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
   RE: cavalry vs infantry   1/20/2004 8:08:07 PM
The Javelin is a fire and forget system with a top-angle of attack. It does not engage a tanks forward facing armor; it hits the turret. And because it is fire and forget, the crew is long gone by the time the tank operator decides to react. As man portable AA weapons systems continue to evolve, the tanks role on the battlefield is put in increasingly serious jeopardy. Eventually, the soldier as a tank will be a realized dream. DARPA is already looking into powered armor applications for the super soldier of tomorrow.
 
Quote    Reply

AKS    RE:To northern guyand joe 6pak only   1/20/2004 8:23:00 PM
Guys as i said before I am not going to change your minds even open your eyes even a little bit, I mean how can you even compare taking of Berlin with taking of todays Iraq, Jesus, I give up with you, really, lets continue on with other subjects, no point of telling facts to guys who copare taking of berlin with taking of Iraq. Lets move on.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:To A.K.   1/20/2004 8:43:34 PM
You are the guy comparing the Normandy Landings to current U.S. doctrine.. I'm don't see how thats any less ridiculous to comparing Berlin to Iraq... But any time you want to discuss facts... rather than your somewhat bias opinion - I'm open. With what "facts" do you justify your statements like Isreal is the only country that bases its doctrine on protecting its troops?
 
Quote    Reply

TrueNorth    RE:To northern guyand joe 6pak only - AKS   1/20/2004 10:13:25 PM
Actually I never mentioned Berlin.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE:Testament to Challenger 2's Armour   1/21/2004 2:23:18 AM
actually its usually agreed that the challenger has the best, its a couple of generation ahead of the M1s(depleated Urarinum is being phased out as the next M1s will have the improved Chobbam which offers better protection /kg/mm this is the stuff fitted to the upgraded Challenger 1s, the challenger 2 have better and the 2e's have the new stuff which is regarded(by nearly all analysts) as being the best armour about. the M1s armour is excelent but not state of the art, however other aspects of the M1s make it probeble the best allrounder.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE: cavalry vs infantry joe6pack   1/21/2004 5:35:52 AM
Joe, killing lots of tanks with infantry has happened in the modern era. During the Yom Kipur war, Israeli tank forces assaulted Egyptian positions in Sinai and got the crap kicked out of them. The Egyptians were using Saggers from slit tenches. The Israelis were overconfident and assaulted without much air support or, I believe, artillery.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE: cavalry vs infantry joe6pack   1/21/2004 5:37:47 AM
That should read slit trenches not slit tenches. We aren't talking about dead fish here:-).
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE: cavalry vs infantry joe6pack   1/21/2004 5:47:46 AM
Heorot, I'm not saying its not possible. However, I beleive in the Yom Kipur War it was the first time the Isreali's ran into infantry ATGMS (at least in significant numbers).. Yes, they were probably overconfident.. but I beleive this was also their first real run in with a essentially a new weapon system. My historical knowledge of this particular war is a little weak.. but since the Isreali's ended up winning, it would appear to me they adjusted their tactics to counter the Saggers.... My arguement also had a caveat... "good tanks, good crews, and good tactics" .. In this case it looks like the Isrealis only had two out of three.. and adjusted their tactics later to adapt to a new threat.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE: cavalry vs infantry joe6pack   1/21/2004 11:05:42 AM
There were really two issues at play during the Yom Kippur War that resulted in infantry fighting tanks on equal footing. The first is that the Israelis decided after the 1967 war that they could use their airforce as a sort of flying artillery. They allowed their artillery arm to atrophy in favor of airpower. They had very few gun batteries with howitzers and most brigades only had mortars for organic indirect fire. The Soviets had, meanwhile, learned a different lesson from 1967 and put a huge effort into anti-air defenses. Yom Kippur saw the debut of several new Soviet air defense systems in the hands of the Egyptians and Syrians. Issue #2 is the advent of ATGM's in significant quantities. The Egyptian infantry was very well trained and had a large quantity of Saggers. When the Egyptian Army assaulted across the Suez into the Sinai they went with a combined arms team that was heavy on infantry and ATGM's. The Israelis defended with small infantry teams in strongpoints (a la British hedgehogs against Rommell) and armor reserves. They had nothing better than 81mm mortars for indirect fire because they were counting on their Phantoms to provide indirect fire. The new Egyptian air defenses swept the air space over the Sinai clean and destroyed Israeli air superiority until the Israelis could figure out new tactics. That took about 5 days. In the meantime the Israelis had no indirect fire, so they were only operating with infantry and tanks against a combined arms army that was using infantry tactics appropriate to fighting modern armor. I could write about this for a lot longer, but that's it in a nutshell. By the way, does the Israeli decision after 1967 sound like what our proponents of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" are talking about today, just substitute PGM for airplane? Learn a lesson from history, please!
 
Quote    Reply

TrueNorth    RE: cavalry vs infantry   1/21/2004 12:18:33 PM
Guys, I’m not trying to be a troll here, just realistic. This is war. You can’t go comparing tanks like they’re formula one racing cars that compete one-on-one on a dry, flat track. Well you can, but I think it becomes an adolescent pissing match. You have to consider the broader strategic picture, including the relative cost of armour (manufacture and maintenance) along with those of other weapon systems. Think of this hypothetical math up. Each of us starts with $5 billion (opposing states never have identical economies and defense budgets but it makes it simpler). You go and buy your armored cavalry regiment or any mechanized combined arms force you like. Abrams, Leopards, whatever. I’ll get 20,000 guys. I’ll spend half my money on training and leadership, because those are the factors that really count. For hardware I’ll get new model ATGMs and towed artillery, plus the best electronics available for command and controlled. Everything will be on un-armored wheeled vehicles. Then we’ll play king-of-the-hill. Sure I’ll take plenty of casualties, but I bet you a pint I’d win. For the record I think Abrams is on top. Also I hope I haven’t minimized the experience of anyone who has been in a tank in Iraq. In the broad scheme of things the Iraqi Army did pretty much roll over, but bullets are bullets.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics