51 replies to this topic

[Waris]

Dr. Strangelove, on 23 May 2008, 14:31, said:

I left out the T-90 because its really more of a prototype

wat

[Dr. Strangelove]

Waris, on 23 May 2008, 5:15, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 23 May 2008, 14:31, said:

I left out the T-90 because its really more of a prototype

wat

THey're haven't been many built and it hasn't seen much if any action.

[CommanderJB]

Well, the T-90 is in mass-production - Russia operates over 300 of them already, India is purchasing 600 of the T-90S variant with French optics and some other enhancement and building 1000 of its own, they're in negotiations with Indonesia (or was it Malaysia? I can't really remember) for a contract for export, and all up it's quite a popular vehicle.
Edit - you're right about it not seeing action though, let's hope it stays that way.
And far from being in a different league, the Leopard 2A6 has the world's best tank gun (the L-55, also under trials with the Challenger 2 and could be fitted to the Abrams if Germany is willing to let the US have it) and is slightly lighter and more mobile than the Abrams, I just don't know about it's armour.

Edited by CommanderJB, 23 May 2008 - 05:54.

[Rayburn]

Dr. Strangelove, on 23 May 2008, 7:01, said:

the Leopard because I didn't think it was quite in the same league as the two I posted.

True, it's only used by Canada and the bigger part of Europe so it HAS to be a piece of shite...

Edited by Rayburn, 23 May 2008 - 06:52.

[Beta9]

M1A2, that baby can fire SABOT rounds and her survivability against armored vehicles is extremely high. She also has the most sophisticated version of composite armor on all tanks. Plus, the crew also has a "blow out" compartment in the tank. You guys do forget that this tank also has a rifled barrel..

She also has one of the best fire control and aiming systems on a tank.

[CommanderJB]

Every tank (and tank destroyer) can fire APFSDS (Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot) rounds. And the Abrams' gun is smooth-bore specifically to give higher velocity to the aforementioned APFSDS rounds. Also, its armour is classified but from what we know consists of Chobham (thousands of ceramic tiles in a honeycomb sandwiched between sheets of steel) and Rolled Homogeneous Armour, or strengthened steel plate. This is standard for Western tanks - both the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 have improved Chobham and various other laminates such as the Challenger's Dorchester Level 2. The blow-out compartments are actually for the ammunition, and are also becoming increasingly standard on tank design, though the original M1 pioneered the concept.

[Foxhound]

Merkava.

Seriously though, they're about equal. The only real differences is that the M1A2 has depleted uranium armor and the Challenger 2 has a somewhat lower profile. And the rifling vs. smoothbore.

[Crazykenny]

Dr. Strangelove, on 23 May 2008, 7:01, said:

the Leopard because I didn't think it was quite in the same league as the two I posted.

Your right, its way better then those 2

[chance]

can i say the Israeli Merkava Mk 3
Not saying that its nescsarly the best tank... but from my experience Israeli troops are the best of the best and they could likely get the shot off before any other tank... Not to mention that the tank is low profile and has some pretty respectable specs
http://www.army-tech...ojects/merkava/

But no matter which is the best tank the Javelin Anti-Tank Missile will kill any of them in a single shot.

[CommanderJB]

You do know they've built the Merkava Mk. IV now, right? And training would be roughly equal in any Western army. While the Javelin is one of the most lethal ATGMs in service, new-gen ERA blunts quite a bit of its edge, and defence systems like Shtora can both blind the missile causing it to detonate prematurely and automatically fire aerosol grenades to hide the tank from view if it's painted by the Javelin's laser guidance beam.

[Cuppa]

What about TROPHYS on the Merkava mk 4?

[CommanderJB]

They have Trophy? Interesting, I thought it was still in development for full-scale application. I know they've built working models, but I hadn't heard of actual deployment, though now I've had a look it appears to be fairly standard. No info on its effectiveness though. I wasn't saying that Shtora was the only defence against missiles, merely that it was an example. Certainly Drozd-2/Arena/Trophy would all be equally or more capable defences than just Shtora (though both would of course be preferable).

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'd give the Merkava credit for being the most survivable tank out there, but it isn't the most lethal.

[CommanderJB]

Hmm, I don't really know about it being the most survivable; a Challenger 2 ran into a ditch in 2003 in Iraq and and a Milan ATGM, multiple RPGs and dozens of small arms hit it for three solid hours before help arrived and the tank could be winched out, the crew sitting perfectly safe (though I imagine somewhat unnerved) inside the whole time. Six hours later they'd replaced the armour modules and the tank was back in action. There are even reports of a Challenger withstanding over seventy hits from RPGs while on a particularly unlucky patrol. Again, the crew escaped injury with the armour unpenetrated, and the tank was repaired and soon back in action. The M1A1s also have a reputation for hardiness - they survived multiple friendly fire incidents from APFSDS rounds and in one case an Abrams was hit by a recoilless rifle round to the engine which caused a fuel leak and fire; the tank was abandoned and shot multiple times with HEAT rounds and ATGMs with no noticeable effect. Meanwhile Merkavas suffered 50 hits from ATGMs in the 2006 war with Lebanon and in 22 of these instances, the armour was penetrated, causing the death of over twenty crewers or soldiers carried aboard. It just doesn't have quite the same record.

[Waris]

Necroing with original content



OK who has divided by zero here

[Admiral FCS]

Can't really decide, there's numbers of British and American in this forum...

Challenger 2, heavy armour, slow speed, good firepower, cost lesser fuels.

Abrams: heavy armour, high speed, good firepower, cost a lot more fuel.

I'd say they are equal. Challenger fits forest more while Abrams fits praries and deserts more. But I'd say Leopard2A6 is ze best.

[Code Monkey]

Honestly between the Challenger in Abrams it's no contest, they're both equally matched. Regardless of their equipment and weaponry, reputation and renown, when are you going to see these two fight eachother anyway?

Also @ FHSS: Though I love the Leopard and the glorious german engineering that created it, I'd say it's a tier down from the challenger and abrams, but still one of the best tanks in the world of course.

[CommanderJB]

It does have a considerably better gun going for it than its contemporaries - the M1A2 uses the fourty-four calibre long M256, a license-built copy of Rheinmetall's L44, whereas the Challenger II and uses the fifty-five calibre length Royal Ordnance Defence L30A1 rifled 120mm gun. The Leopard 2A6 however uses the brand-new L55, which is a metre longer than its predecessor and so gives much better power to APFSDS rounds in particular. It's quite a bit heavier, but the longer barrel really does give that advantage when it comes to kinetic energy penetrators.
Edit - I got the wrong info, thanks Dauth for pointing it out.

Edited by CommanderJB, 04 June 2008 - 11:12.

[Dauth]

Can I get a reference on that last bit about the guns being the same. Since IIRC the Challenger is a rifled bore and the M1A2 is smooth.

[CommanderJB]

My apologies, quite right too - the Challengers use the Royal Ordnance Defence L30A1 120mm rifled gun, whereas the M1 uses the M256 which is the license built copy of the L44. The Challenger is undergoing trials (the Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme or CLIP) with the L55, which is interesting as the existing L30A1 is actually already 55 calibres long, but presumably the L55 is a more capable gun in any case if they want to upgrade to it.

Edited by CommanderJB, 04 June 2008 - 11:13.

[Sgt. Rho]

I didn't vote, since the Leopard 2A6 ain't there...

[NergiZed]

Master_Chief, on 5 Jun 2008, 12:30, said:

I didn't vote, since the Leopard 2A6 ain't there...

Quoted for Great Justice

Leopard 2A6 beats them both by a mile. (Not in everything, but rather in the balance between manuverability, armor, technology and firepower)

Merkava 4, Leclerc, Type 99, and the T-90 all aren't here either...

Edited by NergiZed, 08 June 2008 - 19:32.

[CommanderJB]

I'd say the 2A6 is rather hard to judge because it's never seen combat on the scale of these two tanks. Certainly it has a lot of things going for it, including being pretty much the fastest tank around (11 km/h faster than the Challenger II, 3 km/h faster than the M1A2 on roads, 5 km/h faster than the T-90) and having the world's best gun, but it's extremely conventional and from what I've seen lacks the capability to be upgraded in the field (no applique/explosive-reactive armour, no laser lock warning systems, no missile capabilty, no mine countermeasures etc.). Anyway, like I said it's really impossible to compare thanks to the fact that it has seen negligible action. These two at least have a point of comparison when it comes to combat performance.

[NergiZed]

CommanderJB, on 8 Jun 2008, 22:48, said:

I'd say the 2A6 is rather hard to judge because it's never seen combat on the scale of these two tanks. Certainly it has a lot of things going for it, including being pretty much the fastest tank around (11 km/h faster than the Challenger II, 3 km/h faster than the M1A2 on roads, 5 km/h faster than the T-90) and having the world's best gun, but it's extremely conventional and from what I've seen lacks the capability to be upgraded in the field (no applique/explosive-reactive armour, no laser lock warning systems, no missile capabilty, no mine countermeasures etc.). Anyway, like I said it's really impossible to compare thanks to the fact that it has seen negligible action. These two at least have a point of comparison when it comes to combat performance.

Well, I'm sure some of those combat system will be developed when it actually sees combat; sure doesn't seem like it will any time soon.

Is there any conflict that the German army is participating in right now? I know their faffing about in a relatively peaceful part of Afganistan. Where else? Kosovo? I think France is there. But then again, Kosovo is more of a peacekeeping mission than a real conflict.

I don't think any other country that uses the Leopard 2 is in any major conflict either (most conflicts involving tanks and lesser countries are prolly fighting with T-55s, 64s, and 72s.)

[Admiral FCS]

Well, now Canadian forces in Afghanistan borrowed Leopard 2 A6 now, so it's now in a war, although small scale.