Need help with argument! Best tank?

[karl stiner]

Sorry, off topic a little/

Hmm. That war is not over. It still continues, but it is in sort of news eclipse.

You Sir have very straight opinions without any arguments...That war is not that simple thing, that it could be dealed with one liner. It is a very sad conflict for both, more to ordinary chechnyans though.

I actually find your post bit too light minded. You know, there are people dying there AKA being "knocked the hell out of them" even at the moment.

(And NO, I don

 

[Wiglaf]

Well, first off it has to be said all tanks are highly similar. All feat 120mm gun whit some differences wether it's automatic or manual. Personally Im all for autoloader...Especially in the future, tanks need to get smaller and one way of doing that is to reduce crewspace.
I however do understand that leopard and abrams designers didn't feel competent doing an autoloader, given automation technology was still maturing, but latter desing boast it. Eg K2Black Panther, lecerc etc.
They are all being smoothbored really.Well British tried, but couldn't be arsed to keep developing their own ammo.

Some feature Gas turbine instead of diesel, but generally pay high price for it. Whit fuel consumption anywhere between 120-200% compared to diesels, not to mention they are all resource hoggs even if whit diesels.
Although I think that Turbine engines are the way of the future, they are it in a form of hybrid electric drives, not as single source of power.

In Hellenic tank contest it was stated that Chally and LeClerc had the best fuel efficiency(go figure what that means excatly) and This had let me believe that it might believe that it might partially have something to do whit Hydropneumatic suspension. It is a fault of all tracked vechiles that even small mine or track failure is hard to fix so I consider hydropenumatic suspensio to be sligthly better, given that it would require engineering vechile help. Espesially if it gives not only slittle better performance as well as fuel efficiency.

Warfigthig is a team work and given the array of engineering vechiles is needed, most western tanks producers have realised this and do indeed offer wide selection of recovery trucks and engineering tanks. For some reason in this field leopard stands out.

 

[R1G4M0RT1Z]

Challenger II FTW!!!

 

[BubbaG]

T-90 hands down.

Excellent power to weight ratio
Main 125mm cannon comparable to western 120mm cannon.
Main 125mm cannon can fire Svir missiles at ranges up to 6km at armoured land vehicles or attack helicopters.
Reduced crew. 3 man versus western tanks 4 man crew.
More reliable automatic cannon loader.
Smaller size compared to western tanks
Weight of 46 tons compared to 60+ tons for western tanks
Compared max speed to western tanks
Ground pressure ratio is lower then western tanks
3rd generation explosive reactive armour
Shtora-1 countermeasures suites
Lower cost to produce then western tanks.

Combine all that with manning the tank with a western trained crew and you have a real killer.

 

[RedGuardist]

T-90 hands down.

Excellent power to weight ratio
Main 125mm cannon comparable to western 120mm cannon.
Main 125mm cannon can fire Svir missiles at ranges up to 6km at armoured land vehicles or attack helicopters.
Reduced crew. 3 man versus western tanks 4 man crew.
More reliable automatic cannon loader.
Smaller size compared to western tanks
Weight of 46 tons compared to 60+ tons for western tanks
Compared max speed to western tanks
Ground pressure ratio is lower then western tanks
3rd generation explosive reactive armour
Shtora-1 countermeasures suites
Lower cost to produce then western tanks.

Combine all that with manning the tank with a western trained crew and you have a real killer.

Hmm...I actually could second that post, good arguments. But what

 

[Peter.Steele]

T-90 hands down.

Excellent power to weight ratio

So does a 1957 ZIL. But that don't make it better than a '57 Bel Air.

Main 125mm cannon comparable to western 120mm cannon.
Main 125mm cannon can fire Svir missiles at ranges up to 6km at armoured land vehicles or attack helicopters.

M551 Sheridan. MGM-51C Shillelagh. BFD.

Reduced crew. 3 man versus western tanks 4 man crew.

This is a reflection of the Russian / Former Soviet system of conscription. There are significantly fewer people proficient at highly technical tasks (typically only officers and senior NCO's, because the conscripts simply can't be arsed to learn), so having an autoloading main gun has been a priority for Russian tank designers since at least WWII. Problem is, it's also slower (at least ICO T72 / T74) than most manually operated tanks.

More reliable automatic cannon loader.

More reliable ... without numbers, this one is hard to quantify. More reliable than what? Than the T72/74's system? Probably not difficult, from what my field-types have told me. More reliable than a separate, highly trained loader? Doubtful.

Additionally, that auto loading system can't help out with maintenance. It can't be trained to be a gunner. It can't take over gunner / driver / commander duties in an emergency.

Smaller size compared to western tanks
Weight of 46 tons compared to 60+ tons for western tanks

Could be a genuine advantage, depending on the survivability factors.

Compared max speed to western tanks

Ever see an M1 with its governor taken off? Back in the 80's, one got lost on an exercise in California, so the driver decided to hop on the freeway with it to get back to the exercise area. He got pulled over for speeding.

Ground pressure ratio is lower then western tanks

This is a definite advantage.[/quote]

3rd generation explosive reactive armour

Meaningless. There will be bolt-on modules for the M1, Chally, Leopard, etc. quite soon, if they're not available already.

Shtora-1 countermeasures suites

Unless Shtora features a cloaking device, it ain't gonna protect against a gunner with optical sights and an APFSDS round in the tube.

Lower cost to produce then western tanks.

Combine all that with manning the tank with a western trained crew and you have a real killer.

You -might- have a real killer. Please explain further about the Shtora and the autoloading system, etc.

 

[BubbaG]

Hmm...I actually could second that post, good arguments. But what

 

[BuddyLee]

The Huge disadvantage that has been stated countless times in this and other threads, the T-90's design makes it very hard to fire from a Hull-Down Position. Meaning to take a shot, it has to expose the most vulnerable part of the tank... its hull.

The M1, Chally, Leo etc. can all park hull down, and still depress the barrel far enough to fight from a prepared position.

Although with the superior Fire Control Systems on Western Tanks, they wont be doing much fighting while stationary. Firing on the move seems to be the norm for the West.

 

[BubbaG]

The Huge disadvantage that has been stated countless times in this and other threads, the T-90's design makes it very hard to fire from a Hull-Down Position. Meaning to take a shot, it has to expose the most vulnerable part of the tank... its hull.

The M1, Chally, Leo etc. can all park hull down, and still depress the barrel far enough to fight from a prepared position.

Although with the superior Fire Control Systems on Western Tanks, they wont be doing much fighting while stationary. Firing on the move seems to be the norm for the West.

Soviet doctrine is not to defend but to constantly be on the attack using their huge numbers to an advantage. The soviets didn't see the inferior hull-down position as a disadvantage. Its a trade off they accepted.

 

[JudgeMental]

That may be so mate but to be generally accepted as 'best tank' etc etc you need to tick all the boxes. You can't just do attack well, or just do defence well. There have been some interesting arguments on both sides though which is always good. Still haven't seen anything to change my mind yet. The Abrams, Leo and Chally are all there or there abouts. It boils down to crews. Still having a bad case of 'what if' though with the Chally 2E. In every quantifyable test it was far superior to Challenger, just a shame no-one could afford it . If you look up the specs for it, it was a hell of a beast. Why wasn't it selected? say it quietly folks, money and politics. I know its hard to beleive that such things happen LOL.

 

[Wiglaf]

I think russians don't consider massed attacks and manouver under fire anymore feasible. Modern combined arms battlefield isn't something yuo can just zerk rush, even tanks are gonna get whacked...for long time now by atgm of inf and air cavalry. Minefields and especially cluster bombs/mines are often overlooked and what those do is prevent fast troop movement heavy consentrations of troops.

Given digitatization, not only is arty coming more reactive due to better communication, but it also increases thread range by form of different smart bombs and hence firepower.

This is why in the future some believe that time of heavy mbt is over...no one is seriously saying tanks are obsolete, only heavy ones. Its time for medium and light tanks(which could be replaced by IFV ie bradley for added combined arms focus)

Let's look at the the lebanon war that feature some modern atgm and merkava. Its used show how tanks are obsolete or how merkava sucks, which is even more incorrect. Or atleast incorrectly presented.

*They admit that:
1.According to Merkava tank program admistration, 52 Merkava main battle tanks were damaged (the vast majority by different kinds of ATGM), missiles penetrated 22 tanks, but only 5 tanks were destroyed.

2.Hezbollah was estimated to have 13,000 missiles at the beginning of the conflict.

3.They admit that is isreali strategy sucked.

4.None professional is claiming that Hezbollah was fully professional and they certainly didn't feature effective/ arty, signals(increasingly important in modern battlefield), airforce. In other words they lacked combined arms.

So what that tells us is the fact that Merkava (amrour/firepower focus versus mobility/power of abrams tank) was whacked huge amount and they only lost 5! Armour did it

 

[mat69]

You could have said that years ago as well.
The Carl Gustav is easy to carry, easy to operate and is there since decades. Yeah you'll have problems destroying modern MBTs with it from the front, but you can damage them nevertheless and not even speaking of older MBTs.
The Sagger would be another example that was used very successfuly by the Egypt Forces.
Even the RPG 7 was and can be very dangerous if modern ammo is being used.

Tanks were very effective because often the opponent was no match in armament and or training.

 

[Wiglaf]

Very good mats, but not quite imho:
"The Carl Gustav can attack targets at 700 metres. At these ranges the weapon was only effective against large non-moving targets; the slow speed of the projectile made attacking moving targets something to be done at ranges out to 400m."

Where as modern:

Spike Extended Range has max range of 8km, and can hit moving target too.

That is to say we were getting there, but heavy tanks still packed best compination of firepower and durability. Carl Gustaw ment that infantry was still usefull in closed terrain, but could not control surrounding terrain from tanks.
Yes massed cavalry charges couldn't be done, rather one tank moved closer relynig speed and thick front armour and rest overwatched preferably hulldown and whacked infantry.
Or if in too covered terrain went around them to whack support guys and let yet not so reactive arty and slower infantry handle them just like in ww2 only think to counter tanks in operational scale still was other tanks.

Helicopters of 1980 were counterable by aa vechiles and yuor own airforce.
But whit lazerbeam riding quided missiles were getting closer.

Real revolution came whit top-attack missiles arriving in quantity by 1990's. Now faced whit engineering problem of armouring not only their fronts, but top-sides as well.

 

[Dascoo]

Mechs are the future!!!

But seriously, the Leopard 2 looks best on paper.

 

[BuddyLee]

I believe in the future tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will be merged into one simple lightweight design. Various types of active and reactive armor pack and systems will be the norm.

The big cannons will probably be seen only on self propelled artillery, unless they can come up with a new light weight answer to the massive recoil of the 120mm+ main guns.

 

[JudgeMental]

Leopard 2 looks best on paper.

But unfortunately very few wars are ever faught on paper, then the only thing you'd have to worry about would be a paper cut

 

[Rss]

The Huge disadvantage that has been stated countless times in this and other threads, the T-90's design makes it very hard to fire from a Hull-Down Position. Meaning to take a shot, it has to expose the most vulnerable part of the tank... its hull.

The M1, Chally, Leo etc. can all park hull down, and still depress the barrel far enough to fight from a prepared position.

Although with the superior Fire Control Systems on Western Tanks, they wont be doing much fighting while stationary. Firing on the move seems to be the norm for the West.

Ahem... In case of defence, T-72/T-90 has integral bulldozer blade under glasis. Besides, our officers told us that depression wasn't much of a case, as it differs only 3 degrees from our Leos.

 

[JudgeMental]

3 degrees at 1000 metres is about 53 metres deflection if my conversion from degrees to mils is correct. I have to say thats a huge amount when a tanks height is only about 2.5 metres.

 

[Sigurd]

You only need to lower front of tank a few centimeters to make a 3 degree change so "huge amount" is a relative term.

Tanks are obsolete anyway. Only useful in the flat deserts of the middle east.
Thats why North-Korea can blackmail the world with atomic program. It will be way too expensive to invade because our precious tanks are useless in the mountains.

I believe Leo is the best tank. Germany makes better cars than England, US and Russia, so why would tanks be different?

 

[BuddyLee]

You only need to lower front of tank a few centimeters to make a 3 degree change so "huge amount" is a relative term.

Tanks are obsolete anyway. Only useful in the flat deserts of the middle east.
Thats why North-Korea can blackmail the world with atomic program. It will be way too expensive to invade because our precious tanks are useless in the mountains.

I believe Leo is the best tank. Germany makes better cars than England, US and Russia, so why would tanks be different?

Yeah German cars look pretty, but American Trucks, Tractors, Semi's, have always been more reliable and easier to fix than the over engineered German equivalent.

American cars are cheaper and easier to tune, a better value period. You can't get a new production 500+ Horsepower BMW in Germania for ~ $35,000.- $45,000.

Maybe if Toyota made tanks they would be the best tanks in the World.