Best Tank!

I'm preparing a thesis on MBT's and would like to know what the gun elevation/depression of the Merkava is; anybody out there who can help?

is the Black Eagle even going to be built?

Nuke vs Nuke War? lol, dude think about this, must you of read my other posts, We will have the program which
SHOOTS down nukes (High-energy beam).

Dam idiot!!!

Is not important how many nuke explossions u need over american..

it reach 20 nuke in Pacific and amerika make bloobloob under tsunamiwall.

5 Years later. And the "world greatest nation" will be genozide by radioactivity..


(other world to..)


[edit on 3-3-2005 by old_europa]

Originally posted by SectorGaza
i think you mean m1a2 fulcrum

here is the black eagle which can reap abrams a new one

its a deeply modernized T-80U

Proof? This has no combat testing and if the previous gen Russian tanks are any indication, it will do little better. The gun is the same used in the T-72, 80, and 90 IIRC, and has little to no effect on the M1.

The M1A2 is at least as modern and effective as the latest Russian stuff. I will say however that Russia tends to be very innovative and is willing to try unproven tech in there equipment.

S.O.

Originally posted by SectorGaza

no, russian tanks got RHA and ERA like the kaktus or kontakt-5 which is way better then chobham, the new eras defeated APFDS rounds.

ERA = Enhanced reactive armor?

What does the RHA stand for?

When it comes to standard armor plating the Chobham is still the world standard. The Brits and US just developed and enhanced version that is lighter and stronger as well. Not currently being used though.

M1s can mount reactive armor in addition to OEM armor as well. Have not seen many pics with it mounted though as to date it has not really been needed. Mostly seen on the old USMC M-60A3s.

S.O.

Originally posted by SectorGaza
perso.numericable.fr...
Arena-equipped tank being fired at with SPG-9 recoilless rifle. Result - no damage to test armor plate.


perso.numericable.fr...
Arena-equipped tank being fired at with 9M111M Fagot-M (AT-4 Spigot-B) ATGM. Result - residual crater 10-15mm deep.



perso.numericable.fr...
Arena-equipped tank being fired at with 9M114 Shturm (AT-6 Spiral) ATGM. Result - cluster of residual craters 10-20mm deep.

Thanks great and all but those 3 weapons systems that fired on them have been obsolete for years. They can take out a front line IFV, but little else.

Originally posted by Krisboton
As you might know the americans used it in the iraq war and the Challenger 1 is some times used as a training tank

But i don't really know

We did not use the Challenger II, the Brits did. Damn good tank too.

Originally posted by Nerdling
Russian tanks are great till you start firing on them

Cheap stalinist steel is not something you place your life in, those babies brew up quickly after one shot, remember the autoloaders to speed the time up? well they tend to autoload the gunners into the rigs and kill them

What kept the warsaw pact storming over europe?
SUPERIOR WESTERN TECHNOLOGY.

Best tank... Merkava or Challenger 2

I find the Merkava quite interesting as it blends the best of the IFV with a MBT. The Izzies are some of the most experienced at Tank combat and I'm sure they used alot of what they learned in the design. They have always put a premium on armor and protection over mobility so it would be interesting to see how they worked against another equally modern tank.

Originally posted by Russian


As you can see the Challenger and Abram are about the same but Abram is a bit better.

In my other find above I prove you wrong about Black Eagle.

I also prove you wrong that Russian Tanks ARE Good.

They are not make from what you said they are made from.

Russia does make some good military hardware, however, you have proven nothing in regards to the Black eagle. It is nothing more than an untested prototype at this point.

I think he knew they are not made out of regular steal. I think he was using some literary license to get your goat.

Originally posted by Russian

Maybe he just doesnt like it cause its better then most.

That is open to much debate. However, if I were Russia I would take great caution in selling your front line hardware to China. They are friends of no one and only an ally of conveinience to Russia. They buy a few pieces of your stuff until they figure out how to reverse engineer and improve it then stop buying from you.

Originally posted by eagle
Russian technology is very interesting, they'll probably be the first to create genetic super soldiers.

Actually I would bet either China or the US will first. Chinese research in genetics and cloning is widespread and getting more so. THe U.S. still has the lead but for how long I cant say as genetic research in the pvt sector is hampered by limited fed funding.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by SectorGaza
speaking of pics, here is a pic of a t80U mbt firing in mid air:


i got a video if your interested i can post the link here.

Actually, most any tank can do that. I dont have any documented proof, but I have heard reports that on flat, dry, hard ground, M1s are capable of approx 65 mph. Most sources I have seen say 45-50mph but they fail to say what type of terrain that was measured on.




damn is that thing jumping?!

how fast is it going?!

You got to love the Russian crazy technology!

Hopping tanks.

200mhp top speed!

ETC.

Originally posted by Russian

Also the t-72s are 30 years old

So yes the abrams are much better.

I would like to see a abrams shoot through two t-90s turrets.

Remember though the T-72 is roughly the same age as the M1 in terms of years. The latest T-72 is equal to about the m-60A3 in terms of combat ability.

The M-1 105 and 120mm guns completely removed the turrets from numerous T-72s during the GW's.

I will say though that Saddams military leadership should write a book on how NOT to use armor! They used tanks in a static defense role and they are not meant to fight that way. Either way, I suspect the results would have been the same, the T-72s would have just been destroyed with empty gas tanks.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by jetsetter
It is believable though. You said yourself, the T-72 is pretty old.

yes they are old but I dont believe in things without proof.


The hull and turret are protected by armour plating, including combined armour arrays over the frontal arc. Since 1988, explosive reactive armour (ERA) has been fitted. The running gear is protected by gill type armour panels. A smokescreen can be laid by the 902B Tucha smoke discharging system or by an exhaust smoke laying system.

i dont really think a 120mm smoothbore gun from the abrams can come through two t-72s

but i will believe it with proof.

While the 120mm gun of the Challenger and M1 is extremely potent, I would have to say it would have been a lucky shot and at close range to take out 2 with 1 shot.

If I were a betting man though, I would still put my money on the M1's gun against a T-72 turret even with ERA.

The russians or chineese simply do not build a tank or round that can penetrate
the German Leopard2, the French Leclerc, the American M1A1, or the British Challenger 2
1. The shells are not powerfull enough
2. The guns do not have the range needed
3. Even with the large gun on the T-72 at as close as 400 meters it can not penetrate these tanks.
4.The guns on the other tanks all fire the same deadly round the Leopard having the greatest range and muzzel velocity.They can kill any crap cast iron T-34 copy the russians can build ,before the gun of the T series is even close to being in range.

Also you can disable an Abrams tank by setting it on fire some how, or from underneath with a heavy tank mine..........you probably wont kill the occupants unless their heads are sticking out..
You can blow the track apart with an rpg if your a good shot and imobilize it............but you had better run away fast.........best chance is with a mine i think.

Disabled us equipment is is demolished by air strike or other means when it is considered at risk of falling into enemy hands.......the guy with the camera needs to look out for smart bombs.............prolly not a good place to stand.

Originally posted by SectorGaza
tom clancy?

thought so.... LOLOLOLOL

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by SectorGaza]

Actually, Clancy does some exc research for his books and not all are fiction, he has written several that describe U.S. forces and how they are used and the hardware in differant conflicts.

As far as the pics you posted of the U.S. tanks knocked out.... None were taken out with another NON-U.S. tank. They were either friendly fire, IEDs, or concentrated ATW fire. No crew were killed from any of the incidents. of the 80 tanks as of a few weeks ago knocked out due to damage 63 will be going back into service with the remaining used for spares or target practice.

A full 80% of the M1s in theatre have been damaged in some way but all but in the 80 mentioned was very minor. So far the permenant loss rate is in between 1 and 1.5%.

From what has been reported the only way the terros are knocking them out is from barrage firing of MANY RPGs. Some reports of M1s taking upwards of 20 hits have been noted. They caused significant damage but in most cases the tanks remained combat worthy even though the turret and gun had to be aimed manually and some of the targeting equipment was destroyed. One in particular that took part in the 1st thunder run into bagdad at the start of the war was struck with 14-18 RPGS but remained running and returned for a second run into the city, still under manual aiming conditions before repairs were made.

Originally posted by SorryOciffer

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by jetsetter
It is believable though. You said yourself, the T-72 is pretty old.

yes they are old but I dont believe in things without proof.


The hull and turret are protected by armour plating, including combined armour arrays over the frontal arc. Since 1988, explosive reactive armour (ERA) has been fitted. The running gear is protected by gill type armour panels. A smokescreen can be laid by the 902B Tucha smoke discharging system or by an exhaust smoke laying system.

i dont really think a 120mm smoothbore gun from the abrams can come through two t-72s

but i will believe it with proof.

While the 120mm gun of the Challenger and M1 is extremely potent, I would have to say it would have been a lucky shot and at close range to take out 2 with 1 shot.

If I were a betting man though, I would still put my money on the M1's gun against a T-72 turret even with ERA.

The penetrator round used in the M1 Leclerc Leopard2 and Challenger2 at maximum range will instantly liquify the contact surface of ANY modern battle tank for a fraction of a second, and proceed to incinerate everything inside the opposing armor.Even the built in Explosive Reactive Armor of the M1A1.
Again ,the Leopard with the longer gun being the better of the four.
I used to do subcontracted jobs, to build parts for the M1A1 and as a machinist having examined a T-72 T-80 first hand with its cast iron turret and plate crap low carbon steel hull,can tell you you are safer in a golfcart.
Some of the M1a1 parts I made, were some of the damned hardest, pain in the arse metals I've ever had the displeasure of precision boring.
One used an 11/16 drill to make the starter hole, and stopped an 8 horsepower spindle dead in it's tracks .
If the russians had the materials and tech I wouldn't doubt they could build a comprable machine ,but at the present it just aint so.



[edit on 16-3-2005 by peteemonster]

Originally posted by FULCRUM

One picture tells more than thousand words..

Note the Iraqi RPG-7 gunner in the front..
(Fedayeen?)


Victorious member of Saddam Fedayeen in front of destroyed M1..
(Note the black uniform..)



And theres plenty more..

You can find em here.

Your 2nd pic is of one that was hit in the rear with a recoiless rifle while in a convoy. It's fuel tank was ruptured and it had to be abandoned under heavy fire to avoid bogging down the convoy. The crew reportedly destroyed it by throwing 2 WP grenades into the turret before another M1 put a APDS round into the turret. After the convoy was through, CAS fired a AGM-65 maverick at it to ensure it could not be roved from teh site by heavy truck.

Every tank that was abandoned or destroyed was recovered from the field at a later date.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

The burned out hulk of an American M1A1 tank that was destroyed by Iraqi forces during battle south of Baghdad. The Marines inside escaped alive, according to Lt. Mike Borneo.

Actually, it looks like it was either destroyed by one of the salvo style RPG attacks OR was damaged beyond the ability to repair in the field and was scuttled and destroyed by our Air cover. Notice how it still has it's turret attached and is still structurally sound, unlike a T-72 with pops like the zit on a 12 year olds face when hit with a single 105mm round.

Iraqis stand on a U.S. tank destroyed by Iraqi forces on a highway 15 kilometers southwest of Baghdad on April 6.

This was the tank in the 2nd pic of the 1st batch of pics you posted. Was destroyed as I noted in previous post. Still, all in one piece unlike russian tanks, proving it's superior crew protection.

It's to bad that site you got them from does not distinquish as to how they were knocked out and only posts pics so people can gloat at how they think they were knocked out.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by jetsetter
Ok we never said that a western tank could not get destroyed. They can no tank is invincible. Western tanks are just better. I will see if I can get some picks of the junks yards miles long of Russian tanks and such in Iraq.

All Russian weapons are like AKs..

Powerful and always functional..

US weapons are like M-16s..

They jamm and fail..

Your funny fulcrum, to bad you dont know more about what you speak. U.S./Brit weapons in theatre had virtually unheard of readiness rates due to superior ground/maintence personel.

Oh, and if you think AKs dont jam you live are very naive. While a wonderful weapon, I have seen them jam at public machine gun shoots. To bad they are not as accurate, shorter ranged, not as modular, and have inferior ergonomics, sights, and trigger.

AR's (of which I own several) and M-16s had problems when first issued due to improper design changes not approved by the designed they were quicky sorted out and now have an extremely good record of service.