Top 10 main battle tanks

[kimouche]

I would really like to know what countries have the best tanks. The US have the Abram, UK the Challenger, France the Leclercq, Israel the Merkava, Germany the Leopard, Russia the T72 (please feel free to add any I might have left out).
So if you were to classify these with the first one being the best, how would you do it (facts please)

1-Abram (USA)
2-......

[Mal3]

From what I've read I would guess others would be nudged by the latest model Leopard 2 as to being all around the best tank.

What attributes one values in a tank has a lot to do with how they would stack up. The Challenger 2 and Merkava 4 are relatively slow, would these few mph really matter? The fire control of the Challenger 2 seems proven and most of these tanks have adequate 120mm guns.

The Merkava seems to be more mission flexible than others, but does that make it more valuable as an MBT?

Here's my 5 cents, for what they're worth. I'll probably change my mind tomorrow. Mind you these are all probably very good tanks.

1. Leopard 2 A6 EX
2. M1A2 Abrams
3. Challenger 2
4. Merkava 4
5. Leclerc

Maybe the T-90 should be in there, but my armchair arse just didn't have info to that effect...

[Mal3]

Oh, and by the way. The Russians have much better stuff than the T-72. That one barely holds up to the others mentioned.

[Otto Scorzeni]

Don't forget about the T-90S

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/t906.html

[kimouche]

1. Leopard 2 A6 EX
2. M1A2 Abrams
3. Challenger 2
4. Merkava 4
5. Leclerc
6- T-90S??

I thought the M1A2 Abrams was the best. Quite a surprise.

[He219]

Leopard 2A6 EX
M1A2
Merkava 4
Challenger 2
T-90S
Olifant MK 1B
Leclerc
K1/A1
Ariete
M60A3

[kimouche]

Leopard 2A6 EX
M1A2
Merkava 4
Challenger 2
T-90S
Olifant MK 1B
Leclerc
K1/A1
Ariete
M60A3

He219, would you mind adding the countries of pruduction?

Thanks

[Mal3]

Leopard 2A6 EX
M1A2 USA
Merkava 4 ISRAEL
Challenger 2 UK
T-90S Russia
Olifant MK 1B South Africa?
Leclerc France
K1/A1 Korea?
Ariete Italy
M60A3 USA

[Mal3]

I'm not at all convinced about the T-90. Does it have the accurate targetting of the western designs? The ATGM is probably their to make up for the guns lacking in long range shots.

It's also very light (a good thing by itself) but that would indicate light armour. The T-series have long been a cramped place to work and with only a crew of three that will contribute to crew fatigue.

The Leclerc has only some ten tons on the T-90 in weight but almost twice the power.

Did He219 mention all the current generation tanks?

[Dmitri]

Dont forget the russian "Black Eagle" tank, just developed...

http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_systems/Land/Tanks/Cherny_Orel/Cherny_Orel_MBT.htm

unfortunately there is not much info on it

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html

[He219]

sure,

Leopard 2 A6 EX released Feb 2003, Germany
M1A2, USA w/ 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, Rheinmetall, Germany
Merkava 4, -IDF Israel
Challenger 2, UK
T-90S, Russia
Olifant MK1B, South Africa
Leclerc, - France
K1/A1 - South Korea
Ariete, - Italy[/i]

[Duke]

What's your criterion for a better tank??

[Mal3]

From www.army-technology.com:

"The layout of the Olifant Mark 1 was very similar to that of the South African Semel tank which was based on an upgraded conversion of the British Centurion tanks."

That coupled with a 105mm rifled main gun anf a low road speed would make me think this tank doesn't belong with most of the others. And hardly would it be better than the Leclerc unless the Leclerc be plagued with unreliability.

[Mal3]

Sorry, the road speed of the Olifant is not THAT low. Still not fast, I'd think.

[Otto Scorzeni]

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

"The T-90S has the 1A4GT integrated fire control system (IFCS) which is automatic but with manual override for the commander. The IFCS contains the gunner's 1A43 day fire control system, gunner's TO1-KO1 thermal imaging sight which has a target identification range of 1.2 km to 1.5 km and commander's PNK-S sight.

The gunner's 1A43 day FCS comprises: 1G46 day sight/rangefinder with missile guidance channel, 2E42-4 armament stabiliser, 1V528 ballistic computer and DVE-BS wind gauge.

The commander's PNK-4S sight includes a TKN-4S (Agat-S) day/night sight which has identification ranges of 800 m (day) and 700 m (night).

The driver is equipped with a TVN-5 infrared night vision."

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90

Yes, the Rusikies have some comparable stuff...

[FallenAngel]

well....here's my two cents.

1- Leopard 2 A6 EX (duh, German tanks are the best :D )
2- M1A2 Abrams
3- Challenger 2
4- Merkava 4 (actually, is this considered an IFV on steriods because it can carry an infantry squad too?)
5- Leclerc (even though France never seems to USE them.)

6-10. Various versions of the T-72 family. :)

[Mal3]

I'd say the Merkava is a tank with unusual features, although your idea has merits. I do think you have to sacrifice ammo or such to accomodate the infantry. Am I right?

The Merkava seems to be designed for defencive warfare and also to do well in urban environments. Correct me please if I'm babbling...

[Dmitri]

here is some stuff on the new t-95. But mother Russia as usual keeps everything secret... ;) http://www.tanksim.com/topic8.htm

[Seiyuuki]

I don't think the Leopard should be number 1 alone...for me personally, those two tanks are fairly balance, if deciding which is best between the two, would have to be a tie, and the rest, I believe would depend on the training and performance of the crew.

[Mal3]

Seeing as I've heard the Leopard is more reliable and also somewhat lighter nudges it for me.

[FallenAngel]

yeah, the Merkava series is designed for Defense, that's pry why the engine is in the front of the tank :)

Also, the pics of the Merkava show its actually pretty damn huge, so I dont know about sacrificing ammo. But you are right, the thing would be hell on wheels in an urban enviroment. (any tank would, but could you imagine a tank that spits out SF troops too? Kick Ass! :fork: )

[Dmitri]

well, having some infantry guys in the tank is good of course, but what a big ass tank that has to be? Look at Bradley, 8-10 is maximum it can carry, but it looks like a big old square in the middle of the field.. Plus, where are the infantry going to be, laying on top of each other??

[FallenAngel]

I agree with mal on the L2 being slightly more reliable and slightly lighter while managing the same level of protection (so I have heard).

Also, increasing the barrel length by approx. 50% would probably increase the gun's muzzle velocity and accuracy over the Abram's gun.

[Mal3]

Well, I checked http://www.army-technology.com again and the Leopard 2 is actually 10% lighter than the M1A2 if their numbers are to be trusted!

They have the same power and with the new gun the Leopard 2 is a formidable weapon. It's also much prettier :D

Dmitri: I think the Bradley can only take 7 infantry + 3 crew. Fitting infantry into a tank of normal size is something I cannot figure out how they do. Of course with the engine up front it's a bit different.

Checking out the dimensions of the Merkava on Army Technology I find the numbers useless since length is given with gun forward.

[Dmitri]

Yea man, having a battle tank with the same capacity as fighting vehicles like Bradley, who have it as one of the main purposes, is something hard to imagine... I bet its exremely cramped, maybe even dangerous, and the tanks is probably HUGE. Its no fun riding in Bradley, but main battle tank.. :|

[Mal3]

It's probably only meant to accomodate troops very temporarily. Still, I'd like to see draings and photos of the compartment they stay in and know whether they have to give up main gun ammo or something to do this.

Does Israel have an Infantry Fighting Vehicle?

[kimouche]

So what advantages does a smooth barrell have over the other kind of barrell (striated). It seems all those modern tanks have a 120mm smooth barrell, must be something to it

[Mal3]

Well, at least I think the Challenger has a rifled gun. Smooth bore are better in the way that HEAT warheads are less effeicient if spinning as they would be from a rifled gun and also (I might be a bit off here) the sabots of saboted rounds break cleaner away from the penetrator when fired from smooth bores.

Of course, there seems to be nothing wrong with the accuracy of the Challenger 2 having taken out an enemy tank at 5km in 1991...

[Desertpilot]

What about the Osorio down in Brazil?

As for the "best" tank, can you really rate a tank that hasn't seen steel on steel combat, the "best"?

If we go by real world standards, I'd have to rate them this way:

1 Merkava MkII
2 M1A1HA
3 Challanger II

and the non combat proven:

1 Leo 2 A6
2 Leclerc
3 Osorio
4 Japan's Type 90 (Leo 2 A4)
5 T-90
6 M-60A3

At this point I'd have to insist putting the South African Rooikat in the list even though it's not a tank, then the Italian Centouro.

Thats about all I can think of. But that's just my opinion, which just happens to be biased by 4 years in the turret of an M1A1HA.

[Apogee]

Isn't everyone forgetting the M1A2SEP?

[Seiyuuki]

I thought the Merkava was too modern to see any steel on steel combat, the only combat action of the Merkava I seen is in urban environment and it's the only steel beast in the neighborhood.

[Zach R.]

I don't believe the Leopard is the best tank.First off because it's not the machine it's the soldiers that operate it.And that would most definately make the M1A2 Abrams and the British Challenger tank the best out there

[Sulph8]

Well heres a link to information on the Merkava Mk4:
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm

Wow cool it can shoot down helicopters!

[Mal3]

I don't believe the Leopard is the best tank.First off because it's not the machine it's the soldiers that operate it.And that would most definately make the M1A2 Abrams and the British Challenger tank the best out there

Well we're talking about the machines. Which would be best with every other factor equal?

[warchild1/27scout]

it said in one of those articles russia is not even fielding that new black eagle tank so what are they gonna do, just export.and the french tank does not count cause they said they could'nt go to war no matter what.when you shoot the leclerc it's like the cartoons,a white flag comes out of the barrel. :D

[kimouche]

I'd say the Abrams still has one great advantage over the Leopard......combat tested

[Mal3]

The F-15 also has the same advantage over an F/A-22 Raptor...

[kimouche]

The F-15 also has the same advantage over an F/A-22 Raptor...

Touché... :D

[Mal3]

Not to belittle your argument. We could discuss all day long what combat rifle is the best, but if I had to face bad guys with one in my hand I would feel much better with something battletested as solid!

[GazB]

Someone asked about the value of rifled vs smoothbore guns.

The advantages of rifled guns are as follows:

Clean seperation of Sabot petals when firing APFSDS rounds.
Higher accuracy of HE and other non fin stabilised rounds.
The ability to use HESH rounds.

Disadvantages of rifled guns/advantages of smoohbore guns:

Smoothbore guns are lighter and easier to make.
They generate higher muzzle velocities due to lower friction in the bore... this often means they can be made shorter compared to a similar rifle gun which makes them even lighter still.
HEAT rounds are more effective when they are turning slowly or not at all.
(Note the myth that rifled guns cannot fire standard HEAT rounds is just that... a myth. The Soviet D-30 howitzer like most Soviet heavy guns since WWII has a secondary anti tank round that uses HEAT and the 122mm D-30 is most certainly rifled).

The main reason the British stick to their rifled gun is for their HESH round.
The HESH or High Explosive Squash Head round is basically a big soft lump of HE with a fuse in its tail. When it hits a target it flattens out over the armour and then detonates. The large area of the surface contact generate huge shockwaves that travel through the armour and result in Spall... which is the flaking off of the armour inside the vehicle... which ricochettes around the inside of the vehicle at very high speeds injuring or killing crew and igniting fuel and or ammo.
Like HEAT it does not rely much on velocity and is effective at almost any range as long as you can get a hit. Spaced armour completely defeats it however and during Desert Storm a warrior APC got away completely unscathed when a 120mm HESH hit one of its addon Spaced armour panels. At the time this was seen by the press as a virtue of the super armour, though the reality is it was really a weakness of the type of ammo. (And proof that Brits can make mistakes too.)

The Infantry carrying capability of the Merkava was shown to be less than useful in real combat and is only used in emergencies for evacuation.
(A tank is a tank and an APC is an APC... they do different things and have different roles and priorities on a battlefield).

[Kitsune]

about main battle tanks:

http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm


@Zach R. : What an american or british soldier can do, a german one can do at least as well. You probably read too much Tom Clancy novels.

p-)

[kimouche]

Thanks GazB. A lot of good info there

[Mal3]

Edit: that was meant for GazB.

Thanks for the very good explanations! Can you elaborate on the troop carying abilities (or lack thereof) of the Merkava?

[Mal3]

about main battle tanks:

http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm


@Zach R. : What an american or british soldier can do, a german one can do at least as well. You probably read too much Tom Clancy novels.

p-)

Not to belittle German soldiers, but I do have the advantage of being from none of the above countries, but I do think the British and American troops have more experience than the German.

[Scrim]

According to my little book about tanks,(on the Merkava) the driver sits in the front left, the engine is to his right, so there is alot of room behind him. The dimensions of the tank are very similar to the Abrams, the Merkava being a few feet shorter, but the same width. The troop carrying capability is used mainly in an urban environment, but its prime role is not as an APC. On an actual battlefield it would carry an additional 85 rounds instead of the troops. The rear hatches are used to load troops and ammo(much easier than lugging rounds in through the turret). Another unusual feature is that it has a roof mounted 60mm mortar! 30 HE or smoke rounds are carried for the mortar. As far as survivability goes I think thats the tank I would choose, as long as a German wasnt driving it. Just kidding Kitsune, I agree with you.

[Mal3]

Thanks, it's always interesting when hardware is made to a different doctrine. I thought that troop carrying capability was to the detriment of ammo capacity, but it sounds like the Israelis have hit a very sound design for their needs, that maximises the usefulness compared to size factor.

[axl]

any tankers here? anybody experienced with tanks? sorry, but army-technology is not really a source to make a decission about what is good and what not. often the leopard 2a6ex is mentioned here. any information available or just guesses? anybody has ever seen it? it would also be nice what criteria a tank would need to be the best. just price or just penetration or just armour or just..... ?

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

[Scrim]

Its normal ammunition load is 62 rounds of 105mm, the Abrams carries 63.

[Mal3]

any tankers here? anybody experienced with tanks? sorry, but army-technology is not really a source to make a decission about what is good and what not. often the leopard 2a6ex is mentioned here. any information available or just guesses? anybody has ever seen it? it would also be nice what criteria a tank would need to be the best. just price or just penetration or just armour or just..... ?

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

You have a point. Army Technology sounds a bit like averts at times. I can't remember the source, but at the Swedish tank trials they found the Leopard 2 to be most reliable and were joking about it.

Why does the US not buy foreign military equipment? I thought task #1 was supplying the troops with the best tools?

[Ratamacue]

I don't believe the Leopard's performance is that far superior to that of the M1A2 (*if* it is superior...I think a little combat testing is in order). Besides, the US Military is already entirely equipped with the M1A1/A2, so I don't believe they'd just switch over to the Leopard 2.

[Mal3]

I'd think the Leopard 2 in its best incarnations is indeed better than the M1A2 but how much better? Not that much, certainly not better enough for theUS Army to go off and buy Leopards. Face it the M1A2 is among the very best, why spend a heap of money to gain an incremental advantage?

On the other hand, could the Us Army buy Leopards?

[FallenAngel]

I dont think so....unless they were made in the US under liscense.

Also, how many L2A6EXs are there? I know the US Army has equiped and Infantry Division with A2s (the 4th) and a Brigade from another Div. (1st Cavalry) I am not sure how many tanks that is, but the Leopard2A6EX is pretty new- so maybe it hasnt reached too many units yet.

Also, as for combat trials, if history has anything to say about it, the German Panthers and Tigers in WWII had like a 7:1 kill ratio against allied Tanks (dont quote me on that though...). Too damn bad there always seemed to be that 8th Sherman, or worse yet, a British Typhoon or US P-47 that ended up taking out that Panther/Tiger. A perfect example of QUANTITY over QUALITY :)

[Mal3]

Well, if you want to field the perfect tank, you have to make it a tank that works. I don't think the Tigers were all that reliable. The T-34 seemed to be a good mix, a tank that worked and was good. But then, we're outside of my field of knowledge by now...

If the question is what tank is simply the best, then how many are deployed is certainly a moot question, right?

[Duke]

Here's an actual story about a M1A1 during the Desert Storm found in Clancy's Armored Cav.

A M1A1 got stuck in the mud near the Euphrates and were left by the column for a recovery vehicle furtherback. Soon three T-72s came upon them and one fired a HEAT round at 700 m on the turret with no effect. The M1 responed and destroyed the T-72. At the same time another T-72 fired another HEAT round on the turret of the M1 without effect-no damage no casualities. The M1 fired from its 120mm and destroyed that tank. The third tank shot a long rod penatrator at 400m only to create a groove on the turret without effect. Firing back the M1 destroyed the third tank.
Finally, several M1A1s arrived with a M88. The M88 couldnot get the tank out of the mud. Orders then were sent to blow it in place. A M1A1 shot three HEAT rounds from three different positions, and only on the third try was the outer armor of the M1A1 penetrated. The ammo began to cook off and blew out a panel. The fire exinquishers inside the tank put out the fire and prevented any damage.
A second M88 arrived to pull out the tank. Two days later the turret was replaced as well as other parts and again saw action in Desert Storm

What a ****ing tank!!! This tank is number one on my list.

[Mal3]

As I stated, it IS a very good tank. But there might be some better ;)

As a byline; get thism on a local forum I'm arguing that the Republican Guard has worse equipment than US troops. I can be hip that people are against the war, but when they start to dream up things that should make it harder they're simply to be dismissed. Too bad I'm too stubborn...

[kimouche]

Any word on that japanese tank. The word is it would come not far behind the Leopard and the Abrams.

[Zach R.]

kitsune,yes,maybe the Leopard is better in it's electronics(Which is a little hard to believe),the M1A2 is deffinately the better of the two.We train our troops much better than the Germans.And I doubt the Leopard will ever see service unless Germany is invaded by an evil dictator.Which,i believe they deserve.M1A2 is deffinately THE best tank in the world,with no question.i'm sure everyone has thier favorites,BUT,just because it's your favorite,does NOT make it the best tank in the world.My favorite tank is the M4 Sherman.Which is,a really crappy tank,but back then, it kicked some serious ass.

[GazB]

"Why does the US not buy foreign military equipment? I thought task #1 was supplying the troops with the best tools?"

They do use foreign equipment. Their standard LMG is the FN Minimi, their new coaxial MG is the M240... better known as the FN MAG or in British service as the L2A7 GPMG.
The Abrams originally had a British 105mm gun, later replaced by a German 120mm Smoothbore... the M60 Tank had the British 105mm gun as well. The Abrams also has British Chobham armour.
The AT4 Anti tank weapon used by US troops is Swedish.
Their LAVIIIs they call Strykers are Canadian. (We use them too here in NZ).

The US is integrating all of its equipment into a battle management system that allows each unit to share information with other units and command units via datalinks. The land warrior system will take it down to soldier level but the M1 is fully integrated into this system... the Leopard is not.
The only tank troops better trained than the Germans would probably be the Israelis. Most tactics used in armoured warfare... even today are largely based on what the Germans did in WWII... the British might have invented the Tank but the germans took it an made it a dominant weapon of war... only airpower is comparable today... and it can't hold ground.

[axl]

why nobody answered my question about the leopard 2a6ex?

@fallenangel: there is one leopard 2a6ex. it was never ment to enter service.

@duke: i'm wondering why somebody is still believing tom clancy stuff. its also funny how this story is changing, my german translation differs and is not daying that the americans fired heat rounds. that makes also sense, no tanker is using heat against another mbt, except he is sure what he is doing. its also funny that somebody says its possible to repair a radioactive contaminated tank within days. did you ever care about those troopers who did the job in the iraq? please do and try to get some information about their helth status, its horrible. other information about the du stuff and also some words about penetration of an m1a1ha can be found here: "Fliszar, Richard W., Edward F. Wilsey, and Ernest W. Bloore, Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Technical Report BRL-TR-3068, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989"
or simply check this picture:
www.kampfpanzer.de/m1a1ha.jpg

@ratamacue: you are right, there is no need to switch to another tank for the us army. they should only modify the abrams versions.

@mal3: the swedish trials did not really show what they should show, it was a political decission (as always). they had three tanks there and all were in prototype state: m1a2, leopard 2s, leclerc. abrams and leopard 2 existed since some years, the leclerc was completely new and therefor less reliable.

@zach r.: all leopard 2 versions use an american fire control system, but its different to the one used for the abrams. the leopard 2 is in service not only in germany, but also tonns of other european countries, so it has seen service. i don't get your point why the m1a2 is the best around, what makes it that good? is it the low number that entered service? or is it only because it came only some years before?
what makes you think that you train much better than the germans? only because you make much more drill and need more time? isn't it the result that matters, not the way you go? i can tell you that we trained f*****g hard and that not only under desert conditions, but real middle european terrain.

@gazb: only the m1a2 and maybe the m1a1d are ready to be integrated in whatever digital system you get. most of the american abrams tanks stay in version m1a1 and m1a1ha. only think about that right now over 60% of the tanks belong to ng units and it will be more and more. but the ng is not getting that fancy stuff, they keep their level.

i wrote some words comparing leopard 2a4 and m1a1 on www.kampfpanzer.de
maybe you should read them.

regards
axl

[Mal3]

Thanks for your points axl. Where on kamppanzer can I find your writing?

[axl]

just login and go to vehicles/usa/m1 abrams section.

regards
axl

[Mal3]

@mal3: the swedish trials did not really show what they should show, it was a political decission (as always). they had three tanks there and all were in prototype state: m1a2, leopard 2s, leclerc. abrams and leopard 2 existed since some years, the leclerc was completely new and therefor less reliable.

Typical really, this seems to be the method by which arms all around the world are chosen.

[Mal3]

They do use foreign equipment. Their standard LMG is the FN Minimi, their new coaxial MG is the M240... better known as the FN MAG or in British service as the L2A7 GPMG.
The Abrams originally had a British 105mm gun, later replaced by a German 120mm Smoothbore... the M60 Tank had the British 105mm gun as well. The Abrams also has British Chobham armour.
The AT4 Anti tank weapon used by US troops is Swedish.
Their LAVIIIs they call Strykers are Canadian. (We use them too here in NZ).

But there ae some regulations about the equipment being at least part manufactured in the US? I know the US has quite some foreign designs, but aren't they mostly license made?

[Mal3]

just login and go to vehicles/usa/m1 abrams section.

regards
axl

Somehow my registration seems to have been cocked up... Will try later... Thanks.

[axl]

@mal3: the swedish trials did not really show what they should show, it was a political decission (as always). they had three tanks there and all were in prototype state: m1a2, leopard 2s, leclerc. abrams and leopard 2 existed since some years, the leclerc was completely new and therefor less reliable.

Typical really, this seems to be the method by which arms all around the world are chosen.


sure, but abrams and leopard 2 have been in service since 10 years. what they tested in sweden were some upgraded versions against a completely new leclerc. its not really clever to make a decission here. look, in germany you can read everywhere "the engine of the leclerc sux, it broke too often during the trials in sweden...". yes it did, but that was years ago and they already solved it. so i don't really give dime about the swedish results. bette take the tests in turkey, where again the leopard 2 was the best, followed by the leclerc. the turkish trials were interesting, the usa sent down a m1a1 with diesel engine. looks like somebody found out that the turbine is just a pain in the ass.

regards
axl

[Mal3]

That's interesting to hear. I really like the concept of the Leclerc except I think a crew of four is better than 3 + autoloader. The Leclerc is just so light and powerful and... very French! :)

I'd be hard pushed to think it the best, but I just like its style. I had both heard the Leclerc criticised for lack of reliability but also defended as the faults being fixed. Seem a lot of good weaponry has teething problems at first.

[FallenAngel]

I agree with whoever said that the Israelis are the best tankers in the world. Also, German training is on AT LEAST a par with American training. Why? For 50 years they were the first line of defense against a Russian invasion through the iron curtain...I would think NATO, Germany especially, would make sure the German tank crews were among the very best.

Also, the Germans are the ones that developed alot of the tactics that are used in armored warfare. Most western armies use the wedge formation when traveling in open ground- I am pretty sure that was first developed by the Germans :) Both Gulf Wars were fought very Blitzkrieg-ish. Taking control of the skies then take your tanks and go hell for leather blasting everything in their path. Before the Germans developed the land tactics, the tank was just another good idea :D

So, I would argue that the Abrams is NOT the best just because the crews are better trained. I think the Germans have just as much if not more going for them. Their country becoming a passivist one is beyong their control....kinda like a Democrat becoming president :D

[axl]

the old "four men is better because you have two hands more to work" argument, right? such an argument comes from people who served in a strange platoon or never served as a tanker. for me a good reason would be "who should make the food" or "where should i store all the beer"...
as i was in the army we did all the works at least in platoon size crews, so you have more than enough hands around.

regards
axl

[Mal3]

All the more reason to like the Leclerc. I'll be checking that site of yours better to read about the Leclerc. I've read a good part of the M1A1 vs. Leo 2A4 and it's pretty good stuff.

[axl]

thanks man.
there are tonns of reasons why the leclerc is a pretty good piece of metal, i guess the price is the only reason not to take it. but as german and american tanks are also not really cheap we should coillect some money ;-)
btw, in june is open days in orleans, just for all who would like to touch a leclerc t7 one time.

regards
axl

[budanski]

Being the only western tank with an auto loader, the Leclerc by far has the slowest shot rate. What also brings it down is that its the most expensive of them all. (9 million per tank)

[Mal3]

I'll have to remember that, can't travel abroad this summer but I will visit France in coming years. Lots of stuff I'll need to do while there I see.

Regarding price, the fact that it has a 25% smaller crew (fewer paychecks) should help?

[axl]

next year is eurosatory in paris.

i guess nobody really can give a price for a tank. that stuff does not work as getting a new car. prices of tanks include/exclude stuff like spare parts, ammunition, training equipment.... then its a question of about how many tanks you take, if you pay also for the development, what is the configuration, will you buy or also get a license...so numbers are impossible.
what is a slow rate of fire? with a manual loader you can have around one shot every six seconds i would say, thats the same for the mechanical friends. yes sure, in theory or on shooting ranges some guys made a reload in 2.5 seconds. but you have to think that reloading is not all. the gunner has to find the next target, aim it, press fire. and if the target is moving you have to follow it. so the speed question is simply theory. riding a tank is not like quake.

regards
axl

[axl]

@mal3
thats one reason. you have less soldiers so less to pay. in case of a hit you save one letter for the family. you save money with the training, the food everything.

regards
axl

[Duke]

Axl watch your tone jerkoff. Clancy has cowriten several nonfiction books on specific areas of the military-Special Forces with Stiner, Armored Cav with Franks, MEU...
Do your homework and read the book. The tank story is often repeated by Gen McCafferty.

[Dave.mil]

My two pennies worth. Blitzkrieg tactics or to be more precise combined arms operations were invented(first proposed) by a Brit prior to the second world war, I can't remember his name, but as usual the senior British officers were too thick to see the use of them(we had only just got rid of our horses). Secondly in the top ten tanks I think the Challenger 2E has not been mentioned it's far better than the in service Challenger 2 with lots of improvements in the engine, cmdr's sight, etc and can beat a M1a2 cross country!

[Duke]

I read Panzer Leader and a biography of Heinz Guderian the man responsible for blitzkrieg. A former signal officer (when wireless communication was at its infancy) and armor officer, Guderian was the first to intergrate air/armor units. Various concepts of air/tank/infantry tactics had been proposed by others but it was Guderian who proposed and created a discrete air/armor unit. At the time no military leader advocated or proposed an air/armor unit entirely unattatched to the infantry. The military power structure in the Europe at the time, mostly filled by infantry officers, refused the concept of blitzkrieg. They did so on the grounds it didnot involve the infantry. Also, an important facet new to warfare that Guderain proposed was the wireless communications used in coordinating the two units.

[axl]

@duke
i don't care about mr clancy or whatever general is believing that stuff. he is claiming that the m1a1 used in the golf could not be penetrated, thats simply not true. and if he is also telling that the tank was ready to go within two days then this is also not possible. tank fires, even if they would be "only" in the turret bustle are extremely hot and there is nothing that would stop them from burning some hours. and then you have a damn hot tank with alot of uranium oxide all around. all the rubber and plastic from the hull should be burned too, most of the metal deformed or broken. sorry, that sounds like this one "the leopard 2 is able to drive under water. from there it can lift its turret four meters high and fire then on every target around...."

regards
axl

ps: fire depression system is for the fighting compartment and the engine, not for the ammunition.

[Dave.mil]

The foundation of mobile warfare has its roots in Ancient and Medieval World. The German Army late in World War I initially developed basic tactics that eventually evolved into modern mobile warfare. Germans developed those tactics in an attempt to overcome the static trench warfare on the Western Front. Elite "Sturmtruppen" (Stormtroops) infantry units were created to attack enemy positions using the momentum of speed and suprise but eventually failed because of the lack of mobility and support needed in order to continue advancing further into enemy controlled territory
. During 1920s, British military philosophers Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart, General J.F.C. Fuller and General Martell further developed tactics of mobile warfare. They all postulated that tanks could not only seize ground by brute strength, but could also be the central factor in a new strategy of warfare. If moved rapidly enough, concentrations of tanks could smash through enemy lines and into the enemy's rear, destroying supplies and artillery positions and decreasing the enemy's will to resist. All of them found tank to be an ultimate weapon able to penetrate deep into enemy territory while followed by infantry and supported by artillery and airforce.

I rest my case.

[Duke]

Was sind Ihre Bescheinigungen, oder militarische Ausbildung haben Sie??? Ihre Meinung bedeutet sehr wenig.

[Duke]

You cant rest your case since Blitzkrieg is entirely an armor and air unit. do more homework or read Panzer Leader

[Dave.mil]

what?

[Dave.mil]

You trying to tell me Guderian found a new concept because the infantry followed up later!

[Duke]

listen up and learn....the concept of blitzkrieg rests on three concepts, airpower overcoming enemy landbased elements, the quick insertion of armor, and the movement of the two coordinated by wireless communications or radioes. Thats blitzkrieg- no infantry or artillery. get it. Heinz created that concept. yes others saw the possibilities of the tank as a deep penetrator, but it was heinz who perfected the tank/air tactics.

[Duke]

Guderian did not want infantry in the blitzkrieg. he thought infantry logistics would slow down is column of attack.

[Dave.mil]

Did'nt perfect it well enough they lost

goodnight

[axl]

@duke
your homework stuff is nice, but maybe thats something you should do.

1.your german is a mess
2.if you are claiming that what we call "blitzkrieg" today is working without infantry, you should start to think. nothing works without it and guderian was telling that more than just once. ask tom c.

regards
axl

[Mal3]

Did'nt perfect it well enough they lost

goodnight

Hardly the reason the Germans lost WWII...

[Dave.mil]

Sorry for the reference to losing I was just being childish. My german is awful because I'm not using any, thats down to however it's being transalated. I would argue that Guderian did not "Invent" Blitzkrieg he just took an existing concept and made it work.


In late 1920s and early 1930s, Charles De Gaulle, Hans von Seekt, Heinz Guderian and many others became interested in the concept of mobile warfare and tried to implement it in an organizational structure of their armies. Heinz Guderian organized Panzers into self-contained Panzer Divisions working with the close support of infantry, motorized infantry, artillery and airforce. From 1933 to 1939, Germany was on a quest to fully mechanize their army for an upcoming conflict

The Concept of Blitzkrieg.
1.Airforce attacks enemy front-line and rear positions, main roads, airfields and communication centers. At the same time infantry attacks on the entire frontline (or at least at main places) and engages enemy. This restrains the enemy from knowing where the main force will attack and makes it impossible to prepare any defenses.

2.Concentrated tank units breakthrough main lines of defense and advance deeper into enemy territory, while following mechanized units pursuit and engage defenders preventing them from establishing defensive postions. Infantry continues to engage enemy to misinform and keep enemy forces from withdrawing and establishing effective defense.

3.Infantry and other support units attack enemy flanks in order to link up with other groups to complete the attack and eventually encircle the enemy and/or capture strategic position.

4.Mechanized groups spearhead deeper into the enemy territory outflanking the enemy positions and paralyzing the rear preventing withdrawing troops and defenders from establishing effective defensive positions.

5.Main force links up with other units encircling and cutting off the enemy.

[Duke]

blitzkrieg tactics were aimed to destroy land forces. Stukas come in and destroy land forces immediately followed by tanks. Thats not duke talking thats Gurderian talking. Early in the second world war antitank weapons couldn't overcome german tanks. of course, now, the concept of three men and a jeep apply.
i promise no more german

[Dave.mil]

He spoke fluent french and english and translated the works of Captain B.H. Liddell Hart and Major-General J.F.C. Fuller. When he equipped some of his trucks with wooden turrets armed with guns and successfully manoeuvred them around the battlefield as fighting units, this was at first forbidden by his superiors

Not trying to be smug but I think this proves my point it was the Brits that came up with the combined arms concept although a purist could argue that had been done before by the Normans' Vikings(amphibious ops) etc

[Duke]

In the blitzkrieg the coup de grace is the air/armor units, mop up units do exist. the soul of blitzkrieg is the interplay between air and armor. Never before had an armor and air unit been coordinated by radioes. Neither was the concept of the timing the two in such a devastating one-two punch to shock and panic the enemy. If you disagree, then we must agree to disagree. Ive citing my facts from a Panzer Leader and some biography of HG

[axl]

jup, thats what guderian is atating all the time in his "memories of a soldier" book.

regards
axl

[Dave.mil]

Fair enough, we Brits still have not perfected the use of radio communication(look at our clansman radio)

The only thing we learn from history is.........

We learn nothing from history.[/quote]

[GazB]

Ummm... Blitzkrieg just means lightning war... attack at speed... bypass any really hard targets leaving them to be reduced over time by following forces... always moving forward to keep up the tempo and the enemy off balance. The Germans usually did this with airpower and tank forces with following infantry units to reduce hard targets.

It could be arguably asserted taht the Japanese used similar blitzkreig tactics in the Pacific using airpower and no or little armour.

It worked well in the little countries of europe but in Russia the supply lines were so stretched that it failed. Momentum was lost and could not be achieved again after 43.

They also didn't do what they did with the best tank either... Panzer 3s and 4s were not as good as T-34s or even in their early versions, Chars and some British tanks (that latter horribly underarmed for most fo the war).
Later in the war the Panthers and Tigers were on paper much superior but numbers really counted... 1,500 Tigers vs how many thousand Shermans and T-34s? 6,000 Panthers vs how many thousand Shermans and T-34s?

[Duke]

Bull****, nobody here has taken the time to read their ****. blitzkrieg is the pounding and annihilation of enemy land based forces by airforces immediately followed by a surge of coordinated armor. The point of the blitzkrieg to destroy hard targets.
Furthermore, gazb you not in the military so your confusing strategy with tactics. The blitzkrieg tactics were sound. The logistics of the warplanners were not sound, if supply is constraining the column.
Tanks vs Tanks is immaterial. Its was the total force employed by the blitzkrieg(stuka, mechanized inf, artillery, tanks) that cleared most of europe.
Your last point again involves strategy, "the numbers game", not tactics. Blitzkrieg is tactics, supply is strategy.

[GazB]

blitzkrieg is the pounding and annihilation of enemy land based forces by airforces immediately followed by a surge of coordinated armor. The point of the blitzkrieg to destroy hard targets.
Furthermore, gazb you not in the military so your confusing strategy with tactics. The blitzkrieg tactics were sound. The logistics of the warplanners were not sound, if supply is constraining the column.


Blitzkrieg means lightning war. It means that you must move quickly to keep your opponent off guard and not attack the hard points but find weaknesses in their line and pour through and attack rear units like supply and command and artillery units.
The point of Blitzkreig is to BYPASS hard targets like the Maginot line and attack where the line is weakest. Even coming through the ardennes forest they aimed their attack at the point directly between the British expeditionary forces and the French forces... ie the weakest point. The British were pushed back to Dunkirk and the French were pushed aside while german panzers raced to Paris.
If you wanted to target hard targets then thye would have gone straight for the Maginot line and repeated the mistakes of WWI... the whole mess of stagnation and static trench warfare that Blitzkreig was meant to avoid.

It wasn't just the weather or the space in Russia that stopped Blitzkreig... it was the way the Russians retreated.
At first the Russians fought poorly and large groups were captured with their heavy equipment intact. Later on however the nooses were capturing less and less equipment and less and less men. Of the 5 million or so Soviet troops captured during WWII (of which about 1 million were repatriated at the end) over 3 million were captured during the first few months of 41.
The germans learned from this and their long retreat from the gates of Moscow to the gates of Berlin was generally regarded as the best way to defeat Blitzkrieg... the ordered withdrawl that saved precious equipment which was moved back in time to avoid capture, the destruction of any resources that the enemy might be able to use like the burning of crop fields and the shooting of cows or anything that might be of use to the advancing russians... and finally a rearguard action that while minimising German casualties constantly cost the Soviets men and equipment...
Much of what ther germans did still lives today in the tactics devised by NATO to defeat the expected Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

[tankieboy]

Challenger 2. But I would say that as I used to drive, gun and operate/load one!

[Duke]

Dude your babbling. What about blitzkrieg? Not strategy. Again your confusing strategy and tactics. Please understand the two. In terms of the Maginot Line, any well entrenched defensive line can be outflanked. That is an example of strategy.

[woodland]

Anyone of the top five tanks could destroy the other if given the first shot opportunity and an element of surprise. There is a lot of luck involved in tank warfare (tank on tank) after the first contact has been made because you can't really tell who is about to shoot you from a mile away or even closer than that. That is why you want to shoot and scoot and use smoke if you have it. Surviving in a tank is all about mobility, the armor helps but nothing is perfect.

I personally prefer the Challenger's main gun (British designation L30 rifled 120mm) because it is a rifled rather than smoothbore design which means that regular rounds (meaning not the APFSDS) such as HEAT and advanced rounds of that design are stabilized by the rifling in the barrel, like in a rifle. As the round goes down the barrel of the cannon the rifling turns the round making it spin, which in turn stabilizes its flight better than if the cannon had been a smoothbore. Thus, when you are not using APFSDS the rifled cannon barrel, such as the one used in the Challenger II, is better.

The Merkava has better front protection than the rest of the top five because the engine of that beast is in front of the crew compartment (ie right behind the front armor of the hull) so if a round would even penetrate the front armor of the hull, the engine would be in the way which is a HUGE block of metal so the round could not penetrate that too after the previous penetration of the front armor. Thus, the crew could bail out of the now defunct tank and foot it out of there double time. Remember: a tank crew is worth more than a tank because it takes less time to build a new tank than to train a tank crew especially a good one. The Israelis learned this the hard way when they lost quite a few tanks and (worse yet) experienced tank crews to the Egyptians, so that is why the Israelis care so much about protecting the crew since they can bang together a tank in a few weeks but a good crew takes years.

Until we know more about that "Black Eagle" (which looks promising, but Russian manufacture can be horrible even if they can make great stuff) it is officially out of the contest.

Personally, I would prefer to be driven around in a G270 LIV (SO) truck which the Germans just bought for their spec. ops. guys and have a Saab Bofors made BILL 2 ATGW mounted on it to knock out those pesky T72's and those scary T80's and even everything else (incl. the Merkava and the Leopard 2) that might be in my way. The Bill 2 is a top attack, all weather capable ATGW, which if effective from 150 to 2200 meters.

The most adavanced things in land warfare are not the tanks but the anti-tank weapons. Any tank can be easily destroyed if caught unaware on the field by a squad of infantry who happen to have their TOW or Milan or whatever launcher on them and set up. That is why Aerial and ligth vehicle reece goes ahead of tanks so that the tanks know what is up ahead.

I hate that damn woodland! bastard so much, he would just shout unreasonably about "weep 'em its America". What does that even mean you dumb idiot bastard moron? Shut up and learn to write. Dumb freak.

woodland! is GAY!

[Dmitri]

rofl Nice location woodland, that is about the best info that you ever posted here. By the way, if you are trying to tell anyone to learn how to write, may it be known to you that "weep 'em its America" has mistakes in it. But anyway, I'm sure you are a good guy deep down somewhere, its just that your idiotic posts make it hard to believe in.

Sorry for offtop everyone, I just had to say this.

GazB, I think the retreating strategy that you are talking about was used by Russians when they were retreating (isn't it "slash and burn"?), since at first the germans were advancing so fast.. whatever couldn't be taken during the retreat was destoyed..

[kimouche]

I think they refer to this as "scorched earth"

[Sabre]

This is my first post, so hello to all.

Getting back to the subject of 'Top Ten'. I think Woodland makes some good points. Yes you can compare tank on tank, and for tank-buffs this is fun, but you need to think about how tanks are used.
US/UK/NATO doctrine is different from Russian (ex Soviet) doctrine and both are different to Israeli or South African etc doctrine.
Most equipment in western 'field' armies (ie large forces designed to engage other large forces in all-out war; different to rapid reaction etc) is designed to last as long as possible, being serviced when needed and trying to be all things to all men. Eastern equipment is designed from a different perspective. Soviet doctrine called for 'requirement-pull' development of tanks/aircraft whereas western doctrine is more of a 'technology-push' affair. So western tanks are packed full of cutting edge technology aimed at enhancing survivability and effectiveness. Russian tanks (and aircraft) are designed the other way round so to speak.
They look back to WW2 and the 50+ local conflicts around the USSR since 1945 and ask "How long will a tank last" and "how long would a campaign last" they then divide this time up into segments and work out when minor servicing (roadwheels, damaged parts etc) could be provided and when major servicing (main gun, powerpack etc) is needed. This information is then fed back into the design and so, for example, a Russian tank barrel needs replacement after 300 shots compared to an Abrams 500+ shots. This isn't necessarily a disadvantage because it is taken into account in the bigger picture. Tank barrels can be replaced in low level field workshops and a suffiecient supply of them is kept. In addition, the R&D was able to come up with the solution of replacing the entire gun rather than just the barrel, the whole lot just lifting out.
Other differences, like ATGMs launched from the main gun are just alternate ways of solving the same problem. QUESTION: How can we engage targets at longer distances? WEST ANSWER: Have a complex sighting system and a very accurate gun (because this is an adaption of an existing product, keeping that company in the running). EAST ANSWER: Use an ATGM, it worked for the infantry, lets use it here. It's not a case of 'making up' for falling short (no pun intended), just a different way.
As for Merkeva, the Israelis have their own situation which is entirely different to conventional conflict, requiring their own solution. It's 'horses for courses' I'm afraid.
So it's not as simple as comparing tank on tank, but we still have our own preferred type.

Christ that was long, sorry!

[Sulph8]

Good analysis.

[Kitsune]

Yeah, pretty good start, sabre !
And never mind that your posts are long, as long they got content !

p-)

[woodland]

I am only using his name because that stupid gay asshole loser freak's commentary on the pictures. His constant retarted weep em man crap. I was telling HIM to learn how to write, to get a life,s top playing playstation. He DOESN'T know CR@P about life, the military, about ANYTHING AT ALL. I joined because I want to harass him (if he's still around) and to put down his assanine comments. I hate that retarted 2 year old and his retarted anti-Europeanism.....

Anyway, back to tanks:

Yes, the Merkava was made for urban and desert combat. It would certainly not fare well in snow as it is simply way to large, I can even see it not doing as well in the desert either as the Israeli M60A3's which are more suited for that kind of shoot and scoot warfare.

If you noticed the Merkava can carry 4 troops in the back instead of extra ammunition. That is what they did once when they drove their tanks (!!!) through the walls of certain Palestinian occupied building and then the troops dismounted from the tank inside the building. Strange use for a tank one might say, but with ERA (Explosive reactive armor) the Merkava is much harder to take out from any direction than a thin sin APC, Also the Merkava is much more useful for ramming through walls because of the cannon sticking out a good meter or two. (what if debris gets in there, oops, no more cannon use, eh?) :)

I am surprised however that everyone forgot the superbly designed defensive tank of the north, that is, the S103 MBT of the Swedish Army.
Sure, it has gone out of service in the 90's after those money wasters bought those ugly Leopard 2's (sad but true, they are ugly as hell) but the Swedish army didn't dispose of them until 2001. Anyway, the main armament was a 105mm L7 cannon (yes, british copy) which was not mounted on a turret but into the hull itself. The tank had an extremely low profile (less than 190cm) and it turned very rapidly on its treads (needed to, to aim the cannon which couldn't move vertically or horizonatlly.) and it could sink and raise itself to raise or lower the cannon and also to use the built in blade to dig a hull-down firing position for itself. So, as I said, this tank was made for defensive warfare, the only think the Swedes really cared about back int the 70's and 80's. And, for those purposes it was undoubtably the best tank ever designed. It was fairly light yet well armored. Had twin coaxial (flexible vertically) 7.62mm machine guns in the hull and a pintle mounted 7.62 for anti-air duties or otherwise.

So: The tank could build its own firing position, was barely visible from behind that, because of the hull mounted cannon, and was very fast for a tank, so it could shoot (maybe even twice before those drunken Russians spotted the berm or the cannon) and scoot away to another premade firing position a few hundred or maybe thousand metres back while putting up some smoke. Then it could shoot again and retreat the process. Now, back in the 70's and 80's a 105mm cannon was nothing to laugh at, so despite it seemingly smaller caliber it could take on all of those T72's and maybe even the T80. Note that a 105mm cannon is still very effective to this day, as the M1A1 Abrams used to be armed with a 105mm cannon before the M1A2 came out with its 120mm cannon. Don't mess with an L7....

Some pictures of this excellent but often forgotten (uhum.....) tank:

http://w1.500.telia.com/~u50015076/Mvc-0011f.jpg

http://w1.500.telia.com/~u50015076/Mvc-0012f.jpg

http://www.haaland.info/sweden/tank/s103skraa.jpg

http://www.haaland.info/sweden/tank/s103_1.jpg

http://www.haaland.info/sweden/tank/s103_2.jpg

There, nice tank, eh? I wouldn't mind having one on my lawn....

Alas, how easily certain "experts" have forgotten this tank and have chosen the rather crappy M60 (not the M60A3) over this tank in their comparissons.

When talking about the best tank we must take into account battle experience and overall use and sales. The British Centurion, while old, was a monster in its day, and the Israelis used it with much success (they still have some today) in the Sinai campaigns. Even the Swedes bought a good number of Centurions to complement the rather defensive S103 tanks.

Then again the Israelis used the M4A3 and other various upgrades Sherman late into the 50's and even in the 60's!!! Yes those supermodified Sherman sometimes even had 105mm cannons! I believe they even tested early ERA armor on those! Well, the Israelis certainly know a lot about upgrading and, better yet, using tanks.

Time for me to return to FA RC2.7

Woodland is a retarted gay dumbass!!!

[budanski]

I don't know why, but I sense Woodland is somewhat..... gay.

[woodland]

Come on! I am talking about that annoying woodland! (notice the !) who talks bull**** and crap all day on the picture boards. I just use his name without the ! to annoy him if he is around and to yell at him, because I can't stand his bull****ing and crap that he spews forth. That is the main reason I joined. You think that 10 year old ass on his mom's computer would have as much knowledge as I do? Highly unlikely....

Anyway, I am again calling woodland! a gay dumbass!

Notice I am talking about woodland! not woodland (myself).

[woodland]

rofl Nice location woodland, that is about the best info that you ever posted here. By the way, if you are trying to tell anyone to learn how to write, may it be known to you that "weep 'em its America" has mistakes in it. But anyway, I'm sure you are a good guy deep down somewhere, its just that your idiotic posts make it hard to believe in...

Notice the message above this reply, Dmitri, I hate woodland! just as much as you do! I am woodland not woodland!

Anyway, is that gay freak still around? (I mean woodland!) :bash:

[Sulph8]

Wait a sec, i thought the Merkava 4 is only going into service in 2004?

[Trigger]

OK, Who the F**K is woodland!?
and furthermore, why is he gay?

[Dmitri]

Oh, k, I got you woodland. ;) Yea, to anybody who doesn't know, woodland! is a gay ass american who makes a lot of supid ass coments on the pictures and never backs them up.. Even his fellow countrymen hate him, not talking about people from other countries in this website...

Woodland! = :fork: :bash:

"weep 'em its America" rofl :cantbeli:

P.S. yea, woodland! is still around, I saw another of his dumb comments not long ago in oone of the SF sections.

[Trigger]

Thank you for the clarification. I hope my asking wasn't percieved as gay.

[GazB]

"Dude your babbling. What about blitzkrieg? Not strategy. Again your confusing strategy and tactics. Please understand the two. In terms of the Maginot Line, any well entrenched defensive line can be outflanked. That is an example of strategy."

Who cares if it is a strategy or a tactic... blitzkrieg is about finding the weak point in your enemies line and hitting it with mobile forces and spreading out once you are through the front line to take out rear area forces like logisitics units and command centres. Other penetrations in the front line will result in encirclements which gives you captured equipment and men.
In a jungle environment the only way you can get speed is on foot, so blitzkrieg doesn't rely on armour... just mobility and surprise and targetting weak points. The Japanese invasion of the Pacific and Asia was a type of blitzkrieg... it was done quickly and with a lot of surprise... they used airpower and ships but very little armour.

"Until we know more about that "Black Eagle" (which looks promising, but Russian manufacture can be horrible even if they can make great stuff) it is officially out of the contest. "

Why? How much do you actually know about the late model western tanks?
The Bustle loader... which seems to be the most important change from earlier Soviet tanks has been shown on earlier Russian tanks like the T-80U, the T-55 and others as well. This should greatly imporve the safety of earlier Russian tanks which is one of their greatest perceived problems.
The turret bustle loader also allows longer rounds to be fitted into the autoloader and longer penetrators are much more effective.

"GazB, I think the retreating strategy that you are talking about was used by Russians when they were retreating (isn't it "slash and burn"?), since at first the germans were advancing so fast.. whatever couldn't be taken during the retreat was destoyed.."

Not initially... they were so suprised and Stalin did very little in the first few days... (and the purges had taught the officers not to do anything on your own initiative) that large numbers of soldiers and vehicles and aircraft were either destroyed parked up or encircled and captured that no scorched earth policy was even started till well after Barbarossa was underway. In many towns the Germans were greeted as saviours that would deliver the various people (Ukrainian and Russian and Belorussian etc as well as Baltic) from the hands of the evil communists. Of course after the German army had swept through the SS came behind to manage things and the locals were left in no doubt that the germans considered the Slavic people to be cattle... to be used to make the lives of the germanic people comfortable.
It was several months before serious partisan uprisings began and also before the retreating Russian army started to retreat in better order to keep possession of its heavy equipment.
The first use of the scorched earth policy was much earlier... against the French lead by Napolion.
Later in the war after 43 when the Germans started their final withdrawl back to berlin that the world was shown German efficiency in withdrawl... not just keeping their units and heavy equipment intact but also inflicting losses on the enemy while not actually winning battles and withdrawing all the time.

"So western tanks are packed full of cutting edge technology aimed at enhancing survivability and effectiveness. Russian tanks (and aircraft) are designed the other way round so to speak. "

I don't completely agree. Russian designs tend to make the best possible design for their plans. Their plans were for high speed attacks across large flat plains (ie western europe). A small number of more expensive tanks with better armour added to the mass of cheaper tanks for volume with big guns and reasonable armour.
The T-64/T-80 being the expensive tanks with composite armour and the T-72 the mass produced tank to replace the earlier models in most tank parks.
The French, the US, The Germans and the Russians all experiemented with missiles fired through the tanks main gun. The western approach was a specially designed tank gun, which required its own types of ammo (and the logisitcs that required). In the end testing showed that the Shilalagh was not much better than a modified M113 with TOW, but much more expensive and so it is being withdrawn (if it hasn't already been).
The Russians made different choices but for the same goals... they all wanted long range high accuracy firepower with a potential anti helo capability. The Russians chose to enhance their existing tanks rather than create a new dedicated missile armed tank design... of which they had tested and rejected. The new design was to have missiles for every calibre anti tank gun so that all of the tanks in their tank park could benefit from the long range capability. This meant that every anti tank gun from the 100mm rifled T-55 gun to the 125mm gun of the T64/-72/-80/-90 would have its own missile type. There were at least 4 different types of 100mm missile types alone for the T-55 (100mm rifled), BMP-3 (100mm rifled with a very short propelllant case), plus towed rifled and Smoothbore 100mm guns.
They were not designed to make missile tanks. The compliment of the updated tanks was ususally 6-8 missiles plus the ususal other ammo types. If a target presented itself at 800m it was more likely to be engaged with an APFSDS round than a missile, a helo hovering beside a tree or building at 4km however could be engaged with a missile, or an enemy tank at 5km might also be engaged with a missile too. Options that certainly would be beyond the average T-55 or T62.

"WEST ANSWER: Have a complex sighting system and a very accurate gun (because this is an adaption of an existing product, keeping that company in the running)."

Also an expensive system for a few thousand tanks is economically viable, whereas if you have a tank park of over 30,000 vehicles with a large percentage of them armed with guns that are almost obsolete (but certainly adequate for engaging light enemy vehicles like APCs or artillery or on secondary fronts) a solution that can be retrofitted to older tanks makes more economic sense. Laser rangefinders and tank fired missiles as well as addon armour make the T-62 perfectly adequate for Afghanistan or another theatre where the enemy has little or largely contemporary armour.

"Yes, the Merkava was made for urban and desert combat. It would certainly not fare well in snow as it is simply way to large, I can even see it not doing as well in the desert either as the Israeli M60A3's which are more suited for that kind of shoot and scoot warfare."

I disagree... the T-72 is better than the M60 for shoot and scoot... better gun, smaller target etc etc, yet I'd choose a Merkava over a T-72 in the desert (or indeed over an M60).
The Israelis only need to shoot and scoot if they lose air control... and if they lost that it wouldn't matter very much what you are in if the air is used properly by those who do control it.

"So, as I said, this tank was made for defensive warfare, the only think the Swedes really cared about back int the 70's and 80's. And, for those purposes it was undoubtably the best tank ever designed"

It had one huge failing... it couldn't fire on the move and also if it was withdrawing it couldn't fire upon anything following it (with the gun fixed forward).
The Result was much the same as the nonturreted vehicles made during WWII... a bigger gun than could normally be fitted on the chassis, and cheaper and often smaller than a turreted tank, but generally not as much use as a normal tank... of the vehicles with fixed guns during WWII my two favourites were the Su-100 due to the powerful gun (though it could have done with more ammo) and the British Archer which had a rear facing gun which was a very good design defencively.

"Don't mess with an L7...."

The L7 was a very good gun, but with non exported Russian T-72s with ceramic inserts and the T-64 and T-80 with combination armour you might be pushing sht up hill.

"Well, the Israelis certainly know a lot about upgrading and, better yet, using tanks. "

Their use of the T-62s showed that although there are good and bad tank designs even ones considered not that good can do a good job.

[Sabre]

GazB, well said.

I think the other guys are simply talking about the german concept of blitzkrieg. The idea of the 'Schwerepunkt' mass concentration of armour and ground attack aircraft was the unique feature. Yes other armies before and since have used blitzkrieg-like tactics, but they were the first to make it work with tanks and aircraft. The idea being that the mechanisation of the concept lead to an overwhelming momentum against armies whose generals were still in 'horse and gun/trench warfare' mode (ie Poland, France and the Low countries)
Having said that, the Red Army was by no means in that frame of mind. They too had lead the field in mobile armoured warfare through the 20's and 30's and experimented in airborne operations (even using an air-droped tank, a T-38). They (arguably) developed the first special forces concept, creating the Spetsnaz in the Spanish Civil War for rear area (it was mostly rear area) harrassment and cutting communication routes. What lead to the chaos of '41 was, as you said, Stalin's purges wiping out free thinking officers, who really were pionneers of modern warfare. Stalin's insistance that Hitler wouldn't dare attack the mighty USSR (based on a need to believe his own propoganda) also meant that those officers left were prohibited from making necessary defensive arrangements.

"I don't completely agree. Russian designs tend to make the best possible design for their plans."

I agree with you, what I meant was that the Russian design process was different, not that their designs were inferior. They design their tanks/equipment based on all aspects of their use, rather than just countering current AT weapons. Very often, russian designers anticipate a problem that doesn't exist yet and incorporate the solution into their designs.
Even back in the 40's they were designing tanks with very complicated technology. The IS-7 had a S-70 130mm gun fitted with an auto-loader and advanced fire control, allowing the gunner to lock on to a target and fire automatically. That was in 1948!

Indeed, the use of ATGMs designed for tanks is another example of an alternate approach. I was comparing tank on tank (when the whole point of my argument was that you shouldn't!), but the scope of the concept comes into play when you consider the big picture. Like much of the 'add on' technology from russia (ERA, Arena ADS, Shtora) it can be used to enhance older models to improve performance and survivability without having to go to the expense of producing a whole new model.
The US Shilliagh (SP?) program was a farce. The missile needed a new gun/launcher as you said and actually resulted in two vehicles entering service. The M551 and the M60 A2. Both had the same 152mm system but were held back by faults with the missile. The M551 served in Vietnam (against what? surely overkill on the rare NVA T34s) and the M60 A2 with units such as the USMC. Both (I think) are out of service now, even though conventional ammunition exists, but the whole project cost loads and acheived little.

The S-tank? Good try, but not really a contender on the battlefield. Harrassment before it's spotted by a Hind/Hokum/Havoc? Maybe, but it's 'Godnatt' thereafter.

[axl]

my two cents

@woodland
infact rifled guns are not really perfect to fire heat rounds. the rotation of the gun is too high and disturbes the forming of the jet. thats why special rounds needed to be designed. the round is turning fast, but the warhead is placed in a special mounting and does not turn. the rounds are more expensive.
the bigger advatage comes for the sabot rounds. because of the high turning rate those rounds center at time of impact on the targets armor (just think about spinners, children played that some years before). because of that fact the round is penetrating the enemy armour upright and that means less penetration route. if you look at modern armour they are often sloped, but they expect the round impacting frontal. so if the round comes in upright on a sloped armour that could mean that it would bypass some protection, coz it can't work the way it has been designed.

front mounted engine does not mean more protection. it means only that this tank has more protection than the same tank with the engine in the back. but you say nothing about the protection level of the merkavas basic armour. also you miss the better crews protection against mines.

merkava also has NO era, never had, even if it could be mounted. and i don't get your point with the house ramming. what makes the merkava here special...gun (what?)?

about the 105mm gun you are just half right, coz you miss the ammunition that is at least as important.

the m1a1 was armed with the 120mm gun long before the m1a2 came out.

the strv103 was not as brilliant. it was flat, okay. and it was not as easy to find. but it was just a bunker that was not able for a dynamic defence. the engine (combination of engine and turbine) was crap. it burned to much fuel, was not reliable and produced a giant hotspot (same for the merkava, just forgot to write that earlier). the full s-tank was a giant hydraulic system, noving worked without that. so it was full of pipes, filled with high pressured flammable liquide. one penetrating hit and the tank would light up like nothing else. a flat design is not all, it will often hinder you. if you are in a hull down position with an s-tank (what infact mean a tank down position...), how can you depress the gun? only by depressing the whole tank and then you are totally covered...
so please don't say just the good points. and the leopard 2, especially the a4, its a nice design that reminds me all the time on the good old tiger. the leopard 2 (strv121) was a quite good joice, it was also design for defence, but a different one possible with the strv103. and its also much more flexible.

@gazb
if you mean the same as me with bustl loader (mounted in the turret rear), then i don't know what t-80u you know with that. there is none.

the missile fiering gun was more an american project, the germans never wanted it (they prefered already a 120mm gun for the mbt70).

russian atgm for tanks have never been designed to be fired against helicopters, even if its possible now. the only army ever really trained anti helicopter attacks with an mbt is the german one. the russians never needed, the west does not really have that much helicopters. and the us army doesn't need because they think in other dimensions (always air supperiority).
the reason why there are different 100mm atgm is simply that those guns have been designed at different times and for different guns. to have the missile is not all, you need the sight as well. and now you have good sight/rounds vs good sight/missile and for mass production the russian one is cheaper.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

[GazB]

"Having said that, the Red Army was by no means in that frame of mind. "

The Red army had some talented commanders and some of these even survived the purges, but tank tactics were the area where the Germans excelled.
At the star of WWII the Russians had about 20,000 tanks at their disposal... most were obsolete light amphibious tanks or multi turreted bohemoths that were impressive in parades but not much use on the battle ground.
The KV-1 and T-34 had many revolutionary features, mobility from wide tracks and good engine, sloped thick armour, but most importantly a good dual purpose gun. Previously anti tank guns had been smaller calibre high velocity weapons while tank guns for infantry support roles use short barrel low velocity 76mm guns with HE charges to destroy pill boxes or MG posts, or trucks. (a solid 47mm round will pass right through a truck and unless it hits something important like the drive or enigne or the wheels will not seriously damage it, a 76mm HE round will generally disable it or destroy it however).
The Panzers that invaded Russia were armed with 50mm high velocity guns or short barrel 75mm guns. The long barrel high pressure 76mm gun used by the T-34 and KV-1 were a huge step forward. (Previous attempts to combine light high velocity anti tank guns and guns with enough HE power to be useful against various targets resulted in large heavy ponderous multi turreted tanks which were not very effective).

The Russians learned the wrong lessons from the Spanish civil war and the German use of blitzkrieg during the attacks on western europe and Russian battles in Finland showed Stalin Russia had learned the wrong lessons. Armour was spread out amongst infantry units instead of concentrated where it could be used in powerful blows. Its design was also optimised for dual role, but clumsily using multi turrets instead of dual purpose guns. Had Barbarossa started in 42 the Russians might have been ready... in 41 they had just started to implement the changes... though the T-34 and KV-1 were already available in small but steadily building numbers.
(In other words they had realised they had the wrong force design and the wrong tactics and were in the middle of reorganising their forces and retraining their forces in proper tactics... which would have taken about a year, when the germans attacked them.)

"The US Shilliagh (SP?) program was a farce. The missile needed a new gun/launcher as you said and actually resulted in two vehicles entering service."

This was because the west (the French had a 142mm version with similar problems that never entered service) wanted to create a missile launching super tank. The Russians merely wanted to improve the capabilities of their existing tank fleet and correct a problem of long range accuracy at the same time. (The Russians seem to see guns and missiles as complimentary... ie Shilka and SA-9 and SA-13, Tunguska, on land, at sea CADS-N-1 with missiles and guns, with artillery they use MRL to suppliment tube artillery. In the west with Chapparal, and Stinger being the standard short range air defence with some vehicles with gun/ missile combination being put forward, at sea RAM seems to be put forward as a replacement for Phalanx, while MRLS seems to be replacing tube artillery rather than adding to it...)


"if you mean the same as me with bustl loader (mounted in the turret rear), then i don't know what t-80u you know with that. there is none. "

The Black Eagle model shown many times is a development of the T-80U.
The original BE model actually used a standard T-80U chassis, though later it was shown with a longer chassis with an extra wheel on each side.
The Bustle loader designed for the BE has been shown on other Russian tanks like the T-55, T-72 and T-80U. ie it is not just a feature of the BE, but an upgrade option for most Russian tanks.
(For Black Eagle it became necessary because the ammo for the new gun is too long to fit in the turret ring autoloader... one piece ammo like the 120mm rounds for the western guns also become an option if such a bustle is retrofitted to say a T-72 or T-55... it has not been an option in the past due to the length not being compatible with auto loaders in the T-72 and the turret being too small to add a human loader.


"russian atgm for tanks have never been designed to be fired against helicopters, even if its possible now."

It was never a primary role, but with the more sophisticated stabilisation systems of the BMP-3 andthe T-80 series it is a potential future role. (earlier missiles are deemed to be not fast enough by the soviets, but later missiles are much faster)
Unlike TOW or HOT they can be fired on the move as well due to there being no trailing wire.

There is also the option of going for fire and forget missiles using IIR or MMW radar seekers. The Russians already field sensor fused munitions with MMW radar seekers, and the Krisanthema MMW radar guided anti tank missile, and plans are quite advanced for very high speed MMW radar guided missiles to arm the Havoc and Hokum in their Night all weather versions. (ie Mi-28N and Ka-50N and Ka-52).

[Duke]

"Who cares if its..."
That comments shows the little understanding or education you have in military concepts. Dont come on and tell me or others who do have training and education on the subject. Go read about the differences between strategy and tactics. the difference is about 10 000 personnel. Furthermore, the weakness and penetration concept you are trying to espouse is called the Napoleonic Tactic. And has nothing to do with strategy. Again go read about it. Secondly, in your jungle diatribe what you are trying to state is "maneuver warfare". What was your point??
You talk of maturity and intelligence.
Please Gaz before you come on line to write down "Talking Points" learned by secondary information have the maturity to do your homework to show some intelligence.

[stuntman]

Great comments but a little off topic,, why do you (woodland) attack WOODLAND! Maybe his cheese has slid of his cracker but you appear by your post to be relatively intelligent. I feel that he is not gay but being patriotic, I feel that although I really question his knowledge of military "stuff" I don't question his motive. I feel his motives are to point out how ignorant most people here are. I also think he wins when ever someone replies in his level! So keep replying and he keeps winning! So please continue posting great comment because I am truly learning from you guys and I am also thinking of joining the military. Although I am 24 (a bit old) My grandad fought in ww2 and my uncle in Nam so I feel maybe its a calling plus the military no matter what country is so freaking cool! Sounds juvenile but The m1a2 is the best tank ever built becuase the german tank is just un tested! simple...

http://www.redstorm.com/images/m1a3.gif

[GazB]

"Sounds juvenile but The m1a2 is the best tank ever built becuase the german tank is just un tested!"

Yes, you are right... it does sound very juvenile.

The Swedes tested both and bought the Leopard.

Not every country in the world has a fleet of C-5s to carry around their tanks one at a time...

"You talk of maturity and intelligence. "

Why are you confusing maturity and intelligence with education?
I have not been to any military schools, but I prefer to refrain from calling names unless truely dealing with a moron. You will notice I have refrained from calling you names... simply because I can tell you are not stupid. (You lack of self control doesn't make you an idiot).

Blitzkrieg was a reaction to the static warfare of WWI. The static warfare of WWI was created by the power of the Machinegun and artillery which the military forces of the time had underestimated before hand, despite their penchant for using them against natives in the various colonies.
Here in New Zealand the local natives called Maoris gave the British a very good lesson in trench warfare and how it could defeat the tactics of the day.. a lesson the British chose to ignore.
Of course there is a rather huge difference between trench warfare in hilly terrain and the fields of flanders.

The fact that you refuse to discuss things on this discussion board because I don't use the terms you use suggests that the whole idea of the internet shouldn't work... I mean the abundance of **** makes sense, but how can very different people from very different cultures and upbringings discuss anything...

[axl]

The Black Eagle model shown many times is a development of the T-80U.
The original BE model actually used a standard T-80U chassis, though later it was shown with a longer chassis with an extra wheel on each side.



the be has been shown two times, not more. what you see is always the same picture.





The Bustle loader designed for the BE has been shown on other Russian tanks like the T-55, T-72 and T-80U. ie it is not just a feature of the BE, but an upgrade option for most Russian tanks.



sorry man, you are lying around. there is no russian bustle loader around, coz there is simply no need. the simple reason is that the russians fire differet rounds than the western tanks, they a seperate loading.

could it be that you are refering to the ukrainian t-72-120? this tank is not russian and has no 125mm gun. there is also just one around. another is the oplot, but again, its not russian. and its not t-55 or t-80u. so i'm wondering where you have your information from.

maybe read some better material: http://www.kampfpanzer.de
regards
axl

[Mal3]

Sounds juvenile but The m1a2 is the best tank ever built becuase the german tank is just un tested! simple...

So the F-15E is better than the F/A-22 because the latter hasn't been tested? What about the very capable Challenger II? It has been tested and seems to be fairly impressive.

Aren't you trying to answer the question of "what battle tank has been shown to be best in battle thus far?"

[GazB]

"sorry man, you are lying around. there is no russian bustle loader around, coz there is simply no need. the simple reason is that the russians fire differet rounds than the western tanks, they a seperate loading."

If there is no Russian bustle mounted autoloader what is that on the rear of the Black Eagles turret?
There are two main reasons for it on the Black Eagle... one is that the new 15?mm main gun has rounds that are too long for a usual autoloader (especially the guided ones) and second because they are recognising the the safety inherent in seperating turret stored ammo from the crew compartment.
In older vehicles the two advantages are safety again, and the potential for longer penetrators (which are more effective). Also an increase rate of fire with the potential to load the whole round at once instead of in two parts (which in the case of guided missiles need to be fitted together).

My sources are various exhibitions at Omsk and other armour shows in Russia.

[GazB]

"the be has been shown two times, not more. what you see is always the same picture. "

I have Steven J Zalogas' Concord book on the T-80U and it includes both live photos of the Black Eagle and photos of a model. The live photos clearly show one Black Eagle with 6 large road wheels and one with 7.

May I suggest you have a little look at this site...:

http://armor.vif2.ru/

It also has info about Shtora, and Arena, and Drodz, and a few other interesting things.

[axl]

@gazb
i don't need a look at the page.

1.there could be a russian bustl loader, but not for t-80u/t-55 or whatever you mentioned.
2.that the be was shown only two time does not exclude any pictures in books. whats your point? there is also no question about the two different prototypes. except the hull anything is simply speculation, there is no data about that tank. nobody can tell you what fcs it has, what gun (could be 125 or 152 or or or), what auto loader or what kind of rounds. also the armour is completely unclear.

i would like to see only one picture of a russian vehicle with such a bustle loader (not be please). as you claim to have that stuff, please let me know.
you make a mistake in your statements. according to nearly all western publications the russian auto loader is dangerous, coz it keeps the rounds in the fighting compartment. what is the problem with that? nearly all western tanks do the same! and what is better, storing the rounds in a position deep down in the hull or store them in the turret? western bustle storage is nice, but not perfect. how big is the chance that in a turret penetration the ammo storage in the turret rear is not affected? its not quite good.
rate of fire is also not a question of the auto loader, not anymore. if you talk about old t-72/m loaders, okay, but not today. today's rate of fire is at ots limits, you can't do better. don't think about shooting range demonstartions where the crew know where the targets come up. in a tank fight you have to bring your gun on the target, follow the target, lase the target, fire. that takes some seconds. and also after the shot you have to wait until your gun comes back to ready status. all that has nothing to do with the loader. ever serverd as a tanker?
why should russians go to a different caliber than 125mm or 120mm? they would have to produce rounds only for themselfe and that in a limited quantity coz they don't have money. they could not exchange the rounds with other units, so why do so? even if you are right your statement that the actual loader can't handle loger rods, they will never go that way and isolate themselfe with a new caliber.

regards
axl

ps: don't believe everything that you read about russian tanks, especially not if its on the internet or in western publications. mr zaloga never served as a tanker, he has his knowledge from guys who talked with guys about maybe available information


www.kampfpanzer.de

[GazB]

short of time at the moment, will post back later... with pics if I have time.

[RealUltimatePower]

1-Abrams M1A2 (rated number 1 by NATO for bein affordable and really well designed and proven in battle)
2-Leopard 2 (very impresive system but one word EXPENSIVE)
3-Challenger 2
4-Merkava (Tried tested and true!) can withstand palestinian rock barrage
5-Leopard C2 (Canadian version has superior NVG)
6-T-80
7-Leclerk(france hasn't sold any of these to any other nation)(Oh and its autoloading system jams)

[FallenAngel]

Actually Wolfe, the Leopard 2 has consistantly proven better than the Abrams on several NATO shoot occasions. Also, the Leclerc has been purchased from France by Qatar I believe- albeit in limited numbers.

[axl]

@wolfe117
what version of the leopard 2 are you refering to as expensive? what's the price of a tank? you don't guy it like a car, you have always bundles with spare parts ans traings and weapons and and and.

what makes the old c2 better than a leclerc? btw, you know nothing about that tank. ever seen one, ever been inside, ever drove it? how can you rate something the way you do if you don't know details? and there is no problem with the leclerc's loader, it works just perfect.

also th m1a2 is not that brilliant. its an old heavy design and its still equipped with the turbine. its overall mobility is quite weak, leopard 2 and leclerc do much better.

regards
axl

[GazB]

its an old heavy design and its still equipped with the turbine.

Actually a turbine engine is the way forward... once they get the fuel consumption under control.
The same transition was made by aircraft engines... for a cessna a little 100hp engine requirement is best met with an internal combustion engine. A turbine engine in that size would be expensive to buy in that size, though as cruise missiles can show they can be made quite efficient too.
Turbine engines are also rather simpler than an internal combustion engine.
At the 1,000hp mark the differences are not insurmountable. At 4,000hp there is no contest... the internal combustion engine is reaching its limits whereas the gas turbine is just starting. Electric drive, electric powered armour, electricly fired guns are on the drawing boards and require large amounts of power. A gas turbine running at optimum speed to power capacitors with a seperate electric drive train, and perhaps seperate capacitor bank for an electric gun (ie rail gun) are going to be beyong the capabilities of standard internal combustion diesel engines very soon.
I have read practical limits of about 2000kW (approx 2682hp)for current or projected diesel engines that could be fitted into a tank sized vehicle.
That may not be enough if the gun is to be powered too.

"1.there could be a russian bustl loader, but not for t-80u/t-55 or whatever you mentioned. "

The Black Eagle IS a Russian Bustle loader design and the Black Eagle is based loosely on the T-80U series.

".that the be was shown only two time does not exclude any pictures in books. whats your point? there is also no question about the two different prototypes. except the hull anything is simply speculation, there is no data about that tank."

My point is that the first hull design was that of the T-80U. Showing it pedigree... it was originally based on the T-80U. The Turret uses different armour, and a bustle mounted autoloader and looks less like the T-80U but the T-80U was the starting point for something the Russian army could use to replace the T-90 in service with. The Hull was improved and lengthened... that is shown by the change in the test vehicles shown a tthe expo's.
The Russians themselves have stated that a larger gun will be used and that one of the goals was to lengthen the penetrator rounds to improve performance.
There are photos of the Ukrainian T-84 with a bustle loader because it is offered with either the NATO standard 120mm gun or the new NATO 140mm gun... both of which use rounds too long to use in an under turret autoloader.

"what gun (could be 125 or 152 or or or), what auto loader or what kind of rounds."
Most commentators assume 152mm will be the new calibre, though I don't agree. In the past when "standard" calibres could have been used, they weren't... ie the 73mm gun of the BMP could have been a 76.2mm gun, but wasn't, the 125mm gun of the T-64/-72/-80/-90 could have been the already standardised 122mm... but the Russians learned during WWII that standardising calibres for supply is good only if the ammo is compatible. 122mm rocket ammo could be confused with 122mm artillery rounds... something that was avoided by simply calling the 122mm rockets Grad's and nothing else... if you needed 122mm artillery rounds they would be artillery shells for 122mm guns.
The pistols of the day (Tokarev, and Nagant revolver) also used 308 calibre rounds and were not compatible with each other or the standard rifle round also a 308 design. In the war there was the advantage that as SMGs were more use in urban fighting that one 308 rifle barrel could be cut in half to make 2 SMG barrels or 4 or more pistol barrels.
The BMP round was a rocket based round and would never be compatible with a 76.2mm gun as used in PT-76s.
Equally the 15?mm gun of the BE will be a high velocity round and have little in common with a standard 152mm artillery piece like a D-20 and the ammo will not be compatible... there is no reason to make the calibre the same.

" also the armour is completely unclear. "

The armour on the front of the hull (the new revise 7 wheel hull) looks like it has the same ERA as the T-80U.

"i would like to see only one picture of a russian vehicle with such a bustle loader (not be please). as you claim to have that stuff, please let me know. "

The BE is a russian tank, but I will dig out a photo for you.

"according to nearly all western publications the russian auto loader is dangerous, coz it keeps the rounds in the fighting compartment. "

It keeps the rounds directly below the turret.
One of the main reasons the turret is so well armoured is because it is most often hit in combat.
As found in combat in Chechnia a solid hit to the turret or side of the vehicle or mine blast will often detonate this ammo giving the gunner and commander no chance... though if the driver has his hatch open there were several recorded cases where the driver was blown clean out of the vehicle when the ammo exploded. They suffer burns but often survive (if not shot or otherwise killed).

"but not today. today's rate of fire is at ots limits, you can't do better. "

When calibres go up... the new Russian calibre is unknown, but the next NATO standard calibre will be 140mm, each round will be too heavy for one man to lift. (The next change in calibre will probably abandon solid propellent and go to either liquid or something more exotic like electric)
An autoloader doesn't get tired and can work while crossing rough ground.

"why should russians go to a different caliber than 125mm or 120mm? they would have to produce rounds only for themselfe and that in a limited quantity coz they don't have money."

Because everyone wants to be able to penetrate the other guys tanks from the front at maximum range.
The increase in calibre will also make more room for their guided anti tank missile fired through the main gun... this means a potential for different guidance types like MMW radar or IIR... fire and forget and capable of being used against helos... who doesn't want that?

"even if you are right your statement that the actual loader can't handle loger rods, they will never go that way and isolate themselfe with a new caliber. "

If they felt, or their customers felt the 125mm wasn't potent enough then introducing a new calibre is not that much of a big deal... the last new BMP introduced a new 100mm rifled gun unrelated to existing 100mm guns at the time.
To use longer penetrators existing autoloaders wouldn't work either... the cost of replacing all those autoloaders wouldn't be much different to adding a new gun... the barrels get changed every 200 odd rounds anyway.
The standard Soviet procedure was to have old tanks for training and store the newer models to reduce wear and tear.
In such a situation they would be firing rather more 115mm and 100mm ammo than 125mm anyway. In combat they'd be using the 125mm rounds but considering the tank fleet they have the CFE agreements and troop reductions they are probably pretty close to getting rid of all of their T-54/-55s and possibly their T-62s as well. This would remove two calibres (100mm and 122mm respectively). The T-55 chassis are being touted as a potential basis for the BMP-T role, the T-62s and remaining T-55s would probably be offered at very cheap rates or used as targets.
The financial state of Russia suggests that even if BE was finished now and ready for production... with factories all tooled up it would be a very long time before the existing T-64s could be replaced let alone the majority T-72s and T-80s.
Even the US armed forces has M-60s and Abrams in service which means 105mm and 120mm guns. Most countries have similar problems (except small ones).

"they will never go that way and isolate themselfe with a new caliber. "

I think right now Syria and Iran and a few other countries would rather like a tank gun that has a good chance of penetrating an Abrams from the front... what do you reckon?

"how big is the chance that in a turret penetration the ammo storage in the turret rear is not affected? its not quite good. "

In most western tank designs the ammo is seperated from the crew compartment by an armoured bulkhead. The area of the roof over the ammo often has blowout doors above it to prevent an ammo detonation effecting the crew.
The Abrams has a good implementation of this, while the chalanger is not so good.
The Leclerc has a good implementation with the autoloader being seperated from the crew... the magazine being topped up from ammo stored in the hull during stops.

[axl]

somehow i have the impression that you don't understand me. i know the black eagle and i know that it should have a bustl loader. i have enough pictures of that tank. what i want from you is a picture of any OTHER russian tank with a bustle loader. as you stated its used for t-80 and t-55, i would just like to see it, coz i know nothing about that. and please only russian modifications, not the stuff from the ukraine.
it should be also clear that the hull fron armour of the black eagle is comparable ato the t-80u, as both tanks share the same hull. i talk about the turret, coz that should be the new thing on it.

at the moment there is no need for a bigger caliber. the 120 and 125mm round available to quite fine and there are some around that can really ruine your day. shifting to a larger caliber brings more problems. first you need a bigger/heavier tank to carry the weapon. then the mass increases again coz of the gun and the parts around like recoil brakes and that stuff. then you have bigger rounds, needing more space. and at the end you have a more powerful, but less efficient gun. the gigger the gun, the lower the efficiency, coz you waste energy with additional parts on your round like fins or sabots and stuff like that. you make a big gun with more energy. so you have to strenthen your penetrator. that means normally put more material in the fins, coz thats where the power hits the penetrator. more material there means more mas there and also a destabilization of the center of gravity. that means you have to put more mass at the front and the sides. at the end it will work, but tests showed that its not as simple as people think. as they tested the german 140mm gun, they had penetration values of slightly more than 120mm rha (don't ask me about range and target). but thats values that you will reach also soon with the 120mm gun (the german dm53 is close to 1000mm rha). so why go to 140mm? and the russians will have the same problem, they are not stupid.

now the turbine of the m1. let me start with some notes. i'm german tanker, drove several thousand km with the leopard 2. i also had a training with the us national guard last year and droive the m1a1. the turbine is nice if it runs on high rpm. during fast turns and brakings the rpm drops down to a level were its not fun anymore. as a result the m1a1 is totally slow in accelerating out of a low rpm level. during cross-country operations you have that situation all the time. also the transmission shifts too slow, ou waste again time. with the leopard 2 you don't have the problem for two reasons:
-torque: as this is high volume diesel engine you have torque like hell and for torque you don't need rpm (rpm is necessary for power, not for torque).
-transmission: the leopard is using a semi-automatic transmission. even in automatic mode it shifts faster than the american one (and harder), but good drivers use it normally in manual mode. so i don't rely on a transmission to bring my tank up to speed, i have more control.
turbine were never made to run on low rpm. they are there to bring power.

you start mixing things with the ammo storage. lets give ask a simple question. you take a western tank, like leo2 or m1 (whatever version) and you fire a round that penetrates the armor. as the turret is the best visible part, it will hit the turret. how big is the chance that this round is hitting only the fighting compartment or the bustle storage without damaging/penetrating the other one? if the round would only hit the ammunition, anything is fine and it blows off. but i don't see a reason why only the ammo storage in the turret rear should be affected. i would more say that if there is a penetrating hit in the turret, it hits both. and then you are in the deep ****.
russian models are not that vulnerable, coz the incomming round has to penetrate the tank deep or from above. you mention chechnya. thats a different conflict, were tanks went straight into ambushes. and even there are more than enough reports that the crew could leave the tank before the ammo went off. under equal conditions i would prefere the rounds to be under my ass and not behind my back. that the overal protection level of many russian tanks is not the best is another question, t-80/90 versions do it better.
another note. it showed that the bustle storage has another problem. during the years the metal breaks. in case of a hit the lower side of the turret breaks and the result is also a los of the turret.

regards
axl

[GazB]

" as you stated its used for t-80 and t-55, i would just like to see it, coz i know nothing about that. and please only russian modifications, not the stuff from the ukraine. "

I have since found the photos I had of the T-80 and it looks to me like they are the Ukrainian model. I am still looking through My magazine collection for the T-55 mod, which was displayed at Omsk and I am pretty sure it was a russian mod.

"t should be also clear that the hull fron armour of the black eagle is comparable ato the t-80u, as both tanks share the same hull."

The later pictures show a hull that is longer and has 7 wheels, so it has a different hull too.

"then the mass increases again coz of the gun and the parts around like recoil brakes and that stuff. then you have bigger rounds, needing more space. and at the end you have a more powerful, but less efficient gun."

I agree that a bigger gun is not always the right answer... in this case it offers an increase in velocity that should extend the range a Russian tank can take on a western tank with modern armour outside the range that the current gun can penetrate the current Russian armour... surely the goal of every tank designer?

It would be nice to zap everything back to 1939 where a 47mm gun was a powerful anti tank weapon. Perhaps more exotic ideas might prove more fuitful but at the moment the only two ways to improve armour piercing capability is to increase calibre or velocity and/or weight of the projectile.
Increasing calibre also increases HEAT power too. (as HEAT penetration is more related to width than anything else).

"but thats values that you will reach also soon with the 120mm gun (the german dm53 is close to 1000mm rha). so why go to 140mm? and the russians will have the same problem, they are not stupid."

Perhaps the emphasis is gun launched fire and forget projectiles then?

Certainly a more practical than the low velocity gun fitted to the Sheradan for the shilaghlah (spelling).

From what I have read it has been found that the velocity high water mark is 2.5km/s and that increasing velocity over that brings reduced returns and that once that speed is reached more penetration can be achieved by increasing the weight of the projectile rather than adding speed.

" so i don't rely on a transmission to bring my tank up to speed, i have more control.
turbine were never made to run on low rpm. they are there to bring power. "

I agree with the comments about the turbines but diesels are drawing to near their limit, while the turbines have only just started. The optimal use for tubines is not in conventional drives but in conjunction with electric drives, where the turbine just runs at its most fuel efficient speed generatin electricity that is used by electric motors that actually power the vehicle... capacitors would store extra energy as well for firing the main gun or even powered armour. (ie the days of transfering energy to the shields is fast approaching).

" i would more say that if there is a penetrating hit in the turret, it hits both. and then you are in the deep ****. "

You are a military man so i would assume you would know that explosives will explode in the direction of least resistance. The purpose of the roof mounted blow out doors is to direct most of the blast upwards and away from the crew. Certainly some of the blast and overpressure would go back through the hole created in the armoured sliding dorr seperating the crew from the ammo, but the majority of the force of the explosion would be directed up and out of the vehicle. Much like lying down on the ground can reduce your injuries when a grenade lands on the ground in your vicinity... the downward blast of the explosion hits the ground and is reflected in the opposite direction which means most of the force goes up.

[axl]

I have since found the photos I had of the T-80 and it looks to me like they are the Ukrainian model. I am still looking through My magazine collection for the T-55 mod, which was displayed at Omsk and I am pretty sure it was a russian mod.

you are refering to the oplot? check www.kampfpanzer.de for details (also on other russian stuff)



The later pictures show a hull that is longer and has 7 wheels, so it has a different hull too.


right, but for me it stays the t-80u hull ;-)



I agree that a bigger gun is not always the right answer... in this case it offers an increase in velocity that should extend the range a Russian tank can take on a western tank with modern armour outside the range that the current gun can penetrate the current Russian armour... surely the goal of every tank designer?


the question is not that at the end you have a more powerful gun. the question is more are you willing to pay the price? here i would say that further development of the existing stuff is much better. we also have to see that there are nor that many projects for new mbt's going on, so we could stay with what we have.



From what I have read it has been found that the velocity high water mark is 2.5km/s and that increasing velocity over that brings reduced returns and that once that speed is reached more penetration can be achieved by increasing the weight of the projectile rather than adding speed.


that's right. if the penetrator reaches a speed where its own speed is higher than the the speed of sound within itselfe it will act as like ahollow charge, means armour and penetrator are "solid fluids". the advantage of a real solid penetrator would then be only the mass. but it could be easier defended.




I agree with the comments about the turbines but diesels are drawing to near their limit, while the turbines have only just started. The optimal use for tubines is not in conventional drives but in conjunction with electric drives, where the turbine just runs at its most fuel efficient speed generatin electricity that is used by electric motors that actually power the vehicle... capacitors would store extra energy as well for firing the main gun or even powered armour. (ie the days of transfering energy to the shields is fast approaching).


that's right, but if you check power generators, they run normally on diesel engines. they are cheaper and easier to maintaine. it will depend what materials you have and what you expect. i would not say for such an doesel-electric drive would an engine be better than a turbine. there are other guys to find that out.
were i disagree is the point that turbine are better, coz engines reach their limit. thats something that some guys stated already in the 1970s, when they have chosen the turbine for the m1. but the engine is still better. maybe the future will be something like the hyperbar engine of the leclerc, a combination of both. it works just fine.



You are a military man so i would assume you would know that explosives will explode in the direction of least resistance. The purpose of the roof mounted blow out doors is to direct most of the blast upwards and away from the crew. Certainly some of the blast and overpressure would go back through the hole created in the armoured sliding dorr seperating the crew from the ammo, but the majority of the force of the explosion would be directed up and out of the vehicle. Much like lying down on the ground can reduce your injuries when a grenade lands on the ground in your vicinity... the downward blast of the explosion hits the ground and is reflected in the opposite direction which means most of the force goes up.

military experience has nothing to with that, its more engineer stuff.
ammunition explosions are not really explosions. the rounds burn and that goes on for some time. if the wall to the fighting compartment is penetrated you have a problem, coz then the integrity of the whole construction is gone. and the crew will not like that. buit we could also say that after a penetration of that wall the crew will have more problems than just the burning ammunition.

regards
axl

ps: nice talking to you

[Mal3]

Actually Wolfe, the Leopard 2 has consistantly proven better than the Abrams on several NATO shoot occasions. Also, the Leclerc has been purchased from France by Qatar I believe- albeit in limited numbers.

I think that France needed a party that would buy the tanks before they started producing them, since France's requirement wasn't that big, thus the project would have been very costly. Quatar took several hundred, I think, and therefore have quite a sizeable modern tank fleet.

The Leclerc has not been sold to any further countries though. Pity really, I think it's a very interesting tank design.

[axl]

its the uae and saudia arabia is interested at the moment. they wanna make a deal with france and give back its old amx-30. france wants to sell them to lebanon, but they only take them if france makes an upgrade. so we will see. but if i could chose a western tank today, the leclerc would win. its user concept is perfect, its small and fast and powerful.

regards
axl

[Mal3]

Didn't the Saudis get M1s? Or was that Kuwait? Jeez, I'm probably mixing stuff up...

[axl]

both of them got m1a2 :-)

regards
axl

[He219]

Yeah, the Saudis also have that lovely V12 Lamborghini Jeep with that nice Napa Leather, if you can afford it. My bet would be on the tried and proven M1A2 or the Leopard 2 A5 & A6. TESTED and PROVEN to work. Besides, it's more about tactics.

That Frenchy tank may look good, shoot slow, cost a bundle and have a 'fixed' drivetrain - but I would rather have something that actually works. Besides, I'm partial to Krupp Stahl and Rheinmetall Guns (Like on the M1A2). Remember, it's about tactics and close-air support.

That Hummer with a TOW can still take either out. I don't think the Frenchies are gonna compete in mass production with either German or American factories. Quality would surely fall and we might find a Sesame Bagette in that fancy auto-loader. Axl, are you some sort of LeClerc sales rep? p-)

-He219

[Smoothie104]

Hell yeah... Internet ****!

[axl]

@he219
whats the problem with the leclerc? i'm in contact with guys who actually test and use it, there is no negative point. what do you don't like about it?

about the 120mm gun. there are some m1a2 around who are not allowed to fire. the reason is a problem with the steel around the turret front, it started to brake. also i can tell you that the american version of the 120mm gun is not exactly the same quality as the german one. you have to boresight the tank every 6-8 rounds, thats something i have never seen with the leopard 2.

regards
axl

[He219]

Axl:

I believe you proved my point. A great tank design is one thing, having the means and capability to mass produce it and maintain the level of quality expected on the battle field is another thing. Your statement proves to me that the Leopard 2 is the highest quality massed produced tank - having been in production since the 70's / Leo2 - and most 'bugs' having been worked out over that time.

As for the M1A2 Abrams, well Ohio Steel may not be as Good as Krupp Steel. Afer all, the Germans are known for the best Steel in the World. I know because Structural Steel is my business. But I don't believe the Abrams' in Iraq right now need bore sightings every sixth shot. Those must have been left behind to train new tanker crews.

As for the LeClerc, yeah, it's quite possibly one of the best tanks in the world. But you don't just send them over to the Pugeot or Renault factories to be mass produced and expect a consistent level of quality demanded in a mass produced tank on the battlefield. Your point with the Abrams M1A1 and turret metal fatigue. I would bet on a long proven German Tank until the Frenchies can show the same sort of track record. Besides it would cost a bundle in the meantime. The Leopard 2 A5&6 is tried and Proven, the M1A2 is right behind. p-)

-He219

[axl]

my post was just related to abrams and leo2, never talked about the same stuff with the leclerc. infact this tank is quite reliable, there are no probs with it in service. thats why i'm just wondering why you came up with statements about it. there is no quality problem and no slow shooting rate.

why should the boresighting be different in "combat" tanks? they are all the same, you don't make too much maintenance on stuff like gun/fcs/hydraulics. so i'm pretty sure its the same there. i also talked to some guys and they confirmed it. i mean even in the simulator you have that, so i would say its a general problem.

regards
axl

[GazB]

"the question is not that at the end you have a more powerful gun. the question is more are you willing to pay the price? here i would say that further development of the existing stuff is much better. we also have to see that there are nor that many projects for new mbt's going on, so we could stay with what we have. "

That is certainly what the Soviets did during WWII where the T-34 went largely unchanged for most of the first part of the war. To change it earlier would have resulted in a gap in production that would be worse than being stuck with the same gun. The 76.2mm gun was inadequate against a Panther or Tiger but there were so few on the Eastern front till after 43 that it was not justified.
When it was replaced it wasn't with a 107mm supergun some wanted to introduce at the time, but an conservative 85mm gun comparable to the 88mm gun fitted to the Tiger since that vehicle entered service and not that superior to the long 75mm gun fitted to the Panther. The real advantage was a rough equality in gun power and vastly superior numbers of vehicles.

Right now however the threats are rather low (the chechens wouldn't kow the difference between a 152mm round or a 125mm round hitting their Toyota Hilux), but Russian design bureaus have been instructed to look at new technology and steps forward, rather than making new models at the moment. (ie Mig-29 upgrades rather than Mig-29 replacements).
In my view this suggests that technology like the Bustle loader and perhaps a new engine/Chassis standard might be produced, and new optics and new concepts (ie IRST and MMW radar detection systems) might be explored for potential fitting to earlier vehicles.
When money is actually available again the BE will be built starting with small numbers but increasing.
The bigger gun is not really needed now but then the Black Eagle will not make a significant percentage of Russian tanks in service for at least 5 years... probably more (ie 10)... as such it will need to compete with NATO tanks that might have a 140mm gun.

AXL
I think the real problem with the Leclerc at the moment is that it is French, which seems to be bad in the eyes of some at the moment. (though not my eyes.. I quite like it, though I do like the Challenger II and Late model Leopards...)

[axl]

i don't think that they will produce the black eagle, there is no need for. the t-90 is a quite impressive tank and with latest updates its quite comparable to what the west is offering. i would more say they stay with that tank and modernize it more and more. at the moment there are several prototypes tested that will go in series production soon:
-thermal imaging system
-welded turret
-more powerful engine
-new rounds
-battlefield management system
-special camera equippment

all that stuff is tested and will be fielded with the next tanks. older ones will be upgraded.

i never drove a t-90, but i hope soon i will. i have a friend who really knows this tank and the information he gave me is quite not that far away from what i learned during my service time.

about the leclerc, yes, you are right. its simply that nobody can believe that france would be able to produce a good tank. i have no idea where that image is comming from, maybe from civil cars. infact the amx-30 was already a nice one. it came out the same time as the leopard 1 and was quite comparable.
in germany most people, when they hear leclerc, they say that during the swedish tank trials the tank was a **** and the leo2 won, so its better. nobody knows that the leclerc they tested there was nearly a prototype, leclerc t3 i guess. at the moment they have the t7 in service and the development is going on much faster than in other countries. i heard alot of bad things about that tank, and also alot of stupid things like automatic target tracking. when i was first time inside i was quite impressed how well designed it was. the guys really did a pretty good job. my only concern is still the engine. it sounds nice and the mobility i have seen was more than nice. but i would like to drive it myself ;-)
the french also do alot of training and have nice tactics that can be more than compared to others.
as a note, during a training with the french army in 1996 i was "killed" by a french amx-30, coz my stupic commander was not able to act as a tanker.

regards
axl

[venture160]

sure there may be a better tank here and there than the M1, but no tank can beat 9,000 of them, and we have the A-10, Tow, Ah-64, and the Cobra.. just to take out tanks..... the M1 doesn't need to be any better at the moment :D [/b]

[axl]

depends all the time where you wanna deploy them. and you can never have them all at the same place. with the apache i have to add that they made some tests in unit. there were some apaches from an american base not so far and they just wanted to try if the apache (not the longbow) can find a leopard 2. but they couldn't. i would also not fight with a helicopter against well trained tank crews, the chances to win are max 50:50, i would even state its less for the helicoter. i talk about the terrain that i know, that's middle europe and not a flat desert. if the tanks are used stuped its another question.

regards
axl

[budanski]

axl: It amazes me how you cant give credit where credits due. Thank god you're just some punk playing "armchair" military expert. Keep in mind, the apache was designed for the European field and not the desert.

[axl]

sorry man, just something that happened in my unit. what should i say? and if you would have once the chance to train with the german army you will understand why a helicopter life is not that long.

[GazB]

"i don't think that they will produce the black eagle, there is no need for. the t-90 is a quite impressive tank and with latest updates its quite comparable to what the west is offering."

I agree that it will not go into service any time soon and is just seen as a technology demostrator at the moment. However no matter how good the current tank is or is not it will always need eventual replacement. Currently that replacement is the Black Eagle. The only reason I can see the Black Eagle not eventually entering service would be if the T-95 gets the nod instead. This makes sense to me as there is a history of the Russians keeping secret the winning piece of equipment and releasing details of the less sophisticated equipment for export or to obscure which vehicle actually is going ahead. In Attack helos the Mi-28 was shown very early on as it had lost the competition against the Hokum for the Armys competition to replace the Hind in some roles. However later when the Army started demanding night and all weather capability the emphasis went back to the mi-28N as it was a two seat whereas the Hokum is a single seat aircraft... flying at night or in bad weather is a full time job so you need a pilot as well as someone to fire the weapons at the bad guys.

Currently there are two vehicles in development that we know of... the Black Eagle and the T-95... the latter having an external gun with all (3) of the crew in the hull, while the former is a more conservative design that basically updates the T-80U with a bustle loader.
I personally think that the better situational awareness of a turret position for the commander is the better option, but till I see their solution for the visibility for the commander I can't say for sure which I prefer.

"i would also not fight with a helicopter against well trained tank crews, the chances to win are max 50:50, i would even state its less for the helicoter. i talk about the terrain that i know, that's middle europe and not a flat desert. if the tanks are used stuped its another question. "

The availability of MAPADS (man portable air defence systems... ie Stingers etc) you could say the Helicopter is dead... of course the number and sophistication of ATGW you could say the same about Tanks...
I think the Apache is an impressive beast and the D model particularly impressive. Used to support ground troops it would be rather impessive.

"and if you would have once the chance to train with the german army you will understand why a helicopter life is not that long."

Against the German army... what is the likelyhood of the apache coming up against a Leopard II?

Next gen anti tank missiles being designed in Russia are planned to be hypersonic with no HE warhead by a long rod penetrator. Velocities of 2,500-3,000m/s are being aimed for due to the benefits of short flight time... 4secs to 10km and kinetic benefits on impact.
Plans are currently for MMW radar guidance or laser homing, due to beam riding guidance being difficlut though the (significant) rocket plume.

[axl]

i don't really know about the t-95. i mean everything that exists is an interview some years before with a general and a computer graphic. every russian guys i asked so far had no information about it, and you can be sure i asked not only the unknown tank driver. the russians simply don't have money to support that and as long as there is no market i don't believe that they will develop something new.

i don't give too much on manpats. the simple reason is that there are not so many around and also that the use is not as simple as you can expect. personally i trust in tanks as anti helicopter weapons. if the rounds is on its way, there is nothing that could stop it. and it doesn't need more than 2 seconds to reach the target, so normally no chance for the helicopter.

i have no information about russian losat like weapons. again, it should be a question of money there. but as western developers go that way, they russians will too.
radar guidance sux in ground combat. you have too many objects in your way that "disturbe" the radar. you have also the problem that the enemy finds you much easier if you use an active sensor.

regards
axl

[He219]

An American Apache will probably not be going head to head with a German Leopard II - I hope. Yes, the Appache was designed for Western European Terrain. It's use early in the Iraq campaign in large numbers over flat terrain (I believe they came towards the Medina? division in a tight formation) [please correct me anyone who knows that particular operation in detail] cost them dearly. They got shot to pieces and were not used likewise threafter. Check out some of these pictures:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=apache1.htm

Frankly, I am not at all impressed with their less than stellar deployment record in recent times (like in Albania where two flew into low-strung power cables within days effectively grounding the unit depoyed) as well as some other events I can't think of off hand. Since used as Hunter-Killer units in Gulf I they haven't been as effective. The Longbow System is an Impressive one, but when 30+ get chopped up, tactically rendering them cambat ineffective therafter, it makes me wonder about Axl's statement. On the contrary, the Israelis have used Apaches quite effectively in Hunter-Killer operations and I have not heard of a single loss. Most likely application of tactics is the key here. The Marines' Supercobras fared quite well as they employ close air support to the letter.

As for the T-90S:

http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_1.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_2.wmv
http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/T-90S_3.wmv

Need a tank be developded at great expense to replace this one any time soon? Besides, look how voulnerable MBT's have become:

http://www.punchbaby.com/media/gitfakt/clips/cool/JavelinLiveFireVsT72.mpg
mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1342_3_wis_s.wmv
http://www.shipunov.com/shipunov-e/atgw/atgw/kornet.htm
mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1342_3_wis_s.wmv

yeah, demos do not address updated anti-armor countermeasures, but the voulnerability of expensive MBT to the two-man crew armed with an effective portable ant-armor weapon in concealment is undisputable, Axl. They seem large and bulky now, but just wait until the Japanese get on it.
"personally i trust in tanks as anti helicopter weapons" rofl

One shot one kill, eh? Man, I believe in shoot and scoot over that one. A Hellfire or TOW on a Chopper is a Very formiddable weapon. I'm more concerned about that AA fire from the MG's and AZSU's if I were in a Chopper, BUT that is why we have planes like the A10 and F18 for the Close Air Support role to take out those threats Before Choppers fly in. I think that is what did not happen in that disasterous Apache mission where two crew members are taken POW. Adapt and overcome

p-)

-He219

[axl]

the javelin video is a fake. you see the tank exploding before the weapon impacts. also the result is too much for such a small weapon.

with helicopter attacks it depends on the the situation. helicopters normally need some time to attack and the rounds need time to impact. be able to fire on 5km does not mean that real combat allows that. clear identification is another thing, you have to be pretty close to see what tank is it. from my own experience its much more easy to identify a helicopter, there are not so many different types around. the only problem for the tank is to spot the helicopter as early as possible. if the tank is deployed in a good way that's possible. but **** happens.

to hit a helicopter with an aa-mg is quite difficult. we made aa fire training and i hit nothing. the result of the incomming rounds is another question.
but what pilot thinks about a tank fiering back? i would say none of them.
a-10 is the same. the plan is not really equipped with a high class sensor pack. the gun seems to be impressive, the accuracy is not the best. you have a short time where you can actually fire, so if one or two rounds hit the target its normal. in case of a smaller vehicle that will do just fine, a tank will probably stay alive. and then you have a big problem. we tracked the a-10 several time during my service time to make attack training against my base. they are not that fast, so you can follow them without problems. the funny part started all the time when you heard the deep roaring of the german phantom 2. normally then the a-10 was away faster than they showed up.

why you find it funny to see tanks as anti-helicopter weapons? the 120mm apfsds round has a straight flight path, so perfect for that. you see the helicopters sometime on more than 4000m, depending on its flight path, you should be able to shoot it down at 3000m. dynamic lead and thermal imaging sight help alot with that. the only difference to a real aa weapon system is the gun and the missing radar, but normal aa artillery is also able to use thermal sights.

regards
axl

[vryhpyammoadded]

I seem to remember that the Iraqi Army claimed it successfully used this tactic to drive off Iranian Cobra Tow attacks in the 80s.


...why you find it funny to see tanks as anti-helicopter weapons? the 120mm apfsds round has a straight flight path, so perfect for that. you see the helicopters sometime on more than 4000m, depending on its flight path, you should be able to shoot it down at 3000m. dynamic lead and thermal imaging sight help alot with that. the only difference to a real aa weapon system is the gun and the missing radar, but normal aa artillery is also able to use thermal sights....

[He219]

Axl:

Cool! I had no Idea. I guess the 120mm apfsds is some sort of anti-personel-frag that creates an air-burst in proximity of an aircraft. Effective. Reminds me of Rambo in Afghanistan charging towards the approaching Hind, hehehehe
No, really verrrry interresting indeed. You were operating in that cool beast called the Leopard II (A5?) I would imagine?

Yes, the A-10 is a slow beast, well armored though as shown in the pictures of Killer Chicks damaged plane! That 'inaccurate' 30mm does spit out DU munitions at some rediculous rate, all it takes is one good hit. I was surprised to see some of those those Phantom 2's training last year in the Swabian Alps. Still an awesome plane.

As for good deployment, quite so. But it's the coordination between our SF guys on the ground scouting out as much as possible, calling in the Apaches and Supercobras (with their high class sensor packs) covered by close air support of A-10's, F16's & F18's AND the threat posed by systems of the portible anti-armor type that make up the real world sutuational threat to MBT's as related with our forces.

But your training in concealed applications and taking aim at that low flying aircraft with a 'favorable flightpath' in order to take a shot doesn't take into account the consequences. Those SF guys, remote sensing systems in orbit and others just looking for you to take that shot and give away your location to be taken out by that vast array of previously mentioned weapons.

Yeah, that Javelin vid may be a scham, but it is a credible threat currently used. So are the Kornet-E and BILL 2.

You may be so used to the LeoII that you probably tend to overlook the fact that it still is one of THE BEST and most PRACTICAL tanks out there. So you look to other MBTs with greater interest, like the LeClerk. Forgive the psychoanalysis - not a personal attack - but the Leo 2 Rocks! woot

-He219

[budanski]

Please explain to me again why this is a fake? Is this proven fake or just personal opinions. I'm asking cause I'd like to know and not just being a smart a**.

Thanks.

http://noisedesignlab.com/buddy/jav1.jpg

http://noisedesignlab.com/buddy/jav2.jpg

http://noisedesignlab.com/buddy/jav3.jpg

The hugh explosion afterward is explainable. The T72 is at full tactical load. Meaning lots of fuel and ammunition. Doesn't take much to get the other rounds to cook off.

[GazB]

"... and you can be sure i asked not only the unknown tank driver. the russians simply don't have money to support that and as long as there is no market i don't believe that they will develop something new. "

During the early 90s the Russians managed to keep the Ka-50 secret with only fuzzy photos available to the west... at a time when there was even less money available than now. The Sale of the T-90s to India means that the factory that makes the T-90s will be making money... the Black eagle isbeing developed by the design bureau and factory that makes the T-80U, the consortium that makes the T-90 is designing the T-95. If either joint company has the most money to invest i the next generation product it is the one making the T-90.
The two gulf wars has led to rather bad publicity for the T-72 and Russian tanks in general. a change is needed merely to remain competitive on the international market. (There has been some speculation that the Black Eagle development has been partly paid for through a South Korean contract).

They can't sell T-90s forever.

"the simple reason is that there are not so many around and also that the use is not as simple as you can expect. "

Of course it isn't just point and shoot, but the Russians have very large numbers in service and they are a very hot export item... being the cheapest SAM type available. (Remember every BMP-2 had a gripstock and 3-4 missiles in western europe).

"if the rounds is on its way, there is nothing that could stop it. and it doesn't need more than 2 seconds to reach the target, so normally no chance for the helicopter. "

2 seconds suggests a range of about 3-4km. With MMW radar the Apache can detect a camouflaged tank at 8-10km as can a Ka-52 with its arbulet MMW radar. Both helos will pop up from cover and perform a scan then drop behind cover and look at where the targets are. It can then move to a different position and pop up and fire MMW radar guided missiles or a weapon like Brimstone that can find its own target. (Russian missile equivelents do not include a Brimstone type weapon but Vikhr-M has a range of 15km.)

"radar guidance sux in ground combat. you have too many objects in your way that "disturbe" the radar. you have also the problem that the enemy finds you much easier if you use an active sensor. "

MMW radar has incredibly low sidelobes and is almost impossible to jam or fool. It also gives a high enough resolution picture that wheeled vehicles can be discriminated from tracked ones and vehicles can potentially be identified by counting wheels.

BTW these tank rounds you are talking about are they like ANIET?
(ANIET is a Russian HE Frag round with a rear mounted time fuse with a large HE charge and Tungsten projectiles near the nose of the round... as the round is moved by the autoloader to the breech it goes through an auto fuse setting machine... the target is lased, the round is loaded and fused and then fired. Against a hovering helicopter, or targets with front cover but no top cover or MG or ATGW missile posts the efect of this flying claymore has been described as rather impressive... The laser guided Svir is also tipped as an anti helo weapon due to its high speed and good range (Mach 2, 5km range)).

[axl]

@he219
an apfsds round is effective because of its straight flight path and its speed. the fcs is accurate enough to do so.
i serverd on the a4.

funny to see you talking about air support and all that. from my personal experience i can tell you that we never thought about that. would be nice to see american units in a battle without that cover from above. should result in something like 1944 in the ardennes. air suport is nice, but first you have to have it. your whole posting is full of teams and support and orbit stuff. and who is the other side? old axl with one lonely tank?
and what high class sensor packs are you talking about? the ones that paint you a small white dot on a 12" screen where you have to decide if its an enemy or not? quite impressive. in a tank you have a real eayepiece filling your complete fov and not a small screen.
also the ability to fire against helicopters a slow flying planes does not belong to the leopard 2 only, every tank with a good fcs can do so.

@budanski
thats not just my personal opinion.
tanks don't explode like that. the t-72 is diesel powered, diesel does not explode. ammunition cooks off, but it does not explode at the tuuret roof. just make a slow motion view on that video. you will see that there is already an explosion within the tank before the missile hits it. this is also not the heat from the warhead. or just look at the result. the tank is vaporized. i have no idea how many kg of tnt you need for that, but its unrealistic. even if it looks nice.

@gazb
ka-50 at the early 90s is not comparable. it was also in the 90s when the black eagle was shown in public. all those projects were started years before. but now the money is gone, really they don't look that good. sure you can design a tank, just take paper and start to write. but you need money to make it. and again, there is no market. possible customers take the t-72s or the t-90s or even upgrades of existing tanks. but no new one.
but i will aks again.
sure they can't sell the t-90 forever. but germany is selling the leopard 2 and its 10 years older. in germany there is also no plan for a new one, simply because nobody will pay it.
theoretic detection ranges are nice, but you will not reach them in middle europe. tanks don't park on a flat field, they stop in the wood. whatever radar you have, visual identification is the only thing. i haven't seen anything that can do better. radar, may it be as advanced as it could be, will ver be an active sensor that has limits and restrictions. sidelobes..hehe. if you make a radio transmission to a target that you know, thats nice. but when you scan an area you scann not only a point. and still you have the problem that it can be detected on much larger distances.
aniet is only the programming mechanism, right? i'm not sure what round can be used here. some sources claim the 3vof36 to be capable, but i guess its a different one.
the russians use all tank fired atgm in anto-helicopter role. the reason is more the guidence, not the speed. apfsds rounds are faster (not at 5km).

regards
axl

[He219]

Axl Wrote:
funny to see you talking about air support and all that. from my personal experience i can tell you that we never thought about that. would be nice to see american units in a battle without that cover from above.

The last time I checked Germany was a member of NATO. That means NATO air cover. Did you not participate in NATO exercises? Did you 'never' have any air support on maneuvers? Have you heard of the LUFTWAFFE? They even have Mig29's now!

Axl, I think you see yourself in the Ardennes against the Allies; You see yourself in Yugo woods looking up at NATO airpower; You even see yourself in a tanks in Iraq or Afghanistan hiding from Coalition Air Cover. What side are you on? Your own Anti-Americanism leads you to view yourself as an advesary.....

THE BUNDESWEHR NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT AIR COVER??? :cantbeli:


p-)
-He219

[Shadow]

Our Aircover:
http://home.t-online.de/home/heinz.reitmeier/Com.Tiger.JPG
http://www.deutschesheer.de/relaunch/Contentbase2.nsf/a2359e1209b11a18c1256982003b7e87/bb3f36e648ea2864c1256b80004773d0/body/0.4BE?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg

[axl]

@he219
is there a reason fo chosing a side? what are the choices?

sorry man, the landser is trained to act without air support. nobody can guarantee air support all the time. also air support does not mean air supperiority.
you can ensure air support in case you attack whatever banana repuclic.
i also never made a gerneral statement about the bundeswehr. thats an army with politicians and generals and and and. they give statements, but who fights is the landser down in his bataillon. and never trust the luftwaffe. its nice if they show up, but we can fight without. its the gents of the air force, the men of the navy and the soldiers of the army.

regards
axl

[He219]

Axl:
It is just that advesarial tone that I detect. As for Iraq or Serbia - they are far from being bananna republics. Training for self-sufficiency surely is a wise thing. Have a great day!

Shadow:
Is that a Tiger and MBB in those pic's? I don't know too much about the deployment history of the Tiger in the European therters. Just curious.
Have a good one...

-He219

[axl]

the tiger is not in service yet.

regards
axl

[Seiyuuki]

http://www.geocities.com/pugetsoundcic/index.htm

The picture speak for itself...

Disclaimer: Picture meant to invoke laughter

[Shadow]

Chinese C&C Generals Overlord Tank

[GazB]

"Ka-50 at the early 90s is not comparable. it was also in the 90s when the black eagle was shown in public. all those projects were started years before. but now the money is gone, really they don't look that good."

Actually money was running out in the mid 80s, not the 90s. Now money is starting to be spent again.
The only thing that was not good about the Hokum was the single seat which limited limited it to day use. Its armour structure meant anything short of 30mm would have trouble bringing it down.
It coaxial rotor system limited its top speed and manouverability in some areas, but it had excellent acceleration and height ceilings.

"there is no market. possible customers take the t-72s or the t-90s or even upgrades of existing tanks. but no new one. "

So why waste money on Black Eagle or T-95 if the future lies with upgrading existing types?

"but when you scan an area you scann not only a point. and still you have the problem that it can be detected on much larger distances. "

From what I have read of the AH-64D the idea is to pop up and scan the area and pop down and analyse the scan. up to 128 targets can be scanned and logged. An onboard library of various vehicles (in 3D) are stored and compared to the reflections. Popping up and looking with TI or optics at very high magnifications can be used to identify the target which can then be engaged with a MMW radar guided missile in a fire and forget mode.
It obviously won't be perfect, but certainly useful.

"the russians use all tank fired atgm in anto-helicopter role. the reason is more the guidence, not the speed. apfsds rounds are faster (not at 5km). "

That is true, but only their latest missiles do they claim to have anti Helo capability. Their earlier ones they claim are too slow for the role, even though western sources claimed they might have an antihelo role.

"aniet is only the programming mechanism, right? i'm not sure what round can be used here. some sources claim the 3vof36 to be capable, but i guess its a different one. "

Yes, ANIET is the fuse setting mechanism, but the round is also espeically modified to direct its fragments forward... normally they go largely sideways as it is the sidewalls of the round that are prefragmented and the nose normally contains the fuse.

[axl]

i don't know enough about the ka-50, so i better say nothing to that.

what i know about money spent in the soviet union was that they had enough for the tank development. the t-90 was the first which had to live with a much smaller budget, that's why the testing could not be done the same way as they did before. but the test program for this tank was amazing.

i don't think that the russians do any work on future tank developments, at least not in the field of building a prototype. sure they will develop new equipment and armor and all that stuff, but making a new prototype and test it costs too much money. infact i don't see a need for such a tank, the t-90 is quite good and the already available versions are comparable to western tanks.

the ah-64d stuff sounds quite nice, but i'm pretty sure reality looks different. first of all the terrain around me here in germany is different than a flat desert, scanning is always difficult. with the ti identification its also a problem, the guys simply have a too small screen. the tank battle is a mobile battle, normally you don't park the tank on a flat ground and wait. if you do, don't wonder if you get hit. finding such targets, tracking them , identify them and then fire a missile that needs alos some time to impect will need more than just two seconds. from a tank gunner's point of view i can say that you see a helicopter imidiatly, even bihind trees. a tank is scanning the area, you move turret/sight all the time. with the daysight it will be difficult to identify a helicopter, with the ti its quite easy. the rotor has a nice temperature, coz the turbine is blowing its gasses right into it. and a helicopter will never be able to stay that deep behind trees that its quite good covered, then it will not be able to see something.

i have some picture at home for the fragmentation field of he rounds. the stuff with the sidewards is a big problem with the western mp-heat rounds, thats why they will be replaced by something else.

regards
axl

[GazB]

"i don't think that the russians do any work on future tank developments, at least not in the field of building a prototype."

But they are, the BE and T-95 prove that. I don't think any industry can stop looking for advancements and new technologies. I think that is the current purpose of the BE and T-95 projects.. exploring new technologies.

They can certainly make more money selling upgrades and improving existing types, this is mirrored in aviation as well with money spent on upgrading Mig-29s, Su-27s, Mig-31s, as well as Mi-8s and Mi-17s. The only types they are introducing new models is to replace foreign models, like the light helo, with the Mi-2 being made in Eastern Europe the ANSAT, or Mi-34, or even the Ka-60 are being looked at, while in jet trainers the L-139 and L-159s are being replaced by Yak-130s.
In armour, I could see probably an increase in the number of wheeled APCs like BTR-80A or BTR-90 due to lower costs for running, maintainence, and to buy.
To offset the reduction in armour performance they might buy BTR-Ts for danger areas.

The AH-64D is very impressive on paper, but is no magic bullet. The Commanche is interesting too, but will probably not be made in large numbers, if at all. (some still want it cut).

"i have some picture at home for the fragmentation field of he rounds. the stuff with the sidewards is a big problem with the western mp-heat rounds, thats why they will be replaced by something else. "

Yes, the solution was similar to the Swedish AHEAD rounds... basically fuse at the back, HE charge in the middle and Tungsten pellets of a mathematically calculated size and shape in front, with the sides of the case designed also to fragment. The result is a shotgun like blast of very hard heavy projectiles at very high velocity... much like an infantrymans claymore mine.
(The Swedish AHEAD rounds are in 35mm calibre and are for use against aerial targets including antiship missiles).

[Miles Teg]

Just for photos and videos: Leclerc (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/miles.nest/leclerc_384kbps.wmv)

I don't really know all the new brand Mbt of the world, but :
I will put the Leopard in first place.
In second place with a lot of egality, Challenger, Leclerc and some else
Sorry but i see M1 only on thrid place.

But it's only on the technical aspect.
Today, an experienced crew in an Abrahams is over kick-ass.

I've some witnesse of a friend operator in Leclerc, he have made metting with German and American tankers. American crew wasn't really impress by the Leclerc but reconsider it much better than they though.
And in these days they take some hard hit.

And I don't mind of the capacity of production. For remember, the role of Leclerc is only projected intervention in little conflict and operations.

And for this one thing french operators notice in Kosovo, a "little" disagreement in urban use. Not enough elevation of the barrel. Very hard in close battle to reach the upper floors of buildings. Which was not a problem for the old AMX-30.

[LEGEND]

Merkava 4, its the newest designed tank from a nation that has had its tanks attacked for the last 50 years and has designed the tank from the experiences of those enounters. Merkava now only has one hatch on the turret to better protect it from modern ATGMs, it has the Trophy system that protects it from missieles if they do hit the tank and the biggest plus of all the rear compartment with rear hatch. If your tank is disabled you can exit through the rear instead of the top and right into the rear compartment of another merkava to take you to safety.

[CDAT]

.....thats not just my personal opinion.
tanks don't explode like that. the t-72 is diesel powered, diesel does not explode. ammunition cooks off, but it does not explode at the tuuret roof. i have no idea how many kg of tnt you need for that, but its unrealistic. even if it looks nice.

Oh really? I can assure you from first hand experience that T-72 turrets WILL pop off when hit with the 120mm main gun. Why not this?

[CDAT]

about the 120mm gun. also i can tell you that the american version of the 120mm gun is not exactly the same quality as the german one. you have to boresight the tank every 6-8 rounds, thats something i have never seen with the leopard 2.
regards
axl

No you don't. You have to do an MRS update every few rounds to maintain the original boresight. This only from gun tube droop after the tube heats up from firing the rounds. An MRS update can be completed in 10 seconds.

[CDAT]

why should the boresighting be different in "combat" tanks? they are all the same, you don't make too much maintenance on stuff like gun/fcs/hydraulics. so i'm pretty sure its the same there. i also talked to some guys and they confirmed it. i mean even in the simulator you have that, so i would say its a general problem.
regards
axl

Simulator? U-COFT? You do realize that in the simulator, everything is harder then in real life so when you actually get on a real tank, it is easier, so you are better prepared to deal with the little problems that happen? You did know that was the reason they have to do it in the simulator, didn't you?

Who were these guys? Tell them to give me a call. I'd really like to know where they pulled this bullsh*t from.

[CDAT]

After reading thru the thread I have to ask this: Are any ex-tankers out there? I can not believe some of the stuff said here! Oh well, I'm at work, so I'll have to go home and dig out the old stuff I have on all these wonderful misconceptions. Oh, BTW, I also think the M1A2 is donkey dung but for different reasons then stated here.

But, suffice it to say, the 120mm is more then capable of going against any helicoptor out there as long as it's within 4000 meters. A helicoptor in a European battle has to (usually) hide behind trees and it's very easy to spot them. The canopy (tree) is waving back and forth. Just pump a Sabot round thru those trees and remove the threat. Of course, I've yet to see one helicoptor attacking solo, so you may kill one but his partner will surely light up your @$$.

[A Soldier]

so are you a tanker then?? If so please help these guys out. I only know how to interact with tanks, and I think the Abrams does what it designed to do very well.

[CDAT]

so are you a tanker then?? If so please help these guys out. I only know how to interact with tanks, and I think the Abrams does what it designed to do very well.

I will when I log in again. Must go home now to sleep as it's 0dark thirty. Yes, I WAS a tanker. 21 years of tanks. Yes, on the M1 too. I don't care for the A2 version because I helped test it (as OPFOR). Compared to the A1, it's a piece of sh*t. As for what is was designed to do? Rapidly advance and make contact with Soviet Bloc Motorized Rifle Regiments and engage and destroy them? Yes, it would/could do that very well.

I always have to chuckle. NATO always boasted of only being defensive in nature. The M1 from day one of it's conception, was designed for offense.:)
Anyho, The best combat proven tank for tank on tank fighting is the M1 followed by the Challenger. The Challenger has the best (longest) kill in tank history but only because we (the US of A) liked to get in closer (3000 or less meters) to engage the enemy (quickly reducing more of them at one time). That is my view. The Leo? Don't make me laugh. I'll go into more on that thing later.

[CDAT]

so are you a tanker then?

What, my 'handle' didn't give it away? :-(

Computerized

Dumb

@$$

Tanker

[A Soldier]

the Officer in me missed that..........sorry :( lol

[CDAT]

the Officer in me missed that..........sorry :( lol

*GASP* I'm talking to a butter bar? *GASP*

The shame, the shame..........:cantbeli:

Hey Sir, if you're on a vehicle with a turret, you do know that if you traverse the turret more then six full rotations counter clockwise, the turret will unscrew!

Could you swing by S-2 and pick me up a box of grid squares? Thanks!

Don't forget to check the spark plugs in your humvee.

Check the radiator on the tank.

Take a hammer and a piece of chalk and crawl under a tank/bradley and check for soft spots.

Your junior NCO's will bitch a lot but underneath the bitching there will be real problems. Address them.

Your senior NCO's are the sources of all knowledge in the universe. Pay heed to them and you will go far. Ignore them at your peril.

Do NOT attempt to change things if they ain't broken.

An operations order, remember. Keep It Simple Stupid. If all officers remembered this, you would have a well functioning unit.

A GPS is pretty but what will you do if it breaks? Land Nav, the #1 skill needed.

This session will cost you 100 pushups, so drop and start counting Sir!:roll:

[Paracaidista]

I think the last post beat the record for resurrecting threads to a still very interesting topic.

[CDAT]

I think the last post beat the record for resurrecting threads to a still very interesting topic.

I'm just hoping this German/French kid comes back to defend the BS he was talking about tanks. Sorry. I'll let it die in peace.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I'm just hoping this German/French kid comes back to defend the BS he was talking about tanks. Sorry. I'll let it die in peace.

Nothing to be sorry about. You seem to be pretty experienced in armoured warfare in general and US armour in particular.

A lot of the posters on this site like to push certain agendas around here, usually based on a nationalistic bent. Even when someone with firsthand experience turns up with proof positive that they're wrong they still insist on flogging the dead horse.

It's good to have someone around to put them in their place.

[Moose]

So what is the problem with the L2

[Paracaidista]

Nothing to be sorry about. You seem to be pretty experienced in armoured warfare in general and US armour in particular.

A lot of the posters on this site like to push certain agendas around here, usually based on a nationalistic bent. Even when someone with firsthand experience turns up with proof positive that they're wrong they still insist on flogging the dead horse.

It's good to have someone around to put them in their place.

x2 (he beat me first to say it) I don't know too much about tanks. This place is to share knowledge, the intelligent way, please keep up with the info.

[Ea$y-8]

1. M1A2 Abrams
2. Challenger 2
3. Merkava 4
4. Leopard 2A6
5. T-90
6. Type 99

[Anthony91]

Here's what I think:
1. M1A2 Abrams
2. Leopard 2A6
3. Merkava Mk.IV
4. Challenger II
5. Leclerc

[Telnyashka]

Retarded thread. No such thing as "best" tank. Whichever tank works for the nation since it's DESIGNED for specific roles. Stupid kids think tanks are like sports teams

[Greek soldier]

Well, you are correct. MBTs are not like a Ferrari Vs Porsche Vs Bugatti contest.:hug:

[Resurrection]

Retarded thread. No such thing as "best" tank. Whichever tank works for the nation since it's DESIGNED for specific roles. Stupid kids think tanks are like sports teams

Haha... agreed. Kinda pathetic.

[LEGEND]

True, all of them do what they are designed to do, they all have pretty much teh same gun these days, a bunch of machine guns and strong engines. They all roll around and blow stuff up. But there are minor diffrencies, Abrams, Leo and Challengers were designed to fight Russian armor and motorized infantry divissions in Europe, while Merkava (especially the later ones) were designed not only to fight other tanks but also support infantry in anti-terrorist urban engagements.

If I was a tanker I would want to go to battle in a Merkava 4 because of the added 360 degree protection plus the anti-rpg system and of course the rear compartment where crewmen from other tanks can safely escape the field of battle if their tanks are disabled.

[IDF-Godzilla]

True, all of them do what they are designed to do, they all have pretty much teh same gun these days, a bunch of machine guns and strong engines. They all roll around and blow stuff up. But there are minor diffrencies, Abrams, Leo and Challengers were designed to fight Russian armor and motorized infantry divissions in Europe, while Merkava (especially the later ones) were designed not only to fight other tanks but also support infantry in anti-terrorist urban engagements.

If I was a tanker I would want to go to battle in a Merkava 4 because of the added 360 degree protection plus the anti-rpg system and of course the rear compartment where crewmen from other tanks can safely escape the field of battle if their tanks are disabled.
The rear comparment is made for 2 things, one is the crew evacuation and the second is an faster shell resupply (like in a modern SPG like the M109).
The tanks "APC" roll is basicly a "Kombina" technick that the IDF always use on all kind of things, saying he if there is some room in it, lets get 2 men inside or we could use that room to get injured soldiers inside also.
The Merkava is not made for urban fighting, it shure is good and handy in it, but it didn't made for that, the tank made for tank fighting only to defende the Gollan hightes and the Egyptian border in case of all missunderstandable situation like the incident couple weeks ago.
And i think no one has mentioned the fact that the Mark 2 model of the Merkava took 8 AT rockets some monthes ago when Hezzbolah attacked an IDF outpost. p-)

[wolfrider]

The Merkava is not made for urban fighting
Actually Mk4 was designed for LIC which include "urban fighting" (like Mk3 Baz Dor Dalet) and not called anymore MBT (like Abrams or T-90). Thats why comparing those tanks... non-professional (at least).

[GilbertDK]

A fact about the L55 (leo2a6) cannon, compared to the L44 (Leo2a5) canon.

The L55 cannon is known to bend easily due to heat when used. After a relative few rouds fired, the point of impact can vary more than 1 TS, making it very inaccurate during intence combat. Far more than the L44 cannon when it is used at the same conditions.

In my opinion, this makes the Leopard 2a5 more effective than the leopard 2a6.

The Abrams can be described as "an american pickup truck" while the Leopard 2a5 can be described as a BMV 5-series. So basicly, both vehicles does the same job and gets you to your destination in same condition, they just do it in 2 different ways.

And from a gunners point of view, the Leopard 2a5 is better than the Abrams, as the gunner has 2 eyepieces, not one. :-).. However the LeClerc has a CLCD.. [insert envy here]

The challenger 2 is seriously underpowered. 1200 bhp as compared to the Leopard 2 with 1500bhp and the optional Euro2000 powerpack with a whopping 2000 bhp.

My Leopard 2A5 DK (http://home1.stofanet.dk/gilbert/leo2a5dk.JPG)

[Marsh]

Actually Mk4 was designed for LIC which include "urban fighting" (like Mk3 Baz Dor Dalet) and not called anymore MBT (like Abrams or T-90). Thats why comparing those tanks... non-professional (at least).


Hi,
I think your supposition that the Merkava 3 Baz Dor Dalet or the Merkava 4 were designed for LIC, will come as a big surprise to the Merkava development team and MANTAK at the Kiryia! They were primarily designed to take on and defeat potential MBT oponents, both those currently in service and those that may enter an enemy order of battle.

Several variants of Merkava have been adapted to meet the challenge of LIC, but in no way were they designed for that task from the onset. The Merkava that had most work done on it to meet LIC requirements, was the Merkava 2 Batash. This was designed to deal with a very specific threat and only a few tanks were so converted.

cheers
Marsh

[Kaplanr]

Well, you are correct. MBTs are not like a Ferrari Vs Porsche Vs Bugatti contest.:hug:

I go Ferrari.

[wolfrider]

Hi,
I think your supposition that the Merkava 3 Baz Dor Dalet or the Merkava 4 were designed for LIC, will come as a big surprise to the Merkava development team and MANTAK at the Kiryia!
Hi, actually it wasnt my suppose, but Brigadier General Amir Nir, head of MANTAK:


...the latest generation Merkava, the Mk 4, has been uniquely configured for low-intensity conflict (LIC) operations.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060518_2_n.shtml

;-)

[Marsh]

Hi, actually it wasnt my suppose, but Brigadier General Amir Nir, head of MANTAK:

;-)

Hi,
I have read the article previously thanks. I have also met General Nir when I interviewed General Tal in 2004. In addition I have had several discussions with the now head of the IDF's AFV doctrine dept. I have also attended briefings over the last five years from the gentleman who was then in charge of IMIs ballisitic protection section.

The Merkava 4 was designed for Combined Arms warfare, the tank's design also took into account the threat of ATGMs with an overhead attack profile. Consequently it turned out to be more able than most vehicles to operate in a LIC environment. All to the good. However, that was not the motive behind its design, no matter how it was presented to the Jane's correspondent.

Remember, MANTAK has to take into account opposition to more spending on the Merkava project from within the IDF. ..

cheers
Marsh

[Navck]

No real order there

Leopard 2S (Swedish variant of Leopard 2)
Merkava 4
T-80UM with Relikit or Kontact-5
T-84 Oplot
M1A2 Abrams
LeClerc

[Satellite Weapon]

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=apache1.htm



-He219

You make a fine point but do not quote strategypage, that website is a load of BS

[Uruk-Hai]

Here is a vid about T-90. Sorry if it's a re - post ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR87SSom5nA

And M1 Abrams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdEtV3Dj0eE&mode=related&search=

[pharaoh_the_great]

the Abrams MBTs are the world best tanks and there is no doubt in that
-their weight of 62.5-68.2 tons puts them in the best protected vehicles in the world
-their 120mm gun with the range of 4000 meters makes them able to destroy other tanks while they cannot even hit them
but the problem about it is the full hunger
it's engine requires being refulled every 8 hours however it stills not a problem with high supplies and good strategy
that is why the EAF choose it to be it's best tank and the back bone of future tank industry
24707
-EAF Abrams in the western desert

[Ren987]

the Abrams MBTs are the world best tanks and there is no doubt in that
-their weight of 62.5-68.2 tons puts them in the best protected vehicles in the world
-their 120mm gun with the range of 4000 meters makes them able to destroy other tanks while they cannot even hit them
but the problem about it is the full hunger
it's engine requires being refulled every 8 hours however it stills not a problem with high supplies and good strategy
that is why the EAF choose it to be it's best tank and the back bone of future tank industry
24707
-EAF Abrams in the western desert
May be you chose it because there was not other choice left, given the fact that your army receive 1.3b$ anually from the US foreign aid which can be spent only on US gears.

Offtopic: Could you create a specific thread for discussing your army in the photo section (conditionally you bring modern pics otherwise it would be useless)

[GilbertDK]

the Abrams MBTs are the world best tanks and there is no doubt in that
-their weight of 62.5-68.2 tons puts them in the best protected vehicles in the world
-their 120mm gun with the range of 4000 meters makes them able to destroy other tanks while they cannot even hit them
but the problem about it is the full hunger
it's engine requires being refulled every 8 hours however it stills not a problem with high supplies and good strategy
that is why the EAF choose it to be it's best tank and the back bone of future tank industry
24707
-EAF Abrams in the western desert

The Abrams doesn't have a rear view camera for the driver, Leo 2a5 does.
You need at least 30 seconds to startup an Abrams, thats 25 seconds more than any other tank.
All your personal gear is stowed on the outside of the turret, making it vulnerable to fire and small arms fire. Leo2a5 's got an armored trunk.

Armor, Gun and horsepower are equal.

[IDF-Godzilla]

I hate topics like these, "Who got the biggest *****".
The answer is short and simple, me :D.

[Achille2001]

ahhh but is it smooth bore? ;)

[drinking das boot]

reading all these posts by axl has given me a headache.

good lord.

[drinking das boot]

Retarded thread. No such thing as "best" tank. Whichever tank works for the nation since it's DESIGNED for specific roles. Stupid kids think tanks are like sports teams

thank you

these threads are completely retarded and make everyone involved look like a bunch of idiots for thinking about these things so obtusely.

[GazB]

-their weight of 62.5-68.2 tons puts them in the best protected vehicles in the world


So I guess it must have armour almost as good as a WWII Tiger II, which weighed in at 69.8 tons... unless weight is not directly related to protection levels.

[oldsoak]

naughty Gazb ! :-)

[fourenziks]

How many Abrams tanks destroyed in Iraq???

How many Merkava's destroyed in Lebanon???



Some of you people are really talking about something you do not know anything about....


The new modernizations on the T-90, were never revealed to the public...

So how come everybody is an expert about the T-90??!?!

[fourenziks]

30 Tanks Wiped Out in Lebanon (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681777/posts)
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=109793)| Aug 11, '06 | not attributed

Posted on 08/11/2006 6:05:24 AM PDT by APRPEH (http://www.freerepublic.com/~aprpeh/)

(IsraelNN.com) IDF officials admit that the biggest surprise of the ongoing war against Hizbullah is the ease by which terrorists have destroyed IDF tanks.
At least 30 tanks have been totally destroyed or seriously damaged in bomb and anti-tank rocket attacks involving state-of-the-art Russian anti-tank rockets. About one-half of the military personnel killed in southern Lebanon were inside tanks.


http://www.independence05.com/blog/uploaded_images/2006-08MerkavadestroyedinSouthofLebanon-773529.jpg

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/astk_merkava_d_in_beirut.jpg




Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq

Tim Ripley JDW Correspondent

The US Army's M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) top side, and rear armour "remains susceptible to penetration" and needs improving, according to the Tank and Automotive Command's (TACOM) Abrams programme manager office (PM Abrams).

In a report into the US Army's principal MBT's performance during Operation 'Iraqi Freedom', however, PM Abrams said the tank's frontal turret and hull armour continues to provide excellent crew protection.

"The tank performed extremely well providing excellent manoeuvre, firepower and overall crew protection", concluded the report, which has been seen by JDW. "Engines typically outlived expectancies and transmissions proved to be durable."

PM Abrams personnel deployed forward with US Army divisions during the war and collected first-hand feedback from tank crews to compile the report. There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems. US Army sources told JDW that the report was only "preliminary observations" rather than a definitive study and more work was continuing to further refine the exact causes of US tank losses in Iraq. Other US Army sources report that 18 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed during the war.

Most M1 losses were attributed in the report to mechanical breakdown, or vehicles being stripped for parts or vandalised by Iraqis. There were "no reported cases" of an anti-tank guided missile being fired at any US Army vehicle.

Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire.

Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.


Moreover, the French magazine “Raids” has published classified American numbers about the deployment of American military forces in Iraq. According to these numbers, more than 2400 US soldiers have been killed in action since the invasion of Iraq about three years ago, and more than 17000 have been wounded. “A tragic toll, that has to be rewritten every day.” All in all, 104 helicopters, including 14 Chinook and 27 Apache helicopters (worth more than 50 million US dollars each) have been destroyed, more than 100 damaged or inoperative. Besides the fighting, it is the dry desert dust that causes problems for all aerial and ground equipment. Repair costs alone have already amounted to 2.6 million US dollars […] Over 14000 vehicles of the ground troops have been destroyed, which is a vehicle per day (including 450 Hummer and 49 Abrams M1 tanks). The number of small arms lost exceeds 30000. The repair and maintenance work on arms and light weapons cause enormous problems for the US army. Endurance decreases rapidly in the desert sand. 20 million working hours (!) have been devoted to maintenance in 2006, with an increasing tendency.
Source: Vertraulicher Schweizer Brief of 27 May 06

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/abrams_lessons_learned5.jpg

http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/war/usloss/abrams2.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/11/xinsrc_bca61d3a9882414ab22419a7e6e879ee_a.jpg

http://artofwar.ru/img/l/lomachinskij_a_a/text_0180/destroyed-m1a1-abrams.jpg

http://www.defesanet.com.br/wars/usaabramseng/img4.gif

[fourenziks]

The T-90 is keeping an eye on you internet warriors....lol

http://www.mosnews.com/files/5397/tank.jpg

[GiladS]

http://www.independence05.com/blog/uploaded_images/2006-08MerkavadestroyedinSouthofLebanon-773529.jpg


That's not even a Merkava (it's a Magach), not to mention that this pic has nothing to do with tank/crew survivability in the face of AT threats.

Reflects so well the demagogic nature of your post as a whole.

[fourenziks]

Demagogic or not, trying to say that the Merkava is better than the T-90 is just plain retarded....

[Anthony91]

Demagogic or not, trying to say that the Merkava is better than the T-90 is just plain retarded....

Well have either of those tanks been up against another tank?

[fourenziks]

Well have either of those tanks been up against another tank?


NO, and that is my point!!!

[GiladS]

Demagogic or not, trying to say that the Merkava is better than the T-90 is just plain retarded....

Trying to compare tanks as a whole is plain retarded.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Ratamacue]

Why the **** do threads like this always get revived?

[Anthony91]

NO, and that is my point!!!

Ok, well if neither tanks have been up against another tank, you really can't say one is better than the other.

[California Joe]

If this retarded thread that is chock full of experts keeps being ressurected all of the tanks in question will be 6 or 7 mods away from when it started. :roll:

[fourenziks]

The T-90 was specificaly created for a country like Russia,which is approximately 823 times larger than Isreal, whose MBT is the Merkava..



Look what happened when the Merkava crossed the border just a bit North...

[EsoognomEhT]

This question is easy;
my fish tank

[Elemental666]

The T-90 was specificaly created for a country like Russia,which is approximately 823 times larger than Isreal, whose MBT is the Merkava..

Best argument i have ever heard.

[GiladS]

The T-90 was specificaly created for a country like Russia,which is approximately 823 times larger than Isreal, whose MBT is the Merkava..



Look what happened when the Merkava crossed the border just a bit North...

I fail to see the relevancy of mileage when it comes to facing AT threats... which I doubt the T-90 has ever faced with the same ferocity as the Merks had in Lebanon or the M1s in Iraq.

[Anthony91]

This question is easy;
my fish tank

Your fish tank has a awesome 125mm Smoothbore Cannon.

[Switek]

How many Abrams tanks destroyed in Iraq???

How many Merkava's destroyed in Lebanon???



Some of you people are really talking about something you do not know anything about....


The new modernizations on the T-90, were never revealed to the public...

So how come everybody is an expert about the T-90??!?!

Hey, smartass

How many T-90 have been involved in real combat situation so far?

[EsoognomEhT]

Your fish tank has a awesome 125mm Smoothbore Cannon.

It bowed to international issues :(

[Anthony91]

How does this thread have a 3 star rating?

(EDIT) HAHA. Now a two star rating.

[fourenziks]

Whoa Whao, I never said that the T-90 has vast battle experience!!!



It is very new technology, and new equpment...


I was just trying to point out the irrelevancy of comparing the T-90 with the Abrams/Merkava...

because honestly, none of us know its true potential yet!!!

[Switek]

every comparison based only on technical/performance data is irrelevant...

[IDF-Godzilla]

The T-90 was specificaly created for a country like Russia,which is approximately 823 times larger than Isreal, whose MBT is the Merkava..



Look what happened when the Merkava crossed the border just a bit North...
The T-90 is basicly a T-72 with upgrades, now tell me this, how many tanks were blowen to bits in the battle of Grozny of December 31 1994???
How many were used as decoration christmas lights?
educate your self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29#Pervomaiskaya_Ulitsa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%28November_1994%29

[Pekhota]

The T-90 is basicly a T-72 with upgrades, now tell me this, how many tanks were blowen to bits in the battle of Grozny of December 31 1994???
How many were used as decoration christmas lights?
educate your self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29#Pervomaiskaya_Ulitsa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%28November_1994%29

hahahah here we go again. This thread is so retarded, I love armchair generals.

[koozya]

The T-90 is basicly a T-72 with upgrades, now tell me this, how many tanks were blowen to bits in the battle of Grozny of December 31 1994???
How many were used as decoration christmas lights?
educate your self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29#Pervomaiskaya_Ulitsa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%28November_1994%29
plz dont go in there.

[fourenziks]

The T-90 is basicly a T-72 with upgrades, now tell me this, how many tanks were blowen to bits in the battle of Grozny of December 31 1994???
How many were used as decoration christmas lights?
educate your self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29#Pervomaiskaya_Ulitsa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%28November_1994%29



hahah Well Israel just got raped by a "group of unorganized thugs"....woot

The Merkava led the way, in showing to the world how to retreat with your tail tucked between your legs, TWICE...


What was that that Olmert recently said about the war??!!??

[Pekhota]

hahah Well Israel just got raped by a "group of unorganized thugs"....woot

The Merkava led the way, in showing to the world how to retreat with your tail tucked between your legs, TWICE...


What was that that Olmert recently said about the war??!!??

:cantbeli: Way to escalate the argument further you child.

[LEGEND]

hahah Well Israel just got raped by a "group of unorganized thugs"....woot

The Merkava led the way, in showing to the world how to retreat with your tail tucked between your legs, TWICE...


What was that that Olmert recently said about the war??!!??

calm down, a man has to be able to control his emotions

[nahimov]

The T-90 is basicly a T-72 with upgrades, now tell me this, how many tanks were blowen to bits in the battle of Grozny of December 31 1994???
How many were used as decoration christmas lights?
educate your self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%281994-1995%29#Pervomaiskaya_Ulitsa)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_%28November_1994%29


Yes and F-16 which is flying today is JUST like F-16 that flew in 1970s only with upgrades. M-16 rifle today is JUST like M-16 in 1960s only with "upgrades". Please tell this to those dumb US generals that they have equipment which is just like what they had in the middle of the cold war.

To think of it, almost all modren cars are just like Ford T model only with upgrades.....

[Holycrusader]

I read somwhere about T-90 who take in second battle of grozny 15-16 direct hits from RPGs. Tank and crew survived that experience. Anybody have a link to this story?

[KingoftheHill]

Oh lord, this thread has just took a turn for the worst!

:roll:

[Snoshi]

hahah Well Israel just got raped by a "group of unorganized thugs"....woot

The Merkava led the way, in showing to the world how to retreat with your tail tucked between your legs, TWICE...


What was that that Olmert recently said about the war??!!??

hahah Well Israel just got raped by a "group of unorganized thugs"....woot
Raped.. Care to explain?
Unorganized thugs? This comment just proves how well educated you are on Middle-Eastern matters.

The Merkava led the way, in showing to the world how to retreat with your tail tucked between your legs, TWICE...
Merkava faced one of the worlds best ATGM's in one of the worlds worst tanks terrain against an enemy who prepared for this war for 6 years... I would like to see how T-90 would have managed to fight there.
Retreat? Who said that we wanted to retreat is is the UN who was whining because of suffering that Lebanon was going through.. Most of the soldiers wanted to fight. This is one of the reasons why Olmert is so heavily criticized.

[Holycrusader]

Raped.. Care to explain?
Unorganized thugs? This comment just proves how well educated you are on Middle-Eastern matters.

Merkava faced one of the worlds best ATGM's in one of the worlds worst tanks terrain against an enemy who prepared for this war for 6 years... I would like to see how T-90 would have managed to fight there.
Retreat? Who said that we wanted to retreat is is the UN who was whining because of suffering that Lebanon was going through.. Most of the soldiers wanted to fight. This is one of the reasons why Olmert is so heavily criticized.

Why you even bother to answer? It is a lame flame war escalated by the IDF-Godzilla immature post. Fourenzinks answer was on the same level of abstraction...
Nothing worth posting about...

[fourenziks]

Raped.. Care to explain?
Unorganized thugs? This comment just proves how well educated you are on Middle-Eastern matters.

Merkava faced one of the worlds best ATGM's in one of the worlds worst tanks terrain against an enemy who prepared for this war for 6 years... I would like to see how T-90 would have managed to fight there.
Retreat? Who said that we wanted to retreat is is the UN who was whining because of suffering that Lebanon was going through.. Most of the soldiers wanted to fight. This is one of the reasons why Olmert is so heavily criticized.


Benjamin Netanyahu, made the "unorganized thugs" comment on Fox News, fallowing the news of the 2 Israeli soldiers being captured...

If you didn't notice, I put the statement in quotes....



Oh and the UN could'nt do anything in the world anymore...

The US was giving you its full support, and the administration, as well as left-wing politicians were defending your invasion....


...and you still got your asses kicked....woot

[KingoftheHill]

...and you still got your asses kicked....woot

Somebody bring in the stats! woot

[LEGEND]

hmm, this thread is not locked yet?

[Kaplanr]

hmm, this thread is not locked yet?

Going, going, going ...

[tecumseh11]

You guys do know that Discovery's Top 10 Greatest Tanks voted the Leopard 2 No. 1?

Of course that's only because Tom Clancy's a closet nazi who couldn't face up to the Russkies conquering all of Germany in Red Storm Rising. Instead he make'em get stopped like 10 miles in. Sif.

[Anthony91]

You guys do know that Discovery's Top 10 Greatest Tanks voted the Leopard 2 No. 1?

Nope, i'm pretty sure they rated the Soviet T-34 as the #1 tank.

[Pekhota]

Of course that's only because Tom Clancy's a closet nazi who couldn't face up to the Russkies conquering all of Germany in Red Storm Rising. Instead he make'em get stopped like 10 miles in. Sif.

But wait! Armoured penetration doesn't work, hurr you just withdraw from your entrenched and heavily equipped positions to fallback to weaker ones and regroup and attack, hurr :roll: and then the Russians will run out of Generals because they keep executing them.

[Anthony91]

Yep, this is absolutely the dumbest thread in the General Discussion forum.

[number nine]

Now I will make my pick and elaborate why it's the best.

Leclerc

1. Autoloader allows higher rate of fire than manual loading, and can be upgraded directly to higher caliber gun, on a classicaly laid out tank without autoloader, loading higher caliber (say 150mm) cannon is next to impossible for one crew member, that is not an issue with 120/125mm cannons currently in use.
2. Autoloader allows smaller turret for two to be built, decreasing it's weight for same armour protection. That means tank mass will be lower, and centre of gravity lower. Consequence of reduced mass is that you have higher power to mass ratio with same engine, and more maneuvrable tank. Consequence of lower centre of gravity is more stable tank.

That is the basic concept of Russian/Soviet tank, but Russian designs for e T90 are inferior because armour protection is generally better on western tanks, which may be of little consequence, but what is important is quality of 120mm gun compared to 125mm Russian. And about armour protection, what I said, that it is largely irellevant, because there will ALWAYS be something that will penetrate the armour. What is the point of Merkava with it's almost 70 tons (and extrordinary high price), when it will be knocked out by top-attack ATGM, or ATGM attack on side? And EVERY future armor will be penetrated as well, no matter how tank is heavy or advanced, in the past calibers were up to 152mm for main cannon, and that could go even higher.

M60A2 and M552 Sheridan had 152mm main cannon - with long barell and high pressure (like 120mm) what would be able to withstand it? Original 152 gun was relatively low pressure with short barell.

[Ironlung]

Now I will make my pick and elaborate why it's the best.

Leclerc

1. Autoloader allows higher rate of fire than manual loading, and can be upgraded directly to higher caliber gun, on a classicaly laid out tank without autoloader, loading higher caliber (say 150mm) cannon is next to impossible for one crew member, that is not an issue with 120/125mm cannons currently in use.
2. Autoloader allows smaller turret for two to be built, decreasing it's weight for same armour protection. That means tank mass will be lower, and centre of gravity lower. Consequence of reduced mass is that you have higher power to mass ratio with same engine, and more maneuvrable tank. Consequence of lower centre of gravity is more stable tank.

That is the basic concept of Russian/Soviet tank, but Russian designs for e T90 are inferior because armour protection is generally better on western tanks, which may be of little consequence, but what is important is quality of 120mm gun compared to 125mm Russian. And about armour protection, what I said, that it is largely irellevant, because there will ALWAYS be something that will penetrate the armour. What is the point of Merkava with it's almost 70 tons (and extrordinary high price), when it will be knocked out by top-attack ATGM, or ATGM attack on side? And EVERY future armor will be penetrated as well, no matter how tank is heavy or advanced, in the past calibers were up to 152mm for main cannon, and that could go even higher.

M60A2 and M552 Sheridan had 152mm main cannon - with long barell and high pressure (like 120mm) what would be able to withstand it? Original 152 gun was relatively low pressure with short barell.

Leclerc is not battle proven. I like the underrated Challenger 2 with a good crew. Or the Merkava 4.