Top 10 Military Machines in 7 categories

[dosed150]

The M1 Tank is capable of:

Multiple target tracking and engaging from outside vision via battlefield integrated targetting system. That's right: an M1 can engage targets that it cannot see, no other tank can. Maximum penetration. Maximum armor. Maximum speed.

It is the only - read: ONLY - turbine powered tank. To pretend this is a bad thing is stupid.

The US wins every catagory.

Either your tanks have jet engines and your jets are invisible, or go home.

the m1 isnt ahead of the curve and its turbine engine its probably part of the reason it uses 3 times as much fuel as the comparable challenger 2.
if american engineering is so amazing how do the japanese manage to improve evety piece of american hardware they buy same with the british apaches now the us military want to implement some of those improvements on theirs

 

[Ecofarm]

Oh noes! Three times as much fuel!



Now the battle is surely lost.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, certainly it is a big deal in real life as it creates logistical problems.

But I don't think that should matter. After all, the OP said that cost doesn't matter, so why should supply costs?

 

[dosed150]

Oh noes! Three times as much fuel!



Now the battle is surely lost.

its means you need more support vehicles to ferry this fuel to the front and im sure fuel trucks make really easy targets

 

[Steph]

Oh noes! Three times as much fuel!

Now the battle is surely lost.

M1 Abrams speed = 68 km/h road, 48 km/h off road, Range = 460 km, engine =1500 hp, that's 24.5 hp / metric ton

And... "The engine burns more than 1 gallon per mile and 12 gallons per hour when idle.[The high speed, high temperature jet blast emitted from the rear of M1 Abrams tanks makes it difficult for the infantry to proceed shadowing the tank in urban combat "

Leclerc speed = 80 km/h on road,55 km/h off road range = 550 km, engine 1500 hp = 27.5 hp/ton., and can go from 0 to 32 km/h in 5 seconds

Leopard 2 speed = 72km/h on road, range 550 km.

So no, you don't win in every category.

 

[Loki130]

fuel efficiency and such would be important in a real true war (which I assume is what we're talking about in ranking combat effectiveness, because what's the point of stealth aircraft and special armor if the enemy doesn't even have something decent to shoot at it?) An abrams, for all its super-duper-shooty stuff, would probably be pretty useless if it couldn't move. Just about any modern military strategist will tell you that fuel is a very important factor in armored warfare against an enemy that can attack your supply routes

 

[Patroklos]

Well, certainly it is a big deal in real life as it creates logistical problems.

Seeing as we haven't neglected our projection abilities for sixty odd years, it really isn't that big a deal for us. The reason it seems like a big deal for Europeans is that you are used to being limited that way.

 

[dosed150]

Seeing as we haven't neglected our projection abilities for sixty odd years, it really isn't that big a deal for us. The reason it seems like a big deal for Europeans is that you are used to being limited that way.

britain and france are probably the only other countries to have any real projection capability so i hardly think weve been neglecting it

 

[Esckey]

I'm suprised no one has listed the Hind yet on their attack helicopter lists.

 

[Ecofarm]

Those are only awesome when flown by Rambo.

 

[Leonel]

Aw man. I thought it was a thread on World in Conflict. It was a good game and I recognized some placed that I visited in real life Seattle too.

 

[MobBoss]

fuel efficiency and such would be important in a real true war (which I assume is what we're talking about in ranking combat effectiveness, because what's the point of stealth aircraft and special armor if the enemy doesn't even have something decent to shoot at it?) An abrams, for all its super-duper-shooty stuff, would probably be pretty useless if it couldn't move. Just about any modern military strategist will tell you that fuel is a very important factor in armored warfare against an enemy that can attack your supply routes

Key part highlighted. We wont alllow such attacks to happen during a period of full mechanized action. Our supply routes indeed got hit during the occupation phase of Iraq....but not during the full forces combat against the Iraqi military because they simply were not able to.

The US military is often recognized as histories master of logistics and is one of the reasons we dont really care how much fuel our tanks consume because we will meet that need no questions asked.

Fuel would become a concern in a hugely protracted no-holds bar total war. And even then, that is why we hold a 'stragetic reserve' just in case.

Logistics and by extension fuel, are not an issue.

That being said, I stand by my earlier comments.

 

[Winner]

Key part highlighted. We wont alllow such attacks to happen during a period of full mechanized action. Our supply routes indeed got hit during the occupation phase of Iraq....but not during the full forces combat against the Iraqi military because they simply were not able to.

The US military is often recognized as histories master of logistics and is one of the reasons we dont really care how much fuel our tanks consume because we will meet that need no questions asked.

Fuel would become a concern in a hugely protracted no-holds bar total war. And even then, that is why we hold a 'stragetic reserve' just in case.

Logistics and by extension fuel, are not an issue.

That being said, I stand by my earlier comments.

Historically it was, it stopped the Allied advance to Rhine in 1944. And as far as I know, in 2003 Iraq the US forces had to stop their advance in order to estabilish secure supply lines as well. Later it turned out that insurgent strikes against supply convoys from Basra were indeed a serious a problem.

Nobody is invulnerable to logistical problems. M1 is an excellent battle tank, but the fuel consumption is its one major weakness. It may not show when everything works as it should, but it exists nonetheless

 

[lovett]

The US military is often recognized as histories master of logistics and is one of the reasons we dont really care how much fuel our tanks consume because we will meet that need no questions asked.

How many tank warfare situations has the US actually been in? Where United States supply lines were at all threatened?

I'm drawing a blank, 'cept for WWII. And even then supply lines were pretty damn secure most of the time.

I don't think one reasonably well executed war makes the US 'Histories Master of Logistics'.

 

[Lillefix]

As someone already mentioned we need pictures. I'm not sure which is the coolest: The slim Russian Tu 95 with 4 engines each with two counterrotating propellers, or the big lumbering B52 with 8 jet engines. They are both long range strategic bombers and fully comparable. I leave it to the experts to decide which is the best.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Self-propelled artillery:

1.)Panzerhaubitze 2000 [Germany]


This thing is a kickass piece of machinery. It can let loose quicker and farther than any other self-propelled gun, and has the best computers out there. Many armies are looking to Germany to replace their aging M109 howitzers.

2.) M109 A6 "Paladin" [United States, NATO nations, Israel, plus many others]


It is the final evolution of the M109 chassis, and though it is nearly forty years old, it's still kicking ass. As I said, it is being replaced by the Phz 2000 because it fires faster and is much more up-to-date.

3.)M270 MLRS [United States]


I assume we may include MLRS systems in self-propelled artillery? This guy is basically a mobile missile battery, with huge range, huge destructive power, and of course uses guided munitions. I don't think it's as good as the two before it because it is an exclusively long-range weapon, and carries pretty much zero protection of its own. They're not supposed to, but in a real pinch you could use mobile howitzers as tank destroyers (indeed, that is partly how self-propelled artillery came to be so widely used in WWII), or at least as armored fighting platforms, since they also carry .50 caliber machine guns and respectable armor.

4.)TOS-1 [Successor states to the Soviet Union]


This is a Soviet-designed MLRS system designed for much closer targets than the M270 envisioned. The weapons the TOS uses are mostly thermobaric anti-personnel warheads, and are for the most part unguided. Think of this almost as a super "Katiusha" system. They used them with relative success in the Afghan War, though they entered very late. I think they were also used in the Chechen War.

5.) PLZ-45 [People's Republic of China]



This is another 155mm gun, relatively new, but its just not as good as the #1 and #2 slots. It fires a bit slower than the M109, and much slower than the Phz 2000, but is in general a good piece of equipment. The Saudis field both the PLZ-45 and the M109.

 

[Patroklos]

britain and france are probably the only other countries to have any real projection capability so i hardly think weve been neglecting it

Both the US and France would be extremeply hard pressed support a brigade let alone multiple divisions overseas in a conventional force on force war scenario. During the Falklands Britain literaly broke their logistics train to support a couple batalions. Their projection capabilities are token, the only country with the ability to support major overseas forces on the relative scale of major powers pior to WWII is the US.

And as far as I know, in 2003 Iraq the US forces had to stop their advance in order to estabilish secure supply lines as well. Later it turned out that insurgent strikes against supply convoys from Basra were indeed a serious a problem.

No matter how good or bad your supply lines, you still have to establish them. There isn't an army in history that hasn't had to consolidate an advance. The fact is though, that when they were established our forces never wanted for anything. And the insurgents stopped what, .01% of materail making it to the front lines? It was nothing but an overblow media story, it never in any way had the capacity to hinder operational objective taking.

How many tank warfare situations has the US actually been in? Where United States supply lines were at all threatened?

That question doesn't make sense. One of the reasons we are known as masters of logistics is we know how to keep our lines of communications unmolested to any relevant degree.

I don't think one reasonably well executed war makes the US 'Histories Master of Logistics'.

Name me one other nation in the last fifty years thats every day operations required maintaining several hundred thousand troops, several hundred aircraft, and a about a hundred overseas continually. The more impressive thing about it is that not only do we take care of ourselves, but we supply the bulk of the logistical support to our deployed allies (especially transport) as well.

 

[Patroklos]

As someone already mentioned we need pictures. I'm not sure which is the coolest: The slim Russian Tu 95 with 4 engines each with two counterrotating propellers, or the big lumbering B52 with 8 jet engines. They are both long range strategic bombers and fully comparable.

There is no comparison. They both date from the same period, but one has been upgraded to be state of the art to the present day while the other was obsolete twenty five years ago. The B-52 beets the Bear in pretty much everything, but most importantly in payload.

 

[JohnRM]

not battle tested? theyve been used in iraq since 2003

Iraq? Are you kidding? That isn't armored warfare and if I remember correctly, the Brits didn't face any significant armored formations during the initial invasion.

 

[North King]

Iraq? Are you kidding? That isn't armored warfare and if I remember correctly, the Brits didn't face any significant armored formations during the initial invasion.

To be fair, no tank in the world has fought against equally advanced enemies for decades, or even close to parity. And the closest that we might get in the next 50 years is if the USA and China go to war... Even then, only the Type 99s can hope to fight against the M1A2; the far more common Type 96s would be absolutely shredded.