Top 10 best tanks in the world

[Jimbuna]

I'm not agreeing with the order as set out in the video link but was suprised at one or two placings.

What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO5X_xTR6k0&NR=1

[Schroeder]

I smell a never ending story.:O:

[Dowly]

I smell a never ending story.:O:

This. :DL

[Jimbuna]

I smell a never ending story.:O:

Oh I'm not so sure...I expected a dozen at most would come in and simply state "I reckon no* should be above no**" :hmmm:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think the person who made this video didn't know what they were talking about. Where is the Stridswagen? Why is the M1A2 behind the Challenger? What criterion were used to judge placements?


How can M1A2 Abrams can be the best, when it using German Reinmetal L44 gun. and Old British Chobham armour? Plus, it drink lots of fuel, it combat range are short. and it had being destroyed many in Iraq. Please, face fact that Abrams is 3rd, not 1st.

I'd agree with the Leopard 2 being ahead of the Abrams, or at least on par, but the Challenger 2 is simply no match. It also uses Chobham armour , but the fire-control systems are somewhat lacking. The rifled L30 120mm lacks the capacity to fire modern APFSDS rounds while the HESH and HEAT rounds are almost useless against modern MBT armour. I'd put it at no higher than third.

For my money, the number one tank in the the entire history of modern warfare is the T-34. No other tank has achieved so much with so little in such a short amount of time. Right after that I'd put the Jagdpanzer Panther, a remarkable vehicle that could hold it's own against even most modern MBTs, even though it isn't technically a tank. Finally, I'd place the Sturmgeschutz III, another non-tank, on the list for it's incredible combat record. Once I had those three, I might consider looking at modern MBTs with extremely short and unremarkable and/or no combat histories.

[Jimbuna]

I personally think the top three are the correct choice....but I'm not so sure of the order :DL

Perhaps the thread title should have stated 'current vehicles' or something like that :hmmm:

[Skybird]

It's stupid to form such lists. Too many factors that are not even directly linked to technology are ignored: logistical capacity of the using army (I just say M1 gas turbines, and fuel...), availabability of precious ores to form ammunition, and that relating to tank fleet sizes that must be supplied (Russia uses Steel for the most, Germany Tungsten, the US uses DU). expected combat environment, combat doctrine: in the attack maybe the M1 is better protected over the complete hull, but in hull down the Leopard2A6 is better than the Abrams, becasue its top is tougher, but the lower hull and flanks are less heavily protected. Then, preferred combat range (depending on terrain, ammunition availability: for example, what is better: the heavy gun callibre of the Swedish CV-9040, or the additional TOWs for the M2 Bradleys? In desert, the Bradley. In the Swedish mixture of rough terrain, forest and missile-blocking, disrupted line of sights: the CV9040).

There are so many factors.

Rating a tank roughly, depends on the best-working balance between mobility, firepower, and protection. then, ergonomy, and technical reliability, and sensors. But "best-working" can have different meanings in differentarmies in different places fighting with different doctrines.

I think, though, that the M1 and the Leopard 2, maybe also the Challenger due to its armour level, play in the same league. I also think that merkava, Leclerc, T-90, form a subordinate second class, which can be lethal for players of the first if these top tanks meet the second league tanks without proper respect.

The only thing one can say for sure is: the most ergonomic tank is the German one.

The Asian tanks I do not comment on, I know almost nothing about them.

[Oberon]

The best tank in the world is one that kills the enemy and keeps you alive. :yep:

Although...naturally, I must say, that since the Challenger II has a kettle on board, it wins hands down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0sGDbjTQ8Q

:up:

[Bilge_Rat]

The M1A2 SEP, Challenger 2 and Leo 2A6 are probably the best MBTs in the world in 2010. How they rank against each other is hard to say since so much info is classified.

In terms of fire control, all three can engage and hit (usually with the 1st shot) a target while moving at top speed. Basically, they can hit and kill any target they can see with the first shot.

In terms of frontal protection, I would give the edge to the M1A2 SEP over the CR2, but that is just based on the fact that a Iraqi RPG-29 penetrated the frontal armour of a CR2 indicating a potential weak spot.

All three have weaker side and rear armour which can be penetrated by any ATGM/RPG.

However, in the real world, a ranking such as this is meaningless, since the army operating the weapon is often more important than the weapon itself.

The German Army, equipped with Pz III/IVs , trounced the Soviet Army in 1941-42, even though the Soviet T-34s and KV1s were much better tanks. The IDF equipped mostly with upgunned WW2 era shermans beat the Jordanian Army equipped with more modern M47 "Patton" tanks in 1967.

[Dowly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0sGDbjTQ8Q

:up:

"The thing I'm most interested in tho, is the big gun. Which is as you can see rifled for greater accuracy. Not like those smooth-bore american ones that just hit something 'over there'."

Haha, always cracks me up! :har:

[Oberon]

One should also not count out Russian equipment simply because 'It's Russian'.

When the wall fell the Bundeswehr found themselves in an interesting position of having Soviet and Western kit in their hands and were able to put them both to the test, with some surprising results.

The July 1997 issue of Jane's International Defence Review confirmed that after the collapse of USSR, US and German analysts had a chance to examine Soviet made T-72 tanks equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA, and they proved impenetrable to most modern US and German tank projectiles; this sparked the development of more modern Western tank ammunition, such as the M829A2 and M829A3. Russian tank designers responded with newer types of Heavy Reactive Armour, including Relikt and Kaktus.

Like Skybird said, never take your opponent for granted, even if you think they may be less lethal, always treat them with respect or you will be nastily surprised. :yep:

[Oberon]

"The thing I'm most interested in tho, is the big gun. Which is as you can see rifled for greater accuracy. Not like those smooth-bore american ones that just hit something 'over there'."

Haha, always cracks me up! :har:

"Right, he's going around in circles the little BLEEP!"

"Oh no! I seem to have brought Puff Daddys car...to the Somme!"

"This really is just a battle of range...who runs out of fuel first...and that's a bad plan because I suspect it's going to be me..."

[Bilge_Rat]

good point. No one knows how good the T-90 really is. The Iraqi T-72s destroyed by coalition forces were a mixture of export and home built Iraqi models, all of which were reportedly inferior in terms of quality/features to the models used by Russian forces.

In a head to head matchup, the T-90 is probably inferior to the best western MBTs, but it can certainly win if it gets a flank shot, again a case of who is commanding the tank being more important than the tank itself, for example:


One example of this increased firepower was displayed by Lt. G.K Henry's Firefly during the defense of Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June against an attack by the 3rd Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment of the 12th SS Panzer Division. Determined to capture the town in preparation for a larger offensive to drive the British and Canadians back into the sea, Kurt Meyer ordered an attack by 12 Panthers of the 3rd Company and infantry to attack Norrey-en-Bessin and drive the Canadians out of the town. The attack got underway at 1300 hours with the Panthers racing to the town at full speed only to stop to fire their guns, quickly outrunning their infantry support which was forced to ground by allied artillery fire. Within 1,000 m (1,100 yd) of the town, 9 Shermans of the 1st Hussars opened fire into the advancing Panthers flanks. Lt. Henry's gunner, Trooper A. Chapman, waited until the Panthers "lined up like ducks in a row" and quickly knocked out five German Panthers with just 6 rounds. The attack was repulsed with the loss of 7 of the 12 attacking Panthers, the majority credited to Lt. Henry's single Firefly



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

[Jimbuna]

Further to Oberons link, is the CR2 the fastest over rough terrain?

[Bilge_Rat]

Further to Oberons link, is the CR2 the fastest over rough terrain?

hard to say, officially top speed cross-country is:

M1A2- 48 km
T90s- 45 km
CR2- 40 km

but they may be deliberately misrepresenting their capabilities for security purposes.

max speed does not really mean anything on a tactical level, a tanker will never go fast over rough terrain and run the risk of bogging or throwing a track unless he has no other choice.

Here is a good site for general non-classified info on modern tanks:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

[GoldenRivet]

The best tank in the world is one that kills the enemy and keeps you alive. :yep:

The best tank in the world is the one that spends its life in storage and never gets used in aggression. :up:

but since thats a fantasy... you are technically correct.

but - i'll take one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/A-10_Thunderbolt_flight.jpg)over a tank any day of the week

[TLAM Strike]

but - i'll take one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/A-10_Thunderbolt_flight.jpg)over a tank any day of the week

I think Tom Clancy once said: "You know what they call 10,000 tanks in the Air Force? Targets..." :up:

[Tchocky]

but - i'll take one of these (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/A-10_Thunderbolt_flight.jpg)over a tank any day of the week

GR, that thing is a tank!

[Oberon]

GR, that thing is a tank!

:yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

GAU-8 all the way baby :rock:

[Weiss Pinguin]

:yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

GAU-8 all the way baby :rock:
Seriously, you'd think someone would've designed a tank or AFV around this monster already :arrgh!:

http://topicstock.pantip.com/wahkor/topicstock/2007/07/X5609435/X5609435-116.jpg

[Jimbuna]

hard to say, officially top speed cross-country is:

M1A2- 48 km
T90s- 45 km
CR2- 40 km

but they may be deliberately misrepresenting their capabilities for security purposes.

max speed does not really mean anything on a tactical level, a tanker will never go fast over rough terrain and run the risk of bogging or throwing a track unless he has no other choice.

Here is a good site for general non-classified info on modern tanks:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html


Cool site :up:

[TLAM Strike]

:yep::yep::yep::yep::yep:

GAU-8 all the way baby :rock:

The all time #1 killer of tanks....
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2273/gasempty.jpg

[Happy Times]

One should also not count out Russian equipment simply because 'It's Russian'.

When the wall fell the Bundeswehr found themselves in an interesting position of having Soviet and Western kit in their hands and were able to put them both to the test, with some surprising results.



Like Skybird said, never take your opponent for granted, even if you think they may be less lethal, always treat them with respect or you will be nastily surprised. :yep:

In Finnish terrain tanks will never have large scale battles and even an T-72 can be useful.
The Finnish army retired them for Leopards but still has some modernized T-55s in use that usually beat the T-72s in wargames.
The first shot was faster and more accurate usually.

The IFVs are useful in our terrain and i think that when wisely used the BMB-3 and BTR-90 would be very dangerous machines.

[Dan D]

...When the wall fell the Bundeswehr found themselves in an interesting position of having Soviet and Western kit in their hands ...

Side-note: I have read an article about how Israel and Germany have been cooperating on a secret service level (nothing the public needed to know about) for some decades when it comes to military technology.

Both nations were facing the same challenge at the same time: they had to build up their armies from the scratch against Soviet weapon technology.

So they exchanged their knowledge. When Israel captured Soviet weapons in wars against its neighbours who had Soviet weapon technology, they let German military experts take a look at it. And when Germany had a chance to put its hands on Soviet weapon technology e.g after the re-unifcation, the whole NVA, Nationale Volksarmee, the East-German army, it gave some of the **** to Israel for testing purposes.

[Skybird]

Further to Oberons link, is the CR2 the fastest over rough terrain?

Like Bilge Rat said, a tank will hardly take the risk of travellimng at max speed over rugged terrain.

However, consider that the M1, Leo-2 and Chally-2 all are of comparable weight that they must move. But the Chally's engine has 1200, that of the Leopard 2 and the turbine of the Abrams produce 1500 HP. that's 20% less power for a tank of the same weight - hard to imagine that it could travel as fast as the other two.

most times I picked a read on tanks somewhere, they say that the Leopard has the slightly faster top speed than the Abrams, but that the Abrams has slightly faster acceleration. It also is often said that these differences are so minor only that they hardly are of more than theoretical interest. Obviosuly armour sets attached to the tank additonally also make a difference (in weight).

How fast the gears switch, the gear's robustness and how easy it is for the driver to switch between forward and reverse, I would rate of higher importance - when the tank is dug in and typically moves forward to fire from an elevated position, than dives back in reverse to achieve fully covered position during reload (so deep then that the gun can't fire), and then jumps forward again to fire. This sequences lasts just seconds, and in a heavy tank engagement these seconds really could make the difference between life and death. As long as the tank is not ready to fire, it tries to duck down. Onyl when it is ready to fire, it exposes itself a bit more.

You can nicely simulate this difference in SBP. ;) It is an important behaviour, and thus they made big efforts to correctly simulate it. It has saved me so very often from being directly hit, when their projectiles reached my position the moment the tank was fully hull down and reloading. As often i have been killed when the projectiles reached my position while I just was firing in the same position, more part of the turret exposed to clear the gun. :)

[FIREWALL]

You say you want a badass tank huh ?

Just build it around this

:http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/mauspic/dora.jpg&imgrefurl=http://current.com/technology/92337087_gustav-gun-the-largest-gun-ever-built.htm&h=258&w=658&sz=17&tbnid=Z8iRh4sWrnHSKM:&tbnh=54&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbiggest%2Bcannon%2Bever%2Bmade&usg=__JnKmt74105Nzj_UxYkdc1am0fUA=&sa=X&ei=okkRTJjuGKGKNeW54I8D&ved=0CCUQ9QEwBQ


:haha: Just the looks of it would scare the Bejeezus out of anyone. :eek:

[Raptor1]

You say you want a badass tank huh ?

Just build it around this

:http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/mauspic/dora.jpg&imgrefurl=http://current.com/technology/92337087_gustav-gun-the-largest-gun-ever-built.htm&h=258&w=658&sz=17&tbnid=Z8iRh4sWrnHSKM:&tbnh=54&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbiggest%2Bcannon%2Bever%2Bmade&usg=__JnKmt74105Nzj_UxYkdc1am0fUA=&sa=X&ei=okkRTJjuGKGKNeW54I8D&ved=0CCUQ9QEwBQ


:haha: Just the looks of it would scare the Bejeezus out of anyone. :eek:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/P1500_Monster.gif

[Dowly]

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/penisex/tank1.jpg

[Oberon]

http://www.freewebs.com/ashadowaponfreedom/ratte3.jpg
Ratte

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/i/2007/032/3/d/Ratte_mk2_by_flyingdebris.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pHN4uTgTd94/SL2fKEp60oI/AAAAAAAAISY/YaEVMlqYrk0/s400/tank.JPG

[Weiss Pinguin]

I see your hypothetical tanks and raise you one Obyekt 279!

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5313/77695271.jpg


Actually it's not all that big, but it still looks like it should be manned by bear cavalry.

[antikristuseke]

Found the specs of the MTU MB 873 (http://www.mtu-online-shop.de/fileadmin/dam/download_media/import_print/D_23054E_0601.pdf) on the Leopards and the Honeywell AGT1500C (http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/SurfaceSystems/AGT1500_Turbine_Technology.pdf) used in the Abrams but havent been able to locate anything on the Perkins Condor MV12 used in Challengers.

The diesel apparently has higher peak performance and lower fuel consumption, but the torque curve of the turbine is more a straight line than a curve. Then again, fuel consumption is a big thing for the logistics side of things.
Anyway this thread gave me a good excuse to try to look up some pointless details, but if anyone could find more info on the perkins engine would appreaciate it.

[Raptor1]

I see your hypothetical tanks and raise you one Obyekt 279!

Actually it's not all that big, but it still looks like it should be manned by bear cavalry.

It's especially awesome because it's called 'Object 279', one of the best codenames for such a thing ever...

[Oberon]

It's especially awesome because it's called 'Object 279', one of the best codenames for such a thing ever...

Kugelpanzer!

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5766/kugelpanzer26du.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

Best tank ever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REPFvge7xq0

edit- ya gotta love the "cyber armor" idea :)

[Happy Times]

Pics from an FDF exercise that ends today.

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/hake10/include/thumbnail.php?id=56&width=640

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/hake10/include/thumbnail.php?id=57&width=640

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/hake10/include/thumbnail.php?id=58&width=640

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/hake10/include/thumbnail.php?id=60&width=640

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/hake10/include/thumbnail.php?id=40&width=640

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/hake10/include/thumbnail.php?id=39&width=640

[UnderseaLcpl]

Is that glass I see in the barrel? Is this a variation of the ISMT or MILES systems?

[TLAM Strike]

edit- ya gotta love the "cyber armor" idea :)

Hehehe yea great idea having troops that keep fighting even after they are dead, kinda like in Space: Above and Beyond where the aliens had never heard of life after death until they heard of it from us. They took it literally and they assumed that half the army of Earth was made of zombies and the only way to stop them would be to chop up the humans they killed.


....... why was that show canceled.....

[Castout]

Well it's a personal ranking based on personal opinion alone.

I wouldn't care much or take it seriously. That specific youtube guys has been videoing various types of military machine ranking.

As for me the world's greatest tank is the think tank.
Honestly one should never put too much pride on military equipment or machines. Strategy, training and skills as well as motives play a major part in winning any war not just what kind of tank one drives into battle.

Realization must be made that it is ALWAYS easier to destroy than to build and when applied to tanking the arsenal and weaponry to destroy a sophisticated tank are so numerous, effective, much cheaper and widely spread & deployed that in a full scale war a tank crew is not expected to survive that long in his tank. No matter what people say there's no one invincible tank.

a Crewless tank perhaps holds the most advantage in terms of operational survivability in a battlefield environment imo just that none is deployed.

Then again the world is yet to have seen another full scale war since the Korean and Vietnam war. Iraq's first war wouldn't fit a full scale war to me. Iraqis were fighting with pretty much obsolete equipment and inferior numbers especially in the air.

The Soviet tanks are often mistaken for being very much inferior when the fact is that they were designed according to a different doctrine than the West relied on.
Soviet designed tanks are designed to be deployed in superior numbers to overwhelm Western Europe defenses. Their strength lies primarily in their numbers while the West opted for superior more sophisticated tank building. The Soviet thought oh well even the superior Nazi tanks crumbled by the sheer weight of numbers of the simpler T-34s so why fix what aint broken.

I think someone mentioned that tank crews ride into battle so they could arrive first and die first too. A tank attracts too much attention and begs for immediate enemy response be it from the ground or air.

[L.T]

would be awsome to have old "tankers" giving there opinion on this, and as one i will try to say what is important for me.

tv shows looks at statistics, and either they go with what history books say or they go for the "popularity" factor

Im a former LEO 1 and 2 driver even had 6 months in M-41DK1 drove the last Danish centurion to the scrap yard so i have kinda abit experience with atleast those tanks. But i have been fortunate enough to be at tank schools in the UK and Germany had some fun in poland and seen loads of MBT`s all over the world. (nothing like tank bust a base in a country you visit)

A tank in modern warfare is nothing like a tank in ww2. The German panther and Tiger is "if you look at the gun" the closest thing to a modern tank, but ww2 simply came down to numbers. A modern tank are not the same speerhead, a modern tank is more used in a supporting role, kinda like the stugg or jagdpanthers.

So what are the worlds best tank? well its hard to say.

Fuel used and range

How complicatet is it to maintain

How complicatet is it to repair

How complkicatet is it to move

How long does it take to train crew

How well does it protect the crew

How effective are the tank on the battle field (Guns/radio/logistics)

When i sit in a tank i need to know it wount break down under normal combat situations. I need to know that the systems are effective and reliable and i dont want to wach engine temp guage and fuel guage all the time. And if something go wrong i want to know it can be fixed either on spot or atleast fast in the repair shop.

I dont want it to be so complicatet that i cant learn the basics on how it all works (by them self) or as the full package, on a engineers level. I want to know how it work so i and the rest of the crew have a basic idea how to try to repair something, and a skill level so we can help the mech`s when they work on the tank.

For me a tank should be simple, with reliable simple systems that do the job. Easy to repair and easy to use. Tank warfare is complicatet and the last thing a tank crew should do was to use a complicatet system in a complicatet enviroment.

The T-34 is a war machine, built for massive attacks in great numbers, the numbers save it, not the tank it self (personaly i think the KV1 is a better tank because when intruduced it could hold its own ground)

And by experience, yes been driving one, that tank can hurt the crew as bad as the enemy, flat out dangerous to be in running fast over cross country

Tiger is simply over engineered way to complicatet.

Panther, werry poorly build, using parts with a history of breaking apart.

Here and now my favorite is the CH II, but that is from my "personal level"

If you want a digital battlefield with a way to complicatet engine you go for abrams

If you want top crew safety and "half" a MBT go with the merkava

You want a formula 1 tank that also is abit complicatet go with the leclerc

If you want simplicity and reliability go for a T-90

At this time there imo only two tanks that could be mentioned as the best tanks and that is the CH II and the leo II

On the battlefield the CH II have a slight upper hand, but for repairs and fixing the Leo is the one with an upper hand..

Its not a tank, but i have a big weak spot for the scorpion. In its day it was the best made "tank" and the two participating in the falklands war did more "setting fear into the enemy" than many MBT`s have done in the last few wars..

But in all its werry simple. The best tank is the one stil running after a campaign..

L.T

[Skybird]

Its not a tank, but i have a big weak spot for the scorpion. In its day it was the best made "tank" and the two participating in the falklands war did more "setting fear into the enemy" than many MBT`s have done in the last few wars..

Two? You mean "two troops", not "two tanks".

Combat use

Two troops from B Squadron, Blues and Royals (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Blues_and_Royals) served in the Falkland war (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Falkland_war). They were the only armoured vehicle used in action by the British Army during the conflict.

Scorpions also served in the Gulf war (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Gulf_war). The 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/1st_Queen%27s_Dragoon_Guards) a reconnaissance regiment had 32 and the close reconnaissance troops of the armoured regiments each had eight.


Im Falklandkrieg (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Falklandkrieg) kämpfte das britische Regiment Blues and Royals (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Blues_and_Royals) mit 4 Scorpion- und 4 Scimitar-Panzern.

Smartass intervention end. :D

[Schroeder]

Hmm, do I have a bad influence on someone.....:hmm2:

:D

[Jimbuna]

The Scorpion was an exceptional armoured recon vehicle in her day (entered service in 73).

http://www.enemyforces.net/tanks/scorpion.htm

[UnderseaLcpl]

Hehehe yea great idea having troops that keep fighting even after they are dead, kinda like in Space: Above and Beyond where the aliens had never heard of life after death until they heard of it from us. They took it literally and they assumed that half the army of Earth was made of zombies and the only way to stop them would be to chop up the humans they killed.


....... why was that show canceled.....

LOL, I don't know, I never saw it, but wasn't there an Isaac Asimov story where humans introduced natural death to alien races?

[Bilge_Rat]

L.T., good post.

I had a chance to talk to an officer in the Australian armored corps last year. Thay have M1A2 abrams and he talked about it like it was a sports car. Apparently, they run drills on the firing range where they will take off at full speed and the firing system is so sophisticated that they can detect, engage and hit targets with the first shot as if they were standing still.

modern tanks are infinitely more lethal than their ww2 counterparts. The big problem, however, is that the accuracy, range and lethality of its adversaries, namely airpower, AT missiles and RPGs has increased even faster.

At Kursk in 43, the german army was able to use its Tiger tanks to blast its way through the enemy lines and feel reasonably confident that no weapon in the Soviet arsenal could hurt it. Any army that tries the same thing now will just wind up with a lot of burning tanks.

Modern tanks are now in a similar position to WW2 battleships, no longer decisive weapons, but still useful in a supporting role.

[Skybird]

Hmm, do I have a bad influence on someone.....:hmm2:

:D
Gleich zu gleich gesellt sich gern! :O:

[TLAM Strike]

LOL, I don't know, I never saw it, but wasn't there an Isaac Asimov story where humans introduced natural death to alien races?

I think is was called "Hostess". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29)

[Schroeder]

Too bad there is hardly any info on the Kugelpanzer.
Someone must know something about it.:damn:

[UnderseaLcpl]

@TLAM Strike


That's it. Thanks for the reminder:up:

[Happy Times]

Is that glass I see in the barrel? Is this a variation of the ISMT or MILES systems?

At least the infantry uses MILES so most likely the tanks have the same.:salute:

Here you can see the system working in the HQ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7TVJLdBNU0

[STEED]

How many of those top ten tanks have been in combat?

[Jimbuna]

How many of those top ten tanks have been in combat?

Another interesting statistic would be how many have been lost in combat.....but that may need a pro rata response because the Abrams has possibly seen the most combat.

[STEED]

Indeed, these are war machines and to defined a top ten they must have been in combat, unless this is a top ten good looking tank. :rotfl2:

[Schroeder]

Indeed, these are war machines and to defined a top ten they must have been in combat, unless this is a top ten good looking tank. :rotfl2:
I don't agree with that.
That would mean, that all testing and all exercises are useless, which I doubt.
Tanks are tested for survivability under live fire (AFAIK) and their ability to engage targets and their reliability are tested throughout exercises against top notch tanks.
I don't think that any tank engagement in Iraq gave you different results from exercise engagements against other Nato tanks (except for that the other Nato tanks did surely pose more of a (simulated) threat than the outdated T 55s and T72s of Iraq).

[Task Force]

Kugelpanzer!

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5766/kugelpanzer26du.jpg

WOW, best tank ever!!! Those T34 commanders would be crying at the sight of it!!!

[Skybird]

Using the data from that tank-site Bilge Rat has olnked to on page 1, again I read that the latest German Tungsten round at 2000m is rated to have the same (indeed slightly higher) penetration power (I know I know, it is not really "penetration", but let's keep it simple, for sake of simplicity) than the third generation DU round that the Americans use. No surprise until here, I have read that before occasionally, and SBP even copies exactly the data given on that site in it's info tables about the ammunitions available in the sim. I assume it is due to different designs, and of course the higher muzzle velocity of the German ammunition.

I wonder if anybody has data on how both ammunitions compare at higher ranges of 3000 and 4000 meters? I would assume that at the greater ranges, the American DU gains an advantage over Tungsten, or do I assume wrong?

[Castout]

Though we never know for sure which is the best tank until they are pitched against each other in world war 3,

we could easily see which countries are most obsessed with tank building(developing)

In no particular order,
Germany, UK, Israel, and France being the latest comer.

I wouldn't put US or Russia as among countries most obsessed with tank building though.

[Castout]

To give an idea of how vulnerable a tank is just look at this picture


http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/canadian_leopard2a6.jpg
http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/canadian_leopard2a6.jpg%3Cu%3E

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1130/leopard2a6mcanada02vk0.jpg

Aint that stupid :D
A tank within the chicken cage.

[TLAM Strike]

To give an idea of how vulnerable a tank is just look at this picture


http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/canadian_leopard2a6.jpg
http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/canadian_leopard2a6.jpg%3Cu%3E

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1130/leopard2a6mcanada02vk0.jpg

Aint that stupid :D
A tank within the chicken cage.

Thats called Slat Armor. It detonates RPGs and other HEAT warheads before they strike the hull.

Its actually very smart, in the old days they would rig concertina wire around a parked tank to have the same effect. It worked good on RPGs but Recoiless Rifles tended to still get through and of course it couldn't be used while the tank was on the move.

[Castout]

I know what it is it tells in a clear manner that their default armor couldn't withstand these weapons. It tells that despite their armor they are vulnerable and necessitate the 'chicken cage' installed.

The slat armor are originally intended for light armor vehicles such as the Stryker combat systems. Their use into MBTs tell a loud message that MBTs are vulnerable too. ANd MBTs have only been donned these 'chicken cage' armors recently (well under 10 years time) and it was more like an emergency response to a sudden realization that AT weapons are catching up faster than what the experts had expected.

[TLAM Strike]

I know what it is it tells in a clear manner that their default armor couldn't withstand these weapons. It tells that despite their armor they are vulnerable and necessitate the 'chicken cage' installed.

The slat armor are originally intended for light armor vehicles such as the Stryker combat systems. Their use into MBTs tell a loud message that MBTs are vulnerable too. ANd MBTs have only been donned these 'chicken cage' armors recently (well under 10 years time) and it was more like an emergency response to a sudden realization that AT weapons are catching up faster than what the experts had expected.

SLAT armor is a simple solution to a simple problem. RPGs are only effective at close ranges- closer than the maximum range of the tank's weapons, the urban warfare the USA and USMC is being called on to do in Iraq forces their Tanks to fight within range of enemy RPGs. So its add armor (Slat armor is light, cheap and effective while addition conventional armor is heavy, expensive and would require a redesign) or fight at a distance- IE leveling the town.

Plus SLAT armor is less dangerous to accompanying infantry that ERA.

I assume they are using Slat armor in Afghanistan (based on those photos I assume that Afghanistan because of the mountains) because of "Ye Ole' RPG wired to a board on the side of the road" trick. The armor on those MBTs appears to be set up to defeat side attacks, which lends credit to that theory.

SLAT armor works great against HEAT, the traditional armor works great against SABOT. Its a win/win.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I know what it is it tells in a clear manner that their default armor couldn't withstand these weapons. It tells that despite their armor they are vulnerable and necessitate the 'chicken cage' installed.

The slat armor are originally intended for light armor vehicles such as the Stryker combat systems. Their use into MBTs tell a loud message that MBTs are vulnerable too. ANd MBTs have only been donned these 'chicken cage' armors recently (well under 10 years time) and it was more like an emergency response to a sudden realization that AT weapons are catching up faster than what the experts had expected.

That has been the case since the advent of gunpowder weapons. That's precisely why they develop things like slat armor, spaced armor, ERA, and skirt armor. They offer additional protection against low-velocity weapons that are specifically designed to penetrate armor.

I think you may be under the impression that there is some sort of armor that protects against all projectiles. That simply isn't the case. Even the most modern MBT in the world, the M1a2 Abrams, has a cage-armor turret bustle intended to deform armor-piercing projectiles before they reach the Cellular Amuunition Storage. The is no armor of proof in the modern world. Anti-tank missiles and projectiles have seen to that. There is only a combination of firepower, protection and mobility.

[Skybird]

I assume they are using Slat armor in Afghanistan (based on those photos I assume that Afghanistan because of the mountains)
The pics show Leo-2A6ers in Afghanistan indeed that are being leased and operated by the Canadians. To my knowledge it is the only place where this tank type, slat armour and Canadians all three come together. :DL

Castout,
most modern tanks allow for different armour sets additionally being attached to the tank, different armour configurations is part of the design. The selection depends on the mission. Not only slat armour, but plate armour as well. These packs also could be set off for travelling or transportation, for example. The difference in weight it possibly makes to a tank, could be up to 6, 8, even 10 tons.

Nothing in war is invulnerable, and like any other vehicle, a tank can get hurt and killed. Latest generation of RPG-7 ( a very long running, diverse series) can be a threat to even most modern tanks. You are right in trying to say that today a single man with a relatively light weapon can threaten a tank - but it has alwys been like this, with tanks, guns, helicopters, fighters.

That'S why these systems are being operated in cohesive units and team interaction. ;) The doctrine of how to operate which systems on what type of battlefield, changes over time, according to experiences made. despite the Israelis it was thought until "thunder run" that tanks and cities are a big non-no. Today tanks fighting in urban envrionments is part pof doctrine - and new tank versions have emerged (Leo PSO for example) that are specialised for right this environment .

And the Russians - they are still obsessed with tanks and heavy guns. They just cannot afford to build them by the high numbers anymore.

The new wars - assymmetric war - of course relativise many of the old military doctrines and strategema (sp?) The problem is that the militaries around the world still build and train for old-fashioned, traditional warfare amongst themselves - nations versus nations, tanks versus tanks etc - but additionally must adapt to these new asymmetric conflicts as well, which in parts make the old considerations of battle theories obsolete.

And if then you even have bad intel and are ill-preparted and underestimate the enemy who has a huge supply or even most modern ATGMs himself, then it ends like it ended for the Israelis in Lebanon 2006.

A tank is no wonder weapon. It's just a tank, not more, not less.

I also wouldn't say that Germany is obsessed with tanks. Germany just has a very long and solid tradition of having experience with tank building, and since this puts the Leopards in demand, Germany builds them by higher numbers. At least in regard to sales, nobody can deny that the Leopards are the most successful Western-build tanks that leaves both Abrams and Chally behind very clearly. Germany also is not "obsessed with submarines" just because it builds the currently probably best conventional submarines wordwide.

[Skybird]

Even the most modern MBT in the world, the M1a2 Abrams,

Yeah, open that can of worms again, why not... :DL;)

[Castout]

...

The armor on those MBTs appears to be set up to defeat side attacks, which lends credit to that theory.

SLAT armor works great against HEAT, the traditional armor works great against SABOT. Its a win/win.

It tells that the sides and rear cannot be expected to withstand some types of infantry carried Anti Tank weapons.

Chobham armor protects against both sabot and HEAT warhead but the necessasting of the installation of AD-HOC chicken cage protection around the sides and rear substantiates the suspicion that those areas are not well protected against more modern types of HEAT warheads be it RPG or ATGM type.





...

And the Russians - they are still obsessed with tanks and heavy guns. They just cannot afford to build them by the high numbers anymore.

...

And if then you even have bad intel and are ill-preparted and underestimate the enemy who has a huge supply or even most modern ATGMs himself, then it ends like it ended for the Israelis in Lebanon 2006.

A tank is no wonder weapon. It's just a tank, not more, not less.

I also wouldn't say that Germany is obsessed with tanks. Germany just has a very long and solid tradition of having experience with tank building, and since this puts the Leopards in demand, Germany builds them by higher numbers. At least in regard to sales, nobody can deny that the Leopards are the most successful Western-build tanks that leaves both Abrams and Chally behind very clearly. Germany also is not "obsessed with submarines" just because it builds the currently probably best conventional submarines wordwide.

Umm I used the word obsessed liberally to indicate rapid development and design progress and update. In this case the countries that I mentioned fell within this category while the Russians and Americans are not or at lesser degree. :DL. Well it was more like a personal opinion which may not always be right or agreed upon .

Yea 2006 was bad for Israel. Traumatizing and disappointing indeed for the Israeli soldiers and population in general. Talk about about bad intel. Israel has always been known to be able to defend their homeland against aggression ferociously and gallantly but less when it comes to invading another country it's another matter entirely.

[Skybird]

when it comes to invading another country

Invasion? Not in my book, and I tend to see it more like wikipedia also defines it:


The term invasion usually denotes a strategic (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Military_strategy) endeavor of substantial magnitude; because the goals of an invasion are usually large-scale and long-term, a sizeable force is needed to hold territory, and protect the interests of the invading entity. Smaller-scale, tactical (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Military_tactics) cross-border (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Border) actions, such as skirmishes (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Skirmisher), sorties (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Sortie), raids (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Raid_(military)), infiltrations (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Infiltration_tactics) or guerrilla warfare (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare), are not generally considered invasions. A military endeavor to take back territory that is tenuously held by an initial invader during the course of war is instead generally called a counter-offensive (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Counter-offensive).

The key terms here are "long-term" and "hold territory". In that Hezbollah has raided Israel's North in open provokation since long before, both with commandos on the ground and missiles androckets, the cross border operation by the IDF in my book is a counter-offensive. It was clear from beginning on that Israel eniether had the inention nor was prepared to conquer ground and seize it for long time to come. The operation was meant to go in, kill as much of Hezbollah as possible, and then go out again. Unfortuntely, one had msassively underestimated Hezbollah.

Just months later, Hezbollah was reported to have re-armed to even greater strength than before, trained and equipped by Iran. So much for that European hobby of having EU ships patrolling the Lebanese coast up and down, killing time.

[TLAM Strike]

It tells that the sides and rear cannot be expected to withstand some types of infantry carried Anti Tank weapons.
Name a tank that can! :damn: What the Tiger? Close but its rear end could still be penetrated by the infantry portable AT weapons of the day.

Tanks are built to punch though enemy forces so they have the heaviest armor on the front. The Taliban and AQ forces don't fight a conventional battle so will not provide a solid defensive line for US forces to punch though or provide a mass assault to defend against. Taliban and AQ attack aiming for the weak points, slat armor removes or minimizes the weak points susceptibility to HEAT warheads with out adding the weight of additional "steel" armor. (Yes I know not really "steel" but lets keep things simple here).

Chobham armor protects against both sabot and HEAT warhead but the necessasting of the installation of AD-HOC chicken cage protection around the sides and rear substantiates the suspicion that those areas are not well protected against more modern types of HEAT warheads be it RPG or ATGM type. But Chobham armor is heavy, it protects against both but its still HEAVY! Slat armor is light and protects against HEAT only however when was the last time you saw a Taliban fighter with a gun that could fire a SABOT round?

Tankers over there are forced to drive up one lane dirt roads where they are subject to attack from the sides. In a conventional battle most current MBTs were built for they would no do this! They would fight line abreast with infantry guarding their flanks or in some other formation that minimizes exposure of the weaker side and rear armor.

Slat armor is simply the adapting of the current MBTs to a less than optimal situation where the addition of additional steel armor would be wasteful and unnecessary.

[Castout]

Invasion? Not in my book, and I tend to see it more like wikipedia also defines it:



The key terms here are "long-term" and "hold territory". In that Hezbollah has raided Israel's North in open provokation since long before, both with commandos on the ground and missiles androckets, the cross border operation by the IDF in my book is a counter-offensive. It was clear from beginning on that Israel eniether had the inention nor was prepared to conquer ground and seize it for long time to come. The operation was meant to go in, kill as much of Hezbollah as possible, and then go out again. Unfortuntely, one had msassively underestimated Hezbollah.

Just months later, Hezbollah was reported to have re-armed to even greater strength than before, trained and equipped by Iran. So much for that European hobby of having EU ships patrolling the Lebanese coast up and down, killing time.

Okay agreed invasion was not the right word for it :DL

[Castout]

...

But Chobham armor is heavy, it protects against both but its still HEAVY! Slat armor is light and protects against HEAT only however when was the last time you saw a Taliban fighter with a gun that could fire a SABOT round?

...

Slat armor is simply the adapting of the current MBTs to a less than optimal situation where the addition of additional steel armor would be wasteful and unnecessary.

Why weren't they be protected by slats armor before?
The thing is slats armor or chicken cage protection for MBTs is an ad-hoc(temporary emergency fix) solution to immediate threat just realized. At least until newer chobham could better protect tanks' sides against HEAT warheads.

Actually Chobham is light compared to conventional steel armor and one of the main purpose is to lighten a tank weight to afford it some more maneuverability with enhanced protection.

Anyway I'm a tank enthusiast and seeing slat or chicken cage armor installed on a main battle tank is just ridiculous to me. It directly points to inadequacy of their default protection. Kind of heart breaking because it made MBTs look silly. It made the tanks look like a wimpy sheep to me meaning I hate it.
It's like seeing a caged lion but the purpose of the cage is to protect the lion from the crowd instead and not the other way around.

I hope better chobham armor could be produced and installed to get rid of the necessity to install these chicken cage armor to MBTs. It may look good on Stryker but for God sake now way for MBTs. Though I can understand the reasoning behind them.

[TLAM Strike]

Why weren't they be protected by slats armor before?
The thing is slats armor or chicken cage protection for MBTs is an ad-hoc(temporary emergency fix) solution to immediate threat just realized. At least until newer chobham could better protect tanks' sides against HEAT warheads.

See previous post:

Tankers over there are forced to drive up one lane dirt roads where they are subject to attack from the sides. In a conventional battle most current MBTs were built for they would no do this! They would fight line abreast with infantry guarding their flanks or in some other formation that minimizes exposure of the weaker side and rear armor.

Anyway I'm a tank enthusiast and seeing slat or chicken cage armor installed on a main battle tank is just ridiculous to me. It directly points to inadequacy of their default protection. Kind of heart breaking because it made MBTs look silly. It made the tanks look like a wimpy sheep to me meaning I hate it.
It's like seeing a caged lion but the purpose of the cage is to protect the lion from the crowd instead and not the other way around.

I hope better chobham armor could be produced and installed to get rid of the necessity to install these chicken cage armor to MBTs. It may look good on Stryker but for God sake now way for MBTs. Though I can understand the reasoning behind them.Think of that "chicken cage" this way... Look at both those pictures above? What do you see in the the Slat Armor? Kit, lots of kit- spare parts, ammo, water, whatever the crew needs out in the bush to keep their tank going. You can't store gear in Cobham armor. ;)

[krashkart]

Here's my vote:

http://www.tankdoctor.com.au/images/large/tank_repair_rust5.jpg


:yeah:

[TLAM Strike]

Here's my vote:

http://www.tankdoctor.com.au/images/large/tank_repair_rust5.jpg


:yeah:

Is that part of your home made still Krashkart? :03:

[Skybird]

Anyway I'm a tank enthusiast and seeing slat or chicken cage armor installed on a main battle tank is just ridiculous to me. It directly points to inadequacy of their default protection. Kind of heart breaking because it made MBTs look silly. It made the tanks look like a wimpy sheep to me meaning I hate it.
It's like seeing a caged lion but the purpose of the cage is to protect the lion from the crowd instead and not the other way around.

I hope better chobham armor could be produced and installed to get rid of the necessity to install these chicken cage armor to MBTs. It may look good on Stryker but for God sake now way for MBTs. Though I can understand the reasoning behind them.
I love my enemies in war favouring cosmetics over efficiency - it gives me the easiest possible fight.

Do some research on the difference in any kind of armour for kinetic and chemical ammunition - you always have TWO ratings describing the protection of armour at a given spot of the tank - the protection against two basically different types of projectiles, SABOT and HEAT. The first rating may say "equals 740 mm of RHAe (steel) against SABOT", while the same armour may have a rating of 1860 mm of RHAe against chemical warheads". The differences can be huge, and the relations between both values is not linear and is no constant, because the way in which different pieces of armour on different parts of the tank are produced, varies.

the only question with slat armour is: does it serve it'S intended purpose and does it offer the protection against certain types of ammon, yes or no? If it does serve its function, then it looks good and nice. If it does not, then it looks ugly. the only thing that always looks ugly, is a sexy-looking tank that is burning.

"Caged lion" - now, come on, why the dramatic language? That is pathetic.

[Castout]

That has been the case since the advent of gunpowder weapons. That's precisely why they develop things like slat armor, spaced armor, ERA, and skirt armor. They offer additional protection against low-velocity weapons that are specifically designed to penetrate armor.

I think you may be under the impression that there is some sort of armor that protects against all projectiles. That simply isn't the case. Even the most modern MBT in the world, the M1a2 Abrams, has a cage-armor turret bustle intended to deform armor-piercing projectiles before they reach the Cellular Amuunition Storage. The is no armor of proof in the modern world. Anti-tank missiles and projectiles have seen to that. There is only a combination of firepower, protection and mobility.

Yea I'm aware of the turret rack bustle in M1 tanks but that looks good on the tank while slat armor well . . .

Actually chobham protects against all just that tandem HEAT warheads pose great risk because the ceramics is only so thick.

ERA looks great on tank because they are properly put on the tanks surfaces.

I know I'm complaining about a tank's aesthetic aspect when given slat armor and it's ridiculous but I'm a ridiculous man :D

ERA, spaced armor, angled armor, and skirt armor as well as chobham were all born from tank designers and incorporated well into the inherent design while slat armors were never meant to protect MBTs as far as I knowand was only added as an ad-hoc solution.

But I never meant to argue, just saying that I hate slat armors on MBTs though I accept the reasoning behind them and I believe it's fairly easy to defeat the slat armors it just needs a preceding explosive to open the way for the the real warhead to pass through. With a little innovation this could be added to AT weapon system and or warhead. It would just make anti tank weapons a little heavier.

[TLAM Strike]

:o
Anyone notice that ad at the top of the page for THIS (http://www.sementanks.com/?gclid=CN7hpam4naICFQu-sgodDAn-xw)site!

:damn: O M F G.... tank.... WRONG TANK....... :doh:

[nikimcbee]

Is it just me, or do all these tanks look the same (more or less):doh:

[Jimbuna]

:o
Anyone notice that ad at the top of the page for THIS (http://www.sementanks.com/?gclid=CN7hpam4naICFQu-sgodDAn-xw)site!

:damn: O M F G.... tank.... WRONG TANK....... :doh:

No....but I have now :o:dead:

[Castout]

...

Do some research on the difference in any kind of armour for kinetic and chemical ammunition - you always have TWO ratings describing the protection of armour at a given spot of the tank - the protection against two basically different types of projectiles, SABOT and HEAT. The first rating may say "equals 740 mm of RHAe (steel) against SABOT", while the same armour may have a rating of 1860 mm of RHAe against chemical warheads". The differences can be huge, and the relations between both values is not linear and is no constant, because the way in which different pieces of armour on different parts of the tank are produced, varies.

....


Umm I'm aware of that :DL

but nobody is going to tell a detailed accurate rating of any modern main MBTs.