poorest MBT ?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

In_tHe_EnD24 British tank mobility 2/22/2005 6:16:00 PM

To be fair on the issues with the mobility of the Challenger it was designed to be a defensive tank, so mobility was sacirficed in favor of armor(at the time was superior to pritty much everything) and firepower. The idea was for the Challengers to hold the lines till renforcmensts arrived. It wasn't an all rounder, better examples of that were the German Leopard and US M1.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:T72, Arjun or Ariete ...??? 2/22/2005 6:18:35 PM

I'm sorry but AMX30 use depleted DU APFSDS round for long and they have a better penetration than L7 rounds.Firecontrol and mobility (apart reliabilty)have been always good for its time so I don't understand.

Quote Reply

In_tHe_EnD24 AMX30 2/22/2005 6:28:47 PM

errrm this may be disrespectful but why bother with the AMX-30? YOU HAVE THE LeClerc!!!!!!!!!!!! far better then the AMX-30.

Quote Reply

fitz RE:British tank mobility 2/24/2005 7:13:31 AM

I have no qualms with the Challenger on mobility. That was not that tanks problem.

Quote Reply

fitz RE:AMX30 2/24/2005 7:14:46 AM

Don't get me started on the LeClerc either. Ever wonder why UAE picked the Europac instead of the French engine? Ever wonder why the LeClerc team had to be sent packing in the Greek and Swedish tank trials?

Quote Reply

In_tHe_EnD24 RE:AMX30 2/24/2005 11:22:26 AM

Still better then the AMX-30

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:T72, Arjun or Ariete ...??? 2/24/2005 12:10:17 PM

what was supprising about the chieftan was that the iranian army's chieftans had a wonderful reliablity record better than the T serise tanks that they had. It is now believed that the problem with the UK engines is they were over protected, the irainians maintenance was terrible and the engines loved it, UK followed the rules and the things failed in droves. The chally 1 were never intended as the UK MBT but they were built and better than a chieftan and as they cheap(a lot of the cost had been prepaid by the shah) yes the FCS was poor but the engine was pretty good and the gun and armour was better than anbody else had. the 2 had a fcs that was the best of breed(even the yanks bought it from Canada) the CAD system was the french one, the Gun was and still is the best(shame about no next gen ammo for it) the euro pak engine is damn good and its suspension gives an off road speed that is within a few kph of the leclerc/m1 and leopard dispite the extra wieght

Quote Reply

fitz AMX-30 french stratege 2/25/2005 8:02:28 AM

AMX-30B2's accounted for less than half of total AMX-30 procurement by France and the only export customer was Cypress. Similarly, the 105 OFL APFSDS round can only be fired by B2 models, has never been exported and I've seen the manufacturers penetration claims. I don't have a clue where you get the idea it has better penetration than contemporary L7 rounds (OFL 105 could be fired by L7 anyway). AMX-30B2 still compares poorly side-by-side with Leopard 1A5, which may explain why surplus Leopard 1's have been in demand while France can't give away its left-over AMX-30's.

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:AMX-30 french stratege 2/28/2005 5:05:01 AM

I don't know why people have nominated the T-54/55, T-62 and T-72 as the worst tanks. They were fantastic tanks when first introduced. All were fast, had good armour and excellent firepower when compared to contemporary rivals. Indeed, the only two tanks better than the T-72 in the mid-'70s were the Chieftain and the T-64, in that order.

Quote Reply

deridex Arjun is the winner ! 3/2/2005 10:11:42 AM

The worst MBT award goes to the Indian Arjun MBT 1) Is over weight at 58.5 tones. 2) No engine developed yet 3) Barrel over heats and cracks 4) Protrudes 6cm more than Indian transporters can carry 5) Costlier than the better made T-90?s 6) Very poor amour and fire control 7) Resembles a WW2 MBT

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT