Which is the best tank?

**RUSKIE** · 22 Jun 04,, 17:20

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I believe you answered your own question.. The Israelis never fought an adaptive enemy. It is not a fair comparison to those armies that had.

In the case of the Wehrmacht, they took the lessons the enemy inflicted upon them and then outmaster the master. Chuikov was given the title of the father of MOUT (Military Operations in an Urban Terrain) development. However, he was surely outclassed by Kesselring.

To give you an example, the Wehrmacht would hold a building, force the enemy to take the building, then blow up the building, hopefully to land on the road or better yet, a road with alot of troops and tanks, and then come again to take over the building ruins, forcing the enemy to retake it, using foot infantry because no tank was going to get by the rubble.

The allied answer was simply to blow up the building in the first place, hopefully away from the road and then slug it out with superior numbers and fire.

Where in all of the IsDF history did they face that kind of enemy?

Lol I have to agree, But Since WW2 what Enemy has America fought like that? there fore what REAL combat experience has the Abrams have?

What about the T-95 though not combat tested great tank.

**lurker** · 22 Jun 04,, 17:36

Originally Posted by RUSKIE

What about the T-95 though not combat tested great tank.

I propose that we wait until they release at least photos of it.

**RUSKIE** · 22 Jun 04,, 23:00

Originally Posted by lurker

I propose that we wait until they release at least photos of it.

sounds good.

**blackhole** · 23 Jun 04,, 23:04

Is not the main gun in Abrams build on license from German Rheinmetall concern?

**Praxus** · 23 Jun 04,, 23:29

Yes it is, it met the requirments, so why design a new gun? (question is retorical)

**blackhole** · 24 Jun 04,, 03:40

Just one more thing about Abrams.Why the loading of the main gun is manual?
All other modern tanks guns are fully automated.

**TopHatter** · 24 Jun 04,, 04:12

Originally Posted by blackhole

Just one more thing about Abrams.Why the loading of the main gun is manual?
All other modern tanks guns are fully automated.

A couple of reasons:

1. Having a loader means one more warm body for damage repair in a forward area (or any other kind of repair anywhere they happen to be)

2. Apparently a human can load the shells faster than a machine

3. Even if an auto-loader is faster, the loader is a lot more useful (see #1).

4. Keep the cost of the tank down

5. Simplicity. The more gadgets you have, the more things that can fail.

This is probably a poor list, but it should give you a small idea at least.

**blackhole** · 24 Jun 04,, 04:21

Originally Posted by TopHatter

A couple of reasons:

1. Having a loader means one more warm body for damage repair in a forward area (or any other kind of repair anywhere they happen to be)

2. Apparently a human can load the shells faster than a machine

3. Even if an auto-loader is faster, the loader is a lot more useful (see #1).

4. Keep the cost of the tank down

5. Simplicity. The more gadgets you have, the more things that can fail.

This is probably a poor list, but it should give you a small idea at least.

But having autoloader saves space so in this way tank is smaller lower profile
and cost does not play any role I believe .(2 billions for one B-2 bomber)

**TopHatter** · 24 Jun 04,, 04:26

Originally Posted by blackhole

But having autoloader saves space so in this way tank is smaller lower profile
and cost does not play any role I believe .(2 billions for one B-2 bomber)

Cost certainly does play a role, depend on that. You will notice there is only 20-some B-2 bombers in the force. The F-22 buy has been slashed again and again. Cost plays a huge role.
As for profile, yes a lower profile is obviously desirable but apparently the designers feel that having a human loader outweighs this disadvantages.
Bear in mind that all weapons systems are a collection of compromises. There are bound to be things that could be improved, but usually at the expense of something else.

**Alex** · 24 Jun 04,, 04:30

Originally Posted by TopHatter

1. Having a loader means one more warm body for damage repair in a forward area (or any other kind of repair anywhere they happen to be)

And one more dead body in destroyed tank

2. Apparently a human can load the shells faster than a machine

In the very beginning he can. After a couple of shells - I doubt he can.

4. Keep the cost of the tank down

That's why T-90 is more than two times cheaper than Abrams.

5. Simplicity. The more gadgets you have, the more things that can fail.

Loading automat roughly speaking is a piece of metal. It's as reliable as russian-made AK gun.

**TopHatter** · 24 Jun 04,, 04:49

Originally Posted by Alex

And one more dead body in destroyed tank

In the very beginning he can. After a couple of shells - I doubt he can.

That's why T-90 is more than two times cheaper than Abrams.

Loading automat roughly speaking is a piece of metal. It's as reliable as russian-made AK gun.

Well, I had a post but my connection was severed before I could send.
Here it is in a nutshell.

You are to be commended for your concern about casualties, however war is a dangerous business and casualties are a fact of it. Modern tanks really pay attention to crew protection (finally) to minimize deaths.
And if a loader can only heft a few shells quickly, then he needs some Physical Training, not loading for a combat vehicle.

**lurker** · 24 Jun 04,, 16:25

If what they say about T-95 is true... i.e. if it have 152mm gun - human limit there is reached.
It maybe possible to provide declared rate of fire with human loader and 120mm gun, but i HIGHLY doubt that with 152mm.

**TopHatter** · 24 Jun 04,, 16:32

Originally Posted by lurker

If what they say about T-95 is true... i.e. if it have 152mm gun - human limit there is reached.
It maybe possible to provide declared rate of fire with human loader and 120mm gun, but i HIGHLY doubt that with 152mm.

Yes, once you start getting into much larger caliber projectiles on a vehicle-mounted gun, then it's time to start thinking about an auto-loader.
I believe the now-cancelled Crusader SPG had an auto-loader.
But as regards 120mm and smaller, I think I'd rather have the extra crewman.

**Bill** · 24 Jun 04,, 20:16

An M-1 gunner is expected to load one shell every five seconds for two minutes. In that time almost the entire combat supply of 120mm munitions would be expended(40rds).

Unlike the autoloader of the T-72, the human loader in a US tank has never been known to accidentally ram the gunners arm or leg into the breech.

**RUSKIE** · 25 Jun 04,, 01:11

Well this thought just came to mind,but uh... maybe the reasons the U.S. manufacturers dont produce auto-loaders for the tank is that they are affraid it might not be reliable as a AK gun... like all others are seeing as how most american made weaponry is... im not saying that its extremly worse though...