An M1A2 can hit over 70 MPH if you remove the govener? - Page 3

Kapitan · 08-27-09, 01:22 PM

The alison gear box which we use in our dust carts are excellent gear boxes i think they are the same type although more modified for the challenger, i have 12 forward gears 2 reverse where the challenger has 24 forward and 4 reverse , but i haave an advantage i have opti tronic gear haha ! (means i get to select the gear rather than wait for it) they last pretty much a life time these boxes and are highly loved around the transport industry.

One flaw in the boxes are that they clunk into reverse heavily they havnt worked that out yet but forwards its like your just constantly cruising.

BulSoldier · 08-27-09, 01:32 PM

Is it only me or there arent fans here of russian armor

t80 , t90 may be, or the mystereous black eagle ?

Biggles · 08-27-09, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulSoldier

Is it only me or there arent fans here of russian armor

t80 , t90 may be, or the mystereous black eagle ?

Was thinking about the T80 just now. I don't know much about tanks or modern weaponry, is it still in service?

Raptor1 · 08-27-09, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggles

Was thinking about the T80 just now. I don't know much about tanks or modern weaponry, is it still in service?

Yes, it is.

Kapitan · 08-27-09, 01:53 PM

T80 still active and is a nice tank the T90 is its sucesor and is just as equally nice and i rekon it is also in the running for top tank but i aint too sure on its specs, or what its truly capible of.

Skybird · 08-27-09, 04:26 PM

T-80:
produced in reasonable numbers, while the T-90 so far made minor production appearances, although that changes slowly, so far mainly due to export calls, but also due to growing russian demand.

T-80 also is gas turbine driven, making it fast and one of the most mobile tanks in forward, the turbine has less HP than the Western tanks, but the tanks is smaller and lighter in weight. It was intended for use in guards regiments and - divisions. Mintenance however is said to be much more severe and complex, compared to Western tanks. the tank is very hot and thus easy to spot in TIS, like the Abrams. It's range with one tank filling is significantly shorter , shorter than the Abams' and much shorter than the Leopard's, I believe to remember around 350 km. It has thermals sights and a 125mm gun. It fires guided ATGM launched via the gun tube at ranges of 5000+ meters, which makes maximum engagement ranges greater than that of Western tanks, if visibility conditions allow, however, Russian SABOTS were needed in bigger quantities (they must maintain a much bigger tankforce due to their enormous territory), and thus their fiancial supplies allowed only so much developement work for coinventional SABOT rounds. where america bases on DU and Germany on Tungsten, Russia still uses steel for penetrator rods, although maybe that has changed in most recent years, I don't know. the tank has an autoloader and thus a crew of 3, like all russian tanks the ammo is stored within the crew comparetment, making it a death trap in case of fire and almost any penetrating hit in the ammo storage area. Crew protection in T-72 and T-80 is said to be extremely low. But the thing is a relatively heavy bug, not easy to crack open. The T-80 is reasonably well-armoured (though not as well-protected like modern Western tanks) and uses external reactive armour as well. Head-on it can prove surprisingly difficult to be killed at the preferred western engagement range, which is medium (on that, see below). On eof the weak spot is the roof armour, which is much weaker than in western tanks. T-80s suffered heavy casualties in Chechnya if fired upon with RPG from superelevated positions, also by flanking shots.

My speculation - just that: my subjective novice speculation! - is that where flanking is not possible, Western tanks would prefer to engage it at medium ranges, maximising the advantages of their own Sabot which is superior in effectiveness to Russian Sabot designs, that means below the range where they can effectively use their gun-launched ATGMs, but above the range where the distance is so low that even Russian Sabots can penetrate Western Chobham and composite armour. 2000-3000m may be a reasonable guess.

The T-80 must be tactically dealt with. It is no sitting duck like a T-72. I do not want to say it equals modernWetsern tanks, but it should not be taken as a lightweight, especially when it is operated by Russian "wave"-doctrin: which means it comes in high numbers.

The T-90 is an improvemnt using compinents and features of both the T-72 and T-80, in parts heavily modifying them. It uses the fire control system of the T-80, and is a bit better protected, it also features a defensive system that projects a misleading infrared signature by two infrared lights at the front and rear to irritate incoming infrared-guided ATGMs. despite several export versions, the russians have less than 300 T-90s in operation and plan to modernise 300 more T-72 to the standard of the T-90. Beyond that they have ambitious numerical goals. If they will meet them remains to be seen.

I personally would not like the idea to go to war in a Russian tank. That pretty much qualifies as a nightmare, in my opinion. their major advantages are their small silhouette, and their ATGM ammunition. everything else I see as inferior not only to top notch Western designs, but partially even to some older wetsern versions. And "crew protection" probably is a word that cannot even be translated into Russian.

It is said russian equipement is primitive, but sturdy. That may be true for the AK-47, and many of their missiles and probbaly many other things - but definitely not for their IFVs and tanks.

P.S. I read that a Challenger-2 got stuck and immobilised due to terrain during the Iraq War. It then swallowed around 90 RPG shots from all angles, damaging it's sights, but not penetrating the armour, leaving engine and crew unhurt. After they got relieved, the sights were repaired in 6 hours, and then the tank was sent back into operation.

If that is true, that is very impressive!

Jimbuna · 08-28-09, 07:26 AM

T-90 specs:

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

08-28-09, 09:30 AM

I think we just need pictures of flying tanks to decide this. :rotfl:

Skybird · 08-28-09, 11:20 AM

Now tell me, Rilder: did it help?

Skybird · 08-28-09, 11:21 AM

(

)

Jimbuna · 08-28-09, 11:54 AM

LMAO

Cohaagen · 08-29-09, 07:32 AM

The Chally's on-paper top road speed can't compare to the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Leclerc, but its cross-country performance betters all of them thanks to the hydrogas suspension. The US and Germany toyed with hydro-pneumatic suspension in the 70s as part of their collaborative tank design but couldn't get it to work - it leaked constantly and generally turned the tank into a maintenance nightmare. Britain, however, had a large civilian engineering knowledge base with a huge amount of experience with the so-called hydrogas system (developed for road vehicles by Leyland who, BTW, also designed the Chieftain tank which preceded Challengers 1 and 2). What I've heard from those who have experienced both is that CR2's ride over severe terrain is superior compared to either the German or US tank. Torsion bar suspension, used on the M1, is a pretty ancient but reliable tech, and helps keep weight and maintenance down.

As far as armour goes, Dorchester is it when it comes to MBT passive protection. Those famous stories of multiple RPGs barely scratching the armour are no exaggeration:

Estimates of armour thickness, RHA equivalence, etc that you find on the web are rubbish. They aren't even educated guesses - it's just some guy pulling figures out his arse. It is pretty certain though, with all the evidence from Iraq, that CR2 is more or less immune from RPGs and man-portable AT weapons, and the new armour pack with extra Chobham and reactive panels improves protection even further.

What few people know is that the engine is remapped to take care of the extra weight that comes from all the in-theatre fits. The Perkins CV12 in the RWS-equipped Chally above will be putting out the best part of 1500bhp (according to a old schoolfriend who is now a tank commander in the Scots Dragoon Guards, anyway).

The only Challenger 2 ever lost was due to a tragic blue-on-blue. Another CR2 put two HESH rounds into it from behind. The first blew the driver out of his station, the next, by sheer fluke and the arcing trajectory of HESH, actually part entered the turret (via an open hatch) and detonated on the hatch ring. You can imagine the result of nearly 20kg of plastic explosives in the turret confines

.

PS - I can also testify that Challenger 2 has THE comfiest commander's seat of any current MBT

.

Skybird · 08-29-09, 08:09 AM

Just want to point out that it makes little sense to talk of "the" RPG-7. There are almost 3 dozen different warhead versions being produced and in operation for it, whose penetration power vary from the weakest to the strongest by a factor of 8.

Also, there are much tougher RPGs than the RPG-7 series available from Russia, and other shoulder-launched Panzerfaust-weapons from other nation's production. Chobham armour is optimnsied for withstanding especially HE and HEAT-typed (explosive) warheads. It's original design saw no comparable increases in resistance to SABOT (kinetic) ammunition, becasue ceramics that withstand explosions quite well, deal not well with kinetic impacts - that'S when they started to included spaced layers of soft materials as well. Still the resistance to explosive impacts still is very significantly higher than that to kinetic impacts.

BTW, I do not wish to give an impression as if wanting to talk down the Challenger-2. I know little about it, but time and again I read it has a very good reputation. It's just that I do not believe in total invulnerability, or a maximisation of all three tank-variables possible (speed/mobility, armour/weight, and firepower/weapon-type and -size). In 2006, a Challenger-2's hull armour was penetrated by an RPG-29 hit, injuring the driver seriously. One year later, Iraqi insurgents penetrated the lower hull armour again with an IED. So, invulnerable it is not even if not firing with Sabots at it. Tank design is about getting the best balance of these three variables speed/weight/firepower, which all - individually as well as in mutal interaction - are object to limitations in physic's laws, and also get influenced by military expectations and demands for mission profiles: or the type of enemy a tank is most likely expected to fight against. That's why I do not really agree with a description of the Leopard as being the "best" tank in the world. People saying that all in all it may be the best balanced tank imo are much closer to the truth.

Anyway, comparing tanks in tank forums often turns out to be a discussion of religion anyway.

P.S. And today I have learned what Dorchester armour is. Didn't know that.

Jimbuna · 08-29-09, 11:28 AM

Dorchester as correctly pointed out by Cohaagen is the latest variant of Chobham used on Challenger 2 and Abrams, but not the Leopard which uses pure perforated armour (I don't know why).

Here is a Wiki link (appears to be quite accurate....makes a change)

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

An example of a typical tank discussion forum....bless em

http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread59584/pg2

If you read on you might eventually get to know who had the biggest dick

Max2147 · 08-29-09, 12:29 PM

The Challenger 2 is quite good off road, as Top Gear found out:

My impression was that the tank could have hit him a lot sooner, but they held off just to make it more fun.

08-27-09, 01:22 PM	#31
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,134 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	The alison gear box which we use in our dust carts are excellent gear boxes i think they are the same type although more modified for the challenger, i have 12 forward gears 2 reverse where the challenger has 24 forward and 4 reverse , but i haave an advantage i have opti tronic gear haha ! (means i get to select the gear rather than wait for it) they last pretty much a life time these boxes and are highly loved around the transport industry. One flaw in the boxes are that they clunk into reverse heavily they havnt worked that out yet but forwards its like your just constantly cruising. __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

08-27-09, 01:32 PM	#32
BulSoldier Samurai Navy Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Burgas/Bulgaria Posts: 550 Downloads: 40 Uploads: 0	Is it only me or there arent fans here of russian armor t80 , t90 may be, or the mystereous black eagle ? __________________ By the hour !

08-27-09, 01:53 PM	#35
Kapitan Sub Test Pilot Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: UK + Canada Posts: 7,134 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 7	T80 still active and is a nice tank the T90 is its sucesor and is just as equally nice and i rekon it is also in the running for top tank but i aint too sure on its specs, or what its truly capible of. __________________ DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/ Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/ Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

08-27-09, 04:26 PM	#36
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,819 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	T-80: produced in reasonable numbers, while the T-90 so far made minor production appearances, although that changes slowly, so far mainly due to export calls, but also due to growing russian demand. T-80 also is gas turbine driven, making it fast and one of the most mobile tanks in forward, the turbine has less HP than the Western tanks, but the tanks is smaller and lighter in weight. It was intended for use in guards regiments and - divisions. Mintenance however is said to be much more severe and complex, compared to Western tanks. the tank is very hot and thus easy to spot in TIS, like the Abrams. It's range with one tank filling is significantly shorter , shorter than the Abams' and much shorter than the Leopard's, I believe to remember around 350 km. It has thermals sights and a 125mm gun. It fires guided ATGM launched via the gun tube at ranges of 5000+ meters, which makes maximum engagement ranges greater than that of Western tanks, if visibility conditions allow, however, Russian SABOTS were needed in bigger quantities (they must maintain a much bigger tankforce due to their enormous territory), and thus their fiancial supplies allowed only so much developement work for coinventional SABOT rounds. where america bases on DU and Germany on Tungsten, Russia still uses steel for penetrator rods, although maybe that has changed in most recent years, I don't know. the tank has an autoloader and thus a crew of 3, like all russian tanks the ammo is stored within the crew comparetment, making it a death trap in case of fire and almost any penetrating hit in the ammo storage area. Crew protection in T-72 and T-80 is said to be extremely low. But the thing is a relatively heavy bug, not easy to crack open. The T-80 is reasonably well-armoured (though not as well-protected like modern Western tanks) and uses external reactive armour as well. Head-on it can prove surprisingly difficult to be killed at the preferred western engagement range, which is medium (on that, see below). On eof the weak spot is the roof armour, which is much weaker than in western tanks. T-80s suffered heavy casualties in Chechnya if fired upon with RPG from superelevated positions, also by flanking shots. My speculation - just that: my subjective novice speculation! - is that where flanking is not possible, Western tanks would prefer to engage it at medium ranges, maximising the advantages of their own Sabot which is superior in effectiveness to Russian Sabot designs, that means below the range where they can effectively use their gun-launched ATGMs, but above the range where the distance is so low that even Russian Sabots can penetrate Western Chobham and composite armour. 2000-3000m may be a reasonable guess. The T-80 must be tactically dealt with. It is no sitting duck like a T-72. I do not want to say it equals modernWetsern tanks, but it should not be taken as a lightweight, especially when it is operated by Russian "wave"-doctrin: which means it comes in high numbers. The T-90 is an improvemnt using compinents and features of both the T-72 and T-80, in parts heavily modifying them. It uses the fire control system of the T-80, and is a bit better protected, it also features a defensive system that projects a misleading infrared signature by two infrared lights at the front and rear to irritate incoming infrared-guided ATGMs. despite several export versions, the russians have less than 300 T-90s in operation and plan to modernise 300 more T-72 to the standard of the T-90. Beyond that they have ambitious numerical goals. If they will meet them remains to be seen. I personally would not like the idea to go to war in a Russian tank. That pretty much qualifies as a nightmare, in my opinion. their major advantages are their small silhouette, and their ATGM ammunition. everything else I see as inferior not only to top notch Western designs, but partially even to some older wetsern versions. And "crew protection" probably is a word that cannot even be translated into Russian. It is said russian equipement is primitive, but sturdy. That may be true for the AK-47, and many of their missiles and probbaly many other things - but definitely not for their IFVs and tanks. P.S. I read that a Challenger-2 got stuck and immobilised due to terrain during the Iraq War. It then swallowed around 90 RPG shots from all angles, damaging it's sights, but not penetrating the armour, leaving engine and crew unhurt. After they got relieved, the sights were repaired in 6 hours, and then the tank was sent back into operation. If that is true, that is very impressive! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-27-09 at 04:39 PM.

08-28-09, 07:26 AM	#37
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 191,500 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	T-90 specs: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/ __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-28-09, 09:30 AM	#38
Rilder Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I think we just need pictures of flying tanks to decide this. :rotfl:

08-28-09, 11:20 AM	#39
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,819 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Now tell me, Rilder: did it help? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-28-09, 11:21 AM	#40
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,819 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	( ) __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-28-09, 11:54 AM	#41
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 191,500 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	LMAO __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-29-09, 07:32 AM	#42
Cohaagen Frogman Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 296 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	The Chally's on-paper top road speed can't compare to the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Leclerc, but its cross-country performance betters all of them thanks to the hydrogas suspension. The US and Germany toyed with hydro-pneumatic suspension in the 70s as part of their collaborative tank design but couldn't get it to work - it leaked constantly and generally turned the tank into a maintenance nightmare. Britain, however, had a large civilian engineering knowledge base with a huge amount of experience with the so-called hydrogas system (developed for road vehicles by Leyland who, BTW, also designed the Chieftain tank which preceded Challengers 1 and 2). What I've heard from those who have experienced both is that CR2's ride over severe terrain is superior compared to either the German or US tank. Torsion bar suspension, used on the M1, is a pretty ancient but reliable tech, and helps keep weight and maintenance down. As far as armour goes, Dorchester is it when it comes to MBT passive protection. Those famous stories of multiple RPGs barely scratching the armour are no exaggeration: Estimates of armour thickness, RHA equivalence, etc that you find on the web are rubbish. They aren't even educated guesses - it's just some guy pulling figures out his arse. It is pretty certain though, with all the evidence from Iraq, that CR2 is more or less immune from RPGs and man-portable AT weapons, and the new armour pack with extra Chobham and reactive panels improves protection even further. What few people know is that the engine is remapped to take care of the extra weight that comes from all the in-theatre fits. The Perkins CV12 in the RWS-equipped Chally above will be putting out the best part of 1500bhp (according to a old schoolfriend who is now a tank commander in the Scots Dragoon Guards, anyway). The only Challenger 2 ever lost was due to a tragic blue-on-blue. Another CR2 put two HESH rounds into it from behind. The first blew the driver out of his station, the next, by sheer fluke and the arcing trajectory of HESH, actually part entered the turret (via an open hatch) and detonated on the hatch ring. You can imagine the result of nearly 20kg of plastic explosives in the turret confines . PS - I can also testify that Challenger 2 has THE comfiest commander's seat of any current MBT .

08-29-09, 08:09 AM	#43
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,819 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Just want to point out that it makes little sense to talk of "the" RPG-7. There are almost 3 dozen different warhead versions being produced and in operation for it, whose penetration power vary from the weakest to the strongest by a factor of 8. Also, there are much tougher RPGs than the RPG-7 series available from Russia, and other shoulder-launched Panzerfaust-weapons from other nation's production. Chobham armour is optimnsied for withstanding especially HE and HEAT-typed (explosive) warheads. It's original design saw no comparable increases in resistance to SABOT (kinetic) ammunition, becasue ceramics that withstand explosions quite well, deal not well with kinetic impacts - that'S when they started to included spaced layers of soft materials as well. Still the resistance to explosive impacts still is very significantly higher than that to kinetic impacts. BTW, I do not wish to give an impression as if wanting to talk down the Challenger-2. I know little about it, but time and again I read it has a very good reputation. It's just that I do not believe in total invulnerability, or a maximisation of all three tank-variables possible (speed/mobility, armour/weight, and firepower/weapon-type and -size). In 2006, a Challenger-2's hull armour was penetrated by an RPG-29 hit, injuring the driver seriously. One year later, Iraqi insurgents penetrated the lower hull armour again with an IED. So, invulnerable it is not even if not firing with Sabots at it. Tank design is about getting the best balance of these three variables speed/weight/firepower, which all - individually as well as in mutal interaction - are object to limitations in physic's laws, and also get influenced by military expectations and demands for mission profiles: or the type of enemy a tank is most likely expected to fight against. That's why I do not really agree with a description of the Leopard as being the "best" tank in the world. People saying that all in all it may be the best balanced tank imo are much closer to the truth. Anyway, comparing tanks in tank forums often turns out to be a discussion of religion anyway. P.S. And today I have learned what Dorchester armour is. Didn't know that. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-29-09 at 08:29 AM.

08-29-09, 11:28 AM	#44
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 191,500 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Dorchester as correctly pointed out by Cohaagen is the latest variant of Chobham used on Challenger 2 and Abrams, but not the Leopard which uses pure perforated armour (I don't know why). Here is a Wiki link (appears to be quite accurate....makes a change) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour An example of a typical tank discussion forum....bless em http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread59584/pg2 If you read on you might eventually get to know who had the biggest dick __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-29-09, 12:29 PM	#45
Max2147 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 714 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The Challenger 2 is quite good off road, as Top Gear found out: My impression was that the tank could have hit him a lot sooner, but they held off just to make it more fun.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode