PDA

View Full Version : The Best Tank



PiggyWiggy
19 Oct 03,, 04:25
Today, their are many tanks to chose from.

In your opinion, please, state which you feel is/are the best tanks today.

bigross86
19 Oct 03,, 19:06
M1A3 Abrams/IDF Merkava Mk IV

Praxus
19 Oct 03,, 20:09
The M1A3 doesn't exsist and it's not going to either.

axl
19 Oct 03,, 20:33
plus there is not enough data/service experience available to make any statement about the merk4. just because its the latest one it is not the best. just wait that somebody comes again with leopard 2a6ex.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

TopHatter
19 Oct 03,, 20:50
I think when you have the latest versions of the Abrams, LeClerc, Merkava, Leopard II and Challenger II all lined up together, it's a matter of incremental differences overall. That is to say, one may have a better engine, but be slightly deficient in other areas. I would personally consider them all to be in the same class.
Let's say for example that you have a Challenger II go up against a LeClerc. It would basically come down the crews since they are a pretty even match. Unlike say, taking that same LeClerc and putting it up against a T-55.

PiggyWiggy
19 Oct 03,, 21:44
NO WAY!

LEOPARD A6 IS THE BEST!

you musnt doubt the germans on tanks.

axl
19 Oct 03,, 22:18
germans are stupid and make the same mistake they did two times in history. at the end of ww1 and ww2 they started making the tanks more and more heavy. the a5 had already more mass at the front, caused by the additional armour. the sweds did even worse by adding additional armour at hull front and turret roof. the germans came with the longer gun, again mass at the front. and now they will upgrade the tanks to the so called leo2a6m by adding additional mine protection. the sweds will do the same, probably go also for the l55 gun. the leo2 has been designed with 55t and now it is going to brake the 70t barrier. the suspension of the swedish ones has been modified, but not of the germans. and still the propulsion is the same and the mass is not anymore balanced over the vehicle, its focused on the front. good by best mobility ever seen.

regards
axl

px: it's Leclerc and not LeClerc. It is named after a general.

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Stinger
19 Oct 03,, 22:23
M1A2.... but like sniper I wouldn't be to keen on crewing ones... I follow the "try not to be in, on or around a bomb magnet" method.

PiggyWiggy
19 Oct 03,, 22:39
Yeah this brings up another question i have.

i will start a new thread about it.

TopHatter
20 Oct 03,, 22:03
Axl
You are correct in the spelling of General Jacque Philippe Leclerc's last name. I've seen it spelled LeClerc only occasionally, and it's probably incorrect. I personally like how it looks with the first C capitalized, but I'll be sure to spell it correctly for now on. Thanks for the info.

axl
20 Oct 03,, 22:25
english speakers tent to go for le clerk...but that is not really the same as the general. leclerc is a widely used lastname in france, they have even a supermarked with it. unfortunatelly they don't sell this excelent tank. :-)

regards
axl



www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

TopHatter
20 Oct 03,, 22:30
The Leclerc supermarket might not have Main Battle Tanks in stock but I'll just bet that the French Government and defense industry would just love to find an overseas buyer for their steel beastie. Currently it seems like the two big tank exporters are the US and Russia. Hard market to break into.

axl
20 Oct 03,, 22:35
could be that saudi arabia is going for the leclerc. negotiations are ongoing since years, but now france made it official. so maybe something is going on here soon.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Praxus
20 Oct 03,, 22:43
Saudia Arabia has the M1A2 they don't need any Frog shit.

axl
20 Oct 03,, 22:53
saudi arabia is also using the amx-30s. those tanks have to be replaced. as the political relationship between the usa and saudi arabia is not anymore the best and as arabien countries like to receive the military equippment from different suppliers they will go for something else.

what is your specific knowledge about the leclerc to allow such a statement? and what version are you refering to?

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Praxus
20 Oct 03,, 23:05
How about this...

You POST your unit????????

axl
20 Oct 03,, 23:07
has that something to do with the leclerc? oh yes, btw, i'm civilian and work as consultant right now. feel better?

regards
axl



www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 01:11
How about this...

WHAT WAS YOUR UNIT!?

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 02:20
He'd just be making it up...forget it.

I don't like the Leclerk if for no other reason than it has an autoloader and a 3 man crew.

Oh, and it's Frog...er...french.

axl
21 Oct 03,, 06:57
5./304, 5./284, 3./284, 6./304, 6./104, 1./284.

feel better now?

regards
axl

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 15:26
I'll let you know in a few days.

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 21:04
5./304 what? Infantry, Panzer, what?

What company?

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 21:05
Example, i served in Scout Plt, HHC, 4/31 Inf(Mech).

axl
21 Oct 03,, 21:33
first number is company, second bataillon. and its tank bataillons only.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpnzer.de)

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 21:39
Ok, what brigade and or division?

I need the whole thing, or it is of no value at all.

BTW, how long were you in?

axl
21 Oct 03,, 21:51
before you ask, size of my underwear is five.
what sense does brigade or division make?
304/284 are mech_inf brigade 30/10th tank division
104 is tank brigade 12/13th tank division

how long i have been in? long enough. i hope they will let me live in peace next year, when my last bataillon will be take out of service.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 22:18
i think the T72BU2.
lets not start a pissing contest.

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:12
Just shut up, you have no idea what your talking about.

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:14
oh hello... i do have an idea of what i am talking about, thank you, and you cannot change my opinion, so please shut up yourself.
T-72BU2 for life!
http://www.arms.ru/tank/fotos/t72_2.jpg

Ironduke
21 Oct 03,, 23:16
No insults, please!

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:21
That RA does next to nothing against APFSDS rounds and we normally don't use HEAT rounds to kill tanks. The main gun is massivly inferior. The autoloader is less reliable then a man doing the reloading. The Armour protection including RA is less then 2/3 that of the Abrams. The IR sensors are crappy compared to any western optics.

Again you have no idea what your talking about.

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/75c0f2d0f748a01585256c4800400155/$FILE/blast2copy.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/78c2042a6a178cf985256b4f0052dae8/$FILE/tanks6low.jpg
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/e71b591f9d3a3db485256ac5005e9df8/$FILE/tiger1low.jpg

Come on, anyone knows that ALL Russian tanks are inferior to their western counterparts in almost all ways.

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:23
well i wouldn't even start an argument because i cannot be arsed to argue right now.
i like the T72BU2 and i think it can whipe the floor with all the western tanks. i dont care what you say! you cannot change my opinion.
i dont care how much you have been brainwashed by western propoganda, please get off my back.
bye.

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:27
I'm sorry, it's not my fault you reject reality.

Russia has NO private news, the United States has ALL private news except for PBC and next to no one watches it.

Tell me who is the one being brainwashed?

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:30
god... i didn't know i was dealing with such an unadvanced person.
if you want to emphasize on "news" and brainwashing go ahead. and where did you pull out the "russia has no private news" from?

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:33
It's a fact, the last private channel shut down a little while ago.

Just face it, your imagining things:LOL

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:44
NTV is now independent, again, because they bought back their shares, so is RTV and TV6.
And there are THOUSANDS of local commercial channels.
Face it, you are wrong, if you think you know shit about private television in Russia, you are wrong, and if you consider that propoganda is only spread through television, then reconsider considering yourself an imbecile!

PS: I'm not even Russian...

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 00:16
Do you have a point?

Have you ever been to the United States?

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 00:24
i have been to the united states and have lived for a year in dallas texas.

what is your point?

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 00:36
Praxus, please be civil in your comments to other board members unless they attack you first.

I hardly think the T-72 a match for any modern western tank, but it is no cause for rudeness or insults.

Tell me Squirt, does the T-72 you mention still have the ammunition stowage housed with the crew in the turret like the older ones?

That didn't work out so well...

The only T-72 i've ever seen that i thought was worth a damn was the T-72-120 with Western gun and optics.

My all time favorite feature of the T-72 is the autoloaders penchant for ramming the gunners leg in the breech...

Officer of Engineers
22 Oct 03,, 00:41
Originally posted by Praxus
Come on, anyone knows that ALL Russian tanks are inferior to their western counterparts in almost all ways.

Saved one. Price per point.

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 01:40
Originally posted by M21Sniper

I hardly think the T-72 a match for any modern western tank

was there ever an example of a Soviet/CIS T72BU2 encountering a US M1A1 tank?
no, so until it does, all you say can be discarded as pure speculation.

Ironduke
22 Oct 03,, 01:45
Originally posted by s_qwert63
was there ever an example of a Soviet/CIS T72BU2 encountering a US M1A1 tank?
no, so until it does, all you say can be discarded as pure speculation.
You just put your foot in your mouth. By your own logic, your argument can be discarded as pure speculation.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 02:21
"was there ever an example of a Soviet/CIS T72BU2 encountering a US M1A1 tank?
no, so until it does, all you say can be discarded as pure speculation."

I never shot a Russian either, but i am still quite confident that a 7.62 rifle bullet will kill one.

Pure speculation on my part- but based on a large body of anecdotal evidence- it seems a safe bet. :)

axl
22 Oct 03,, 06:07
@s_qwert63
that picture shows a polish pt-91 tank. there is no t-72bu2, never was, never will be.

regards
axl

PiggyWiggy
22 Oct 03,, 06:39
The man with the che guevarra avatar is right!

there is no combat that has proven these two tanks fighting eachother. you are all just spectators who like sitting down with a calculator punching in numbers.

axl
22 Oct 03,, 06:42
Originally posted by Praxus
That RA does next to nothing against APFSDS rounds and we normally don't use HEAT rounds to kill tanks. The main gun is massivly inferior. The autoloader is less reliable then a man doing the reloading. The Armour protection including RA is less then 2/3 that of the Abrams. The IR sensors are crappy compared to any western optics.

wait a second, you are arguing against a soviet tank that does not exist? how can a non existing vehicle be less capable that an existing one?


Originally posted by Praxus
Come on, anyone knows that ALL Russian tanks are inferior to their western counterparts in almost all ways.

no, that is a wrong statement and not even the us army will follow that (tom clancy does, okay). until the abrams/leo2 generation soviet tanks were always ahead of western ones. the introduction of thermal imaging technology was quite an amazing improvement for western tanks and gave them a larger theoretical combat range.
but you should also see this points: soviet tanks are always smaller targets. soviet tanks had hunter/killer capabilities 15 years earlier than american ones. at the beginning of the 1980s heat rounds/missiles were much more important in anti tank combat. soviet tanks had era which made nearly the whole anti-tank concept of the nato useless. what do you think why the 120mm gun has been fielded during the 1980s, why did they develop dive/top attack atgms?
the soviet auto loader is more than okay. just tell me one crew member who is saying different stuff about it. sure, in a simulated situation the human loader is faster. but he needs foot, he needs sleep, he needs space, he needs training. the introduction of an autoloader has technical but also political preferences. its much more easy for a state to write three than four letters.
with the fall of the soviet union the eastern tank development nearly stopped. but that does not make the available tanks less powerful.

@M21Sniper
t-72-120 and yatagan/oplot are equipped with ukrain guns.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

axl
22 Oct 03,, 06:45
Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
The man with the che guevarra avatar is right!

there is no combat that has proven these two tanks fighting eachother. you are all just spectators who like sitting down with a calculator punching in numbers.

what tank? the not existing one? how stupid is that? the t-72bu is the only one that has been developed. it was fielded as t-90. there is officially no t-72bu anymore and also no t-72bu2. the showed pt-91 is not really something you should waste brain energy on. just take the 2a26 main gun...not even the iraqi t-72m/m1 had such an old main gun.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 07:44
Ukraine makes a 120mm smoothbore?

News to me.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 07:48
BTW, you can have all the faith in ERA you want, but a hit on the ERA against an unbuttoned tank is going to kill the TC(and all surrounding infantry), and leave the thing pretty useless anyway.

The advantadges of a human loader are immense when compared to a autoloader, especially in MOUT and close terrain.

Ever seen an autoloader perform a PMCS, change a track section or suppress enemy infantry with a M-240 machinegun?

Ever seen an autoloader perform first aid on a wounded crewmate?

Ever seen a human loader stuff the gunners leg in the breech as it slams home?

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 11:01
Originally posted by M21Sniper
Ukraine makes a 120mm smoothbore?

News to me.

ever hear of the T84 "OPLOT"???

and axl, the T72BU2 does exist, it is an upated kazakh version of the T72B. with new type KONTAKT 5 armour.
and in the picture it is a T72B.
here is another one:
http://www.arms.ru/tank/fotos/t72_3.jpg

the polish use the T72A

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 11:03
Originally posted by M21Sniper
BTW, you can have all the faith in ERA you want, but a hit on the ERA against an unbuttoned tank is going to kill the TC(and all surrounding infantry), and leave the thing pretty useless anyway.

The advantadges of a human loader are immense when compared to a autoloader, especially in MOUT and close terrain.

Ever seen an autoloader perform a PMCS, change a track section or suppress enemy infantry with a M-240 machinegun?

Ever seen an autoloader perform first aid on a wounded crewmate?

Ever seen a human loader stuff the gunners leg in the breech as it slams home?

so why is the US army considering replacing the human loader with an automatic loader like in the Leclerc?
the loading time can vary, with a human loader and if a tank is destroyed you have 4 bodybags instead of 3.

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 14:19
so why is the US army considering replacing the human loader with an automatic loader like in the Leclerc?
the loading time can vary, with a human loader and if a tank is destroyed you have 4 bodybags instead of 3.

That is just in the Future Combat System, not what I hope will be the M1A3.

The FCS there will only be two crew members, a Gunner and a Driver, everything else will be automated. It's gonna have IAAP(Intergrated Army Active Protection) to protect against HEAT and RPG rounds(Unlike the Arena the IAAP can stop HEAT rounds).

A man can load a 120mm round faster then an autoloader can.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 18:25
"so why is the US army considering replacing the human loader with an automatic loader like in the Leclerc?
the loading time can vary, with a human loader and if a tank is destroyed you have 4 bodybags instead of 3."

They're not. Especially after OIF.

Go read the AAR posted on this forum marked MUST READ to see why.

What the army DOES want to do is replace the gun altogether- with a laser cannon.

TopHatter
22 Oct 03,, 18:33
Hm, interesting idea about a laser cannon.
I wonder though, if some kind of particle-beam cannon would be practical on a vehicle that tends to get covered in mud, dust and filth.
A weapon that cannot be put in the hands of a private soldier is not a weapon, merely a theoretical exercise.
On the other hand, as long as you can provide power to the unit, it's not like you have to worry about running out of ammo.
Perhaps a chemical laser?

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 18:36
Read my "FCS Info" post it has info on the laser.

Here is a different one on Lasers...
http://globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031019-warfare01.htm

Chemical Lasers require huge ammounts of CHEMICALS to be carried around. We are working on solid state lasers which would run off of batteries that are charged by the engine.

axl
22 Oct 03,, 18:52
@s_qwert63
from what source you get your stupid information? first picture is still a polish pt-91. second picture shows a totally different tank. it is designated as t-72mp and is offered by the ukrain toigether with czech and france.
poland can't use the t-72a, as this version is not used outside the soviet union. the export versions are t-72m and t-72m1.

@M21Sniper
ukrain developed a 120mm gun designated as kbm2. it is used together with a bustle mounted autoloader and fires normal one piece 120mm rounds. it is offered for various tanks like oplot or t-72-120. don't listen to "s_qwert63", the t-84 is not designated as oplot and it has also no 120mm gun.
this disadvantage of era is often said in western countries. if a tank has no era it has the same effect, as most energy plus the demolished turret/hull will also harm everybody around. moreover infantry is not around the tank and the tc should be bottomed up. so this argument does not count.
the discussion about how useful a human loader is is quite old. some points you should think about:
-tanks are not alone. i have never seen a crew make worksrepairs alone. you have always several crews around.
-the loader should not sit outside the tank and use its mg. this will kill him fast.

@Praxus
theoretical loading speed of a human loader is better, okay. but an automatic loader has a constant loading time. moreover you should keep in mind that the gunner needs some time to attack a target. shooting range presentations have nothing to do with combat. just take the dynamic load in the abrams. after turning the turret on a stationary target the fcs needs 2.5sec to realize that you aim on a static target. plus the time to move the turret, to adjust on the target, to lase...you have plenty of time.
don't really understand the point with the wounded crewmember. what is the scenario?

regards
axl


www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

TopHatter
22 Oct 03,, 18:57
Originally posted by Praxus
Chemical Lasers require huge ammounts of CHEMICALS to be carried around. We are working on solid state lasers which would run off of batteries that are charged by the engine.

Praxus,
Thanks for the info, my knowledge of lasers is pretty slim.
Quick question, would a carbon dioxide laser not be practical?

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 19:00
"this disadvantage of era is often said in western countries. if a tank has no era it has the same effect, as most energy plus the demolished turret/hull will also harm everybody around."

Failing a catostrophic ammunition explosion all a sabot does is punch a small hole in the tank and kill those inside with spalling. Anyone more than 20 feet away will be fine.

"moreover infantry is not around the tank"

Hmmm, i must've been hallucinating everytime i saw them working together then...Christ, havn't you ever once operated in a MOUT environment?

"and the TC should be bottomed up. so this argument does not count."

LOL, unbuttoned TC's were among my favorite 'targets' at NTC. Get a tank in the desert and anyone who can hang his head out during a roadmarch will. Driver, loader, and TC(poor gunner gets to sweat like a pig though, lol).

"-tanks are not alone."

They are when their tank breaks or throws a tread and the rest of the column pushes on to meet their timetables. Or when they get stuck in the mud and have to wait for an M88 to come haul their ass out. Happens all the time.

"i have never seen a crew make worksrepairs alone. you have always several crews around."

I've never once seen anyone but a tank's or PC's own crew change a track section or perform a PMCS, not even in the motor pool.


"-the loader should not sit outside the tank and use its mg. this will kill him fast."

Obviously you need to read that AAR too.

Stinger
22 Oct 03,, 19:12
Originally posted by M21Sniper
[B"moreover infantry is not around the tank"

Hmmm, i must've been hallucinating everytime i saw them working together then...Christ, havn't you ever once operated in a MOUT environment?[/B] Granting I never worked with armor, but isn't it a basic tenet that Tanks have infantry support to help protect them from enemy infantry moving up on the tank from blindspots?.... this would put the infantry around the tank right?.....:dontcare

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 19:13
Praxus,
Thanks for the info, my knowledge of lasers is pretty slim.
Quick question, would a carbon dioxide laser not be practical?

Because of the size limitation and energy required Solid State are the only type of laser aplicable.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 19:17
"this would put the infantry around the tank right?....."

Yup. And that is one of the few legitimate criticisms of turbine powered tanks.

The exhaust plume is so hot it prevents infantrymen from using the rear of the tank for cover when operating with the DATs.

axl
22 Oct 03,, 19:33
@sniper
as you say the tc is a prefered target for you should also be able to say that the tc (and the loader) should have the heads inside the tank, right? also not all tanks are like the abrams. the leopard 1/2 have rings over the hatches. like that it is easier to have the head some cm outside without making a good visible target.
you have never seen tank platoons acting as a team? this speaks more against the training than against the automatic loader. i don't know it like that. for me a tank unit belongs together, if one brakes the others are around. even during normal maintenance all crews work together. we call that team.
when a kinetic energy round hits the target enormous energies are around that will do quite some damage. not to speak about heat rounds.
and please explane me how you use infantry and tanks together. tanks move, the infantry will never follow walking. if the tank is in a static position and the infantry is extremely close somebody does not make his job right. everybody knows that if a tank has been spotted by the enemy it will receive fire. so its not a good place to get some sleep. and have you ever been close to a firing tank? infront of the tank the risk of to get killed is quite high. this is also the area where most hits on thet tank will occure and where possibly mounted era will work. around the tank you will have quite some nice energywaves that will make you sick and you just run away. tanks are not toys and infantry is not walking beside the tank. or lets say "it should not come close". armour and infantry fight together, but not side by side.

what is a mout environment?

regards
axl


www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

axl
22 Oct 03,, 19:38
Originally posted by Stinger
Granting I never worked with armor, but isn't it a basic tenet that Tanks have infantry support to help protect them from enemy infantry moving up on the tank from blindspots?.... this would put the infantry around the tank right?.....:dontcare

i would never use tanks without infantry. the question is how close you wanna come to each other and what type of combat you perform. in defensive operations infantry will be more or less static but be able to put allot of fire against the enemy. tanks are never static in battle, only to rest or observe. but as tanks are quite fast it is difficult to follow. moreover a concentration of forces around one point/vehicle by using tank and dismounts on the same place makes you just weaker and lets you loose more firepower than necessary in case of a hit there. and this hit possible as you fire normally against the biggest threat.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Stinger
22 Oct 03,, 19:44
So your saying you wouldn't use tanks with infantry in a Mout invironement?

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 19:53
"as you say the tc is a prefered target for you should also be able to say that the tc (and the loader) should have the heads inside the tank, right?"

For my part i tried to teach them that lesson as often as possible in training. ;)

"you have never seen tank platoons acting as a team?"

I most certainly have.

"this speaks more against the training than against the automatic loader. i don't know it like that. for me a tank unit belongs together, if one brakes the others are around. even during normal maintenance all crews work together. we call that team."

If you Bn or Company is advancing and on a timetable(and we're always on timetables, right?), and one of them breaks down, the CO is not going to halt the column(or a whole plt) for one tank. There are several instances during OIF and ODS where a single Abrams found itself alone and outnumbered and had to slug it out with enemy armor.

Having a human loader allows the loader and driver to repair the broken tank segment while the TC and gunner continuously scan for targets and cover them.

"when a kinetic energy round hits the target enormous energies are around that will do quite some damage. not to speak about heat rounds."

Yup, the kill radius outside the tank is about 20 feet when a sabot hits it. That's why i specified 20 feet. Would you shoot a HEAT at an Abrams or Leo II? I wouldn't....you'll just piss them off.

"and please explane me how you use infantry and tanks together. tanks move, the infantry will never follow walking. if the tank is in a static position and the infantry is extremely close somebody does not make his job right. everybody knows that if a tank has been spotted by the enemy it will receive fire. so its not a good place to get some sleep."

Tanks advance very slowly through narrow streets and in close broken terrain. There are myriad blindspots and defilades that enemy infantry can take advantadge of in these sorts of terrains, and friendly infantry is deployed to screen friendly armor to protect it from enemy infantry ATGM teams. This was began in WWI, and continues to this day.

"and have you ever been close to a firing tank?"

Sure have. Feels like your teeth are going to fall out.

"infront of the tank the risk of to get killed is quite high."

OBVIOUSLY.

"this is also the area where most hits on thet tank will occure and where possibly mounted era will work."

EXCEPT in MOUT and close terrain. Then the flanks and rear of the tank are most vulnerable. ERA that detonates has very similar effects as an APERS mine. When the plate detonates it breaks into dozens(or more) fragments and those fragments are blown outward for quite some distance. A single ERA plate detonating can wipe out a whole squad of supporting infantry.

"tanks are not toys and infantry is not walking beside the tank. or lets say "it should not come close". armour and infantry fight together, but not side by side."

Yes, they most certainly do in the terrain types i listed above.

"what is a mout environment?"

Urban terrain....aka a city.

Know what happens to unsupported tanks in a city when the enemy has decent ATGM's?

As a claimed ex tanker, you most certainly should.

Read that AAR, it would be well worth your time, and you will come to understand why you are mistaken on these issues.

axl
22 Oct 03,, 20:30
urban combat is an extremely specific operation. here its just normal that tanks and infantry come close together. but that is also not the area where tanks are made for.

don't know how the us army is operating on the march. for me it is normal that an arv is with the tanks on the move. so if one brakes the guys help out. or at least there is a repair troop around. and still its not a reason for the human loader. or just check what repairs you really can do, it's not that much. for me the platoon is the most important unit and you care for each other.

the 20 feet radius is kinda like small. do you wanna be 21 feet away from a tank when it gets hit? not me.

apfsds is the first choice when attacking armour, no question about it. practically (my personal experience) the loader reloads the same ammo type until further order. means if you have a heat round in the gun you have the next heat round in your hand. if then a tank shows up you will fire the heat round and not unload it. the same happens if you are out of apfsds or your ready rack becomes empty. if you are in a hull down position and haven't been spotted it is possible to unload, but that is not the normal procedure.

i never trained with snipers, but we tried to teach the tc's to stay inside the tank. there is no need to put the head far outside and guys like you also the reason why i don't like aa-mg's...a hole in the head is not that funny.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 20:51
"urban combat is an extremely specific operation. here its just normal that tanks and infantry come close together. but that is also not the area where tanks are made for."

You can add broken/close terrain ops too. Also, severely restricted visibility conditions(read that sand storms, dust devils, etc) The reality is that today, most battles happen in cities or towns.

It's not too often you are blessed with the wide open expanses of a desert or wide open prairie.


"don't know how the us army is operating on the march. for me it is normal that an arv is with the tanks on the move."

M-88 ARV's can't keep up with the tip of the spear(M-1's and M-2's) in most terrain.

"so if one brakes the guys help out. or at least there is a repair troop around. and still its not a reason for the human loader. or just check what repairs you really can do, it's not that much. for me the platoon is the most important unit and you care for each other."

Not how it works in the US Army. If a tank or PC falls out, the rest keep going to the objective and follow on units scoop up the disabled vehicles. Reason being that the advance is not slowed by stragglers.

For regular motor pool/field maintenance(PMCS) the tank's crew alone performs the maintenance.

"the 20 feet radius is kinda like small. do you wanna be 21 feet away from a tank when it gets hit? not me."

I would prefer to not be in a free fire zone to begin with. Nor did i like being around ordnance magnets if i could help it. But orders are orders. I therefore followed them to the best of my abilities, as a good soldier should.

"apfsds is the first choice when attacking armour, no question about it. practically (my personal experience) the loader reloads the same ammo type until further order. means if you have a heat round in the gun you have the next heat round in your hand. if then a tank shows up you will fire the heat round and not unload it. the same happens if you are out of apfsds or your ready rack becomes empty. if you are in a hull down position and haven't been spotted it is possible to unload, but that is not the normal procedure."

In the US Army and USMC the TC identifies the target and states what ammo type to use for each target.

"i never trained with snipers, but we tried to teach the tc's to stay inside the tank. there is no need to put the head far outside and guys like you also the reason why i don't like aa-mg's...a hole in the head is not that funny."

In MOUT/Close terrain anyone that can wield a vehicle machine gun becomes a huge asset to the vehicle and unit as a whole. As you know, the FLIR of the tank and the main gun/CO-Ax are severely limited in elevation/depression. If you are recieving RPG fire from a rooftop, defilade, or ridge close at hand the only way to ID and engage the target is via the use of the turret mounted MG's(or of course artillery- but it takes a while to before you get a splash call).

This happened constantly during OIF.

In open terrain the tank is the most powerful unit at play, and infantry is exposed and subordinate. Switch to MOUT/Close terrain, and it is the exact opposite.

Tanks without infantry in CQB are in deep poo. Without the turret MG's, they're in it over their head.(with the qualification that the enemy has a reliable means to kill them- ie ATGM's or powerful unguided rockets like the AT-4).

There were numerous cases in OIF(covered in the AAR i keep referring to) where M-1's and Bradleys were pelted by dozens of RPG-7's. Had the Iraqi's had a decent AT system, we would have lost scores of armored vehicles on the push to Baghdad alone. If we had not had turret mounted MG's it would have been worse still.

The M-1A1 and older had a remote control Ma Duece TC weapon system, but the A2 and A2SEP have reverted to manual operaion only.

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 21:22
Originally posted by axl
@s_qwert63
from what source you get your stupid information? first picture is still a polish pt-91. second picture shows a totally different tank. it is designated as t-72mp and is offered by the ukrain toigether with czech and france.
poland can't use the t-72a, as this version is not used outside the soviet union. the export versions are t-72m and t-72m1.

http://www.arms.ru/tank/t72.htm

how is that a pt-91? what are the characteristics? how did you recognize it?

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 21:48
http://arms.host.sk/tanks/twardy.htm

The PT-91 is a variant of the T-72.

axl
22 Oct 03,, 21:48
@M21Sniper
sorry, but i'm not used to go the american way. therefore i don't think about m88, but about an arv that is capable of go with the tanks. never understood how the us army could operate without.
same for the maintenance, that is not the way it should be.

the american way of ordering what to fire (tc is chosing the ammunition, loader is loading it and gunner is switching to it) is not perfect. as i've been told it has been like that before and is going on. but you have to think that there are better ways. in stressy situations you don't undertsand what somebody is yelling on you or you simply miss it. or i have seen that the tc forgot to switch to the other round and and an.

i know the remote controlable mg for the m1a1 tc. it's fun to use and you can play around. as the tc has no real sight it is boring. so the mg gives some kind of help. i don't understand why they removed it later on. a russian like stabilized one would be much better.

and i forgot that i'm not a desert warrior. where i'm living is no desert around and the only possible battlefield for me is europe. i'm not a conqueror.

@s_qwert63
you are kidding, right? the era arrangement of the tank on the first picture is characteristic. the second one has kontak-5 and the savan-15 sight plus that horrible large panoramic sight for the tc. that is a t-72mp. you are really telling me that there is the same tank on both pictures?
in addition i could not find any mentioning of the t-72bu2 on that link. my russian is not the best anymore, but so far the t-72b is the last i see there. they also don't mention most of the t-72 versions. quite normal for tank pages...

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

=MayheM=
09 Dec 03,, 14:41
t-72bu is the only one that has been developed. it was fielded as t-90

...originally T-72BM ... that's the same tank as T-90, but the last have thermals, FCS from T-80U, SHTORA, new 1000 hp diesel engine, and last generation ERA ... T-72BM take action in all last Chechen wars and showed fantastic results! That's way our soldiers called it "The big rmored sniper rifle" ... There is multiple of facts of attacks by chechens these tanks from the close range with last modification Russian RPGs, but T-72BM have no serious damages from 7-8 directs hits.

As for the "best tank in the world"

T-95

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-95.jpg

And T-80UM1

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T80/T80UM_4.jpg

Praxus
09 Dec 03,, 21:31
As for the "best tank in the world"

T-95


Doesn't excist yet and probley won't do to the lack of funding. On top of that it is rumored to have the same weight as the T-80 and T-90 but since it has a bigger gun it means less of the weight is armour and more of it is the gun and ammo.

=MayheM=
10 Dec 03,, 15:59
Doesn't excist yet and probley won't do to the lack of funding

... exist already and some of them are already in flames;)

... and please ... take away your foolish theory about tanks, that "every good tank must weight more than 70 tons" ... the big weight is disadvantage! And also the Russian scientist are better know, what to do ;) The armor and firepower of that tank is unreacheble for any west country for 20 years more ...

bigross86
10 Dec 03,, 16:03
Next thing he'll be saying that having armor and a gun on the tank are pointless...

bigross86
10 Dec 03,, 16:17
Fool. There is no Merkava Mk IV. And stop with the anti-Semetic remarks, will ya?

=MayheM=
10 Dec 03,, 16:33
Fool. There is no Merkava Mk IV.

looooool !!!! )))))))

So what's this? ... how do u think?))))))


And stop with the anti-Semetic remarks, will ya?

As soon, as u stop your curses to all, that linked with Russia and Russian!:)

Lunatock
10 Dec 03,, 17:22
Originally posted by =MayheM=
hhhahaha ... and Merkava Mk5 should weight 150 tons (its already weights 90tons!) ... because for jew's scientest is not enough of brains to make some revolution ideas in tank building....:LOL

Are Snipe & myself going to have to resort to editing your posts again, Captain Communist?

Lunatock
12 Dec 03,, 07:49
Originally posted by =MayheM=
... exist already and some of them are already in flames;)

... and please ... take away your foolish theory about tanks, that "every good tank must weight more than 70 tons" ... the big weight is disadvantage! And also the Russian scientist are better know, what to do ;) The armor and firepower of that tank is unreacheble for any west country for 20 years more ... :roll

Unreachable if our research was going backwards in time.