, but the Abrams was designed to stop a Soviet push into Europe, hence its performance would probably be higher in a defensive role. The T-90 (and the rest of the T series from WWII onward) were designed to be mobile, and fight combined-arms battles on the offensive. They're lower so they can make better use of available cover, rather than digging in.
And there's the matter of numbers. While the T-90 might be superior to Western tanks in some fashions, the Russians have, what, a hundred of them? Most of the Russian tank force is made up of T-72's, which have not performed well against Western models. It is true that the crews of those tanks were not well trained, but even the Republican Guard got its ass kicked, and they were moderately well trained.

Autoloaders are nice, but have a number of disadvantages. A major issue with them is that you're short one crewmember when it comes to field repairs and so forth. Another set of hands is never something to turn down, and since loaders have a fairly 'easy' job when it comes to memory, its probably quite easy to crosstrain them in field repair skills.

I can honestly say, though, when it comes to crew comfort, western tanks thrash the Russian models.

The Grown ups are having a discussion about what Real tank is the best.

fuck yeah! (http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5693/0000168pv5.jpg)

Bah, I see your tank and raise you a:

http://www.cncden.com/cnc3_concept/cnc3_GDI_MammothTank_final.jpg

Bah! I raise you both:

http://homepage.mac.com/james.clay/iblog/B233824576/C1744031705/E20070407211843/Media/IMG_3379.jpg

In all seriousness, I'd take an Leopard 2. That thing is just beardy.

Although in most cases I'd rather take an A-10 or SU-25 and trump the lot of them :tongue:

no T-80UM1?


That, or cattank.

Most of the Russian tank force is made up of T-72's, which have not performed well against Western models. It is true that the crews of those tanks were not well trained, but even the Republican Guard got its ass kicked, and they were moderately well trained.

Eh, I can't say I agree with that statement. Iraqi T-72's do not compare with Russian T-72's. The Iraqi models were downgraded export tanks which were not equipped with laser range finders or infrared systems, plus it could not fire on the move and they used low quality ammunition. The Iraqi idea of quantity of quality did not perform well against our M1 tanks. The Russian models are generally modern with targeting systems and I'm pretty sure they use their best ammunition.

You didn't want to play by the rules,

The Grown ups are having a discussion about what Real tank is the best.

Why don't you go out and play with some of your other friends?

Or are you here because you don't have any friends and this pathetic attempt at humor on your part only shows your complete lack on knowledge in the subject of actual vehicles.
You know what the most annoying part of 40k is?
Stupid people flock to that game and ruin it for everyone.
Talking about rules... You know what's even worse?

People who take life way too seriously, or what has been said on an internet forum in good humor.

That established, I really don't like your tone of voice, buddy. Might want to reconsider your ad hominem attacks, because those make you consist of more epic fail than would fit on any poster, let alone the whole fucking wall.

So shut up and go talk to your friends if you have any, while the other adults here have some fun, eh?

no T-80UM1?


That, or cattank.

Finally someone sees sense.

http://www.core77.com/blog/images/Balloon-Tank.jpg
?

Seriously, though, asking which tank is 'best' is like asking which political party is 'best'. You're going to get different answers based on factors ranging from aesthetics to national origins.

The T-90 has its advantages, certainly, its more mobile than the Abrams, but the Abrams was designed to stop a Soviet push into Europe, hence its performance would probably be higher in a defensive role. The T-90 (and the rest of the T series from WWII onward) were designed to be mobile, and fight combined-arms battles on the offensive. They're lower so they can make better use of available cover, rather than digging in.
And there's the matter of numbers. While the T-90 might be superior to Western tanks in some fashions, the Russians have, what, a hundred of them? Most of the Russian tank force is made up of T-72's, which have not performed well against Western models. It is true that the crews of those tanks were not well trained, but even the Republican Guard got its ass kicked, and they were moderately well trained.

Autoloaders are nice, but have a number of disadvantages. A major issue with them is that you're short one crewmember when it comes to field repairs and so forth. Another set of hands is never something to turn down, and since loaders have a fairly 'easy' job when it comes to memory, its probably quite easy to crosstrain them in field repair skills.

I can honestly say, though, when it comes to crew comfort, western tanks thrash the Russian models.

I'm hoping ( really ) that we never see a Russia against the West war.
That would never end up less than disastrous for all sides.
But I would also have to agree that Russian tanks have not fought very
well against Western counterparts.
And I still don't believe that any country in the world has built the tank which is Invulnerable to a man portable Anti-tank missile.
( As previously stated by a pro-Russian tank person ).

They just haven't done it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Elephant

That thing, because I couldn't find anything more silly looking. It's the DUMBO.

Talking about rules... You know what's even worse?

People who take life way too seriously, or what has been said on an internet forum in good humor.

That established, I really don't like your tone of voice, buddy. Might want to reconsider your ad hominem attacks, because those make you consist of more epic fail than would fit on any poster, let alone the whole fucking wall.

So shut up and go talk to your friends if you have any, while the other adults here have some fun, eh?

Nope We were here to have a serious discussion and I for one don't appreciate people who have to drop in some 900 ton God hammer wonder tank of 1337.


I also have to apologize as those people who ruin warhammer for me are
" my friends" and in a lot of other circumstances they are cool people.
But Nerds make that game really suck,

I see why you're offended at my remarks, but this was a serious conversation
and I am tired of children wandering in with stupid ideas.

This is not the HUMOR forum, nor the " All tanks silly and absurd."
They have at least 2 Warhammer threads on this site, if that isn't enough
than go to the War Hammer forums.
I'm sure they exist.

Now I'm going back outside to be a real person, Some of us have jobs to do
German nightmare, it's unfortunate that you chose the other side of this.
Before now I've been rather a fan of your posts as far as I've read.

You didn't want to play by the rules

There aren't rules.

There aren't rules.

*Licks*

If we're going for crazy-arsed tanks, then it's this beast:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Picturesc/ratte7.jpg

If we're going for crazy-arsed tanks, then it's this beast:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Picturesc/ratte7.jpg

THAT IS NOT A TANK.

That is a freaking battleship on wheels!

...

Err...tracks.

THAT IS NOT A TANK.

That is a freaking target on wheels!

...

Err...tracks.

Fix'd :p

I would say the mammoth tank, as it has an arsenal consisting of anti-personnel, anti-armor, and anti-air weaponry.

Fix'd :p

That too.

Nope We were here to have a serious discussion and I for one don't appreciate people who have to drop in some 900 ton God hammer wonder tank of 1337.
You want a serious discussion? Dude, shouldn't come to NSG, then. Every topic posted in General is open for everyone. Some answers are serious. Others ain't. Live with it.
I also have to apologize as those people who ruin warhammer for me are " my friends" and in a lot of other circumstances they are cool people.
But Nerds make that game really suck,
Strange friends, those are.
I see why you're offended at my remarks, but this was a serious conversation and I am tired of children wandering in with stupid ideas.
Since it was posted in General on NationStates, you might want to reconsider what level of seriousness you expect. And whatever you expect, we aim lower. Much lower. Even the grown-ups here. Also the old people.
This is not the HUMOR forum, nor the " All tanks silly and absurd."
*buzzer sound*
Wrong. This is the humor forum. And tanks are indeed silly.
They have at least 2 Warhammer threads on this site, if that isn't enough than go to the War Hammer forums.
I'm sure they exist.
Just as much as I'm sure there are tank forums where you could take the dick-waving contest and find happy participants who might even take you seriously.
Now I'm going back outside to be a real person, Some of us have jobs to do German nightmare, it's unfortunate that you chose the other side of this. Before now I've been rather a fan of your posts as far as I've read.
You do that.
If we're going for crazy-arsed tanks, then it's this beast:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Picturesc/ratte7.jpg
I smell a rat, babe! :tongue:

You didn't want to play by the rules
Show me the rule that says, "no humour is allowed in this thread".


Oh, and <DAKKADAKKADAKKA>

What do you think is the best tank (overall) of today?

I say a 30 gallon tank on my truck that I can fill for $1.25 a gallon. That isn't the best tank, that's the ultimate tank,:D

THAT IS NOT A TANK.

That is a freaking battleship on wheels!

...

Err...tracks.

That isn't. This is.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/FinishedChassis06.jpg?t=1219027569

What the HELL is that!??!?!

The Leviathan, a supermassive mobile fortress design of mine from last year.

The Leviathan, a supermassive mobile fortress design of mine from last year.
Presumably for a given value of "mobile".

i'd say the BEST tank is the clean stirilized one you keep fresh drinking water in.

today, yesterday, and every other day there's ever been or will be.

the M1 Abraham's is like a Christmas tree from the air at night well from any where anytime its a Christmas tree the exhaust from the jet engine is so hot a heat seaker has no troubles in hitting it in its most vanreable aera and so i have to say the leopard II or the challenger II or the T72

lepoard II since it comes with a warante and its so easy to fix just replace the broken modual
the challanger II because it has a really cool name for its armour and its pretty good armour
and the T62 because it just looks so cool its so low to the ground and that main gun is so long and powerful looking

Presumably for a given value of "mobile".

For the type of powerplant it had? Fairly mobile for its size. It could move.

What do you think is the best tank (overall) of today?

I say the Russian T-90.

It is protected from HEAT, laser guided missiles, and wire guided missiles. The Kontakt 5 Heavy era armor (2nd generation armor) can survie 120mm M829A1 rounds, it was proven in test.

It has a automatic loader, which means a smaller crew is needed unlike many western tanks. Shtora-1 defensive system can detect laser's pointed at the tank up to 2,000m. It alerts the crew after detecting the laser with noise and light. The commander can then launch flares to disrupt the laser and he can push a button that rotates the turret towards the threat. The Shtora-1 can even counter Hellfire and other missiles by sending out false signals and causes them to go off course. It has an anti air gun (12mm), it also is protected form nuclear, biological and chemical attack. It can also do mine sweeps.

I don't understand why so many poeple belive T-90s can not hold up to the abrams or other western tanks. It is also lighter and has better range than the abrams. We are also working on the new T-95 wich will be in our force in 2009.

The Shtora can't fool the BLU-108 Skeet submunition. Nor does the ERA on the top do anything to stop the explosively-forged penetrator from the BLU-108 (it's a self-forging fragment, not a HEAT round). So any T-90 caught in the pattern of a CBU-95 would be instantly dead.

Nor does the T-90 have the integrated network that the M-1, Leopard, and Leclerc, and Challenger have - the tanks are not able to hand off targets to and from one another, nor do they have the ability to engage targets at the ranges that the other tanks are capable of - so in any fight that involves getting timely information in battle, the T-90 will lose.

The penetration test I don't believe for a second. The base armor for the T-90 is still the T-72 with minor improvements, and given the thicknesses involved, there's no way that it can withstand a direct hit from the 120mm.

The T-90 gun is also crap by comparison, especially when you consider that the actual target ID and engagement range is only around 2000 meters.

Compare that with 3500m or greater for the other tanks, and you're in real trouble.

The "anti-air" gun is worthless for that purpose. You're not going to hit aircraft at 25,000 feet (the US Air Force prefers to use GPS calculated on the spot to hit targets on the ground, and drops bombs from a height higher than any anti-aircraft gun can reach). All other tanks have NBC protection, so that's not new.

ERA is not appreciated, especially by supporting infantry, which you need in an urban area - without the accompanying infantry, you end up losing the tanks, and with the infantry, the people you fight only have to set off the ERA in order to produce massive casualties amongst the infantry, who will then refuse to accompany the tanks.

The tank is NOT designed for the same kind of priorities that Western tanks are designed - crew survivability. Those rounds meant for autoloading are on an exposed carousel in the center of the tank (28 rounds). The turret is not bolted down - like every other tank, the turret sits on the ring held by its own weight. If a round hits between the turret and body, the turret is lifted up, and there's all that ammunition sitting there.

You wouldn't find the bodies of the crew.

I actually quite like the T-90 - it's an excellent raider, and great for exploiting a breach in enemy lines.

However, the tank's main job is BREAKING enemy lines and hardpoints, and for that the T-90 definitely comes up short. An M1A3 or a Chall2 can hammer the enemy from ranges the T-90 can't consider, and their thicker, second-generation laminate armours make the T-90's (still primarily hardened steel) look like tinfoil. Reactive armour doesn't help the situation against tanks, since it works mainly against HEAT penetrators, and does diddly-squat vs Sabot rounds.

I'd give the "best" rating to the M1A3, by a hair over the Challenger 2.

I actually quite like the T-90 - it's an excellent raider, and great for exploiting a breach in enemy lines.

However, the tank's main job is BREAKING enemy lines and hardpoints, and for that the T-90 definitely comes up short. An M1A3 or a Chall2 can hammer the enemy from ranges the T-90 can't consider, and their thicker, second-generation laminate armours make the T-90's (still primarily hardened steel) look like tinfoil. Reactive armour doesn't help the situation against tanks, since it works mainly against HEAT penetrators, and does diddly-squat vs Sabot rounds.

I'd give the "best" rating to the M1A3, by a hair over the Challenger 2.

Keep in mind that a tank is also just a part of an overall strategic/logistical plan.

If there is no air superiority, for example, a tank is a large target. The crew is essentially dead - they just don't know it yet.

If there isn't enough fuel, the tank becomes a stationary monument.

The Russians would be unable to hold air superiority in any engagement involving the US - so their tanks would become coffins for their crews.

Keep in mind that a tank is also just a part of an overall strategic/logistical plan.

If there is no air superiority, for example, a tank is a large target. The crew is essentially dead - they just don't know it yet.

If there isn't enough fuel, the tank becomes a stationary monument.

The Russians would be unable to hold air superiority in any engagement involving the US - so their tanks would become coffins for their crews.

I wouldn't be quite so sure. The Soviet Air Force would not have gained air superiority, I agree, but may have been able to deny it to the West. Many of our best tankbusters are as meat against ANY air-superiority fighter - we could not use A-10s in contested airspace, for instance.

Additionally, the Soviets developed a number of exceedingly efficient SAM systems - some stolen from us, a number homegrown, not to mention the powerful ZSU-series anti-air guided rotary cannon. Never forget the lesson of the Six-Day War - as long as the Arab tank brigades had good SAM coverage, the Israeli Air Force couldn't touch them.

I wouldn't be quite so sure. The Soviet Air Force would not have gained air superiority, I agree, but may have been able to deny it to the West. Many of our best tankbusters are as meat against ANY air-superiority fighter - we could not use A-10s in contested airspace, for instance.

Additionally, the Soviets developed a number of exceedingly efficient SAM systems - some stolen from us, a number homegrown, not to mention the powerful ZSU-series anti-air guided rotary cannon. Never forget the lesson of the Six-Day War - as long as the Arab tank brigades had good SAM coverage, the Israeli Air Force couldn't touch them.

The F-22 and B-2 would not have any trouble silencing the Russian IADS and gaining air superiority.

The airspace would be contested for a few days - after that, there wouldn't be anything left except organic AAA guns like the ZSU - and that is no help at all given the new Air Force tactic of bombing with precision weapons from middle altitudes (far higher than guns can reach).

The F-22 and B-2 would not have any trouble silencing the Russian IADS and gaining air superiority.

The airspace would be contested for a few days - after that, there wouldn't be anything left except organic AAA guns like the ZSU - and that is no help at all given the new Air Force tactic of bombing with precision weapons from middle altitudes (far higher than guns can reach).

That still leaves SAMs though. The SA-9, for instance, is every bit as good as our Stinger, and many of their vehicle-mounted units can well reach medium altitudes (or higher - there's some evidence that it was a ground-based SAM that took out Gary Powers' U2).

That still leaves SAMs though. The SA-9, for instance, is every bit as good as our Stinger, and many of their vehicle-mounted units can well reach medium altitudes (or higher - there's some evidence that it was a ground-based SAM that took out Gary Powers' U2).

an IADS includes the SAMs.

The SA-9 won't reach medium altitude.

As for the vehicle mounted ones, they rely on an interconnected network of radars to be truly effective in contesting airspace - and in the presence of HARM equipped aircraft, don't live very long.

So, I just want to highlight a few things. I was talking to a marine tanker yesterday, and I asked him about this. So while no, I do not have a source for this, I am taking the world of somebody who has been there and done that.
First of all, while yes, the M1 series can indeed engage targets up to 3500 meters, it can not kill a main battle tank from over 2000. And 2000 is pushing it. It can bang off a cannister round at some infantry, or high explosive at a building, but it will not be able to destroy enemy heavy tanks from that far.
Second, it is a moot point anyway, because most tank engagements happen at about four hundred meters or less. I was really surprised at that, but again, I'm taking his word. And that, by the way, is the reason why the U.S. and NATO use extra crew-at that range, you need to get off accurate shots fast, because the battle wont last long. Those extra 3 seconds for an autoloader can kill you when a well trained crew can be most of the way done loading their second round as you finish loading your first.

When I asked him about the tanks themselves, he had tremendous respect for the T90. His words, "that son of a bitch is a beast." Not so much the T72, but he had a healthy respect for both the T72 and the T80. He also said that the Leopard II, Challenger II, T90, and Leclerc were at least as good, if not better, than the M1A2, and that the Merkavah IV was in his opinion the most beast tank around.
He maintained, however, that the edge in any engagement is crew training, and the U.S. has the best crews in the world.

And as for me, I agree that the Merkavah IV is indeed the most beast tank around.

thing is, challenger and M! abrams especially have been tested in battle...has the t-90? at least on wikipedia:$ it has lots of stats about how challengers and abrams performed in desert storm and iraqi freedom...I saw nothing about T-90's combat performances...

Fair enough. I guess the main question would be whether the Russians could acheive their objectives before their Air Force got battered down - after that, winkling out dug in forces is always harder than stopping them taking the objectives in the first place...and it's that question that would primarily be answered by each side's tank brigades.

From wikipedia:

The M829A2 APFSDS is a third-generation anti-tank round based on the M829 penetrator and designed for the 120 mm M256 main gun in the M1A1 (or later) Abrams main battle tank. The M829A2 was rapidly developed to have the capability to destroy tanks equipped with Kontakt-5 reactive armor. The M829A2 has several improvements over the M829A1, including: a longer depleted uranium penetrating rod than previous designs, giving it improved performance over previous types of anti-tank rounds; better manufacturing processes for the penetrator; and a partially cut propelling charge to allow it to be more energetic while loading like a stick charge. The M829A2 was also the first APFSDS round to use carbon fiber sabot petals, reducing the weight of the overall round and allowing for the larger penetrator. Combined these features boost its muzzle velocity by 100 m/s to 1680 m/s, while operating at slightly lower pressure. The M829A2 entered service in the United States Army in 1993.

It can penetrate approximately 570 mm RHA at 0 degrees (NATO) and 670 mm RHA at 60 degrees (NATO), at a range of 2,000 m.[citation needed]


The M829A3 is a 120 mm APFSDS round developed from the current service M829A2 round. The M829A3 was slated to be supplied to units in 2003. It is a further improvement on the M829A2.

Very little is known about the round. It is heavier than the M829A2 and uses a more efficient propellant, RPD-380, giving it a boost in muzzle velocity. It is designed specifically to defeat modern types of (ERA) such as Kontakt-5. It has a combustible cartridge case with an overall length of less than 986 mm and weighs less than 56 pounds.

It can penetrate approximately 680 mm RHA at 0 degrees (NATO) and 790 mm RHA at 60 degrees (NATO), at a range of 2,000 m.

Eh, I can't say I agree with that statement. Iraqi T-72's do not compare with Russian T-72's. The Iraqi models were downgraded export tanks which were not equipped with laser range finders or infrared systems, plus it could not fire on the move and they used low quality ammunition. The Iraqi idea of quantity of quality did not perform well against our M1 tanks. The Russian models are generally modern with targeting systems and I'm pretty sure they use their best ammunition.

All true.

Also, during Gulf War I, we NEVER saw a T-72 on TV. (And I watched a LOT of CNN back then.) I don't think it's any coincidence that we kept seeing blown up T55s...

Have to go with the Good ol USofA here...Noone goes up against an Abrams and survives...

Its like our Leman Russ, lol...

There are many great tanks out there, the Challenger, T-90, Abrams and the Isreali tank (I forget the name, it has the escape door built into the back)

In terms of saftey, I'd give it the the Isreali tank
for tech, I'd say the Abrams and T-90, both can have specs rattled off for days about BORE sighting and laser guided rounds and automatic aiming, guess what? Both have them.
Also may I add that the Abrams has been around for a LOT longer than the T-90, which is fairly new, I think if we were able to glimpse at what the USA's next tank would be, we would be suprised. The new T-95 looks amazing, kudos to the Russians and the British Challenger and the German Leopard are great tanks too

I'd still give it to the Abrams M1-A1, with the new TUSK armor, it's one badass tank, its just intimidating!

Son Of Russ! :p

What was that tank in Tagmatium's picture?

Challenger 2 wins tank contest, btw.

For the type of powerplant it had? Fairly mobile for its size. It could move.

Does it have any air defenses? Because if it doesn't, it's pretty much a gigantic target.

For that matter it's probably a target for artillery as well.

Either the Leopard II, or the M1A2, especially if they've been equipped with the newer Rheinmetall L55 gun.

I don't understand why so many poeple belive T-90s can not hold up to the abrams or other western tanks. It is also lighter and has better range than the abrams. We are also working on the new T-95 wich will be in our force in 2009.

Because laser guided systems that require you to remain focused on target are out of a previous decade.

Also, any backup on the claim that the T-90 is resistant to the M839A1 Round?

The other features, really, are what one might consider "standard" on a tank.

Because laser guided systems that require you to remain focused on target are out of a previous decade.

Also, any backup on the claim that the T-90 is resistant to the M839A1 Round?

The other features, really, are what one might consider "standard" on a tank.

Depends on what ERA is slapped on there. M839A3 cannot be defeated as of yet... but I believe Kaktus is close.

Oh, and the Abrams has a rather thin glacis... not that anyone here will believe that. I'd say the best western tank is the Leopard 2(S) (Sweden) or the Leopard 2A6. Eastern Bloc... Ukrainian T-84-120

EDIT: I've just found out that Nozh actually defeats M839A3

What was that tank in Tagmatium's picture?

Challenger 2 wins tank contest, btw.
That, sir, was a German WWII tank called the Ratte. Never left the drawing board, for obvious reasons. Mounted a couple of naval guns. Pretty fucking cool, if you ask me.

If I may ask, what part of Bristol you from?

http://www.panzerbaer.de/workshop/pix/diebl_87_p1000-005.jpg

Chew on this.

Edit: Scale model of the Ratte.

It was insanely big and pretty damned flawed.

It was insanely big and pretty damned flawed.

The p1500 was worse.Link (http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1500.html)

The p1500 was worse.Link (http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1500.html)
Yeah, I was chatting about this to a housemate the other day. An absolute nightmare. Why bother making the thing at all? It's essentially virtually unmoveable, due to the shear size of the thing.

Pretty cool, though :p

My dick, so large.

Yeah, I was chatting about this to a housemate the other day. An absolute nightmare. Why bother making the thing at all? It's essentially virtually unmoveable, due to the shear size of the thing.

Pretty cool, though :p

Yah. I have a thing for the German super artillery. Nothing like an 80cm railroad gun to show you're serious.

Another link (http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/superheavy/p1500.html) for the self-propelled Dora.

Yah. I have a thing for the German super artillery. Nothing like an 80cm railroad gun to show you're serious.

Another link (http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/superheavy/p1500.html) for the self-propelled Dora.
That picture is very similar to one of a railway gun, I think essentially the same thing.

This 'un's cool:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/picturesm/monster1.gif
Same thing, different style of drawing.

Awesome, though :p

That picture is very similar to one of a railway gun, I think essentially the same thing.

This 'un's cool:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/picturesm/monster1.gif
Same thing, different style of drawing.

Awesome, though :p

w00t! I want one. *Evil Grin*

Depends on what ERA is slapped on there. M839A3 cannot be defeated as of yet... but I believe Kaktus is close.

Oh, and the Abrams has a rather thin glacis... not that anyone here will believe that. I'd say the best western tank is the Leopard 2(S) (Sweden) or the Leopard 2A6. Eastern Bloc... Ukrainian T-84-120

EDIT: I've just found out that Nozh actually defeats M839A3

Given the doctrine that M1 was designed under, it is little surprise that it has a thin glacis. It was a tank whose primary purpose was to be involved in a strategic defense in the Fulda gap, not the full-on advance that influenced Soviet tank design.

Of course, as a tank, it is highly mobile, but once you get break through mobility, especially with a tank with the capabilities of the Abrams, front glacis becomes less important.

Never heard of Nozh...any links, English or German work.

All are inferior to CATTANK!
http://www.redkemp.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cat-magic-card.jpg

All it takes is one CoP:R and you've got an expensive fur-covered Hummer.

Given the doctrine that M1 was designed under, it is little surprise that it has a thin glacis. It was a tank whose primary purpose was to be involved in a strategic defense in the Fulda gap, not the full-on advance that influenced Soviet tank design.

Of course, as a tank, it is highly mobile, but once you get break through mobility, especially with a tank with the capabilities of the Abrams, front glacis becomes less important.

Never heard of Nozh...any links, English or German work.

Right, and yet the Abrams has terrible side, rear and top armour. Several were penetrated by 25mm fire in Iraq around the sides and rear.

What do you think is the best tank (overall) of today?


Your mother is the best tank of today.

Right, and yet the Abrams has terrible side, rear and top armour. Several were penetrated by 25mm fire in Iraq around the sides and rear.

Seems to be an common thing, T-72s and and T-55's have had that problem as well. I suspect that an armored doctrine that focuses on armor over mobility is a fundamentally flawed doctrine.

But, as to the incident when the M1A1's were knocked out by 25mm rounds, they were hit from the rear by Bradley IFV's firing DU AP rounds. No casualties were recorded, but the engines were messed up.

The M1A1's are outdated. They can only be tweaked in so many ways before we'd be better off just inventing a whole new design, and it's about time we did that.

pfft. everyone knows that tanks will soon be obsolete.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w295/may17778/leo.gif

The M1A1's are outdated. They can only be tweaked in so many ways before we'd be better off just inventing a whole new design, and it's about time we did that.

Yes. They are. Thats why we're using the M1A2.

Yes. They are. Thats why we're using the M1A2.

I walked right into that one.

I walked right into that one.

Yep. :p

Man these new smilies suck ass.

And with all the different upgrade kits like TUSK, and SEP, it is still better than most other tanks.

Yep. :p

Man these new smilies suck ass.

I actually quite like that one. It pretty much sums up the attitute of someone who's messing around.

Does it have any air defenses? Because if it doesn't, it's pretty much a gigantic target.

For that matter it's probably a target for artillery as well.

Oh, I think it has a fair amount of air defense weapons. All 109 of them.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/AADefenseSystem03.jpg

For that matter, it is large enough to carry a full complement of VTOL craft and has a flight deck. Not to mention the ability to strike orbital targets.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/FinishedChassis09.jpg

A fly by video link

http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/?action=view&current=Leviathan.flv


Chew on this.

Edit: Scale model of the Ratte.

Scale comparison of an early variant of the Leviathan. That's a battleship next to it by the way.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/ScaleComparison.jpg

Jeeze. Got a little too much time on your hands?

But really, what size are those main guns? The ones on the sides look at least as big as 18" or 45 cm. And IMO I kinda figured it be more of a rolling Artillery division than battleship. Maybe mounted hundreds of 155mm cannons.

Jeeze. Got a little too much time on your hands?

Well, I had a bit of time to spare when I started the project. And about 480 or so work hours on hand.


But really, what size are those main guns?


I can't remember exactly, but somewhere around 30" or so I think. To give a rough estimate, you see the small spherical gun pods along the side walls?

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/FinishedChassis09.jpg

30mm gatling guns.


The ones on the sides look at least as big as 18" or 45 cm. And IMO I kinda figured it be more of a rolling Artillery division than battleship. Maybe mounted hundreds of 155mm cannons.

That would be a boring and ugly looking design. Besides, given the amount of internal space I had planned in the schematics, it could store an artillery division or two in its technical bays.

I am having doubts between Leopard 2 and M1. Point is Germans have its long lasting tradition in producing aromored vehicles. And the big plus is Lepoard's MTU all fuel engine which is very reliable which is big step from highly unreliable engines of Panters and Tigers of WWII. On the other hand M1 is combat proven and it is constantly upgraded according to combat experience. Leopard unfortunately was never used in combat

I am having doubts between Leopard 2 and M1. Point is Germans have its long lasting tradition in producing aromored vehicles.
But then so does the UK and France.

Hell, the UK made the first tank, so but that sort of thing, we ought to be the best.

But then so does the UK and France.

Hell, the UK made the first tank, so but that sort of thing, we ought to be the best.

France? Good one. The French army is a joke and has been for over 50 years. The UK made it, but without American catipillar tractors pulling artillery to base them on, they wouldn't have done it.

Well, I had a bit of time to spare when I started the project. And about 480 or so work hours on hand.



I can't remember exactly, but somewhere around 30" or so I think. To give a rough estimate, you see the small spherical gun pods along the side walls?

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/FinishedChassis09.jpg

30mm gatling guns.



That would be a boring and ugly looking design. Besides, given the amount of internal space I had planned in the schematics, it could store an artillery division or two in its technical bays.

And I meant the others on the level just above them.

All you stupid brits always voting for your tank. lol JK I love england (Please don kill me.)

France? Good one. The French army is a joke and has been for over 50 years. The UK made it, but without American catipillar tractors pulling artillery to base them on, they wouldn't have done it.

Oh, a military thread with its mandatory and compulsory french bashing. How original and well argumented.

Regarding the topic, while no military expert, I have been informed that the Leclerc tank, french, is as good as the Abrams or the Challenger. And I have been informed that perhaps the best tank in the world, once it enters production, will be the Black Panther. Korean.

A Protection Spec. Warrior or maybe a Retribution spec'd Pally are clearly the best tanks.



Wait, this isn't a World of Warcraft thread?



Nvrmnd.

Oh, I think it has a fair amount of air defense weapons. All 109 of them.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/AADefenseSystem03.jpg

For that matter, it is large enough to carry a full complement of VTOL craft and has a flight deck. Not to mention the ability to strike orbital targets.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/FinishedChassis09.jpg

A fly by video link

http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/?action=view&current=Leviathan.flv



Scale comparison of an early variant of the Leviathan. That's a battleship next to it by the way.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/ScaleComparison.jpg

jesus,that's like in Ace Combat you know?it's a series of games notorious for it's superweapons.here's a pic of the P-1112 ''Aigaion Aerial Aircraft Carrier'' and it's escort craft:http://images.wikia.com/acecombat/images/3/35/1737604776_ee4686660b_o.jpg
here's the page from the Ace Combat Wiki:http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/P-1112_Aigaion

And I meant the others on the level just above them.

Opened up the file, did some calculations. Roughly 180cm diameter. Bob the biped here is approximately 2 meters tall.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/Bob.jpg

jesus,that's like in Ace Combat you know?it's a series of games notorious for it's superweapons.here's a pic of the P-1112 ''Aigaion Aerial Aircraft Carrier'' and it's escort craft:http://images.wikia.com/acecombat/images/3/35/1737604776_ee4686660b_o.jpg
here's the page from the Ace Combat Wiki:http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/P-1112_Aigaion

Namco has betrayed me by going to the 360. But yes, I do know the superweapons of the AceCombat series. Frankly though, I'd rather see a ground based mobile superweapon the next time a sequel comes out, but that will be tricky with the limitations they have on ground detail.

Opened up the file, did some calculations. Roughly 180cm diameter. Bob the biped here is approximately 2 meters tall.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/Bob.jpg



Namco has betrayed me by going to the 360. But yes, I do know the superweapons of the AceCombat series. Frankly though, I'd rather see a ground based mobile superweapon the next time a sequel comes out, but that will be tricky with the limitations they have on ground detail.

Not those. The ones just above the gatling guns.

Not those. The ones just above the gatling guns.

The ones in the low turrets flush against the deck? 120mm rifled guns.

The ones in the low turrets flush against the deck? 120mm rifled guns.

Yes those. Riflied? Why not smooth bore?

Oh, a military thread with its mandatory and compulsory french bashing. How original and well argumented.


Yeah, really. The French have the most aircraft carriers next to the United States and have a very powerful set of ground and air forces right now. The weaknesses in the French Army during the World Wars was more a matter of doctrine rather than military technology, especially given how long they held off the Germans despite those weaknesses.

There is nothing inherently weak in the French military. There never was, and there never will be so long as there is a France. Believe me, I'm extremely sick of my country's constant bashing of the French military.

Yeah, really. The French have the most aircraft carriers next to the United States and have a very powerful set of ground and air forces right now. The weaknesses in the French Army during the World Wars was more a matter of doctrine rather than military technology, especially given how long they held off the Germans despite those weaknesses.

There is nothing inherently weak in the French military. There never was, and there never will be so long as there is a France. Believe me, I'm extremely sick of my country's constant bashing of the French military.

Agreed, the Leclerc is a very good tank, especially for a country that isn't as militarized as our own. I'd say that anyone who doubts the French military should read up on the Algerian War, they were some nasty, effective sons a bitches in that. Yes, they lost but if we had paid attention we wouldn't have gotten stuck in Vietnam.

Yes those. Riflied? Why not smooth bore?

Smoothbore is only good if you use APFSDS rounds. Otherwise, a rifled barrel is better.

Leopard unfortunately was never used in combat
Well, the Canadians and Danes are using a few Leopard IIs in Afghanistan right now, the Turks have probably been using them against the Kurds. And both types were used in the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B%C3%B8llebank).

There's even a video: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLv_cLa8Ds, though you wouldn't call that an actual test for a tank, I guess.

France? Good one. The French army is a joke and has been for over 50 years. The UK made it, but without American catipillar tractors pulling artillery to base them on, they wouldn't have done it.
Quick look at wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable of sources), but it seems that there were British, Russian and Polish attempts at the catepillar track in the late 1700s and early 1800s, some of which patents were taken out on. A British agricultural company took out a patent and made tractors at the same time as the American Holt was doing it.

You do seem to have had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction over the French bashing there.

Oh, I think it has a fair amount of air defense weapons. All 109 of them.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/AADefenseSystem03.jpg


Sweet. Will it automatically repair roads that it obliterates on its way to the battlefield?

Sweet. Will it automatically repair roads that it obliterates on its way to the battlefield?

Roads? What roads? No roads here. Nope. Just long lines of mulch. :p

Roads? What roads? No roads here. Nope. Just long lines of mulch. :p
So best build it in the country you mean to invade then, huh? =D

Yeah, really. The French have the most aircraft carriers next to the United States and have a very powerful set of ground and air forces right now. The weaknesses in the French Army during the World Wars was more a matter of doctrine rather than military technology, especially given how long they held off the Germans despite those weaknesses.

There is nothing inherently weak in the French military. There never was, and there never will be so long as there is a France. Believe me, I'm extremely sick of my country's constant bashing of the French military.

Um what?
The French are fielding exactly 1 carrier right now, the "Charles de Gaulle (R 91)".
It's only the 10th French carrier ever, and their first with nuclear propulsion.
GB has 3 with 2 more being built, Italy has 2, India has 1 with 2 more being built, and Spain has 1 with another being built. Other countries also fielding only 1 carrier include Russia, Brazil & Thailand.

To put it in perspective, the US is fielding 11 carriers (all of them Nimitz class, barring Enterprise & Kitty Hawk; KH is being decommissioned this year and has 2 more Nimitz class under construction. So not only is the US fielding more carriers than the world combined, but each US carrier is twice as large as them.

Actually, IMO the French Army in WW1 was doing very well for itself until the mutinies of 1917.

I apparently need to read Wiki closer. I read it as them having seven...

Um what?
The French are fielding exactly 1 carrier right now, the "Charles de Gaulle (R 91)".
It's only the 10th French carrier ever, and their first with nuclear propulsion.
GB has 3 with 2 more being built, Italy has 2, India has 1 with 2 more being built, and Spain has 1 with another being built. Other countries also fielding only 1 carrier include Russia, Brazil & Thailand.

To put it in perspective, the US is fielding 11 carriers (all of them Nimitz class, barring Enterprise & Kitty Hawk; KH is being decommissioned this year and has 2 more Nimitz class under construction. So not only is the US fielding more carriers than the world combined, but each US carrier is twice as large as them.

Actually, IMO the French Army in WW1 was doing very well for itself until the mutinies of 1917.

The French military also gave quite a good accounting of itself in the Battle for France in WWII; they had excellent aircraft, probably the third best fleet in existence, well-designed and solid Tanks and well-trained and effective infantry.

The failure of France in 1940 was a failure of leadership, both military and civilian, and a reliance on an easily outflanked defensive barrier.

What do you think is the best tank?


Superstrength/Invulnerability. They don't really kick in until the early thirties, but by the time you hit the 40s they hit way above their weight.

Um what?
The French are fielding exactly 1 carrier right now, the "Charles de Gaulle (R 91)".
It's only the 10th French carrier ever, and their first with nuclear propulsion.
GB has 3 with 2 more being built, Italy has 2, India has 1 with 2 more being built, and Spain has 1 with another being built. Other countries also fielding only 1 carrier include Russia, Brazil & Thailand.

To put it in perspective, the US is fielding 11 carriers (all of them Nimitz class, barring Enterprise & Kitty Hawk; KH is being decommissioned this year and has 2 more Nimitz class under construction. So not only is the US fielding more carriers than the world combined, but each US carrier is twice as large as them.


Actually if you count the Italian, Indian, Spain, Brazil and Thailand based aircraft carriers then the US has 36 carriers since our amphibious assault ships (with vertical take off aircraft ) have similar displacements and capabilities (often times fielding more planes).

I read on global security that the US has 90% of the carrier based aircraft in the world.

The French military also gave quite a good accounting of itself in the Battle for France in WWII; they had excellent aircraft, probably the third best fleet in existence, well-designed and solid Tanks and well-trained and effective infantry.

The failure of France in 1940 was a failure of leadership, both military and civilian, and a reliance on an easily outflanked defensive barrier.

Combine those weaknesses with a strong German military machine and some exceptional military leadership and you've got a fairly one sided war.

As for the subject at hand I don't know enough about modern tanks to give an informed opinion. although I do know that for the longest time, the only abrahms to be destroyed was done so by friendly fire.

My main problem with the T-80 and Abrams are the turbine engines. They take a metric ton of maintenance,drink fuel like a fish in water and an epic thermal signature. And the Leo 2's front turret armor makes a great shot trap..

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Macabees/Tanks/Landesa.jpg

Because of the reason it was built for rather than because of the end result.

an epic thermal signature.

Have you ever seen a Bradley through thermals? The damned thing lights up like Christmas.

One nice thing about those turbine engines is using them to dry off after being in the woods for days at a time. During training we'd walk up to the tanks and dry off without them even knowing we were there.

The US Army recently (when I joined, back in 2000) switched to nylon sleeping bags, which sucks because the old cotton ones dried quickly behind the tanks while the new ones would just melt.

So best build it in the country you mean to invade then, huh? =D

Well, generally, if you can field the cost of building one, you could probably afford to pave your roads with gold.

Sweet. Will it automatically repair roads that it obliterates on its way to the battlefield?
Ooooh, that'd be like some of those crazy super heavy vehicles like in Thunderbirds.

Actually if you count the Italian, Indian, Spain, Brazil and Thailand based aircraft carriers then the US has 36 carriers since our amphibious assault ships (with vertical take off aircraft ) have similar displacements and capabilities (often times fielding more planes).

I read on global security that the US has 90% of the carrier based aircraft in the world.

This is true, I'm going by fixed-wing carriers only. Counting helicopter & support carriers makes things a little crazy with high numbers of ships that really can't stand up in combat against real carriers, let alone Nimitz class vessels. ;)

Well, generally, if you can field the cost of building one, you could probably afford to pave your roads with gold.
But probably not both at the same time...

But probably not both at the same time...

No, probably not, but you can always afford the concrete/tarmac to replace it. I mean, you wouldn't build something like this if it would bankrupt you now would it? Unless you were taking the North Korean route and dumping everything into the army that is.

That being said, I have this concept design of a somewhat smaller variant of the Leviathan, but more of an armored and armed mobile factory.

My main problem with the T-80 and Abrams are the turbine engines. They take a metric ton of maintenance,drink fuel like a fish in water and an epic thermal signature. And the Leo 2's front turret armor makes a great shot trap..

Leo's armour really makes the shot trap a moot point... add in the fact that APFSDS rounds will not actually deflect into a shot trap... they move so quickly they will go straight through where ever it is that they are hitting.

Leo's armour really makes the shot trap a moot point... add in the fact that APFSDS rounds will not actually deflect into a shot trap... they move so quickly they will go straight through where ever it is that they are hitting.

Not necessarily. Current designs for some of the more modern tank armor are angled so as to subject APFSDS rods to extreme yaw forces, theoretically causing them to snap. Whether this works, well, who knows? It's not been combat tested yet.