Best Tank!

Originally posted by GabRaz
but theres ur problem, what if a crew member does fire at 90 degrees of access, ur not going to tell me that they're gonna limit the turret rotatational field. that would be ridiculous.
This piece of crap is supposed to suppliment the M-1, but its protection values and offensive weaponry fall short of satisfactory. Why give in to such stupidity. The Canadians use the Bison 6x6 with a 76mm cannon this is more remaniscient of a true infantry support weapon.
if u need something bigger use the Rooikat, or the Centauro; sure they wont fit in a c-130 but neither does the MGS.

I agree. I am not a big stryker fan to begin with, The only 2 things it really has going for it is speed and being amphibious. Even so, there have been significant issues with it fitting in the C-130.

Originally posted by Russian
Indeed Challenger 2 is one of my best tanks too.

I think the three best tank that are right now in operation are: Challenger 2, T-90, and M1A2.

Out,
Russian

Agreed.

I still wish to learn more on the LeClerc. Wish I could find someone who has served in teh French military to ask about it....

Originally posted by SectorGaza

m1a2 is just a crappt copy of the leopard

Based on what? Your inferior knowledge? When has a Leopard II been used in combat?

Your stock is falling.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by SectorGaza



m1a2 is just a crappt copy of the leopard

here are my favs:
1.t-80u series
2.STRV-122
3.Merkava4

I still have respect for the M1A2.

It is an outstanding machine when handled properly.

Out,
Russian

Fixed.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by SorryOciffer]

Originally posted by ApocalypticKhaos
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.

Holy Crap....A post that makes sense and is logical. The izzies have some fine looking and very capable female soldiers.

Originally posted by devilwasp
A. how many actuall combat plans have survived first contact?

few

B. you dont have predetors in service yet.

Uhhhh....yes, we do.

C. rows of abrahms just makes em easier to kill so on you general lead the way !

Doing so would be bad tactics unless they were opposing inferior T-72s

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.

They, with a few select others, are the elite. Approx 80% of those damaged have been brought back to active service.

E. if you looked at russian tanks you would notice they are better armoured and tend not to rely on air support.

No, they are not. Look at the T-72s with the turrets COMPLETELY blown off and burned out hulks. Any ground force that operates without air cover is asking for trouble, this goes for the U.S. or Russia.

Originally posted by devilwasp

yes u have UAV'S but u aint got UCAV's in combat yet.

Yes we have.

, u just need sams and lots of ground troops.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by devilwasp]

That type of thinking is what got the Iraqis ass handed to them in GW I Lots of troops and SAMs aren't worth a hill of beans when you have stand off weapons and up to date ECM and ECCM.

Originally posted by Russian

New Sovietskiy T-212UM1 "Black Eagle" Main Battle Tank

I think this is the best battle tank.

No… just another overated Russian built 'mobile target' for NATO 120mm tank rounds…

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by Jeffrey
~Nice. But can it compare to the m1-a1s state of the art controls and devices? i doubt it.

Surely it can..

And will..

But this whole topic is quite futile as any of following (at least..) :

T-72/80/90

Can destroy each others easily..

Its just matter who hits first..

And that depents on the gunner and tactical intel..

Bull#… no russian built tank has scored a kill on any Challenger or M1 tank in either the Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom, hits yes, but no kills. US/UK tank crews just regard Russian tanks as mobile targets.

Originally posted by browha
does the russian tank have DU armouring to prevent most shells from penetrating?
also, one of the main problems with these state of the art tanks is that... the computer systems crash. alot...
during war games a year or two before the 2nd gulf war, they had to keep resetting the tanks

No, the Russian do not have DU 'Chobham' armor, instead they resort to applying reactive armour all over their tanks in a desperate attempt protect them. 120mm rounds still slice through them like a knife through butter.

News to me that the computers keep crashing… care to explain how come US/UK tanks were able to operate so effectively with their supposedly crash prone systems?

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Vito113]

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Vito113]

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by browha
does the russian tank have DU armouring to prevent most shells from penetrating?

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.

[Edited on 17-11-2003 by SectorGaza]

The Russian claim YET AGAIN to have a suprior system, and yet again it's just sales talk. Russian tanks have proven time and again to be nothing but mobile targets…

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by Seekerof

Kaktus is 20 years newer

and lighter then chohbam, and as you saw your abramses chobbham is owned by RPG's

No Chobham Armour has EVER been penetrated by an RPG.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by Nerdling

A British �Challenger II� is like an �Abrams� with only marginally less communications ability, a crew probably equally as good, and armor meant to counter HEAT warheads, not SABOTs.



I also prove you wrong that Russian Tanks ARE Good.

CHOBHAM ARMOR will keep out any Russian SABOT round with ease. A number of M1's and Challengers wrer hit in 'friendly fire' incidents with 120mm SABOTS… none penetrated.

Russian tanks are nothing but fiery coffins for their crews… we destroyed them by the hundreds in the Gulf Wars…



















One thing the Russians DO build is the most inflammible tanks in the world!

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Vito113]

Originally posted by SectorGaza
tom clancy?

thought so.... LOLOLOLOL

if iraq had some real T-80u then we could talk, but they had downgraded crappy t62/72s

like seekerof said, nothing is undefeatable

[Edited on 26-11-2003 by SectorGaza]

Those are 'Mobility kills' caused by the APU in the engine bay getting hit by an RPG… the tanks were abandoned and blown up by their OWN SIDE to stop them being captured. All the crews survived. That particular weak spot has now been eliminated.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Vito113]

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.


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


USMC LVTP7 AAAV destroyed.. BIG TIME!!! See the chunks of armor plating torn off..

Duh!!! The 1st tank was set on fire by it's own crew after it was disabled by a hit to the engine bay.

The second tank was set on fire by it's crew after being abandoned… the damage you see there and the crater were caused by a USAF 1000lb Bomb dropped on it to finish it off…

The LAV is made of 25mm aluminum armor… so what is your point?

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..

Funny, My M16 doesn't jam…but I suppose unlike a Russian Conscript I am expected to be able to clean a weapon.

AK is a cheap, not very accurate and does jam.

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by jetsetter
Do the Russian people want this. I would think that after the Cold War they would want a little change.

Do they have a choice?

And Russia will always go after US and they will beat US!

Russians are coming and you better start hiding in 4-10 years.

Delusional! Russia is in such a good state it has the only FALLING life expectancy in the developed world!

Originally posted by Russian
This is some basic things that are good and bad about the Abrams.

Bad:
It is noisy

I'm betting you have never seen a 'real' M1 Abrams… they nickname it the 'whispering death' …want to guess why?

Originally posted by SectorGaza

while protected by Kontakt-5 ERA, Russian MBTs cannot be penetrated across the frontal arc by the M256 guns firing M829A1 APFSDS ammo.

And how exactly did the Russians come to this 'conclusion'? Have they asked the US Army to shoot one with a M1's main armament? No…

Russian sales talk is astounding!!!!… Funny how such 'oustanding' equipment always seems to fail in the real test of battle.

Originally posted by FULCRUM
For the MASTERS OF THE ARMOURED WARFARE AND THEIR SUPREME TANKS..

To the Germans and to the Leopard series..

You people really should be shamed..

Really even USA spies Germany and its Leopard making factories for their armor techs..

Really..

USA is so desperate and so far behind that they even tryed to buy a whole factory from Spain that was licence producing Leopard 2s..

I dont know how that ended..

Did or did they not get the factory.. but at least they tryed hard to get it..

Respect!

This is totally wrong as usual…

The Germans supplied a Leopard II tank to the US Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in 1976 for comparative trials against the M1… it was widely tested and examined by the US and found to be an inferior tank. They stuck with the superior M1

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Vito113]