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
smudge    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   1/3/2004 3:59:46 PM
c 2 (uk) leclerc (fr) abrams (us) black eagle (rus)
 
Quote    Reply

Kozzy    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   1/3/2004 6:31:47 PM
1. Leopard 2A6EX 2. M1A2 Abrams 3. Challenger 2 4. Leclerc. 5. Merkava Mk 4 6. That Japanese Tank 7. T-90 8. T-80UM1 9. Al-Khalid 10. That Chinese Tank I'd put the Black Eagle on if we new anything about it.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:Commanders don't have it easy..Puckaman   1/3/2004 9:37:29 PM
My comments weren't to imply that tank commanders are lazy or irresponsible. Just that they have other responsibilties that limits their ability to participate in essential maintainance tasks. The import of my comments was that removing the loader from the crew reduces the available manpower even more. There are solutions to the problem but I wonder how many militaries apply them when they make the decision to go with an autoloader.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:Selection processes..Kozzy   1/3/2004 9:51:18 PM
Kozzy writes: quote I've never heard the Caesar being the best artillery platform in the world. endquote About the only thing I know for sure about the Caesar is that it is widely regarded as one of the best. It may not actually _be_ the best but it sure is considered to be so. Most discussions of the Crusader program bring up the Caesar as an example of how things should have been done.
 
Quote    Reply

supertankerm1a1    RE:Some facts sorry    1/3/2004 10:28:21 PM
The french tank will need the thickest armor over the rear and the best field of fire over the rear. It will also need to be able to out run an advanceing army, during a rout, with a drunk driver if history and my interaction with french tank crews at Graf. are/were any indication of what they will really need.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    what is the leclerc good for?..   1/3/2004 10:32:31 PM
What is the leclerc good for in the sense that it has certain capabilities that lend itself to particular strategies? Apparently the leclerc has extroadinary qualities in reverse gear. Aside from the obvious circumstances (that might have particular appeal to the French) how would this be of sufficient value to affect strategy? Also the leclerc is ten tons lighter than some other main battle tanks. This would appeal to countries like France with limited logistic support and even less combat engineering depth. Israel is one such country but of course they don't need those abilities. How many bridges etc. does Israel expect to have to cross in their battle field scenarios? What class of countries would attach significance to a slightly lower oveall weight? It has been suggested that cost and political considerations prevent the Leclerc from being utilised more. The U.S. Marines have their own combat engineering team trundling along right behind their armoured brigades. Their bridge building teams are right there when needed. The Marines don't _care_ if the tanks are a bit lighter. The Russian strategy was large numbers of tanks in relatively fixed defensive positions. They don't _care_ if their tanks are a little bit faster. The American Army likes to use their armour aggresively. This means that they don't _care_ if their tanks burn more fuel if it means they can exploit every tactical advantage that presents itself. So what strategic requirements combine in such a way that they make the leclerc an obvious choice for a particular situation? What country has those strategic elements in military planning to the point that they should base their response capabiltiy on the Leclerc? Range is important only if you expect to travel far. Survivability is important only if you attach great importance to your assets and personnel. Advanced technology is only important if you have the supporting structures and technicians to keep it functioning. In other words given the lack of track record for the leclerc, who should care about what it can do?
 
Quote    Reply

bazos    RE:Couac_Attack & everone else   1/4/2004 3:52:28 AM
you dont know that!!! it means you are aware of defence news only by now.it also means you dont know the history of developpement of leclerc.do you know the future of leclerc by now?i want a real reply from you to see if you are not propagandist, i am waiting your reply!
 
Quote    Reply

Couac_Attack    RE:what is the leclerc good for?..   1/4/2004 3:57:14 AM
History has proven if you have 2 tanks with around the same gun, the first is heavby with a good protection but suffer for his mbility, the second is a nimble tanks that will be abble to run to his ojectivs at a greater range, the army that has the second tanks will win the war. Tanks has never been designed to be dreaghnough ( how does it spell ?? ) but small and fast destroyers. During the WWI the heavy French/English tanks have been easy target for artillery, A-Tank weapons .. Because they were to slow to escape some exposed areas with a good speed. I have seen also that smaller tanks have been largely more effectiv because they were faster than the ennemi. During the WWII (in 1939) the French/English Tanks that were the best considering Fire-power and armor but have been outmaneuvred by the smaller PzIV and III ( i dont consider the I and II that were just peace of crap ) and you know who won this part of the war. That why this concept of lighter, faster, smaller units has been developed in the sea since the end of the WWII. That was just to consider the advantages that give the weight from a tactical/strategical/logistical point, it bring several important advantages.
 
Quote    Reply

Couac_Attack    RE:Couac_Attack & everone else   1/4/2004 4:02:45 AM
To all these nice guys that never follow the small military events, NO, i dont found anymore link about this test because it was a small news that is now very difficult to found on the web, but also you need to followthe news on the web to learn not to look to these ing propaganda articles that so many people prefer to consider. I bring to you Facts/Nmbers/Desmonstrations and you just bring me your wonderfull french bashing.
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoL    RE:Selection processes   1/4/2004 9:03:33 AM
It's pretty obvious that the selection processes of tanks don't normally just end up with seemingly the best tank being selected. In many cases, vice versa, the winner of trials hasn't been selected. First of all, when a certain nation seeks a vehicle, they make some rough decisions which tanks to take for tests, or should it be chosen without any trials. USSR and USA have supplied their allies MBT-class equipment with low prices or even given them for free. They have had a power to diminish the competition by offering good equipment with ridiculous prices for political support or stronger alignment(also other countries have practiced this though, but nowhere near to extent of these two). And many growing, once 3rd world nations, are only pleased if a big brother has such a great offers, particularly when they are short of money. After collapse of soviet union it has been also a big trend for eastern european nations to pretend and try to be western, industrialised nations like all the others (and that's just fine) and for this reason they have made also seemingly bad investments to western military equipment ignoring cheap and most suitable for them equipment just due to it's origin. Everywhere around the world we can find examples where military personnel preferred tanks or trials winners have been surpassed by indigenous industry product or by political pressure or will. And, still to add for all this, many nations have laws that prevent export of military products - that doesn't makes their own equipment a single bit worse. And then to another subjects that have caught my eye, about russian tanks. Q:Soviet tanks are unreliable or poorly made. As far as I'm familiar with them, no, that's not the case. The truth is, like said before, that some nations maybe tend to maintenance them poorly due to the pretty low basic maintenance level required. If they are kept like state-of-the art equipment, they work perfectly well, even better than western equipment (especially in very harsh weather conditions). Technical problems I have encountered were mainly breaks of parts (these are of course very unpleasant and affect greatly in performance or battle readiness) but throughout due to the fact that particular vehicles were old and worn out (just like western equipment comes after decade or two of use), as they were used for years and years. Still, in our practices with long duration, it was our UAZ jeeps that broke down first (they were pretty prone to electric failures), as the tanks kept going perfectly well. Q:Autoloaders are prone to mech failures or dangerous to operate No, also this is untrue. They are perfectly safe in normal use (of course you can injure yourself with your personal rifle too, but if you don't particularly try it, it's not very easy). They are not at all unreliable, especially if compared with many other vital parts of the tank. I've never seen a complete breakdown that requires workshop repairs i.e. any other than small field fixes. Battle damage delivered by enemy is dozens of times more propable reason to lead in jam or damage.
 
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