1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Best Tank

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Zardnaar, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,214
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Fighting other tanks isn't the prime role it's for punching through and isolating units.

    Killing other tanks is important but ideally the other side doesn't have them or they're deployed wrong.
     
  2. Lord Shadow

    Lord Shadow General

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,001
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    I don't know. Where terrain applied, in World War II and probably for the length of the Cold War (and change), yes.

    However, beyond the fact battle lines to "punch through" aren't quite as clear in conflicts nowadays, there's also a number of other, generally lighter AFVs which have the mobility to fill that kind of role. In the absence of enemy tanks, you don't really need more than a handful of your own.

    One could say tanks are still a deterrent and psychological weapon in an infantry support role, though.
     
  3. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,214
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    They'll still stop a light infantry attack dead.

    Light infantry in rough terrain on the defensive though.....

    And Toyota War
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2019
  4. Lord Shadow

    Lord Shadow General

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,001
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    Any kind of light armour would stop a light infantry attack dead. :p

    An MBT's primary armament is still designed to kill other tanks. There are shells which can be used against personnel, but that's secondary, and more for getting out of a pinch or providing fire support when other elements are leading the engagement.
     
  5. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,163
    the tank still rules as much as it did back in 1945 . Count 10 examples postwar where it failed and ı will give you 10 explanations how it lacked the 1945 elements . Road bound ? Why , it still controls the piece of road it stands on . As for Army of Petrol , what you people are failing to see is it was a political move after the Disgrace of July 15th , into a land of "supposed brothers" and those lovely images you seen around are the end result of aerial strikes that will similarly open up any M-1 or Challenger , to prevent the "Arab Warfare" type disaster of captured tanks . Just saying that Army of Petrol and its "Arabic" ways are symbols of failure will be so nice for yours idiotly and bunch , when your boys would have to face like better tanks , ı don't know , a hovering Patton or something .
     
  6. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,786
    The Leopard 2 used to be widely available for cheap. This wasn't due to its design or anything so much as the fact that the German army had an excess of them after reunification and the government was happy to sell them for cheap. By now the market for second-hand German Leopard 2s has dried up, and it's either third-hand Leos, if anyone were selling, or new production Leopard 2s, which would actually be rather pricey. It's hard to price individual tanks since they are sold in batches, often with spare parts, ammunition, and maintenance contracts thrown in, plus who knows what political understandings and deals not in the contract. But a recent Hungarian order for 44 newly built Leopard 2A7+ tanks and 24 newly build PzH 2000 self-propelled artillery pieces reached ~$565 million, or roughly $8.3 million per vehicle (this assumes the howitzers cost the same as the tanks, which may not be true). That's quite a bit, though again, this article didn't mention maintenance, ammunition, spare parts, etc.

    As for armor and firepower: it depends. The early models (A0 through A4, though these are basically the same in most ways and only the A4s onward are still around) appear to have decent armor and the L/44 120mm Rh120 gun firing tungsten APFSDS rounds (or HEAT, or HE). However, they're also forty years old. Their armor is not quite up to snuff anymore. Newer models from the A5 onward have wedged appliqué armor on the turret faces. This seems to be hollow steel, and increases the standoff distance of HEAT rounds (like ATGMs, RPGs, and some tank rounds) and should also increase protection against APFSDS.

    Models from the A6 on have the longer L/55 cannon for extra velocity for their APFSDS rounds. This was tested on the Abrams and rejected - apparently the US Army is satisfied with the performance of its rounds, and the added length causes issues with barrel droop, heat distortion, and just bumping into things. Cannon barrels are long and heavy things only supported on one end, and this, combined with subtle warping from the heat of repeated firing, means that eventually they droop, which harms accuracy. The only advantages of a longer barrel, besides looking great, are first-shot accuracy and higher penetration from APFSDS rounds. The US uses depleted uranium (DU) APFSDS rounds, while the Germans use tungsten alloy (WA). DU is effectively self-sharpening as it penetrates armor, and is flammable, so it penetrates a bit better and can inflict better horrors on the inside of its prey. The Germans prefer WA - I'm not sure how their supply of DU is, though apparently they export some DU to Russia, but the usual explanation I've seen is that DU has some nasty side effects in areas where DU ammunition was used, or where DU armor plate was damaged, like cancer and birth defects. Most likely German tanks' APFSDS rounds would be used in defense of Germany, so they probably don't want to deal with that stuff on their soil. Point is, the Leo has a longer weapon but the Abrams gets better penetration for maximum effect anyway.

    As for armor, the Leopard 2 most likely is worse than the Abrams. Leaving aside reports of the German team possibly cheating in the 1970s races between the Abrams and Leopard prototypes by removing the armor, modern Abrams variants have had...I've lost track of how many times the turret face armor has been upgraded, but I believe it's something like four or five times by now. The M1IP and M1A1, then the M1A1HA, then the M1A1HC, then the M1A2, then the three different SEP variants until the Army got sick of the increasingly unwieldy names and used letters instead. And they were upgraded with DU plating, no less! As many can relate, the Abrams, by now forty years old, has put on some weight, and went from 54 metric tons to 66.8.

    Meanwhile, the Leopard got some steel. Just steel.

    It's not a bad tank, but as mentioned, the Leopard is more likely to get penetrated and is more likely to explode if it does compared to the Abrams. It has somewhat less armor, it doesn't include the same composite armor or DU the Abrams does, and it stores some ammunition in the hull. The Abrams, aside from the T-14, is the only tank that stores all of its ammunition in sealed compartments with blowout panels. If the ammunition explodes or burns, the pressure blows out panels covering the exterior of the ammunition compartment rather than exploding inside the crew compartment, so even if it goes off, the crew is safe.

    As for the Leopards and Abrams tanks getting destroyed recently in the Middle East, that's not due to flaws in the design so much as due to flaws in use. Likewise, Russian tanks of all kinds, but most infamously T-80s, got massacred in Grozny. Some blamed the T-80's turbine engines and their volatile fuel, but in truth, getting shot from multiple directions with RPGs is ill for the health of any tank and is not recommended.
     
    Hygro, hobbsyoyo and cardgame like this.
  7. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,214
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    T-80s were used wrong. Once penetrated though more likely to go boom. Like most ex Soviet tanks.
     
  8. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,163
    that's what autoloaders do for you .
     
  9. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,786
    Soviet-style carousel autoloaders in the hull under the turret can indeed have a jack-in-the-box effect when hit, but bustle-mounted autoloaders like in the Type 90, Type 10, Leclerc, and so on should be safer if they're equipped with blowout panels. The Type 90 appears to be (Item #19):



    And it's not a problem unique to Soviet designs; this Turkish Leopard 2 (left) appears to have suffered a detonation of the hull ammunition (shown in red on the lower right):

     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  10. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    11,715
    From what I read, the problem during the first assault on Grozny was that many tanks were sent in with unequipped/unloaded ERA charges, because no much resistance was expected. I know, this sounds crazy but I also know Russian realities in 1994 to found that believable. During second Chechen war, T-90-s with Kontakt-5 ERA were battle tested and it's been reported that they withstood multiple RPG hits in some situations.
    Bad performance of T-80-s in the first Chechen War was likely caused by human factor rather than design problems.
     
  11. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,786
    ERA certainly would have helped against the RPG-7s Russian tanks faced. But they were coming under quite a bit of anti-tank fire.

    But I agree, my point was more that tanks without infantry support going into a city against multiple RPG teams are generally dead tanks, and it's not proof that Soviet designs were bad, any more than the loss of Leopard 2s or Abrams tanks in the Middle East is proof that those designs are bad.
     
    hobbsyoyo and red_elk like this.
  12. Thorgalaeg

    Thorgalaeg Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    4,962
    Location:
    Spain
    To know what product is best the easiest way is to look at what rich people want to buy. First tank choice for Saudi Arabia was the Leo 2A7. Germany refused for political reasons and then the Saudis went for the Abrams.
     
  13. Phrossack

    Phrossack Armored Fish and Armored Men

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,786
    Might not be the best example. Arab militaries are, more often than not, incompetent, and I wouldn't trust some princeling to pick good equipment so much as pick whatever is flashiest and the most prestigious. I imagine the annihilation of so many Iraqi and Syrian Soviet tanks gave those designs a poor reputation in the region, even though Iraqi and Saudi Abrams tanks get trashed too because they are just not very professional militaries.

    Big military contracts are also as much about politics as they are about effectiveness. Sometimes moreso. The Brazilian EE-1 Osório apparently did best in Saudi trials but the US always had far more pull than Brazil in Saudi Arabia, and the Abrams won.

    That isn't to knock the Leopard 2A7, especially not the 2A7V. Good tank. Not sure it's better than the Abrams, but export Abrams tanks generally have downgraded armor and probably don't have DU ammunition. But there's more to quality than seeing what militarily incompetent aristocrats like.
     
    Hygro, hobbsyoyo and cardgame like this.
  14. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,214
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    The Soviet tanks were designed for one job which was an offensive push.
    Hence why the only have ok armor on the front, weak side armor, meh gun depression/elevation, and crew survivability wasn't a big thing as long as they can be built cheap (price was why they didn't build lots of T-80's).
     
  15. astrallite

    astrallite Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    56
    Since modern warfare is mostly urban combat, isn't the Merkava technically the best tank as it has significant armor protection around the entire tank--it's basically designed as an urban fighting vehicle? Whereas the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard are great phalanx frontline tanks--crazy armor on the front glacias but basically paper mache against RPG penetration from the top armor and rear?
     
  16. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6,214
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Best tank with specific role and the opportunity to operate in that role.
     
  17. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,163
    that opened up Leopard is why there is the story of abandoned tanks were bombed from the air . Apparently in some other case the ammunition cooked off years later so ı think that's why ı was so eager to test whether those blowout panels and stuff on the M-1 turret could also be made to cook off .
     
  18. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    All that tells anyone is that KMW is better at bribery than General Dynamics.
     
    Hygro and Zardnaar like this.
  19. Thorgalaeg

    Thorgalaeg Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    4,962
    Location:
    Spain
    Yeah, KM or GD briverying Saudi Crown prince who probably has more money than they can even dream of.
     
  20. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    As if MBS makes these decisions personally, and solely.

    The entire armaments market in the middle east is built on bribes paid through markups on these contracts.
     

Share This Page