Tank thread

[LtFransky]

Seriously though. Who except the US has the arms to carry on a large-scale tank battle?

[hitman]

Seriously though. Who except the US has the arms to carry on a large-scale tank battle?

We dont? News to me, considering we have the most capable anti-tank weaponry at the moment...not to mention some of the best tanks ever produced in mass numbers.

[nscode]

Make that "ok" tanks.

[RedTiger]

We dont? News to me, considering we have the most capable anti-tank weaponry at the moment...not to mention some of the best tanks ever produced in mass numbers.

 

You might want to re-read what he posted. ;)

[hitman]

You might want to re-read what he posted. ;)

I did...I need glasses, I read that "expect"...

 

Make that "ok" tanks.

As opposed to tanks that have fuel drums carried piggy back? A regiment of T-72's and T-80s couldnt hold their own against a company of M1A1's, and thats not counting the newer M1A2. But then again, if you put stupid people in the best tanks in the world, and smart people in the worst tank available, you would have a chance.

Edited February 5, 2009 by hitman

[Pilotasso]

Im far from being a specialist in armor but all the tanks up to the T-95 are based on the T-72 designs. They have been modified and then renamed a number up progressively.

 

These tanks have lower barrel life and less balistic range. The T-72's that are still in service have comparatively weak armor and catch fire rather easely when hit.

 

There are ALOT of heavy tanks in service both in europe and in asia that are real monsters lots more in development.

[nscode]

Range? You have to be pretty damn stupid or careless not to MOVE at the M1's max range. At those ranges you need to have a weapon you can guide if you are to hit anything. It might work in an open desert but not a toy I would like to take cross country. And you better not laugh at someone else's fuel supply soulutions while talking about M1.

 

And don't get me wrong, the T-72 isn't any better either. They're all tin cans basicly and in the end it would come down to numbers and strategy.

[hitman]

There isnt another tank in the world that can surpass todays M1 in speed, accuracy, and protection. The only losses of "our" M1's were due to large antitank mines, which can only penetrate the weak underside of the tank. Most of those vehicles were repairable, so not even a total loss.

[eurofor]

There isnt another tank in the world that can surpass todays M1 in speed, accuracy, and protection. (...)

 

Maybe you're being a bit too confident in your capabilities.

 

[hitman]

Maybe you're being a bit too confident in your capabilities.

 

And you underestimate the M1...I find this one kind of amusing, you might too. The best part of the Abrams comes from the same company that makes the Leopard. Yup, the good ol' M256A1 was made by Rheinmetall.

 

Personally, I think the days of tankers driving up the landscape are gone...kinda pointless to use a tank that can be taken out by 2 people with a Javelin.

Edited February 6, 2009 by hitman

[eurofor]

And you underestimate the M1...I find this one kind of amusing, you might too. The best part of the Abrams comes from the same company that makes the Leopard. Yup, the good ol' M256A1 was made by Rheinmetall.

 

Personally, I think the days of tankers driving up the landscape are gone...kinda pointless to use a tank that can be taken out by 2 people with a Javelin.

I knew that and it's sort of amusing yes. I'm sure the M1 is a decent tank but there isn't really anything that makes it so much better than all else.

[nscode]

^^what he said :)

[hitman]

I knew that and it's sort of amusing yes. I'm sure the M1 is a decent tank but there isn't really anything that makes it so much better than all else.

1 word: ISIS.

[Pilotasso]

Range? You have to be pretty damn stupid or careless not to MOVE at the M1's max range.

 

Didnt quite undertand your point here, isnt the range you cann shoot from a good thing?

 

At those ranges you need to have a weapon you can guide if you are to hit anything.

 

hmmmm you think so? What about tanks that can only fire while sitting versus another than can do it on the move? And what if you can do it further than the oppsosition hope to retaliate?

 

And you better not laugh at someone else's fuel supply soulutions while talking about M1.

.

 

The M1 is a gas HOG granted. (all american vehicles are for that matter :D )

 

But Im not saying it is the best. It COULD be but I just dont know enough. I do know that there are a number of designs that have certain features that equal os surpass that of the M1 in europe and in asia.

[Groove]

Putting all the "my national tank is > All" beside - right now Leopard 2A6 is considered to be the best one in the world.

 

Let's wait a year, then some other tank might be the best.

 

Personally, i wouldn't like to have a T-80UD as my opponent in the desert, sitting in a pimped out m1a2 or a leo2a6. That missiles can reach you before you can shoot him :D

[nscode]

Didnt quite undertand your point here, isnt the range you cann shoot from a good thing?

It is, but at the extremes it's only usable against stationary targets, or targets traveling at a constant speed. That might work in a desert, but elsewhere the terrain alone is going to make your movable target jolt enough for you to miss.

 

What about tanks that can only fire while sitting versus another than can do it on the move?

What can only fire while sitting? T-34? KingTiger? Don't know about others, but in our army it's a normal thing for even T-55s to practise shooting on the move. Edited February 6, 2009 by nscode

[hitman]

http://www.illwillpress.com/cham2.html

[Dusty Rhodes]

In Black Shark the T-72 can one shot one kill an M1A2 Abrams at 3400 meters on the move, toward each other, as can the T-80.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Sod it, i'll trade your Leopard for a Challenger.

 

And whilst on the subject, if all of the aforementioned tanks are never going to be used in a conventional battle, I will raise you a Merkava. I'd rather be cramped in that than stuck in a Bradley/Warrior/BMP with RPG's coming at me.

 

Ahem, what are the chances of a full scale manouver war with tanks as the central component if Iran was invaded from Iraq, following a large military buildup on both sides?

 

Cue fireworks.

[Peyoteros]

LM*O

[Grimes]

I can't say that I can blame Russia. Every other nation in the world has a 2 seat attack chopper. Im sure some have experimented with a single seat solution, but Russia was the only one to put something like that in production. I can't help but agree with the correlation between the Black Shark and the Commanche. Both are cool choppers. Both taught each nation alot through their developments. Both are ultimatly really expensive research projects, and Im sure the lessons learned from them will be applied for decades. Like a single seat attack chopper is somewhat not practical. And why build a new fleet of stealth attack choppers when the Apache D is more than enough.

 

In Black Shark the T-72 can one shot one kill an M1A2 Abrams at 3400 meters on the move, toward each other, as can the T-80.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the code governing the behavior of these tanks is practically identical. Also its a game. Enough said.

 

 

PS Groove. My tank cat can lol all over your nations tank cat. :smilewink:

 

Don't mean to derail. It already was. . .

Edited February 12, 2009 by Grimes

[Peyoteros]

Needless to say it was taxpayers money used in both researches. In long run it's we who pays for the wars...with money and lives...

Edited February 12, 2009 by Peyoteros

[Mustang]

LMAO at that pic Grimes :megalol:

[shaggy]

There isnt another tank in the world that can surpass todays M1 in speed, accuracy, and protection. The only losses of "our" M1's were due to large antitank mines, which can only penetrate the weak underside of the tank. Most of those vehicles were repairable, so not even a total loss.

 

Yeah but its the only tank in the world also to leave a huge trace of heat behind it due to the jet engines. And there is allot of tanks ranked better than the M1 like the Leopard 2 and Challenger tanks.

 

:poster_oops::poster_offtopic:

[Groove]

Damn, my nation needs this lolcatz!!11

 

Well, it seems like US Army is finally closing the gap to that T-80s long range attack power:

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/02/military_tank_round_020909w/

 

Tank round guides self to target during test

 

 

 

By Kris Osborn - Staff writer

Posted : Thursday Feb 12, 2009 4:49:02 EST

An Army Abrams 120mm cannon destroyed a T-72 tank more than 5,000 meters away using a next-generation guided tank round able to find its own way toward a target, service officials said.

The December test at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., was staged to prove that the guidance system of the Mid Range Munition (MRM) would work when fired.

The MRM has two guidance modes.

The first is laser designation, in which the round follows a laser spot generated by some other target seeker to the target, or in so-called offset mode, near the target.

The second is with its 3-inch infrared camera. The guidance system compares the IR images to a target library stored in electronic form.

“The algorithm running through the round is looking at the environment and differentiating the target from items that might be in range in a normal desert environment,” said Jeff McNaboe, Army MRM program manager.

In the December test, the round used only its infrared seeker, the first time it had destroyed a target without laser-guided help, said David Rigoglioso, deputy product manager for large caliber ammo at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

In the fall, another test will be used to evaluate the airframe, the guidance electronics unit and the control section, said John O’Brien, Raytheon MRM program director.

The Raytheon-General Dynamics-built MRM is 13 months through a 63-month, $232 million development deal with the Army. Initial production is scheduled for 2012.