Thread: The Tank Poll!

not being biased, just seen it in action and know its capabilities

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

not being biased, just seen it in action and know its capabilities

You could be right. The M1 has a strong cannon (while there is a follower already, wich can´t be mounted on the M1), its armor may be the best overall and it´s mobility is fantastic.

But it has some disadvantages. Turbine (the motor), and the whole tanks are no longer manufactured. To make a new tank out of a damaged or even destroyed (that ability is another of the big advantages of the M1) ones, only used reconditioned spare parts are available now.

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

How many gears does a french tank have? 1 forward and 5 reverse.

No, they have at least two, in case they're attacked from the rear

The Military Channel always comes down pretty clearly on the M1A1, though they usually give the Leopard second place and rate the Merkava surprisingly high.

I dunno honestly, the Abrams has never been decisively beaten and is the most battle tested BUT that Chobham armor is probably known by a lot more people than we think by now and might have counters we haven't even thought of. Who, frex, would think it would help to hang explosives on YOUR OWN vehicle?

I've heard that reactive armor can be defeated by hitting it twice. I wonder how long it will be before someone comes up with a cannon that fires in really fast two shot bursts. It would have to be timed to a real nicety, so that the second one would still hit the same area but not be defeated by the counterexplosion itself, which could be a real problem in a fast moving target.

Well, this is a chest thumping thread if their ever was one.

Abrams, of course. Mind you, the Brits have Chobham on the Challenger 2, and the Germans use the same gun. The Merkava is also an interesting piece of equipment.

We do have to get rid of the turbine though. The logistics on that thing is atrocious.

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

How many gears does a french tank have? 1 forward and 5 reverse.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Well, this is a chest thumping thread if their ever was one.

Abrams, of course. Mind you, the Brits have Chobham on the Challenger 2, and the Germans use the same gun. The Merkava is also an interesting piece of equipment.

We do have to get rid of the turbine though. The logistics on that thing is atrocious.

True, but with what? It's terribly quiet for a tank engine and has just buckets of power, uses buckets of fuel too.

I have to think that if somebody is ever going to deal massed Abrams a defeat that is the weakness they will exploit, drawing them into outrunning their supply lines in pursuit and then pouncing with big artillery.

Originally Posted by John Drake

True, but with what? It's terribly quiet for a tank engine and has just buckets of power, uses buckets of fuel too.

Everyone else uses diesel, so it's not a performance issue.

As for logistics, I've pondered the idea of the vertical convoy. It basically takes the idea of air cavalry to the next level. Basically, when everyone in a ground formation is low, you pick an empty field, circle the wagons, and a flight of V-22, or larger craft on the drawing board, modified as tankers land in the circle, and everyone tops off, with Apaches orbiting overhead. Ammo and medivac would work the same way.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I have to think that if somebody is ever going to deal massed Abrams a defeat that is the weakness they will exploit, drawing them into outrunning their supply lines in pursuit and then pouncing with big artillery.

The only way to defeat a massed group of Abrams is with a submarine.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Abrams, of course. Mind you, the Brits have Chobham on the Challenger 2,

The Challenger 2 is rated the best protected tank often.

Originally Posted by Commodore

and the Germans use the same gun.

No! The Americans use the same gun. The M1 has the M256 cannon. General Dynamics has the license to built the Rheinmetall L/44 gun. That´s the M256.
Newer versions of the Leopard 2 and the South Korean K2 Black Panther use the Rheinmetall L/55 gun.

Originally Posted by Commodore

We do have to get rid of the turbine though. The logistics on that thing is atrocious.

The turbine gives the M1 a superior speed-up. You should not give that up. Develope a new one.

I found some results of similar polls.
Interesting, how USPOL will vote!

Iran Defense Forum:



Pakistan Defense Forum:



armour.ws:

The market & my feeling says Leopard 2.
And I think the odds would be in favour of a Leopard 2A6 when engaging any of the other tanks on that list...
The L55 is definatly superiour to the M1s gun.
Besides I think the German Military has been rather dogmatic in their armoured forces doctrine and has continued übergrading the Leo2 against enemy tank forces that don't exist for the last 20 years...

The US has other doctrines and goals for their equipment... presenting "success stories" like the Stryker as the future.

Canadians & Danish forces were rather pleased in Afghanistan too.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Well, this is a chest thumping thread if their ever was one.

Abrams, of course. Mind you, the Brits have Chobham on the Challenger 2, and the Germans use the same gun. The Merkava is also an interesting piece of equipment.

We do have to get rid of the turbine though. The logistics on that thing is atrocious.

(My emphasis)

The Abrams M1B - the fully integrated avionics-style suite. The M1 has an excellent track record thus far.

On the Chobham - I thought it was developed by the Brits? If that's so, there's no surprise that British tanks feature the applique. The Russian & Chinese? front-line MBTs also feature explosive reactive armor, although I'm not sure if it's a copy or their working out of the same basic principles.

Originally Posted by John Drake

No, they have at least two, in case they're attacked from the rear

The Military Channel always comes down pretty clearly on the M1A1, though they usually give the Leopard second place and rate the Merkava surprisingly high.

I dunno honestly, the Abrams has never been decisively beaten and is the most battle tested BUT that Chobham armor is probably known by a lot more people than we think by now and might have counters we haven't even thought of. Who, frex, would think it would help to hang explosives on YOUR OWN vehicle?

I've heard that reactive armor can be defeated by hitting it twice. I wonder how long it will be before someone comes up with a cannon that fires in really fast two shot bursts. It would have to be timed to a real nicety, so that the second one would still hit the same area but not be defeated by the counterexplosion itself, which could be a real problem in a fast moving target.

Tank you very much!

A railgun where the projectile comes out with 5 times greater speed than normally is not too far away. It would make armoring of tanks and other vehicles worthless and the tank business becomes a game of stealth and longest range instead. At least this is what i predict for the future.

Originally Posted by John Drake

No, they have at least two, in case they're attacked from the rear

The Military Channel always comes down pretty clearly on the M1A1, though they usually give the Leopard second place and rate the Merkava surprisingly high.

I dunno honestly, the Abrams has never been decisively beaten and is the most battle tested BUT that Chobham armor is probably known by a lot more people than we think by now and might have counters we haven't even thought of. Who, frex, would think it would help to hang explosives on YOUR OWN vehicle?

I've heard that reactive armor can be defeated by hitting it twice. I wonder how long it will be before someone comes up with a cannon that fires in really fast two shot bursts. It would have to be timed to a real nicety, so that the second one would still hit the same area but not be defeated by the counterexplosion itself, which could be a real problem in a fast moving target.

Chobham armor is a ceramic laminate armor, it isn’t reactive. You didn’t say it was, but your post seemed to indicate it worked on the same principle.

Virtually as soon as reactive armor was fielded, munitions manufacturers began work on tandem-charge and top attack warheads. The tandem charges work better than even two rounds from a Metal Storm cannon with a firing rate of 45,000 RPM, as they’re guaranteed to hit the same spot.

Alright, settle down folks.