Best Tank!

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Just ignore this Laxpla..

His just some kid taken over by the BS that Pentagon and CNN tells on tv..

[Edited on 27-11-2003 by FULCRUM]

I agree with you FULCRUM on this.

That Laxpla is just a 12 year old boy who is just not mature enough to see paste his computer.

Yes I find that he to closes to except any new ideas that do not corospond with his.

Originally posted by jetsetter
Yes I find that he to closes to except any new ideas that do not corospond with his.

Yes he does.

I am other people who like Russian tech also look at US tech and we dont just tell Russian tech is the best.

We either prove it.

Or we go with the supeior US tech.(if it is at that moment)

This is some basic things that are good and bad about the Abrams.

Good:
Has a hull and turret made from British Chobham armour, which is claimed to make the tank immune to attack from both missiles and tank guns.

Bad:
It is noisy

Emits a very hot exhaust(and thus has a strong infra-red(IR) signature)

very very thristy on fuel.(not very long range on missions)

Originally posted by SectorGaza

looks deadly

Looks like they tacked a whole lot of extra armor on this thing. I wonder how much it weighs in this form and what it takes to get through all that extra armor around the treads. I don't know if those metal flap things would do that much to protect the turret.

From read the Russian written on the pic I think its ERA that is on the tank.(the blocks and maybe flaps)

ERA=explosive reactive armour

heavy metal flaps?? its light Kontact-5 ERA=explosive reactive Armor


Where the conventional ERAs are only capable of defeating shaped-charge jets, Kontakt-5 can also defeat APFSDS rounds. Because of Kontakt-5, long-rod penetrators can lose over 30% of their penetration potential and the protected vehicle becomes immune to them.

This type of ERA can be easily recognized as it gives the vehicle outfitted with it a distinct 'clam-shell' appearance.

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

In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well.


The second section from the right is spent. Notice lack of damage to the Kontakt-5 outer shell
It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.

Originally posted by SectorGaza

The second section from the right is spent. Notice lack of damage to the Kontakt-5 outer shell
It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.

Ahhhh...very observant of you, nice catch.

Originally posted by greenkoolaid

Originally posted by SectorGaza

The second section from the right is spent. Notice lack of damage to the Kontakt-5 outer shell
It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection.

Ahhhh...very observant of you, nice catch.

i think he was referring to a t80u, its a copy paste, there were MBT protection tests in 1999

Fulcrum,

I find it interesting that you have several shots of the same tanks. Anyone else noticed that as well?
It is also interesting that photo of the destroyed tank named "Cojone EH" (see forward portion of the main gun) is also frequently mentioned on-line. I have found a few websites that have info on this tank. It was apparently disabled my RPG fire. By all accounts the RPG struck a fuel cell and the tank was left to burn. It was later disabled by an air strike. This bit of information would be congruent with the crater evident in the picture above.
On the picture you have of the "Cojone EH" you will notice there is a impact mark from a DU weapon. You will also notice this tank is facing the wrong direction. This is SOP for a disabled tank. This is also a sort of unwritten international "rule of thumb" for a tank that has ceased hostilities. In order for this tank to have been destroyed by the DU impact we would have to assume that the tanks turret would have been 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
As far as the other tanks shown in Fulcrum?s pics....well I am looking but there are few distinguishing features that I can use to look up. America did lose at least 3 tanks to enemy fire. The weapon used is still unknown. I believe it was a more advanced Russian tank. All of the destroyed tanks were hit from the rear. The rest were disabled and either recovered or destroyed. Compared to the first gulf war we did indeed lose a good bit more. This is to be expected, given the great difference in mission requirements between the two wars. Overall the Abrams did a stellar job.

Side Bar: Actually the Abrams is an exceptionally quiet tank. The tanks uses a gas-turbine engine as opposed to a diesel. I know this to be a fact since I lived 5miles outside Fort Knox Kentucky. I used to go to Range Road to watch firing practice. It is open to civilian traffic. If you ever get the chance to go to the Patton Museum of Armor, I highly recommend it!

Here are some of the links I found:

www.phoenix158.org...

www.militarycity.com...

ad.doubleclick.net...;sz=125x125;tile=3;ord=120103181620?

One additional note.
I do not think that M1-A2 is the best America can produce. We can do better. And the Russians, Israeli, German, French, British can match anything we produce. But in the real world, tactics trump weaponry. And you can have the best weapons and tactics, but with out training it is all for naught. Besides ATM will almost always be the cheapest way of disabling a tank. This is akin to the Aircraft vs. SAM debate.
The Abrams is deficient, at least in my opinion, in armor protection on the top of the turret and the rear. While a DU shot to the rear would most likely destroy the tank, the crew stands a good chance of surviving the encounter (providing there is not additional rounds taken). But a tank that is shot from behind shows a tactical failure. Most tanks have far less aft protection than in the front, including Russian tanks. I would not say the M1-A2 is the best tank in the world. I would say that it does have the best current combat effectiveness. The M1-A2 would be more accurately designated the tank with the highest crew survivability rate.

( side note... finally desided to join ats. i have been a long time reader... i love this site )

may not be the "best tank" but we still got one......or two


Leopard C2 Tank
( sorry for not having a pic still figuring everything out )

Armament:
105-mm L7A3 gun
1 x 7.62-mm co-axially mounted machine-gun (C6)
1 x 7.62-mm crew commander's machine-gun (C6)
76-mm grenade launchers (2 clusters of 4 launchers)
Ammunition types: Armour-Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS)
High explosive squash head (HESH)
White Phosphorous Smoke (WP)

Specifications:
Length: 8.17 m (gun at 6 o'clock), 9.54 m (gun at 12 o'clock)
Width: 3.37 m Height: 2.62 m Weight: 42.5 t
Engine: Multi-fuel engine, 10 cylinders, 830 hp
Speed: 65 km/hr
Range: 600 km
Number in Service: 114

Variants:
Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (TAURUS)
Armoured Engineer Vehicle (BADGER)
Bridge Layer (BEAVER)

Yeah despite what many may believe here Canada has a long history with the tank also.

We currently are major producers of light armoured vehicles too.

Originally posted by THENEO
Yeah despite what many may believe here Canada has a long history with the tank also.

We currently are major producers of light armoured vehicles too.

Which can be destroyed for one RPG or a armour pircing bullet!

what is all like Russian tank is best that American tank is best this no body seems to realize that the British challenger 2 is best it has the best standard armor in the world and is one powerful machine

Sorry everyone ignor that

before i redo, could some one show me how to post pictures

I think the challenger 2 is the best tank also.

Originally posted by mooeuro
what is all like Russian tank is best that American tank is best this no body seems to realize that the British challenger 2 is best it has the best standard armor in the world and is one powerful machine

T-90 has a possible kill at 5.5km with AT-11
and definite kill at 2km
and+ it got shtora, that means you wont surprise the tank because it also alerts the crew to threats!
it has 830mm of frontal armor, 30mm more than abrams

literally, Neither abrams nor T-90 have 800 or 830mm of armor.Its measured in RHA, which is how thick the armor would be if it were just regular steel armor.

it uses almost 20 year old tech yet its still equal to the "brand new" abrams



[Edited on 1-12-2003 by SectorGaza]

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!

Actually before the M1 the US and Germany were working on a tank that could be used by both forces. The cost went up so they stop the project. They still worked together on some bits and that is why the German and US tanks have things in common. They do have some pretty big diffefences though. Also the M1 does no use the British amour anymore. They uses DU armour.