Best Tank!

Originally posted by Russian
Whats the beswt WW2 tank?

how about between Tiger and T-34?

Would you want better armour and gun

or would you want faster speed and manuvarablity?(spelling)

For the defensive role, the Tiger, for the offensive role, the T-34. The U.S. introduced a tank close to the size of the tiger late in the war but much more mobile.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by greenkoolaid


Well I thought we were talking mostly hypotheitcal here. But as far as the T-34 vs King Tiger, I think the King Tiger was better. I read somewhere that the allies doubt if they even took out a single one of the King Tigers, they were pretty much invulnerable.

The allies had to waste 2 or 3 or their tanks to distroy a tiger.

But Russia had an advatage with their T-34s so it was like a 45%(T-34) and 55%(tiger).

so tiger did have small advantage but still the t-34s were upgraded to better armour and gun,

Yes. The original Sherman's were fodder for the german tanks as the japanese tanks were for the americans. The Brits did a good job though of up-gunning and armoring the Shermans they got. I think they were the A4 or A6 Shermans, something like that.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by Bagoose
I think the Leopard 2A6 EX would have to be the one for me.

But, as mentioned previously, Its who has the best situational awareness that will determine the victor...

I vote for the Leopard 2A6 EX due to cost effectiveness.

You can buy 2 L2A6's for every one M1A2...

True. It's hard to believe any frontline tank compareable to the M1 could cost 1/2 of an M1 as they share so much tech.

That L2a6 EX is a damn fine looking machine.

good point!

P.S. when you say something like that it would be good to have back up with info!

P.S. also i like you sign....

Originally posted by Bagoose
Yeah the Leclerc is an amazing tank!

re: Cost effectivness of Leopard 2 A6 EX:

I get most of my information from the Janes.com Subscribers site (bloody expensive!) which it is impossible to hotlink to or download txt info off! Cant even copy and paste...

I trust Janes though...

Janes is probably the single best source of reliable information. So much so, they are the only civilian org to have an office in the pentagon. At least that used to be the case.

Originally posted by THENEO
Russian,


Submarines will be very important as well as aircraft carriers. Battleships NO.

I dont agree. The U.S. battleships used in GW-1 were extremely powerful. Their downfall was the cost of operation due to a large crew and not being nuclear powered. If it would have been cost effective/feasible to convert to nukes and automate more of the ships sytems I think they would still be in use.

It had harpoon, tomahawks, 10 5" guns per side, 9 16" guns, sea sparrow missles and 20mm CIWS. It was a floating arty base!

Originally posted by THENEO
Maybe tanks or a new type of tank?

I see in future where speed and invisibility and precision will be most important. It will not matter how big the bang is when you are faster and more precise than the enemy.

I'm guessing that as we see more advancements in battery tech we will see hybrid tanks like we do cars now. They would be quiet and more fuel efficient.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by THENEO
Maybe tanks or a new type of tank?

I see in future where speed and invisibility and precision will be most important. It will not matter how big the bang is when you are faster and more precise than the enemy.

I disagree...

cause if there is a small gun that pricise it will take alot of hits to stop a tank...

but i will agree that the tanks are going toward faster, better manverablity, and strong guns...

also they could just stay with the 140mm but make the charge fly faster thus have more percing volicity.

sorry for my spelling...

Do a search for the German Maus tank. Biggest in history. Only 2 ever made, never saw action. 188 TONS EACH! 2x size of a king tiger!

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Leopard 2A6 EX is.

And Challenger comes somewhere after T-80/90s and US M1/M1A1/M1A2.. (Maybe even after LeLerc..)

Mere speculation....at best.

Challengers are fine, but they are far from the best.
(But their crews are top of the line.. like all UK armed forces.. at least UK tankers are better than US ones..)

And yet more speculation.... Come on Fulcrum, you should know better now....Your anti-U.S. bias is so crystal clear.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

It is brittish tank..

Im trying to be nice here but:

All the most #ed up tanks have come from UK.

All the best tanks from Germany and Russia..

And this 'theory' still hold water.

Fulcrum, do you know you make yourself sound and look like an idiot when you say such unproven things, again.
Some of the best tanks come from the Brits and their crews are first rate. With the exception of the T-90 and the prototype B.E., IMO, Russian "modern" tanks have largely been crap.
What would be a disabling hit (but the crew surviving) to any other tank has historically blown open russian tanks like tin cans, killing the whole crew, combat has proven it. Israel took WWII shermans and beat, what was at the time, modern soviet tanks handially, the Izzy's were even outnumbered so tactics/training was not the only thing responsible.

Try thinking before you post.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Was it at this topic that i talked about how USA is spying on Leopards and trying to take over that Spannish factory?

Here:

Spain has ordered 219 Leopard 2A6. The first 30 are being built by KMW, the rest will be license-built in Spain by General Dynamics, Santa Barbara Sistemas (GDSBS).

Looks like they were successful..

I thought it was funny how you said they were "spying" trying to get tech from them. If the U.S. wanted the latest tech we would get it from Britian, and we would only have to ask for it.

You're pathetic.

BTW, did you hear about the new protection system that the Brits have developed for MBTs and IFVs? An electromagnetic armor system that can be retrofitted and gives complete 360 degree protection from all current and forseen HEAT warheads? The system was tested on one of their IFVs that uses nothing but a standard non-chobham armor and it took MULTIPLE RPGs and just drove away after the test.

Originally posted by Russian
Ok mooeuro if you say that challenger is the best...

Then prove it with INFO...

You mean the same way you prove your statements?

The challenger II has at least fought more actual tank engagments than any equivelant Russian tank has so how it performs under real conditions is better known.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
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.

Ummm....based on what? Your imagination maybe? American, UK, and Izzy tanks have been involved in more actual tank combat than anyother since WWII. So far your assumption has not proven true.

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

As if you would know!

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Challenger 2 is more than 12 years old..

Leopard 2A6 EX is 21st century MBT..
I Wonder which has better and more advanced armor..

Do you apply logic to anything? Do you understand that there are submodels of each type of tank like the M1, M1A1, M1A2? Same for the ChallengerII and leopard.

Leopard I entered service in 1963
leopard II entered service in 1979

M1 entered service in 1978

Challenger II entered service in 1994

It has even more and better Chobham armor than the first Challenger and therefore may be better armored than the M1

Sometimes I wonder if you have anything to do other than look foolish....

Originally posted by GabRaz
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.

Nice job Owning Fulcrum...

I look forward to your assessment on the LeClerc.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
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.

[sarcasm]Wow...No kidding...[/sarcasm] What's your point? T-72s and 80s need ERA at a minimum to even match the survivability of the oldest M1 variant. Been proven.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Chechens were very skilled warriors..

US Army wouldnt have done any better against them.

You know this how?

Chechens were skilled and motivated fighters..

UNLIKE Iraqis.

Agreed as far as the regular military forces go, they are not skilled but the ones still fighting are motivated.

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

Apparently they had common sense that Iraqis did not, although, even Iraqis are making salvo attacks now, needing upwards of a dozen or more jits to disable an M1. Urban battle has always been a weekness for tanks due to limited plains of sight, many hiding spots for ATWs and the inability to bring weapons to bare as the Russians found out.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
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.

If you followed your own advice you would look less like a fool.

Info from FAS.org, Globalsecurity, CSIS, and Janes is all very good.



[Edited on 4-1-2004 by FULCRUM]

Originally posted by FULCRUM

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..

It was not a burned out hulk and it was repaired.

Originally posted by FULCRUM



It just uses URANIUM ARMOR and it is very dangerous if it is penetrated.

No, the M1 uses the chobham. THe latest variant uses a Chobham/DU composite.

And i have also heard that M1 does infact have ERA armor also,

integrated inside its spaced armor.

No, it is a layed composite armor, no explosive reactive armor.

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Also Stryker already seems to me as out dated design and it is supposed to be new..

Actually, they have been around for some time...

Stryker, and LAV25 are the same vehicle.