Main page

S-103C
at least most sechsy of them all.

PzGrenKdr, on 02 August 2010 - 03:30 PM, said:

At that time they dint.

HMS Sheffield and Coventry had this as armament during the time of their sinking=
Sea Dart missile 22 Carried
4.5 inch (114 mm) Mk.8 gun
Two Oerlikon 20 mm cannons.
Two STWS Mark 2 torpedo tubes, two chaff launchers.

HMS ardent and Antelope had=

1 × 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun
2 × Oerlikon 20 mm cannon
4 × MM38 Exocet missiles
1 × quadruple Sea Cat SAMs
2 × triple ASW torpedo tubes
2 × Corvus chaff launchers
1 × Type 182 towed decoy

Phalanx CIWS where added BECAUSE of these sinkings. The phalanx was also first designed in 1980. Falklands war was just a year later, they couldnt have got phalanxes at that time

yeah my mistake i mixed something up, sorry, but no btt

PzGrenKdr, on 03 August 2010 - 12:51 AM, said:

Shit happens  

I dont really much about armaments, but i saw a big documentary about the falkland wars, in wich the sinking of these ships where because of bad AA weapons to intercept Anti ship missiles.


But the phalanx is still crap though. The dutch Goalkeeper on the other hand.......that thing is awesome

Leopard 2 is the best.All specialists say so.Watch on Discovery.
It's fast, very easy to repair, can go underwater, walks on mines without problems, producer guaranty, a lot of Leo 2 are produced and sold  and... see more on Discovery Top 10 tanks in the world.

Dont know if topic spins only arround new tanks or old tanks play too
Anyway, once upon a time M-84 was outstanding tank,so great that Kuwait army ordered about 170 near the begining of Gulf War

http://www.military-...m/tanks/m84.jpg

Production history
Designed 1979 - 1983
Produced 1984 - 1991
Number built ~652
Specifications
Weight 41.5 tonnes
Length 9.53 m
Width 3.57 m
Height 2.19 m
Crew 3 (Commander, gunner, driver)

Armor 5 lance grenades fumigating, composite alloy; including high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component.
Primary
armament 125 mm 2A46 smoothbore gun
Secondary
armament 7.62 mm M86 coaxial machine gun, 12.7 mm M87 anti-aircraft machine gun
Engine diesel V-46TK
1,000 hp (750 kW)
Power/weight 24.10 hp/tonne
Suspension torsion bar
Fuel capacity 1200 + 400l
Operational
range 700 km
Speed 68 km/h

And if only "new" tanks are in play, my vote goes to T-90.

cDa, on 03 August 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

Love it. 'Once upon a time: It also went pop! to AT rounds!'

To be honest, all proper modern tanks are pretty damn amazing, each in their own special way. The Abrams isn't. It's just terrible.

cDa, on 03 August 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

not only, category of this tank 1984-1991

Don't you think the Leopard 2 has a bit of a shot trap just below the main gun?

NO, why all heavy rounds will perforate the added armour and stopped there, no rounds will deflect into the roof. Today bouncing shells are rare(yeah 20-30mm maybe but they aren´t strong enough for front-armour of a MBT)

To all you guys who argue about armour protection of MBTs I just leave this here...



Leoaprd 2A6 (and all variants of it) is probably the best protected MBT by armor in the world, as the AMAP block has been considerably improven their RHA value which is estimated and calculated to be 2000mm in RHA, even in excess. As of today, no HEAT weapons coming even near to that level of penetrating performance are in existence! Compared to the old Leopard 2A4, HEAT protection of frontal turret has doubled!

M1 Abrams armour protection

http://media.moddb.c...brams_armor.jpg

T80U Armor protection

http://media.moddb.c..._protection.jpg

Leoaprd 2 Active Protection System AMAP_ADS

http://media.moddb.c..._protection.jpg

Leoaprd 2A6 4th generation Advanced Modular Armour Protection is the first of making use of nano-ceramics and modern steel technology.  

http://media.moddb.c..._armor.jpg2.jpg

Challenger 2 meets RPG-29

http://img202.images...challenger2.jpg

When the Challenger 2 entered service with the armies of the United Kingdom, it was the best protected tank in the world by armor. However, as soon as the Leoapard 2A5 and 2A6 entered Service with the German Bundeswehr (which use modular designed armor protection), the Chr 2 lost his trophy and was not the best protectedd MBT anymore.

RPG-29 vs T-90

http://fofanov.armor...S/19991020.html

btw RPG-29 was also tested against Leoaprd 2A6's armour protection without any penetrations. I think that says enough right? I let the facts speak for themselves.

Merkava 3 add-on armor protection

http://img381.images...1/8323/1ld1.jpg

The swedish version of the leopard 2 is apparently the best even the guy in the video says its the greatest tank ever.
But really any modern tank can take out any other modern tank its just the leopard 2 is the most sophisticated.
The Stridsvagn 122:
http://www.youtube.c...eos=vpciQzCJ9vk

before i start this post ill say i dont agree what with nazis would use this for,,but as a "tank XI" it would be truely awsome


THE Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte!

the words read "Ratte, Maus and Tiger"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte was to have been an extremely large tank for use by Nazi Germany during World War II. It was designed in 1942 by Krupp with the approval of Adolf Hitler, but the project was canceled by Albert Speer in early 1943 and no tank was ever completed. At 1,000 metric tons, the P-1000 would have been over five times as heavy as the Panzer VIII Maus, the largest tank ever actually built.

History

The development history of the Ratte originated with a 1941 strategic study of Soviet heavy tanks conducted by Krupp, the study also giving birth to the Panzer VIII Maus superheavy tank. The study led to a suggestion from Krupp director Grote, special officer for submarine construction, who on June 23, 1942 proposed to Hitler a 1,000-tonne tank which he named a Landkreuzer. It was to be armed with naval artillery and armored with 9 inches (23 cm) of hardened steel, so heavily that only similar weapons could hope to affect it. To compensate for its immense weight, the Ratte would have been equipped with three 1.2 metre (3.9 ft) wide treads on each side with a total tread width of 7.2 metres (24 ft). This would help stability and weight distribution, but the vehicle's sheer mass would have destroyed roads and rendered bridge crossings completely impractical. However, it was anticipated that its height, and its ground clearance of 2 metres (6.6 ft) would have allowed it to ford most rivers with ease.
Hitler became enamored with Grote's concept and ordered Krupp to begin development on it. As of December 29, 1942 a few preliminary drawings had been completed, by which time the concept had been named Ratte (Rat).

Propulsion
The Ratte was to be propelled by two MAN V12Z32/44 24 cylinder marine diesel engines of 8,500 hp (6.2 MW) each (as used in U-boats) or eight Daimler-Benz MB 501 20 cylinder marine diesel engines of 2,000 hp (1.5 MW) each (as used in E-boats) to achieve the 16,000 hp (11.8 MW) needed to move this tank. The engines were to be provided with snorkels also like those pioneered by German submarines. The snorkels were of course designed to provide a way for oxygen to reach the engine, even during amphibious operations passing through deep water.

Armament
The Ratte's primary weapons would have been two 280 mm SK C/34 naval guns mounted in a modified naval heavy cruiser turret as used in the Gneisenau-class warships, fitting two guns instead of three. One such turret was supposedly built before the project was canceled, although documentation of its whereabouts is missing. It is rumored that the prototype turret was used as a coastal gun emplacement in occupied Netherlands near Rotterdam, but it now appears this turret was actually built to the specifications of the Gneisenau class and was unconnected to the Ratte Program.
Further armament was to consist of a 128 mm anti-tank gun of the type used in the Jagdtiger or Maus, two 15 mm Mauser MG 151/15 autocannons, and eight 20 mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns, probably with at least four of them as a quad mount. The 128 mm anti-tank gun's precise location on the Ratte is a point of contention among historians, most believing that it would have been mounted within the primary turret, with some others thinking a smaller secondary turret at the rear of the Ratte more logical. The tank was to be provided with a vehicle bay sufficient to hold two BMW R12 motorcycles for scouting, as well as several smaller storage rooms, a compact infirmary area, and a self-contained lavatory system.

Type Project super-heavy tank
Place of origin Nazi Germany

Specifications
Weight 1000 tonnes
Length 35.00 m
Width 14.00 m
Height 11.00 m
Crew 20+, possibly as many as 41
Armor 150 - 360 mm
Primary
armament 2x 280 mm 54.5 SK C/34
Secondary
armament 1x 128 mm KwK 44 L/55
8x 20 mm Flak38
2x 15 mm MG 151/15
Engine 8x Daimler-Benz MB501 20-cylinder marine diesel engines
or 2x MAN V12Z32/44 24-cylinder marine diesel engines
16,000 or 17,000 hp (13,000 kW)
Operational
range Approximately 120 miles (190 km)
Speed 40 km/h (24 mph)

Big eh? And for u NavyField people, having CA gun on a tank....thats gonna do some serious damage

also i found about this tanks big brother...nope really even bigger
called the Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster it would have been even bigger than the Ratte and would have carried a 800mm gun from a huge SPG. Each shell would have weighed 7 tonnes each and could have been used aganst heavy fortified targets. the range of the gun tested was 37 km (23 miles) it was a SPG design, and lacked amour for crew and no rotating turret, this tank would have been able to cross deep rivers with a snorkel, but would have destoreyed roads amd couldnt use bridges as it was wayy to heavy at over 1500 tonnes! the crew could have been from 90 to maybe 110 and its large size would make it easy bombing target for planes....


well i wish it could have been a soviet tanks so i could make some "In Soviet Russia, car drives you" jokes... if anyone can find a soviet equiv plz post.

<heugan out>

1500 tonnes... That is insane. Why? It is so impractical. As terror weapon, it is amazing but as a tank, it is terrible! Although, a game I play, Warhammer, has tanks in it that would be 600 tonnes in real life. And mount 13 guns...

I now do actually admit. That Leopard is quite damn amazing. Not the prettiest to look at though.

Leopard II and Challenger 2 are, I would say, roughly equal, though as others have pointed out, the increased agility and speed of the Leopard II put it ahead. The Challenger 2 has its great points though, such as being able to hit a moving target the size of a football out to 2 miles distant. That is incredible, and the latest armour seems to be doing its job. Zero lost to enemy fire. Pretty good statistic, and there's the infamous fight where a Challenger 2 was hit with 14 RPGs and a MILAN yet only had to withdraw when optics/sight were damaged. 6 hours later it was ready for combat again. Incredible.

Comparing to Challenger 2, leopard and T90, what about italian MBT ariete ?

Production history

Produced 1995 - Present
Specifications
Weight 54 tonnes
Length 9.67 m (7.59 without gun)
Width 3.42 m
Height 2.50 m
Crew 4

Armor         
    Classified, steel/composite blend
Primary armament  
   120mm 44 calibre smoothbore tank gun
   42 rounds (15 rounds inside turret magazine with additional 27 rounds in the chassis)
Secondary armament  
   7.62mm coaxial machine-gun, 7.62mm AA machine-gun
   2,500 rounds
Engine
   V-12 turbocharged diesel FIAT MTCA
   1,247 hp (937 kW)
Power/weight
   23 hp/tonne
Suspension
  torsion-bar
Operational  range
  550 km
Speed
  65-70 kilometres per hour (−3.1 mph)



http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Tinners, on 04 August 2010 - 10:55 PM, said:

No, read up on that wedge and you'll find out it's not a shot trap at all.

@ the T90 lovers.
I am very surprised at people who name the T90 as a serious contender. The hull is just a direct descendant of T72 limited improvements really. Although the turret is a completely new design, it's still an outdated gun, and filled with commercial optics which in all likelyhood aren't of the same quality as the military optics used in other 3rd generation MBTs. T90, to me, seems a stopgap between the wholly inadequate T72 and the expensive T80 MBTs, especially aimed at making a succesful export product for Russia.

I really don't see it contending with say the Abrams and the Leopard though, but I see it as a potentially succesful export product which offers not so rich countries an opportunity to get a 3rd generation tank for significantly less money than a western 3rd generation tank, but with reduced capabilities in comparison.

Edit: Considering the data here, which shows Leopard 2A6 isn't just one of the most agile tanks in the world, but also has one of the best guns, and is the best protected to boot, I'd say some people will need to find so mighty fine arguments to knock it off the top spot in all honesty.
@ chickenpie65, that was one nice post mate.

I vote for croatian M95 Degman <3


44,5 Tones
3 crew members
10mx3,6mx2,2m dimensions
Top speed = 70km/h

Firepower
125mm cannon - 44shells - 8 RPM
Anti-air NSV MG 12,7 mm
Coaxial MG 7,6 mm
12 smoke shells

Currently, the largest tank ever built, the M1-J10 Main Battle Tank, nicknamed "Jihadi Slaughter" or "JaySlaw" for short is being built in Lima, Ohio by General Dynamics. The JaySlaw measures nearly 90 feet in length, 35 feet wide and stands almost 2 stories high. The main weapon of the M1-J10 is a 478mm smoothbore cannon, designed by the Rheinmetall Corporation of Germany. Engagement ranges approaching 22 miles were successfully demonstrated during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The JaySlaw has been clocked at a speed of over 200mph in desert sand which is simply astounding considering the vehicle weighs more than a thousand tons.

  Well, think I'd go for one of these....

Westie wins the thread