Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aus    Selection processes - Kozzy   1/3/2004 10:23:43 AM
Read my thread. "Caesar is recognised as one of the best artillery platforms in the world" ie "one of the best" and yes, there is some very healthy respect for it. CEASAR gives you a SPH for the cost of a towed unit. It all gets down to platform tasking and suitability of the tasking etc... Under diff political circumstances I think even the USMC might have considered it as part of a "suite"
 
Quote    Reply

Sprog    RE:top 10 tanks in the world!!!   1/3/2004 1:51:47 PM
I haven't read all the posts but the Leopard 2 of the German army definitely needs a mention. Sprog
 
Quote    Reply

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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics