Best Tank!

Originally posted by Russian

It is a nice machine when handled properly.

Out,
Russian

yeah very...

Heh, this stuff is Interesting. I dont know why I'm posting on this some 6 months after the last post was made, but I think i'll add my two cents on the subject.

Russian Tanks, Have very good design concepts. However, they are a former communist nation, and as a capitalist nation, they are making about as much money as a third world country. They dont have the money to keep upgrading their military at the rate that we do. Hence, they'll upgrade their current tanks, but in the long run, they wont be able to keep up unless something happens and their economy gets off the ground.

In Russia however, you have to look at their military strategy as well. Russia, durring the cold war did not value human life. Humans were expendable compared to tanks and things of this sort. Russia also believed more in Numbers than Skill. Russia did not make quality tanks... Russia made Expendable tanks. They made many of them, and hoped to over-run with firepower, Cheaper so that they could produce more... much like america in WWII. The Sherman could not compete with a Tiger on Armor or Firepower, but there were so many of them, they over-ran everything. That's also true for most of their weapons. The AK-47 was not made for accuracy, it was made for short range Full Auto fire, where they hoped that 100 guys could lay down enough cover to take down 50 Aiming.

In America, we value human lives, and so we spend lots of money on protecting the men in the tank. We put more value behind accuracy than numbers. Our example is the 3 Shot burst M16A2, forcing the men to aim with it and fire, instead of just spraying and hoping to hit something.

For all intents and purposes. Our tanks are better made, but more expensive. They will last longer, because we care about the guys inside. Russian tanks weren't made for that.

I've heard it said that the Russians have the best tanks, and the English have the best tanks, and the Americans have the best tanks. Has anyone even thought about purpose? (Granted, I didn't read all 13 Pages of this, so someone may have.) I've seen the Merkava mentioned ONCE. And to me, this tank takes the cake when it comes to purpose.

Israel is in a desert biome. And it is highly doubtful that Israel will ever launch an attack, as far away as Russia. They're going to remain defensive, or Defensively Offensive. Pre-emptive strikes and things like that. From what I've read, the Merkava was made for just that... Defense in their home terrain. The tank was made to fight a desert war. It carries more armor than most of any other tank, and has better angles than most as well. (As it was stated, angles deflect the shells to prevent direct hits.) The general shape of the turret is hard to target. It is a smaller profile, and it is streamline. A shot fired at the turret from the front, is most definitely going to glance off. The rear is protected by chains, about 8 inches in length with counter weight balls on it to stop most missiles from attacking the turret ring.

Not to mention, in comparison to things like the Abram, or the Challenger, the Merkava is shorter. Making it easier to hide. I've seen pictures of it hunkered down behind sand banks. (Again, these are more or less just paper theories, I dont think the Merkava has been engaged in a war, except palestinians with Rocks o_O!)

Then we take a look at things like the Abram and the Challenger. They were both designed in the middle of the cold war. Nobody thought that the Abram and the Challenger would be engaging in the Desert. Most everyone assumed that WWIII would be fought, once again, in Europe... and that was what they were preparing for. Even the AH-64 Was unproven in a desert climage zone.

As for all of the pictures of Tanks getting blown to hell. Well... As someone said, a tank will go down if enough people are pelting it with RPG's. And I do believe that Iraq had, in the gulf war, TOWs, that we had supplied them before the Invasion of Kuwait.

What probably nobody thought of was, Maintainance? Which is easier to care for, and which is harder? What about the terrain that's making such things harder to do? Sand gets in places that you'd have never thought of. It was the achilles heel of the AH-64. Every one of those tanks, took more maintainance than anyone ever thinks of. They suck gas out the wazoo, and all of this takes time. The footage of American tanks rolling across the desert of Kuwait with such ease, kind of adds a bit more glamor than is actually there.

But no matter what... a tank is only what it's crew is capible of. True, the better the tank is, the more potential there is to exploit, but its all up to the crew. Training is essential in any situation. Third world countries dont train their crews but a slight bit. Which is what makes it so easy for American tanks to just plow through them. Look at Kuwait. At that time, Iraq had the fourth largest standing army in the world. But, their training was #. In that area, I have news for everyone. Its not the Russians, or the Brits, or the Americans that excel at training their troops. Its Israel.

I can only back this with common sense and stories however. Personal experiences on my part. Lets take a look at Israel. They are surrounded on all sides by Nations that hate them. Israel begins to train their children at Age 15 for military service. They allow women into the military. It is imperative that they have a top rated military machine. This is the same military that wiped out 4 airforces practically, in a few hours. Israeli tank crews are the best.

Lets go back to Kuwait once more. America had not been engaged in a Desert Climate since 1943. We had been training for woodland warfare since the Cold War began. Where tactics would differ between the Desert and the Woodland. In preperation for this war, America had to have someone teach them how to Run a Desert war. Who was our best ally over there? Israel, who had been whipping the living # out of their neighbors since 1948. Seemed like the smart choice to me... and obviously to the governmet. So they went to Israel, and asked Israel to come and teach us how to fight in a desert war. We assumed spies were watching the desert, so we picked the next closest thing. Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. Us residents, would say this is the next best thing to a desert. Its also the largest artillery base in the world.

I've met one of the guys that was over here, but I can tell you this right now. Israel sent their reservists to teach us how. This second line tank crew that they sent, TOTALLY Beat our asses in the mock war games we staged, but in the end taught us how to win it. They consisted of 90% Women.

I'm an Israeli enthusiast though. Maybe i'm a bit biased but, anyone who is under the threat of anihilation and is still kicking, is obviously damn good at what they do. So, the tanks dont matter as much as the tactics used, and the training of the crew.

Off the subject again before I hit 'post reply.' Tank power relies on Air-Power as well. I had a guy tell me yesterday that Israel had a second rate military, that they just used american systems and equipment to win, and that anyone can shoot someone down with a computer doing all the work. He said that in a war, someone like UK or the US or Russia would wipe the floor with them. I doubt that... Maybe they could overwhelm them. But Israel is definitely not Iraq. Iraq didn't bother launching pre-emptive strikes with what planes they had. They kept them for defense. Israel launches Pre-Emptive strikes. Anyways... I'm done... >.>;; have fun argueing this.

Originally posted by SectorGaza
m1a2 is just a crappt copy of the leopard

Please, the M1 Abrams was a seperate devlopment. Germany and the US tried to field a common tank that had a complex kneeling suspension etc and that was a design disaster. The US went off on its own and started from scratch. There was a heavy lobby effort by the Germans to kill the M1 and replace it with the Leo. However the M1 prevailed and it really is the peak of heavy armour world wide with its M1A2 variant. Its also comes with a combat proven track record.

Originally posted by ApocalypticKhaos
I've met one of the guys that was over here, but I can tell you this right now. Israel sent their reservists to teach us how. This second line tank crew that they sent, TOTALLY Beat our asses in the mock war games we staged, but in the end taught us how to win it. They consisted of 90% Women.

They beat our asses in desert warfare which we had not trained for. If we had wargames with them in a European like terrain we would have smashed their asses. I agree that their tanks and tactics are good but that's in the desert. We do not train our forces for only defense but to fight all over the world so BACKOFF!!!!!

i'm calm now

can we stop this cock fight and just leave this thread to die we sorta have done it to death, but if u continue why dont u just post the specs up?

quote: Originally posted by ApocalypticKhaos
I've met one of the guys that was over here, but I can tell you this right now. Israel sent their reservists to teach us how. This second line tank crew that they sent, TOTALLY Beat our asses in the mock war games we staged, but in the end taught us how to win it. They consisted of 90% Women.

Nothing sexier than a woman teaching you tank tactics in the middle of a desertBut I seriously doubt this would happen in a real war the US would kill Israel in an open battlefield.

yeah by numbers nothing else and remember isreal does not fight open battles they are smart and learnt not to openly attack full on.

Like the Abrams is the only tank to get stuck...I've seen pictures of Leos completely flipped over.

Also, no eastern tank at this point beats out any western tank except maybe the Type 98 (Japanese) and K1A1. Russian tanks are all pretty much based off the obsolete T-64 design. They also have poor fire control, inferior optics, and bad workmanship on the gun and such.

And there never has been a joint US Israel mock war game, I know this from a Army Master Gunner.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Kozzy]


[edit on 16-7-2004 by Kozzy]

kozzy there has he just hasnt heard of it. countries do war games all the time.
that view of eastern tanks is completley steriotypical. thier tanks are extremely dangerous.

Yeah their tanks are dangerous to 3rd world countries no the US imagine this rows of Abrams and a fleet of predators armed with hell fire missiles and dozens of apaches not to mention PGM from our jets get the picture other tanks would not stand a chance against the US in a full out fight.
Also look at what it says in the gun of the fallen abrams "BUSH & CO."


[edit on 17-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

A. how many actuall combat plans have survived first contact?
B. you dont have predetors in service yet.
C. rows of abrahms just makes em easier to kill so on you general lead the way !
D.abrahms are not the elite there far too exspensive to keep running and if it damaged your better to buy a new tank cause it costs less.
E. if you looked at russian tanks you would notice they are better armoured and tend not to rely on air support.

Originally posted by devilwasp
kozzy there has he just hasnt heard of it. countries do war games all the time.
that view of eastern tanks is completley steriotypical. thier tanks are extremely dangerous.

No, this guy would know if there ever was a US-Israeli wargame. I specifically asked him if there was, he said no. He's been in Armor since the 70s, so he would know.

I know they're dangerous if used properly. But they do not match up against western tanks, they simply do not.

Originally posted by devilwasp
A. how many actuall combat plans have survived first contact?
B. you dont have predetors in service yet.
C. rows of abrahms just makes em easier to kill so on you general lead the way !
D.abrahms are not the elite there far too exspensive to keep running and if it damaged your better to buy a new tank cause it costs less.
E. if you looked at russian tanks you would notice they are better armoured and tend not to rely on air support.

Whoah whoah whoah

The Abrams is expensive to keep running? All tanks are, the US can just handle the cost. An M1A1 costs under 4 million dollars now, a SEP I believe is like 6.5. The Leclerc is 8 million, and the Jap Type 98 is 12 million.

Russian tanks are better armored? The T-90M Vlad(850mm), even with reactive armor doesn't meet the SEP(960mm) against KE rounds, it meets the M1A1D against CE rounds though. Russian tanks don't have Chobham and have have no ammo separation from the crew, if the tank is penetrated, bye bye crew.

That's funny because in most of the tank battles during the Gulf, the US never had direct air support. Plus wars rely on air support, without you pretty much lose.

yeah but why use the abrahms when you can use the challanger and get the same job done at the same qualitly at half the price
also he wouldnt know about EVERY SINGLE war game ever done in those 30 years.
the only reason russian arm isnt good is because they dont care about lives.
the US never had direct air support? so what exsactly where those mulitmillion dollar carrier groups doing? bombing cities? no not all day.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp]

b. you dont have predetors in service yet.

You joking me right we do have predators in service they have been in service since 1996 and now can be equipped with 2 hell fire missiles and the carrier jets were bombing targets before the Calvary went in so they soften up the targets before the tanks go in the A-10 is the one that provides close air support and like kozzy said if you don't use air support you cant win a war.





[edit on 17-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

You joking me right we do have predators in service they have been in service since 1996 and no can be equipped with 2 hell fire missiles and the carrier jets were bombing targets before the Calvary went in so they soften up the targets before the tanks do in the A-10 is the one that provides close air support and like kozzy said if you don't use air support you cant win a war.

yes u have UAV'S but u aint got UCAV's in combat yet.
no you dont need total air support thats not what i implied or said i said that russian tanks are designed not to have MUCH air support,also it is possible to win with out total air suport , u just need sams and lots of ground troops.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp]

if you think about it is possible to win a war without air support (though very unlikely) if a country has very advanced anti-aircraft weapons and the invading country relies too heavily on air craft, the invading force won't be able to use their aircraft in the heavily defended AA areas.

Originally posted by devilwasp
yeah but why use the abrahms when you can use the challanger and get the same job done at the same qualitly at half the price
also he wouldnt know about EVERY SINGLE war game ever done in those 30 years.
the only reason russian arm isnt good is because they dont care about lives.
the US never had direct air support? so what exsactly where those mulitmillion dollar carrier groups doing? bombing cities? no not all day.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp
[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp]

No sorry, you cannot get the job done with a Challenger for half the price. I doubt even cheaper at all. You see, it is true that the Abram's turbine guzzles gas fast, but fuel is just 5% of a battalion's operating costs, the biggest is human factors, spare parts, and ammo which the Challenger costs the same and more if you're talking about ammo and spare parts.

And yes, I believe he would know about a paticular Israeli-US wargame, in which they owned our ass.

I said "direct" air support, most of the tank battles in the Gulf war were fought without A-10s or F-16s on call. All air support was previous to those battles, mostly against logistics targets

And the statement "Russian tanks are built to work without as much air support" doesn't make any sense. Please back it up.

Even if a country has advanced SAM sites, they will not hold out against a good air force for long. They're a big target for special forces teams and cruise missiles.
[edit on 17-7-2004 by Kozzy]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Kozzy]

No sorry, you cannot get the job done with a Challenger for half the price. I doubt even cheaper at all. You see, it is true that the Abram's turbine guzzles gas fast, but fuel is just 5% of a battalion's operating costs, the biggest is human factors, spare parts, and ammo which the Challenger costs the same and more if you're talking about ammo and spare parts.


no your wrong look at the production costs and spare parts costs this argument has been done before and proven that the challanger is cheaper but slower actually the parts for a abrahms are like over a million dollars apiece.
how can you not get the same job done? we have the same bloody armour hell we supply you with armour.

And yes, I believe he would know about a paticular Israeli-US wargame, in which they owned our ass.

well he must of missed one then.

I said "direct" air support, most of the tank battles in the Gulf war were fought without A-10s or F-16s on call. All air support was previous to those battles, mostly against logistics targets

And the statement "Russian tanks are built to work without as much air support" doesn't make any sense. Please back it up.

the russian air force during the cold war was not up to the same standards tech or training wise as the west. so the tank forces acounted for this by makeing them well more amoured


Even if a country has advanced SAM sites, they will not hold out against a good air force for long. They're a big target for special forces teams and cruise missiles.

a hand held stinger missile launcher is not going to be attacked by a cruise missile! if it was i would definattly say overkill. yes STATIONARY SAM'S would be killed easily but if u have a good ground force then the sams are safe and if thier mobile then then their even more safe
[edit on 17-7-2004 by Kozzy]

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Kozzy]

Hey devil your hand held missile wont shoot down B-2 and high level bombing you cant shoot down every type of jet especially if they are flying very high and with GPS PGM's you don't need to be close to the ground so winning a war without air support is near impossible and even if you did it would have cost you more human lives more equipment more money so it is not practical.