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
elcid    RE:Berms   3/28/2004 3:07:57 AM
There is no doubt the story about berms is true. I am aware of an incident in which a mixed team of the 7th cavalry came across a line of dug in T-72s - 12 if memory serves. A Bradley elected to engage at the same time as the M-1, and even though it only had a 25 mm chain gun, it managed to penetrate earth, tank, and earth again time after time. Only four tanks remained by the time the second platoon got into a position where it could see the enemy. The T-72s had been placed on high ground, and then burried by bulldozers. This does not seem very wise to me, but on the other hand, I would never have suspected 25 mm could penetrate like that. It is not in any of the databases, for example.
 
Quote    Reply

Jan Zizka    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   3/28/2004 3:37:41 AM
How can you possibly say that the T-90 is at the top of the list when it has never been tested in battle and given the istory of Russian hardware vs. the M1... The T-90 looks impressive on paper but the Russians have a tendency to overstate capabilities of their weapons systems.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Berms - elcid   3/28/2004 3:50:50 AM
I'm not doubting the story at all, m_g is not in the habit of telling tall stories. MY curiosity is about the range at which they were engaged and the thickness of the berms. My curiosity is driven by the fact that I worked on a ballistics project where we fired rounds into a shot tank filled with sand. The capture tank caused a hell of a lot of energy to be bled off. Either way, a chain gun let alone a main gun slicing through berms and killing any armoured vehicle (let alone a MBT) is no mean feat.
 
Quote    Reply

Crazy Serb    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/28/2004 6:30:46 AM
"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." No losses from at mines ? Is there any explenation for this?
 
Quote    Reply

mr_rok    RE:Abrams-at mines   3/28/2004 6:59:51 AM
There are pics on the net showing a destroyed abrams which had supposedly had an encounter with an at mine. The text however says that this was after the official war had ended, not during the actual fighting. I find it quite remarkable that there wasn't a single case of an atgm been fired upon a tank. A little off-topic. I recently watched a show on the Discovery channel "Highway to Bagdad" if I remember correctly. There was talk about "ambush alley" and I guess you have to at least admire the Arabs(it said they were largely from Syria) or their religious zeal (or despair) jumping in front of a tank and shooting from an AK against it. Hillarious! On the other hand I felt sorry for the poor marines being bogged down in sand during a head on attack against an urban area (I don't remember the name of the town exactly).Real sloppy work on the side of the planners and intel, although in their defense I can stress that the sand was soft because of the rain (but I guess they should have taken that into account) There was another case of sloppy intel. A diversionary thrust towards a town just south of Bagdad was planned. The tank comm. who took part in this endeavour told that his superiors had told him that there would be no resistance or he said in their words "a walk in the park".But when they got there there was a hail of bullets from AK's an mg's directed at the tanks who were carrying soldiers of the 82nd or 101st (again my memory eludes me- I was making dinner at that time :>) division on their backs. I wouldn't like to be in any of that incidents if there would be a proper anti-tank ambush with atgm's not rpg's.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:Abrams-at mines   3/28/2004 9:03:05 AM
We lost 1 m1 i that know of it a mine it was a massive mine. 3 mines stacked up on each other with a 155mm arittley shell with it.Anytank would have been disabled/destroyed for that mine lucky all the crew survied..
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Berms - gf0012   3/28/2004 9:33:26 AM
The berms in the prepared defenses were between 2 and 3 meters thick, prepared by engineering equipment. The tanks were in a frontal aspect, so we had to penetrate 2 to 3 meters of compacted dirt and then the frontal armor of the T-72.
 
Quote    Reply

Ex98C    RE:Abrams-at mines   3/28/2004 7:47:49 PM
destroying a tank is next to impossible...you can disable a tank, penatrate its hull and kill its crew. A recovery unit will come by, tow the hulk away, repair it and have it back in action in a few hours/days. So while the media might report a "destroyed" M-1 the army doesn;t necesarily consider it so.
 
Quote    Reply

mr_rok    RE:Abrams-at mines EX98c   3/29/2004 3:04:37 AM
Have you seen the pictures? Like the turret being blown off, tracks are nowhere to be seen etc. I can't imagine what happened with the electronics. I don't think the repair crews are going to bother with that. Check iraqwar.ru, gallery section, although this site belongs to Venik who is full of bias, but the pictures look real and they do tell a story. There are a couple pics of abrams tanks destroyed (the one on the road which has tracks missing and the turret is swinged to the left, the one I mentioned above and he's got a pic of supposedly two tanks damaged with an rpg rounds.
 
Quote    Reply

RetiredCdnTanker    RE:Berms   3/29/2004 3:20:22 AM
Surely you're not trying to say that a 25mm penetrated 2-3 metres of compacted earth, as well as a frontal aspect T-72?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics