top 10 tanks in the world!!!

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

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NEXT

gf0012-aus RE:InFuSeR 12/11/2003 7:09:26 AM

Crusader, the saudis use m1's, its the Abu Dhabians who use leclercs

Quote Reply

Crusader RE:InFuSeR 12/11/2003 7:54:49 AM

>>the saudis use m1's, its the Abu Dhabians who use leclerc << 8^)

Quote Reply

InFuSeR To gf0012-aus 12/11/2003 3:19:36 PM

link "Half of Army's tank corps crippled by war in Iraq By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 30/11/2003) The Army's armoured regiments have been left crippled by the Iraq war with only half its battle tanks capable of undertaking operational service, the Telegraph can reveal. The Ministry of Defence's figures show that none of the Royal Armoured Corps' regiments have a full complement of Challenger 2 tanks available for front-line duty. In two of the worst cases, only four tanks out of 86 in service with the Royal Dragoon Guards and the Queen's Royal Hussars - two of the Army's premier armoured regiments - are working. It has also emerged that 40 Challenger 2 tanks, which cost £4 million each, had to be "cannibalised" so that they could be used to re-equip units which had run out of spare parts during and after the Iraq war. The Army has 386 Challenger 2 tanks dispersed among six armoured regiments. Of these, 259 tanks should be available, but only 135 are classed as fit for duty. The Sunday Telegraph has also learnt that the Army's armoured infantry units are struggling to meet their operational commitments. Only 61 per cent of its Warrior fighting vehicles - used to carry troops into battle - are available. The Army possesses 312 Warriors, of which 218, or 70 per cent, should be available for operations. In fact, only 190, are fit for front-line duty. Tank regiments and infantry battalions are, depending on their role, classified as being at a medium, high, or very high, state of readiness. Very high means that they should be able to be deployed in 24 to 48 hours. The timescale for deployment is 11 to 20 days for those at a high state of readiness, and 31 to 60 days for a medium readiness state. All states require that units must have a minimum of 70 per cent of its tanks or armoured personnel carriers fit for deployment within the relevant time limit. The Ministry of Defence's figures show that all the high-readiness tank regiments and armoured infantry battalions have failed to meet this basic requirement because of a lack of working vehicles. The ministry claims that the problems are a result of the war in Iraq, even though only one tank was destroyed in the conflict, and of the continuing deployment of British troops in the country. The Army has 14 tanks and 57 Warriors on operational service in Iraq. The poor state of readiness of Britain's heavy armour is disclosed in a parliamentary answer sent to Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative MP, by Adam Ingram, the minister of state for the Armed Forces. In it, Mr Ingram concedes that despite introducing a "recuperation" plan, operational availability will not be fully restored until January 2005. One senior officer said: "The Army is now a third party, fire and theft organisation. We always go for the cheapest possible option and this means that during operations like the war in Iraq we will suffer." Nicholas Soames, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "This shows how far the Army is cut to the bone. They are operating right at the limit. If the Government is planning on cutting back armoured units, it had better take these figures seriously. It just shows how little slack there is in the system." An MoD spokesman said that many of its tanks were merely waiting for a routine inspection and could be brought up to a higher state of readiness if necessary." Also if the Leo2 went to war in the desert would it have the same problem Challenger 2?

Quote Reply

PuckaMan RE: Chally2 problems 12/11/2003 6:02:51 PM

An interesting article, in where the problem is highlighted: a tight arsed government. We have the same problem in Australia, funding is for sustenance only, not for upgrading and advancement, and when something like GW2 come up "our stuff's obsolete/not prepared, etc." When will people learn that the armed forces must have continual re-investment and development in order that when something like East Timor or Kosovo or GW2 comes up, they actually have up-to-date and ready equipment and capacity. Defence costs money, a lot of money. But as experience shows, most nations can't do without it. As for the Leo2 in desert campaigns - I have no doubt it would have some problems, only because it hasn't been tested in the said situation. But, I think these would comparatively minor, only because of 20+ years of R&D and upgrades that have gone into it. But, as we all know, there's only 2 ways to find out: 1) Send the things to war in the desert, and 2) If Australia actually listens to the boys in the RAAC (Royal Australian Armoured Corps) and buys the Leo2A6, they'll undoubtebly get a thrasting in hot desert and tropical conditions, and perhaps new ideas/problems/upgrade may come from the experience. All in all, the west (NATO and The Pacific Allies) have top-notch equipment that can kick just about anyone's arse. The M1, Chally2, Leclerc and Leo2 are all excellent, some are better in some areas than others, but all in all, they all fit the bill.

Quote Reply

jacques RE:Jacques 12/12/2003 2:38:33 AM

Look you like The Al Khalid and that is fine. It's a tank and we'll leave it at that. To have it to prove you have a tank that is fine. Let me point out why it has so many flwas. 1. The 125mm gun it has can't penetrate chobham armor. It is very inaccurate that is why it needs to fire missile to compensate for its inherent inaccuracy. 2. Thermal imagine device is a tanrdard package now aday, there is nothing special about that. 3. In term of mobility, Russian and Chinese tanks never had problem in that arena. But protection is more important than mobility nowaday. 4. It fire control is pretty good as you claim, but so are other modern MBT 5. Armour protection. This is what is most important. Unlesse you have CHOBHAM armour, you have no real protection on modern battlefield. 6. Snorkeling is nice but there is a price to paid. You have to use grease to plug up all the opening part of your tank when you snorkel. Before you snorkel you have to perfoem an underwater survey of the area you are going to snorkel. After you snorkel, you have to clear up all the grease that you applied on your tank prior entering the water. This is my recommendation for Pakistan. They are going to buy Rafale from France which ia a very good investment. Already they are using submarine from France which is a very wise investment. he next step is to get some LECLERC tanks. If the LECLERC is too expensive then get some surplus AMX30. AMX30 has all the capability of The Al Khalid and more. Because it carries a 105 mm gun which can pierce chobham armor. Don't forget that Pakistan lost 3 wars with Indian before. Not because of its air force or navy, but because of its army. In the Army world, tank is the knight/horse of the battlefield. Pakistan army needs not just tank, but GOOD TANKS to counter the qualitative-quantitavie advantage Indian has.

Quote Reply

jacques Crusader 12/12/2003 2:51:30 AM

When it comes to RnD and production. French industries only need a fraction of the amount of fund US companies or any other companies need. So production cost is not a big problem like you claimed. Who is going to pay for the modular upgrade ? The users off course. Look there is no need for upgrade right now. When the upgrade beceome neccessary... let say CHOBHAM class armour become obsolete oneday. Everyone will have to upgrade, by then you will see how cheap and easy it is to upgrade the LECLERC. That is the benefit. Who will benefit ? The USERS. They will spend less time, money, and labor in the long run. The LECLERC was built to be the BEST TANK out there while keeping in mind the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP for its users.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus Jacques Off Thread 12/12/2003 2:56:31 AM

Jacques, none of the Pakistani Military I know of are aware of Rafales being bought.

Quote Reply

jacques RE:Jacques Off Thread 12/12/2003 3:14:26 AM

They decided to buy the Rafale. They haven't come up with the money yet

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus RE:Jacques Off Thread 12/12/2003 3:21:32 AM

Thats interesting, they tell me that the Rafale is too expensive and they are going to by J7's. Anyway. I'll finish this before the thread becomes hijacked. :)) Sorry Folks for the temporary hijack.

Quote Reply

Teja the Strategist RE:Jacques 12/12/2003 5:29:24 AM

Jacques i would get back on the so called weaknesses you pointed out for AL Khalid. Before that let me put the record straight Pakistan did lose a war with India in 1971 but other two wars were a stalemate, neither India nor Pakistan were able to achieve their war objectives. Now coming to Rafale deal. Pakistan has shown interest to buy Mirage 2000-5 and not Rafale. and you are right that price is an issue thats why the deal couldnot be finalised. Pakis tan is developing J7 but it is a third generation fighter and Pakistan still needs fourth generation planes in its inventory. Negotiations are also underway to buy F-16s from Belgium but it is subject to the clearance from USA. Pakistan's order for 60 F-16s was cancelled by USA because of the sanctions imposed on Pakistan by USA to stop it from developing nuclear weapons.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NEXT