T-95, Abram, Leopard 2 - Which Is The BEST !

Abrams can shoot and kill efficiently while they are moving. None of the others can do that. Enough said!!

''


[Edited on 22-10-2004 by Vladtepes]

Abrams can shoot and kill efficiently while they are moving. None of the others can do that. Enough said!!

I think you will find they can all do that... enough said

I said "efficiently". Mosts kills per shot!!

[Edited on 27-10-2004 by Vladtepes]

Originally posted by Vladtepes
I said "efficiently". Mosts kills per shot!!

[Edited on 27-10-2004 by Vladtepes]

shooting your allies doesnt count as a kill

Kenshin,

The Challenger 1, that's right number 1, has the best combat record of any tank, ever, anywhere. 300 Iraqis destroyed in combat for the loss of zero. Only two broke down and the rest covered more klicks during the 100 hours of ground war than any other coalition armoured force.

Leo 2 loses out on that major shot trap beneath the turret front.
Merkava likewise. But Merkava wins points for having the engine up front to increase crew survivability.

Unfortunately it looks like now the Russians have given up their domed turrets and gone slab-sided they've given the Chiormy Oriol the same shot trap.

As I said in another thread, the Brits have led the way in tank design since the Centurion came out in 1945. They were on the continent but the Germans folded before the Centurion could have a go. It did nicely in the Sinai and Vietnam. Desert AND Jungle.

Each British tank since has been the first of its generation, years ahead of the Americans. Ever wonder why the M1/M1A1 looks like the Challenger? The Americans couldn't find a better armour or shape.

Who invented Stillbrew? Chobham? HESH? Face-hardened armour? Who invented the tank to begin with?

The Russians, a leading tank designer? Not since the T34/85. And the Germans promptly eclipsed it with Panzer V.

Just look at the T-series' combat record. How many wars has it won? How many BATTLES has it won?

The T72's fuel feed goes around the turret ring. You want a brew-up then hit it there. Not a good design feature.

I'd give Korea's Daewoos a better chance in combat.

Even the British light tanks are the best in their category. Scorpion became Scimitar, Scorpion 90...I'll let you find out how many variants there are.

"Leo 2 loses out on that major shot trap beneath the turret front."

What do you mean?

Leo 2 mk1 had a vertical mantle, not a good ballistic shape. Current Leo 2s have an angled mantle, but unlike Challenger 1 and 2 and M1/A1 the mantle doesn't reach the hull top. Look at the pictures, raise the gun and a shot that hits the underside of the mantle will be deflected down into the turret ring. This is called a shot trap, it traps the shot. In this case in a natural weak point in the armour.

Theres a reason for it beeing in that shape.

Heres an explenation.

Question: "I note that the front turret plate armour slopes in two directions; down towards the hull, as well as upwards. I thought the perceived wisdom was that it was not good to deflect projectiles towards your own hull, a la Panther gun mantlet? Could someone explain the modern thinking on this?"

Answer: "No, because the wedge armor on the Leopard 2A5/A6 isn't that strong...just ballistic steel. The concept is similar to spaced armor with an air gap in between...quite ingenious in simplicity.

The A5 is uparmored. The Leopard 2 has a flat vertical turret face (see Leo A2 model). The face is Chobham, the same armor used in Challengers and M1s, but the Leo 2 has no slant in the turret face.

The Germans decided in order to improve armor protection, a wedge is used. APFSDS WILL penetrate the wedge front, but in doing so, will break up before even hitting the tough flat main turret face. HEAT warheads will detonate on the wedge, shoot hot gases behind the wedge, and the flat turret face will only get a hot breath on it (pun) since the HEAT jet is already expended. The wedge is meant to take damage so the main turret face doesn't take the full brunt. Anything powerful enough will penetrate, and anything weak will be deflected and won't hurt the face or the hull. Example: If you had a glare screen on your computer monitor and use a pencil to punch your monitor out, the pencil will have to go through the glare screen (probably break) before even hitting your monitor's screen (don't try this at home, heh!).

We all know the Chobham armor works for M1s and Challengers and that HEAT or APFSDS can't penetrate. Just imagine instead of rounds hitting the faces of the M1s and Challengers, a frontal screen is before the turret face. That's what the Leo 2A5 armor does."

What's wrong with our bloody Panzers today ? Would say a german commander of Leopard tanks in Syria.

Well, as already mentioned earlier, NATO cannot anymore have or allow itself to have tanks. The main threat to the EU and NATO is terrorism in an urban environment, which requires special robotics and exoskeletons to deal with.
Tanks won't help in the bloody future of warzone Berlin or warzone Londonistan.

Aside from that and again, especially in Syria we clearly see the T-90S / MS excel above any tank previously fielded in the middle east. The more recent T-14 of the Armata platform family has significant improvements over the T-90S but is not yet really operational.

Did you know you can kill the crew of a B1 Centauro with a .50 cal sniper rifle using AP ammo ?
I wonder whether the Tito's militia for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia knows about it!