WHICH TANK WILL RULE THEM ALL ????
-
that is frakking thick!...dont ask me how this photo end up in the internet!
-
russian tanks are always the best.
decent power
decent armour
decent price.
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
you guys want to see how thick Merkava MK4 armour?
kinda expected...
-
Back to topic
Best Tank in terms of performance in battle
(Co-ranked 1) merkeva 4,Challenger 2 , M1A1/2
(Ranked 4) Leopard 2: Too bad, Communist fell b4 this tank can work in battle.
(Ranked 5) T-90, ran a similuation, 1 M1A1 can 'kill' 40 T-90 due to better amour
(Ranked 6-other good tanks) T-80, Chieftian, M60A1/3, The owner of this forum(LOL),
(Bad tanks) T72, M48,
Off topic, A10 is a good aircraft i can agree
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
(Ranked 5) T-90, ran a similuation, 1 M1A1 can 'kill' 40 T-90 due to better amour
40?! Sure not. -
Originally posted by wonderamazement:
40?! Sure not.But the simulator was make by USA, maybe biased
Attak power of both tanks; Roughly 200
Defense of T90:78
Defense of M1A1: about 300
But that was my only refrence and you know that T90 in actual battle, is most probable as a shock weapon by Iran in the recent times, and Iran may follow Iraqis by surrending their tanks without a fight.
Shame of the T72 manners in Gulf war to surrender without a shot or the full cpy of tank surrender when 1 recee vehicle form a recee coy nearby was disabled
-
I've come to realize that no tank is that good. Really. The last time I thought a tank was good...I had some real disappointment. So now I just admire military machines in that they are made for battle and represent a technological wonder that men built. I no longer rank them or believe in a particular tank, sub, warship or planes or cars LOL. I just admire that they are a technological marvel of men. No more and no less.
As long as men build them other men could destroy them.
If world war II could give us a lesson is that having a superior tank doesn't guarantee a nation to win the war. Germany which had many superior tanks like its Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II, Jadgpanther, etc did not in fact win the war.
It was the inferior Shermans and the simple T-34s which won the war.
When the cold war was at its height do you think there were enough M1 tanks to stop the Soviet army tank of T-55s and the T-72s which sported the biggest smoothbore gun ever mounted in any tank?
In its time even T-55 represent one of the best tank ever built with its very low silhoutte, powerful gun and great design. Of course you cannot compare a T-55 with the Leclerc. They are born in a different times.
The Swedish Strv 103 has a very very low silhoutte and a very creative design which improve its survavibility in combat thanks to its turretless feature. But it was designed mainly to fight a defensive war suited to the Swedish.
The Merkava which boast strong protection and crew safety doesn't have enough numbers to conquer the whole middle east or european continent.
Had there been World War III, do you think the M1 would win the war? The deployment of M1 requires extensive logistics chain thanks to its very very fuel thirsty turbine engine. M1s may be able to win a limited war but a protracted world war? maybe not. The Leopard 2 has a better chance I say.
So you cannot compare one tank with another really and try to rank them. Each one is the best effort of a nation in a particular time for a particular deployment strategy.
-
No such thing as best tank. There are many good tanks out there. Match a very skilled & experienced crew with a good tank & you have got a one of a hell of an opponent.
-
Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:
I've come to realize that no tank is that good. Really. The last time I thought a tank was good...I had some real disappointment. So now I just admire military machines in that they are made for battle and represent a technological wonder that men built. I no longer rank them or believe in a particular tank, sub, warship or planes or cars LOL. I just admire that they are a technological marvel of men. No more and no less.
As long as men build them other men could destroy them.
If world war II could give us a lesson is that having a superior tank doesn't guarantee a nation to win the war. Germany which had many superior tanks like its Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II, Jadgpanther, etc did not in fact win the war.
It was the inferior Shermans and the simple T-34s which won the war.
When the cold war was at its height do you think there were enough M1 tanks to stop the Soviet army tank of T-55s and the T-72s which sported the biggest smoothbore gun ever mounted in any tank?
In its time even T-55 represent one of the best tank ever built with its very low silhoutte, powerful gun and great design. Of course you cannot compare a T-55 with the Leclerc. They are born in a different times.
The Swedish Strv 103 has a very very low silhoutte and a very creative design which improve its survavibility in combat thanks to its turretless feature. But it was designed mainly to fight a defensive war suited to the Swedish.
The Merkava which boast strong protection and crew safety doesn't have enough numbers to conquer the whole middle east or european continent.
Had there been World War III, do you think the M1 would win the war? The deployment of M1 requires extensive logistics chain thanks to its very very fuel thirsty turbine engine. M1s may be able to win a limited war but a protracted world war? maybe not. The Leopard 2 has a better chance I say.
So you cannot compare one tank with another really and try to rank them. Each one is the best effort of a nation in a particular time for a particular deployment strategy.
Thats why they started NTC.They knew that they were up against superior numbers. And therefore , and Opfor was established to rehearse nighmare scenarios like Fulda Gap in order to get them ready for the real thing.
More than often, NTC graduates are put through missions with insufficient support and well outnumbered.
The reverse is true as well. Given Soviet doctrine at that point of time, which is to consolidate a sufficient mass of force at the point of contact with the enemy, they would perhaps require even MORE logistics support than the NATO troops.
NATO's reversal to a Red onslaught would have been mobile Defend in Sector operations that would attrit the Soviets as much as possible as they advanced. While doing that, NATO's supply line shorten, and when sufficient amassed force is available, counter-attack while the Soviets were extended.
Pound for Pound, the M1s were worth their weight in gold and fuel. The can hit moving targets 3000m away accurately, and that made them invaluable to mobile defense missions when it comes to creating fire sacks.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
............
The reverse is true as well. Given Soviet doctrine at that point of time, which is to consolidate a sufficient mass of force at the point of contact with the enemy, they would perhaps require even MORE logistics support than the NATO troops.
.............
I don't think so. The M1 eats about 50 gallons each hour while just sitting around though it doesn't consume much more fuel at full speed. Compare this to the Leopard 2 which only eats 5 gallons per hour at iddle. So even in defensive battle the M1 requires extensive logistic.
-
If you read through my previous post (about NATO defensive battle) again, you should understand why the M1 or any other NATO vehicle would spend much time in "idle." So idling consumption is not an issue.
NATO would not fight static defensive battles simply because they would be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
Looking at US ALBD and Marine doctrines, you will realize that even platoon commanders are given the liberty to organize local counter-attacks in a highly fluid defensive battle. The M1s will be moving around like crazy SoBs for 2 very good reasons.
1. To avoid getting fixed by OPFOR or Soviet artillery (they've got plenty).
2. Counter-attacking wherever possible.
So idle consumption or "waiting" for the enemy to attack, is something the NATO planners did not want to do very often at all.
-
Yes sorry i dind't read your previous post.
Yes I know NATO tanks would not fight static defensive battle but that fuel consumption figures at iddle were just to show how fuel thirsty the M1 really is.
Actually protracted world war III is unlikely as either side would resort to using nuclear weapons, tactical at the beginning of the war perhaps then strategic nuclear when things went real bad for either side. It was the nuclear deterrant power of both sides that kept the cold war cold.
-
Lets leave nukes out of the scope of the discussion.
If you're familiar with the gas turbine engine, you should aso be aware that it consumes the same amount of fuel regardless of whether its at idle or going at full speed.
Yes, its fuel hungry. But its not likely to be starved either.
The Avco Lycoming engine is a multi-fuel engine that can also accept diesel or any other distillate for internal combustion engines.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Lets leave nukes out of the scope of the discussion.
If you're familiar with the gas turbine engine, you should aso be aware that it consumes the same amount of fuel regardless of whether its at idle or going at full speed.
Yes, its fuel hungry. But its not likely to be starved either.
The Avco Lycoming engine is a multi-fuel engine that can also accept diesel or any other distillate for internal combustion engines.
Well I'm not familiar with the M1 engine but yea as what I wrote earlier it doesn't consume much more fuel going full speed than at idle.
Yes I know it is able to be filled with either diesel fuel, kerosene based fuel or commercial petrol in emergency.
I have to tell you that in case of world war III both sides would use nuclear anti tank artillery to deal with armor. So being a tanker is a very very uncomfortable position in an all out war. But agree let's put nuclear out of discussion.
The anti tank weapons have grown more and more sophisticated including autonomous sound and seismic activated directional tank traps/mines, smart fire and forget computer/radar guided bombs and artillery to name a few exotic ones. It's a nightmare to be inside a tank in the next world war. I would rather be a pilot or a submariner LOL. It takes a steel courage to be a tanker because you get to see the enemy and the bloody action going on directly in front of you. That is true even in a limited war as in the case of the Israeli Hizbollah conflict in 2006. -
This is getting a bit frustrating. Please stop introducing new factors to the equation. First its the nukes, and now you're talking about smart munitions the Soviets DIDN'T have during the cold war.
Your points were that:-
1. There were insufficient M1s.
2. NATO could not logistically support the deployment of M1 tanks.
3. M1s are so fuel thirsty that they would not last a protracted conflict.
4. Perhaps the most senseless statement, that : "Had there been World War III, do you think the M1 would win the war?"To that, I pointed out that, your points 1 and 2 conflicted with each other. When there are fewer tanks, less logistics is required to support. I added that, the Soviets would have been more likely to face logistics issues simply because they had to support a larger mass.
To the point of fuel, I conceded that its true. But it was not true that they could not last a protracted conflict because NATO would have been fighting a fluid defensive battle in order to attrit the Soviets, while enticing them deeper into Europe and lengthening Soviet supply chains. While NATO tanks and troops operated with shorter supply chains, Soviet ones would have to a lengthier logistics trail to worry about.
To the final point of your ORIGINAL discussion, WW3 will not / would not (hasn't happened yet...) have been won by M1s. Saying that would have been tantamount to saying that AK-47s won the Vietnam war.
I didn't add this earlier because I didn't think it was important. NATO Tankees would not have been worried about any T-72 or T-55 above 1000m. It was the T-64s they were afraid of.
In conclusion to the original arguement, I disagree that the Soviets would have been able to successfully invade Europe with sheer quantity.
Note: The Americans had smart anti-tank submunition weapons, not the Soviets. -
nice reading there.
imho since the enemy knew about M1 fuel consumption the first thing they targeted is the fuel distribution logistic...fuel truck will the main priority target.
In a battle tank consume more fuel than when idle..this a fact..a tank with short leg like M1 will need its fuel and logistic close in order to fight a continuous battle.
while the soviet have the same logistic nightmare where their fuel distribution will be under a constant threat by helicopter gun ship and allied air superiority...its problem regarding fuel were not as critical as the american tank.
you see soviet doctrine in order to overwhelmed the allied possition is to flood the fulda gap with thousand of tank and men. While this is true the soviet attack using echelon style attacking (i dont know what its called) for example 1st echelon attacking a position until it reach 40% casualties and then the second echelon goes in, an the the third, the fourth...and so on and so on...untill the position were taken...all this under the bombardment of their fire strike (they call incoming artillery as fire strike) and without letup...meaning there will always a fresh echelon replacing the one that have fuel problem and all that.
-
3/4 tank rule to JB
-
Originally posted by tankfanatic:
nice reading there.
imho since the enemy knew about M1 fuel consumption the first thing they targeted is the fuel distribution logistic...fuel truck will the main priority target.
In a battle tank consume more fuel than when idle..this a fact..a tank with short leg like M1 will need its fuel and logistic close in order to fight a continuous battle.
while the soviet have the same logistic nightmare where their fuel distribution will be under a constant threat by helicopter gun ship and allied air superiority...its problem regarding fuel were not as critical as the american tank.
you see soviet doctrine in order to overwhelmed the allied possition is to flood the fulda gap with thousand of tank and men. While this is true the soviet attack using echelon style attacking (i dont know what its called) for example 1st echelon attacking a position until it reach 40% casualties and then the second echelon goes in, an the the third, the fourth...and so on and so on...untill the position were taken...all this under the bombardment of their fire strike (they call incoming artillery as fire strike) and without letup...meaning there will always a fresh echelon replacing the one that have fuel problem and all that.
Soviet doctrine during the cold war placed large emphasis on the "Breakthrough attack", which is roughly similar to what we know as "Deliberate Attack."To explain this on a battalion level, the Soviets would attack with 2 companies, while holding a 3rd battalion back. Contrary to popular belief, that 3rd company is not a reserve. The entire battalion is committed to the attack, and the 3rd company is held back to exploit any breaches in the enemy's lines.
This 3rd company would then be thrusted into the breach, to either 1. Roll up on the enemy's now undefended flank, or 2. or roll deep into the enemy's rear, destroying whatever support assets or attack strategic objectives.
The interesting part is how this 3rd company is used. With 2 companies at the front, this 3rd company will be used to reinforced whichever company that is making headway in the attack. If one company is being pushed back, but one is making headway against tough resistance, the 3rd company will be used to reinforce the one making headway in order to exploit the "advantage."
Soviets always reinforce success. Failures do not deserve reinforcements.
-
the Abrams drink gas like water liddat...
-
Actually all tanks drink fuel like water, the fuel efficency of the Abrams is more then the usual MBT, but not really that much that it is such a pressing issue. If the army can operate it's choppers it can operate it's tanks. Ultimately the fuel efficency of the Abrams was an issue US planners knew about and planned for.
Also, note that the fuel efficency of the turbine exceeds normal engines by far when it is running at maximum power, it is the idling that really sucks up the fuel for the tank. Hence the Abrams will actually be more fuel efficent then normal MBTs if it's constantly on the move at speed but suffer if it has to crawl along or idle.
-
I cant see tanks at speed most of the time. Most likely > 90 % of time on idle. Wud't an auxiliary power back help mitigate this big probelm with the M1 ?
-
Tanks move at a controlled speed to maintain formation integrity. But I doubt you've seen much to say that tanks 90% of their time in idle... =)
-
SS-Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittman + Tiger 1 Tank.
168 Tank Kills. Record never paralled, will never be beaten.
Heil Wittman.
-
I cant see tanks at speed most of the time. Most likely > 90 % of time on idle. Wud't an auxiliary power back help mitigate this big probelm with the M1 ?
The M1A2 has such an APU to improve fuel efficency.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The M1A2 has such an APU to improve fuel efficency.
Err I think it's the M1A1 which is equipped with the APU(auxilliary power unit) located on the turret bustle rack. That small rectangular box.But now the M1A2 tanks in Iraq are equiped with air conditioning unit in place of the APU. But of course they can always switch it back to APU I think.