105 replies to this topic

[Whitey]

But you CAN test them in combat exercises.

[Waris]

That, including penetration tests?

[Alias]

Waris, on 11 Oct 2007, 17:01, said:

That, including penetration tests?

Using Topols?

[AZZKIKR]

WTF

[Sgt. Rho]

AllStarZ, on 2 Oct 2007, 17:54, said:

None. A helicopter comes in and destroys them all.

Not if it has reactive armor and active protection.

[General Kirkov]

Boidy, on 10 Oct 2007, 21:22, said:

But you CAN test them in combat exercises.

I'm speaking of all the tanks in the poll.

[Medve]

Actually I like russian tanks the most. But this does not remove the fact that the abrams would win. Of course there are two big problems with the abrams:
1.People (95%) hate it cos it even flows out of the toilet.
2.The other is it's cost and it's indeed high. (and there was an abrams vs. T-s battle, a frontal one with 3 to 1 on the iraqi side, and the abrams win with little to no support)

Medve

[Chrizz]

cuz the abrams is a very huge tank and more conforteble to ride and fight with beacause u can put much packages on it much ammo and much place to sleep on the turret
gogo gief more abrams

[namman2]

Chrizz, on 11 Oct 2007, 23:37, said:

and much place to sleep on the turret

i see why the commander cant see IEDs

[Eddy01741]

Okay, for "combat proof", I guess you could say the Abrams or Challenger 2 if you count killing T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s (the T-72 was built in the era of the CHIEFTAIN, the predecessor of the Challenger, the T-55 was built in the early cold war days, and the T-62 was just a T-55 with a bigger gun and more armor). BOttom line, all the opponents Abrams have gone against are not worth mentioning, they don't even have ERA armor for the most part (just thick RHA).

So, anybody who uses an ounce of logic would disregard any of that stuff. I could assure you that any of the tanks mentioned (i'm not counting the leclerc because i am a little shady on it's specs, and i hear it's terrible) would stand up to 5 T-72s and come out on top with no crew casualties.

So, lets take the four most important features of a tank, Armor, FIrepower, Mobility, "Produceability" (aka, if it can be produced quickly and cheaply).

Armor:

T-80UK: Composite armor (probably not as good as chobham) that CAN mount Kaktus or Kontakt ERA armor which supposedly reduces the power of an APFSDS DU round by up to 20% IIRC and slightly blunts the tip (very important aspect). Circular turret that is shaped like a disk (sort of, i'm just saying that for a lack of better word).

CHallenger 2: Second Generation CHobham Armor (chobham=advanced composite armor deveeloped by the brits). A very angled turret in the front, and has an overhanging bustle.

Abrams: "Burlington" armor, basically second gen chobham armor. A sloped turret in the front (not as much as the challenger though), has an overhanging bustle.

Leopard 2A6: Second Generation CHobham Armor. An arrowhead shape in the front to deflect shells, an overhanging bustle.

The winner? Well, it's either the T-80UK, or the Western tanks. Since the T-80UK has advanced ERA (although not tested much), the western tanks all have the same armor basically. I'd probably give the edge to the WEstern Tanks, simply because Chobham armor has proven itself in battle plenty of times. But there really shouldn't be a winner in a one on one, they all will be destroyed by a DU APFSDS round.

Firepower:

T-80UK: 125mm Smoothbore Gun/Missile Launcher. Can launch the "Refleks" anti tank missile and anti-air missiles (for helicopters, although i doubt it's effectiveness). Can use HEAT and DU APFSDS rounds in addition to missiles.

CHallenger 2: L30 120mm Rifled Gun. Can use a DU APFSDS rounds as it has a special sabot to neutralize the spin of rifling. Doesn't use HEAT rounds as spinning would hinder the effect (although i would think they could do the same as they did to APFSDS rounds here), can use HESH rounds, or HEP rounds. THis is basically good for destroying concrete structures, as it squashes itself into a slab of plastic explosives on impact, and then detonates and uses shockwaves to do damage, henceforth, very effective in a demolition role. However, HEAT rounds are more effective against non composite/ERA armored tanks (like the tanks that they encounter in Iraq). As it is a rifled gun, it's tragectory is very very flat and accurate. However, the advent of fire control systems reduces the need for such accuracy.

M1A2: M256 120mm Smoothbore Gun, a copy of the Rheinmetall L44 120mm gun (it's 44 calibers long). Can use HEAT rounds and DU APFSDS rounds.

Leopard 2A6: L55 120mm Smoothbore Gun. A L44 with a longer barrel (55 calibers vs. 44 calibers). THerefore it produces more muzzle velocity and is more accurate, on the downside, it may get in the way if in tight spaces. It can fire HEAT and DU APFSDS rounds.

The winner? Well, once again, there is no clear winner. There isn't much info on the gun/missile launcher. The Difference between the smoothbores and rifled guns are very few, it's basically HEAT vs. HESH. So that's sort of an opinion thing. I would once again side with the Western tanks, I would PRESUME that their fire control systems are better than those on the T-80UK. So right here, it really depends on the crew and fire control. WHoever gets the first shot wins basically.

Mobility:
T-80UK: 975Hp (maybe wrong on the horsepower of it) Gas turbine engine. Doesn't need much horsepower as it is only in the 40-50 ton range. Top speed is around 40mph. As it is a gas turbine engine, there is a significant heat emission and also it most likely guzzles gas.

Challenger 2: 1200hp (may be wrong on HP again) diesel engine. Top speed is about 40mph, it's acceleration and top speed are easily worse than those of the leopard and the M1A2. But it is a diesel engine so it uses less gas (hence more range) than the gas turbine powered tanks.

M1A2: 1500hp Textron Lycoming Gas Turbine engine. Great acceleration but it's a gas guzzler. It's acceleration beats the Leopard 2A6, but in turn, it's top speed is lower by a couple miles per hour and it guzzles gas. It is a multi-fuel engine though, so it can use a lot of different fuels.

Leopard 2A6: 1500hp multi-fuel diesel engine. Top speed is around 45 mph, it doesn't guzzle nearly as much gas as the M1A2. Can use most semi-refined fuels (so like kerosene, gas, diesel etc.)

Winner? Depends on the situation. If you need a lot of accleration but your not traveling just cross country, then the M1A2 wins out. If you are in reletively short supply of fuel and are going accrooss country, then the Leopard 2A6 wins out.

Produceability:

T-80UK: It's cheaper and simpler than the other tanks easily.

Challenger 2: Rather complicated and expensive, hence why UK has less than 400 of them IIRC.

M1A2: Very complicated and very expensive. But bottom line, US can afford it considering half of my tax money is going to the military.

Leopard 2A6: Rather complicated and expensive, but Germany can afford it considering the fact that they have a LOT of export partners and a lot of the tanks they produce are indeed for export (so they don't lose any money when they build them).

Winner? This is sort of an unusual one. Russia has the most "produceable" tank, but it's military spending budget is very low. USA on the other hand has the most expensive tank and has a incredible military spending budget. THe challenger 2 is pretty expensive, but UK doesn't need that many of them as they are a small country. Same goes for Germany and their Leopard 2A6. So no clear winner here.


COnclusion:
No real winner. T-80UK is obviously the odd one in the pack. It has very different armor and firepower, and it's a much lighter tank. THe other three are very similar in firepower and armor. Mobiliity is really up to the situation that it's in. Produceability is offset by the military budget of the nations that make the respective tanks. So who wins? THe one that gets the first shot. Lets just say it this way, if we gave the isralis any one of these tanks and trained them to use it, they could kick the ass of an Iraqi crew that is trained to any one of these tanks.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, and I voted for the Leopard 2A6. For a lot of reasons, the diesel engine I would like over a gas turbine (again, an opinion thing), it also has a longer gun than the rest of the pack. Also, it just looks awesome with the arrowhead front (that's VERY opinionated thing). The reason I didn't pick the T-80UK is because i simply don't know enough about it. The reason against the M1A2, because i'm not an absolute patriot for my own country and despise how people crack it up to be absolutely amazing and revolutionized tanks forever (if you just noticed, the Leopard 2 came before the M1). Against the challenger, the rifled gun (opinion), and it's reletively weak mobility.

Edited by Eddy01741, 12 October 2007 - 22:24.

[narboza22]

That is all true, but you didn't take into account situational awareness and networking capabilities, both of which are very important on the battlefield.

[AZZKIKR]

Quote

T-80UK: Composite armor (probably not as good as chobham) that CAN mount Kaktus or Kontakt ERA armor which supposedly reduces the power of an APFSDS DU round by up to 20% IIRC and slightly blunts the tip (very important aspect). Circular turret that is shaped like a disk (sort of, i'm just saying that for a lack of better word).

it's shaped like a pan. & all modern tanks use a version of chobham armour if i'm not mistaken

[Eddy01741]

How would Russians get CHobham armor? Only Western tanks have chobham armor.

[General Kirkov]

Eddy01741, on 16 Oct 2007, 14:41, said:

How would Russians get CHobham armor? Only Western tanks have chobham armor.

Espionage perhaps? The Russians were very good at that during the cold war, hence the many coppies of western technology.

[Eddy01741]

If it really had chobham, it wouldn't be like 40 tons, it'd be 60+.

[Axel of Sweden]

The leopard is also one off the easisest tank to repair
due to it,s modular construction
you can replace the entire engine in 15 minutes
And all modern western tanks are equal ïn protection and firepower
the rest is apapted for the countrys needs


The iragi tanks in the iraqi war were outnumbered
the Coalition also had supperior airsupport
so it wasn,t exactly a fair fight

[Eddy01741]

No, actually the Iraqi tanks outnumbered the americans like at a 3:2 ratio, but they were using T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s. The T-55 was built in the fifties like the name suggests, replaced the legendary T-34, the T-62 was just a T-55 with more armor and bigger gun along with other small improvements, T-72 was built in the time of the Chieftain. The Challenger 1 was the replacement to the chieftain, and Abrams came a little before the challenger, but after the chieftain. That's just to give y'all a good sense of the obsoleteness of the Iraqi tanks compared to the coalition. But yeah, coalition's airpower was so superior it wasn't even funny.

[thinimus]

Regarding auto loaders and manually fed designs, there are pros and cons to each.

Auto loaders have the advantage of more compact design and faster firing, but they have the draw back of taking longer to change ammunition type and a greater likelihood of getting jammed. Manned loaders can change ammo type faster, are more reliable, and give you an extra crew member to cover for another, but having another crew member requires a bigger tank, thus making it easier to hit and more costly to produce and field.

[smooder]

Whoever shoots first. And that would probablty be the leclerc because I believe its fast at shooting??

All the other + the Ariete are practically the same.

[Axel of Sweden]

autoloaders are actually slower than manual loaded ones
the purpose of an autoloader is to reduce crew not to speed up rate of fire

the main difference between winning and loosing in armoured warfare
is more about HWO commands the tanks then witch country that produced them

[Foxhound]

Israeli Merkava MBT. Since most Israeli warfare tech is based off of US stuff, it's pretty good already, and it's been tested with Trophy and other anti-munition systems (and is planned to fit them as well). Has been used with various forms of reactive armor. Can be fitted with bulldozer blades to clear minefields. Not sure if it has an autoloader though. *

*The reason I mention this is that tanks with autoloaders are shorter and weigh far less. They're harder to hit and require less power.

Edited by Foxhound, 02 November 2007 - 06:11.

[AZZKIKR]

and cheaper

Edited by AZZKIKR. the kicker of ass, 03 November 2007 - 05:11.

[LCPL Carrow]

AL_Hassan, on 3 Oct 2007, 18:46, said:

M1A2 is maybe not a bad in tank vs. tank combat but is total bullshit when it comes to tank vs. RPG.

Umm...? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's bullshit against RPG's...how? In that the RPG can't hurt the bitch? I've had drill instructors and combat instructors who say that they've seen M1s take multiple RPG hits with nothing more than scratched paint jobs. It takes a daisy-chained-3-155mm-artillery-shell-with-added-depleted-uranium-penetrator-IED just to blow a track off!

I haven't the time to stop and debate, I'm only on liberty for a little bit and I still have a lot to do, this is just my two cents. AFAIK the M1 has the best combat record of any current tank (except maybe the Merkava, but I don't think so), and is still capable of being upgraded beyond it's already phenomenal abilities. It takes a shitload to kill, a shitload more than most hajjis have, and to US Marines like me, that's all that really matters. Let the Brits love their Challenger and the Krauts love their Leopard, but we love our Abrams.

And alltogether the most sensible post that I've read in this thread - which admittidely I haven't had time to read many - was the post by whoever it was that it all depends on who shoots first.

[AZZKIKR]

Pvt. Carrow, on 4 Nov 2007, 1:56, said:

AL_Hassan, on 3 Oct 2007, 18:46, said:

M1A2 is maybe not a bad in tank vs. tank combat but is total bullshit when it comes to tank vs. RPG.

Umm...? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's bullshit against RPG's...how? In that the RPG can't hurt the bitch? I've had drill instructors and combat instructors who say that they've seen M1s take multiple RPG hits with nothing more than scratched paint jobs. It takes a daisy-chained-3-155mm-artillery-shell-with-added-depleted-uranium-penetrator-IED just to blow a track off!

I haven't the time to stop and debate, I'm only on liberty for a little bit and I still have a lot to do, this is just my two cents. AFAIK the M1 has the best combat record of any current tank (except maybe the Merkava, but I don't think so), and is still capable of being upgraded beyond it's already phenomenal abilities. It takes a shitload to kill, a shitload more than most hajjis have, and to US Marines like me, that's all that really matters. Let the Brits love their Challenger and the Krautslove their Leopard, but we love our Abrams.

And alltogether the most sensible post that I've read in this thread - which admittidely I haven't had time to read many - was the post by whoever it was that it all depends on who shoots first.

i smell slight racism. but i read that a shell from 125mm main gun of a T-72 can penetrate an M1s armour at 1000m. still, range counts first. M1 fires to approx range of 3km. T-80 fires long-range ATGWs to 5km. so i think it'd be like ZH paladin (M1) vs BMs (T-80)

[TehKiller]

actually they did made a a testing with RPG nades and apparently 2 RPG nades at the same spot can penetrate and hurt the crew...

BTW the word Kraut is not a racist word and 2nd thing my fav tank wud be a T-72 and im not russian nor from a country which uses any of the T model tanks built by Ruskies so Carrow im gonna tell you to buzz of with that patriotism bs