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
Horsesoldier    RE:Russian range advantage   2/9/2004 11:28:12 AM
>>And since the M1 and Chally both can achieve first round hits on tank frontal aspects at 4000 meters why bother with the missile?<< As Mike Golf noted in his post, the Russian fielding of gun-tube ATGMs was not so much an effort to add an extra arrow to the quiver, in terms of capabilities, as it was an attempt to sidestep, technologically, the fact that their tank crews and fire control could not compete with western MBTs. There is certainly the possibility that gun-tube launched ATGMs may mature into an extra-arrow sort of capability, but they don't seem to be there yet (+/- the Israeli system, which was supposed to be fielded? I think the US TERM is a dead issue these days . . .)
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/9/2004 4:44:00 PM
Making the Chobham armor a gold standard was no more than a smart marketing move by Vickers and KMW. DRDO of India made a statement with their Kanchan armor, but apparently the word wasn't as catchy as "Chobham". The Merk's 3 and 4's modular armor is classified, and there's no catchword for it so far, but it at least has the merit of having been developed and tested with the help of genuinely hostile ATGM's with tandem charges flying around the field.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    RE:Russian range advantage   2/9/2004 5:18:25 PM
Here's what you can read about the Lahat ATGM, not much I'm afraid: http://www.defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm, Also at the manucturer's, IAI, corporate website, even less: http://www.iai.co.il/site/en/iai.asp?pi=16147&doc_id=16163 Lahat means LAser Homing Anti Tank, but is also a good Hebrew pun meaning "incandescence" or "effervescence", which is probably what happens to your vehicle once you're hit by one. You probably won't know it's been fielded, until well after it's been used in actual combat or sold to an oversea customer. Lahat is generally thought to have been developed as a component of the Merkava Mk IV "armageddon" suite, to enable the IDF to match the "moderate" Arabs' large arsenals of top-notch US-made systems, such as the M1A1 and the AH64D.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 1:24:26 AM
the industry regards the chobban armour as the Gold standard to which other are judged and why would i disagree? the Merk's armour is assesed to be a steel alminate with kevlar and some kind of thermal layer, whilst no doubt good it is not in the class of the chobban that is known to be a combination of steel/ceramic/fibre matting(possibly kevlar or similar) and with other layers that are top secret, the exact makeup is not only a closely guarded secret but vary between the different generations. I understand the isreal did attempt to purchase chobban for the merk but the deal was never agreed(as did the french). the analysts I have read all agree that to rate the best armour 1 dorchester(latest chobbam) 2 chobbam fitted to the chally 2's 3 DU backed chobbam fitted to M1A2's 4 chobban as fitted to chally 1's 5 the export chobban fitted to M1A1 and Leopards 6 the french ceramic composite fitted to leclerc 7 the steel laminate fitted to the merks after that i am not sure, would any one like to comment?
 
Quote    Reply

InFuSeR    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 1:32:45 AM
The m1a2 is 2nd gen with the DU sheet of extra protection it the best tank protected vs sabot rounds while not as good vs KE. The m1a2 SEP also has better protection vs the m1a2. So saying one is better then the other in wrong we dont know what the best protection is out there we dont have all the top serect info so you really cant say.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 2:05:09 AM
if the M1a2SEP is the best protected with its DU backed Chobbam why is it that the A3 model is reckoned to have the Chobbam armour off the Challenger 11 without the DU?
 
Quote    Reply

InFuSeR    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 2:58:06 AM
The m1a3 (coming out late 2005/2006) with have 3rd Gen Chobbam armour with more advanced DU sheeting. Why? DU is the best vs sabot rounds more protection.while 3rd Gen Chobbam armour is the best it will be even better with the du..
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 3:56:17 AM
from all accounts(addmittedly pure rumor) is that DU is not compatable with dorchester
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 4:44:51 AM
Well I've also encountered pretty much the "three pronged" approach to armour issues which goes as 1 - Chobham with DU. We got it and it's the best. 2 - Chobham. Our friends got it and it's also very good. 3 - Others (i.e. steel). The rest have this. It's as good as paper walls. It's pretty hilarious altogether! But what can be said with this? There's so numerous different approaches and solutions to armour design, that you simply can't cover them with three "generic" classics or put them in these clear levels. I have said it before, but I see red every time I must read "yes but I've read from internet that it has Chobham and I know for sure that it's by far the one and only best compared to all others, just look at GWI results!" Just don't forget and bypass the variety of solutions, and pls quite the overwhelming praising of "Chobham". Late model Merkavas, though maybe losing comparision in armour protection with some other western tanks over frontal arc, are generally very well protected all-around, and from side aspect for example, have better protection than any other vehicle fielded at the moment. Without Chobham.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Oldbutnotthatwise   2/10/2004 5:20:13 AM
this was a comment on armour not tank protection, i will give you that reactive will increase the surviveablity of a "steel" tank, however the underlying armour is inferior to the ceramic laminar armour known as chobbam. to say ha ha is one thing but can you back this up, stickinhg lumps of explosive on the outside of a tank in hopes of blowing the incoming shot away does sounds like a measure of desperation (and it was one when the US fitted it to the M60's to get a few more years out of them). just how does it perform in combat? I certainly wouldnt want to be close infantry support with tanks that protect themselves in this fashion, this alone opens the tank up to alsorts of infantry attack (which i hear is what killed so many in chetenya). steel armour has pretty much reached the end of design possiblities in armour. to increase steel protection you have got to go thicker and heavier. future armour will be somekind of composites, with fibre/ceramic layers to stop kinetic rounds, thermal barrier layers to stop plasma rounds, plastic layers to stop hesh type rounds. at present the best of these is chobbam. to assume that a "new generation" armour isnt as effective as "old/conventional" armour is stupid, the US trialed chobbam against conventional armour the results that were released showed that the chobbam was upto 50% more effective than conventionalarmour of the same thickness(not, note the same weight of armour but thickness this was an extra benifit as chobbam is lighter) now are you saying that russian armour is 50% better than that of the west ie merks?(excluding reactive).
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics