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
joe6pack    RE:Summarizing a few things    1/19/2004 7:04:58 AM
Mike Golf I'm sure could give some excellent details... But from an ignorant bystander, the work I've seen done to Abrams in the field looks impressive to say the least. I've watched recovery vehicles pull up and swap out engines at what would make NASCAR fans envious (O.K. - thats a little exaggerated) but it was fricking cool to watch the work they are able to complete in the field. I'm not sure what extra logistics go into that... The recovery vehicles looked to be the standard armor recovery type.. I suppose the added logistics is in bringing the spare parts forward rather taking the tank back to a depot.... But from a warfighting point of veiw.. being able to make those kind of repairs in the field and a quick return of the tanks seems (to me at least) to be well worth the extra logistics....
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Summarizing a few things    1/19/2004 9:28:31 AM
Just comment on a few things (much came in mind when looking through these posts from previous few days but I don't know if I'll remember One clarifying thing. People keep talking like T72's used in Iraq or Chechenya, or now in use, are basicly the same as those used in early 70's (this time in relation with protection). Latest model of T72 to pour out of lines has 200% the armour of the first model. So quite a difference there. T90 with K5 can achieve roughly (quickly counting) 350% of the protection of the first T72. Late model T72's now used in russia have been however upgraded with K5 so armour protection between late model T72 and T90 is not such significantly different (maybe around 20% difference). T72's Iraq used belonged mainly to mid-production export class, which has roughly 50% better protection than early model and 50% worse than late model (excluding era). And then to RPG's, along with the similiar lines. Though M1A1's (Iraq) are unquestionably more resistant to hand held at-fire than T72's with early era (Chechenya), the circumstances were pretty different. Iraq used weapons were mainly old generation RPG's with inadequate ammo, ok against M60's but totally outclassed by ceramic construction tanks. Chechens however had a good supply of new russian at-weapons (and russians have always known how to build them, being one of their strongest areas). But, this is not nearly as much of significance as the way they were used. Mike_golf (if I remember right) wrote something good about this issue some twenty posts ago...The reputation of T-series tanks being totally dead if faced with hand held at-weapon is mainly due to soviet first big drive to the centre of Grozny, ending in total disaster. After that, hand held at-weapons have done damage, but not nearly to the extent many may believe. Grozny was a total disaster already in the drawing board (a very good lesson for the overconfident us military boys I've seen recently ready to go for any war waving flags). Russians drove their tanks to narrow streets nearly as they were in a parade, with obvious results. Rebels had good firing angles from apartment blocks targeting vulnerable top and side surfaces with their numerous (more or less up to date) at-weapons. Multiple hits first diminished the era coverage where it was found(which still contains quite a many blocks, it's not easy to hit exactly the same spot twice) and then quickly produced repeated penetrations resulting in total annihilation of about all the tanks (this is much helped by the fact that T72 style tanks store wonderful combination of ammunition and fuel all around the hull making it vulnerable in case of penetration). A testament to completely failure in planning stages and above all, underestimating the enemy. Then more about T72. Much critisism I've seen here about maintenance issues. It's true that T72 is nowhere near the latest tanks in repairability (it has been long a common feature that complete powerpack can be replaced, this is not possible in T72). It's not particularly easy vehicle to repair in case some parts broke down, but far from impossible either, being in addition relatively easy vehicle to maintain. But then, I don't know what the hell are you guys expecting a tank crew should do under normal field conditions. To be specific, we weren't expected to put the engine in parts in the field and assemble it again (well, neither much more minor repairs). Integral field workshops were there for that. And, at least in Finnish army, they contained highly competent personnel and up to date tools and adequate supply of them. No, russian tanks aren't marvel vehicles running smoothly around (in many ways they're a real pain in the ass) but saying anything like it was/is end of the game for days should particular engine part break down is nonsense. More about it's overall design. The silhouette is low, but due to carousel autoloader, extremely cramped (should there be no carousel, it could be more roomy than LeoII. Particularly in offense (and even more until 70/80's) low silhouette is advantage, but tanks mainly in defensive would consider abitily to achieve good hull down positions much much more crucial. In T72, back at it's introducion times very low profile affects also to the protection, as hull is full packed with explosive material. Turret is not as vulnerable (yeah, only a couple of chaps in there!) in a sense penetrations wouldn't necessarily blow the whole tank up. There's also a good fire extinguishing system installed, but we considered it somewhat a nice curiosity as everyone can reason would it be much of a use if round stowage or fuel tank is hit. I don't know if it's particularly unengouraging thought to go in a battle with one (we didn't consider it to be any more than with anything else, just used to it), but of course the fact that as a commander you basicly sit on a few spare propellant cases, your back is to the pair of spare 125mm rounds and your arm
 
Quote    Reply

Kozzy    On Russian Quantity   1/19/2004 11:00:35 AM
I'm also pretty damn sure America has more M1s then Russia has T-90s. America has a fleet like 8,800 M1s but how many T-90s does Russia have?
 
Quote    Reply

Kozzy    So let's all agree...   1/19/2004 12:32:33 PM
...that the T-90 is technically inferior to even older M1 models and would get it's ass kicked by the M1A2.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE:So let's all agree...   1/19/2004 4:27:25 PM
Yes and lets also agree that while M1A2 will soon get another upgrade and become heavier, slower, and will drink more gas, Germans and Russians will each come up with some smart idea to upgrade their tanks armor and still stay inthe category of the medium tank, and not a heavy tank which Abrams is turning into. Abrams has no engeenering thought behind it, even Chobham was invented by Europeans, only way the US can think of upgrading their tank armour, is to add more armour, that is why in the near future US tanks are going to go in to the retierment since the doctorine of future wars calls for lighter, more manuvarable tanks. I absolutely agree with the fact that Abrams is the best defended tank, but lets face it guys it is not a smart tank, it is just too expansive to make and expansive to operate.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    TO Fedaykin   1/19/2004 4:55:37 PM
Fedaykin, Russian soldiers do not have better training then US soldiers, their OFFICERS HAVE BETTER MILLITARY SCHOOLS, understand the difference. About the East German MIG29s. Who told you thos nice stories how Mig 29 sucks? Mig29 is an excellent fighter that is cheap to produce and easy to maintain. It also out manouvers its western counterparts and it was the first plain that came with PILOT head controlled fiering system. Also Mig29 is not as capable as Su 27 and its upgrades, but lets remember that MIg29 is INTENDED for close air interception. Most of the time Mig29s come as a "package" with anti air systems, because that is what they are made for. ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE EASTERN GERMAN PILOTS' STORY, that I read all over the Internet. It tells how they did not mtch oh so superior pilots of the blessed NATO. Fedaykin, think for a moment. DO YOU REALLY BELEIVE THAT THE WESTERN GERMANS WANTED EASTERN trained soldiers flying with them? Did you ever even visit Germany in those days? Western Germans think very low about the Esterners, it is a big problem in Germany even now, SO CAN YOU THINK OF A MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT WAY to get rid of the eastern pilots? To say that they do not MATCH THE "HIGH STANDARDS" of NATO pilots (the level is so high that during the Iraqi war, in clear day A US A10 pilot nearly destroyed a british tank group, the pilot could not even defrentiate between a CHALLANGER and a T72/T55), by administering tests. Of course they could not go out and say the truth, it would be politacally incorrect to say hey guys we kind of do not trust you, you know you are ex commies. But they said OOPS guys you did not pass our test. Fedaykin not everything you see on internet is true. I understand that I am not going to change your view on the things, most of the guys in this forum do not even want to think about non US weaponary, just because they are super patriots. I love my country too, and it has mostly Soviet/Russian weaponary, but I AM NOT GOING TO SAY THAT A STRELA AA rocket is better then Stinger, because I know it is not, and I am not going to go to some biased sites which prove that Strela is better.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:So let's all agree...   1/19/2004 5:02:56 PM
"but lets face it guys it is not a smart tank, it is just too expansive to make and expansive to operate." How do you figure that? Its smart by U.S. demands (prevents casualties, it was designed to defeat a numericly superior T-series oponents (and it can). As for its expense, theres not a whole lot of difference in cost between it and its counterparts (Leo2A6, Chally2) and the Leclerc is more expensive. "since the doctorine of future wars calls for lighter, more manuvarable tanks." What are these future wars? in the last number of wars we have had the Abrams has done pretty well for itself. As for more maneuvarable - for being as heavy as it is, its still one of the fastest tanks around and does extremely well cross country. Now, does that make it the best tank for everyone ? No.. but it does what the US demands of tank. So its a good choice for us. This love affair over "medium" a.k.a russian tanks is getting to me.. The most expensive weapon out there is the one that is second best. For all their design inovation the tanks have not come out on top of many conflicts since WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:So let's all agree...AKS....   1/19/2004 5:41:35 PM
AKS writes quote I absolutely agree with the fact that Abrams is the best defended tank, but lets face it guys it is not a smart tank, it is just too expansive to make and expansive to operate. endquote That's the whole point isn't it? If you have a war fighting strategy that requires the sort of capabilities that the Abrams has then it's the best tank, for you. If you can't afford the attendant costs of such a strategy then change your strategy before changing your tank. America will never be in position of symetrical armoured warfare. If Russia overuns the American forces stationed in Europe or China destroys the 6th fleet on the way to Taiwan, America will not respond with a land invasion. America has a strategy that amongst other things tries to deliver a low casualty rate at the sharp end of its military force. It accepts that it will be very expensive to accomplish that and feels capable of always delivering an overly broad blunt end to support the equipment selected to accomplish its strategic goals. Fortunately for the Americans they are rich enough to be able to do that. The day may come when when they simply won't be able to deliver enough ice cream factory ships or internet service or whatever extravagance, to satisfy the front line troops to the point that their voting families back home may call it quits. But it hasn't happened yet!
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Drivers of national strategy (long post)   1/19/2004 7:17:48 PM
Okay, I guess I need to point a few more things out yet again. The defining and pivotal event that led to the current military strategy of the Western world (including Russia) is WWII. I think we can all agree on that. The NATO powers, especially the US and the UK, learned a different lesson about ground forces than Russia did. They looked at the exact same events and took different views of them. Much of this has to do with national character and drivers for national strategy. Basically, to summarize, the US looked at the war on the Eastern Front and learned the lesson that quality can defeat quantity. The Wehrmacht was tactically and operationally superior to the Red Army throughout the course of the war. The Wehrmacht continuously used superior tactics, initiative and training to win operationally and tactically against numerically superior forces. An additional lesson learned for the US is that superior quality could go a long ways towards overcoming numerical and tactical inferiority. This lesson was most clearly shown by the Russian T-34, which is one of the factors that saved the Russian's butts in 1941-42. Russia had more tanks than the Wehrmacht, but they didn't have more T-34's, which was the only tank they had that was clearly superior to the PzKW III and IV of the time. It's superiority allowed Russian tank units equipped with it to fight on almost even terms with the German units even though they were definitely not close to being on par tactically or in soldier quality. On the Western Front, especially in North Africa, the Americans quickly discovered that mass would not make up for poor quality training and equipment at Kasserine Pass. Indeed, in general, it can be argued that the US won on the Western Front in Europe using the same strategy that worked well for the Russians. They overwhelmed the Germans with mass. Except for Patton no one in the US/UK forces was really the equal of the German generals on operational terms and the Wehrmacht veterans in 1944 were far and away superior at the small unit level to the Americans. By 1945 this was no longer true, the American Army had finally matured into an effective force for fighting a war of manuever. But US military and political leaders in the post WWII period realized that they were going to find themselves on the receiving end of the mass and numerical superiority strategy in most conflicts they could envision. The conflict would be a small one, relatively, like Korea or Vietnam, where the full might of the US could not be mobilized against an inferior enemy. Or it would be global in scale against Russia or China or a combination of the two. In such a conflict, even with the US fully mobilized, we could not field an army that could defeat the enemy by overwhelming them with numbers. So, the driver was how to take the lessons learned of WWII and apply them to national strategy. The three pillars of this are technologically superior equipment, better trained soldiers at the tactical and operational level, and superior logistics (yes, I'm leaving out things like control of the sea lanes and so forth, I know that). The Russians, on the other hand, did not defeat Germany with superior equipment and soldiers. Except for the early years of the Eastern Front the Russians never had equipment superiority. The German Tigers and Panthers were reasonably on par with the Russian mainstay T-34A/B/C and 85. The Panther, Tiger and King Tiger compare favorably with the JS series tanks as well. What the Russians learned was that they could defeat a better trained, better equipped military that was numerically inferior. Additionally, the Russians knew that, unless they fought China, they would always have a manpower advantage and interior lines of supply that would be to their advantage. Rather than try to build superior equipment they focused on a lot of equipment. Rather than try to build the best technology that could not be supported by their conscript masses they would build adequate tanks that could stand up to a more rugged environment (less logistical tail, less technical expertise, etc.). What this is leading up to is that the American M1/M1A1/M1A2 tank series and the Russian T-72/T-80/T-90 tank series are a product of their national strategies and the lessons they learned from WWII. We can make a very convincing case for the American M-1 being the finest heavy tank in the world (with equally valid arguments in favor of the Leo and Chally). However, probably only the US can afford to produce and maintain the M-1 for any length of time in any sort of quantity, except perhaps for Japan. Even Germany's industry and logistics would be stretched by the M-1. It's interesting to note that the losers of WWII, the Germans and Japanese, learned the same lessons as the Americans and British, even though they were defeated by mass rather than quality (well, the Japanese were defeated by a combination of mass and quality). If the Russians could
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    Medium tank issues   1/19/2004 7:43:17 PM
As you might have noticed, I am not really a believer in medium tanks. I think medium tanks are the worst of both worlds. They don't have the advantages of light cavalry (mobility, ease of support, flexibility) nor do the have the advantages of heavy cavalry (firepower, protection and resilience). This is probably my biggest gripe with Russian tanks. Because they were trying to stay in the medium tank arena they made design decisions that led to a tank that does not, in my opinion, have any advantage when compared to the militaries it is most likely to be used against. This is the same sort of issues that the US Army faced in 1944 in France. The Sherman tank was outclassed by the tanks it was facing. The only advantage it had was numbers (and of course superior logistics on the Allied part). I personally would not want to go to war in a T-90 since I much prefer being a live soldier to a dead hero.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics