105 replies to this topic

[Rot Front]

Strange poll... Why T-80UK but not T-80UM-1 "Bars"? What the hell here is Leclerc with its paper armor and weak cannon? Where is Black Eagle and T-95? (Yes, I know that if they were included, poll will lose any sense, but... )

From listed tanks, Leopard-2A6 is the best with many reasons, but I voted for T-80 (not only because of patriotic feeling, but because upgraded version - T-80UM-1 is the strongest serial MBT in the world)

P.S. Abrams is shit

[Razven]

I strongly remember the Abrams being one of the few true battle tested tanks in use within the last decade, how can it be shit when it rolled over the entire Iraq with such a small amount of casulties? Your statment is outlandish.

Edited by People's Liberation Army, 04 October 2007 - 12:49.

[Ilves]

How it could have high casualties when almost all of the enemies tanks were destroyed from air or just defected?
However, remember WHAT casulties it got when facing ANY enemy. The only part of the Abrams that's good armoured is the front view. The armor of the sides is paper-like and the back and top view almost hadn't got armour at all.
There were accidents when Abramses were destroyed by BMP-1s 75-mm cannons, molotov cocktails, home-made mines and even DShK machineguns (!!!). I don't know any modern Russian tank that can be busted by this way. And this you call a good tank? Man, this is just a well-adverstied shit! Abrams hadn't got nothing good except the German cannon and American advertising program!

Quote

What the hell here is Leclerc with its paper armor and weak cannon?

You're wrong, Leclerc's cannons is slightly better than that on Challenger II and Abrams

[Rot Front]

Quote

DShK machineguns (!!!)

I can't believe it... of course, I know that back and sides armor of Abrams can be easily penetrated with BMP-2s 2A72 30 mm cannon, but DShK machinegun... I think it is not true. It be more similar to be true if you said that was KPV machinegun, because it fires 14,5 mm armor piercing bullets (from PTRS-42 anti-tank rifle).

Quote

You're wrong, Leclerc's cannons is slightly better than that on Challenger II and Abrams

Yes, I forgot, sorry... Really, Leclerc have L/52 cannon, and Abrams only L/44 (NOT L/55 as you wrote, such long cannon is only on Leopard-2A6).

[Ilves]

Quote

I can't believe it... of course, I know that back and sides armor of Abrams can be easily penetrated with BMP-2s 2A72 30 mm cannon, but DShK machinegun...

Go & read Abramses casualties analysis on btvt.narod.ru. Pictures for not-believing are added
Yes, DShK bullets pierce Abramse's side armor like toilet paper and can hit its vulnurable parts

[narboza22]

Hassan, IIRC, your argument was already proved wrong on another forum. As for why the M1 would win:
1) The tank and its crews are combat proven.
2) It routinely comes out on top in exercises with other countries.
3) It has far better networking capabilities than any other tank.
4) It fires the M829A3 which was designed specifically to beat protection systems.
5) It has more logistics support and air power behind it than any other tank.
6) It is thermally camouflaged.

There's a bunch more reasons, but I'll leave it at that since it really just comes down to who sees who first, because any tank worth its cannon and armor is going to be able to one shot kill another tank.

[Axel of Sweden]

this threads is more about Patriotism then the tanks acual performance

So lots off Americans means Abrams wins

Lots off brits mean challeger

etc

Leopard ,Abrams and leclerc got the sam gun by the way
and all tanks are tuned for the country,s special needs
thats the main difference

Edited by Axel of Sweden, 04 October 2007 - 17:26.

[namman2]

i'll vote for the t-80 the iraqi army destroyed some abrams tanks before saddams's fall
as for the merkava mk4 i dont if it was mk4 or mk3 but one of them got destroyed wiht and rpg (russian made)

[nova]

i ll go with a maus or a t-28

but on that list t-80

[Soul]

I change my mind, I say the C1G1 Wildcat wins .

[Sgt. Nuker]

Alias, on 4 Oct 2007, 1:48, said:

If this was a real battle, Panthers and King Tigers would win hands down, just on the sake of awesomeness.

Alias, you're my hero.

[Rot Front]

Quote

As for why the M1 would win:

Maybe, you meaned M1A2?

As for why the T-80UM1 would win:

1)cannon with autoloader provides improved rate of fire
2)explosive reactive armor protects from HEAT shells (and RPGs as well)
3)'Arena' active defense system can shot down incoming enemy missiles
4)9M119 'Refleks' supersonic anti-tank missile, launched from barrel can easily destroy any armored target on 5 km distance
5)Less weight (45 tonnes) and 1000 hp gas turbine engine provides speed up to 80 kmph.
6)T-80 is more reliable and easier in repair and service.
7)It is cheaper in construction (2,8 millions of $ vs 5 millions of $), so Russia can have more T-80s than USA have Abramses (actually, not very - 8000 vs. 7000, but don't forget about 20000 of T-72s, 1000 T-90s, 6000 T-62s, if talk about warfare, Russia have strongest tank armies in the world).

[General Kirkov]

Leo II Rated best tank in the world not so long ago. Besides who can say that Germans make sucky tanks? Besides Canada just bought a good number of them to compliment/replace our Leo Is. LAV III + Leo II + Benz G wagons = dead taliban.

But I figure a II could take most modern tanks. The problem is you can't test them on another modern tank can't you

-edit- linky attached

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 05 October 2007 - 16:17.

[General Kirkov]

Alias, on 2 Oct 2007, 17:57, said:

Prophet of the Pimps, on 3 Oct 2007, 4:06, said:

Nuff said.

I raise you an A7V.

I raise you an Indianna Jones on a horse!

Edited by Capt. Kirkov, 05 October 2007 - 16:29.

[Ilves]

Quote

1) The tank and its crews are combat proven.

The tank is combat proven to be destroyed with machineguns
The crew is proven to insert shells from the wrong side

Quote

2) It routinely comes out on top in exercises with other countries.

Translation: has cool advertising
Also, IIRC Challenger II always proudly takes on this competitions the last places..

Quote

3) It has far better networking capabilities than any other tank.

At least smth in M1 except the German cannon isn't shit

Quote

5) It has more logistics support and air power behind it than any other tank.

Oh, I thought that we were talking about the tank, not about the country..
Anyway, if the enemy tank will be beaten by a helicopter in the air it WON'T be M1's reason to be proud. Or you're using tanks only to squish civilian cars? If that, than no problem

Quote

6) It is thermally camouflaged.

Oh, that little thermal reducement feature?
Read about "Nakidka" gear. This is a REAL thermo-camo . Turns any tank into a stealth-tank (for thermovisors)

Also all this statements doesn't make M1 to be cooler than at least, T-80U...

PS: T-80UK is commanders' tank. What it's doing in the poll?

PS-2: Tractor is the best:

[narboza22]

AL_Hassan, on 6 Oct 2007, 17:25, said:

Quote

1) The tank and its crews are combat proven.

The tank is combat proven to be destroyed with machineguns
The crew is proven to insert shells from the wrong side

What?

Quote

Translation: has cool advertising
Also, IIRC Challenger II always proudly takes on this competitions the last places..

Read some reports from NATO exercises. Start out with the non US reports though, because that way you won't have an excuse for why people say the M1 comes out on top.

Quote

At least smth in M1 except the German cannon isn't shit

Huh?

Quote

Oh, I thought that we were talking about the tank, not about the country..
Anyway, if the enemy tank will be beaten by a helicopter in the air it WON'T be M1's reason to be proud. Or you're using tanks only to squish civilian cars? If that, than no problem

The support behind the tank is certainly a factor in how it performs.

Quote

Oh, that little thermal reducement feature?
Read about "Nakidka" gear. This is a REAL thermo-camo . Turns any tank into a stealth-tank (for thermovisors)

Prove it Hassan. Lets see some actual info for once instead of just your extremely biased opinion. Here is proof that the M1 has thermal camo:
http://www.defensere...article725.html

Quote

Also all this statements doesn't make M1 to be cooler than at least, T-80U...

So you are basically saying that the T-80 is better than the M1 because you think its "cooler?"

[Rich19]

narboza22, on 7 Oct 2007, 0:37, said:

The support behind the tank is certainly a factor in how it performs.

Ok then, why not include the opposition to the people inside the tank? (Almost) everyone in the Middle East hates America, far more than other western countries. Therefore the Abrams is far more likely to be targeted in the first place, so it performs by far the worst in that catagory.

[narboza22]

True, but history has shown twice now that the Abrams has no trouble taking that opposition on.

[Rich19]

narboza22, on 9 Oct 2007, 22:05, said:

True, but history has shown twice now that the Abrams has no trouble taking that opposition on.

http://rense.com/general61/loses.htm

Right.

[narboza22]

I know I'm right. The gallery of pictures you posted only shows 2 Abrams KIA, and I'd bet that those are two of the ones that the US destroyed themselves. There are even anti US sources that say M1 losses have been minimal. The biggest killers of M1's are other M1's, AH-64's, and IED's, not other tanks.

[namman2]

maybe you were not watching news enough because the iraqi army destroyed a good number of m1s using russian tanks (before they were defeated)

[narboza22]

Prove it.

[Whitey]

Skewed logic there. the '91 Gulf War featured older tanks that were far more on par with the T-72s used against them. The latest and greatest of the M1 series would squash the old M1s and thus the T-72s. But that ain't the argument. So lets not argue bullshit, out of date statistics shall we?

[General Kirkov]

Guys seriously unless WWIII breaks out you cannot really test these tanks in combat.