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
clarkey188    RE:Jeffrey - M1 Gas Turbine   3/19/2004 2:44:02 AM
This is interesting reading http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
 
Quote    Reply

clarkey188    RE:Challenger 2 .....Jeffrey   3/19/2004 2:52:17 AM
Read this link Jeffrey it proves my point http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2519005.stm
 
Quote    Reply

Jeffrey    RE:Jeffrey - M1 Gas Turbine   3/19/2004 3:33:47 AM
Oman had problems with there challenger 2's at the beginning too,but im not saying that the British army still has this problem,but when they went to koeweit (in preparation for the war against Iraq)they had big problems with there engines many of them broke down. And what do you prove with that link clarkey?
 
Quote    Reply

clarkey188    RE:Jeffrey - Challenger 2   3/19/2004 4:34:26 AM
Do you mean the Challenger link. This is what it says wich proves the point about seeing combat highlights any faults and about the engine faults, I've pasted it in for you to read again I think it mentions improvements to the filtration of the engine. The Challenger 2 is the UK's main battle tank, and as such its key function is to destroy enemy tanks. It has a good reputation for reliability, although it has experienced significant problems during military exercises in desert conditions. Improvements to air filters have had to be undertaken to enable the tank to function properly in hot and sandy environments. Built by Vickers Defence Systems, work started on the Challenger 2 in 1986 and the first units were delivered in 1994. The new model has 150 improvements over its predecessor, the Challenger 1, which saw action in the Gulf War.
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    C2 and M1 Turbine   3/19/2004 4:46:44 AM
The Challenger 2 did have some problems, largely due to the non-desert specs of the original version. The Engine was good, but needed improvement - the Perkins Condor 1200hp engine does not cut it in the desert compared to the 1500 MTU EuroPack on the 2E. The Condor gave a top speed of 56km/h on roads, and 40km/h off road, but the low power to weight ratio (around 20bhp per ton just isn't enough for fast movement of a 62 ton tank) causes problem with reliability and range - 450km (without extended range tanks), compared to the gas guzzling M1s range of 480km. These problems were worked out, and the C2 performed very well, and its armour and gun lived up to expectations. The 2E further improves and rectifies a lot of issues, a lot of which have to do with too little support/funding programs. Unfortunately, it is right across the boards for the UK Army - Warriors etc. have had similar troubles. As far as the M1 Turbine - nothing new there. The DOD and Army knew what they were getting into, and the Turbine isn't as bad as it sounds. As I have said before, it's a trade off: Excellent performance characteristics, acceleration (0-20mph in 7.2seconds - excellent for a 63 ton machine, better than anyother MBT), top speed, agility, etc. for large fuel consumption tat must be offset with logistics. 1500hp at 30,000rpm, and not being able to slow down. On the other hand the turbine is more efficient than diesels at higher speeds - the increased airflow means that less fuel is required by the engine, where at slower speeds, more fuel is needed to compensate for the low air intake. It's heat signature is not that much a problem, Armoured formations are pretty easy to spot without special equipment. In urban operations, which MBTs of any kind would try to avoid (with the exceptionof the Merkava, but that's a special design), Infantry and foot types would be stupid to stay close to the tank anyway - MBTs attract arty, RPGs and a lot of things that have splash effects, which means that foot troops will try and stay away from the tanks as far as tactically possible. The Abrams are being upgraded with Auxillary Power Units and improve fuel control electronics, which will help to minimise the consumption, and there is the Honeywell Turbine in the works/on the way which is more efficient, smaller, and generally better than the Textron Lycoming the Abrams currently has. The Turbine isn't perfect, but it works well, and was good trade off for the Abrams. Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

Jeffrey    RE:Jeffrey - Challenger 2   3/19/2004 5:46:48 AM
''although it has experienced significant problems during military exercises in desert conditions.'' They say exercises,doesn't that means training?
 
Quote    Reply

clarkey188    RE:Jeffrey - Challenger 2   3/19/2004 6:17:32 AM
It proves your point wrong about the engine being unreliable doesn't it. But yes you are right it did say it was found during exercises which are TESTS, But it has been rectified.And that lessons were learned during GW1 and incorporated into C2 and until Leo 2 has the same sort of TEST you cannot say it's the best. It is good but it isn't proven. I think that is what everyone has said,and you should take your blinkers off and accept that instead of constantly arguing against it.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Jeffrey - Challenger 2   3/19/2004 6:17:38 AM
The engine problems in Kuweit were down to unusual conditions. The unprecedented number of tanks driving over the same tracks had ground the sand down to a powder the consistency of talcum powder. This was much finer than the filters had been designed for. The solution was to hang canvas screens from the skirts. After that all problems with the engines disappeared.
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Handheld AT Weapons - continuation   3/19/2004 6:41:22 AM
The obvious disadvantage of squad level at-weapons is, that it isn’t necessarily easy to get in a good position to get a shot. At least if the terrain is flat and open you’re expected to move maybe hundreds of meters in the best killing-range of enemy arsenal just to get in range. Hand held weapons can show their value normally only, if the terrain is close and varying. In our native terrain, all green soldiers were trained how to sneak out to destroy armoured vehicles (read APC’s/IFV’s) with disposable weapons that can be compared with M72 LAW. And it wasn’t unusual at all, that in forest terrain a two man team – during their basic training period - could crawl past the vehicle on watch unnoticed (even when there were unbuttoned crew members waiting for them and scanning the terrain) and get in a roughly 50m position to fire (it occurred maybe with 50% of the attempts with basic training). That was a range where hit should be certain (in NCO school, our training platoon achieved 100% accuracy at 75m on stationary target and roughly 66% on horizontally moving target). It became very apparent to me that in close terrain it’s well in limits of a small at-team to take on single vehicles – in open areas, where all mechanised units exel, it’s very difficult if the enemy maintains good cohesion (and then also chances of success are very limited). This was a normal practice, used within single squads to hunt single APC’s. When in position, the minimum (and normal) number of at-weapons to be fired was two fired simultaneously, aiming at the same spot. Generally the pair carries 3-4 launchers, and after the firing of the first two, usually the remaining are also instantly loaded and used if the team decides that breaking contact isn’t necessary. And that is a number of weapons that was expected to be needed, if a BMP-class vehicle is wanted to be destroyed, from the flank or rear. It wasn’t their job to pursue any MBT, for that purpose every platoon had a party of three men with 112mm launchers to be used in a similar manner, mostly for self-defence of the platoon (sometimes additional launchers are provided too). Company commander has enough resources to gather a co-ordinated at-party, with 2-3 heavy at-groups. But one thing that is really an issue with down to squad level at-fighting, is that they must act actively and pursue enemy vehicles rather than wait them to come on (cos’ at that point it’s certainly too late). It’s all up to squad level NCO’s to make sure that happens – nothing is more certain than that in very passive, sitting defense men with at-weapons are extremely unlikely to get other than frontal shots on enemy vehicles and are in great danger of being overrun by enemy combined arms. Somehow I’ve got a picture that what Iraqis mostly did wasn’t co-ordinated or active use of their obsolent at-weapons, but rather small-scale puzzling of certain individuals (mike_golf, correct me if I’m wrong). A fine example of good use of light at-weapons was Grozny, even if of course the urban terrain and the complete lack of reasonable Russian pre-planning made the disastrous ending possible. But anyhow, rebels demonstrated that even with limited resources, it was well possible to absorb rapid shock to enemy by active pursuing of them. They used much similar tactics than described above, with two separate groups with radio contact with each other moving a few blocks away from each other. A few man strong light scout team reported the hunter group about the recent movement of soviet columns, and possibly lured them towards favoured area, while hunter group moved in to take ambush position. Killer teams were usually no more than four to six in strength, enabling them to respond rapidly, consisting of supporting machine-gunner/marksman element and at-element. Small, platoon or two sized column were easily destroyed by a party this small, by first disabling the lead and last vehicles and then hitting remaining vehicles with concentrated fire. Sure, all the elements for the good success were there, but without very active pursuing, rebels couldn’t have actually won in a scale they did.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeffrey    RE:Jeffrey - Challenger 2   3/19/2004 8:14:26 AM
Clarkey188,i said it was unreliably when it came in koeweit,Oman have bought the Challenger2E right?They had the same with there country too.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics