Best Tank!

Well..

That was about the fact that Germans and Russians have always had the lead in the 'tanks race' (since 1930s..) and they have had it ever since.



Also of course Vickers is going to claim that their tank is the best, but that isnt the truht.

well since my bro is a Marine and did use the M1A1's in iraq and yeah they be some ass kickers. The army has the M1A2's which are more digital rathe rthen the M1A1's are mroe analog if any gets what i'm saying

by Russian

Ok mooeuro if you say that challenger is the best...

well we have:

"The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating."

Source: www.fas.org...

And we have:
being labeled as the most reilable tank in the world by discovery channels extreme machines show. "u would have to buy the dvd to see this one",

also for janes defence:

"Early in 1999, the UK MoD confirmed that the Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2 MBT had exceeded the most rigorous reliability targets ever set anywhere, during a demanding series of trials under battlefield conditions."

source:www.janes.com...

Challenger 2 is more than 12 years old..

Leopard 2A6 EX is 21st century MBT..



I Wonder which has better and more advanced armor..

uh huh...

well u get this:

Challenger 2E, that too is 21st centry stuff...

but it is great to know that the Leopard 2A6 has a new air conditioning system i guess thats cooler trips to the breach, more power to them....

(sorry hehe made some typos just fixing it)

uh huh...

well u get this:

Challenger 2E, that too is 21st century stuff...

but it is great to know that the Leopard 2A6 has a new air conditioning system i guess thats cooler trips to the beach, more power to them....

Originally posted by mooeuro
by Russian

Ok mooeuro if you say that challenger is the best...

well we have:

"The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating."

Source: www.fas.org...

And we have:
being labeled as the most reilable tank in the world by discovery channels extreme machines show. "u would have to buy the dvd to see this one",

discovery channel aint #...

it just a tv channel...

also for janes defence:

"Early in 1999, the UK MoD confirmed that the Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2 MBT had exceeded the most rigorous reliability targets ever set anywhere, during a demanding series of trials under battlefield conditions."

this is from 1999...

thats 5 year old news...

source:www.janes.com...

I think of the M1A2 as a systems weapon because of the integrated tactical battle mapping capability lets each commander see the entire battlefield. A platoon thus equiped would rollover opposition like germans did early in the russian campaign because of superior tactics. all tanks fight as a system or combined arms method as it was found to be suicidal to do otherwise, the US has a better system at this time.

First of all happy new year to all.

Second, I'm new to the site, so please, not too much ribbing after my post.

I'm not necessarily anti- russian (love the Blackjack, Hockum and Su-37), and i wouldn't like to characterized as such. But i have certain complaints about how, many people are saying that the T-72 or the T-80 would beat the crap outa any other tank in the world and its armor is impenetrable without basing it on facts.

Fact: in the first tchetchen war (1994-1996) 62 tanks (most with their crews) were lost within the first month of combat in 1994; the tanks in question were a mix of T-72s and T-80s with reactive armor. It should be noted that this was due mostly to a lack in training by conscript tank crews and a serious disregard of common sense in tactics.

I read in previous posts that the RPG "owned" the M-1a1; well interstingly, almost of all the tank kills by the tchetchens were committed with the use of RPGs (7 and 22), with 3 or 4 rockets being fired at critical components of the tank. This only because they lacked heavy weaponry (the Tchetchens that is), who knows what would of happened had they larger and more powerful weapons. The RPG owns EVERY tank.

It is due to a change of tactics in 1999 that the russian offensive was successful, mainly a comprehensive and complete artillery barrage of Grozny destroying most buildings (no more snipers or ambushes), and the coordinated use of SpecOps (MVD and Spetz) and mechanized infantry (BMP-1/2, BMD-1/2, BTR-60/70, and MT-LB). Both the T-72 and T-80 took up tertiary roles this time (direct fire artillery from defended fixed positions on high ground).

It should be noted that the russians faced a larger, more professional, and more organized resistance that the americans did in operation iraqi freedom.

As for the US: Of the 9 M-1a1s hit by RPG-7s, none suffered a catastrophic loss or any KIA (a total of 4 WIA is all). On TV everybody saw the carcass of the USMC tank called "Cojone Eh" being danced on by many iraqis claming a victory. In fact Cojone was hit by light fire igniting oil cans on the rear bustle, these leaked flaming oil into the engine compartment disabling the tank (but not destroying it). The Air Force then decided to destroy the tank so that it doesnt fall into the hand of the iraqis. Well, it took THREE AGM-65 maverik hits to do just that.

As for the UNIQUE IR decoy elements on the T-80/90; the USMC uses a similar system that has equiped their M1a1s (on the left side of the turret) for over 10 years. Most people confuse this with the CITV (Commander Independent Thermal Viewer, sort of a high tech periscope) that equip all M1a2s.

But these systems are useless against an enemy using the cheapest of anti-tank weaponry (RPG), considering the thing is unguided.
In any case the newest american anti-tank weaponry are not IR guided, the Javelin missile uses thermal identification and is fire and forget, the Predator light AT rocket is actually magnetically fused (big hunk of steel=blow up) and unguided, and the Hellfire 2 is radar guided (AH-64D longbow only). So no amount of IR or laser jamming would stop these systems.

Design elements of the T-72 and T-80 prove that certain things were overlooked and required serious modification (yet until now nothing has been done). On the T-72 the connecting tube from the front fuel tank to the engine compartment runs along half the circumference of the turret base; any shell hitting that would ignite the fuel and turn the turret into flames (first gulf war; Depleted Uranium SABOT penetrator rounds have a secondary incendiary effect). both the T-72 and T-80 have 3 man crews (no loader); the automated loading systems actually leaves a shell in the open before firing and reloading, if any penetrator gets throught the armour this would cause a catastrophic kill with the whole turret blowing into the air (many T-72 ended that way during the first gulf war in '91). furthermore there is a lack of light anti-aircraft weaponry on board these vehicles (usually upto only one or none, kord 12.7mm MG), these weapons are essential to urban warfare as OIF has proved.

Uptill now after Afghanistan, gulf war I, and Tchetchnya no significant modifications have been made to the T-72 and T-80 apart from adding frontal reactive armour bricks and IR/laser jammers (which we proved are useless).

On the other hand the US keeps on modifiying the M1 to the point where it is as successful as the Merkava MK3 in urban warfare. Future PLANNED mods include:

* isreali EAAK Armour (like on current USMC AAV-7A1s).
* reactive Brenus modules from Giat industries.
* a 6m high 360 view periscope coupled to a head tracking system (where the commander turns his head the scope follows).
* projectile detection and cueing system (find snipers and rocketeers).
* multiple cameras around the whole tank giving 360 degree view of area to all crew members.
* 80mm smoke grenade launchers.
* M-2HB (12.7mm MG) remotely controlled from commanders post inside turret.
* British developped electric armour.
* Both commander and loader operated machine guns (M-2HB and M-240 respectively) would receive 270 degree shields like the vietnam era M-113 ACAV, and larger ammo boxes.


In the future, systems developped for FCS may integrate into the M1 (where they would find the place?) this includes a missile and shell defense system that can shot down incoming projectiles; during tests the sys shot down: 15 TOWs, 4 RPGs, and 2 120mm HEAT rounds



I hope u guys found this informative and take the time to read it all (i know its long, but i'd been holding back, bear with me).
In the future i'll be presenting the French Leclerc with its modifications. Probably the only tank in the world that is a relative equal to the M-1A2.

LoL,

Link!

Sixty-two tanks were destroyed in the first month's fighting in Chechnya. Over 98% (apparently 61 tanks) were knocked out by rounds which impacted in areas not protected by reactive armor.



You are one big fool.

fulcrum ur funny. Agressive, but funny.

This is my point exactly. As pictures have shown, the t-72, t-80, and the t-90 are not completly covered in reactive armour, therefore there will always be a weak spot. the M-1 has no reactive armour at all, yet.
And for it to survive better than the T series speaks measures.

Also id like to add that i forgot to count the Leop 2 A6 and Challenger 2 as 2 of the greatest designs ever.

BTW all my references come from Janes All The Worlds Tanks Recognition Guide. And an unbiased french magazine called Raids, current events in military products and organizations (excelent if u could read french).

Originally posted by GabRaz


Fact: in the first tchetchen war (1994-1996) 62 tanks (most with their crews) were lost within the first month of combat in 1994; the tanks in question were a mix of T-72s and T-80s with reactive armor.

GabRaz,

Foreign Military Studies Office - Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Urban Combat: The Chechnya Experience

Sixty-two tanks were destroyed in the first month's fighting in Chechnya. Over 98% (apparently 61 tanks) were knocked out by rounds which impacted in areas not protected by reactive armor. The Russians employed the T-72 and T-80 tank in Chechnya. They were both invulnerable to frontal shots, since the front is heavily armored and covered with reactive armor. Kill shots were made at those points where there is no reactive armor--the sides and rear and, on top shots, on the drivers hatch and the rear of the turret and rear deck. Early in the conflict, most Russian tanks went into combat without their reactive armor. They were particularly vulnerable to damaging or lethal frontal hits without it.

T-72s and T-80 when destroyed where hitted mostly by 'top shots'.

Also,

Chechens were very skilled warriors..

US Army wouldnt have done any better against them.

Chechens were skilled and motivated fighters..

UNLIKE Iraqis.

Chechens were skilled enough tarhet and hit drivers hatches on MBTs also they used multiple gunners to target one victim..

They we and remaining still are tacticly skilled.

UNLIKE Iraqis.
(Who really dont seem to know that wtf are they doing..)

Futhermore,

MY INFO is from "Foreign Military Studies Office"..



I think that their info is better.



You really shouldnt talk about things you dont know nothing about.



[Edited on 4-1-2004 by FULCRUM]

I totally agree with u on that fact.

Between Tchetchens and iraqis there is no contest as to whos smarter.
Not only was the drivers hatch targeted but also that of the commander, negating any sense of situation awarness.

seeing ur last post it seems its ur way or the highway. Im not exactly an idiot, most of my sources are well reputed such as fas.org and globalsecurity.org.

So please don't insult my intelligence, and please act in a mature way. I have agreed with u on certain issues but i have not called u an idiot and im not going to. so please keep ur comments civil. furthermore my prvious analysis stands as a whole.

Only real problem with Russian armor is their inferior ammo protection..

When compared to M1..

Russian tanks are prone to ammo explosions..



And what comes to Iraqis..

I watched this American documentary about M1 'Super tank' another day..

It told a story about M1 attacked by T-72..

One T-72 targeted and hit (in effect destroyed..) M1 in 1991..

In dark at range of 1000m..

They used HEAT round in that attack..

wtf?

Didnt they have SABOTs or are they just plain stupid?

The M-1 was destroyed?

officially no M-1 were lost in the first gulf war

thats weird, u sure?

Originally posted by GabRaz
seeing ur last post it seems its ur way or the highway. Im not exactly an idiot, most of my sources are well reputed such as fas.org and globalsecurity.org.

Are you not?

I have proven to you that Russians didnt use ERA at all in first moth of fighting, yet you claim that they did?

Am i correct?

Also:

While FAS and GlobalSecurity do contain some correct info most of their 'facts' are not true or up to date.

Originally posted by GabRaz
So please don't insult my intelligence, and please act in a mature way. I have agreed with u on certain issues but i have not called u an idiot and im not going to. so please keep ur comments civil. furthermore my prvious analysis stands as a whole.

Have i called you as an idiot?

I think not.

You just dont seem to have knowledge about these things..

As you claim that T-72s and T-80 were cannon fodder to RPG-7s with ERA..

This simply isnt so!

As if RPG hits a ERA tile it will not do any damage at all.

Also it wont penetrate forward hull and turret armors of these tanks even without ERA.

Originally posted by GabRaz
The M-1 was destroyed?

officially no M-1 were lost in the first gulf war

thats weird, u sure?

Yes im sure..

And many others too..

It just seems that anything less than M1 turned to a burned out hulk isnt a lose to US Army..

Btw in a previous thread, u were right about the patria AMV, a substantially better platform than the Stryker (which is a waste of money in my opinion). The Styker is going to cause deaths on the wrong side. the US should stick to the M2A3. The only reason the LAV-25 works in the USMC is because its real fast when compared to other platforms.

Plus the Patria's beatiful and smooth.