The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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: a question of balance?
Kryten    9/23/2003 1:03:26 PM
whats the most important aspect of an MBT's abilities ?
is it speed?
armour?
forepower?
sensors?
or even just good old plain maintainibility?

US tanks seem to favour speed and maneuverability over the others!
the UK puts firepower and armour first!
the soviets even now feel quantity has a quality all of its own!

so my question is given the massive firepower of modern tanks , the ability to hit even the fastest target , and the reliability of modern vehicles , who got it right?

I bet nationalistic tendencies get in the way of common sense on this one!! lol
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
216BC    RE:a question of balance?   9/23/2003 1:20:28 PM
I think it depends on what you're trying to do. Try looking at what's not needed when... When you are defending a small area, and long distance movement is not necessary, you don't need speed, fule efficiency, and consequently maintainability. Obviously the tank has to move, but these attributes are not in high demand. If you are fighting a force composed of infantry, with few supporting tanks, extra heavy armor is not necessary. Top of the line sensors and high firepower may not be useful in an urban environment, or terrain that similarly effects engagement range. So the first question is, what are you trying to do. Drop in on my post below, it's the same question but with a scenario to ponder.
 
Quote    Reply

kjetski    RE:a question of balance?   9/23/2003 2:21:48 PM
The balance question is of vital import when dealing with inferior non-US power plants. When you are driving an AFV with a 1500 HP jet engine the question of balance is less important. With out question the finest AFV in the world is the AMERICAN MADE M-1! It will go as fast as 70 MPH with the engine governer taken off. At that speed the crew can become casualties however. With all of the other goodies it carries it is the best!
 
Quote    Reply

Kryten    RE:a question of balance?   9/23/2003 4:15:26 PM
erm k jetski, you seem to totally miss the point of my question whilst suffering from a serious dose of the last paragraph! lol why do you believe speed is so important when modern fire controls can hit you at any speed? also jet engines as you put it suffer from thermal signatures a concorde would be proud of! not to mention its horrendous fuel consumption, severly taxing logistical support, (always a prime target for the air forces) did it occur to you that M1 uses the same suspension as a ww2 panther tank? mine damage puts this system out of action for days! other nato tanks use hydro pneumatics which can be replaced in a matter of hours, so in this case alone abrams is not superior! it has its strengths just as all modern tanks do, its a matter of balance as i mentioned earlier, in the cold light of day there is no "best" tank as all the main contenders outclass each other in different ways! but as i asked which balance works and as reply one put it in what circumstances?
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:a question of balance?   9/24/2003 9:03:17 AM
Well you've got to have a tank force which can be deployed in the area it's needed - otherwise it's useless. 1st priority - strategic and operational mobility (i.e. reliability, easy maintenance and supply). You also got to have enough of them on the battlefield - if you're totally outnumbered, you will eventually most propably lose. 2nd priority - reasonable (not necessarily overwhelming) quantity. Once on the spot with a good sized force, the final technical requirements vary very much according to mission and tactics. 3rd priority - tactical maneuverability, protection and firepower. Depends who (which nation in general)is asked. But if kjetski is asked we pretty much know the answer. His intellectuence has seemingly just reached the level "to be able to put together simple phrases and repeat them". Normally this happens at a few years age.
 
Quote    Reply

Kryten    RE:a question of balance?   9/24/2003 11:16:35 AM
an intelligent response!! thanks mikkoln heres one thought for you, there is a certain nation which has more armoured warfare experience than any other since WW2, in open desert closed country and urban , they have fought major battles on defensive and offensive ground fought in large tank battles and counter insurgency! the country is of course Israel, so with thier massive experience and the fact that they have designed and produced thier own MBT, is the Merkava mk3/4 the ultimate balance in modern warfare?
 
Quote    Reply

kjetski    RE:a question of balance?   9/24/2003 12:05:46 PM
Well you've got to have a tank force which can be deployed in the area it's needed - otherwise it's useless. 1st priority - strategic and operational mobility (i.e. reliability, easy maintenance and supply). The Abrahms personified!~
 
Quote    Reply

kjetski    RE:a question of balance?   9/24/2003 12:12:52 PM
the country is of course Israel, so with thier massive experience and the fact that they have designed and produced thier own MBT, is the Merkava mk3/4 the ultimate balance in modern warfare? Although I like the Merk. Its a pig. Slow! Mobility is an important element to AFV warfare and the Merk aint got it. Again the best trained tankers are American made! Who set up the Negev training? What was it patterned after? The NTC ! Who usually wins first rounders? The red force. Who won desert storm 1 & 2 with minimal casualties? Americans!
 
Quote    Reply

Kryten    RE:a question of balance?   9/24/2003 2:30:51 PM
kjetski do you understand the difference between speed and mobility? did you know a challenger with its hydropneumatic suspension is more mobile accross really rough ground than an abrams? leopard 2 can out accelerate any other MBT currntly in use, so from position to position its faster. also without wanting to denigrate the US army , sorry but they have nowhere near the battle experience of the israelis, since 55 the only armoured force the US fought is iraqi, which hardly posed a problem with the air supremacy enjoyed by the allies. israel fought its battles hard , outnumbered and with technical parity rather then superiority, and they believe the merkava is fast enough ! funnly enough they also found the centurion mobile enough which on paper is a "pig" as you put it, capable of a paltry 21 mph! however this old pig could run rings around alledgedly faster soviet built opposition due to its excellent MOBILITY speed on a road is an academic quotation , mobility is what tanks really need and in this case yes the abrams is very good but its nowhere near as superior to the other MBT's as you make out,in fact the Leclerc with a 1500bhp DIESEL engine (the same as leo 2 and abrams) is probably more mobile than any as it uses the ultimate suspension coupled to superb transmission and a lower overall weight! M1 is an excellent tank but its most definatly NOT superior , because other vehicles beat it in other ways, s i said before its a question of balance and the most expirienced tank army in the world does not agree with you, what credentials do you bring to the argument that you know better than them (smile).
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.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