Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Your favorite Modern tank

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by KBO, Nov 21, 2004.

  1. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I agree field experience counts, but in my experience in the field (not military) there's a great deal that users don't learn, don't know, and in some cases do wrong and believe to be the right and only way.
    Every design team asks the users what they want (except the Russians - see Zaloga, Hull and Markov: Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery Design Practices: 1945 To Present).
    That's what design is about, but it comes down to lots of things, for example:
    budget, industrial capability, materials technology, are the crew right - if they've been using it incorrectly then the asked for upgrade might well be a backward step, national strategic forecasts etc etc.
    I am, one day, going to get some of my local wargames club members to do a "tank design" game, starting from a clean sheet of paper, at a given period in history and then make them fight their next few table-top battles
    with whatever they've designed :kill:
    See how they like that :eek:
    oli
     
  2. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    You don't think very high of tankcrews do you? :lol:
    THEY are the one that have to know EVERYTHING about there beast, they must make it there own, its not like the commander told them to climb abourd and drive, shoot, load, command the beast and than figure out what everything means, they are highly trained professionals (maybe not in some countries...) and know what they are doing and where they are taling about, if they want something changed because it sucks or ''could be better'' than the designing engineers gonna look at the things the crew want to see changed, if its possible AND if its an improvement than they would probably change it.
     
  3. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't think much of anybody :lol:
    Seriously, I've come into contact with military personnel who repeat things they've heard fom others who are repeating things they've heard, etc etc until it becomes "fact"..
    And I'm not excluding civvies from this either. At some point everybody gets something wrong, most correct it, the dumber ones carry on...
    I've sen it happen with stuff I've designed, where there's a manual, they've had training, I've answered questions, they've been run through the operations, monitored for a while, and a year later when I go back to sort out a "serious design flaw" it turns out to incorrect operatorion, because the operator thought his way was best, which he'd passed on to his apprentice.
    But sorry if I'm coming across as negative. IN GENERAL crews know what they're doing, and designers will listen (exept, as I said Russian). And look at your last sentence "an improvement than they would probably change it.". Again agreed, most likely change it, if it can be afforded.
    But my point about some users get it wrong, some designers get it wrong, some experts get it wrong still holds - if we're after hard data we have to be prepared to do a lot of work. And don't forget, if any information about a tank is militarily useful to an enemy then it's most likely disinformation. And that's a big problem.
    The saying in Top Gun is not true "if I told you I'd have to kill you", in reality it should be "if I told told I'd go to jail for a very long time, and probably so would you" - something I've had to say a few times.
    If it's 100% accurate then it won't be published during the service lifetime of that piece of equipment, if it's published it's not 100% accurate ... :roll:
    Oli
     
  4. E. Rommel phpbb3

    E. Rommel phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charles City
    via TanksinWW2
    M1 Abrams i love America and its armed forces
     
  5. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    I'll cast my vote with confidence for the M1A2 Abrams.
    Why?

    Proven in the field.
    Proven tank-killer.
    Proven survivability.

    Tom Clancy wrote about the Abrams--I don't recall the book, but a U.S. Armor study--and an incident during the '91 Gulf War. An Abrams--I believe at that time an M1A1--was disabled, hung-up, and could not be quickly retrieved. It was decided to destroy the tank in-place using another Abrams as the executioner.
    Said tank rolled up to point-blank range, and fired from the rear into the turret. This round penetrated and detonated the ammunition-load. The Abrams blast-doors worked perfectly and vented the entire mess straight-up into the air.
    They couldn't blow-it up, so they finally just sent it back to the states for study.
    I did read an account where two Abrams were destroyed in Iraq during the fight for Bagdad in '03. They were hit from the rear by anti-tank rounds or missles. (It was undetermined at the time.) All crewmen survived.
    No crew members have died--to my knowledge--whilst serving in an Abrams in battle.

    Tim
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Can't you say practically the same for the Challenger 2, though?
    :wink:

    I muist say that I personally think the Chally 2 is quite ugly, though, so it loses a few [censored] points there.
     
  7. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky:
    I bring into play the "Yank Factor."
    I'm biased to the Abrams, perhaps because I'm only a couple hours from Ft Knox, KY. I've seen the original prototype; at the time marked with the "Thunderbolt-art" from Gen. Abrams WW2 Sherman.
    The ChallengerII is of course up-there as a prime contender and tested in battle as well.
    After enduring the Sherman and it's failings during WW2, it was about time U.S. tankers got the "best" in the field for a change. LONG Overdue. I like it's profile and turret shape. I like the 120mm main gun of the M1A2, and the unique driver's position. Ammunition strage has come a long way since WW2 as well. Not to mention communications, thermal-sighting capabilities, and all the other innovations of contemporary weapon's systems.
    The modern tank's ability to hit and destroy--night or day--a target at fantastic range--and on the move--must be nearly impossible for a WW2 tanker to comprehend.

    Tim
     
  8. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hoosier, I'll not deny that the Abrahms is a very good tank, and I'll not claim that it is worse than the Chally 2...
    Mind you, I'll not claim that it is better! :grin:

    What is your view on the M60 (and predecessors)? I always thought that they were a touch mediocre compared to what everybody else had, but am willing to learn new facts...
     
  9. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    proven in battle doesn't say many, all modern main battle tanks are tested with very sophisticated computer technology, andthan when a prototype is made they test it even more to be sure it is combat/battle ready.

    There are alot more Abrams hit on the rear by anti-tank weapons, mostly very primitive RPG's, most where destroyed because they where hit in the engine-compartment, they tanks just simply burn-out, the rear of turret and hull + the top of the turret has always been weak places in a tank, all modern battle tanks are far from being indestructable.
     
  10. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky:
    I really want to like the M-48 and M-60 series of tanks, but they are not my favorites. I dislike the high-profiles, and the 'dated' suspension systems that contribute to that 'high-profile.'
    I also never cared for that small, enclosed power-driven Cmmdrs turret with .50 cal. In Vietnam, they pulled that .50 and mounted another over the top of the small power-turret. (Now it looked like an old M3 Lee!)
    No doubt todays MBT's are far more sophisticated in fire-control, target aquisition, communications and a whole range of computer-driven technologies.
    The Abrams was a stellar-leap in United States MBT design. It was a hard-fought battle to win funding by congress, and it seemed quite radical with a turbine-engine, and the ability to run on various fuels. While it may have initially been a hard-sell due to complexity and untested technologies, I do think US tankers are pleased with the final result.
    The Challenger/ChallengerII is a solid contender and it's crewed by our British brothers-in-arms. I'm not familiar enough to compare fire systems, powerplants, armour, main-gun (shared 120mm isn't it?) and the like. I do prefer the Abrams turret, but that is more personal preference that implied survivability speaking here.
    I like the Leopard-series of MBT's as well. (Perhaps the shared lineage to the old "cat-named" panzers of WW2 is a factor?) I like the hull and turret shapes--though it has changed over the years depending on variant.
    Has a Leopard-series tank ever engaged in MBT vs MBT combat? How did it fare against adversaries? Just curious.
    Must also admit admiration for the Israeli's and their use of armor. I've always liked the Merkava-series, and their M60-Blazer-version looks imposing with all those blocks of reactive armour. Look what they did with old Shermans and T-55's... Voila! The M51 Super Sherman, and the Ti67.
    Hope this helps.

    Tim
     
  11. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hi Hoosier,

    as far as I know, no Leopard 2s have ever been in combat - and possibly no Leopard 1s either.

    All British MBTs since the Chieftain have had 120mm rifled guns (the 120mm on the newer models of the Abrahms is smoothbore) with thermal cladding to maintain consistancy for more accurate shot prediction (I think!).

    And yeah - I have a liking for the Merkava, although I'm never quite sure how to spell or pronounce it! :grin:
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    Sadly 2 Challenger II crewmembers died when fired upon by another Challenger II :(
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ah, yes.

    IIRC, the shot was fired from close range and knocked the turret off.
     
  14. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
  15. cheeky_monkey

    cheeky_monkey New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    england
    via TanksinWW2
    i do like the challenger 2...but i also like the israeli merkava tank..simply because i saw one of their all female crews..and i must say they were looking a bit tasty! :D
     
  16. AL AMIN

    AL AMIN New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    some where in the middle east
    via TanksinWW2
    The best Tank in the world and there is absolute no doubt is the Leopard 2a6 there are many reasons and many european and global countries who want to buy a new mbt they testet many tanks challi, abi, or le clerk
    but almost every nation that performed this trial came to the conclusion to buy the leo or to copy and modify it like the jap typ 90 challi and abi and le clerk are top tanks no doubt but the king is the Leo
     
  17. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The Challenger 2, Abrams M1a2/SEP, Leclerc, Type 90, T-84, Merkava 4, Ariete, Leopard2a5/a6 etc are all very good tanks, I think there isn't much difference between them, but whats very interesting is that the Germans where able to design an MBT that is as good as the other modern tank for a lower price, and this last one is also the reason that many countries want the Leopard2a5/a6.

    I think its also a fact that German engineers are still the very best in designing tanks, or better said, components of tanks, for example the Rhein Metall L/44 Smoothbore 120mm canon is adopted by many, many countries, also the different types of engines are adopted by many countries, the tracks of Abrams, Challenger, Ariete (and many more) are German designed, maybe this indicates the lag of knowledge by the other countries on particulair components, IMO the German tank engineering is 1 of the best, if not THE best in the world.

    The new mine-protection upgrade/package is also very interesting and the first in the world:
    (Note the hanging seet for the driver, I think thats for protection against armor that is pushed to the insight of the tank when an anti-tank mine explodes underneed)

    http://www.deutschesheer.de/C1256B6C002 ... RHAHDE#top
     
  18. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    And now, apparently, we Brits are looking to re-arm Chally with the L/55 Rheinmetall gun :eek:
    And nobody else uses it at the moment do they?
     
  19. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2
  20. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    And nobody else uses it at the moment do they?

    These days about every country that buys the Leopard2 take the most modern version (even better than the STRV-122), Germany has the Leopard2a6 (a6=version with L/55 for you who didn't know), We, The Netherlands use the Leopard2a6, Spain uses the Leopard2a6E (apparently almost te same as the STRV-122 but with the L/55 instead of L/44) Greece also got a very modern version of the Leopard2a6, its called Leopard2a6HEL.
     

Share This Page