40 replies to this topic

[NergiZed]

Master_Chief, on 22 Oct 2008, 0:57, said:

Rayburn, on 21 Oct 2008, 20:07, said:

Oh please, don't let this turn into another "my weapon is better than your weapon because I say so"-debate......

Fact, not opinion. AFAIK the Leopard 2a6 always "won" in training and test maneuvers.

For truth my friend, for truth.

Although IIRC Challenger is the heaviest Modern MBT in the world.

[Sgt. Rho]

Heavy and powerful is not the same.

[CommanderJB]

Oh, don't start...






Aargh! Resisting a military discussion! It's killing me...



*Starts*
The simple fact of the matter is that tanks cannot be compared as their key technical specifications are classified unless and only unless they have engaged each other in appropriately realistic simulated combat. As the Leopard II has never seen trials where it is pitted against the Challenger in any sort of even remotely representative, impartial combat trials the debate remains totally and utterly academic given the fact that we don't know what we need to to compare them fairly and truthfully.
...but hey, academic discussions are still fun, right?
Leopard 2A6 is an excellent tank with a long and successful design heritage and stems from some of the smartest and most experienced armoured vehicle designers on the planet. It's equipped with a superlative gun, has excellent mobility and agility, and will outpace and outrange most of its contemporaries.
But.
Challenger II hails from the country that invented armoured warfare, and British tank design has arguably the greatest experience and some of the most genuinely successful designs in mobile warfare's history. The Sherman Firefly killed Tigers, the Centurion kept the UN forces alive in Korea and their export Chieftains and derivatives have proved remarkably good in the international market. More recently the Challenger II was the only coalition tank model to suffer no combat losses in Operation Iraqi Freedom; none have been lost to enemy fire; there have been perhaps a couple of notable instances where they have been disabled but the only instances of Challengers being destroyed beyond repair have come from friendly fire incidents (as with Abrams, and for that matter all operationally deployed tanks in Iraq that have seen war, rather than insurgency suppression, combat). Leopard 2A6 has seen its first 'blooding' recently in Afghanistan under Canadian controls, and has received great praise from its users, but it's never had to face a threat which is even mildly representative of what other Coalition tanks have been facing down in Iraq. Challenger's combat experience, however, has been impressive to say the least. I think I'll lift the info straight from Wikipedia for your viewing pleasure (and don't, please, give me 'unreliable' noises - it's all sourced, check for yourself):

Quote

Challenger 2 had already been used in peacekeeping missions and exercises before but its first combat use came in March 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. 7th Armoured Brigade, part of 1st Armoured Division, was in action with 120 Challenger 2s around Basra. The tanks saw extensive use during the siege of Basra, providing fire support to the British forces. The tank's availability was excellent and the problems that were identified during the large Saif Sareea II exercise of eighteen months earlier were solved by the issuing of Urgent Operational Requirements for equipment such as sand filters.

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[8]

There have been only two Challenger 2s damaged in combat and one destroyed:

* A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second round entered the open commander's hatch of the QRL Tank and detonated internally, destroying the tank and killing two crew members. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.[9]
* August 2006 - the driver of a Challenger 2, Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes when an RPG-29 bounced off the road, and penetrated the lower frontal hull armour (traditionally the weakest place on a tank) during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.[10]
* April 6, 2007 - in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank resulting in the driver losing a leg and causing minor injuries to another soldier[11].

The BBC quotes a British MoD spokesman as saying Challenger 2 was:

Well armoured but in an operational theatre it's not the case that you can have absolute protection. This was not in any way new technology - the device involved was the same type of shaped charge that we have seen used very regularly. No-one has ever said Challenger tanks are impenetrable. We have always said that a big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle.
—http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6583607.stm

To help prevent incidents of this nature happening again, Challenger 2s have been upgraded with a new passive armour package.

The Brits are widely acknowledged as some of the best armour designers there are and the Challenger's Chobham and Dorchester Level 2, both of which are highly classified even from allied nations, is about as good as it gets when fending off HEAT attacks, and can shatter kinetic energy penetrators. Challenger IIs represent what is effectively the toughest tank in the world. This is exceptionally important - I would even venture paramount - when it comes to modern armoured warfare. Tanks are no longer guaranteed the first shot against opponents - in fact it's becoming a luxury rather than a tactical necessity - and if they survive those first shots, they are in a position to face down the shooter on a more than equal term. Challenger II has proved it can do this, and has excellent range, dual-purpose HESH rounds, a comparatively easy logistical chain and a combat record that is as good as it gets in its favour. And, I never tire of saying this, it makes tea to boot. It's a tank with personality.
Leopard 2A6 might be better than Challenger. But since the figures we're given are not the true story and there is no real yardstick to compare it by, I'll stick with what I know.

Edited by CommanderJB, 26 December 2008 - 12:44.

[AllStarZ]

[Someone]

On a different thread discussing tanks, some person (I think it was somebody called “Anubis”) said that Eastern European nations use outdated cold-war-era equipment. I would like to take this opportunity to say:

1) Cold-war equipment is not necessarily outdated. Leopard, Challenger, and most of tanks in service today were designed during Cold War. Even if some weapon systems are a bit aged, one should never underestimate older weapons.

2) In addition to cold-war equipment, Eastern European nations also field (and are developing) new weapons systems.

Since the current and previous discussion was about tanks in particular, here are some Post-Cold War tanks made in Eastern Europe:

M-95 Degman





Prototype Main Battle Tank designed in Croatia, Degman is based on the M-84 design (M-84, in tern, is a licensed copy of the T-72). Although it has not entered production yet, its expected users are Croatian Army (of course) and possibly Kuwaiti Army (who may decide to upgrade their M-84 to M-95 standards).
Note: another former Yugoslavian republic, Serbia, has its own MBT (known as M-2001) based on the M-84.

PT-91 Twardy






This polish-made tank first entered service with the Polish Army in 1995. Like the T-90 and M-95, Twardy is based on the T-72. Since its initial introduction, several new upgrades have been introduced. In addition to Polish Army, PT-91 has been bought by Malaysian Army.
Note: I found several pictures showing this tank carrying a log in the back of its chasse. For what reason is that, I do not know. According to one source, if the tank gets stuck in mud, the log could be used to help it get out, but I doubt this.

T-84 Oplot






Last in this post but definitely not the least is Ukrainian T-84 Oplot. This tank first entered service with Ukrainian Army in 1999. Unlike the tanks mentioned previously, Oplot is based on the T-80 rather than the T-72. Like its progenitor, T-84 is one of the fastest tanks in the world. An export version of this tank exists (called Yatagan) that can fire 120mm NATO ammunition. An interesting variant of T-84 Oplot is BTMP-84 heavy IFV – basically a T-84 with an elongated chasse in order to carry 5 infantry soldiers. As far as I know, the only other tank-IFV hybrid in the world is the Israeli Merkava. See BTMP-84 photograph below:


(Click to enlarge)

As for which tank is the best tank in the world – it all depends on the nationality of the person you ask .

[partyzanpaulzy]

M-95 looks pretty deadly, well armored and deadly (also has futuristic look, but the look isn't important at all).

Which army will have only 30 tanks? The Czech Army (T-72 M4 CZ). Which army bought 200 8x8 Pandurs II for price of 800 upgrades of T-72 to heavy APC, the Czech Army.
Which army have borrowed Gripens for very high price? The Czech Army. [sarkasm] Yeah here we can be really proud on our army (which military tech is from the half being repaired, part isn't our at all and the rest is small). [/sarkasm] I can imagine only chance against army of mujahedeens would be our artillery, some operational helicopters and quick retreat (Pandur is nothing for newer RPGs). The Czech Army has trained chemics and commandos, but lacks in quantity of military tech.

t-72 M4 CZ - practically only panzer is original, new motor, new autoloader, new electronics (laser warning, aim systems, etc.), new external armor (dynamic blocks of ERA), semi-stealth (special rubber coat) and smoke grenades (make stealth for IR detectors). This tank should be as good as Abrams, but I don't know. There's big weakness in each T-72, his Achilles Hell: the loader. It's better than Georgian modernization of T-72, maybe as good as Abrams from the 1st War in the Persian Gulf, but worse than Challenger II. The best widely known tank can be Swedish modification of German tank Leopard II or modernized Challenger II.
Who knows, maybe T-95 would beat him, but this is known just for the Russian Army and spies. But still, there aren't any green, yellow either red bars...
When I mean beat, I mean resist more... Even 135mm (maybe it's even 155mm, normal tank has 120 mm cannon) with the best shell would be deadly for every tank.
And this is promo picture of t-72M4CZ:
http://www.vop025.cz/en/military-productio...odernized-tank/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I created this thread, I said you can post Turkic, Georgian or Israel stuff here, too. Israel is in the Middle East, but culturaly it's connected with Europe, so I post also some Israel stuff here :
In these days there is new conflict in a Gaza Strip. During existance of modern Israel there was still struggle between moslims and jews in Israel which had to accept islamic Palestina, but they refused and this turned into long conflict which is now actual in a Gaza Strip (there is currently peace in Lebanon or the West Jordan).
According to the Wikipedia Merkava (Charriot in jewish) is the main battle tank of the Israel Defense Forces. Since the early 1980s, four main versions have been deployed. The "Merkava" name was derived from the IDF's development program name.

This platform is optimized for crew survival and rapid battle damage repair. With the use of spaced-armor techniques and quick-replacement modular designs, the design team was able to incorporate the composite armor, a derivative of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) and Chobham armor. Additionally, the space between the inner and outer hulls is filled with diesel fuel — an economical storage method and effective means of defeating HEAT rounds.

Following the model of contemporary self-propelled howitzers, the turret assembly is located nearer the rear than in most main battle tanks. This gives the crew additional protection against a frontal attack by putting the engine between them and the front of the tank. This arrangement also creates an otherwise unused space in the rear of the tank that allows increased storage capacity, as well as a rear entrance to the main crew cabinet allowing easy access even under enemy fire. This allows the tank to be used as a platform for medical disembarkation, a forward command and control station, and an armored personnel carrier. The rear entrance's clamshell-style doors provide overhead protection when off- and on-loading cargo and personnel.

It was reportedly decided shortly before the beginning of the 2006 Lebanon War that the Merkava line would be discontinued within four years. However, on 7 November 2006, Haaretz reported that an Israeli General Staff assessment had ruled of the Merkava Mark IV that "if properly deployed, the tank can provide its crew with better protection than in the past," and deferred the decision on discontinuing the line.

----------------------------- MK1 ---- MK3 ---- MK4
Crewmen ------------------ 4 ------ 4 -------- 4
Weight --------------------- 60t ---- 65t ------ 65t
Length with cannon ------- 8,63 -- 9,04 ----- 9,04
Width ---------------------- 3,7 ---- 3,7 ------ 3,7
Heighth -------------------- 2,64 --- 2,66 ---- 2,66
Motor load (kW) ---------- 662 ---- 883 ----- 1100
Max. speed on the road -- 45 ----- 60 ------- 65
Landing run --------------- 400 ---- 500 ----- 500
Cannon -------------------- 105 ---- 120 ---- 120
MK 2 was slightly upgraded MK 1.

MK I

A gift from Israel (to the museum).
MK II

MK III

MK IV


Which type is this one?


for other info read here

IMI Wildcat APC

APC based on Tatra* 4x4 chassis, tested by USA and Israel.
Crew: 3+9
GVW: 18,000 Kg.
Curb weight: 12,600 Kg.
Length (m): 7.153
Width (m): 2.50
Height (m): 2.69
Wheelbase (m): 3.6
Ground clearance (m): 0. 387
Fuel (litres): 250
Trench width (m): 0.9
Side slop: 30%
Gradeability at 18,000 Kg.: 60%
Climbing ability, vertical step (m): 0.40
Cruising rang, on road (km): 700 km
Maximum speed (km/h): 104 km/hr
Fording (m): 1.5
Engine: Cummins ILSe+325, 325 HP, turbocharged and after cooled, direct injection diesel, EURO III, electronically controled
Transmission: Allison, Model MD 3066P, automatic, 6-speed with drop box

*Tatra is Czech truck company owned by Americans. This makes at least 3 countries involved.
IMI = Israel Military Industries

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 29 December 2008 - 21:17.

[BeefJeRKy]

The reason the Merkava faired so poorly in the war on Lebanon in 2006 is because Hezbollah had gotten intelligence regarding its potential weakpoints and exploited them. That as well as having the advantage in the land where the hills gave them excellent cover etc...

[Waris]

RPG-29. Also the apparent sloppiness about the way the war was conducted in the Israeli side; at the aftermath a number of top military officials of Israel were fired too.

[Someone]

Quote

Additionally, the space between the inner and outer hulls is filled with diesel fuel — an economical storage method and effective means of defeating HEAT rounds.

How does diesel fuel stored between inner and outer hulls provide protection against HEAT rounds? Would not the fuel just create a fire hazard if the hull were breached?
v

[CommanderJB]

HEAT rounds, contrary to their acronym, don't actually 'melt' through armour at all. Instead, the round works by using a shaped charge which focuses the blast of the shell to create a narrow cone of high-velocity molten material. The material then uses this focused kinetic force to 'punch' though the armour and splatter around inside, killing people and making things explode; nearly all of the initial damage caused by a HEAT round is kinetic, with any actual heat effects being entirely secondary. As such, the diesel will dissipate the force around the fuel tank far more efficiently than steel RHA, reducing the penetration ability of the round by what is hopefully a significant fraction. It'd probably also work very well against HESH, though it wouldn't do bupkis about APFSDS.

Edited by CommanderJB, 31 December 2008 - 00:29.

[Someone]

Quote

HEAT rounds, contrary to their acronym, don't actually 'melt' through armour at all. Instead, the round works by using a shaped charge which focuses the blast of the shell to create a narrow cone of high-velocity molten material. The material then uses this focused kinetic force to 'punch' though the armour and splatter around inside, killing people and making things explode; nearly all of the initial damage caused by a HEAT round is kinetic, with any actual heat effects being entirely secondary. As such, the diesel will dissipate the force around the fuel tank far more efficiently than steel RHA, reducing the penetration ability of the round by what is hopefully a significant fraction.

So,

high-velocity molten material + diesel fuel = less damage ?

[CommanderJB]

Evidently! The liquid disperses the kinetic shock over a large area, resulting in a much decreased force that will hopefully not be enough to penetrate the inner hull. It's important to remember that the diesel fuel won't actually explode unless it's mixed with oxygen, which won't happen if the tank is full (and if the tank is below the level the jet of material will just pass by overhead).
It's a bit illogical but the reasoning is sound. It's hardly an ideal solution, and it doesn't protect against everything (far from it, it has significant drawbacks), but it is as they say economical and can work.

[AZZKIKR]

well, that's interesting. And a HESH shell would just cause the diesel to act as a 'cushion' that lessens the impact caused by the squash head?

[CommanderJB]

Yep. HESH rounds aren't even designed to penetrate armour, the 'pat' of plastic explosive instead is designed to transmit concussive force through the metal and crack bits off the inside. This is known as 'spalling'. It was extremely effective against the early tanks because even the thickest steel would spall, and the high-velocity fragments produced shredded anyone unfortunate enough to be inside. Since then most armoured vehicles have kevlar linings that prevent spalling and composite armour that doesn't transmit force as easily as RHA steel, so they're not used anywhere near as much, but the Royal Engineers love them because they are as effective as shells get when taking down buildings and crumbling bunkers.

[NergiZed]

Sgt. Rho, on 26 Dec 2008, 13:13, said:

Heavy and powerful is not the same.

I know that, that's why I put a " " next to that comment.

It's lulz, because there are quite a few bridges that the challenger can't cross (that other tanks can) due to it's weight.

Edit:
Oh I do love the Mercava and the Oplot, those two are some of my fav tanks. Mercava just because of it's unique form. The Oplot for no reason in particular; maybe because it's based on the T-80 or maybe because it looks heavily armored and menacing. (Although I like the Black Eagle far more for those reasons).

Edited by NergiZed, 31 December 2008 - 14:46.

[CommanderJB]

NergiZed, on 1 Jan 2009, 1:41, said:

It's lulz, because there are quite a few bridges that the challenger can't cross (that other tanks can) due to it's weight.

Given that there's approximately a five-ton difference between Leopard 2A6, Abrams and Challenger II, when comparing Western tanks at least I doubt their bridge-crossing ability is particularly different from one another. Russian tanks tend to be much lighter though.