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

[Cohaagen]

I think speculation as to the composition of original Chobham and Dorchester is pointless. I remember reading military periodicals, reference books, part works like In Combat! (remember that?) during the 80s. Many of them, with quite the air of authority, stated frequently that the "Stillbrew" applique armour on the turret of the Chieftain was Chobham, or some form of advanced laminate. It actually turned out to be a BFO thick chunk of steel with multiple layers of hard rubber backing . Still, it made the turret almost as tough as Challenger 1...supposedly. But then, post-war British tanks have always enjoyed an unrivalled reputation for protection. I remember speaking to one of the REME bods responsible for up-armouring the old Centurion AVREs (165mm gun) for Gulf War 1. They were instructed to make the frontal arc immune to third-gen ATGMs....and succeeded within weight specs. Not bad for a design dating to 1943.

Skybird: in the RPG-29 incident, the warhead went through a roadwheel and penetrated a part of the tank not covered by Dorchester - that comes straight from the squadron in question. As for the IED - yes, as a lot of journalists at the time failed to realise, it's just a matter of making a bomb big enough...no tank is invulnerable, despite the fact that they (incorrectly) assumed that CR2 had been claimed as such. Any insurgent group that has the ability to tie a few old Soviet 130mm artillery shells together has the power to destroy a modern Western MBT.

It is worth noting that Challenger 2 has taken a third-gen MILAN hit and survived. This was in the notorious incident where it also took multiple RPG-7s. The MILAN was captured from an abandoned Royal Marines WMIK Land Rover. MILAN 3 has a tandem warhead. Incidentally, the tank was disabled in this incident - because the driver panicked and backed them into a ditch. Apparently he wouldn't even open his hatch three hours later when relief arrived .

Were I to go to war in a tank tomorrow, I would wish to go in a Chally. If I wanted to go to the shops, I'd take a Scimitar. Now that is a fun tank. If any UK Subsimmers ever see Scimitars for hire on driving outings, please take the opportunity. It is the most fun you can have without getting sticky in some way . Bashing along the road at 55mph+ in an 8-tonne tank with a 30mm cannon above your head is about as good as it gets. Despite its reputation as the proverbial "leetle tank", a Blues & Royals Scimitar knocked out a T-55 in the first Gulf unpleasantness in 1991. That must have taken stones like Easter Island statues.

What about the Merkava?



http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...erkavaMk3.html

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience.

Can I ask how you measured the speed? That seems a bit fast.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html#M113A1

Top road speed is listed at 40 and I never was able to get a 113 above that.

The speedometers on our 113's were off a lot due to the vibrations and abuse and I don't think we ever used them in convoy. We just had pacer vehicles and intervals.

[SUBMAN1]

The short answer, no diesel powered tank is going to do much better than 45 MPH, and an M-113 - forget it.

-S

[Kapitan]

Dont be too surprised as it goes dust carts which are not made for off road and the small ones 17 tonners only have 130bhp roughly and can still make 50 over a land fill site so could a tank probably.

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

Not even YouTube would play host to comments as sh--headed and retarded as those.

That said, here's some things I learned from that thread:

• Apparently there's a tank factory in the "city" of Chobham (pop. 3500), and "Abrahams" tanks (fuelled by latkes, brisket and chicken soup presumably) are regularly seen passing through because the richest country on earth can't build tanks worth a fart without outside help
• People who can't spell, or indeed type, are nevertheless aware of the existence of "Chobham Mk5" even though the MoD isn't.
• The Merkava is based on a Chinese tank, in the best tradition of age-old Sino-Israeli military cooperation.
• Forget Janes - people posting on strategypage.com can be accepted with total veracity and are telling you absolute FACT. If they say they were an M1 platoon commander in Iraq 1991, by George they're giving ya' the straight dope. God bless Jim Dunnigan, the autistic John Milius of wargaming.
• As long as there are inadequate morons obsessed with warfare this - http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm - stupid sodding website just won't go away.
• Far from being an obsure British project unknown to the US until it fell in their laps in the early 70s, Chobham armour was actually a joint top-secret black ops black-budget majestic-classified project between America and Britain.
• Almost no one on abovetopsecret.com is older than 13, and those that are have never had sex with a lady

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

Frankly, I think they've all got GG Allin penises.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Can I ask how you measured the speed? That seems a bit fast.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html#M113A1

Top road speed is listed at 40 and I never was able to get a 113 above that.

The speedometers on our 113's were off a lot due to the vibrations and abuse and I don't think we ever used them in convoy. We just had pacer vehicles and intervals.

Not very scientific i'm afraid. Just a 30 year old memory of a few quick and nervous glances down through the hatch at the speedometer, but confirmed later by the pace jeeps and other 113 drivers.

You could be right about their accuracy though. Lord knows stuff was breaking due to vibration all the time.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

Frankly, I think they've all got GG Allin penises.

Your probably right

[Skybird]

whatever conclusions technical comparisons of the American, German, British, French and Israeli tanks may come up with, three factors are also important that are not tecnolgy-related at all: training standard of tank crews, combat experience, and combat doctrine.

American Abrams saw much more opportunities for tougher action, then British Challengers at the siege of Basra. i wonder what the losses of Challengers would have been if they would have seen comparable ammounts of exposure to combat action, like the Abrams.

most American tank crews today have combat exopeirence in hot wars, could one asusme that to be right? I think so. Many British crews as well. but only few French and almost no German tank crews.

Israeli tank crews also are combat-experienced - but they suffered heavy losses in lebanon nevertheless, due to a combat doctrine suffering from bad intel, bad preparation, and a dogmatic change of the IDF over the previous years when it turned from a fighting force into a policing and occupying force.

At the same time, the German army has the highest density of hardware tank simulators of all armies in the world. the availability of first-rate tank simulator hardware and hours in it is higher in germany than in any other country. That's why the Bundeswehr currently has no interest in Steel Beasts Pro. Only due to the export success of the Leo 2 it is so overrepresented in the sim.

Tank combat doctrine is constantly being worked upon. You can see that in the many shiftings back and forth between 3 tanks in 4 platoons per 1 company and 4 tanks in 3 platoons per 1 company. also, tactical dogmas get constantly revised. Before the American armoured attack into Bagdhad, tanks inside cities were considered to be a big no-no, although the Israelis did it a lot. Now everybody is training it and has accepted that tanks in cities could have a decisive role and are not only targets. And the Israelis have combined IFV and MBT in their unique Merkava design. At the same time due to stabilised guns in moving tanks, advance-under-overwatch (2 tanks sit still, 2 tanks advance) is being reconsidered, since it's tactical need has decreased with technological advances. Just two examples.

Many of these things also play a role, these things can neutralise each other, or combine for an even imporved overall effect, but what always remains true is that the best tank is wasted if the crews as well as the military leadership do not know how to make best use of a system's unique characteristics.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

Not very scientific i'm afraid. Just a 30 year old memory of a few quick and nervous glances down through the hatch at the speedometer, but confirmed later by the pace jeeps and other 113 drivers.

You could be right about their accuracy though. Lord knows stuff was breaking due to vibration all the time.

Still even if you were "only" going 40 that is pretty darn fast for a 113. Don't know I would have the guts to do that in anywhere but a wide open field.

[Jimbuna]

Not wanting to stray off topic but does anybody ever wonder how the modern day platforms would compare against the likes of the King Tiger?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Not wanting to stray off topic but does anybody ever wonder how the modern day platforms would compare against the likes of the King Tiger?

Wie wohl...? Would you seriously expect any surprises? It's like comparing a L.A. sub versus a Type-VII. The latter would not even have a chance to ever fight back even symbolically.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wie wohl...? Would you seriously expect any surprises? It's like comparing a L.A. sub versus a Type-VII. The latter would not even have a chance to ever fight back even symbolically.

I take your point but I'm wondering if the front glacis armour plus tracks or sand bags would withstand the odd hit and how ell some of the composite armour would be able to withstand the Jagd Tigers 128mm gun.

Just curious....wondering if they've ever been compared on the proving grounds

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I take your point but I'm wondering if the front glacis armour plus tracks or sand bags would withstand the odd hit and how ell some of the composite armour would be able to withstand the Jagd Tigers 128mm gun.

Just curious....wondering if they've ever been compared on the proving grounds

Is it using modernish ammunition or vintage WWII ammunition?

Even so, I doubt it would be very effective. Modern tank guns are smoothbore (despite this being a counter-development) in order to be able to use long fin-stabilized rounds capable of better penetration, so the original rifled Jagdtiger gun would not have the same performance.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Is it using modernish ammunition or vintage WWII ammunition?

Even so, I doubt it would be very effective. Modern tank guns are smoothbore (despite this being a counter-development) in order to be able to use long fin-stabilized rounds capable of better penetration, so the original rifled Jagdtiger gun would not have the same performance.

Not quite challenger 2 has a rifled barreled gun and can still fire finned projectiles.