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
Jeffrey    RE:Jeffrey -   3/15/2004 5:51:30 AM
That website that you gave me doesn't say anything about the inside of this armor,only the thinks how you recognice the tank,you must admit that im right and you are wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Main Gun question   3/15/2004 10:01:33 PM
A question for the gunners: this has cropped up in another forum and basically it's an argument about the Leo2A6 as opposed to the M1a1-M1a2 "Again its a no brainer. A longer gun firing M829A2 ammuntion will be better than a shorter gun firing the same ammo. Theres no 'arguably', 'debateably' or 'believed' about it. Its that simple. The German L55 120mm gun is an enhancement of the L44 verison, with higher operating pressures etc. Its going to be better than the M256 which is simply the US Licensed verison of the Rhiemental L44 120mm! For the most basic appearance 1 metre and 32 centimetres longer." I recall instances of identical calibre rounds having a greater penetration from a slightly shorter barrel than a longer. IIRC it was wrt to time on target, depth, distance to target issues. Can someone clarify this for me?
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:Main Gun question   3/15/2004 10:12:42 PM
P=MV Momentum=Mass x Velocity. If the L55 gun achieves a higher muzzle velocity (which it should) and the penetrator is strong enough not to shatter on impact as a result of that extra velocity (which I assume it is), then it should carry greater momentum and thus greater power to punch throught the armour.....
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Main Gun question   3/15/2004 10:27:54 PM
Okay, on the surface all of this seems obvious, right? Increase velocity and the same penetrator should automatically work better. However, there are some complex issues involved. For example, sabot separation could be an issue. Another example is penetrator shearing. The penetrator is very unstable during terminal phase, after all we are subjecting 2 kilograms of DU or tungsten steel to 6+ Mj of KE. The temperature of the penetrator is very high, a huge amount of KE is being released. The penetrator is designed specifically to remain as stable as possible in that terminal phase of flight at predetermined velocities. Changing that velocity changes how the penetrator behaves. It is not as simple as increased velocity = increased KE. RetiredCdn posted not too long ago on the issues the Brits had with ammo fired out of the L30, for much the same reasons. Imagine if the sabot doesn't separate cleanly because of the higher velocity, quite possible, that will destabilize the penetrator. Even if it does hit its target at that point it will almost certainly shear or shatter. It is nearly impossible for the penetrator to strike its target perfectly perpendicular to the armor, there is always an angle of penetration involved. The M829A2, and every other modern penetrator, is designed to withstand the stress of that penetration angle at very specific velocities. Change any of those factors and you change the penetrator's stability and make it more likely to shear or shatter. So, to answer the points and the question, it is not as simple as loading the M829A2 into an L55 and shooting it. The design will have to be validated, a lot of testing will be needed, and possibily the penetrator will have to be redesigned.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Jeffrey -   3/15/2004 10:33:16 PM
Jeffrey, I will admit that there is dead space between the add on armor and the main turret armor of the Leo2A5/6. I don't agree with the purpose of it. My personal opinion is that it has to do with the design of the armor and it's shape, which appears to me to be aimed at shearing a long rod penetrator. Defeating ATGM's that are not top attack was achieved quite a while ago. Now almost all modern ATGM's are top attack for that very reason. Why load on more armor that really isn't necessary for that purpose? What are we achieving?
 
Quote    Reply

Crazy Serb    RE:Jeffrey -   3/16/2004 1:38:24 AM
"Defeating ATGM's that are not top attack was achieved quite a while ago. " Not according to this pictures http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\gallery\docs\solved.htm&search=abrams%20rpg
 
Quote    Reply

Jeffrey    RE:Jeffrey -   3/16/2004 5:59:50 AM
Mike_Golf,the 7 ATGM where just an example im sure they have tested it with other rounds too. Again,Kraussmaffei knows what they are doing,so there must be a ''secret'' in this hallow armor. Maybe they put some kind of reactive armor packages inside this hallow armor or sand or something ;>)
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/16/2004 10:17:23 AM
First off, the armor Jeffrey is discussing and has shown pictures of is on the front slope of the turret. Second, no one has claimed that enough composite armor has been applied to the flank armor of the M1, or any other MBT, to defeat shaped charge warheads. They have a good likelihood of doing so. But in some rare cases, with a shaped charge striking the just right spot, it can happen. BTW, my tank was hit on the flank in 1991 by RPG fire and suffered no damage, except to the equipment stowage box and exterior grenade launcher. That's the counterpoint to this article. Far more Abrams have been hit on the flank by RPG's and ATGM's without damage than have been damaged by them.
 
Quote    Reply

Crazy Serb    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/17/2004 5:57:40 AM
I know that my english is not so good,my conclusion based on information from that article (pictures) was that weapons like RPG (some verisons whit tandem shaped charge),Erix etc.. can penetrate aromour such tank like Abrams from side.That's the only thing that i say.Do you say that my conclusion is wrong? What is a next step against these kind of weapons? To put another 5-6 tons of armour? I dont think so.Somethnig is wrong whith the concept. "BTW, my tank was hit on the flank in 1991 by RPG fire and suffered no damage, except to the equipment stowage box and exterior grenade launcher. That's the counterpoint to this article." Sorry but this is not an argument.This means that God looked at you in that time.I had a very good friend who was a driver in M-84 mbt (Yugoslav verison of T-72) and killed 1995.His tank was hit form a side whit AT rocket (probably Malyutka (at-3 sagger)).He was so sure that nothing can penetrate his armour. I am afraid that only thnig that save you is a fact that your tank was not hit whit the weapon form the article.
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:Jeffrey - Crazy Serb   3/17/2004 8:15:57 AM
In theoretical level, basic model of RPG7 retains sufficient penetration capability to punch through side skirts of M1A2-level protected tank, but in practice this is very unlikely to occur (this is I believe official from US Army too). It would take a perfect shot, good angle and range, good hitting point and require the round to behave well (as crude hand held propellant like RPG-7 hit highly capable high tolerance armour, even high quality steel, it often tends in a way or other disintegrate). Frontal arc surfaces are out of question, so are mostly all parts of turret. Furthermore, one of the main differences between small hand held at weapons and good sized atgm’s is that just the sheer size of the round in infantry at-rockets effectively prevents a sort of “catastrophic hit” to happen. Traditional LAW and RPG7 class arsenal can well make only very marginal damage even if they penetrate well, unless something vital like ammunition is directly hit. Back to the top, even in the rare occasion of penetration against late MBT’s, the change to hit anything vital is even significantly more slight. The pure layout of modern MBT renders RPG7’s and LAW’s almost totally useless. In latest generation of small, hand-held rockets the basic problems remain the same. However, they have compensated much with improved penetrating capability, yet not enough to threaten late MBT effectively from front, but in regards of penetrating power, very well from any other position. Even front hull penetration isn’t theoretically out of question, but in practice odds are clearly for a tank. Most modern hand held weapons make nowadays easily over 600mm, even 750mm penetration test results (though it must be remembered that good test conditions doesn’t equal varying battlefield conditions). In the same time some of them have increased the sheer size too and adopted tandem-warheads. Soviet RPG27/29, RPG7VR, German PzF3 or French Apilas, to mention few well known, go in this cathegory. Most of the weapons used in war theatres of the recent years or decade – Gulf Wars for example - doesn’t however belong to this cathegory, mostly the basic 40-year old RPG-7 still being the weapon appearing. Practically squad firepower of infantry squad in any modern technology country consists of around 3-6 charges capable of defeating MBT armour (though the major use of them still continues to be hands down other battlefield armoured vehicles rather than actual MBT’s). In third world countries, the count might well be 1-2 obsolent charges per squad, with not even theoretical changes against MBT. Latest generation, modern hand held at-weapons should be, if one expects any success, available in numbers down to regular armed forces squad level. They are not kind of arsenal you can buy a small batch like atgm’s or tanks, and expect something spectacular to happen. Atgm’s are again a whole another deal, completely another weapons class to hand held atw’s (yet they are often mixed). They are used in completely another fashion, not like integral parts of basic infantry squad alongside assault rifles carried, disposable weapons like ones described above. With them the situation is much the same as with squad at-rockets – old obsolent weapons are limited in their capability, and new, effective ones are not available to everybody. TA-capacity is issue of it’s own, but generally atgm’s have had however through the line better odds for penetration, better changes of inflicting damage and better overall performance (so for modern, direct fire atgm’s, yes –they are easily capable of cutting through sides of MBT’s). And like said, they are two completely different weapons systems, about the only common thing being the target in the receiving end. With both systems it must be remembered that the capability of them, also in terms of penetration, covers extremely wide range. Media has bad habit to group them all in one, referring all atgm’s and infantry at-rockets with general description "RPG".
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics