Print Page | Close Window

BEST TANK IN THE WORLD

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Modern Warfare
Forum Discription: Military history and miltary science from the ''Cold War'' era onward.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3343
Printed Date: 27-Nov-2022 at 13:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: BEST TANK IN THE WORLD
Posted By: vulkan02
Subject: BEST TANK IN THE WORLD
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 03:05
just wanted to know your opinions on this but most experts believe that the American M1 Abrams and German Leopard 2 are pretty much tied up for the number one spot. Other models in consideration are the French Leclerc, British Challanger 2 and probably the latest Russian T-80U. I found a great site at
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/#Main_Battle_Tanks
not sure if this pics are gonna work...
The M1A2 firing its main armament the 120 mm smoothbore gun, US designation code M256, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany.


Sweden's Leopard 2(S) is the most advanced version of the Leopard MBT family. (german made)


The Leclerc Mk 2 fitted with snorchels to enable fording at up to 4m depth. (pretty cool look)


Challenger 2 on night exercise.


The T-80U's gas turbine engine is the GTD-1250 which produces 920kW (1,250hp).



-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao



Replies:
Posted By: Molossos
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 03:56

A few years ago, the Hellenic Army organized a contest to test all modern MBTs in order to purchase the best one of them. The tanks were put into action under very demanding conditions in a large area near Litohoro, Macedonia and the tests included (among many others) movement, maneuvering, obstacle passing, trench crossing and of course, firinig ability.

The ranking was as follows: 1. Leopard 2 A6 (Germany), 2. M1 A2 Abrams (USA), 3. Leclerc (France), 4. Challenger 2 (UK), 5. T-84 (Ukraine) and 6. T-80 U (Russia).

In a few years, the Greek black berets will be proud to use the latest version of the best main battle tank in the world, the Leopard 2 A6 HEL!



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 04:25

Of the older generation. Most experts I've read rate the Merkava the best followed by the Leopard II. With the Challegger II and Abrahams about equal 3rd.

Of the newer tanks. The LeClerk Works along a different principle of mobile warfare. It's fast, light and has the best gun. It can fire and move at no loss of accuracy. The T-90 Black Eagle if it's turns out to be as good as it's supposed to be on paper is a class above all western tanks.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 07:09

Here's the initial press report on the tests:

Leopard wins Greek tank shoot-out (of course now we know that after all the Leopards were selected and ordered-I believe that they're already being delivered)

 The winner of the Greek Main Battle Tank (MBT) competition is expected to be announced in August this year but results of competition trials obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly have placed the German-made Leopard 2A5 in pole position.

The first batch of MBTs will be for 250 vehicles plus variants. Six MBTs carried out extensive firepower and mobility trials in Greece manned by Greek Army crews. These were the French Giat Industries Leclerc; German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5 in latest Swedish Strv 122 configuration; Russian Omsk Machine Construction Plant T-80U; Ukrainian Malyshev Plant T-84; UK Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2E; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.

Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19%

The Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during hunter/killer target engagements.

The German 1,500hp MTU EuroPowerPack was fitted in both the Leclerc and the Challenger 2E and these two vehicles had the best cruising range and lower fuel consumption.

According to JDW sources, the recommendation of the Greek Armour Directorate to the Council for Defence Planning and Programme was that the choice be limited to just two vehicles: the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.

In addition to the results of the operational and technical trials a number of other factors were taken into account, such as the total number of vehicles built, number of users, NATO interoperability and experience of the Greek Army with current German and US MBTs.

While these operational and technical trials will play an important part in the Greek decision-making process, other crucial factors include: the offset arrangements; Greek added value; and politics. Of the above four MBTs, three are currently taking part in the Turkish Land Forces Command MBT trials. These are the Leopard 2A6; Leclerc; and M1A2. Vickers Defence Systems decided to concentrate on just one market, Greece.

The first batch of 250 MBTs and 12 armoured recovery vehicles will be followed by a second batch of 400, with most of these expected to be manufactured in Greece.

PS

From what I read Leopard is still the best tank, plus (Paul) I've read that Merkava is a pile of junk, the Palestinians already blew 2 of them to smithereens.



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 10:10

I've heard the I and II called junk but never anything but respect for the IV. It's got the best front armour of any tank, and the distribution is unique (Israel being the country in the world with the most experience of tank combat). As for the tanks destroyed, not sure they were 4's but all tanks in the world are vulnerable to mines, it's nothing special.

Merkava Mk-4 Detailed


Merkava Mk4 tanks operating in the Palestinian town of Jenin on September 27. Jenin was the new unit's first combat operation. The Mk-4 is equipped with a 120 mm gun but the new gun is designed to sustain higher pressures, generating higher muzzle velocities which are an essential feature for advanced kinetic energy ammunition. The Merkava Mk4 can accomodate various 120mm ammunition types, including 120mm APFSDS-FS (kinetic) rounds, and their training derivatives, HEAT (hollow-charge) types and anti-personnel/anti-material ammunition which have already been used in combat operations with previous Merkava types. The tank will also be able to accommodate the
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm - Lahat missile as it becomes operational. The loader can load the gun from a fully automated, fire-proof magazine which accommodates up to 10 ready rounds and deliver up to four types of ammunition types to the loader.

Merkava Mk4 rollout
The tank is equipped with a modern fire control and sighting system which includes computerized ballistic calculations and compensations, a dual axes stabilized gunner sight and a dual axis stabilized commander panoramic sight, both equipped with an advanced FLIR and TV channels for day and night operation. Merkava Mk4 turret top viewThe system is equipped with an improved tracking system which enables tracking of moving targets, such as tanks, helicopters,  vehicles or soldiers. It also enables locking the sight and gun on targets when the tank is on the move, utilizing the ultra-fast gun stabilization and electrical turret drive system. Merkava Mk4 Closeup on turretMerkava Mk-4 is believed to be protected by a new type of
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/passive-armor.htm - hybrid armour , which can be conformed from modular elements, to match specific threats. The Mk-4 retains the hull design of the previous Merkava versions.

The tank also utilize the Battle Management System (BMS) designed by Elbit Systems' ElOp - the system is providing fast communication networking between the commander and subordinate units, and enables the crew to plan missions, navigate and continuously update their situation awareness. The system also enables Commander's BMC tactical display system as used in the Merkava Mk4recording and debriefing the operation, by utilizing the tank's digital recorder. The Merkava Mk4 is equipped with the new VDS-60 digital data recorder produced by Vectop, it records and restores the sight images and observation data collected during the mission. The capture of such images can also be shared by other elements, which are networked with the BMS, to enable reporting of enemy targets. This concept is rapidly becoming an essential part of the " http://www.defense-update.com/news/24602elbit.htm - digitized land forces " integrated battlefield concept, combining tanks, anti-tank and combat helicopters in a combined task force at various levels. Each crew member has an individual flat-panel color displays showing the status of systems each member is responsible for. The gunner and commander can also see the sight images on their individual screens. The commander can use his display for map navigate, orientation and reporting.

For example, the driver can see a rear and side view of the tank from the closed compartment. This capability is derived from a new, and unique system called http://www.defense-update.com/directory/tss-vectop.htm - Tank Sight System , developed by Vectop. The system provides video coverage the tank's surroundings in day and night. It improves safety, especially when traveling backwards and in conditions where the driver's visibility is impaired. Merkava Mk 4 uses four cameras installed in hardened cases embedded outside the tank. These cameras are providing full peripheral view displayed on high resolution monitors installed at the driver's position and in the fighting compartment.

Another feature provided by the "computerization" of the Merkava Mk4 is the introduction of "integrated training capability", providing the crew and unit a sophisticated training environment based on their tanks and readily available in the field. This capability will be integrated with the "virtual scenario" a set of virtual terrain features, friendly and enemy elements, and "intelligent" behaviors based on pre-set maneuvers, doctrinal concepts etc. All will be presented to the tank crew, and unit members, through their observation systems, sights and sensors, to support a comprehensive training scene in the field.

rear-Side view of the Merkava Mk4

Unique among the main battle tanks of the world, the Merkava design features a front-mounted power pack, which presents a heavy mass in the forward area, which protects the crew from enemy attack. This configuration also cleared room at the rear section for a safe exit and enough space to carry a few fully armed infantrymen, in addition to the crew. The rear access hatch allows for the quick and safe exit of injured crewmen or pickup of wounded soldiers for evacuation.

The engine pack is easily replaced. The tank is powered by the new http://www.defense-update.com/directory/GD833.htm - General Dynamics GD833 1,500-horsepower direct injection, liquid cooled diesel engine, (co-produced in the USA by General Dynamics and MTU). This type is also powering the French http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/leclerc.htm - Leclerc MBT . This powerful weighs 1.9 tons net, and 4.9 tons with its entire power-pack. This powerful engine affords the tank greater mobility than the previous versions, which had the 900 and 1,200-horsepower engines. The tank utilizes an electric turret and gun control system, designed by Elbit Systems, which comprises two electrical brushless motors, produced by Bental Industries.

Side view of the Merkava Mk4Merkava 4 is expected to be equipped with an active full perimeter defense, which utilizes, among other capabilities, warning against laser-guided threats. Further improvements include the http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm - Trophy active protection system , which is currently under advanced engineering phase. The Mk-4 like its predecessors, is also equipped with a central filtering system designed by Kinetics, which maintains positive air pressure at the fighting compartment, for protection in a chemical biological  and radiological (CBR) environment. The system also provides air conditioning for individual crew members (micro-cooling) and for the entire cabin, as well as auxiliary power when positioned at “silent watch” for battery recharging. Special modifications installed on Merkava Mk4 are preparing the tank to operate in http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/merkava-lic.htm - urban environment of the Low Intensity Conflict.

Picture on this page: Top: AFP, Defense-update. Below: IDF Spokesman.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 10:35

Well, I'm not convinced that it's that good (then again I'm no tank expert, so don't count on my opinion)but it's impressing how a small country can produce such high-tech products.

Is it exported to other countries?



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 10:47
no matter the tests i still put Abrams at no. 1 spot.  I dont think any other tank in the list has depelted Uranium armor.

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 10:51

M1A1 / M1A2 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK, USA

The M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tank is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the M1A1 in 1985 and the M1A2 in 1986. 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 555 co-produced with Egypt. Egypt has ordered a further 200 M1A1 tanks with production to continue to 2005. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for the US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait. For the M1A2 Upgrade Program, over 600 M1 Abrams tanks are being upgraded to M1A2 configuration. Deliveries began in 1998.

In March 2004, the Australian Army announced the purchase of 59 US Army M1A1 tanks to enter service from 2007.

M1A2 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE (SEP)

In February 2001, GDLS were contracted to supply 240 M1A2 tanks with a system enhancement package (SEP) by 2004. The M1A2 SEP contains an embedded version of the US Army's Force XXI command and control architecture; new Raytheon Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) with second generation thermal imager; commander's display for digital colour terrain maps; DRS Techologies second generation GEN II TIS thermal imaging gunner’s sight with increased range; driver's integrated display and thermal management system. The US Army planned to procure a total of 1150 M1A2 SEP tanks but the US Army has decided to cancel future production of the M1A2 SEP from FY2004.

Under the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP), DRS Techologies has also been awarded a contract for the GEN II TIS to upgrade US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks. GEN II TIS is based on the 480 x 4 SADA (Standard Advanced Dewar Assembly) detector. The FEP also includes an eyesafe laser rangefinder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new Far Target Locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (Circular Error of Probability) of less than 35m.

FBCB2

In June 2004, DRS Technologies was awarded a contract to provide systems including rugged appliqué computers for the M1A2 Abrams tanks (and M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles) as part of the US Army's Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2) program. FBCB2 is a digital battle command information system which provides enhanced interoperability and situation awareness from brigade to individual soldier that will be used in conjunction with the Army's Tactical Internet.

M1 ABRAMS ARMAMENT

The main armament is the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. The 120mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.

The commander has a 12.7mm Browning M2 machine gun and the loader has a 7.62mm M240 machine gun. A 7.62mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially on the right hand side of the main armament.

DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR

The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

One L8A1 six-barrelled smoke grenade discharger is fitted on each side of the turret. A smoke screen can also be laid by an engine operated system.

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The commander's station is equipped with six periscopes, providing 360 degree view. The Raytheon Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides the commander with independent stabilised day and night vision with a 360 degree view, automatic sector scanning, automatic target cueing of the gunner's sight and back-up fire control.

The M1A2 Abrams tank has a two-axis Raytheon Gunner's Primary Sight- Line of Sight (GPS-LOS) which increases the first round hit probability by providing faster target acquisition and improved gun pointing. The Thermal Imaging System (TIS) has magnification x10 narrow field of view and x3 wide field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the gunner's sight together with the range measurement from a laser rangefinder. The Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) Laser Systems Eyesafe Laser Rangefinder (ELRF) has a range accuracy to within 10m and target discrimination of 20m. The gunner also has a Kollmorgen Model 939 auxiliary sight with magnification x8 and field of view 8 degrees.

The digital fire control computer is supplied by General Dynamics - Canada (formerly Computing Devices Canada). The fire control computer automatically calculates the fire control solution based on: lead angle measurement; bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system; velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret; data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the centre of the turret roof. The operator manually inputs data on ammunition type, temperature, and barometric pressure.

The driver has either three observation periscopes or two periscopes on either side and a central image intensifying periscope for night vision. The periscopes provide 120 degrees field of view. The DRS Technologies Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE), AN/VSS-5, is based on a 328 x 245 element uncooled infrared detector array, operating in the 7.5 to 13 micron waveband. A Raytheon Driver's Thermal Viewer, AN/VAS-3, is installed on the M1A2 Abrams tanks for Kuwait.

PROPULSION

The M1 is equipped with a Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. The Allison X-1100-3B transmission provides four forward and two reverse gears. The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust.



-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 11:48
Originally posted by Yiannis

Well, I'm not convinced that it's that good (then again I'm no tank expert, so don't count on my opinion)

There's a similar post on this forum, only these guys have forgotten more about tanks than we'll ever know.

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1505 - http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1505



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: redimus
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 15:49

LOL @ the M1 the greatest, at least from what I've heard.  That thing has had more maintenance issues than Liz Taylor.



Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 20:46

wait a few years.. Korean XK2 will kick some ass

current K1A1 should be in the top 10 but not in the top 5..

XK2 will fight for the very top spot..



-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 22:04
isn't t he K1A1 just a modifitied M1A1 Abrams?

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 12-May-2005 at 01:16
yeah.. made for hilly/mountainous Korean terrain

-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 17-May-2005 at 15:26
Nobody else has an opinion ??

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 17-May-2005 at 18:36
As far as I know, British-made Challlenger II has the best defense and armour protection in the world: "The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10)". http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

Its unique rifle main gun allows it to fire at a much longer and precise distance than any other tanks in the world (a Challenger II penetrated an Iraqi T-72 at a distance of over 4000m, and its still the record). And, these two characteristics make up for its lack of speed and maybe the lack of versatile weaponary due to its rifle gun.

In terms of combat expereince, it had better survivability in comparison with MIA2: only one Challenger II was lost due to friendly fire from the other Challenger II.


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 18-May-2005 at 10:57
I thought the Abrams has the best protections since it used depleted uranium armor

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 18-May-2005 at 12:16

Well many countries all over the world needs tanks, somtimes hundrieds of tanks but Leopards, Leclerc's or Abrams are a bit expensive. Even for France Leclerc isnt its main tank and the French have tanks which were designed 40 years ago.

Poland choosed to upgrade and modernise old soviet constructions and to sell them to the poorer countries which cant buy the most expensive models. If i remember well last year Malesia decided to buy military equipment, including tanks from Poland for about 370 millions dollars.Im not sure but i think Malesia choosed "PT 91" tank while to India and Vietnam Poland is exporting T72 M1. They are affcourse worse than the tanks of newest generation but are upgraded so much that well used may be dangerous even for them.

The company which is producing those tanks will sell in next 3 years military equipment for about billion dollars (including malesian contract) so looks like there is a lot of customers all over the world interested not only in those most expensive contructions but also in those older but modernised and cheaper.

Here are some picks:

PT 91:

 

 
 
PT-91 PT-91 and its version T-72M1Z MBTs were derived from T-72 MBT through modernization, replacing and upgrading of its systems. They were designed to be a highly reliable systems having superior firepower, improved crew protection and impressive mobility.
They still keep outstanding, optimally small silhouette to minimize the ballistic surface.
The design concept creates very wide modernization field, as it can be done with everyone T-72 family MBT pratcically, almost without major changes in its shell.
MOBILITY
To keep the required horsepower and speed, PT-91 and T-72M1Z are equipped with turbocharged 850 hp diesel engine. With upgraded transmission they can attain a maximum road speed of 60 km/h. However, for low speed maneuvering, the low gear provides a continuous speed up to 7 km/h. They still enjoy excellent cross country ability.
Their design creates the fording ability of water obstacles up to 5 meters depth using fording kit, however the water obstacle of 1,2 meters depth can be crossed without any preparation.
 
FIRE POWER
The PT-91 MBT is equpped with the Fire Control System consisting of Gunner Station. It basis on modernized TPDK-1 sight for day channel and optionally passive PCN-A sight or thermal imagine sight, which create night fighting capability. The fire solutions are calculated by the ballistic, digital computer which processes mixed set of information generated by set of sensors and input manually by the gunner.
The T-72M1Z MBT dual axis stabilized Fire Control System, with both Gunner and Commander stations is equipped with day and night vision capabilities, which, in conjunction with electro-hydraulic gun stabilization system, makes it capable of acquiring a target accurately within a minimum time
Gunner Station consists of 2 axis stabilized sight platform with thermal imaging and daylight visual imaging subsystems, laser range finder which permits the gunner to detect, identify, acquire and track a target during day and night combat conditions.
COMMANDER STATION
Commander Station consists of panoramic sight mounted on the turred roof which provides day vision and night imaging through 2 axis stabilized head mirror assembly with 3600 panoramic viewing independent of turret orientation. Combined with the GS, the CS provides the hunter-killer capability which allows the crew of T-72M1Z to acquire rapidly and destroy multiple targets. Additionally system allows commander to override gunners decisions.
The digital, ballistic computer provides solutions for 6 types of ammunitions, by processing information generated by up-to-date set of sensors or input by the gunner or commander.
SURVIVABILITY
The crew survivability was improved by the adoption of very effective ERA in major areas, which offers better protection against chemical energy projectiles.
With up-to-date Automatic Fire Suppression System any fire in the Crea Compartment is automatically detected by IR Detectors and suppressed by Halon 1301. The Engine Comparment is protected by separate, also automatically operating system which bases on Temperature Sensing Firewire and suppresses any fire with Halon 1211.
Newly added Laser Warning System provides information about laser beams of sights range finders and missiles guiding systems and reacts automatically firing smoke grenades from two, 6 launchers banks. The system can be overridden by the commander who can fire these grenades manually in personally selected sequences or use backing, manual system also consisting of two, 6 launchers banks.

The T-72M1 tank is a crawler combat vehicle having a strong armament, good armour, high manoeuvrability and reliability.
The T-72M1 is provided with 125 mm smooth barrel main gun stabilized in two planes of laying the gun, 7.62 mm machine gun coaxial with main gun as well as anti-aircraft machine gun 12.7 mm fitted on the commander's cupola.
The T-72M1 tank has the laying and sight means with a high accuracy enabling high hit probability by the first shell. Usability of three types of shells ensures the blows efficiency of all targets on the battle field.
The T-72M1 tank is provided with special equipment designed for protection of crew members and inner devices against a shock wave action and radioactive radiation. It has good anti-ballistic guard, which was achieved by using a low silhouette, optimal shapes and multi-layer armour.
The T-72M1 tank has also the deep fording equipment, smoke screen thermal generating unit, launchers system to generate the smoke screens, fire fighting system to extinguish the fire inside the tank, sending-receiving radio set, interphone and moreover is equipped with attachments for self-entrenching and for making the ways on minefields.

The T-72M! tank has high manoeuvrability in all climatic and terrain conditions.



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 18-May-2005 at 12:27

PT 91

CREW 3 men (Commander, Gunner, Driver)
MOBILITY
Combat Weight
Ground Clearance
Max. Road Speed
Max. Cross - Country Speed
Max. Gradient
Max. Side Slope
Vertical Obstacle
Trench
Deep Fording (with Kit)
Ground Pressure
Power to Weight ratio
 
45,5 tonnes
0,43 m
60 km/h
45 km/h
60 %
50 %
0,85 m
2,80 m
5,00 m
0,94 kG/cm2
18,76 hp/tonne
ENGINE
Model
Gross Horsepower
 
S12-U
850 hp
TRANSMISSION
Model
Control
Number of Speeds
- Forward
- Reverse
 
LH & RH Epicyclic Gears
Hydraulic
 
7
1
ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY
Electric Power
Generator
Batteries
Starter
 
24 V DC
10 kW
4 x 12 V, 180 Ah
48 V, 19 kW
ARMAMENT
Main Gun
- Model
- Ammunition
Loading
Fire Rate
Gun Elevation Depression
- Forward
- Backward
Coaxial Machine Gun
- Model
- Ammunition
Anti-aircraft Machine Gun
- Model
- Ammunition
Smoke Grenade Launcher
- 6 x 2 Bank
- 6 x 2 Bank
 
125 mm
2A46, Smooth-bore
42 Rounds, APFSDS, HEAT, HE, WP
Automatic
up to 8 rounds/min
 
13047I/-6013I
16013I/-3047I
7,62 mm
PKT
2000 Rounds
12,7 mm
NSW
300 Rounds
81 mm
Laser Warning System Automatic Mode
Manual Mode
GUN AND TURRET DRIVE
Min. Rate
- Traverse
- Elevation
- Transfer
 
 
100 mils/sec
60 mils/sec
300 mils/sec
GUNNER'S SIGHT
Magnification
Stabilization Accuracy
Range Measurement
Night Sight
 
8 X (Day) 5 X (Night)
0,1 mil
200 - 9995 m
Thermal Imaging System
COMMANDER'S SIGHT
Magnification
Angular Deflection
- Elevation
- Azimuth
Stabilization Accuracy
Range
OPTIONAL
3 X (160FOV) 10 X (50FOV)
 
+ 450 - 150
n x 3600
0,1 mil
200 - 9995 m
BALLISTIC COMPUTER
Type
Number of ballistic Solutions
- Main Gun
- MG
 
16 Bit Digital
 
6
1
FIRE SUPPRESSION
Detection
- Crew Compartment
- Engine Compartment
Extingushing medium
 
 
IR Sensor
Temperature Sensing Firewire
Halon 1301/1211
COMMUNICATIONS
 
OPTIONAL
Available Sets in Three Versions

 

 



Posted By: sinosword
Date Posted: 21-May-2005 at 09:15

Just personal opinion, decline inveigh with thanks.

1 Leopard2A6  Germany

2 M1A2SEP  USA 

3 Merkava Mk-4  Israel

4 Type 90  Japan

5 Leclerc Mk-2  France

6 Challenger2  UK

7 Type 98G  China

8 K1A1  Korea

9 T-90  Russia

10 T-84  Ukraine 

 

 

 



Posted By: JiNanRen
Date Posted: 21-May-2005 at 11:38
Its impossible to simply rank, better way would be to cluster

Level 3
120mm Smoothbore/rifled gun
1-6(in no particular order)
M1A2 SEP
Leo2A6
Chally 2
Leclerc
Merkava Mark 4
Type 90

Level 2
120mm smoothbore
125mm smoothbore
7-12(in no particular order)
Ariete
Arjun
Type 98G
K1A1
T-90
T-84 oplot

level 1
125mm smoothbore
T-80
Al Khalid
Zulfiqar 3
Type 96



Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 23-May-2005 at 13:51
If you are talking about a single component of a system, I personally dont see any difference between these advanced tanks. But, a tank is simply one of the building block of a land system. In other words, the effectivenss of a tank lies not solely on its ability to destroy targets, but on how well it co-op with its logistical and supporting roles.

Moreover, designing a weapon and how well the weapon is on the battlefront are two different things. The designers can only see mostly from past battle experience in order to formulate an more accurate plan for building such weapon. Technology capability may be limited to enemies, but not so in terms of tactics and strategy. Simple tactics like planting large amount of mines or targeting the most vulnerable parts of a tank by RPG proven themselves effectively against US army during the invasion of Iraqi in 2003.

Thus, by considering these two factors (logistics, digitalized network, infantry support and battle experience), I would say that M1A2 of US Army enjoy the most favorable spot in 21st century warfare. Germany may retain its upperhand in few minor areas, but it lacks of a complete system of management to exploit its armoured car's potential fully, of a powerful airborne support (attacking helicoptors, for example), and of combat experiences to update its system to counter new enemy's threats.


Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 17:57

Originally posted by Kids

As far as I know, British-made Challlenger II has the best defense and armour protection in the world: "The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10)". http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

Its unique rifle main gun allows it to fire at a much longer and precise distance than any other tanks in the world (a Challenger II penetrated an Iraqi T-72 at a distance of over 4000m, and its still the record). And, these two characteristics make up for its lack of speed and maybe the lack of versatile weaponary due to its rifle gun.


It's the rifled barrel that gives Challanger II versatile weaponary not reduce it. The Smoothbore guns of the US and Germany are excellent armour destroying weapons (except at extreme ranges) but they are totally useless for anything else!!  The main function of a tank is the destruction of enemy armour, but it is not it's only function, unless it is armed with a smoothbore gun, then it becomes a very expensive A/T gun.

 



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 18:13

The drivers become more important than the machine for many of these tanks, since they how very similar capibilities.



-------------
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html


Posted By: Sudaka
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 01:35

Im not sure which is the best. But i like to remark that the most important thing in a battlefield is the terrain. This superb weapons look perfect to fight in a hard plain battlefield, but can make 50meters in a field like Malvinas/Falkand. The permafrost its a trikky terrain, in THAT battlefield the most important think is the weight / cm2 relation. Gunpower, Armor, Crossterrain Speed come later.

Another example. My country (Argentina) lack of bridges capable to hold over 20 tons, so the argetinian tank can be heavy tank so in 1980 they design the TAM. TAM is a Thin between a light tank and a main battle tank. Is very bad  but any another thing can be deployed. But any armored army that invade argentina will have to  chosse betwenn only a few roads able to sostein moder tanks



-------------
Not yet mein friend, not yet


Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 15:01
Originally posted by aghart

It's the rifled barrel that gives Challanger II versatile weaponary not reduce it. The Smoothbore guns of the US and Germany are excellent armour destroying weapons (except at extreme ranges) but they are totally useless for anything else!!  The main function of a tank is the destruction of enemy armour, but it is not it's only function, unless it is armed with a smoothbore gun, then it becomes a very expensive A/T gun.


Well the British are thinking about changing their barrels to smoothbore.  Rifled barrels have horrible accuracy when it comes to launching APFSDS rounds, which are the primary weapons of most tanks these days.  Other than that, a smoothbore isn't that bad when lobbing HE shells, and has a longer life span without replacing the rifling of the barrel.


-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 15:54

The challenger II rifled gun was not an innovation it was on the Chietain too.

It's main advantage, the ability to fire HESH is increasingly becoming a obsolete.

Firing HESH it is easily the best tank around at shooting old Soviet tanks with steel armour, but HESH doesn't work against the laminated armour of modern tanks and as Dux say it's not so good at shooting DU ammo.

 

Challeger has the best armoured around, but the Merkava has it's engine in front, so more resistant to a direct hit on the front that penetrates than a challenger, so even safer for the crew.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Hannibal Barca
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 17:39

I am actually leaning towards the Challenger II but I can't say that yet because the Abrams has shown itself as the most battle worthy tank. Give the Challenger some experience in the field so that we can see its true ability and it might be the best.

Abrams.



-------------
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel


Posted By: Genghis_Kan
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 18:39

Well this is a very difficult question. I mean different tanks is basically designed to have different advantages. Some tanks have heavier armor. Some tanks have better firepower. Some tanks have better mobility. A tank which have a balance of all of those does not mean it's the best because overall will be weaker than other tanks. Also some tanks ar being used more than others. Furthermore the success of tanks depends on the commanders and the oppoent. So our judgement might be influence by their fame rather than its real abilty. Btw no offensive to those tank experts.

Anyway I favour Leopard 2 as the best tank



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2005 at 18:49
Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

I am actually leaning towards the Challenger II but I can't say that yet because the Abrams has shown itself as the most battle worthy tank. Give the Challenger some experience in the field so that we can see its true ability and it might be the best.

Abrams.

Not sure what experience the Abram has had that the challenger hasn't. both have only really fought waves of obsolete soviet vehicles as far as I know.

For me for the abrams to show it's worth in combat it would have to fight an enemy with some air power and demonstrate how the legions of fuel trucks are going to reach it and keep it in supply.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 05:30
I'd say the Abrams for crew survivability. The crew usually manages to get out alive, even when hit by IEDs and the tank crippled. It's extremely heavy though and has run into trouble in certain Iraqi environments. Bridges collapsing from its weight obviously, but also muddy dirt roads. The Abrams is really pushing the weight and size limit.

Other than that, all these tanks today are sitting ducks for AT missiles, and eventually, smart AT artillery shells, mortars and rockets. Maybe they'll come up with some new composite armor, or finally get those energy shields perfected, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:20
Not all of the tanks the Abrams have fought were OBSOLETE. T-72's are far from obsolete. They have 125mm cannons and have extremely thick armour that have extreme resistantce to most kinds of shells. They are also one of the quicker tanks, but not as quick as the Abrams. The only tanks that could be comparable to the Abrams would be the Challenger Two and The Leopard Two A6


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:40

Leopard 2 has never fired a shot in anger. All three tanks are fom countries with no tank experience since wwii. Merkava comes from a nation who knows more about modern tank warfare than the rest of the world combined.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:56
No tank experiance since world war two? Korea? Vietnam? Falklands? Egypt? Desert Storm? Afghanistan? Any of which say something? The only country that hasen't fired the single shot is Germany and that is because they are preoccupied in economics and self-matenance rather than wars. The reason Isreal has these technologies is the fact that Isreal was formed due to the will of the European and American powers and the end world war two. And what would someone from the Western Sahara know of Democracy? It's real definition is that so people may choose who they wish to be the leader(s) for that period of time. It is far more flexibile than Dictatorship or a Monarchy.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 15:57
When it comes right down to it, everything regarding modern Jets, AFV's, and infantry arms comes FROM Germany! They developed these technologies thirty years ahead of their time and every country now uses the technologies as a part of modern warfare.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 16:10

Jets come from the UK (1930). Russian tanks were way ahead of German and Kalashnokovs still the no1 weapon in the world.

Oh yes I nearly forgot that famous tank battle on the Falklands, thanks for reminding me.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:03
Oh really? Then why didn't the British have a jet fighter at the beginning of World War Two? Why were German to Russian Tank Casualty rates 1-10? Where do you think the Russians TOOK the idea for their Kalashnokovs from? The Machienpistole 44. Otherwise know as the Sturmgewher. My applogies, but there was no need for a famous tank battle considering once the British had their AFV's against the Argentinians, it was regarded as more of a turkey shoot.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:28

Britain did have jet planes in wwii,

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jet_engine.htm - http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jet_engine.htm

 

German tanks casualties became the higher of the two at the end of the war when it was the Russians that were attacking and the Germans defending. Whoever has an overwhelming advantage tends to kill more of the enemy.

The ISIII was better than any Infantry tank the Germans ever produced and the Centurion better than any German Cavalry Tank. The Germans had poor tanks at the outset of war, The French and to some extent Russians started better. The Germans undoubtedly built easily the best mid war tanks tigers, Panthers ect, but lost the advantage to Britain and Russia at the end. The designs for Pz VII and VIII are pretty dreadful.

AFV's played a very small role in the Falklands. It was mostly serious stupidity (bravery) and maneuvering by British special forces and poor Argentinians officers that won it. Argentinian conscripts were well dug in an fought ok by  poorly trained conscripts standards. It was never a Turkey shoot.

 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:41
I know that they did, but the thing is they didn't start using them until 1945. The Germans were starting use of the ME262 in 1943. And the British were not very good at keeping their technology a secret. Did you that the MiG-15's were equipped with Rolls-Royce engines? And guess how the Russians were able to get that technoloy. Espionage? Thievery? No. The British placed this technology on a bet for a card game, and lost.

The Pather IID consisted if a high velocity 75mm cannon that would have turned the Centurion into piecemeal. The Germans also produced the Tiger II which had a 88mm high velocity cannon as well. It was also equipped with hydrolic steering, a first for a tank. Regardless of the JSIII being equipped with it's 128mm or + cannon caliber, it was only good against the mid-war Tigers. Not to mention it was plauged by numerous problems. It also had some weight ratio problems that would make it a unpractical to use in combat that already has mud and snow. The JSIII's were re-deployed with the Egyptions during the conflict between Isreal during the 1960's and over 1/3 of the JSIII's ever produced were lost under a 2 year period. Most medium/heavy tanks of the post war were based upon the Panther II E and D models as well as the Tiger II.  

-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:49

Panther could have destroyed a Centurion so could a Tiger, then again it was a medium tank, that's what you would expect. But a Centurion firing APDS ammo could kill both at a greater range and kill a King Tiger too, nothing else could do that. It was also just about the simplest, most reliable across any terrain and most cannibalisable tank ever. The Israelis used to repair the engines with tractor parts.

A tank is more than just it's firepower. That's which is why the T-34 was better than anything the Germans had. And German tanks not so good. Petrol engines and complex parts.

ISIII is a greatly misunderstood tank, it was an Infantry tank. It was never designed to engage cavalry tanks, that was cavalry tanks, tank breaker and anti-tank artillery's job. It's low velocity 128mm was designed to fire HE at enemy fortifications, artillery and infantry and act as mobile support of infantry attacks.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 18:56
The most reliable? It only served for 10 years until the British replaced it. And the Centurian wasen't even deployed in any large number during the remainder of the war. The Tigers as well as the Pathers too shared this problem. None the less though, there was not a single loss of a PatherIID or a King Tiger II during the entire war. The original model Panthers were designed specifically to kill T-34s and they did there job to the up most possibility. In fact, a lot of Pather tanks were defeated not because of enemy armour but because they had ran out of amunition and they abandonded the AFV. The Russian captured many tanks due to this. Firepower is the biggest factor as well as armour because even if a tank is fast, without the ability to withstand a hit from an enemy shell, then speed dosen't matter, just survivability.

-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 19:10

But they were mid war tanks and being replaced by the mighty Maus. Now there's maneuverability sacriced for armour. Pillboxes are cheaper to build. (and they don't break down)

If the war had gone on the the newer generation of allied tanks would have outclassed the mid war German tanks and the Germans nothing to compare. Then Germany would be remebered as the c\ountry that had bad tanks and the allies as the countries that had good ones. It was just that the war ended when it did German tanks have such a good reputation.

P.S. nice to see someone so knowledgable about tanks on this forum.

 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 19:13
The Panther IID was produced in 1945 and the Tiger II in late 1944. They are not exactly mid-war.

P.S. Thank you, you are proving to make a good opponent for this debate. Most people are slow when it comes to this.


-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2005 at 20:00
Actually I'd take a Jagdpather over a II anyday. There's a good argument that german tankbreakers and mobile artillery are what they should really be remebered for and the tanks shuffled descreetly under the carpet.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 06:35

Have Panthers II engaged in battle? I actually thought that Panther II was just a design, never contructed. In the same sense I didn't know that Centurions participated in WWII.

The Tiger II was a very good tank in general, not only because of its heavy armament. It was quite fast and maneuvreable. But because it was being constucted in a hurry, and because as all new tanks it had its initial problems, it suffered from reliability. If the war went on the Tiger II would become a very good tank. The 88mm gun of the Tiger II was better than the 90mm of the later allied tanks (M26, M46,M47,M48), and it was also planned to be replaced with a bigger (128mm?) gun.

Also, I doubt that the Germans distinguished Cavalry from infantry tanks. Also, in your logic pretty much all Russian tanks were infantry tanks.

And the tankbreakers (I assume that's the same with a tankdestroyer, sorry but english is not my strentgh) as a logic were obsolete. The German tankdestroyers were heavy in firepower and armour, but they lacked turret, something very very basic.

 



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 07:25

As far as I know the Panther II never got built. The Centurion was deployed a couple of months before VE day but never saw combat.

Personally I'm not sure the Tiger II was a good design, it took ages to build, was resourse heavy, complex and drank petrol. Germany had little petrol and little capacity to move petrol under allied air blanket, how many Tigers became pillboxes? What Germany needed at that stage was a T-34/85 or 100. Cheap, quick to build, simple and could build 5 or 6 for every Tiger.

Germany had an infantry and cavalry tank concept to begin with, The III was originally planned as a cavalry tank and IV an infantry. It never worked out because the III quickly got outclassed so was abandoned. The Russians kept the concept to the end of the war, the KV and t-35 were both cavalry. The British had it too, Matilda, sherman and Churchill infantry, Comet, firefly and Crusader cavalry. Only country that didn't have cavalry and infantry tanks was US. Shermans were infantry tanks, US had doctrine of infantry tanks only. M-26 was quickly sidelined by Patton and Eisenhower who both disliked cavalry tanks.

Not having a turret has advantages, weakest part gone must now hit front hull to kill, weight gone so heavier better gun and armour, can still move gun a bit, low profile so difficult to see.  disadvatages must turn whole tank instead of turret..... Advantages outway disadvantages and great for defence.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 14:21
Well the only problem I can spot with the Tiger II's at that point was that they entered to late into the war as well as many of those other tanks, Centurians and such.

But I am not talking about calvary tanks, i'm talking about combat tanks. The kind specifically designed to fight armour, not to assist infantry. Of course the Panzer IV was a differant story. It was well-suited for both tasks. The only problem was that Panzer IV's actully DIDN'T have all metal armour protection. It was usually concrete sandwiched between the metal plates.

Fixed turrets seem completely unlogical. Tanks need the ability to fight in a 360 degree radius (or at least 180) so it dosen't have to move the entire tank and then readjust itself for aiming. It requires more gas and makes the proper sighting more difficult.


-------------


Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 17:44
Originally posted by AFV Master

Not all of the tanks the Abrams have fought were OBSOLETE. T-72's are far from obsolete. They have 125mm cannons and have extremely thick armour that have extreme resistantce to most kinds of shells. They are also one of the quicker tanks, but not as quick as the Abrams. The only tanks that could be comparable to the Abrams would be the Challenger Two and The Leopard Two A6


Then again, Russian armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabots have not been top notch; in fact, they have always increased mass at a loss of velocity.  There's a certain point where mass is important, but sometimes velocity is more important.  In fact, the wider, larger penetrator used by the Russians has less penetration power than the American Silver Bullet - not just because the latter is made out of denser material, but because it's a better round period.  So although the T-72 within itself might have been a good tank; it was obsolete in tank to tank warfare, especially when you consider that they were in the hands of bad Iraqi tank crews.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2005 at 18:11
There was a Abrams that was immoblilzed by a T-72M in the first gulf war. Thankfully the reactive armour helped the crew survive. There we some more modern tanks involved as well. There we T-80's as well as the tank used by many higher level countries to this day, the T-90. This would have been able to fight on the Abrams on more equal terms but the few battalions equipped with this weapon were on the top of the list for airstrikes.




-------------


Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 03:46
I just saw on Discovery channel a list:
1 Leopard - Germany now
2 Abrams - USA now
3 T 34 - USSR WW2
4 Israel tank now
5 Swedish tank now
6. T 72 - USSR cold war
7. Panther - Germany (WW2)

8,9,10 and the names of Israel and Swedish tanks I don't remember



-------------
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein


Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 13:17

The KV was a Cav tank? All KV tanks were heavy with big guns, what is characteristical for Inf tanks.



Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:21
The Israeli tank they were probably referring to is the Merkava IV; it's more of a glorified APC/IFV than anything else.  The engine in the front increases room for troop transport, but if a CE or KE round actually penetrated the frontal armour [depending on what fired it] the tank would have a greater chance of combustion than would a tank with the engine in the rear.

-------------


Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:23
Originally posted by xristar

The KV was a Cav tank? All KV tanks were heavy with big guns, what is characteristical for Inf tanks.



I was under the same impression; in fact, their use in both the Finnish War and the early days of the Second World War [early days of their entrance, more accurately] it was an infantry support tank, or it was a stopgap - in fact, a single KV stopped the entire advance of the 6th Panzer Division for an entire night [source:  Panzers on the Eatern Front by Edhard Raus].


-------------


Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 16:55



Well the British are thinking about changing their barrels to smoothbore.  Rifled barrels have horrible accuracy when it comes to launching APFSDS rounds, which are the primary weapons of most tanks these days.  Other than that, a smoothbore isn't that bad when lobbing HE shells, and has a longer life span without replacing the rifling of the barrel.
[/QUOTE]

We are no longer thinking about it, it's going to happen, the decision has been made. By "politicians". Scumbag Blair and his equally scumbag government are allowing the closure of the UK's ammunition factories so we are being forced to adopt "smoothbore" tank guns to ensure we can import ammunition for our tanks.

 

The "sliding band" APFSDS round adopted by the British (which by the way took out an iraqi tank at a range in excess of 4000M) is highly accurate  not horribly accurate, and the smoothbore gun is"totally useless" when it comes to non anti armour ammunition.

It is true that the smoothbore gun is longer lasting than it's rifled barrel cousin.

 

The HESH round is now useless against modern armour, I dont argue that fact but do you remember the TV pictures in the last gulf war of a CR2 destroying an Iraqi TV mast using HESH?  An M1 would have been there till doomsday trying to do that!!.

I am a former British army tank commander and so I have "some" knowledge about tanks. The British tank crews do not want to lose their precious rifled barrels.

 

The British tank "bible" says that tanks have 3 roles

1. To destroy enemy armour (note armour is spelt correctly, not armor ughh!!)

2. to support the infantry

3. To exploit shock action

With smoothbore guns only no1 can be really achieved, ok if you have abundant Artillary, mortar, helicopter and close air support,  but in battle the only guarantee is that your plan will not survive the first shot fired.

 

The USA depends on technology and overpowering might to destroy the enemy, It failed in Vietnam and one day when all this support is missing it's smoothbore gun tanks will fail again

 

Long  live HESH



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: cg rommel
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 17:01
i dont know wich one is the best but i like the abrams ...


Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 17:16
Vietname is a poor example; no main battle tank ordnance from either side saw action in Vietnam [as in, no MBTs from today saw action in Vietnam].  An HE round fired from a smoothbore isn't that horrible, within all rights.  The rifledbore may be better for HESH, but in terms of jack of all trades the smoothbore is pretty good, and it has the added plus of accurately firing APFSDS.  The Challenger II's Dorchester armour is superior to that of the Abrams in all respects [the C. II also recently had an appliqué>> ERA upgrade I believe].

But it will become rather irrelevent by 2011-2017 with the advent of the electro-thermal chemical gun and the exchange of the M1A2 from a 120mm smoothbore to a 120mm ETC.  Understandably, I really don't support the British change to smoothbore because there's no point; they're most likely going to be forced to purchase their guns of Rhinemetal for the ETCs anyhow in the next five to eleven years.


-------------


Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 18:28

Originally posted by Dux

Vietname is a poor example; no main battle tank ordnance from either side saw action in Vietnam [as in, no MBTs from today saw action in Vietnam].  An HE round fired from a smoothbore isn't that horrible, within all rights.  The rifledbore may be better for HESH, but in terms of jack of all trades the smoothbore is pretty good, and it has the added plus of accurately firing APFSDS.  The Challenger II's Dorchester armour is superior to that of the Abrams in all respects [the C. II also recently had an appliqué>> ERA upgrade I believe].

But it will become rather irrelevent by 2011-2017 with the advent of the electro-thermal chemical gun and the exchange of the M1A2 from a 120mm smoothbore to a 120mm ETC.  Understandably, I really don't support the British change to smoothbore because there's no point; they're most likely going to be forced to purchase their guns of Rhinemetal for the ETCs anyhow in the next five to eleven years.

 

Vietnam was used as an example by me to show that technology does not guarantee success.

the TV mast example is an example that the smoothbore gun is not a jack of all trades, it is in fact totally useless against non armour targets.

The longest range 1st round hit by APFSDS was credited to a Challenger 1 during the first gulf war using a rifled barrel.

 

 



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: Jay.
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 18:52
The Tiger II, I would say..



Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 13:00
The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.

-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 13:36

Originally posted by aghart

The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.

And air supremacy....

And attack helicopters to cripple(destroy) the enemy armoured forces ....

And no enemy infantry with LAW's around ...

So, the best tank job could be done by a bunch of BMP's? Really ....why are we still buiding tanks?



Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 17:29
Originally posted by Cezar

Originally posted by aghart

The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.

So, the best tank job could be done by a bunch of BMP's? Really ....why are we still buiding tanks?

 

because you could pierce the armour of a BMP with a snowball!!



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2005 at 17:34
Originally posted by aghart

Originally posted by Cezar

Originally posted by aghart

The best tank in the world is one that has the best crew!  and a decent boiling vessel.

So, the best tank job could be done by a bunch of BMP's? Really ....why are we still buiding tanks?

 

because you could pierce the armour of a BMP with a snowball!!

What  kind of snowball?



Posted By: TinTin
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 10:02
Originally posted by Mosquito

Im not sure but i think Malesia choosed "PT 91" tank while to India and Vietnam Poland is exporting T72 M1. They are affcourse worse than the tanks of newest generation but are upgraded so much that well used may be dangerous even for them.

During the selection exercises the Malaysia Army gave all the tanks a good bashing in atypical tropical physical and weather conditions. Surprising PT-91 survived and the rest packed their crate and go home. First delivery shall be 1st Quarter 2006.

 



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2005 at 13:44
Originally posted by TinTin

Originally posted by Mosquito

Im not sure but i think Malesia choosed "PT 91" tank while to India and Vietnam Poland is exporting T72 M1. They are affcourse worse than the tanks of newest generation but are upgraded so much that well used may be dangerous even for them.

During the selection exercises the Malaysia Army gave all the tanks a good bashing in atypical tropical physical and weather conditions. Surprising PT-91 survived and the rest packed their crate and go home. First delivery shall be 1st Quarter 2006.

 



yeah ... Malaysia first MBT ... about the Leopard 2 ... the gap between the turret and the hull is a concern to me ... any shot there will blown out the whole turret or will deflect to the hull


Posted By: TinTin
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2005 at 10:17

The Aussies is using the Leopards and we regularly conduct training with them locally,however, they never bring any of those crate. Probably they must have bad experience in the tropical jungle. Tanks regularly get stuck in the soft swamp

PTM-91 on display in Kuala Lumpur



-------------


Posted By: Hector Victorious
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2005 at 12:26
I could Imagine they do...

-------------


Posted By: TinTin
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2005 at 23:16

 

Malaysia has a specific reason for acquiring MBT which I have no liberty to discuss it in public domain. However, during the evaluation certain specification has to be met. Firepower will be excellent in an open tank battle but endurance and survivability are also important criterion. The various  tanks were put into very severe test not on a specific artificial environment but the tanks have to be driven to a considerable distant before it can be accepted. Malaysian environment can be considered as closed terrain which usually rugged, covered with dense, multiple canopied trees and impenetrable undergrowth and criss-crossed by numerous rivers and streams. In such environment visibility is inevitably limited and movement is near impossible even for the infantry. The tanks are vulnerable to the ever present ambush by a handful of infantry with RPG and Carl Gustv.

Infantry with anti-tank weapon>

 



Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 04:19

One of the design criteria of The Scorpion light AFV was that it must be able to pass between the tree's in a Malayan rubber plantation, so it makes sense that the MBT needs of countries like Malaysia are going to be different than the USA or UK.

  



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: TinTin
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 10:47

Malaysian is currently using Stomers and Scorpions. Pictures showing Stomers and Scorpions during the US-Malaysian Joint exercise at the South China Sea.


 



-------------


Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Date Posted: 24-Dec-2005 at 02:31

 

The best tank in the world actually is the Abrams M1A1/A2 battle tank USA

 

 

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 19:06
And soon to be... the M1A3

-------------


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 19:09

"And soon to be... the M1A3"  huh M1-A3?

Originally posted by Moustafa Pasha

 

The best tank in the world actually is the Abrams M1A1/A2 battle tank USA

 

 

 

 

 

YES, SOME ONE!!!! Yes the US M1-A1 and M1-A2 are the best tanks in the world!!!!!



-------------
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"


Posted By: krios
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 08:22
Originally posted by Moustafa Pasha

 


The best tank in the world actually is the Abrams M1A1/A2 battle tank USA


 


 


<FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3> 



I think this is what you are all looking for. The best tank





-------------
http://www.historyexplorer.net - History Timelines and Articles


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 09:37
LoL i actually find that picture to be intimidating


Posted By: Bauhaus
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 10:00
the best tanks are hands down the M1A1/A2 tanks. they are the fastest and the most powerfull. Don't even try to argue with me, because I know first hand how they operate, and they have also done studies.

-------------
"Semper Paratus"- United States Coast Guard


Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 14:58

Originally posted by Bauhaus

the best tanks are hands down the M1A1/A2 tanks. they are the fastest and the most powerfull. Don't even try to argue with me, because I know first hand how they operate, and they have also done studies.

 

Have these studies included how M1 tanks are so easily disabled by RPG fire while Challenger II just shrugs off RPG's ? 



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 17:15
An RPG will only disable a M1 via a hit in the treads, a similar strike will also disable a challenger...


Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 17:24

Originally posted by Laelius

An RPG will only disable a M1 via a hit in the treads, a similar strike will also disable a challenger...

 

with all due respect!! numerous M1's have been disabled by RPG attack especially around the engine. Challanger has shrugged off similar attacks.

 

This question of the best tank is impossible to answer as different situations favour different vehicles. 



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 23:09
Aghart is right, different tanks have different strengths. If it was so clear cut a case of http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1779 - - TUSK update now, this will make it better protected 'allround' rather than just front on, for such fights. Remember, this was becuase of a weakness in the M1 design and something they had to add on.

So even if the total losses arent huge, it is notable that mines, well used RPG's and IED's have done a better job that Iraqi armour ever did. Demonstrating the inherent weakness and strength of the M1.

anyway here are three sources on successful M1 attacks:
A tank disabled by a Kornet missile from behind
Two soldiers in a M1, die after hitting a
landmine

Total loses and damage of M1's to march http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=89 - Eighty tanks have sustained damage that required them to be sent back to the United States for repairs, said Tucker, noting that the damage was “fairly minor” in some cases.

“If a seam or a weld was broken, that’s pretty delicate work, and we couldn’t do that in theater, so we’ve brought tanks back to the U.S. for welding repairs,” he said. “About 63 of those 80 tanks will go back to the fleet.”" (from the third source a handy quote.)





Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2006 at 06:09

perhaps we should take a leaf out of Leonidas book and admit each tank was dsigned with different values in mind.

The Leapard has the best gun, the M1 is the most maneuverable, the Challenger is the best protected, the LeClerk has the finest electronics, the Merkava the safest crew and the T-95 the hardest to hit.......... T-55 wins hands down for value for money. $5000 each and no more parking problems at the supermaket.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Virgil
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2006 at 12:09
Originally posted by aghart

with all due respect!! numerous M1's have been disabled by RPG attack especially around the engine. Challanger has shrugged off similar attacks.

This question of the best tank is impossible to answer as different situations favour different vehicles. 



Not so fast slick. I spent a year in Iraq and the Challenger's HAVE been disabled by everything from RPGs to molotov's. I know of one particular incident where several RPGs shots disabled a Challenger completely, it's crew surviviability being excellent so all survived. If you think an RPG can't disable a Challenger you've never seen the results of a well placed RPG round.

Secondly the Brits are in a far less dangerous area than the Americans--Shia rather than Sunni--subject to far fewer  insurgent attacks.

[I would add in this edit that the two 'disabled from rear engine compartment'  M1s I saw were the result of the crews carrying extra fuel cans in the rear near the engine which were hit and caught fire.]

Having seen the Leopards, Challengers and Abrams I'd say the best tank category is a near tie with each one having strengths and weaknesses.


Posted By: Hannibal Barca
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2006 at 16:05

Remember it competed in sweden and greece against the leopard and lost.

Well..that is an imature statement. No one gives a damn how military vehicles do during trials and games. That bull. All that matters is how they act and perform in combat. In that sense the Leopard can kiss my Royal American ASS! The Challengers 2 and the M1-A2 Abrams are the best tanks in the world.



-------------
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2006 at 04:23
"No one gives a damn how military vehicles do during trials and games. That bull. All that matters is how they act and perform in combat."
my point was that not every tank is suitable for every country. Argentina chose the light TAM's not because they are the 'best' in the world but it was because they are the best for that country. Whats the point of having such a large, heavy and expensive fuel guzzler when it cant cross a local bridge...
 
The leopard2A6 would be close to a MIA2 and gets all the local european co-operative buy ins and offsets. why wouldnt a European country get something that is better than most and not tied to US technology and all the politics that brings.

"In that sense the Leopard can kiss my Royal American ASS!"
only deserves this.. "Well..that is an imature statement"

"The Challengers 2 and the M1-A2 Abrams are the best tanks in the world."

Tanks as far as i know get measured on three basic criteria. Fire Power, mobility and armour. They both dont win hands down in all three category's.

The challenger2 fails in fire power with that rifled gun, Nor is it very quick. it loses in two categories.Talking about fire power, neither have the L55 canon yet, which means they both dont have the fire power of a leopardA6 at this point in time.





Posted By: Manuver
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 00:57

So the stats on moder MBT's are in and they are close on paper. But if we called a war tommorow and everyone showed up how would it fair?

The M1 series of tank is the MBT with the most combat time, and agenst some other tanks, they have none. The isralies have the urban experience, but the us in gaining on them. In open warfare, the us has learned how to exploit the MBT in actual combat.

I think that in an all out war, the M1 series would be the last one standing.



-------------
Ice cream has no bones


Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 07:10

Another contender.............

 

 

.......................



-------------
Jai Badri Vishal


Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 07:13

Best tank in the world.......

for public transport.....



-------------
Jai Badri Vishal


Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 07:18

Most fuel efficient tank in the world.....

Oil isn't going to last forever.............



-------------
Jai Badri Vishal


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 07:45
Originally posted by Manuver

I think that in an all out war, the M1 series would be the last one standing.

Undoubtably.

it would have run out of fuel and all the others driven off.

 

weakest part of a tank is it's refuel trucks, if you need twice as many you're twice as weak. M1 has had a lot of combat experience but only with air supremacy and none against an opponent with an actve  airforce.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Manuver
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 19:32
That is correct. The turbine engine is a thirsty beast. It does have a lot of combat experience, but not agenst a "Real" armor foe. Air superiority is probably the US's second strongest military component but if you take out the air, make it strictly an MBT engagement, the slight edge the Leapord, Chalenger or LeClerk may have will be overshadowed by the fact that the US is the only military to have deployed MBT's in modern combat.  Iraqi organized resistance was a joke, but it was not just "a day at the range".

-------------
Ice cream has no bones


Posted By: krios
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2006 at 23:01
Originally posted by Jhangora

Most fuel efficient tank in the world.....

Oil isn't going to last forever.............



i think that could be future since mobiles are getting smaller every day


-------------
http://www.historyexplorer.net - History Timelines and Articles


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 03:44
Manuver, most of the Iraqi armour was badly mantianed old russian and chinese tanks. I would assume any other western tanks can handle a T-72. Once you get past the US airpower, i wouldnt think this combat experiance was anything to put to much credit too either.

I heard of one engagement were the Iraqi's actaully pulled of an armoured ambush (to their credit) on a US tank force, but their canons were not completely straight. Even when they could fight their equipment was crap.

That turbine is another weak point to be mindful of when, talking about the M1 'superiority' , its not only a fuel hungry thing but based on old technology and expensive to run, the US will phase out it out.



Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 15:29

QUOTE 

"The Challengers 2 and the M1-A2 Abrams are the best tanks in the world."
Tanks as far as i know get measured on three basic criteria. Fire Power, mobility and armour. They both dont win hands down in all three category's.

The challenger2 fails in fire power with that rifled gun, Nor is it very quick. it loses in two categories.Talking about fire power, neither have the L55 canon yet, which means they both dont have the fire power of a leopardA6 at this point in time.  QUOTE

 

This is where we can argue all day, challenger II is I think everone agrees the best protected tank in the world, It's armour Chobham & Dorchester is simply the best. Yes it's not quite as mobile as either the M1 or Leopard 2 but is still a nimble beast as far as tanks go. As for firepower? my god I am guilty of treason!!  will somebody  kill Tony Bair and his entire scumbag Government.

 

We are planning to do away with the rifled barrel and opt for a smooth bore gun simply because Blair's scumbag government are allowing the closing down of the UK's ammo factories( due smaller ammo orders) and we will be dependent on imported ammo for our tanks. So we are having to go with the majority!!

I dont care if i am outnumbered by a thousand to 1, I tell everyone of you this simple fact, Smoothbore tank Guns are a mistake!!.  They are good against armour but despite improvements are "mediocre" against all other targets.  The rifled barrel  tank gun can destroy even the most modern tank and still be effective against soft and infantry targets, why get rid of it? it beggars belief.


 



-------------
Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines


Posted By: Silent
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 15:22

Originally posted by Richard XIII

I just saw on Discovery channel a list:
1 Leopard - Germany now
2 Abrams - USA now
3 T 34 - USSR WW2
4 Israel tank now
5 Swedish tank now
6. T 72 - USSR cold war
7. Panther - Germany (WW2)

8,9,10 and the names of Israel and Swedish tanks I don't remember

"5 Swedish tank now"

That was the Swedish tank in 1960, number one is Swedish, STRV 122

http://alexkall.shackspace.com/files/strv122.wmv - http://alexkall.shackspace.com/files/strv122.wmv

Im presuming thats what you saw as number one



Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 15:29

of course leopard a6 best

and south korea k2 is very good

its turkish tank in the future



-------------
http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 17:37
Is that a model or a toy?


Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 17:58

yes its model

 



-------------
http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 19:49
I guess it looks cool


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2006 at 10:44
are you guys getting that korean tank or devolping one with them?


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2006 at 12:29

Dog Anti-Tank Mine

a soviet dog anti-tank mine.



-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2006 at 15:22
I've read about this before, where did you find this amazing(and disturbing) picture Ulrich.

-------------


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2006 at 15:49

Our latest design. All your base are belong to us.

 




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com