Need help with argument! Best tank?

[JudgeMental]

A little note


Average height of Russian males in 1980s was 1.76. Now it has became smaller. We also aren't as fat as some western nations, so I don't see where is a problem with limited space - if average soldier can get there, then it's OK, imho.

That was average height of Russian males, now give me the average height of Russian tank crews , I think you'll find it will be different. One of the T72's I had the pleasure of examining/testing after the first Gulf war was advanced in many ways. It was also simple and robust, all in all a good tank though not a match for Challenger, which is hardly surprising as it is so much smaller and lighter. Then (unlike now LOL) I did not consider myself fat, just normal build. I had great difficult squeezing my 1.78 metre frame into it. The T90 was developed from the T72 and is of similar size. LOL please don't use the "You've eaten too many burgers too use this tank" argument

 

[Colt .45 killer]

sheesh, this thread aint dead yet? i think we all know that most of the MBT's are equal in power and defences relative to their country +or- 5%. where the real power comes from is crew skill.

 

[BuddyLee]

Buddy, though it pains me to say it (and really its the wrong place), the 'live axle' as favoured by the majority of American car maufacturers is NOT the best solution to making a car handle. Sure, they'll be huge fun to drive but not as accurate as a lighter car with IRS. I think it may be prudent to start another thread about it though rather than hijacking this one, oh and Chally 2E is STILL the best

Live Axle is better for a truck, stronger and you can get more suspension travel out of them with mods.

I am not saying that my 4x4 will out run a BMW Sportscar, but I think most people would be surprised at how fast it is, and how well it handled. And for $23,000 USD it is much more thrifty and you can haul crap with it.

And believe it or not, it is faster than most ricers in a straight line, and handles almost as well.

/on topic turbines are lighter than diesels, so the M1 can allocate that weight savings for ammo or armor.

 

[JudgeMental]

sheesh, this thread aint dead yet? i think we all know that most of the MBT's are equal in power and defences relative to their country +or- 5%. where the real power comes from is crew skill.

LOL as I and several others have already stated many times over matey.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

me thinks the leopard2 is best, i remember that in a tankcompetiton between allied nations a few years ago. where different tanks and their crews were tested and given points, that the 40+ year old belgian leopard 1 tank scored better than the american abrams a1a2... hehe what a humiliation!

none of the today tanks are invulnerable to other tanks, so it ALL comes down to crew quality.
the leopard 2 is different from what we were used of german tank technology, just like their ancestors they are verry ingenious, but this time they are also reliable, robust, overpowered and easy to maintain.
the heck, the abrams is even using the leopard 2 gun, because american technology cant equal it.

 

[JudgeMental]

In tank 'competition' as a rule the targets don't shoot back. A lot also depends on what crews are in the comp. LOL far be it from me to mention some of the outrageous 'fixing' that went on in the CAT shoots they used to hold. The reason that the Yanks use the German smoothbore gun?, its pre designed and therefore cheaper than designing their own from scratch.The Yanks are nothing if not pragmatic. It also means that its easier to provide ammunition through the system as you only have to provide one sort. The British are trialling the 120 smoothbore too. Its a great gun but as theres no HESH round for it at the moment and we Brits like HESH rounds.

As has been said time and time again, it all boils down to crew training.

 

[Wiglaf]

Okkei, back to topic, after the car venture

Crew and moral, well yes indeed just let me remind what makes skill. On battlefield it's utilising most of yuor enviroment. And that includes yuor equipment.
Heck that is greatest input individual soldier can make, taking most of his equipment as strategies(and hence the place and time) are more often dictated by politics and perhaps generals.

What comes to tank shooting competitions then yes, targets don't shoot pack...atleast in reality. There is 2 sligthly different schools of though. First being the western hull down hunter killer, on which principle nearly all western tanks are built. Relying on different degrees of protection and heavy main gun.
Much like american ww2 tank hunters.

Other is the armoured spearheads charge of old russia. Now none expects this to work anymore simply all those A10's flying out there. But mobility and firepower instead. What this might do these days is offer better fleet on different kind of terrains.
Nobody had mentioned china yet. And what they have done is have 2 tank types in production.
Heavier one is supplemented by the ligher cheaper more mobile ones.
This way they got something that is more easy to sacrifice on open terrain and something to support their infantry troops on urban/difficult terrain conflict.

Wether they understand to utilise and desing tanks to this end remains to be seen and leads back to my ranting for need to new generation of light tanks.
This belief of mine is further augmented by PAN's comment that t90 relies tube launched at-missile against other tanks.
Well, by eliminating the big main gun and it's support systems further gains weight reductions.

Still if yuo want me to name one then yea, its leo. I mean it's most mobility oriented of western tanks, but it's been seemingly most upgraded including in it's armour department.
This is one of the reasons it has sold so well. Finland bought older model which offer more mobility in difficult terrain when swedish took heavier model, buth they have the excellent cv90 to go whit that.Leo went from 55t to current over 60, which is what other westerns really weight. Well yuo can buy the lighter leo, and yuo can yuo can buy the heavier one. It's easier to desing recovery vechile based on the lighter older variant or yuo can convert it easily.
It just seems most sensible on overall scheme of thins.

That being said...it's too heavy too. Give me light tanks

 

[JudgeMental]

Okkei, back to topic, after the car venture

Crew and moral, well yes indeed just let me remind what makes skill. On battlefield it's utilising most of yuor enviroment. And that includes yuor equipment.
Heck that is greatest input individual soldier can make, taking most of his equipment as strategies(and hence the place and time) are more often dictated by politics and perhaps generals.

What comes to tank shooting competitions then yes, targets don't shoot pack...atleast in reality. There is 2 sligthly different schools of though. First being the western hull down hunter killer, on which principle nearly all western tanks are built. Relying on different degrees of protection and heavy main gun.
Much like american ww2 tank hunters.

Other is the armoured spearheads charge of old russia. Now none expects this to work anymore simply all those A10's flying out there. But mobility and firepower instead. What this might do these days is offer better fleet on different kind of terrains.
Nobody had mentioned china yet. And what they have done is have 2 tank types in production.
Heavier one is supplemented by the ligher cheaper more mobile ones.
This way they got something that is more easy to sacrifice on open terrain and something to support their infantry troops on urban/difficult terrain conflict.

Wether they understand to utilise and desing tanks to this end remains to be seen and leads back to my ranting for need to new generation of light tanks.
This belief of mine is further augmented by PAN's comment that t90 relies tube launched at-missile against other tanks.
Well, by eliminating the big main gun and it's support systems further gains weight reductions.

Still if yuo want me to name one then yea, its leo. I mean it's most mobility oriented of western tanks, but it's been seemingly most upgraded including in it's armour department.
This is one of the reasons it has sold so well. Finland bought older model which offer more mobility in difficult terrain when swedish took heavier model, buth they have the excellent cv90 to go whit that.Leo went from 55t to current over 60, which is what other westerns really weight. Well yuo can buy the lighter leo, and yuo can yuo can buy the heavier one. It's easier to desing recovery vechile based on the lighter older variant or yuo can convert it easily.
It just seems most sensible on overall scheme of thins.

That being said...it's too heavy too. Give me light tanks

T90 is no lighter because it uses GW. It still has its main gun, its just that you can launch a GW weapon from the barrel.
As far as recovery is concerned, the Challenger ARRV is a beast, it will recover anything. I remember demonstrating it to the Germans, they were well impressed with it. The sheer size and capabilities are something else.

As to your argument about light tanks, you have to balance weight, protection and speed. Too light and too little armour and you will be taken out by anyone. Too heavy and your advantage in armour will be negated by less mobility and speed.

 

[dogbadger]

sheesh, this thread aint dead yet? i think we all know that most of the MBT's are equal in power and defences relative to their country +or- 5%. where the real power comes from is crew skill.

Do you mean that makes the Abrams the runaway winner, with tanks like the Chally and Leopard 2 quite a long way off the pace- regardless of whatever +/- 5%.?
Is that what you meant by power relative to their country?
'cos i would not agree the difference in cabability of these tanks (if any) was proportionate to the overall military might of their respective countries- unless, of course, you are taking their tank force as a whole.

 

[JudgeMental]

I think you misunderstood mate. All he meant was that all MBT's now are so close in capability that the deciding factor is the crew.... at least thats the meaning I took from it.

 

[Wiglaf]

Judge, yuo misunderstood me, point was that it is useless to desing heavy main guns as missile technology is the most advancing area currently. Yuo can't expect it to improve radically.

Refer to my post on page 7 for further point over light tanks.

It weights armour and firepower over mobility, which i do weight more than speed. Point was more like to concratulate germans over their good project managment in leopard.
Unlike it's partner project abrams that strikes me as a designed by soldiers in the lead.Nothing wrong whit that its a good tank and managed good results, it's just versus german engineers saying we see what yuo need, but we can't do it quite yet. Let us take more time and improve it in future.

On that regard british have managed so too. There was a **** up whit the fire control system initially afaik, but all that have been fixed and steadily upgraded.


Anyways yuor still barking at the wrong tree, I suggest yuo aim it at americans, they are the ones trying to use up all the oil. Boo abrams, horrible.
Go EU.

 

[JudgeMental]

OK in order to make this quicker, my points in no particular order

1. British tanks have Always prioritised protection over mobility. That why they weigh as much as they do. It is the MOST survivable tank out there. Dorchester plus applique packs are seriously armoured. Other nationalities have a different ethos in the way they design their tanks, thats not saying that they're wrong, just that they prioritise differently. To them, mobility might be the B all and end all, or it might be simplicity, or it might be offensive abilities.
2. The 120mm rifled gun is more versatile than 120 smoothbore, notwithstanding the fact that no-one else likes it LOL.
3. I STILL can't get my head round the fact that Leo is thought of in this poll as best in the world.As previously stated its a close run thing but the best?.Its never been in any meaningfull tank on tank high intensity war.I console myself with the fact that people on these forums ALSO voted that the All Blacks would win the World Cup........good call
4. Stated and restated its down to crews. Its them who can get that last few percent out of their tank, its them that make the difference. As previously stated, and fully admitting I'm biased, I think we have the best combination. See many many previous posts for that.
5. Don't make the mistake of comparing Challenger 2 to Challenger. They are 2 COMPLETELY different tanks. Different engine,transmission,armour,FCS etc etc.
6. Light tanks? low profile, composite armour,low pressure gun and GW rail, no, I don't know anything about them

FINALLY, barking up wrong tree? , no mate I'm just engaging in a healthy debate. I'm always up for debate. Its the nationalistic simplistic arguments that are not backed up that get up my nose and NO, I'm certainly not aiming that comment at anyone in this thread. Hope thats clear.

 

[BuddyLee]

...The reason that the Yanks use the German smoothbore gun?, its pre designed and therefore cheaper than designing their own from scratch.The Yanks are nothing if not pragmatic. It also means that its easier to provide ammunition through the system as you only have to provide one sort. The British are trialling the 120 smoothbore too. Its a great gun but as theres no HESH round for it at the moment and we Brits like HESH rounds.

As has been said time and time again, it all boils down to crew training.

I agree.

After all we yanks have freakin' railguns dude.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

the american army is not the kind of army that says, hey the germs have a good gun, lets buy it from them... they will make their own better no matter the costs ( the us army has a budget bigger than the income of many countries together! and still they didnt make a tank that is concidered the best) unless if they cant!

 

[JudgeMental]

the american army is not the kind of army that says, hey the germs have a good gun, lets buy it from them... they will make their own better no matter the costs ( the us army has a budget bigger than the income of many countries together! and still they didnt make a tank that is concidered the best) unless if they cant!

OK so they won't buy it from the Germans.......um, one fatal flaw in your argument there, they DID use the Rheinmetal maufactured gun!!. All in all, your argument makes no sense, maybe its a translation thing, but TBH it makes no sense. Quite apart from anything else, its not the Army who decide what to buy, they provide feedback and then the GOVERNMENT decide what to do.

 

[Lt_Kettch]

Yeah but normally a government buys weapons because of economical and political reasons. Because you want the money you spent on guns etc to stay in your country (or the companys that produces the weapons is located in the USA and wants to have the money )
I don't know which comapany built the guns of WWII era tanks but Rheinmetall (I think Rheinmetall builts the 120mm ) has the expierence of building tank cannons for two World Wars and if you don't find a company with such skill to suit your "best tank" of the world with the "best gun" of the world in your own country the only logical step you can take is to find the best tank gun in the world and buy it the old-fashoined way ...

 

[SchutzeSepp]

i meanth that the us army will always use american stuff UNLESS they cant make something at least as good as the other armies.

just look at ww2, how many us tankcrews died because the us government didn't want to use the british 17 pdr in their shermans? "officially" because they were to proud to use british stuff in their own tanks. but really because the allmighty american weapon industry was against it, industry who's financial leaders pretty much pushed the usa into ww2 because they wanted a big piece of the enormous profits that are generated by war.

and i know they use the german gun on the abram, but it was to argue with judgemental's sayings who said the americans used the german gun because that way they didn't have to make it themselves.
"quality and price" in weapon choice criteria comes after " did that company fund bush's presidential campaign?" and " how many (in billions) will they bribe the comission?"

 

[JudgeMental]

On so many levels you're wrong. The Americans never went for Fireflies in a big way as they decided that they wanted to clump all their tank destroyers (they had a fascination with them) together rather than spread them throughout the tank troops like we did. That was an error of tactical doctrine, not a case of being too proud to use it. Are you also going to say that they wouldn't use centimetric radar (described by them as "The most precious cargo to reach our shores") because it was a British invention?.
I have no special love for the Yanks but I have to say sometimes it really seems that they do get a hard time on these forums. There are many things you could quite legitimately say about shady practices and you'd have no argument from me, but on this one I think that you are in error.
Your final argument about quality and price coming AFTER contributions?. In this present day and age where such dealings are often exposed to public scrutiny, such practices would be political suicide. There are too many flag draped coffins being seen already, if that was linked to troops deploying with sub standard kit due to political machinations......well I leave you to figure out the ramifications.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

but the firefly wasn't a tankdestroyer, its an upgunned sherman. that changes it all, its not about giving some shermans the 17pdr and using them as a tankhunter. but giving all the new shermans a 17pdr because their initial gun was obsolete.
my final arguement was a joke, everybody knows the weapon industry takes no profit whatsoever out of pushing governments into conflicts. and that the public markets are not influenced by any political interference...

 

[JudgeMental]

but the firefly wasn't a tankdestroyer, its an upgunned sherman. that changes it all, its not about giving some shermans the 17pdr and using them as a tankhunter. but giving all the new shermans a 17pdr because their initial gun was obsolete.
my final arguement was a joke, everybody knows the weapon industry takes no profit whatsoever out of pushing governments into conflicts. and that the public markets are not influenced by any political interference...

And you're missing my point mate. The UK didn't convert EVERY Sherman to Firely spec, I think it ran to 1 per troop spread throughout the unit. Their argument was that the standard Sherman fired both AP and HE ammo and could take out blockhouses and fortifications not to mention troops. Its a miserable equation but it had to be done that way. We couldn't compete for 'quality' so we had to beat them on quantity and if that meant pumping out thousands of Shermans with 75 mm guns and hundreds with 76.2 mm gun then that was how it was done. Its one of the exigencies of war unfortunately. Remember too that there were comparitively few Panthers and Tigers and the 75 mm gun limitations were mainly shown up against those vehicles. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that as a tactic is was 'right'. What I'm saying is that there was no ulterior motive behind it.
The American take on it was to use 'tank destroyers' Hellcats and such to do the job that the Brits used Fireflies for. Not only that, they clustered them together (as previously stated) rather than spreading them throughout a tank unit. As a tactic it was wrong and ultimately they paid for it, but again it was a failure of tactical doctrine, nothing else.