Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: top 10 tanks in the world!!!
Hong-Xing    8/12/2003 9:07:05 AM
i think it would be this t-90 (rus) m1a2 (usa) t-98 (chi) m1a1 (usa) Challenger 2 (bri) t-95 black hawk (rus) al khalid (chi) merkeva (bra) arjun (ind) t-90||| (chi)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Perfection Incarnate    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/22/2004 2:37:21 PM
The only use for a hollow space I can think of is to explode old crappy anti-tank weapons like RPG-7s before they meet the main armor. However, RPG-7s aren't going to do much anyways and such a small space seems relatively useless for this task. Wouldn't a dual tandem warhead weapon rip it up? First explosive hits the first layer of armor and dispatches it quickly, then the second impacts the main armor....I know tandem warheads are for ERA but maybe it would help I don't know. Oh well, irregardless, it's not going to stop a Javelin.
 
Quote    Reply

Perfection Incarnate    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/22/2004 2:39:04 PM
Jeff, I'd be willing to bet that a retired tanker with 20 years experiences knows a hell of a lot more than a current tanker with a month of driving practice. But then again what do I know?
 
Quote    Reply

Perfection Incarnate    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/22/2004 2:39:05 PM
Jeff, I'd be willing to bet that a retired tanker with 20 years experiences knows a hell of a lot more than a current tanker with a month of driving practice. But then again what do I know?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Could idea: check carefully Leclerc capabilities   2/22/2004 2:49:51 PM
French Stratege wrote: "An American armore General visiting france Leclerc regiment said that the French crews could really be proud of their tanks." Stratege, what do you expect him to say? Your tanks suck? Generals performing duties like that are politicians and diplomats as well as Generals. Of course he's going to say something nice about the LeClerc, he has to.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/22/2004 2:56:28 PM
Jeffrey, I'm telling you that I don't see the point to it. The threat to be dealt with is top attack dual warhead ATGM's, long rod penetrators and air launched missiles. I cannot see, based on my knowledge of armor design and anti-tank munitions, how "hollow armor" would help against any of those three. I could be wrong. If you are in the Dutch military and have seen this armor then I'm willing to bet that you shouldn't be talking about it. I know a great deal about the design of the M1's armor and I can't talk about it all, except for what is already public knowledge. And actually you have two retired tankers questioning what you are talking about. when I was a brand new private I thought I knew it all too.
 
Quote    Reply

RetiredCdnTanker    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/22/2004 2:57:36 PM
I'll tell you what, Jeffrey. You and a couple of your friends grab the turret side armour, and lift it off. If it is hollow, as you insist, it can't weigh more than what? 150 kilos? Try it. I think you'll be in for a bit of a surprise.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/23/2004 8:45:10 AM
I've been told that the Western-type spaced armor packs were primarily designed to defeat single-stage hollow-charge warheads, so as to replace ERA that would be hazardous in urban warfare situations where friendly dismounted infantry may be close nearby. Against large tandem HEAT shells such as the AT-14 "Kornet", well, it would be up to the underlying RHA, Chobham or what-have-you, I guess. Extra kinetic protection was most certainly factored in as well. I am tempted to guess that these "boxes" are also sandbagged on the inside, with possibly honeycombed layers of high-hardness ceramics, which purpose is to deflect rod penetrators while filing them down to toothpick size before they can do any harm to the crew inside. If they were just hollow steel boxes as young Jeffrey seems to believe, there wouldn't be so much secrecy about them. There's a lot of classified Materials Science in them, possibly some Nanotech too. I also think that the two or three tiers, stacked-ERA approach that recently appeared on Estern tank's turrets is just some clumsy stopgap approach, and will not be seen is a few years time, as Russia has quite a few brilliant materials scientists of it's own too. Ret. Canuck attaches a lot of importance to the Muzzle Reference System as a criterion of fire accuracy, but I have noticed that it seems to be absent, not only from the Merkava III's gun tip, but also from the Leo 2's, at least until their recent retrofit with the L55 barrel. Couldn't it be that the longer, more rigid cradles, better thermal shrouds, or/and different sensor technologies used to inform the FC computer of the same thing (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0PAB/1_112/110808241/p1/article.jhtml), make this complex and sensitive optical device unnecessary for these tanks?-
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/23/2004 10:34:28 AM
Shirrush, first your commentary on the Leo2A6 armor package is dead on. I don't believe "hollow armor" has any significant value. Against an older traditional shaped charge it would. But first and second generation composite armor and ERA is quite effective against traditional single warhead shaped charge ammunition, no need to do anything more than that. Your comments about what the armor is, is much more likely to be true. You could design a honeycomb in such a way as to shear or deflect a penetrator, this would rob as much as 50% of the KE from it. As far as the MRS goes, there are two issues, one of which your speculation would help with. 1. Gun drift or movement. Better cradles would help with this, however, there is a limit to what you can do in a tank turret. This isn't an SP howitzer with lots of room in the turret. 2. Tube droop, thermal shrouding and better cradles will not help at all. the MRS is primarily intended to deal with tube droop and changes due to firing the gun. Without an MRS, if you boresight your gun daily and otherwise have modern Western FCS, you can probably expect to get accuracy out to 3,000 meters with an 80% chance of first round hit. Your CEP beyond 2500 meters is going to go up significantly as parallax, tube droop and gun drift will all impact it. Finally, on the Russian Kontakt-5 style ERA vs. composite armor. Yes, the Russians have some good materials scientists and research capabilities. The unknown, and it's a big one, for the Russians is their manufacturing quality. This is a problem they have to overcome in general, not just with modern composite materials. If they can overcome it there's no reason they can't manufacture tanks with armor that is reasonably on par with that of Western tanks. I don't expect to see this problem resolved for another decade though.
 
Quote    Reply

RetiredCdnTanker    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/23/2004 11:33:18 AM
Shirrush, some good points. Don't just think kinetic energy though. The characteristics and operation of a APFSDS projectile, upon striking armour, is very similar to the characteristics of a HEAT jet. The big difference, as far as tank weapons go, is that 120 mm is certainly too small a caliber to have a large enough cone to defeat modern armour. Therefore, modern armour designers would have to develop an armour that would do two things, equally well, and that would be to defeat APFSDS rounds from tanks, and dual charge HEAT projectiles fired fron missiles. All this, and keep the weight down to a reasonable level. Modern armour is very well designed, and on the top three western tanks, will defeat not only APFSDS rounds, but is designed to defeat such missiles as the latest variants of the Bofors Bill and the TOW2. I think all would agree that all moderns armours use a combination of deflection and absoption to achieve that aim. The materials used, and how they are used, is the big secret. On the MRS, there have been many, many trials done to make using the MRS "idiot" proof, and/or automatic. But no matter wheter the MRS is based on vision, lasers, radar, or whatever, there is a need for an MRS of some kind. The Leo 2 has always had an MRS, it is a requirement for the EMES 15/18 to function properly. Actually, it is a requirement for any FCS to operate properly. One way or another, the FCS must know where the end of the barrel is. Barrel droop, no matter how good thermal shrouds are, will happen, especially during firing. You should see how much a barrel movesduring firing in cold weather! It is amazing that a big chunk of steel can move that much. Improvements to cradles, mantlets, trunnions, and so on can help mitigate, but never totally remove barrel movement.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeffrey    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   2/23/2004 11:39:39 AM
I guess mike-golf,as a tanker you know more than the people who build that tank and that have spend millions in development,years and years in research,they came up with an 'hallow'' type armor (there are all different corners inside this hallow armor) And some normal tanker who doesn't has helped with development and research on this tank can tell that they are WRONG!!! ermans have a great repetation when it comes too TANKS,from WW2 till now. And ones again,the M1A1/A2 and challenger1/2 may have ''real'' combat experience,but against what??? A couple of 40 year old T-55 tanks and some poor equipt T-72 tanks. I don't call this REAL combat experience ok. Get my point? The Leopard has too prove himself in the battlefield but also the M1A2 and Challenger2 have too prove themself!
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics