Minnesota Joe Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Yes I know it may be cliche, but IMHO the M1A2 (modified) abrams is still the best tank in the world. Though the upgrade to a 120mm gun and other mods did slow it down a bit, its still lightning fast for a modern MBT. Sure the Merkova, Challenger 2, and Leapard 2 are all great, but the Abrams is just the right one. Who cares if it doesnt have an assault mortar? And now the reds are making their new T-90s, which are decent, but knowing the russian economy, theyll only be able to make about a hundred of em. I wonder how many Konigstigers a single M1A2 could take out before getting wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-34\85 Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 The T-90 is nothing but a stop-gap measure, a superupgraded T-72, with all systems upgraded. Regardless, it can give an M1A2 a very good run for its money with its ATGMs, Shtora system, Kontakts-5 ERA, and the latest 125mm ammo (think T-34\85 vs Panther). It doesnt matter tho because when the T-95 comes out the world of tanks will be knocked on its ass The Leopard 2A6 is also superior to the M1A2, confirmed both by simply looking at both tanks and the results of the Greek Army tank trials that took place earlier this year (a 2A5 beat the M1A2). The 2A6 has a lengthened 120mm (L55 instead of 44) and Chobham armor like the Abrams and Challenger 2. Couple that with the simple fact its German. [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 08-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 I thought there had been problems (at least in the U.S.) when trying to fit ATGMs to tanks, such as the Sheridan. Is it simply the march of technology or do the Russians do something we didn't? -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 IIRC, the fragile optical systems required for a ATGM system were quickly knocked out by the recoil of the main gun. I wouldn't put too much stock in new Russian tanks yet, as we've heard it all before. The T-72 was supposed to be the end-all of tanks when it was introduced, but it was a piece of junk IMHO. The auto-loader was just one misguided idea among several. A 19-year old's arm is always faster, cheaper, and more reliable than a gadget Not to mention the extra set of eyes to cover the rear, and the extra body to help with maintenance (one point that is often overlooked in comparing tanks). I haven't looked at a Leo lately, but I'd still hedge my bets on the M1A2 (the Leo has got to be close, though!). The additional comm interfaces tend to act as a force multiplier with the M1A2... Just my $.02 (and I'm probably biased, as a former American tanker!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 I'm sure our excellent government has something in the works that will be far supperior to all tanks. (US gov BTW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure our excellent government has something in the works that will be far supperior to all tanks. (US gov BTW)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I don't think we do. I'm pretty sure that the Army is throwing every penny it can at the Comanche helicopter project, hoping that won't fall by the wayside like the XM8 AGS. I'm not quite sure why we need a new scout/attack helicopter, as the AH-64D Apache Longbow and the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior easily outclass anything we're likely to go up against, but my opinion doesn't really matter -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsinO Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 How do you guys think tanks from WWii (if put into mint condition) would stand up against our tanks? Eg: A King Tiger vs M1A2 Abrams? hehe just curiouse ------------------ ¤§ïѤ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How do you guys think tanks from WWii (if put into mint condition) would stand up against our tanks? Eg: A King Tiger vs M1A2 Abrams? hehe just curiouse<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. It would take a sadistic person to enjoy watching that... Actually, I remember reading a series of books by alternate-historian Harry Turtledove called "WorldWar," in which an alien invasion force lands on earth in the middle of World War II. I can't remember the exact time period. It might have started in early 1944 (before the Normandy invasion) and lasted for a couple of years after that. Anyway, what made the series slightly more interesting was that the aliens weren't supermen with ray guns and energy shields. Their warfare technology was very similar to that of the United States during Desert Storm. So it was basically like watching M1A2s going up against Shermans What saved the day, of course, was that the humans finally developed nuclear weapons (in the book the Russians develop the first A-bomb by stealing alien nuclear material from the Germans, as well as some German scientists and project data) and the aliens weren't willing to irradiate the planet because that would make it useless as a potential colony. It was bizarre, but kind of fun to read. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Yes, I enjoyed the first WorldWar book, and muddled through the second and lost inteest before buying any of the several other sequals. It was kind of a fun "what if" combining two great genres, sci-fi Alien-invasion and WWII. As long as a Modern MBT had ammo and fuel it would survive an assault by dozens of its WWII bretheren. The ability to accuratly index targets at longer range, with more firepower, while on the move at speeds unobtainable by WWII tanks would in itself win the day, now add the fact that I doubt the 88/L71 gun could penetrate Chobham armor even at anything but point blank range and the scenario is rather futile. The best the WWIIer's might hope for is to imobilize the modern tank and hammer it senseless. I think it would take about 50 WWII tanks to stop one modern tank, and that is assuming 49 of those are just to use up the modern tanks ammo load. I played a CM scenario where I had 50 M-8's try and engage a K.Tiger. Guess who one? M-8's. They lost about 20 vehicles, imobilized the K.T. and just sat there hamering on it until the crew eventually bailed out and were MG'ed to the last man. The only thing that saved alot of the M-8's was a luck hit which knocked out the K.T.'s gun. It was a fun experiment, try it. I also sent the classic 100 MG jeeps against a panther. Panther won. Promptly. Diserted jeeps where everywhere. Zamo PS> Back to the topic, I gotta go with what I know: The best tank in the world today has got to be "Tank, fully tracked, 105mm gun M-60A1 RISE/Passive". (I'm just kidding, kiddies...) [This message has been edited by Zamo (edited 08-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Mannheim Tanker; The Russian tank´s "gadget" makes their tanks much lower (as there is no loader standing up inside them) and some 15 tons lighter than their western counterparts so it does have some advantages. And a lot of disadvantages, as you have pointed out. As for the ability to shoot ATGMs through the barrel...whats the point? ATGMs are very nice when you don't have a high velocity cannon around but KE ammunition is better for killing heavily armoured targets. As long as it isn't a fire-and-forget system I can't see any advantages except the extended range. But when do you really need a 5 km range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS> Back to the topic, I gotta go with what I know: The best tank in the world today has got to be "Tank, fully tracked, 105mm gun M-60A1 RISE/Passive". (I'm just kidding, kiddies...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. In all seriousness though, the M60A3 isn't bad. I think the Marine Corps still use them. And the Israelis have done some cool modifications to the Patton hull and turret, though I can't specifically remember any offhand. With an integrated communications system like the M1, a Patton can still hold its own, IMHO. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 IMHO, i think many of you are thinking too specific...seldom will there be strictly many tank vs tank battles with all other elements excluded...sure..there were a few in Desert Storm but out of the total tanks destroyed, most were taken out by non-tank elements. The M1A2 will remain superior solely because it doesn't act alone. An even number of opposing tanks will be crushed on the battlefield because the Allies have a superior economic ability to maintain and deploy a large well coordinated multi-disciplinary strike along with its tanks..ie tanks..WITH helicopters/artillary/ATG armed aircraft etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Good point, Fox. Our motto (meaning M1 crews in Germany) was that our biggest enemy wasn't Russian tanks - it was Russian helicopters (THERE'S a frickin' smiley for you, M2K. Now how about a Hot Pocket?) [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 If I recall, C2E outshot the Leo2 in the Greek trials... I'm a great fan of Challenger 2E. However, patriotism and loyalty must reign. I put my vote forward to the AML-60 I used to play with in the cavalry... NTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 I don't know, I'd put my money on the M1. Its the crews that make the tank, not the tank that make the crews. The US has excellent tank schools and training facility and technology. I'm sure the UK and Germany have great tank schools too, but how well trained are the Russians gonna be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 Im confused, Why doesn't infantrymen shoot down helicopters with thier rifles and machine guns. I mean the weapons nowadays could do the damage and if an infantrymen destroyed a very expensive chopper with a cheap throw away rocket someone has just lost alot of money. War nowadays, even if it was conventional, would be too expensive and it would end up with the infantry bieng the "queen of the battlefields" because they can destroy tanks and choppers with m72's for choppers and rocket launchers for tanks, I forget the ones the Canadian army uses. Tanks and helicopters would be easy meat...Bottom line a war right now would be too expensive because to lose a single tank it to lose 2 million dollars..especially losing a tank to a throwaway infantrymans rocket! please correct me if im wrong..just an opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Im confused, Why doesn't infantrymen shoot down helicopters with thier rifles and machine guns. I mean the weapons nowadays could do the damage and if an infantrymen destroyed a very expensive chopper with a cheap throw away rocket someone has just lost alot of money. War nowadays, even if it was conventional, would be too expensive and it would end up with the infantry bieng the "queen of the battlefields" because they can destroy tanks and choppers with m72's for choppers and rocket launchers for tanks, I forget the ones the Canadian army uses. Tanks and helicopters would be easy meat...Bottom line a war right now would be too expensive because to lose a single tank it to lose 2 million dollars..especially losing a tank to a throwaway infantrymans rocket! please correct me if im wrong..just an opinion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was under the impression that a rifle or MG round that does fatal damage to an aircraft (called a "Golden BB") is a rarity. While I sure wouldn't want to be in the back of a Blackhawk under machine gun fire, I'm fairly sure that most critical systems are shielded from small-arms fire. Also, the cockpits of most aircraft and helicopters are "bulletproof" and keep the pilots and crew relatively safe. Now, shoulder-launched SAMs are a different story... For the most part, I think the helicopter's major adversaries are shoulder-launched SAMs (and fixed sites if the chopper isn't flying TA), fixed-wing aircraft, and of course other helicopters. -Andrew ------------------ Throw me a frickin' smiley, people! Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: But when do you really need a 5 km range? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When the other guy has something that can shoot 4Km. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack: Im confused, Why doesn't infantrymen shoot down helicopters with thier rifles and machine guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Most modern helicopters are heavily armored and have redundant flight control systems making them very survivable vs. light arms. If EW and anti-IR systems are included in the mix, even light SAMs aren't a very sure option. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tanks and helicopters would be easy meat...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anything on the modern battlefield can be killed by something else, but I would say that these two systems (with arty a close 3rd) are the most deadly and efficient of them all. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-34\85 Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 One of the advantages of an ATGM with a 5km range is that you can plink the obvious command tank of an enemy company or platoon quite easily. The Svir ATGM is also a top-attack weapon so there's no question of its frontal armor protecting it. Also, the T-72 was never meant to be a hi-tech tank, this was a NATO intelligence stuff up. It was the T-64 that was the Soviet Unions best kept secret until the T-80 came out (it was the first to mount a 125mm gun, and the first with combination armor) ... in Warsaw Pact force allocations the T-72s were mostly located in the Soviet Union proper, while T-64s and T-80s were massed in the forward areas. You could say the T-72 in its original form is sort of a Pz IV. Regardless the T-72BM while not nearly a match for an M1 tank for tank could still put up a good fight (T-34\76 vs Panther probably) Regardless in a best modern MBT question the crews shouldn't be taken into account, America isn't the only country with M1s you know. [This message has been edited by T-34\85 (edited 08-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 Then again, there are always those blackhawks downed by RPGs... NTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts