View Poll Results: which is the best tank?

Voters
212. You may not vote on this poll
  • M1A2 Abrams

    111 52.36%
  • Challenger II

    53 25.00%
  • T-80

    48 22.64%
Page 5 of 76 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1135

Thread: Which is the best tank?

  1. #61
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,170
    Originally posted by Smoke286
    I would suggest you do some reading on the 73 war there were some pretty fierce battles involved there,
    Nothing on the scale of WWII meat grinders.

    Originally posted by Smoke286
    and not to nitpick, but the canadian 1st Inf Div fought the German 1st Falshrimjager Div in Ortona, not the Wehrmacht
    I was using the term as a collective for the German Land Force as a whole. I know there are different units that are not assigned specifically to the Wehrmacht. However, I concede your point.
    Chimo

  2. #62
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    13,900
    Our tankers treat tanks like they were dune buggies.
    LOL! A dune buggie with a 120mm gun. That idea appeals to me...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor smilingassassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Dec 03
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    2,749
    I'm having the distinct feeling that Canada will soon lose its tank force, will Martin spend any money to improve them or buy new tanks to replace the older ones? If we did replace them would we get the Leo 2's outright or go for a new type like the Challenger or Abrams? I'm assuming that we'll go for the cheapest of the bunch which is most likely the Leo 2.

  4. #64
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,170
    Two squadrons (ie 2 companies) are to remain active until at least 2015. Additional squadrons of LAV-105s are slated to enter service around that time.
    Chimo

  5. #65
    Regular Smoke286's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Jan 04
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    34
    Two squadrons (ie 2 companies) are to remain active until at least 2015.
    Only of our throughly obsolete Leopard 1's hardly satisfactory on todays battlefield
    Last edited by Smoke286; 01 Mar 04, at 23:47.
    Ain't No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall

  6. #66
    Regular Smoke286's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Jan 04
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    34
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    Nothing on the scale of WWII meat grinders.
    I would put it to you that 'meatgrinders' take place on all different scales
    Ain't No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor smilingassassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Dec 03
    Location
    Vancouver Canada
    Posts
    2,749
    Well LAV's certainly are not tanks but then again have our tanks ever been deployed in battle in the last 20 years?

  8. #68
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,170
    Originally posted by Smoke286
    I would put it to you that 'meatgrinders' take place on all different scales
    That may be but I've already qualified my comparison with WWII in my initial post. I stand by my assertion.

    Originally posted by Smoke286
    Only of our throughly obsolete Leopard 1's hardly satisfactory on todays battlefield
    The LdSH (RC) would disagree with you.

    Leopards in Kosovo, The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin - Vol 3 No 1 Spring 2000
    Chimo

  9. #69
    Patron
    Join Date
    15 Dec 03
    Location
    Area 51
    Posts
    181
    why are people voting for the T-80?
    not that i mind is just i thought no-one liked it
    two wrongs dont make a right but three wrongs do. ;D

    join my games site
    fragsgames.forumer.com

  10. #70
    Regular
    Join Date
    08 Mar 04
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    43
    First, it's worthless to compare newest modifications of Abrams with old soviet T-80. Second, T-80 line is dead already and even Black Eagle won't bring it to life again.
    So if I could I would vote for T-90.

    If I can choose between T-90 and M1 I'll take T-90. Why? Less weight, greater speed and range, ability to cross 5m deep water. Also, composite armor, reactive armor plates and active defense system that American tanks still haven't. Night vision equipment is quite worse then those of M1, though.

    But overall I think Abrams will face more difficulties destroying T-90, than T-90 destroying Abrams. And we don't speak about crew training, do we?

    P.S. Excuse me for my English

    Alex

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    The crew is an integral part of the tank, you can't just remove it.

    The T-90 is not faster then the M1 Abrams, the Abrams can get up to 70mph for short periods. The T-90 has a deisel engine so it is not capable of such high speeds.

    The fact is when an armoured force is moving this fast (even 40mph) it is near impossible for supply lines to keep up(unless they are traveling on open roads which is HIGHLY unlikely).

    Not to mention the fact the engines wouldn't like it to much.

    Active Defenses are worthless against tank rounds, they are meant to counter ATGM's. Active defenses can fail, thick armour can not.

    M1 Abrams is supperior individually to the T-90 but they fit into different Strategic Doctrines.
    Last edited by Praxus; 08 Mar 04, at 23:02.

  12. #72
    Regular
    Join Date
    08 Mar 04
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    43
    I know that T-90 has diesel engine, but I don't know why. Diesels are better for dusty areas, so it looks like Russia is going to conquer Saudi Arabia.

    I didn't say ADS can save from tank round. But it's better to have ADS than don't have it because it doesn't add much to weight and quite useful. As for thick armor - T-90's armor is quite enough though Abrams' armor is thicker. Do you mean it's not enough to save from DU round?

    Anyway, I think you're right about different doctrines.

    http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1778&catid=244

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    I know that T-90 has diesel engine, but I don't know why. Diesels are better for dusty areas, so it looks like Russia is going to conquer Saudi Arabia.
    Abrams seemed to fair pretty well in the Desert.

    I didn't say ADS can save from tank round. But it's better to have ADS than don't have it because it doesn't add much to weight and quite useful. As for thick armor - T-90's armor is quite enough though Abrams' armor is thicker. Do you mean it's not enough to save from DU round?
    Of course it doesn't hurt to have it, but it is better to have better armour and no ADS then worst armour with ADS.

    Anyway, I think you're right about different doctrines.

    http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=1778&catid=244
    The United States Marine Corps doesn't have any M1A2 Abrams. They have 403 M1A1 Abrams.

    The US Army has 1200 M1A2 Abrams has 4,300 M1A1 Abrams.

    Makes a grand total of around 5,900 M1 Abrams.

    The M1A1 has engaged and killed targets in excess of 4000 meters in real combat. The same can not be said about the T-90.


    The T-90 however was not designed to take on an Abrams head on. The Soviets were going to use Artillery and Infantry to hold US/Western European armoured forces and then flank them with about 30,000 tanks.
    Last edited by Praxus; 09 Mar 04, at 00:35.

  14. #74
    Regular
    Join Date
    08 Mar 04
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    43
    Of course it doesn't hurt to have it, but it is better to have better armour and no ADS then worst armour with ADS.
    KONTAKT-5 isn't the worst armor world has ever seen.

    The United States Marine Corps doesn't have any M1A2 Abrams. They have 403 M1A1 Abrams.

    The US Army has 1200 M1A2 Abrams has 4,300 M1A1 Abrams.

    Makes a grand total of around 5,900 M1 Abrams.
    Numbers given in that article aren't exact (or maybe just old?). Russian army has 300+ T-90 now, not 146~.

    The M1A1 has engaged and killed targets in excess of 4000 meters in real combat. The same can not be said about the T-90.
    It cannot be said just because T-90 wasn't used in any real conflict. But field tests show that it can find and destroy targets on distances from 100 to 5000m and its rocket can penetrate 700mm armor on 4000m. I'm just interested to hear what facts do you have to deny this.

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    It cannot be said just because T-90 wasn't used in any real conflict. But field tests show that it can find and destroy targets on distances from 100 to 5000m and its rocket can penetrate 700mm armor on 4000m. I'm just interested to hear what facts do you have to deny this.
    In both Gulf wars thousands of rounds hit the Abrams on all sides and only once did it penetrate into the Cabin and even then it only killed half the crew.

    These include rounds that can penetrate 700mm RHA.

    Excercises are a tad bit different then the real thing.

    KONTAKT-5 isn't the worst armor world has ever seen.
    I never said that, but even with K-5 it is not nearly as protected as the Abrams.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. T-55 VS M48 Patton
    By RepublicanGuard in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 28 Apr 09,, 14:10
  2. The Greatest Ever Military Tanks
    By vinay60000 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 20 Jun 06,, 19:12
  3. US Armor - A Russian Point of View
    By Shek in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25 Apr 05,, 22:50
  4. US Tankers wishlist for upgrades to Abrams
    By Bill in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30 Mar 05,, 23:47

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •