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
AKS    RE:just info   1/18/2004 7:37:56 PM
Guys I have read in one of the posts that somebody mentioned the BLACK EAGLE tank. I just want to say for info. that black eagle is NOT the t95 as some web sites say it is (this is due to the secrecy and lack of info). Black Eagle is t80 based and it is made ONLY for SOUTH KOREA. T95 is mix of T72 and T80 but physically it is going to look differnt and is mad for the Russian army.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE: Mike_golf   1/18/2004 7:39:30 PM
AKS, education only affects soldier quality peripherally. Military training, motivation, morale, pay, living conditions, and equipment are the most important factors, with several others close behind. The bottom line is that Russian privates are not trained to a level anywhere close to that of the British or US Army. Nor do they have the same levels of motivation, morale, living conditions or pay (not to suggest that US/UK soldiers are mercenaries, but enough pay to have a luxury or two helps). The quality of the Russian Army's officers is reasonable, although I would argue that Russian military tradition does not emphasize individual quality, unlike German, British and American military tradition. But, the fact is that Russian officers do work that in the US Army is reserved for junior NCO's, and this severely degrades crew quality. When your strategy is mass over quality that's fine, but it provides some serious limitations in certain areas. Russian tank designers knew this and took it into account. I'm not saying that Russian tank crews couldn't do the things that western crews do, with proper training. I'm saying that they can't do it right now because they lack that training. Now, onto whether the Russian Army can replace a power package (i.e. engine and transmission) or gun tube in field conditions. In the 20 years (1976 - 1996) I was in the US Army I got access to quite a bit of intelligence on the Soviet and later Russian Army. Most of it is now declassified, so I can give you the summary at least. For anything more complex or difficult than replacing tracks, servicing weapons, servicing the power package IN the tank, the tanks had to go to the depot/factory. That's not me making things up, or going with what I read in some novel. That's hard cold facts. Plus, based on evaluations of actual T-72's at Aberdeen Proving Grounds it is quite clear that the power package cannot be removed from the tank under field conditions in an hour. If I recall correctly, the turret has to be removed (or maybe that was the T-64). By the way, Mike Golf stands for Master Gunner. I was, among other things, a tank company master gunner in the US Army. I was also on a division Operations staff and a Battalion Operations staff. By the time I retired I probably knew as much about the individual capabilities of every tank operational in 1996 as anyone in the military. I don't make it up just to piss you off.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Summarizing a few things   1/18/2004 7:41:31 PM
I rated the T-90 higher on mobility. Re-read what I posted.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE:top ten tanks   1/18/2004 7:46:12 PM
Just a question. Doesn't the siluet of the tank count also? Compare the indian Arjun, a huge nice turret and huge body with lots of places to hit, with the German Leo, a compact main battle tank? What do you guys think?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    tank silhouette   1/18/2004 7:57:22 PM
That would fit under protection. It's back to basics. There are three design parameters: 1. protection 2. firepower 3. mobility Brief descriptions: protection: armor thickness and sloping, composite armor effectiveness, tank size and silhouette, active and passive defensive measures (e.g. ERA), NBC protection. Firepower: This should be obvious, but ... it's a combination of range, penetration power of the round, accuracy of the FCS. Mobility: This includes speed, max side slope traverse, max incline to climb and descend, max belly clearance, max obstacle to cross, snorkeling and wading ability, weight compared to road and bridge performance, fuel use, strategic mobility (can it be transported by air, by ship, by truck, by train), weight displacement across surface area of the tracks, and a bunch of other minor factors. These have been the accepted standards for designing and comparing tanks since 1940, give or take.
 
Quote    Reply

Kozzy    RE:tank silhouette   1/18/2004 8:10:46 PM
I'm gonna listen to Mike Golf on this subject because he was a tanker, in a war, with tanks.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE: Mike_golf...aks   1/18/2004 9:27:20 PM
AKS takes exception to the notion that the T-90 was designed with the idea that since serious armour field maintainance was not readily available in the Russian military no accomodation was made for it in its construction. AKS also proposes that Russian built tanks fared so poorly in Iraq because they weren't really Russian but Iraqi built tanks based on Russian plans. In everything I have read about the Iraqi military I have never seen Saddam's tanks described as anything but Russian. Some of the sources that I read would be the first to distance the Russian defence industry from the Iraqi tank performance if they could. I have seen a lot of rationalisations for the poor performance of the Iraqi tanks but no one and I mean no one has ever said it was because they were actually built in Iraq. As Mike Golf has pointed out in his post he (and I) were talking about the pool of trained talent available to the Russian armoured forces not the potential available to Russian society if they chose to develop it. If you believe that the technically qualified student you were talking about would turn down going to civilian tecnical college or university so he could volunteer to go in the military instead, because he believed that would immediately give him more money, food, better living conditions, better training and better job prospects than if he stayed on the civilian track then you are sadly mistaken about the nature of the Russian military and Russian society. Most people join the American military espousing the belief that they will get unbeatable technical training and experience while experiencing reasonably comfortable living conditions and adequate pay. Most of them say that's why they are joining. Such a thing is inconceivable in the Russian military system. The current Russian leadership considers the quality over quantity culture of the Russian military to be a cancer that has to be overcome if Russia is to achieve the geo-political status that the Russian people and leadership believe it is entitled to. All the current debate in security/military political circles in Russia is about the chicken and the egg. How do you professonalise the military without changing its culture and how do you change the military culture without professionalising the military. The ill fated Kursk nuke sub went to sea to conduct tests on an experimental weapon system with a substantial part of its crew grabbed off the dock, as it were, because of the acute shortage of qualified crew. This was the preeminent unit of the Russian military. It was publicised and romanticised as being symbolic of the new military might of the new Russian nation. In terms of strategic value and monetary cost it's as if the Ronald Reagan set out to sea on mission to test a weapon that was supposed to render all other navies helpless, grabbed crew off other ships on an hours notice, made a highly publicised departure from harbour and then blew up and sank with all hands a few hundred miles offshore. What was unique about this excercise was that the Kursk did not return. Grabbing crew off the dock was commonplace. The preceding paragraph is mentioned to show that there is abundant evidence of the Russian military's inability to field competent trained crew even on elite units operating directly under the eye of the Russian military leadership. What likelihood that there is ample provision for extensive training and support for tank crews? If you have evidence that counters my impression please correct me.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE: Northern guy on Russian soldiers   1/18/2004 11:38:13 PM
You explain the Kursk incident as if you were there (I beleive you were not), no one knows what the hell happened and why it happened. The investigation is officaly over but still it is not clear what happened. Most probably the new secret torpedo blew up and internally damaged the machine, so do not blame it on the crew unless you know something that the rest of the world does not. As of the situation in Russian army, yes it is really pitiful. They are short on everything, and their officers are treated like crap, and soldiers are mostly conscripts which do not get the intense training that they used to get during the Soviet time. BUT, again I know for fact that any russian officer that went through a millitary academy knows way more then its US counterpart. Why? Beacuse when Europeans had military academies US was just forming. That is why to come back to the subject of tanks, a Russian tank crew in a t80UD or a T90 can stop an M1. One more thing Northern guy, as you know Russians were always concidered a powerfull and influential nation right? Guess what never in Russian history the Russian soldier was treated right ( they were fed bad, and their living conditions were bad), but hey they were mostly victorius.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE:tank silhouette   1/18/2004 11:41:45 PM
So guys which tanks have a better silhouette?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    tank silhouette   1/18/2004 11:49:54 PM
The best silhouette? The old Swedish S tank. It looked like a big BMP with an exhaust pipe sticking out the front. can't get much lower!
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics