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
gf0012-aust    what a solid little sucker...   3/20/2004 5:10:47 PM
There is an article in one of the Australian newspapers about an australian soldier who was attached to the 1st Div USMC. He describes ab encounter with an M1 and an Iraqui tank: "One tank took a direct hit, but simply traversed its turret, laid its gun and fired, turning the Iraqi tank into flames" He also describes how they almost got whacked by an F-14 which mistook them for Iraqis. All up, an interesting article
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   3/20/2004 5:17:09 PM
If you want to have a debate on gun lauched ATGMs, there are lengthy discussions on other threads. The Japanese Type 90 is good, but unproven, and from what I have observed about it, its armour is inferior to the M1 and Challenger 2. Although, the electronics are excellent. It is a very good tank, especially coming from a non-traditional MBT country, but it is not the best, and certainly not 'hands down'. The Arjun remains to be proven. It's a mix and match style design, basing itself a lot on India's traditional supplier, Russia. When in full production, I have little doubt it'll cut the mustard as far as India's concerned, but I would not rate it above the latest western tanks. ATGMs are generally disliked by western tankers, although as stated by a couple of posters can be useful for countries like Israel. Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Handheld AT Weapons - some comments   3/21/2004 8:26:49 AM
Yes, the generation of vehicles we used had mainly active IR systems which were not used, if not absolutely necessary. I’ve been able to, however, see how modern passive imagers work and get somewhat used to them, and it’s of course fairly impressive (like I said, it’s maybe the biggest and most significant single difference between older and new generation tanks). The signature of just a single soldier is even in broad daylight much more apparent with them indeed. And it’s not just MBT’s anymore, since even IFV’s are in progress of being equipped similarly all over the world. The main hinderance is obviously that cover before provided with small trees, long grass and brushes just isn’t there anymore, that might easily fool infantrymen in a false kind of feeling of safety. But that doesn’t chance the fact that in common close (for example unaltered forest) terrain elevation changes of all kind (minor and major), rough and rocky areas etc. that tank hunter teams are most likely to use as their primary cover and approach routes anyway, are not in range of any direct observation means available today. At least in our armed forces infantrymen are not trained to take primary cover from the vegetation in any possible case, it’s far better to use positions that can really grant both vision cover and cover against small arms fire (and normally you don’t have to look for them much). The most basic things that soldier is teatched during his basic training is that in every possible situation he should seek for alternative routes to change position out of direct influence of enemy fire, one of the biggest fouls being moving oneself in a situation where there’s no instant and obvious fall back routes. Whereas in relatively open terrain it’s impossible for single soldier to move either near or far away round a tank, either dense nature or urban conditions offer great ways to pursue both vehicles and living power in low visibility areas (as opposed to 500-600m visibility you mentioned, that’s actually a wide open plain for us, normal visibility in general native terrain being something in range of 50-300m). Another advantage from the terrain is simply that more dense it is, more scarce is the support that other vehicles can grant to each other. We often operated in terrain that just forces vehicles to operate on their own, with reduced backup. It’s not an option to go against sitting company of tanks, no matter what’s the terrain like, and no one was nor is insane enough to even suggest it. Normally, it’s not an option to go against a well organized platoon either, especially with dismounted infantry cover. What at-teams are basically after are literally vehicles on their own. Situations where at-teams can be effectively used normally arouse out of sudden, often also generated by mistakes of enemy, and they must be responded immediately rather than trying to adopt some kind of a "drill move". For all the bashing of Iraqis and their weapon incompetence, it must be once again said that as important (or even more important) as any of those factors was also the high level of cohesion/structure apparently maintained by coalition troops. Terrain not so favourable to armoured warfare also puts much greater burden to leaders if they want to maintain good situational awareness. For the heavier infantry at-rocket sake, they are both heavy enough as of their pure size, and effective enough as of their penetration (nearing full size atgm level) to ko MBT with a single round as of their design criteria. Even in the practice, there shouldn’t be any trouble to achieve penetration with direct side shots, even with some degree of impact angle. The obvious differences are in range and partly in accuracy, which restrict their effective use in certain situations. As a weapons system, basic model of RPG-7 was used by Finland too, but replaced in a role of squad light at-weapon completely already towards the end of the 80’s (like many other industrial world coutries did too) with much more potent weapons. Today it’s in all areas too low in quality and performance to make any serious harm to tanks, no matter how used, and limited as of capability even against late IFV’s. Generally the tactics adopted, weapon and system efficiency/capability and so on develop hand in hand both in armour and anti-armour field. As a member of armour branch, I really hope that it’s the armour that eventually prevails in every possible situation. And even more, I hope that I’m not the one that ever has to try or prove that in practice…
 
Quote    Reply

phalanx93    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   3/21/2004 5:00:09 PM
My vote: M1A2 Abrams Supertank, hands down
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Handheld AT Weapons - some comments   3/21/2004 10:03:44 PM
MikkoLn, I should not that the 500-600 meter visibility I discussed in the sandstorms during Desert Storm were with thermals at their highest possible magnification, and that was very poor visibility. My first tank engagement (not infantry) of the day was at 455 meters and I couldn't detect the tank in thermals, only with daylight optics. Additionally, I couldn't get a good laser range to the target, I continuously got "multiple returns" off the target. Infantry was not visible until 100 meters or less. When you add into that the close terrain of prepared defensive positions in and around a military airbase the visibility with regard to infantry dropped as low as 50 meters at times. Now, I would think most infantrymen would think these are ideal conditions for dismounted action against tanks, yes? I certainly, as a tanker, thought it was. The Iraqi's we faced did try dismounted action against our tanks but it was very uncoordinated and the tactics very ineffective.
 
Quote    Reply

Crazy Serb    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/22/2004 12:37:10 PM
Mikkoln "Most of the weapons used in war theatres of the recent years or decade – Gulf Wars for example - doesn’t however belong to this cathegory, mostly the basic 40-year old RPG-7 still being the weapon appearing. " That's interesting.Weapons like AT-7 or AT-13 are available on black market.For example AT-7 was used in balkan war 1991-1995.Second GW was great oportuniti to test these weapons in real combat against the competition. mike_golf "What saved me and my tank was the fact that the RPG gunner didn't get lucky." That was my point :) "Okay guy, you are comparing lots of apples to lots of oranges. First off, The AT-3 sagger has a significantly bigger warhead and longer range than an RPG does. Second, the Yugo M-84 has nowhere near the protection of Abrams or Challenger on any aspect of the tank. Your friend was misguided or misinformed. This would be like me saying "well gee, I know a guy who's M60A3 was penetrated by a TOW-1 missile, so your T-80 with Kontakt-5 sucks". Think about it. " Well,here you miss the point.I didnt want to compare M-84 and Abrams.I mentiond that becouse of the way that some ppl think and talk about there weapons. What about land mines? It was logical for Iraq's to put land mines but there was a little information about losses on US side.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/22/2004 12:45:33 PM
mike_golf "What saved me and my tank was the fact that the RPG gunner didn't get lucky." That was my point :) Well, actually your point seemed to be that I got lucky. I'm trying to tell you that it was just the reverse. The guy shooting the RPG at me had to get lucky. The western armies learned the lesson about handheld AT weapons and ATGM's during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Armor tactics and new tank development takes that into account. In general ATGM's and handheld AT weapons are not the threat to modern western MBT's that you are trying to make them out to be. Handheld AT weapons have a very low likelihood of doing significant damage to an M1, as I tried to show in my earlier posts on the topic. ATGM's like those you have mentioned, or the US TOW missiles have a much better chance of doing damage if they hit. The problem is hitting. Western armies have developed tactics to deal with ATGM's. ATGM's are not this wonderful weapon that makes any infantryman the equal of a tank. They help, but not as much as those who have not been on the battlefield may think.
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Handheld AT Weapons - some comments   3/23/2004 4:23:05 AM
mike_golf, Surely, the kind of weather you described should be pretty favourable situation for infantry force…though I don’t know if infantryman would appreciate those conditions either too much… Now, this goes truly off topic, but anyway as you mentioned it…Sandstorm really should be, thinking it with pure sense, one of the toughest possible tests and situations put on laser rangefinders. But did you encounter similar difficulties some other time too? I mean, were big dust clouds generated in desert environment a problem too in practice (generally probably no, but just like to hear about your experiences)? And how you normally act with multiple returns (this is actually a topic I have asked or spoken very little with anyone American)? If I haven’t got it wrong, in M1 the gunner has ability to select which return he prefers to use, unlike in few other contemporary designs (correct me if I’m wrong). Is this actually a great asset in battle (I could imagine that in some situations, if shooting for a tank in hull down position for a long distances for example, the ability to use first instead of the last return normally provided could maybe eventually and occasionally grant higher possibility to measure the distance accurately and right)?
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/23/2004 4:27:18 AM
Crazy Serb, There's no reported cases whatsoever of any M1 being struck by any atgm, nor at-land mine, during GWII. All vehicles that were damaged by enemy fire were hit by hand held light at (i.e. RPG's), light weapons fire etc.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    MikkoLn   3/23/2004 8:02:03 PM
MikkoLn wrote: "though I don’t know if infantryman would appreciate those conditions either too much…" I really doubt the infantry guys liked the weather much at all. But, nasty weather, even more than night, is the friend of the infantry. Especially with modern thermal optics in play. In general, the worst conditions for using a laser rangefinder is woodland because of all the vegetation. Normally in desert climates we had no trouble whatsoever with the lasers except during sandstorms. Which return you select the return based on the situation. Normally, especially in woodland terrain, you choose the last return. In open terrain with your targets in hull down positions you would, as you said, want to choose the first return. Multiple returns with the M1's rangefinder were much less of a problem than they were on the M60A3. But in certain conditions, especially woodland, being able to select the return was a great asset.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics