Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: NeonShivan on January 26, 2012, 09:34:39 am
-
Just in case if no one knows what these tanks look like here are pictures:
(http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A2-SEP_Motoring_lg.jpg)
M1-A2 Abrams
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/T-90_tank_during_the_Victory_Day_parade_in_2009.jpg)
T-90A
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg)
Leopard 2
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Challenger_II_Basra_2008.jpg)
Challenger 2
(http://www.rafahtoday.org/newsphotos/07/august/5/an%20Israeli%20tank%20patrolling%20next%20to%20Erez%20crossing.jpg)
Merkava Mk IV
May the voting begin!
-
Gods dammit, use lvlshot.
-
Gods dammit, use lvlshot.
Sorry, you can thank school computer limitations and wikipedia D:
-
Remember reading in newspaper or online article that in a recent (Maybe 1-2 year old now) Army competition that the Swedish Leopard 2 beat out all the other MBT's in the world and basically outperformed them by 3x the efficiency and speed etc.
That's either the awesome crew or just the tank :P
-
Five choices other than Snuffy but only four photos? :confused:
EDIT: OP has been updated. Although you could put the photos in the same order as the choices. :p
-
Five choices other than Snuffy but only four photos? :confused:
Fixed that now, all hail the Jewish Tank ^^
EDIT: OP has been updated. Although you could put the photos in the same order as the choices.
I could do that OR people can read the caption at the bottom of each picture :o
-
The Abrams combat record is unmatched. There is, quite simply put, not a tank in the world that has a better operational record than it does. Ever.
However, I think the Israeli Merkava gets the nod on my end because of its ability to bring it's own infantry support with it. A tank without infantry support is a dead tank, no matter how good it is.
This is all aside from how asking which tank is "superior" is a terrible question. They're all very, very good tanks that differ in a few key operational standpoints that make them neither superior nor inferior to each other, merely different.
-
I do agree with you on the Merkava. Compared to other tanks in the world its also capable of internally operating a 60mm Mortor. Which is probably what you ment by its own anti-infantry equiptment. Also with the Abrams I also agree. Although a lot of British people I've met argue that the Challenger 2 is better then the Abrams due to their larger survivability rate.
-
No, I meant that the Merkava, in addition to being a tank, is also an APC. It quite literally carts around a fire-team of IDF infantry in the back.
-
Challenger 2 of course:
Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs. This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.
-
Challenger 2 of course:
Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs. This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.
Chally 2 or the Leopard 2. Both great tanks with incredible performance/survivability.
-
can I have one of each?
no?
:C
-
Challenger 2 of course:
Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs. This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.
How delightfully classy. Unexpected in a tank.
-
Challenger 2 of course:
Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs. This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.
How delightfully classy. Unexpected in a tank.
But does it come with china?
-
The M1. . . cause there's 10,000 of them, and they aren't half bad. Gas hogs though, compared to most other MBTs
EDIT:
Apparently only 9,000 of them.
EDIT2: Apparently Isreal has a really impressive number of tanks for their size. Also, the Isreali tank is the cheapest on this list.
Wikipedia is the source for all this information, as it's an informal discussion, not a debate.
-
You would pick the Challenger's least flattering angle lol
I know I am British and very bias but Challenger II all the way, though as stated pretty much any heavy/MBT fielded by developed nations is going to be a formidable opponent when deployed in it's intended situation
-
Challenger 2 of course:
Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs. This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.
How delightfully classy. Unexpected in a tank.
But does it come with china?
0.o
-
Its British, and has a tea kettle. Of course it has fine china tea cups.
-
Chally two.
I've been on one, in one, had tea from one, while in one ^_^
-
Leopard C1 (1979)
The Leopard 1 main battle tank was developed by Germany in the 1960s. Canada purchased 127 Leopard 1A3 tanks (built by Krauss-Maffei Wehrtechnik GmbH) in 1979, the bulk of which were stationed in West Germany until Canada's withdrawal from Europe after the Cold War ended.
The tank had a fully stabilized 105mm gun capable of firing while the vehicle was moving. The Leopard also has a 7.62mm C-6 MG mounted co-axially, a C-6 on the turret roof for anti-aircraft defence, and smoke dischargers.
The Canadian Forces upgraded the 1A3 with add-on armour plating.
Clearly this because Canadians are awesome in the fashion that they develop their Forces
"Let's take this really old tank, and slap on some plating. Then we'll call it our own!"
But of course, we did slightly upgrade them a little more
Leopard C2 (1994)
The Leopard C1 retrofitted with a German Leopard 1A5 turret with improved (thermal) sights, as well as composite add-on armour, was known as the Leopard C2. The thermal sights allowed for operation at night and in battlefield visibility conditions obscured by smoke, dust or fog. The upgrading of the Leopards into C2 configuration began in 1994 and was completed in September 2001 at a cost of $139 million.
A number of desired upgrades proved too costly (at $400 million) such as improved firepower, armour protection, and electric turret drive. The thermal sight and digital fire control system took priority; the most effective way to achieve this was to replace 114 C1 turrets with surplus German Leopard 1A5 turrets, which already had the thermal sights and fire control systems in place.
The new turrets were reconditioned in Germany, fitted with Canadian specific components such as an Iris communication system, external stowage baskets, and an internal spall liner. The turrets were installed at Miramichi, New Brunswick and the vehicles were then commissioned at CFB Gagetown. Nine spare turrets were acquired for spare parts, test equipment and use as training aids.
Clearly, the German tank wins
-
I served at the time that the army was swapping out the M1A1 for the new M1A2 and I got to say the thermal imaging combined with the tank commander's independent optics make it deceivingly more lethal than it's older variant. The independent optics allow the tank commander to find the next target while the gunner is engaging the first one. Once the first target is destroyed the commander flicks a switch and the turret swivels to the position the commander's viewer was and places the gunner directly on target to engage the next enemy unit, while the commander is free to scan for the next target. I can't say for certain whether or not any of the other tanks have a similar system but judging by the pics posted I'm guessing all their optics are fixed in place.
-
We need a picture of Snuffy :(
-
We need a picture of Snuffy :(
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7GF2kkMcTKc/STawZV8uVwI/AAAAAAAAWpo/Rmm1rxqqGD4/s400/snuffy.bmp)
The Snuffy Dreadnought, equipt with a cannon that is OVER 9000! (mm)
-
That's almost more than nine meters!
-
The Abrams combat record is unmatched. There is, quite simply put, not a tank in the world that has a better operational record than it does. Ever.
The fact that it's also been used a hell of a lot more in many more combat situations than the other options might have a hand in that. (http://skype-emoticons.com/images/emoticon-00126-nerd.gif)
-
That's almost more than nine meters!
In fact it IS more! =O
-
Mein Gott!
-
The Leopard 2 and the M1 are very close to being the same vehicle, they're both products of the MBT-70 program and they both use more or less the same gun. Both they and the Challenger 2 use the same armor.
The M1 has the best electronics, and it also comes with the widest variety of extra refit options. The Tank Urban Survival Kit in particular is worthy of note and a lot of that is going to go into the M1A3 when it's finalized.
The Leopard 2 has pretty much everything the M1 does, but the Germans don't have the funding the US does so everything isn't quite as nice or up-to-date. They did probably keep the best 120mm guns for themselves, though.
The Challenger 2 is unable to fire NATO standard rounds because its 120mm gun is rifled. This gives it a longer range but denies it access to the kinetic-kill penetrators the Abrams and Leopard use. Given the outbreak of ceramic or reactive armor a rack of HEAT ammo isn't as threatening as it used to be. (There have also been concerns about the reliability of the ammunition in the UK's stores in recent times.)
The T-90A is essentially an unknown factor, but it comes from a design lineage that has not stood up well in practice. The T-72 has been consistently defeated by Western vehicles. (I also notice whoever designed the turret hadn't heard of shot traps.) The multi-layered protection system of composite and reactive armor is interesting but hasn't ever seen a real test. It's essentially a stopgag vehicle until the T-99 comes into service in any case.
The Merkava IV's only combat outings have not been of great success, though this reflects the operators rather than the vehicle. The ability to carry a squad of infantry is much-touted, but it comes at the cost of not carrying ammunition, which means it would be of minimal use in most situations. The Israeli composite armor isn't quite as good as that on the other western vehicles, and at least one Merkava IV was penetrated by a missile that didn't actually explode. There have been noises since 2006 about terminating the line and designing a new tank, but the Israelis have staked a lot on their active protection systems to keep the Merkava competitive.
I would personally prefer Leopard 2 or M1 over the others, but in a sense I'd rather defer until 2015 and see what the M1A3 and its contemporaries look like.
-
Oh shoot, I completely forgot
What about that tank which can hide/disguise it's thermal signature? The M1 has nothing on that in Night situations
-
Chally 2 :nervous:
You mean a Mirage tank from Red Alert 2 (http://www.hairfinder.com/info/mullet_haircut.htm) :yes:
-
Oh shoot, I completely forgot
What about that tank which can hide/disguise it's thermal signature? The M1 has nothing on that in Night situations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14788009 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14788009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE)
is a technology demonstrator atm.
and going back to the debate that surrounded I noticed this a moment ago
Adaptiv is based around hexagonal panels made of a thermo-electric material.
so they are powered by the heat the absorb which would reduce the heat issues we were on about.
-
The Leopard 2 and the M1 are very close to being the same vehicle, they're both products of the MBT-70 program and they both use more or less the same gun. Both they and the Challenger 2 use the same armor.
The M1 has the best electronics, and it also comes with the widest variety of extra refit options. The Tank Urban Survival Kit in particular is worthy of note and a lot of that is going to go into the M1A3 when it's finalized.
The Leopard 2 has pretty much everything the M1 does, but the Germans don't have the funding the US does so everything isn't quite as nice or up-to-date. They did probably keep the best 120mm guns for themselves, though.
The Challenger 2 is unable to fire NATO standard rounds because its 120mm gun is rifled. This gives it a longer range but denies it access to the kinetic-kill penetrators the Abrams and Leopard use. Given the outbreak of ceramic or reactive armor a rack of HEAT ammo isn't as threatening as it used to be. (There have also been concerns about the reliability of the ammunition in the UK's stores in recent times.)
The T-90A is essentially an unknown factor, but it comes from a design lineage that has not stood up well in practice. The T-72 has been consistently defeated by Western vehicles. (I also notice whoever designed the turret hadn't heard of shot traps.) The multi-layered protection system of composite and reactive armor is interesting but hasn't ever seen a real test. It's essentially a stopgag vehicle until the T-99 comes into service in any case.
The Merkava IV's only combat outings have not been of great success, though this reflects the operators rather than the vehicle. The ability to carry a squad of infantry is much-touted, but it comes at the cost of not carrying ammunition, which means it would be of minimal use in most situations. The Israeli composite armor isn't quite as good as that on the other western vehicles, and at least one Merkava IV was penetrated by a missile that didn't actually explode. There have been noises since 2006 about terminating the line and designing a new tank, but the Israelis have staked a lot on their active protection systems to keep the Merkava competitive.
I would personally prefer Leopard 2 or M1 over the others, but in a sense I'd rather defer until 2015 and see what the M1A3 and its contemporaries look like.
How about the engines? I am geussing the Leopard's engine is slightly better (Porsche :P).
-
It's more a question of fuel consumption. The Abrams' turbine consumes a bit more fuel, making its operational range a little shorter. In terms of attainable speeds, the two designs are, for all intents and purposes, identical.
-
The M1 is problaly the Tank with the most Combats over all, so it showed often thats its a good tank.
The Leopard2 is pretty much the same, but with bigger range and a few minor differences.
I dont know a lot about the Challenger, but it seems like its close to the M1
The merkava ... well, i dont know anything about those
The T90 is a damn robust Tank, that didnt see to much action so far. But in the action, it saw, one of those was hit by 7(!!!) RPGs and still remained in action. But besides that, there is not to much known about it. But considering that its Russias showoff-tank we can expect it to be on the same level as the M1.
if i would need to take one, i would take the T90 ... i love suprises
-
I love the Leopard 2.
But there will always be a place in my heart for the Merkava MKIV. It's so... futurey-looking. Seriously, DAT sloped armor. It's one of the nicest looking tanks I've ever seen.
-
Leopard 2.
And, the gun of your pretty Abrams is produced where? Right, Germany.
There was a mission in Afghanistan, where a Leopard 2 hit a landmine and was able to return to base, the only injury was a broken hip of the driver.
The tank commander stated, that no other tank could've survived something like this.
-
The M1 tanks use depleted uranium penetrators, as do the Russians.
DU is a bit different than the tungsten rounds used by the rest of NATO. Tungsten will melt when drilling a hole through the enemy tank's armor, as will the DU round.
Once on the other side the DU round, or what's left of it, will spontaneously ignite as soon as it makes contact with air, causing great balls of fire just about everywhere. Tungsten won't.
-
Snuffleupagus, for sure.
(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7001/everydayimsnufflin.jpg)
Unsurpassed mobility, and a high calibre smoothbore cannon that doubles as a melee weapon. Ingenious.
-
Snuffleupagus, for sure.
(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7001/everydayimsnufflin.jpg)
Unsurpassed mobility, and a high calibre smoothbore cannon that doubles as a melee weapon. Ingenious.
But does it have any armor? No, it won't survive on the battlefield against guided missiles D:
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10
Then there's also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther
-
Snuffleupagus, for sure.
Unsurpassed mobility, and a high calibre smoothbore cannon that doubles as a melee weapon. Ingenious.
But does it have any armor? No, it won't survive on the battlefield against guided missiles D:
It has a thick layer of fur that masks its thermal signature and a low radar profile, not to mention said missile has to compensate with the afore mentioned agility
-
But does it have any armor? No, it won't survive on the battlefield against guided missiles D:
Well, you see, Snuffleupagus MBT's come with giants that act as infantry support for them. You can see one right there in the image, on the right. They typically carry big clubs and are capable of hitting you so hard that you bounce from the ground and fly several hundreds of metres up in the air. I have seen this happen. The giants are usually effective enough at identifying threats and neutralizing them without them having a chance to hit the Snuffy with missiles or fireballs or other fancy stuff.
But even so, single hits from such attacks won't bring the Snuffy down immediately. Their fur is a potent armour by itself and, like headdie mentioned, masks the unit quite well in thermal spectrum.
If you really need more protection, the fur can be reinforced by armour plating attached to a harness of sorts. Additionally, the Snuffy can use its main weapon to catch or deflect the incoming missiles.
-
Leopard 2.
And, the gun of your pretty Abrams is produced where? Right, Germany.
There was a mission in Afghanistan, where a Leopard 2 hit a landmine and was able to return to base, the only injury was a broken hip of the driver.
The tank commander stated, that no other tank could've survived something like this.
While I highly respect Leopard 2's technical achievements, it's nice to remember once in a while that there are more countries in the world. Some of them have created and are currently operating tanks that are better than at least two of the tanks mentioned in your Poll. They ought to be there as well.
-
Examples would be a nice thing to have.
-
I. . . I think we have the majority of the world's military power covered; the Chinese use the T99 as well, the Aussies use the M1A2. India has 170 of their own tanks, but the rest are old Russian gear, there's Italy's MB, which is pretty ugly TBH, and has engine troubles. . .
I can't figure out where you're talking about?
-
It's pretty obvious the most effective tank is a PzKpfw V chassis mounted with a Death Ray that silently judges the enemy's tastes until he simply dies of shame.
Oh, trust me.
He's dying... on the
inside.
-
Leopard 2.
And, the gun of your pretty Abrams is produced where? Right, Germany.
There was a mission in Afghanistan, where a Leopard 2 hit a landmine and was able to return to base, the only injury was a broken hip of the driver.
The tank commander stated, that no other tank could've survived something like this.
While I highly respect Leopard 2's technical achievements, it's nice to remember once in a while that there are more countries in the world. Some of them have created and are currently operating tanks that are better than at least two of the tanks mentioned in your Poll. They ought to be there as well.
Maybe you're talking about a lighter armored vehicle?
-
How about the engines? I am geussing the Leopard's engine is slightly better (Porsche :P).
The two vehicles have nearly the same operational characteristics when it comes to engine performance. The Abrams is a little bit more of a gas hog but has superior acceleration.
The real difference of interest in engine terms is that the operating temperature of the Abram's gas turbine is so high that it's actually dangerous to stand on the rear deck or behind the tank while it's running. (Which disallows infantry using the vehicle cover among other things.) It's also effectively immune to Molotov Cocktails because they burn at significantly lower temperature than the engine operates normally.
-
Pretty nice coverage of the MBT's respective performance NGTM-1R. A military show on television rated the ChallengerII as the best tank and the M1 series was near the bottom, but the show was measuring hardware performance features such as fuel efficiency, armor, top speed and main gun range/power. However, It has also been mentioned that the Abrams is the most combat tested of all these tanks. You can see this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9zGrfbzUDQ), which shows how effective higher quality tanks and crew training can be. Overall, I would have to give it to the Abrams. To be fair, the Challenger also participated in the battle of 73 Easting.
-
i dont think there is a best MBT, since every country that has a good one, claims, that there mbt is the best.
-
You guys forgot about the African Main Battle Tank
(http://epicr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/a341_c91.jpg)
-
My vote goes for the T-72/T-90 family. Quantity has a quality all of its own and while individual tanks may perform worse than the "better" NATO models or "worse" than advertised, in the end it won't matter if the commander can achieve a 3-to-1 advantage for a similar budget.
You might scoff at this, but remember there's a reason why Russian miltech is so rough: it's built for war. As far as Russians are concerned things get blown up in war, so any cent kopeck spent on polish is wasted... and if world war 3 ever rolled around, I have a feeling the Ruskies would've had a point.
When on "even terms" (i.e. your *overall* tech is not hopelessly antique and you have sufficient number of units) Russian tech tends to do a lot better then what most people give it credit for. Actually most "real wars" of the late 20th century (with maneuvers and clash of armies, instead a curb stomp battles/police action of the 500 kg gorlla called USA) were fought with Russian tech on both sides. On these battlefields the Russian tech has more than proved its doctrine in my opinion. Often operated by badly trained crews, with spurious maintenance, the tech all in all did what it was designed to do so. Let's add atrocious supply & maintenance levels to the mix and the Russian tech has another area where it's well ahead NATO tech.
Which doctrine is "better", very much depends on what the security needs of your country are - and how much money you have to spare. So in the end there's no such thing as "best" MBT (or best weapon system/platform, period).
For most of the folks actually fighting protracted wars, the choice will inevitably be Russian most of the time.
Ironically, since the US/NATO has been engaged in what are actually COIN operations for the last 10 years, the very same qualities - cheapness, ease of maintenance, low training requirements - have come to be in demand...
...but the US could never do COIN well. All it ever learns is that it can't do COIN.
(The only moral learnt in Vietnam, was not to fight in Vietnam... and seems like similar conclusions will be drawn after Iraq too).
-
Not necessarily, The US once produced one the most "COIN" tanks in history. The Sherman tank of WW2 was considered by many to be one the most inferior tanks on the battlefield at the time but the problem the Germans ran into was that there was a whole lot of them. Sure they haven't produced any thing as easy to manufactur since then but that has more to due with military strategy than capability. The problem with the Russian tank lines in the last couple of decades has been that though they are practical rugged designs they can not stand toe to toe with Western tanks simply because of range. A fact that the Iraqi's learned the hard way in both Gulf wars. If an enemy can see you and engage you at nearly twice the distance as it takes for you to engage them they will own you every time no matter how much numbers might be on your side.
-
If I were fighting tanks, roll with the T-90, assuming the modern countermeasures suite is as claimed.
If fighting urban, then M1A2 with TUSK, but it has to have that TUSK.
Supposedly, ( http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html wouldn't take it as gospel truth, but doesn't seem like propaganda) The base T-90 has fantastic armour systems at least as good as or better than contemporary tanks, and recent upgrades would only improve this
-
The other problem that nations face (which operate large quantities of older AFVs) is that they often do not have sufficient counters for air power, be it their own air forces or anti-aircraft batteries. A-10s and AV-8Bs did horrible, horrible things to Iraqi tanks, fighting vehicles, artillery, and troops during the wars in the Gulf, simply because the Iraqis could not counter air power. That, and those particular aircraft sport quite nasty 30 and 25mm guns, not to mention the external ordnance...
As far as the choices go, I've always liked the Merkava. Many modern tanks just seem to have so many shot traps, while it's quite hard to find an opening on the Israeli tank. It was designed to be survivable, and it does that better than any other tank today.
-
My vote goes for the T-72/T-90 family. Quantity has a quality all of its own and while individual tanks may perform worse than the "better" NATO models or "worse" than advertised, in the end it won't matter if the commander can achieve a 3-to-1 advantage for a similar budget.
I feel the need to direct you to records of the Persian Gulf War where Abrams tanks, hugely outnumbered, completely obliterated most of the tanks in the Iraqi army, and suffered exactly zero tanks destroyed to enemy fire.
Or, for a non-tank example, Roarke's Drift in the Boer Wars. Quantity is not an insurmountable, or even a particularly effective advantage unless the capabilities of the tanks in question are much closer to equal than they actually are.
-
Chally 2 :nervous:
You mean a Mirage tank from Red Alert 2 (http://www.hairfinder.com/info/mullet_haircut.htm) :yes:
Why does that link to a page on how to get a mullet?
-
I'd personally prefer to sit inside an Abrams instead of a T-90.
The Russian tank still uses an autoloader and still has its ammo sitting on the floor of the hull, right beneath the turret.
The Abrams has its ammo in the turret rear, separated from the crew by a titanium bulkhead, and the turret roof above the ammo rack is designed to burst at a far lower overpressure than the bulkhead, working as a safety valve.
There were ammo explosions in Desert Storm, all crew members survived so this design works.
The T-90's safety valve is its turret. When there's an ammo fire, the turret pops off, allowing the pressurized gases to leave.
Here's how it works on a T-72:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco
The Merkava also stores ammo in the hull (sure it's in an armored box, but the armor is to resist spalling and open flames, but not a direct hit by some kinetic penetrator or HEAT jet)...
-
I'd go with the Merkava. Good all-round tank, can serve as APC in a pinch and IIRC, is quite cheap compared to other designs.
-
My MBT will whip all these easy.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah64-image3.jpg)
Sorry, couldn't resist. :P
-
Any helicopter that can do a loop is a winning helicopter
Any tank that can do a loop... would impress the hell out of me
-
I poo on your helicopter and give you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3v-MWhPh1o
-
one of the best scenes of the film
-
Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jVVDVzcqb9c/SwGFNZNMeLI/AAAAAAAAIxY/TsI70N34ZBw/s1600/russian_flying_tank.jpg)
But, I'll see your tanks and helicopters, and raise you...
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/22/e1ed143b-61e3-4a0a-9176-80d05f91a4f8.jpg)
[/offtopic]
-
I have always been more appreacitive of the classics though:
(http://www.homestead.com/nassepappa/files/Imperial_War_Elephant.jpg)
-
Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jVVDVzcqb9c/SwGFNZNMeLI/AAAAAAAAIxY/TsI70N34ZBw/s1600/russian_flying_tank.jpg)
You could at least have gone with Tetrarchs, which were actually used. The poor Russian glidertanks didn't fly more than ten times.
-
But, I'll see your tanks and helicopters, and raise you...
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/10/22/e1ed143b-61e3-4a0a-9176-80d05f91a4f8.jpg)
[/offtopic]
I thought about posting that, but felt it was wrong to bring the Chuck Norris plane into the discussion.
-
Any tank that can do a loop... would impress the hell out of me
they're working on it.
(http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/flying_tank.jpg)
-
AH-64
Favourite Helicopter
A-10 Warthog
Favourite Plane
You guys have awesome tastes in the finest of weaponry!
As for that tank above me... well... damn
And we all know we've done this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYiU_hxy6AA
BUT NOW I'm going way off topic
-
Nothin' left but hair, teeth n' eyeballs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94dcjJ3XJAo)
-
Damn straight.
:D
-
Ok so we have the AH64 and the A10, so I guess I can post this.
(http://www.specialoperations.com/Aviation/AC_130/000719-f-0000d-003.jpg)
-
I have always been more appreacitive of the classics though:
(http://www.homestead.com/nassepappa/files/Imperial_War_Elephant.jpg)
as if hannibal is a match for snuffie. :P
-
Nothin' left but hair, teeth n' eyeballs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94dcjJ3XJAo)
God ****ing damn it...
My lungs, I can't breathe. :lol:
-
Ok so we have the AH64 and the A10, so I guess I can post this.
(http://www.specialoperations.com/Aviation/AC_130/000719-f-0000d-003.jpg)
This reminded me of an image I saw not too long ago
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LPKleWV5eHA/TbSPruUQLGI/AAAAAAAAAT4/KkndhXbcLDs/s1600/article-1371426-0B66935400000578-292_306x475_popup.jpg)
Then it reminded me of it's older counterpart, "Puff the Magic Dragon"
The AC47
But in Mercs 2, you can take the American MBT, hook it up via cable from a very large helicopter, and have it flown around as a mobile airstrike!
-
I smell a thread hijack in progress. hah.
-
god damn it, now im gonna need to watch porn again tonight.
-
the Swedish Leopard 2 beat out all the other MBT's in the world and basically outperformed them by 3x the efficiency and speed etc.
Woah, that would make it a 120mph tank
-
180 mph, if it's 3x. I've personally watched an Abrams pass my car on the highway going 60 mph.
That said, I highly highly doubt the Leopard 2 performed as such.
-
180 mph, if it's 3x. I've personally watched an Abrams pass my car on the highway going 60 mph.
Where the hell do you live that such a thing would happen?
-
180 mph, if it's 3x. I've personally watched an Abrams pass my car on the highway going 60 mph.
Where the hell do you live that such a thing would happen?
Baghdad?
-
K-State is in the same county as Fort Riley. The fort houses the 1st Infantry Division, as well as at least some smaller armored unit. Abrams are not unheard of. That's not to say common, but they've been on the roads a few times.
-
Top speed is 45mph. 60 is a significant leap. Are you sure about that Scotty?
Edit: I see that removing the governor could allow for speed like that. It looks like it also risks tearing the drive train all to hell
-
In any situation where you must deal with possibility of tearing your equipment up something fierce or the certainty of dying, which do you suppose will win out? The governor is probably the first thing a crew takes off the tank in case they ever need the extra speed/power.
-
Which tank has the widest and longest base for running over the most terrorists in one pass?
-
i'm no soldier but i think the only terrorists you could possibly run over with a tank are wearing bomb belts.
-
We'll run over those terrorist with this then.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Aardvark_mine_vehicle.jpg/800px-Aardvark_mine_vehicle.jpg)
-
In any situation where you must deal with possibility of tearing your equipment up something fierce or the certainty of dying, which do you suppose will win out? The governor is probably the first thing a crew takes off the tank in case they ever need the extra speed/power.
Good point, but it seems a hair silly to risk ripping the treads to shreds bum rushing a Kansas highway.
-
I don't think that any country posts their maximum stats in public domain, of any war machine really.
Warships case and point.
-
Sapper Tanks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBy0y2jAHpI)
Brought to you courtesy of the USMC
-
Two new tanks have been added to the Poll!
Type-10 Japanese MBT:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Type10MBT.jpg/300px-Type10MBT.jpg)
Awesome Face :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbrII7frHV0
-
Isn't there also a chinese tank with a double barrel?
-
only in the intellectual property of EA :P.
-
Double barrelled tanks will probably not be a reality until lasers become feasible battlefield armament and only then if power supply outstrips cycle time of the weapons. While ballistic armaments are typical it will be better to build a bigger gun and achieve better penetration. Twin 105mm barrels have the penetration of a 105mm but give you a second shot if you miss, a 120mm cannon has the potential for greater kinetic energy thus greater penetrating power.
-
IIRC, Soviets did some experiments with double-barrel layout. It didn't work out so well, so they dropped it.
-
IIRC, Soviets did some experiments with double-barrel layout. It didn't work out so well, so they dropped it.
There were prototypes of such vehicles and they used autoloading systems, the issue was if you can mount two 73mm guns and a missile system, you can mount one 125mm gun that doubles as a missile system. Tanks have a limited amount of weight to play with. Mounting two MBT-calibur guns on that weight will unacceptably compromise other characteristics to no significant gain.
There was a Canadian TD design from the Cold War that never saw production with a couple of 120s and a revolver cylinder loading system for each which would have been interesting, but also never saw service. But it was never intended to stand up to fire, rather to fight from a prepared position that would protect it, and it turned out to be too slow.
-
There were prototypes of such vehicles and they used autoloading systems, the issue was if you can mount two 73mm guns and a missile system, you can mount one 125mm gun that doubles as a missile system. Tanks have a limited amount of weight to play with. Mounting two MBT-calibur guns on that weight will unacceptably compromise other characteristics to no significant gain.
That's basically the story. Soviets were big on autoloaders (Russians seem to continue with this trend) and they wanted a missile system on a tank. They even experimented with dedicated missile tanks (to no effect, as usual). At some point, they found they could launch guided missiles through the gun barrel, which greatly simplified things, as they could do with one system instead of two or three. At the same time, metallurgy advanced to the point they could make a feasible 125mm tank gun. They use gun-launched missiles to this day.
-
French AMX-56 Leclerc
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Leclerc-openphotonet_PICT6015.JPG/640px-Leclerc-openphotonet_PICT6015.JPG)
fyi it was in the middle east occasionally so at least it's been more places than that japanese tank. :P
-
I'm pretty sure the latest Leopard variant, the 2A6, will be the best tank in the world for some time. It has excellent turret armor and its gun and drive train are good as any. All the polled tanks are pretty lethal toward each other, though. Some T-90s have top attack missile defenses, which are good, but the West doesn't see a need to protect against top attack weapons since it owns all of them.
-
I'm pretty sure the latest Leopard variant, the 2A6, will be the best tank in the world for some time. It has excellent turret armor and its gun and drive train are good as any. All the polled tanks are pretty lethal toward each other, though. Some T-90s have top attack missile defenses, which are good, but the West doesn't see a need to protect against top attack weapons since it owns all of them.
well, once defended against as well as frontal defense, top-attack just becomes a waste of money over direct-attack weapons.
-
The governor is probably the first thing a crew takes off the tank in case they ever need the extra speed/power.
And the turbine engine is claimed to reach up to 2000 HP when ungoverned.
Sure the final drives and transmission would be about as reliable as those of an early Panther D tank (which is the reason for the 1500 HP limit), but it pretty much makes the Abrams a 63-ish metric ton tank that could rival a Christie in performance.
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5XUQ2beGfM
-
Remember reading in newspaper or online article that in a recent (Maybe 1-2 year old now) Army competition that the Swedish Leopard 2 beat out all the other MBT's in the world and basically outperformed them by 3x the efficiency and speed etc.
Swedish Leopard 2???? LEOPARD 2 IS GERMAN!!!!
Ok now to vote:
I would choose the Leopard 3, if you could vote for him. ;7