Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: top 10 tanks in the world!!!
Hong-Xing    8/12/2003 9:07:05 AM
i think it would be this t-90 (rus) m1a2 (usa) t-98 (chi) m1a1 (usa) Challenger 2 (bri) t-95 black hawk (rus) al khalid (chi) merkeva (bra) arjun (ind) t-90||| (chi)
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
french stratege    RE:Some facts   1/1/2004 3:57:00 PM
If I can give you legal document about this I will the adresses on this site.However I have personnally no doubt. According to your experience with tanks what do you think about autoloader.Do you think that the loader (in tank with manual loaders) can sustain a high rate of fire in hard cross country?
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Some facts   1/1/2004 4:06:42 PM
link to see what the US army expect in improving stabilisation
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Some facts   1/1/2004 4:22:30 PM
The data I have seen against M1A1: in fact better accuracy on the move at 4000 m againts moving targets yhan M1A1 at 1200 m.I don't know for M1A2
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Some facts sorry    1/1/2004 4:48:27 PM
The data I have seen are against M1A1: in fact better accuracy on the move at 4000 m against moving targets than M1A1 at 1200 m.I don't know for M1A2
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    Listen up Gauls   1/1/2004 5:00:55 PM
gf0012-aus is absolutely correct in his assertion that someone who has commanded from a cupola and levelled a gun at a target and yelled 'on the way!' is in a better position as far as credibility when it come to the effectiveness of various tanks. To all those Francophiles: NO ONE IS SAYING THE LECLERC IS BAD TANK. All people are saying is, that yes it is a good tank, but at the end of the day, until battle proven, it can't be compared with the M1(various upgrades) and Challenger Series in real terms. As for the Leo2, it has been around for 20+ years and has shown itself to be upgradable, versatile and at the forefront in a lot of innovation and ideas. So, people of the Tricolour, relax and take a deep breath in the knowledge that you can produce some excellent stuf accross the board, but until proven in combat, your claims of making 'the best' won't be taken seriously by most others..
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    Battle proven; against zulus?   1/1/2004 6:33:03 PM
Think you for recognizing a little about some French hardware but it is not the point. M1A1/A2 Challenger has proved efficiency in Irak against third rank old tank even T72.And the crew were far superior to irakis .No people also doubt they rank among the best tanks in the world (especially for M1A2).So battle proven against Iraqis is not a big issue.A French bataillon of old AMX30B2 (compare to Leopard1A6) destroyed entire bataillons of iraqis tanks without a single lost in 92 and did as good as M1 (which doesn't mean they equal M1). A Russian top expert I met in Novossibirk said me privately that the Russian never gave their best harware (at least until 1991 meeting time) on export. The people who speaks here should at least carefully check datasheet of other contenders. I think that a lot of people in this forum have not even carefully examine the Leclerc tank above simple datasheet of weight or power or don't even understand engineering.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Battle proven; against zulus?   1/1/2004 6:38:52 PM
The Leclerc has brought of innovation; what I would like to speak here is what former tank crews here think about autoloader, separate cell crew, or latest FCS innovations (the M1A2 have some of the Leclerc) or weight reduction (in crossing bridge for example).
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    Tanks and Bridges   1/1/2004 7:27:44 PM
In regards to the Leclerc's weight, being ten tons lighter than the Abrams is really no big deal, especially when it comes to bridges. Dodgy Bridges are usually not suitable even for AMXs and Bradleys, let alone heavy aromour. That's what engineer companies are for. As I said before, battle tested is the standard by which tanks should be judged. Yes the Traqi T's weren't much chop, but it was still battle..
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:top 10   1/1/2004 7:35:40 PM
Forrest International (a defense consulting firm), from 1999, ranks them as follows, 1. Leo 2A6 2. M1A2SEP 3. Japanese Type 90 4. Leclerc 5. Chally 2 6. T-80UM2 7. Korean Type 88/120 8. T-90 9. T-72 10. Merkava Mk. III link
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Some facts - cross country   1/1/2004 7:40:40 PM
Cross country movement while firing is a true misnomer. Let's think about it for a minute. Where will you most likely find tanks manuevering and firing? Is it going to be on plains and hills, or very rugged badlands or mountains? When tanks move through badlands or mountains they stick to the roads and pray to god that the infantry is doing their job. So, the reality is that tanks manuever while firing in reasonably open terrain, plains or hills, not rugged off country situations. Okay, given that, let's consider the provisions in the M1 for cross country movement and reloading the gun. The M1's loader can uncouple the gun from the FCS in the vertical plane. So, the gun remains completely level up and down while uncoupled. The FCS continues to stabilize and track the target. Once the round is loaded, the loader recouples the gun (it's a simple switch). The gun restabilizes in the vertical plane in about 1/2 second and the gunner fires. I have in fact moved cross country in many different environments, including the US National Training Center (very rugged desert) and southern Iraq and fired while manuevering with no problem reloading. We did NOT stop the tank to reload. The main advantage to an autoloader is that, by reducing the crew size, the tank can be reduced in size, providing for a smaller tank with the same firepower, armor protection, etc. However, the US considered an autoloader for the M1 and rejected it. The main cons are additional complexity, smaller crew size, and slower load times. A human loader can load the main gun in 4 to 6 seconds, depending on training levels. Autoloaders generally require 6 seconds or longer.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy