Who's Got the Best Tank?

[scoone]

by James Dunnigan
January 8, 2004

Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.

But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.

The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.

Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.

Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.

Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.

Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.

Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.

Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.

Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98.

Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield.


http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp

[scoone]

http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_lourds/Leopard-2/Leopard_2_7.jpg
woot woot woot woot

[Haiw]

Just curious, are those popnails on those Leo's? I thought those weren't used in tank design since WW2...

[crazyman]

until another MBT runs up as good a record in combat, im going to have to go with the M1 series. also glad to see whoever wrote the article included the human aspect. a tank is just a piece of equipment, the crew running it and the doctrine they follow are as, if not more important as the actual vehicle. camera in the rear of the tank is a nice touch though

[Operation Ivy]

AHHHHHHH not this thread

In my mind there is no modern battle tank that can be called the "best tank". All modern tanks can go against each other and it really would be first shot wins.











and btw Leo=Gay :D

[scoone]

http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabennos/images/M1%20atascado2.jpg
http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabennos/images/Leopard-2%20Holanda%20aplasta%20auto.jpg

[oldsoak]

Whatevers tank is on your side and giving you effective support is the best tank in the world !

just my 2d

[Operation Ivy]

Whatevers tank is on your side and giving you effective support is the best tank in the world !

just my 2d
:hug:

and scoone u cant post a pic like that and get away with it ;) :D

http://www.milhist.dk/pictures/leopard/101-0115_IMG.jpg

[Falco]

http://www.haaland.info/norway/esk1/hugo/hugomyr.jpg

http://www.haaland.info/norway/esk1/hugo/hugoelv.jpg

:hug: :hug:

[Guttorm]

Hehehe... Norwegian tankers on those last two pic's... :D
Notice the smile on the commanders face on the bottom one...

"I screwd up, and I KNOW it..." hehehe "It LOOKED like a shortcut"

[scoone]

http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabennos/images/Leopard-2%20atascado.jpg
http://www.revistanaval.com/blimdanet/historias/galeria2/0004.jpg

**** happens everywhere!!! rofl rofl

[scoone]

BTW , I forgot to include the Merkava in the poll, if anyone likes it please let us know!

[AirZone]

Merkava MK4>* woot

[fokket]

The Korean MBTs are K1(105) and K1A1(120)..

type 88??

[scoone]

Type 88 K1 Main Battle Tank
North Korea quantitatively leads South Korea in most classes of military equipment, such as number of personnel, tanks, artilleries, tactical missiles and operational aircraft. However, the South is qualitatively considerably stronger. It operates modern tanks such as the Hyundai-built Type 88 introduced in 1988, compared to North Korea's T-62, which made up the major component of the former Soviet Union's tank force during the 1970's.
The K-1 rolls across the ground on hard rubber tracks at 40 miles per hour. Its crew sits inside a four-inch thick aluminum alloy shell. It can carry forty-six 105 mm shells that scream out of the canon to a range of 30 kilometers. The laser sighting system guarantees the highest level of accuracy in any conditions. This "hunt or kill" targeting system can even account for wind velocity. The targeting system is proven to be perfect between 400 and 8,000 meters.

The South Korean Type 88 K1 Main Battle Tank, which was developed indigenously, is system-integrated in Korea by Hyundai Precision using major components from several different countries. Ssangyong Heavy Industries' military diesel engines for K1 tank are manufactured under license from MTU of Germany. In May 1996 Hughes Aircraft Company awarded a contract to Kuchera Defense Systems to manufacture electronic assemblies for programs such as the the Korean K-1 Tank Program. Deliveries of the 105-mm K1 to the South Korean army were completed in 1997. Hyundai has also successfully undertaken the development of the K-1 Armored Recovery Vehicle and Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge both based on the K-1 main battle tank. In 1997 Malaysia announced a plan to purchase about 210 tanks worth $730 million by the end of the century. Hyundai Precision offered to sell 105 mm K1 tanks. Its competitors are Poland"s T-72 and Germany"s Mark 3 (M).

Hyundai is continuing to develop, upgrade and enhance the range of defense products it manufactures by using the experience acquired through the development and production of the 88 tank and other vehicles. The first K1A1 tank with 120 mm main armament rolled off the production line at Hyundai on 03 April 1996. The K1A1 features various enhanced functions compared to the existing K1 tanks, including a primary armament of double the penetration power. The new tank's 120mm gun can penetrate up to 600 mm thick armored vehicles while the old model's 105mm gun could only penetrate up to 300 mm. The effective firing range also has increased to 2 kilometers from the previous 1.2 kilometers. The development of the up-gunned 120mm K1A1 has been hampered by difficulties in updating the 120mm gun. Production of the K1A1 tank is set to start in early 2000.


Specifications
Crew 4
Armament One M68A1 105mm rifled gun; or 120mm gun [K1A1
one 7.62mm co-axial machine-gun;
one 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine-gun;
12 smoke discharges (six on each turret)

Armour Composite
Length (including main armament) 31ft 9in (9.67m)
length (hull) 24ft 6in (7.48m)
width 11ft 10in (3.60m)
height 7ft 5in (2.25m)
Weight 112,335 lb (51,000kg) [53.2 tons K1A1]
Ground Pressure 12.23 lb/in sq (0.86kg/cm sq)
Engine MTU 871 Ka-501 12 cylinder water-cooled diesel engine developing 1,200hp at 2,600rpm
Road speed 40 mph (65km/h)
range 310 miles (500km)
vertical obstacle 3ft 4in (1.0m)
trench 9ft 0in (2.74m)
gradient 60°

From
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/type-88-mbt.htm

[scoone]

Type 88

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/k-1-tank-734-h-1.jpg

[SEALInTheMaking]

I have to go with the M1 because its the only one beside the T80 that has been tested on the battlefield. It is an excellent MBT that has proven itself time and time again in the last twelve years. It is a gas hog though which is a definite down side.

[Uninen]

T-80, T-90, Challenger 2 and M1 all have seen combat.

Also..

Real military people seem to think that Challenger is the best..

;)

But i voted for Leo 2 A6..

;)

[b00n]

Well i am german so i have to go for the Leopard.... p-) but i really don't have much knowledge about tanks

[James]

What about this one?

http://www.imageshack.us/files/tanks.JPG

[UoUo]

As an israeli i will go on the Merkava mk4.

woot woot

[scoone]

What about this one?

http://www.imageshack.us/files/tanks.JPG

Is that one of the Renault Tanks from WWI?

[spectre5]

You cant go wrong with the Leopard :)

Im finnish so my choice is obvious.

btw Operation Ivy = gay

t.
Antti Korpela

[mack pl]

PT-91 HARD is the best(made in Poland) :)

[Glock]

I am the same opinion like UoUo.
I also thing that the Merkava mk4 is the best Tank.
But the Leopart is also goot.
Greatings from Vienna Leo

[UoUo]

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava4_9.jpg

woot

[Javehn]

What is that tank ?
Is he good ?

[UoUo]

What is that tank ?
Is he good ?

It is directed to me?

[Herrmannek]

What is that tank ?
Is he good ?

PT-91 is good but not best in all means

[UoUo]

http://www.wp.mil.pl/auths/75/files/czolg.pt91.jpg

http://www.wpeu.net/BQZs/05/PT91_Pologne_04.jpg

p-)

[Javehn]

Ah , forget it . The jok is ruined now ...

That's again a dead topic , and it has no point , unless you bring specification , about what you want to compare the tanks ..

[scoone]

PT-91 looks very influenced by the Russian types. Perphaps it's based in some of them, right?

[Javehn]

hahaha , slightly ...
It's a ripoff of T72 . The polans had a factory "PZK-WOLA" that build licensed versions of T series . With a time contacts between Russian and Polan Tank builders were ended , aprox in begining of 90's , so Polan modernizators had to solve tanking problems (mostly of T72) all by themselfes . So they did it wit T72 , result of it is PT91. But it's pretty good modernisation , it's stand with western standarts , and using sometimes it's solution - like the use of French FCS on some versions of PT91 (i think it's french , but i can be mistaken on this ) .

[Uninen]

rofl

You think that Poles are good in MBT modifications?

Wait until i show what ive got..

rofl

http://personal.inet.fi/koti/uninen/uploads/Rf/t55agm22ls.jpg
T-55AGM, T-55 mod.. From Ukraine..

rofl

They and Russian have same kinds of upgrades for T-72 and others also..

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T72/T72AG_1.jpg
T-72AG..

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armored_vehicles/tank/T72MP_5.jpg
T-72MP..

woot

[wholagun]

Well Bumar the compnay that makes the PT 91 came out with the PT 2001 but none have been built yet, Id show you guys some pics but the ones that were shown previously on this site are now dead links. Ask Remov or Tonry to post them again.

[Operation Ivy]

You cant go wrong with the Leopard :)

Im finnish so my choice is obvious.

btw Operation Ivy = gay

t.
Antti Korpela

:-*$ :D

[Uninen]

t.
Antti Korpela

I know you..

Well,

'know'..

:hug: :cantbeli:

[REMOV]

It's a ripoff of T72In fact is modernized T-72.
The polans had a factory "PZK-WOLA" that build licensed versions of T series .Javehn - one person from Poland is called Pole, more of them Poles. The Polans were an acient Slav tribe.

And the PZL-Wola is factory, but produces engines not tanks. The Polish MBTs are designed and produced in ZM Bumar-Labedy S.A. (http://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/index.php?menu_num=menu3_&menu_lan=en).

More: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pt-91.htm

[StarvingStudent47]

Two questions:

1) What is "reactive armor"?

2) What are those canisters that are often mounted on the side of a turret, like the ones here (12 on each side)? Are they sensors, or some sort of mortar, or what?
http://www.wp.mil.pl/auths/75/files/czolg.pt91.jpg

Many thanks for putting up with the ignorant questions...

[Falco]

reactive armor is, as the name indicates, armor that will react to incoming projectiles by exploding in order to neutralize the threat.

[Uninen]

And those 12 are grenade launchers..

Usually for smoke grenades for self protection..

But there is also different kinds of grenades for those that can be loaded and fired.. IE HE and HE-FRAG..

;)

[pAt]

http://www.jed.simonides.org/8x8afv/india/iav_series/mgs/iavmgs_003.jpg

YA THE BEST TANK!

[Operation Ivy]

awww poor Candians :hug:

(ill try and sneak a Abrams over for ya ;) )

[James]

What about this one?

http://www.imageshack.us/files/tanks.JPG

Is that one of the Renault Tanks from WWI?

Yes. They were armed with either a Hotchkiss Machine Gun or a 37mm "1 pounder". Crew of 2 - driver and commander/gunner.

[Yard Ape]

Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield.
I think I see the Leopard 1 comming in ahead of the M60. The 120S main battle tank deserves mention too. As an M60/M1A2 half-breed it must deserve mention somewhere on this list (even if only at the bottom end.

[Javehn]

It's a ripoff of T72In fact is modernized T-72.
The polans had a factory "PZK-WOLA" that build licensed versions of T series .Javehn - one person from Poland is called Pole, more of them Poles. The Polans were an acient Slav tribe.

And the PZL-Wola is factory, but produces engines not tanks. The Polish MBTs are designed and produced in ZM Bumar-Labedy S.A. (http://www.bumar.gliwice.pl/index.php?menu_num=menu3_&menu_lan=en).

More: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pt-91.htm

Ya , thank REMOV , that what happends when someone writes from memory ... As far as i remember , that was the reason of Poles (notice i write Poles ;) ) manufactured the first Tvyardi , because they needed to modernise the engine , right ? The new engine had 850 h.p. with improved fueling system and air cooling , i think . And from the engine improving they slowly started to modulise the tank into newer versions of PT91A /A1 , with improved armor , FCS , ERAWA -1/2 (ERA-reactive armor) , and so on .

And by the way , just for you REMOV . Remember our old arguement T72 vs. Merkava ? : During Leb war , 9 Syrian T72 were destroyed . It was speculated that they were destroyed by Merkava1 of 7th brigade , but at the end it was determined that the probability for it is law, and they were destroyed by IDF M60 , and IDF paratroopers , and Merkava crues get later to that area , and perhaps engaged allready "killed" tanks , and the survived ones . And here is some reading for you :


Hellman, Peter. ‘Chariot of Fire’ in: Heroes. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1990.

Late in the morning of June 11, 1982, as Israeli and Syrian armored forces battled savagely in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, a 20-year-old Israeli tank commander from the famed 7th Armored Brigade fixed in the cross hairs of his telescopic sight an enemy tank he had not expected to see. It was a Soviet T-72, the newest and best from a nation known for a long line of superior tanks. Though operational since the mid-1970s, the T-72 had never been committed to full-scale war. Low-slung, with a fully automated loading system, the T-72 mounted a 125-mm cannon, then the largest tank gun in the world.
Plenty of other Syrian tanks of Soviet manufacture had been sent into the first few days of battle in the Bekaa Valley – T-54s, T-55s, and the superb T-62s, still the mainstay of Soviet-built armor. But the T-72s, part of Syria’s crack 3rd Armored Division, had been kept well back, in the environs of Damassus, throughout the early days of the war in Lebanon. Now the Syrians were growing increasingly apprehensive that the Israeli Forces would cut off the Beirut-Damascus highway to the north and trap forces still in the mountains around Beirut. The Syrians had used the cover of night to send their T-72s down from the mountains into the valley.
The Israeli tank, too, was facing its first war – as any Syrian commander, catching sight of his enemy, would instantly know from its sleek profile. It was the Merkava (Hebrew for chariot), the first tank ever built in Israel. The prism of the Merkava’s laser range finder focused a stiletto of light on the T-72 and recorded a range of nearly two miles.
With a ceasefire due at any moment, the Israeli commander did not know how much closer he might be authorized to go. It was now or never.
The gunner set the digital fire-control system to compute the enemy tank’s course, speed and elevation. A pipe-like sensor sticking up from the turret automatically sent the computer information on air temperature, barometric pressure and crosswinds. Using data from a thermal sleeve on the gun barrel, the computer corrected for slight warping of the cannon from temperature variations along its 12-foot length – an important factor when the midsummer sun heats the top but not the underside. In modern tank warfare, a gunner’s sharp eye no longer counts for much.
With both hands clasped to the thick, curved handles of his sights, the Israeli commander pressed the firing button with his right thumb. Within the breech, an electrical impulse ignited the propellant packed into a 30-inch-long brass cartridge shell, sending the projectile on its way. Inside the tank, the crew felt almost no recoil. Incised spirals within the barrel imparted a spin to the projectile, improving flight accuracy. It left the muzzle at the almost unimaginable speed of 1 mile/second.
As soon as it cleared the muzzle, the sabot (the outer casing of the projectile) split into three pieces and fell away. While in the barrel, it had provided the tight fit required to maximize acceleration, but once clear, it would only slow the projectile. All that remained was a slender, tungsten-carbide core some 2 inches thick and a foot long, with rear fins to help keep it on course. It weighed about 15 pounds and carried no explosive charge. In the jargon of military technology, this type of round is known as an APFSDS projectile (armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot). The Israelis, who manufacture it, call it the Arrow.
Besides the APFSDS round, the tank commander could have used a HESH (high- explosive, squash-head) round, which splats against a wide surface of the opposing armor. Its explosive charge sets off shock waves that cause lethal splintering of the tank’s interior walls. Then there is the HEAT (high-explosive antitank) projectile, whose front is a cone lined with copper or some other metal. Upon impact, the explosive payload gasifies the copper and focuses it into a kind of drill that pierces the armor.
Neither HESH nor HEAT, however, can match the range or power of that simple arrow of heavy metal that relies on pure kinetic energy for its deadliness.
A sharp crack traveled to the rocky slopes of the Syrian side of the valley and across to the Shouf Mountains on the Lebanese side.
The temperature in the Bekaa Valley was already in the mid-eighties when the projectile sliced along the fertile valley floor almost in a straight line, never higher than 15 feet. In a brief burst of yellow-gold light, the projectile, still traveling at almost 1 mile/second, hit the Soviet-made tank. In intelligence circles, rumor had it that the Soviets had devised a new, impenetrable armor for the T-72. But rumor was wrong. The projectile pierced one layer of armor after another; the super-hardened steel splintered as easily as wood.
The dense tungsten-alloy arrow entered the T-72’s crew compartment and burst into dozens, perhaps hundreds, of fragments. In the open, each fragment could vector outward. Here they ricocheted again and again against the inside walls of the tank.
A single particle could pass through a human body several times at different angles. Any crew member exposed to this firestorm of shredded metal has little chance of surviving – even before fires start and ammunition explodes.
In one stroke, the Merkava came of age. For the first time, a T-72 had been destroyed by cannon fire from another tank. Before the end of the war, Merkavas would destroy at least 8 more T-72s, in this and in two other encounters – all at long range. This last fact is remarkable, since the 125-mm cannon of the T-72 should have been superior over distance to the smaller 105-mm gun of the Merkava.
The Merkava did not emerge from the Lebanon War unscathed. The IDF has never released exact figures, but it does not deny that some of its prized new tanks were lost, at least temporarily, to well-laid Syrian ambushes. Others were stopped by antitank missiles fired from the ground and by French-built Gazelle helicopters.
But in tank-to-tank fights, the Merkava prevailed.
General Tal, the head of the Tank Development Authority was delighted with his tank’s performance in its first war. Vanquishing the T-72, the enemy’s best, in tank-to-tank duels was obviously a high point of his career.


Katz, Samuel M. Israeli Tank Battles. New York: Arms and Armor Press, 1988.

The cease-fire that had been negotiated through American mediation was to go into effect on 11 June at 12:00 hours. But at 11:00, the Syrian 3rd Armored Division began to move into Sultan Yakoub. The advance battalion from the 82nd Armored Brigade equipped with the new Soviet T-72 headed straight for IDF lines. This time it was the IDF’s turn to hit. Jeeps with TOW missiles went ahead to divide the T-72 force while Merkavas were firing from the hills around and picking off the enemy armor at will. In the end, more than nine ‘invincible’ T-72s and thirteen T-62s were destroyed. The battle, an eerie twin of the Israeli debacle hours before, had given Heyl Shirion its revenge.


Katz, Samuel M. Merkava. London: Osprey, 1997.

When the IDF moved into the Bekaa Valley, the Merkava reigned supreme. In the pitched and sometimes desperate battles of Sultan Yakoub and Ein Zehalta, the Merkava defeated everything the Syrians threw at it – armor, infantry and antitank helicopter gunships. Even the T-72, the latest Soviet tank in the Syrian arsenal, proved inferior to the armored might of the Israeli Chariot. The Merkava proved virtually impregnable against Palestinian terrorists armed with the capable RPG-7 and Syrian commandoes equipped with Sagger and Milan antitank missiles. The 7th Brigade and its force of Merkavas faced off the T-72 and destroyed eight of them at sniping ranges of 3000 m and 4000 m with the 105-mm gun, while the T-72 with its 125-mm cannon failed to destroy a single Merkava. “You felt safe and protected inside the Merkava,” claimed one 7th Armored Brigade tank sergeant. “Knowing that you would survive most hits allowed the crew to concentrate on the task at hand rather than worry about the ordnance coming in our direction. Compared to the Centurion, the tank I was trained on, the electronic and aiming systems made it much easier to hit a target with the first shot.”
Seven Merkavas were destroyed during the fighting in Lebanon but six of them were destroyed by antitank mines, and one was hit by a barrage of Sagger missiles and RPG fire.


Laffin, John. The War of Desperation. London: Osprey, 1985.

Day Six – 11 June.
That morning Israeli Merkava tanks ambushed a Syrian unit of the 82nd Armored Brigade, equipped with the T-72 tank, in the Bekaa Valley: nine of them went up in flames. The T-72 was the latest and most powerful of the Russian-made tanks supplied to the Syrian Army and had been considered virtually invincible. Major-General Avigdor Ben Gal said of this action, “To our great satisfaction, we saw that the T-72 burns just like any other tank.” The T-72s lay in no-man’s-land and the Syrians tried hard to prevent the Israelis from removing any of the hulks. Nobody in the West had yet examined a T-72 and one was badly needed for evaluation. A specimen was later retrieved.


Cordesman, Anthony and Wagner, Abraham. The Lessons of Modern War.
Boulder, Colorado, USA: Westview Press, 1991.

The Syrians used a variety of Soviet-made tanks during the 1982 Lebanon war, including T-72s. Israeli General Rafael Eitan called the T-72 the world’s second best tank, after the Merkava. The Israelis do claim to have knocked out several T-72s of the Third Syrian Armored Division with Merkavas and hint that the total of T-72s destroyed by Merkavas may go as high as nine. Syrian sources seem to confirm these claims.(42 - IDF units ambushed the Syrian 82nd Armored Brigade on 11 June 1982. This unit was equipped with the T-72 and nine were reported to have been burned.)
Eitan further stated that T-72 tanks burned just as rapidly as the other Soviet-made tanks.


Carus, Seth W., Military Lessons of the 1982 Israel-Syria Conflict. In: Harkavy, Robert (Editor) The Lessons of Recent Wars in the Third World.
Lexington, Massachusetts USA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1985.

The tank was the most effective antitank weapon used in Lebanon and the most potent tank armament was the 105-mm L7A1 gun used by the Israelis. According to one estimate, it accounted for 60% of all the Syrian tanks destroyed. That these guns penetrated even T-72s at long ranges suggests that this venerable weapon, a mainstay of Western tanks for 25 years, can remain effective through at least the end of this decade.
The success of Israel’s 105-mm guns was due in part to the new M-111 Arrow round. One senior Israeli armor officer has asserted that this round was “the main technological advantage that we had while entering the war in 1982.” The M-111 was devastating against older T-55 and T-62 tanks and was also credited with some nine T-72 kills. Reportedly, the T-72s were engaged at ranges of as much as 3,500 meters. The M-111 was said to be able to penetrate as much armor as the initial 120-mm round adopted by the U.S. and West German armies


And those 12 are grenade launchers..

Usually for smoke grenades for self protection..

But there is also different kinds of grenades for those that can be loaded and fired.. IE HE and HE-FRAG


The "grenades" rofl that can be fired , are tank shells , based on fosforus , like HESH . They main goal is just like the goal of every shell in tank , but the side effect of them , is that they can used also for marking , because they have clear white trail on impact .
The tubes from a sides is called "pop-up" , or immidiate smoke , and they ussually fired in pares , one from each side . Tank also can mask themselfes in engine smoke , while fuel is getting spilled on engine , becoming a white smoke and getting ejected from tank fueling egzoz .

[scoone]

Does anybody knows something about the EE-T1 Osório Main Battle Tank? I've read that it is Brazilian made but I don't know what countries are using it.

[scoone]

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A1-Bagdad-RunningOver.jpg

Dedicated to Ivy

and this link about the Abrams in Iraq 2003. Very interesting.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

[bigisraeli]

I don't understand all of this guys , you'll show pictures and talk about your tanks , but as a former Israeli armed crops solider I most protest , one of the best tanks in the world is the Markava mark 4 , it's has a lot of improvments form mark 3 (one of the beat tanks in the world today , the one that I served on for the last 3 years) , one of it's improvments is that he can lock on few targets without seen them at the same time , and that's only one of the improments , so I think next time someone is doing a poll about tanks he should consider the Markva before he suggests it .

[Operation Ivy]

hehe thxs Scoone very intresting read :D even though most of the time it says how bad the Abrams is :|

heres your info on the EE-T1 Osório Main Battle Tank :P

Engesa was formed as a private firm in 1963. Initially, it was involved in renovating World War II-vintage tanks. Engesa built wheeled APC's, such as the EE-11 Urutu amphibious APC, the EE-9 Cascavel armored reconnaissance vehicle, the EE-17 Sucuri tank destroyer, and the EE-3 Jararaca scout car, in addition to a wide range of other products. The EE-11 Urutu armored troop carrier is an amphibian that can also be used by naval forces. It is still used by the Brazilian Army. It made a success in the international sales market, and is in service ia at least six Armies worldwide, in addition to the Brazilian Army. In terms of product development, all of Engesa’s armored fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers shared the same characteristics: simple and flexible design concepts, low cost, good performance and reliability, ease of use, and simple maintenance. These characteristics were the major selling points of Engesa’s products to its customers in the developing countries.


Engesa's APC's were all based on a new proprietary suspension system, called "Engesa Boomerang". This ingenious suspension system, along with many other modifications, expanded the life span of many otherwise obsolescent World War II-vintage vehicles. Engesa's weapons were exported almost exclusively to the developing world, especially to countries in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. By the mid-1980s, Engesa had expanded to a group of twelve subsidiaries and employed more than 5,000 people.

1982: conceptual development of a new light MBT (the MB-3 Tamoyo)
1985: construction of first prototype with 105mm gun.
1986: delivery of a second prototype with 120mm gun.
1990: agreement with Saudi Arabia to establish a local armament plant for the assembly of Osório MBT.

Brazil emerged in the mid-1980s as the leading arms producer and exporter among the defense industrializing countries, and the sixth largest arms exporter in the world. Although there were over 500 manufacturers of defense-related equipment in Brazil, three firms have been largely responsible for Brazilian defense exports: in aircraft, Embraer; in armored fighting vehicles, Engesa; and in missiles, Avibras.

Engesa was well positioned to take advantage of Brazil’s nonaligned position in the international system and its affinity with other developing nations. The company has exported its armored and reconnaissance vehicles to over 20 countries in the Middle East and Africa. Annual export earnings amounted to over US$53 millon for the 1977-82 period and US$122 million for the 1983-88 period. The largest regional market was the Middle East, to which Brazil sold roughly half of its arms from 1977 through 1988, with nearly half of all Brazilian arms transfers from 1985 to 1989 going to Iraq. A related factor was Engesa's well-known after-sales support in terms of guaranteed access to spare parts, training for system operators, and maintenance (including front-line repair during the Iran-Iraq war).

However, with the end of the Iran-Iraq war and the decline in state support, the Brazilian arms industry collapsed in the late 1980s, and by the mid-1990s had virtually disappeared. In early 1990, Brazil's two major manufacturers, Engesa and Avibras, filed for bankruptcy. Engesa has been dismembered, with some of its companies sold to private interests, and ordnance-related firms taken over by the state and integrated with the Indústria de Material Bélico do Brasil (IMBEL - Brazil's Industry of War Weapons and Equipments).

In the early 80's, Saudi Arabia began searching for a new MBT, with the objective of replacement for their AMX-30 MBT's. At first, they wanted the Leopard 2, which had just began to be received by the Bundeswehr, as the Saudis were impressed with the success of the Leopard 1 both in Germany and in other European countries as well. However, the German government refused to sell weapons to countries that were not NATO's members. This way, a new market was opened, and Engesa decided to go for it.

At first, Engesa searched for a partner for the project's development, and contacted Tyssen-Henschel in Germany, but the conversations came to nothing. Then, Porsche showed interest in participating in the Brazilian MBT project. However, the German government once again intervened and the German-Brazilian cooperation project was cancelled.

That being the situation, Engesa decided to go on with the project by itself, a decision that would prove later to be too risky. In face of the way the Brazilian state participated in the Brazilian armament industry at that time, some restrictions imposed by the Brazilian Army had to be considered. The first one stated that the new MBT should weigh no more than 36 tons, which was a technical impossibility, as it would set the Brazilian MBT outside of the first class MBT's weight, which was between 44.5 tons (T-72) and 62 tons (Challenger), at that time. The second Brazilian Army's restriction was that the maximum width of the new MBT could not be larger that 3.20 meters, a limit imposed by the Brazilian railway structure.

Engesa's engineers accepted the second restriction, but rejected the first, and the target weight was stipulated as 42 tons, on grounds that most of the transportation would be realized by roads, anyway. Another important decision was that the development would consist of a basic chassis and two different types of turret, allowing the possibility of two different main gun possibilities: the 105 mm and the 120 mm. Engesa was determined that the first prototype had to be ready in one year, so the company decided that it would develop the chassis project, and the turrets project was to be realized by Vickers Defence Systems, Great Britain.

The first turret, the "default", was designed to accommodate the British 105mm L7 series gun, which was NATO's main battle tank gun specification, until the 120 mm L/44 Rheinmetall gun was adopted, but at that time, this was still to happen in the future. The British 105 mm L7 series gun was an excellent option, because it was used by so many countries, its cost was reasonable, and there were many types of ammunition available for its use. The fire control system for this turret, fully computerized, consisted of a laser range finder and a LRS-5DNLC Olp Belgian periscope, and the commander had an LRS-5DN periscope. This fire control system and the main gun were fully stabilized.

The second turret was developed for being used by the Saudi Arabia's Army. This turret would receive the French smooth-bore 120mm GIAT G1 gun, because tests proved that the British rifled 120mm L11 gun, although more powerful, also had stronger recoil forces, that a 42 ton MBT could not support. The German Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 smooth-bore gun was not tested because of the weapons selling politics of the German government at that time.

As a result of all that, the tank was either armed with a L7 105mm gun with 45 rounds stowage or a GIAT 120mm gun with 40 rounds. One 7.62 mm MG was mounted coaxial, another one (or 12,7mm) was used as ADMG (5000 rounds / 3000 7.62mm 900 12,7mm).

The 105 mm rifled gun was the well proven British L 7 series, with a fume extractor, and a thermal sleeve. Various kinds of ammunition were used with this gun including: APDS, APDSFS, HEAT, HESH, and Smoke. The 120 mm was a French GIAT smooth bore gun, firing APDSFS-T and HEAT-MP ammunition. Both the guns with their respective ammunition were to be produced under license in Brazil, by Engesa.

The computerized fire control system, by Marconi Command and Control Systems, used a SFIM stabilized periscope with laser range finder for the gunner and another one for the commander. A Philips/TRT stabilized thermal periscope was linked to both sights. This fire control system was state-of-the-art and assured a very high first round hit probability.

Initially, Engesa wanted to use an MTU engine, since they were used with great success with the Leopard 1 and 2, and also because MTU already was operating in Brazil. But its price was way too high, and the MWM 1,000 hp diesel TBD 234 turbo charged diesel engine was selected, coupled to a ZF LSG 3000 transmission. Both companies, MWM and ZF, were already operating in Brazil. This engine was tested for over 3,000 km in Saudi Arabia, and proved to be most efficient and easy to maintain. The suspension was of hydro pneumatic type (like the one used by the British Challenger) and designed by Dunlop. The Osório MBT was provided by an auxiliary power unit in the left hull rear. Fuel capacity was of 1354 liters.

The EE-T1 Osório armor was entirely developed by Engesa and was a combination of aluminum/steel and carbon fibers and ceramics (bimetal+composite/laminate armor). This armor was said to provide complete protection against all HEAT threats existent at that time.

The EE-T1 Osório Main Battle Tank was an advanced design with main efforts on firepower and mobility, which resulted in high standards within its weight category. Engesa was hoping to sell 318 Osório MBT's to Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis choose the M1 Abrams.

By the mid-1980s, Engesa had spent US$100 million on the development of the Osório MBT, but was unable to find a buyer for it. This design of the Brazilian armaments industry was sophisticated, and demanded a high investment in technology. It was equipped with computers and endowed with a modern weapons system. The Osório project came to an abrupt end with Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991. In 1990, Engesa had won the evaluation process by the Saudis. After Desert Storm, Brazil was no match for United States competition, given the close ties that developed between Saudi Arabia and the United States during the war with Iraq.

Type: MBT
Crew: 4
Dimensions:
Length (Hull) (mm) 7,130
Length (Gun Forward) (mm) 10,100
Width (Maximum) (mm) 3,260
Width (without Track Skirts) (mm) 3,200
Height (Maximum) (mm) 2,890 (2,680 according to the used AAMG)
Height (Turret Roof) (mm) 2,370
Ground Clearance (mm) 460
Weight:
Empty (kg) N/A
Combat (kg) 43,700
Armaments:
Cannon - Type/Caliber GIAT 120 mm smooth-bore gun.
- Ammunition 40(APDSFS-T and HEAT-MP)
- Stabilizer yes
- Traverse (º) 360
- Elevation (º) -10 to 20
- Max. Slew Rate (Elevation) (º/s) 11 - 15
Machine guns - Coaxial - Type/Caliber Hughes X34/7.62
- Range (meters) 1,000 N/A
- Antiaircraft - Type/Caliber M2HB/12.7
- Range (meters) over 1,500
- Ammunition 7.62 mm 5,000
- Ammunition 12.7 mm 600
Smoke Grenade Launchers 2x4
Suspension: Hydro pneumatic
Tracks - Manufacturer/Width (mm) Diehl/570
- Length of Track on Ground (mm) 4,490
Drive and Performances:
Engine - Type MWM TBD 234-V12
- Performance (kW)/at rpm 746/2300
Transmission - Type ZF LSG300 Automatic
- Gears - Forward/Reverse 4/2
Fuel/Fuel Capacity (liters) Diesel/1,354
Power-to-Weight Ratio (kW/t) 17.5 (17.3)
Ground Pressure (kg/cm.2) 0.85 (0.80)
Max. Road Speed (km/h) 70
Acceleration (0 to 32 km/h (20 mil/h) (in seconds) 6
Range (on Road) (km) 550
Gradient (%) 60
Side Slope (%) 40
Trench Crossing (meters) 3,0
Vertical Obstacle (meters) 1,15
Fording without Preparation (meters) 1,2
- with Preparation (meters) 2
Deep Fording (meters) no
Protection:
Fire Suppression System yes - Automatic
NBC System yes
Armour:
Hull - Front Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Bimetal + Composite/Laminate N/A
- Sides Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Bimetal + Track Skirts /N/A
- Rear Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Steel /N/A
- Bottom Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Steel /N/A
Turret - Front Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Bimetal + Composite/Laminate /N/A
- Sides Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Bimetal + Composite /N/A
- Rear Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Bimetal N/A /N/A
- Top Type/Max. Thickness (mm) Bimetal N/A
Fire Command System:
Ballistic Computer yes - Digital
Sights Stabilized by SFIM
Rangefinder Type Laser
Driver Periscope Optical or Passive Thermal Imaging
Other Information:
Manufacturer ENGESA Engenheiros Especializados SA, Brazil
Development (from Year) 1982
Prototypes 1985 (with 105 mm L 7 series gun); 1986 (with 120 mm GIAT smooth-bore gun).




http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/Tank100.jpg

Heres a really good tank site, where i got this info
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

[Operation Ivy]

I don't understand all of this guys , you'll show pictures and talk about your tanks , but as a former Israeli armed crops solider I most protest , one of the best tanks in the world is the Markava mark 4 , it's has a lot of improvments form mark 3 (one of the beat tanks in the world today , the one that I served on for the last 3 years) , one of it's improvments is that he can lock on few targets without seen them at the same time , and that's only one of the improments , so I think next time someone is doing a poll about tanks he should consider the Markva before he suggests it .

I never said it sucks :| i know its a very well designed tank, u just gotta stand up for your countrys hardware woot

[Uninen]

Javehn..

One of the few cases where the T-72 made a great impression against its opponents was in the war with Lebanon in 1982. Then the T-72's managed to destroy several Israeli tanks without a single loss, but this in the end did not matter, as they lost the war anyway.

In Chechnya, T-72's were among the deadliest weapons. Their 125mm guns were great for taking out rebel strong holds, and they were reliable and relatively easy to use in mountinous areas. On numerou occasions, I would see a T-72, coming in from a front, for repairs. All of its reactive armor would be shot up and damaged, and the crews a little shook, but in general it was easily repairable.

:-*$ ;)

[Javehn]

Uninen ... rofl rofl rofl

And right now i can tell you Uninen , where from your friend took his info . It's from here : http://www.btvt.narod.ru/2/lebanon.htm , and it's written by V. Ilyin . For someone that inventing about engagement in 1982 between M1 Abrams , and T72 , i wouldn't take his information very seriously ;) . His stories are fool of holes , inconsistence , and vast fantasy . Sorry , but your friend must find a bit more reliable source of info . rofl Soviet advisors during cold war haven't had any serious productive lessons about the middle eastern wars , while arab forces also provided them very different picture , from what happened in the field .


The story was like this : In aprox of Anna village in Lebanon , a hour before seaze fire there was ingagement between "Yosi force" , and elements of 81 brigade , 3 Syrian division . Yosi force was elements of 767 reserve tank brigade , M60 tanks , 409 ATGM unit , and VCobra helis . Later a force from 7th brigade with Merkava1 tanks passed in area , and supposadly engaged the remainings there . At the end of the battle there were 9 destroyed (or 8 destroyed ) T72 , and not one IDF tank . The guy that wrote this column was trying to safe T72 honnor , no more , using half fantasy half distorded reallity supllied by Syrian tankers . There is a fog also from IDF side , sence it's unclear if the Merkava1 took part of this battle , or did they come a late for the battle and engaged "dead targets" , or single cut off T72 tanks .


Offcorse , T72 is a deadly weapon is itself . During a Chechen campain , system that called "Tank Carusell" saved many lifes of Russian soldiers . But , as far as i remember , Chechen campain wasn't exactly Armor Vs. Armor campain , no ;) ? Correct me if i am wrong . And in the end , it's all in the hands of the operators - tank crues ...

:-*$ ;)

[Operation Ivy]

On one occasion, an M1 fired its 120mm gun at an Iraqi T-72 (Soviet built) tank. The 120mm Armor-Piercing (SABOT/uranium-depleted steel dart) round went right through the T-72 and into another one directly behind it, destroying both tanks.
Another more amazing M1 story happened during the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division’s run to the Euphrates River. It was raining heavily, and one M1 managed to get stuck in a mud hole and could not be extracted. With the rest of their unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for recovery vehicles to pull them out.

Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T-72 fired a High-Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage. At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm SABOT round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72’s turret, blowing it off into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. That also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediately destroyed this T-72 with another SABOT round. After that, the third and now last T-72 fired a 125mm Armor-Piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front armor plate. At that point, realizing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe there. Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight (TIS) the hot plume of the T-72’s engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully through their TIS, the M1’s crew fired a third 120mm SABOT round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it.



http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/OpIvy/Tank101.jpg


:-*$ ;) u tell'em Javhen

[Uninen]

And right now i can tell you Uninen , where from your friend took his info .

You and i cant know that, and i dont..

Btw,

His Russian officer..

Chechnya veteran..

Has been there last time in 2002 and said his going to go back this year..


Chechen campain wasn't exactly Armor Vs. Armor campain , no ;) ? Correct me if i am wrong .

Chechens had Airforce and Armor units..

They just were destroyed..

;)

[Javehn]

Yes , indeed , but your friends sayings , are directly taken from the books of Soviet advisors , that summed the fighting in middle east . Like i said , they have a little touch with reallity . Respect to your friend , but again , his is fighter in Chechnya , and not in Lebanon 1982 . This text i gave is a direct text of what been tought in Soviet Officers Academies .

About the war in Chechnya , that hardly a point to the tank , it's a point to tank crues . Sence the both sides had more or less the same tanks , and sometimes there were even whole renegade tank crues that switched to Chechen sides , that isn't teaching no one about the tank . Also take a point , that there were almost non Armor vs Armor fighting in Chechnya , and much rather ATGM vs Tanks from both sides . If you read Russian , take a read on this story , this part , it describes a fight in Grozni in 1994 , and taking of government structure in the city . It is talking about the engagements of Chechen tanks on Russian soldiers .
But there were no real book style platoon vs platoon , battalion vs battalion , and that sort tank engagements . There were maximum one tank crue , on other tank crue .
Here is the story : http://www.artofwar.ru:8101/mironov/tale_mironov_9.html

Again , respect to your friend , but to judge real tank engagements , you must have much more criterions then : "Waw , look at this shiny tank , i bet he kick ass on Abrams" . You have to take all the criterions of the tank itself , like armor , mobility , FCS , fire power . And then you must judge the human quality of tank crues . Then you must judge the command part , starting from the tank commander and his ability to multitask his crue , and control the tank , up to platoon commander to fire management , up to brigade commander on his fire management , ground understanding , manouvre performed , understanding of battlefield , support that been called (there weren't one single fight in history of warfare , without any support , like air or Arty) .

This days , armor vs armor is history . That is the threat that the tanks are faced .
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010124/1world.gif

[MARINO]

For leopard, it has the best technologie,fot T-82 is the streng( very resisnten) for M-1 both things.Cause leo need a big support, it have a lot of systems.

[scoone]

We've been talking about the best tank for a few weeks, but, as you can see , most modern tanks are quite similar. Some have more protection, others have more electronics....But, what I think is that training is a very important factor in this equation. To have a last generation tank will surely provide advantage over the others, but if the crew are a group of retards or not trained people, well, even the old M-60 can kick your ass.
Even more, in these days usually (like in Iraq) last generation tanks are facing old ones with an undertrained crew. So, we can only say that modern ones are effective against the old fashion stuff ( btw most of them Russian made). If we face 2 modern tanks, only the crew will make a diffence.

[A Soldier]

Very true scoone.
As an American, I have to go with the Abrams. Iraq tested and approved!!!!!! :lol:

[Ian H]

Hmmm, despite all that has been said, patriotism forces me behind the Challenger 2. Anyone know why it has a rifled gun and most others have smoothbores? Is one significantly better, or is there no real difference?

'Tanks' in advance! :lol:







Oh my god, did I just type that? :oops:

[spectre5]

Uninen, hmm how do you know me?

Mr. Ivy, sorry for the bashing. I seem to be a little bichy when im sick
:hug:

t.
Antti Korpela

[Operation Ivy]

hehe i dont care :hug:

[Jack Mehoff]

My cock is the best

[oldsoak]

Ian H - There is a project underway to examine re gunning the Chally 2 with the German 120 mm smoothbore. ( Basically our ammunition is getting out of date and we dont make it anymore ) This would bring benifits of commonality and economy of scale with users of the Leopard 2 and the Abrams. Rifled tank guns are supposedly more accurate than smoothbores at range, although users of the German 120mm have few complaints. Be interesting to see if it gets anywhere.

[hedgehog]

he he he... this is funny... I remember a long time ago on Janes where they quoted British commanders voting and arguing to get the Leopard 2 after it beat out the Challenger 2 in trials only to be overruled by politics. The challenger is basically a challenger 1 with a new turret, and as most people know the challenger got licked by both german and US tanks in cross country trials. Best proof of this is watching an M1 plow through nature with the Brits far behind... like in Iraq. Torsion springs are superior and easier to maintain than the hydro pneumatic setup.

Actually a rifled barrel makes it harder to maintain accuracy over time as there is continuous uneven wear. Due to the wearing of the grooves at different rates (ones closer to the breach wear faster than at the muzzle) the fire control computer is continually guessing at the wear rate as a parameter in its targeting calculation (besides temp, wind, speed, powder temp etc) A smoothbore gun has coninuous even wear, which allows a very accurate linear relationship that the computer can use to adjust its targeting after x number of rounds.

[thatguy96]

Rifled tank guns are supposedly more accurate than smoothbores at range, although users of the German 120mm have few complaints.
Its also been found that spin on a HEAT round is detrimental to its performance, and at 120mm, the accuracy afforded by rifling is neglidgable (especially considering the length of the barrel)

[Ian H]

Cheers guys, been wondering about that for a while.

[tooms]

biased poll, most of the posters will vote for their country tank (i did it :bash: )

[Operation Ivy]

Well congradulations ;)

[tooms]

Well congradulations ;)

who does really know which tank is the best? woot

GO Leclerc GO !
http://www.eurus.dti.ne.jp/~freedom3/Leclerc-3.jpg

[mocking_loudly_died]

I want mechs.

[Operation Ivy]

who does really know which tank is the best

Can only be answered on the battlefield :D

[tooms]

who does really know which tank is the best

Can only be answered on the battlefield :D


ok, tomorrow, sunday 12.00 am behind the school , ill bring my MBT, do the same with your crappy wreck

[Operation Ivy]

hehehe :P

[Javehn]

behind the school , ha ? Those days .
What competition that would be , a shooting one , or tank race "carmagedon" ? Don't orget to bring good crue .

P.S : If you want to know tank abilites , without connection to particular tank , go and see the tank demonstration movie in militarymovies . That would give you a good idea , what corps rules the ground . Nothing more beautiffull , then to see tank brigade open fire simultaniosly on "fire" command , and to see horizon in the night becoming lightened with tank shells , tank hits , to hear those lowd booms , to see how the shell flying kilometers in matter of seconds .
That would make you belliever .

[Operation Ivy]

and where is this video :D

[Javehn]

www.militarymovies.net

The bottom one .

[Operation Ivy]

awsome woot

[tooms]

the link doesn't work and if i search militarymovies on google, the results are gay porn sites rofl

[Operation Ivy]

search military movies net ;)

[MARK.TIGGER]

it was proven on the battlefield the Challenger II out performed the abrams

[mustamato]

it was proven on the battlefield the Challenger II out performed the abrams

What kind of round did that british Challenger 2 that took out one of the
other Challenger 2´s in a friendly fire accident use, a HESH?

[oldsoak]

APFSDS , so I am told

[Operation Ivy]

it was proven on the battlefield the Challenger II out performed the abrams

U wouldnt happen to have any links to there performace during OIF would ya? just interested :D

["sniper" tom]

i know one thing that goes way back , around 30 years
our leopard 1A5 was better than the abrams then !
and look at it now :cantbeli: !
its a niece tank i must say but yeah we cant beat T90....abrams .....and so on !
but its a nice thing to remeber that our leopard was better than the abrams ! woot

[Operation Ivy]

Hehehe just watched a show on Tech TV comparing the Challenger 2, M1A2 Abrams, LeoA6 and LeClerc
Here were the Scores
Challenger 2.............6/6
M1A2 Abrams............5/6 woot
LeoA6.......................3/6 hehehehehehehehe :D
LeClerc......................3/6 dont agree with that one :|

[tooms]

Hehehe just watched a show on Tech TV comparing the Challenger 2, M1A2 Abrams, LeoA6 and LeClerc
Here were the Scores
Challenger 2.............6/6
M1A2 Abrams............5/6 woot
LeoA6.......................3/6 hehehehehehehehe :D
LeClerc......................3/6 dont agree with that one :|


lol Tech tv said leclerc tank can fire only 6 rounds /minute

yes when it moves , when it is stopped, it shoots at 12 rounds/minute

i want to know the others tanks rate in movement ( the challenger cant shoot while moving if i remember well )

i can say that M1A2 is not totally protected ( not at 360° )

the leclerc never shot in real conflict


we can say many things to prove one tank or an other is the best


its again a brillant test from Tech TV, congrats them

[tooms]

we can watch this test on internet ?

[Operation Ivy]

i have clue :P

I dont believe really anything that show said i mean a LeoA6 getting a 3/6 thats wayyyyy to high :P

JKJKJKJK :hug:

[tooms]

i have clue :P

I dont believe really anything that show said i mean a LeoA6 getting a 3/6 thats wayyyyy to high :P

JKJKJKJK :hug:


lol

any way i prefer my government Propaganda :p

http://membres.lycos.fr/etooms/leclerc_384kbps.wmv

[Operation Ivy]

good ol LeClerc :D

[pAt]

it was proven on the battlefield the Challenger II out performed the abrams

U wouldnt happen to have any links to there performace during OIF would ya? just interested :D

lol just like the leopard Beating the Abrams in the tank compitions 4 out of 5 years Canada won the Can-Am tank comp.

[Yard Ape]

Note: that is Leopard, not Leopard II.

[specialairservice]

Not that it really matters what i think but when it comes to tanks:

AbramsM1A2 sounds the best

Leopard 2A6 looks the best

Challenger II takes it best

[Royal]

i want to know the others tanks rate in movement ( the challenger cant shoot while moving if i remember well )

ChII shoots just fine when moving.

[Javehn]

it was proven on the battlefield the Challenger II out performed the abrams

U wouldnt happen to have any links to there performace during OIF would ya? just interested :D

lol just like the leopard Beating the Abrams in the tank compitions 4 out of 5 years Canada won the Can-Am tank comp.

Just once the Canadians won the CAT competition over US tankers , i think it was in more then 10 years ago .

And there is really only one tank in the world , that really have possibility to fire on the move . All the other just use the side effects of Gun stabilisation , that in first place should help the tank fire faster after it stops . No Abrams , Chalis , Leos ,T-s , or all the Types .


Edit : Make it 2 tanks in the world now . :lol:

[Dave.mil]

Javehn
And there is really only one tank in the world , that really have possibility to fire on the move . All the other just use the side effects of Gun stabilisation , that in first place should help the tank fire faster after it stops . No Abrams , Chalis , Leos ,T-s , or all the Types .

Exactly how do you fire a gun on the move without it being stabilised?
The Challenger 2 can fire as accuratley on the move as it can static the gun is slaved to the stabilised sight head.

I filmed one firing 4 rounds in 28 secs on the move all hits at 1000 mtrs+

I served for 24 years in the Royal Armoured Corps a substantial period of that as a gunnery instructor.

[Javehn]

Javehn
And there is really only one tank in the world , that really have possibility to fire on the move . All the other just use the side effects of Gun stabilisation , that in first place should help the tank fire faster after it stops . No Abrams , Chalis , Leos ,T-s , or all the Types .

Exactly how do you fire a gun on the move without it being stabilised?
The Challenger 2 can fire as accuratley on the move as it can static the gun is slaved to the stabilised sight head.

I filmed one firing 4 rounds in 28 secs on the move all hits at 1000 mtrs+

I served for 24 years in the Royal Armoured Corps a substantial period of that as a gunnery instructor.


Grate , so we have much to discust about :) .
Most tanks this days with 4-rd generation FCS have a gun slaved to a mirror , instead a mirror slaved to a gun . That's makes a job very easy to aim in the move , but not one tank in the world have "lock on" on target , and instead to keep all the time cross on the target , all you have to do is lock the cross on target , and lase it . I can't add more about the FCS calculating prossess unfortunatly , that makes it different from other tanks .

just a little fact : Full Hall Target at 4200 metters , speed 40 km/h , shooting from initial command (without a shell in the cannon from the initial command) 6 seconds , target first shell .

I was just saying , that in the first place stabilisation was made to make more convinient shooting after tank is stoping (and the gun is moving upwoards and down ) . The shooting on move was a side effect of that ability .

[Dave.mil]

I too am not willing to discuss how the FCC works but on Challenger 2 they call it "lase and blaze" there is no requirement to lock on it's easy enough to do it manually. Challenger 2 is very accurate out to long ranges but not something I'm willing to discuss in an open forum.

[Javehn]

Contact me on PM .
Lase and blase you mean 1 second delay in between ?

By the way , you are talking to fire on move to stationary targets . I am talking to fire on move on moving targets . Experiment done on Merkava with 10 helicopters : 9 helicopters were shot down with heat ammo .

[Dave.mil]

No delay at all, gunner can lase and fire, gun will fire as soon as loaded normal load time is under 6 secs.

[Javehn]

Right , 1 second delay is stationary fire on moving targets , when gun slaved to mirror .

BTW : most of those things are published on the net , so i think it's safe to talk about them . Familiar with tanknet ?

[Dave.mil]

There is no 1 sec delay, the gun will fire as soon as it achieves coincidence which is measured in mili secs.

[Javehn]

The FCS needs to know the speed of the moving vehicle . In FCS , where the gun slaved to mirror , i think you track it before , then lase and instantly fire . On FCS where the mirror slaved to gun , there is 1 second delay between lasing and firing , while on this 1 second the gunner is tracking the target , and FCS geting update on the speed of the vehicle .
Don't get me wrong , i am not talking about Challenger .

[Dave.mil]

Challenger 2 gun is slaved to mirror, Challenger 1 sight is slaved to gun.

[Javehn]

I saw that you keeping the shells , when the warhead is not together with explosives . How does that work with loading , it isn't taking some time from loading ? I also saw that your commanders sits inside the tank during the drills , how does that work with situational awareness ?

[Dave.mil]

Loading times are not affected being two piece means we can use longer projectiles without increasing overall case size also all explosive is below the turret ring in armoured containers. Not sure what you mean about commanders? The commanders sight is panoramic and there are also vision blocks around the cupola so situation awareness is no better or worse than other tanks.

[Javehn]

Thanks for the answer . Well , i mean , i know the difference between standing on cuppola with head out , and using panoramic periscopes . It's just not the same at all . But probably you have better panoramic periscopes then ours , and you also trained better on that matter .

[littlefrench]

who does really know which tank is the best

Can only be answered on the battlefield :D
yes, and without aircrafts or helicopters or infantery. No I think those tanks are all goods for theirs missions

and a bit of patriotismhttp://www.ami1rc.org/xl5_small.jpg

[Operation Ivy]

Dont worry i like the LeClerc ;)

[Mk23]

Neither the M1A2 Abrams, nor the Leopard 2A6EX can compare to the latest Merkava tank. The original poster saying that the Merkava lacks all the latest gadgets is completely incorrect.


The Merkava Mk4 is the only tank out of this list that actually has active missile defense systems (as in, actually shoots missiles out of the air before they hit the tank). It also has the best armor, superior to the Abrams in placement if not in materials (Merkava tanks in Lebanon have taken hits that have been shown to knock an Abrams out of action in Iraq).

Its fire control system is the only one in the list that enables it to engage enemy helicopters while on the move itself, without resorting to guided missile projectiles.

On top of this, the Merkava Mk4 also has an internal 60mm mortar, and space in the back for 4 fully equipped infantrymen, while keeping a top speed equal to the M1A2 Abrams, and a combat weight several tons lighter. It also gets 500 kilometers of range on its internal fuel, compared to 390 kilometers of the M1A2 Abrams.

It also has a combat weight of 65 tons compared to the 68 tons of the M1A2 Abrams, to dispel the myth that the Merkava is a slow and heavy tank only able to be of use out of Israel.

There is no tank in the world that can match the Merkava Mk4.

[YankeeDoodle]

Does anyone know of an analysis of these tanks in combat? I would like to know which ones have the most combat time and look at their effectiveness for taking hits, giving hits, repairs, etc... Without this data how can one really know which is best. They all look great to me!

[Wall]

Is that true, that T-80 even dont got nightbattle capacity?

[Sabre]

Is it true, that someone has revived a two year old "who's got the best whatsit" thread? :roll:

Mk23, welcome to the forum mate but please don't dredge up old threads/polls. You're having an argument that other people finished two years ago!

There are plenty of current threads concerning the performance of the merkava Mk4 in the recent action in Lebannon, please find one of them and discuss it there.

[soldier20]

L2A6 and for the L1A5 i recon its still a good tank till today maybe if it had reactive armoure on it, it will be good as new again