Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

BEST TANK IN THE WORLD

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314>
Author
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: BEST TANK IN THE WORLD
    Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 01:07
Originally posted by Alt Gr

Originally posted by DukeC

I
Keep in mind that many M1s have been rebuilt throughout their lifetime and sending 80 back to the U.S. to repair damaged armor packages is nothing major.


Can't armour packages be repaired in Iraq?
What is considered repairable damage? Is there any standard procedure to determine is the tank lost or can it be repaired? At least are the tanks so badly damaged that repairs (including shipping) cost more than new tank considered lost?

I thing all M1's are being repared regardless of level of damage and eaven the price of repairs so that the real number of tanks lost is reduced (at least on paper) and the terorist propagand efforts minimised.
 
The technology that goes into the armor is still classified, so extensive repairs and upgrades are done at a secure facility. You can repair hulls and turrets with relatively limited damage like holes and torn panels, but when the hull structure is bent by things like large IEDs it would be hard to repair.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 06:48
Originally posted by Cezar


Sweet line: Mărăşti, Mărăşeşti, Oituz, Nămoloasa, Galaţi
You know, we have a lot of forests here, therefore why shouldn't we developed a desert fightihg tank?


Can you post some more info on "T-800R", because i cant find nothing about it. What makes it a perfect forest ambush tank?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 11:47
Duke C's posts are correct. However, the loss of optics is a big setback to the tank crew and typically mans a trip back to the repair depot, since the main gun is slaved to it and its range finders.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 12:41
Originally posted by Alt Gr

Originally posted by Cezar


Sweet line: Mărăşti, Mărăşeşti, Oituz, Nămoloasa, Galaţi
You know, we have a lot of forests here, therefore why shouldn't we developed a desert fightihg tank?


Can you post some more info on "T-800R", because i cant find nothing about it. What makes it a perfect forest ambush tank?
 
I was misindicating the tank, as a matter of fact. It's the TR-85-800. In 2000 it was supposed to be upgraded to TR-85M1, which might be considered some knd of mixture between the T-72 and the Leclerc.
 
Here's link to something I've found about it http://studenti.actrus.ro/stiinta/tehnica/85/
 
It's not exactly detailed and i't in Romanian but at lest it states some basic information. Oh. and as a matter of fact, we still didn't start the production of the tankConfused!
 
How can you detect/prevent an ambush if only passive devices are used against you?  
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 21:02
Originally posted by Cezar

 
I was misindicating the tank, as a matter of fact. It's the TR-85-800. In 2000 it was supposed to be upgraded to TR-85M1, which might be considered some knd of mixture between the T-72 and the Leclerc.

Isn't it upgraded T55 ?(we already talked about TR85)
Well from what i saw in the specifications, it doesn't have similar performance of neither T72 or Leclerc. The 100mm main gun is out dated compared to T72's 125mm 2A46M and Leclerc 120mm guns.It cant distroy Abrams from point blanck range, don't eaven dream about 600m. MAN engine from Leopard I is good choice to replace the old soviet engine but the top speed of 60 km/h make the tank 10-15km/h slower than T72 and Leclerc.

Originally posted by Cezar

How can you detect/prevent an ambush if only passive devices are used against you?  


Doesn't TR85 use laser and termal acquisition systems?

It can be detected by recon (infantry, airforce...), and tank is'nt a easy thing to hide specialy with the silhouette like T55's. If recon is not done properly the modern tanks would have a good chance finding heat signature of the engine .
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 10:57
Originally posted by Alt Gr

Originally posted by Cezar

 
I was misindicating the tank, as a matter of fact. It's the TR-85-800. In 2000 it was supposed to be upgraded to TR-85M1, which might be considered some knd of mixture between the T-72 and the Leclerc.

Isn't it upgraded T55 ?(we already talked about TR85)
Well from what i saw in the specifications, it doesn't have similar performance of neither T72 or Leclerc. The 100mm main gun is out dated compared to T72's 125mm 2A46M and Leclerc 120mm guns.It cant distroy Abrams from point blanck range, don't eaven dream about 600m. MAN engine from Leopard I is good choice to replace the old soviet engine but the top speed of 60 km/h make the tank 10-15km/h slower than T72 and Leclerc.
 
You are right, but as I said I couldn't find any detailed specification about what TR 85 -800 is supposed to be or the TR85M1, except some pages in Romanian which I'm too lazy to translateEmbarrassed.
Here's another link - you might read among the lines some inteligible data. Anyway it seems that the tank is not to be produced. http://www.actrus.ro/reviste/3_2000/art25.html

Originally posted by Cezar

How can you detect/prevent an ambush if only passive devices are used against you?  


Doesn't TR85 use laser and termal acquisition systems?

It can be detected by recon (infantry, airforce...), and tank is'nt a easy thing to hide specialy with the silhouette like T55's. If recon is not done properly the modern tanks would have a good chance finding heat signature of the engine .
[/QUOTE]
 
Laser aquisition is an active system. Classical optics are also used and they're not active.
 
Recon forces screening the tank advance?!
Tanks in ambush are not supposed to have their engines working.
Air superiority is an issue but you don't think the flyboys could really find everything.
While no match for an Abrams armor, a few hits by the 100mm gun will damage some equipment. The purpose of an ambush is to stall the advance especially when enemy forces are superior. Zapping them would be OK but the tactical purpose is to not let the enemy exploit the breakthrough, therefore forcing him to a slow an costly rate of advance.
That's the standard military doctrine we had.
I'm diverting a little from yhe topic here but you must understand that while Hungary, Bulgaria or Yougoslavia where considered equal or inferior the might of the former USSR (Ucraine now, if you like) is no match for our country. Heroic charges is not our style, we prefer to lay low, do as much damage as possible and hope for the best. The Abrams (and not just it) is an open country tank. We didn't feel like having much use for such a machine. Now that we're in NATO we might switch some baselines of our military doctrine to a more agressive degree. I hope not. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 13:13
Originally posted by Cezar

 
Laser aquisition is an active system. Classical optics are also used and they're not active.
 
Recon forces screening the tank advance?!
Tanks in ambush are not supposed to have their engines working.
Air superiority is an issue but you don't think the flyboys could really find everything.
While no match for an Abrams armor, a few hits by the 100mm gun will damage some equipment.


Every armed force sends recon teams deep in the area before offensive actions.
"Flyboys" could also be unmaned aircrafts like the US Predator doing recon for tanks.
Your 100mm is definetly good enough to knock out some sistems if direct hit is made on Abrams, but question si what would happen when the ambush is discovered. Most of the ambusing tank wouldn't get the chance to retreat if all the ambushed tanks are not out of action.

Originally posted by Cezar


The purpose of an ambush is to stall the advance especially when enemy forces are superior. Zapping them would be OK but the tactical purpose is to not let the enemy exploit the breakthrough, therefore forcing him to a slow an costly rate of advance.
That's the standard military doctrine we had.


Infantry is better choice to ambushe tanks, specialy  in  citys. I doubt that TR85 would be all that efective against any modern eastern or western tanks.

I agree that ambush is key element of defensive military doctrines but you can't relay on them alone to achive victory if attacked.

Originally posted by Cezar


I'm diverting a little from yhe topic here but you must understand that while Hungary, Bulgaria or Yougoslavia where considered equal or inferior the might of the former USSR (Ucraine now, if you like) is no match for our country. Heroic charges is not our style, we prefer to lay low, do as much damage as possible and hope for the best.


Romania was meber of Warsaw packt, wasn't it? So there was litle chance of conflict with Soviets or other pact members.


Originally posted by Cezar


The Abrams (and not just it) is an open country tank. We didn't feel like having much use for such a machine. Now that we're in NATO we might switch some baselines of our military doctrine to a more agressive degree. I hope not. 


Well, the tank is offensive weapon...
The NATO  doctrines are a good thing for your military, trust me.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 11:16
You send recon teams before an attack not during a breakthrough. Tanks are supposed to exploit a breaktrhrough or manouever by the flank the main defensive position of the enemy.
Combined arms operations are not suited for any theater.
Romanian doctrine of fighting is generally not oriented towards turning a city into a fortress. We do care of our people, you know. Civilians must not suffer. The contryside is providing enough defensive positions to let the battle roam out of the populated areas.
While a member of the Warszaw pact we saw what happened in Hungary and Czeckolslovakya. That was about enough to consider the  USSR a potential enemy. Hungary is by definition our traditional enemy and with Bulgaria we had some disputes. Yougoslavia was considered friendly.
Certainly the tank is a powerful offensive weapon. It's just that I don't like the idea of turning into an agressor. Still, the offensive potential is what matters, not the defensive - unless you have some nukes which are quite offensive. Actually I don't seem to recall anyone winning a war using only defensive tactics/strategy.
I don't know about us being in NATO. Time will tell. 
Let's forget about this diversion and get back to MBT's, OK?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 08:04

over 100 M1A2 have been nocked out in Iraq by RPG fire! American doctrine has always been for a lite tank that is manuverable, that equals rubish.

All tanks cannot go over 40MPH  accross country, the M1A2 is very fast on the open road only.

1 Chalanger in Iraq received 9 RPG HITS + 1 Antitank missile, all the sights were shot out and it lost a track, not only did the crew servive, it was repaired and back in action 2 days later.

Only 1 Chalanger was nocked out, this was a blue on blue, at night, while hunting a 72, the APFSD round went through the 72 and hit a Chalanger 3000 Meters away.

Only warrior vehicles have been nocked out by molotove cocktails.

The rifled gun is the best in the world but is un-economical to produce, this will however remain in use untill 2015 as the UK will not stoop to the smooth bore rubish fielded by the USA.

As for Lepard, well, its a poodle, looks nice on the mantle piece but untried.

T72, mass produced rubbishbuilt for 2nd world war scenario, Leclerc,its French, built for a country with a dead language, remind me, how many wars have they wone since 1809.

Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 12:01
SubjectTopic: BEST TANK IN THE WORLD
 
The Leopard C2.  Made in Canada (under license).
 
 
It has MEXAS armor.
The mechanism is classified but the designers say it's not interceptor missiles, fragmentation warheads, or flying plates.
Warheads & kinetic energy darts completely blow up before impact, so it might be electro-magnetic pulses or ultra-sonics.
A demo on CTV showed missiles blowing up over 6 feet before reaching the tank.
It also has laser targeting & air defence weapons.
 
 
 


Edited by Hellios - 07-Feb-2007 at 15:28
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 313
  Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 13:48
So far, Leopard II is the best. But there are new Leclerc, Black Eagles are coming, we dont have to forget.
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2007 at 17:55
Originally posted by GOATMAN

over 100 M1A2 have been nocked out in Iraq by RPG fire! American doctrine has always been for a lite tank that is manuverable, that equals rubish.




Where your sources for this BS. Knocked it means what? All tanks have mechanical breakdown, all tanks are scavanged for parts to bring other tanks up. Most RPG shots have only caused cosmetic damage. Only a couple of M1A2's have been totally destroyed. Most from roadside bombs. These bombs would blow any tank up period or anything for that matter. And how is the M1A2 a lite tank. Its one of the heaviest out there and one of its drawbacks to alot of nations purchasing it. The Fire control system and INVIS make it better. It fire firsts and it rarely misses. A tough combo to beat. If M1A2's had the cush cush south assignment the british had they too would have zero tank losses.

Also the Challenger's are refitting with a smoothbore gun(same as leo 2A6) because apperently your great riffled gun fires "rubish" rounds.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 19:40
Sorry I meant knocked out.
The Challenger is refitting with a smooth-bore for economical reasons and no-other, it is costly to keep to different types of ammo, as you cannot use the same ammo on the same gun.
Both vehicles use the same type of fire control( made in Canada) but the similarity ends there.
The M1A2 does not fire first, due to its auto-loader its rate of fire is slower, and it does not have the accurate range, during the conflict Challengers were destroying Iraq armour past 5000mtrs, the M1A2 3500mtrs, as for cushy assignments, every one agrees that the US has superior technology and economics which is why they have the largest area however their squaddie discipline is a joke, everyone hates fighting alongside of them, the UK forces are lucky as they have been training in Northern Island for many years and in other conflicts I cannot mention. ( Even the M16 is going to be replaced due to the jam rate (49%) luckely the Canadian weapon was Germanised before issue, so does not have the same problem.
Most countries that have purchased (M1A1) do so because of the age old American doctrine, you buy an F16 and get two tanks free.
Please don't mention Le-Clerc, every one knows it is a joke.
The Leopard uses the same fire control as M1A2 and Challenger, the electro armour is some years from general  fitting, the Russians fitted it first to T80, but nobody yet can carry the generator required for the electro magnetic pulse required, we have the technology however the wiring and the computers require some very exotic materials that have not been invented yet. PS, why do Canuks require Tanks, I thought they were all pacifistic gays now due to the large french population?(Joke) I know, the wales are fighting back.

Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 19:56
Well, I'll go with Hellios and say the Leopard C2. However, the Challenger 2E comes pretty close, the hunter-killer system is very cool Cool
 



Edited by Knights - 13-Feb-2007 at 19:58
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 21:39
Originally posted by GOATMAN

PS, why do Canuks require Tanks, I thought they were all pacifistic gays now due to the large french population?
 
The army has been spending a lot because the UN is pushing Ottawa for more "peace-keeping" efforts. LOL
Anyhow, that mexas armour is extremely expensive.
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 23:46
American M1 Abrams and Leopard II get my vote, but I am huge fan of the T-34 and its upgrades series. Gotta admit the capability of these Soviet tanks if Soviet Union had good economy like US. Germans won't be pleased with the new scenario...

Edited by pekau - 13-Feb-2007 at 23:47
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Neoptolemos View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 659
  Quote Neoptolemos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 19:09
Originally posted by Hellios

SubjectTopic: BEST TANK IN THE WORLD
 
The Leopard C2.  Made in Canada (under license).

Which is better, Leopard 2C or Leopard 2HEL?
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 19:33
Originally posted by Neoptolemos

Which is better, Leopard 2C or Leopard 2HEL?
 
Leo C2 has 2 versions: with & without MEXAS armor.
The Leo C2 with MEXAS is better than the Leo 2A6 HEL but the Leo C2 without MEXAS is not.
MEXAS is very limited usage due to the crazy price.


Edited by Hellios - 15-Feb-2007 at 18:17
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 17:52
What exactly is MEXAS armour?
I (honestly) thought that out Leo2 A6HELs were the best (why else would we pay all that money? Nonetheless they are pretty good -at least compared to Turkey's)

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2007 at 18:13
Originally posted by xristar

What exactly is MEXAS armour? 
 
Posted what I know about it earlier in this thread in my post with the photos of the Canadian Leo C2 tanks in Afghanistan.
 
Originally posted by xristar

I (honestly) thought that out Leo2 A6HELs were the best (why else would we pay all that money?) 
 
MEXAS is so expensive that the chance of encountering a tank with it on the battlefield is minimal.
Canada sent only a few tanks with MEXAS to Afghanistan, like a dozen I think, not more.
I agree with you about the Leo 2A6 HEL being the top tank otherwise.


Edited by Hellios - 15-Feb-2007 at 18:16
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.066 seconds.