OT: Best modern AFV ?

[Dienekes]

I've been searching for stuff on the net pertaining to this topic but haven't found anything interesting. Anyone have opinions on what is the best modern AFV in a one to one engagement?

[Guest Mirage2k]

M1A2 Abrams...best all-around, I think.

-Andrew

PS: Of course I'm probably a tad partial to American equipment...

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Dan Weaver]

Choosing the best modern AFV is like trying to decide who's the best athlete in sports these days. Tiger Woods may be one hell of a golfer, but I doubt you want him to start defensive line.

If you cut the question up a little bit:

Tank: M1A2SEP

IFV: CV9040

SP Artillery: PzH 2000

SP MLR: MLRS

SP ADA: 2S6M Tunguska

The tank may change when Germany fields the Leopard 2A6 KWS or when Russia fields the T-95. (Don't mark your calendars for that last one.) The IFV won't change for a while, because armies are generally rethinking the IFV concept. The SP artillery may change when the United States fields the Crusader; again I don't suggest staying up late checking CNN. MLRS gets the nod over Smerch because it can fire ATACMS. The 2S6M will be the best SP ADA piece until the Russians replace it.

Dan

[ncounio]

Well I will go for the LECLERC MBT for 2 main reasons :

1/ I'm french

2/ It was more succesfull in the benchmark made by Emirates in order to choose their MBT

and guess what they picked up... LECLERC

------------------

Nicolas

"Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche"

Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If you cut the question up a little bit:

Tank: M1A2SEP

IFV: CV9040

SP Artillery: PzH 2000

SP MLR: MLRS

SP ADA: 2S6M Tunguska<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the CV9040?

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Stoffel]

A vehicle that is very awefull and problably better than what NATO has is the Russian Krisantema ATGM vehicle.

It is a third generation system and supposed to offer better ways of guiding together with supersonic flight and a range of up to 6 km.

CV 90 is the newest Swedish IFV armed with a 40mm gun

[Dienekes]

I am referring to Main Battle Tank to clarify matters.

[Guest Mirage2k]

This one isn't exactly the best modern MBT, but I think the M60 Patton is perhaps one of the most successful in the last forty or so years. I believe the U.S. Marine Corps still uses the M60A3 with an upgraded 105mm main gun (the original had a 90mm gun, IIRC) as the brunt of its armored units. The Patton has also been exported to a lot of allies, including the Republic of Korea, Israel, and a bunch of others. The Israelis have designed a bunch of modifications such as a new turret, comms, and computer system. I believe the IDF still uses the Patton in its front-line units.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-29-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

Merkava Mk III

------------------

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Sergei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Merkava Mk III

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I had to fight in a desert, I might pick Merkava, but otherwise I think mobility is of the essence.

I think in European theater some six T-72's (you get about that many for the price of one modern MBT nowadays) can beat one Merkava by out-manoeuvring it. Oh well, the original was about one-to-one battle... but that would be tactically stupid, wouldn't it?

[T-34\85]

I think it was pretty much proven by the WW2 experience which tanks are the best ... the ones you can produce a ton of. The award goes to the T-90. In a war situation it would quickly become a case of 10 T-90s vs 1 M1A2s.

The T-90 has a main gun equal to the M1A2/Leopard 2A5, tho its fire control is not as capable (but more capable than the T-72BM and T-80UM), its armor is also about equal with the addition of Kontakts-5 ERA that makes it invincible to M1A2 cannon rounds at medium to long range (US army test data).

[This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 07-30-2000).]

[Stoffel]

Although it is a good tank the T-90 was build from 1997 with a rate of some 20 to 30 vehicles a year.So I don't think it wil be 10 to 1 m1a2

The tank is much more expensive than the average t-72 or t-80.And because it is so expensive the Russians have build it mainly for export.The same goes for the Tunguska aa defensesystem.

Indeed you are right about the armour it must be able to withstand APDFS rounds.

It has a defense against atgm's like the Javelin too.

Infact both vehicles are not included in the annual Military Technology issue regarding the inventory of the worlds armed forces.

Henk

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergei:

I think in European theater some six T-72's...can beat one Merkava by out-manoeuvring it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Lebanon is not a desert country though -- it is forested, with narrow, twisting roads, not unlike Europe. And I saw all sorts of Syrian T-72s and T-62s burning brightly there.

------------------

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Stoffel]

Dienekes if you click at the link resources on battlefront.com main page you will find a link to the TacopsHQ site .

There you cann find a lot you want to know about all kind of modern weaponry on the intel page.

If you do a search on the Tacops forum you can find links to other pages about modern weapon systems.

Or you might consider buying the Military Technology(a monthly magazine with the latest info).

A good library mostly has it on the shelf

Henk

I can give you their data if you want to.

[Sergei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Interesting. Lebanon is not a desert country though -- it is forested, with narrow, twisting roads, not unlike Europe. And I saw all sorts of Syrian T-72s and T-62s burning brightly there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, well it happens. Could have something to do with the training differences between the Israeli and Syrian tankers?

[Guest machineman]

As far as I can see the Allies won in the west DESPITE large numbers of inferior tanks, not because of them. You can't always count on having total air control, overwhelming artillery strength, Ultra communication intercepts and an opposing army short of everything including fuel and trained crews. As well as a surplus of trained crews of your own to throw away while one gets on the flank. Abrams, Leopard, Merkava, basically everyone is using the equivalent of a KingTiger now: the most potently armed, heavily armoured, well suspended, best sighted tank that current technology can provide, the biggest functional change is modern technology doubled the engine horsepower and made them mobile. Funny how history turns around.

I think Abrams vs Merkava would be the most interesting matchup, where probably the greater experience of Israeli tank crews would make the difference, but so much is in the minute by minute technology race now.

[Dan Weaver]

The CV9040 is a Swedish IFV that carries a 40mm gun. It carries eight men and has a low profile, so it fixes the flaws of the Bradley. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/index.html

Some corrections here:

The T-90 has a main gun equal to the M1A2/Leopard 2A5: False. The 2A46M1 has been outperformed by the Rheinmetall for years.

Its armor is also about equal, with the addition of Kontakt-5 ERA that makes it invincible to M1A2 cannon rounds at medium to long range: False. Russian advisors instruct Cypriot T-80UM1 operators that their Kontakt-5 suite degrades M829A1 performance by approx. 38%. There's no way the Russians are going to undersell themselves on this.

Krisantema is a big badass, yes. That gets the SP-AT nod.

The hypothetical T-72 vs. Merkava engagement has already been carried out as Babra mentioned, back when the Merks had 105mm guns. The Merks slaughtered the T-72s.

Dan

[Guest Mirage2k]

Just a note about the M1 Abrams' armor.

I remember reading a true story in one of Tom Clancy's nonfiction works (it must've been "Armored Cav"). I think it went something like this...

During the initial phase of the ground war in Desert Storm, an M1 had gotten stuck in some mud. With its unit operating under a strict timetable, it was left behind with its crew to wait for a recovery vehicle.

While the M1 waited, two Iraqi BMPs happened along. They got off three missile shots (At least I think they were missiles...I can't remember the missile type, or the specific BMP model...oh well) between them, each shot hitting the Abrams frontal armor to no effect. The crew of the M1 returned fire with a HEAT round, taking out one vehicle. The second Iraqi vehicle retreated behind a nearby sand berm, but was quickly dispatched by a combination of thermal imaging and a Sabot round.

Meanwhile, the crew of the M1 had been shouting for help over the radio net. A pair of Abrams tanks arrived, and a decision was made to pick up the stuck crew and destroy their tank where it sat. With the crew safely out, the arriving M1s began firing...with little effect. After what I think was over half a dozen shots at close range, a Sabot round finally pierced the engine compartment. The resulting blast was safely vented out of the vehicle and away from the fuel and ammunition by its fire control and safety systems.

When the recovery unit finally arrived, they towed the Abrams out of the mud and found it to be in surprisingly good condition, the only major structural damaging being that the turret was slightly out of alignment. The Abrams was later repaired and put back into service.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Dan Weaver]

That story's apocryphal. Nobody can seem to find the unit or the tank it happened to, and the actions of the American forces don't match up with doctrine.

Dan

[Hakko Ichiu]

About the stuck M1: if a crew is going to abandon and destroy its tank, don't they toss thermite grenades down the barrel and into the engine block and crew compartments? I believe tanks carry several thermite grenades for exactly this purpose

About the Merkava: The primary design goal of the Merkava was crew survivability, hence the low silhouette and high armor thickness/slope and the trade-off in power to weight ratio. Israeli tank crews are considered on a par with fighter pilots -- they sign up for a much longer hitch then regular leg infantry.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That story's apocryphal. Nobody can seem to find the unit or the tank it happened to, and the actions of the American forces don't match up with doctrine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. Well, I was stating what I read.

-Andrew

[T-34\85]

Dan Weaver:

"The T-90 has a main gun equal to the M1A2/Leopard 2A5: False. The 2A46M1 has been outperformed by the Rheinmetall for years."

the T-90 doesnt use a 24A6M1, it uses an M2 model. The whole point of the T-90 is that its basically a super-upgraded T-72. Coming standard with the Shtora system its also more survivable against SACLOS missiles than an M1A2 (combined with the ERA). Concerning the performance of Kontakts-5, I dont see how what youre saying refutes the US army test results reported by Janes: I saw the picture, the DU penetrator was bending and shattering.

"Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles."

Concerning the armor of the M1, Iraq is really not worth comparing ... the Iraqis manufactured their own ammunition for their tanks which was way inferior to standard Soviet ammunition ... explaining the really poor showing of the already old dodgy export model T-72s (with badly trained crews) against the M1A1s. I'd like to see how the frontal armor of an M1 performs against the new Russian triple-charge HEAT round.

And also, I wasnt implying Russia has thousands of T-90 tanks, but that in a war situation it would "quickly become" a situation where the much more complex M1s would be hopelessly outnumbered. Russian industry is still there folks, tho latent. But anyway the T-90 is merely a stopgap until the T-95 with its 152mm main gun (completely sealed off from the crew who are in a unitary armored pod in the hull, with no access to the turret) comes along anyway (and new generation Kaktus ERA, combined with the Drozd-2 or Arena APS and an IR shroud)

[This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 07-31-2000).]

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the T-90 doesnt use a 24A6M1, it uses an M2 model. The whole point of the T-90 is that its basically a super-upgraded T-72. Coming standard with the Shtora system its also more survivable against SACLOS missiles than an M1A2 (combined with the ERA). Concerning the performance of Kontakts-5, I dont see how what youre saying refutes the US army test results reported by Janes: I saw the picture, the DU penetrator was bending and shattering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought one of the problems with ERA was that it was basically a one-shot deal. That is, once a section of ERA detonates to defend the tank from an incoming round, it can't protect that part of the tank anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And also, I wasnt implying Russia has thousands of T-90 tanks, but that in a war situation it would "quickly become" a situation where the much more complex M1s would be hopelessly outnumbered. Russian industry is still there folks, tho latent. But anyway the T-90 is merely a stopgap until the T-95 with its 152mm main gun (completely sealed off from the crew who are in a unitary armored pod in the hull, with no access to the turret) comes along anyway (and new generation Kaktus ERA, combined with the Drozd-2 or Arena APS and an IR shroud)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Russia has a lot of stuff on the drawing board, but whether they get the funds pulled together to build any new high technology weapons is another matter. My understanding was that of their defense budget is spent on keeping their remaining ICBMs and SSBNs operational, leaving the conventional forces out to dry, so to speak.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The whole point of the T-90 is that its basically a super-upgraded T-72.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it have the same problem with the "jack in the box" effect?

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Dragoon44]

Have to throw in my two bits!! Would go with the M-60A3, has a very effective fire control system and decent punch. It was much more user friendly (meaning you could bubble gum, coat hanger and duct tape the damn thing when it broke down) versus my experiences with the M-1. Being a cavalryman at heart I have to say that I am partial to the M-3 Bradley. Once folks figured out that ITS NOT A TANK a lot of the bad press went away.

Would love to drive an AMX 30 or a BMP one of these years just for fun, oh yeah and throw in a Marder, and those scandinavian guys are making some really cool looking AFV's would love the opportunity to see if I can break one,,,,

[dumbo]

For purely "fun" reasons I have always been partial to the good old soviet PT-7 and Scorpion/ Scimitar Brit light tanks.

OK I admit it I think light tanks are cool 8)

By the way can someone explain the pros and cons of M1 vs Challenger for me? If anyone has actually seen the insides of these buggers would be even better. I BELEIVE the M1 licensed the Chobam armour from the Challenger, perhaps someone can correct me here.

_dumbo