Main page

 Ebeneezergoode, on 24 October 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

i wonder at what point a tank shot becomes an arty shot?
when you dont sight the target +shoot yourself?
the previously mentioned, indirect fire, must come under "tank vs tank - indirect fire kill"?

As you said..... indirect fire i.e. using the main armament as an artillery piece and as such not very acurate at all.  This record was at an observed target, in the direct fire role, with a first round kill.  Indirect fire, unless extremely LUCKY, requires on average 3 rounds.

For you to say that indirect fire holds this record is like saying Big Bertha holds the record for the longest sniper kill at around 130km!

In addition, the ammunition used in indirect fire (from a tank) is usually HESH but most definitely NOT armour piercing.

There were many examples of indirect fire hits on Iraqi tanks using HESH from Challenger 1's at over 7km.

One must also remember that the graticule patterns of Challenger only go to 3200m which is the peace time range limit. This is in common with pretty much most tanks the world over.

As far as the Brits are concerned any target over 3200m should be considered for indirect fire.  However, during war, peace time restrictions and conventions are lifted.

 MajorGeneralHughElles, on 06 November 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

do they shoot out to sea? or do they get that range in canada?

All tanks are obsolete, so this discussion is completely irrelevant. Air-superiority means any tank can be destroyed. So in fact the best tank out there is the Apache AH-64 or the Kamov Ka-50 or any other tank-killing helicopter.

 TimDogg, on 11 November 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Favorite media and "military reformer" cliche. But then manure hits the fan and it is suddenly found that "all-weather helicopters and aircrafts" aren't, moreover their famous armor isn't (or rather:covers only tiny part of the subsystems) and light armor just doesn't cut the mustard.

Canada sent Leopards to Afghanistan to get rid of them ("they're obsolete and we gonna scrap them, so they are expendable"). Soon, the position swithced to "wow, they work! Let's buy some newer!".

Tank was proclaimed dead time and again since 1918. In their turn, the "death of tank" were: Field guns... Antitank rifles... Antitank guns... Handheld HEAT projectors... Recoilless rifles... ATGMs... Air... Helicopters... But the tank survived all and is gonna survive all, however it might be named, because a hard-to-destroy beast with potent gun is gonna be useful enough asset anytime.

I served my duty in a German tank platoon a few years ago. We had one type of exercise I want to tell you about. From time to time we did virtual warfare simulations. The point of it was to train commanders and officers in the strange dynamics of real conflicts. The German army has a simulation software for that. Opfor are usually "played" by lower ranked personal. They can use virtual Russian tanks and a few distractions such as dug in trucks and so on. Opfor isn't limited in terms of civilized behavior or anything like that.

We "played" those simulations a lot. It's not like a daft multiplayer shooter. Both sides are very dedicated and put a lot of work into the planning. As the Opfor is played by our own guys they know what our strategies are. They also know what our tanks can do and see. So they planned their setups accordingly. Like you would expect it from an enemy who gained much experience in the field. And the result usually was, that despite being outnumbered Opfor caused significant damage.

Now in reality Opfor wont be outnumbered. We only have a few hundred Leo2. But the Russians will always have a few thousand T-somethings. We base our doctrine on being superior to the Russians through training and quality gear. But training takes time. And building tanks does too.

Which tank is better? I think the Leo2 is superior to any Russian tank in a 1-vs-1. But war is not like that. War is about supply and attrition. And I believe the Russian approach is more effective. They can build several times as much tanks from the same resources, they can build them quicker and they can move them more effectively.  The Leo2 is the more sophisticated machine. But the T-90 or whatever is more reasonable. In tank warfare we can't defeat Russia with what we've got now. We never could. The Nato did the same mistake that the Reich did. They tried to beat them by building super-sophisticated tanks. But in the end the usable, fast to produce and easy to operate tanks succeed.

 Djerin, on 27 November 2011 - 01:42 AM, said:

Well war of attrition hasn't gone away, but it has changed a bit, no country is capable of building new equipment during a war in reasonable amounts. Even if war is fought only with conventional weaponry. Cost limits peace time procurement and cheaper stuff can be bought in larger quantities.

Russians have more practical approach to designing weaponry. They try to build weapons that are good enough for the job, while in west especially since end of cold war goal has become building best possible weapons regardless of costs. That difference applies to military equipment pretty much regardless of what kind of equipment is in question, from infantry gear to tanks and even more complicated and expensive stuff like fighters or warships. Different western countries suffer from this to slightly different degree.

 TimDogg, on 11 November 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

Easy to answer.

I dare you to Take and hold ground with a helicopter. Nope didn't work did it.

 Listy, on 27 November 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

Something like that.
It should be noted that US combat aviation tried its own version of Thunder Runs done by mechanised units.

It ended up with an entire brigade being pretty badly shot up, though without casaulties and with only one AH-64 failing to RTB.

Of course, if we add a bit o' good ole' bad weather, the "all-weather capable" heliborne force will have to sit tight on the ground...

 Tuccy, on 27 November 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

Just ask any soldiers who's been deployed how often those all weather helos and aircraft sit grounded due to weather conditions   It's not just often, it's very often. Airpower is not the magical "I win" button. It has limitations, rather extensive ones actually, linked to limited force projection in ground combat situations, inability to be on scene for extented duration and many, many other limitations.

Airpower is a support tool, used to assist ground forces. Ground forces are the people who make things happen. Ground forces can be SF, infantry but also tanks. And yes, that still goes for modern days as well.

600 T-90's in service. But how many are actually working?

Considering over 9 000 Abrams and 3 500 + Leopard 2's were built, that's not much!

 uJarTurk, on 25 August 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

Great they just that And not that good wheres their missile system for long range? Active defense systems? nope. Cool new composite Armour or ERA blocks? nope.

 deamy, on 10 January 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

703+ now are all active. Then India has another 630 with 990 more order and under production now. Then Algeria has 180 in in all their is 1513 at least out their and active. How many M1 are still working of though 9000 after Iraq that tank grave yard look big. http://www.youtube.c...feature=related yet if you want play the number game the u.s. lose ever time with tanks so 703 t90 + t80's Currently around 1,400 are in active service and less than 3,100 are in storage+ t72's 2,000 in active service and 3,000 in reserves. So in all 10,200 tank ready for war add the cold war tank rusting in the fields and more like 40,000 that could be restored for war.
Oh 1 more thing all though 8,725 not 9000 are M1, M1A1 and M1A2 variants combined in inventory. the m1 are not any better then upgraded t72Bs.

I thought we had agreed that the Leopard 2 was better but the Challenger II won because it had a BV Boiling Vessel to make tea.

 Djerin, on 27 November 2011 - 01:42 AM, said:

false thinking, you are trying to project the ww2 t34 scenario on to the modern day and it does not work, leo2 is highly strategically mobile and one of the cheapest western tanks, t90 is one of the most expensive and sophisticated Russian tanks ever built, in a war situation Germany has the better infrastructure and solid supply lines via its allies to the west, its production of tanks could easily be upscaled, the European idea of tank numbers is to have just enough to hold off an invasion and have the ability to rapidly increase numbers on demand.

Increasingly Russian afvs have attempted to become even more sophisticated than western counterparts, trying to be total all rounders.

Best tank in the world is T54/55

if t90s ever roll into germany its going to be nuclear very quickly +we all know the cockroaches are the only winners then

 Stormscion, on 15 January 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Obviously this point was proven to be right in Yom Kippur
What was it, 2 Centurions Holding off 60 Syrian T55

 RoflSeal, on 22 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

-Was produced since 1949.
-By far most effective and long living tank desgin ever.
-Is most mass produced tank.
-Is still up to this day most numerous tank participating in almost ALL wars since WWII up to this day.
-Cheap to produce.
-Cheap to maintain and repair.
-Easy on supplies.
-Easy to upgrade.
-Easy to train crew for.
-Able to go anywhere.
-Able to work anywhere.
-Projects force just as good as any other tank.
-Can be produced locally.
-Losing and operating one does not bankrupt one country.
-Owning and maintaining one does not require sophisticated expertise and does not put strain on the army.
-Logistically easy to operate most bridges other tanks dont use are used by T54, considering its size and weight it is easy to transport over seas or on land or salvage when broken or stuck.

Operators: Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Belarus; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Cambodia; Central African Republic; Chad; China (Type 59); Congo; Croatia; Cuba; Czech Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Finland; Georgia; Guinea; Hungary; India; Iran; Iraq; North Korea; Laos; Latvia; Lebanon; Libya; Macedonia; Malawi; Mauritania; Mongolia; Mozambique; Namibia; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Pakistan; Peru; Poland; Romania; Russia (Soviet Union); Rwanda; Serbia and Montenegro; Slovakia; Slovenia; Somalia; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Syria; Tanzania; Togo; Uganda; Ukraine; Uruguay; Uzbekistan; Vietnam; Yemen; Zambia.


Its AK47 of tanks.

By comparison Abrams was supposed to be produced up to 12 500 number and original project design costed in bilions. By the looks of it , it will never be produced up to 12 500 mark even after so many years and modernization attempts. And it is used primarily by one country.

T-90 is the best tank in the world for sure.... is Russian  
Abrams is a nice tank to but have alot of problems in deserts...

cheers