Tanks

We've got:

Abram M1-A2
T-80
T-90
T-98
Challenger 2
Merkava 4

All of these tanks use the same/about the same 120/125mm primary weapon, so what is the differance between them?
They also seem to have about the same armor!

The "older" tanks still have more armor then the newer tanks.

But yet one tank is notorious over the other, how come???
How many rounds/Hellfire missiles/tank busters will it take to take a tank out? (either one of them)

And aren't you suppose to hit a tank at the SAME spot again if you wanna penetrade it? (like breaching through a wall, you'd have to hit the same spot over and over again)!

[edit on 2-5-2005 by 187onu]

a hellfire will take out all of them...

But in order of armour I would rate...

Challenger II
M1A2
T-90
Merkava 4
Type-98
T-80

Russian tanke all use a 125mm smoothbore...

Nato tanks use a 120mm smoothbore standard apart from the Challenger II which deviates and uses a 120mm rifled gun

The main difference between western and russian tanks would be weight...

Russians favour greater manouverability, ease of deployment and speed over heavier armour

If you want to take out a tank... kill it first time, or you won't survive to take a second shot

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Lucretius]

Allright, so one HELLFIRE takes out each and every tank.

but how many rounds (tank rounds) would it take to take each out??

and I understand that you better take it out the first time (btw by saying that i assume that one round takes a tank out), but where do you have to hit it!

doesn't weight = armor???

Correct, Russian tanks are definitly not well armored, but they are more manauverable, better speed and acceleration but less armor and their gun doesn't have the penetration of modern guns, however they do benefit of having a gun/missile system like the AT-11 Sniper.

I could easilly tell you that a modern tank will only be able to take one shot in most cases but sometimes they will take several hits, the M1A2 Abrams can deflect many many obsolete rounds like 105mm and such and RPGs but they are often taken out by the same RPGs in different circumstances, what you see in most games is false, they don't take dozens of shots to kill, they are lucky to survive one direct hit, and if they do, they were probably hit on their frontal armor where it's tickest.

Actually, the Challenger 2 uses a 120mm L30 rifled gun, the M1A2 uses the M256mm smoothbore gun. The Merkava uses a locally designed 120mm gun. The T-80 and 90 uses a 24A6 gun, while the Type 98 uses a Chinese produced 125mm gun. The Challenger, M1A2, Merkava, and T-98 can all achieve 800+mm of penetration with their latest ammo. The T-80 and 90 can't get as much, 600mm with their latest ammo. They don't have the same armor either, the Challenger 2 and M1A2 use Chobham armor, which is a matrix of steel and composites. The Merkava uses it's own thing, the T-98 uses spaced steel and reactive armor. The T-80 and 90 use Comp K with Kontakt-5 reactive armor. The M1A2, Challenger, and Merkava has like 960mm of KE protection. The Type 98 and T-90 and 80 has like 700-800mm



This doesn't make any sense, explain.



Define notorious, if you mean better, the Merkava, M1A2, and Challenger are better then the other 3



The M1A2, Merk, and Chally can penetrate the other 3 with one shot. The T-80,90,98 have a 30-50% chance of doing it on their first shot. A hellfire would knock out every tank here with one shot.



The round dispersion of tank guns is too great to aim for a specific part of the tank. You aim center mass and if you don't kill your target on the first shot, keep shooting until you do.


[edit on 2-5-2005 by 187onu]

The front turret of tanks is the most well armored. For example the frontal turret of the M1A2 is 960mm, while it's glacis is 560mm and it's lower hull is 600mm

So the Russian tanks just have to hit it from the side, I assume!

suppose they cant get a clear shot, the have to fire x times at the front, how many times exactly?




So i gues that the Russian tanks have to fire 2/3 shots in order to destroy the other 3!


LAWs and RPGs can penetrade 800m right? So they should be able to destroy the Russians at once and the other 3 from the side, right?

Against the heavly armored Abrams or Challanger 2 you need to go for a disabling tank tread shot before you can do more, and you really can only get to them from the sides. The other way is to go for the Turret ring. Either way these shots require Expertmarksmanship at range with Main guns. Abrams could happily fire at eachothers front armor until they run out of ammo with not much effect (at least with current ammunition in use)

But lets not disregard Russian/chinese tanks. They are getting closer to thier western counterparts. (at least the T-98) and often it is a matter of support and tactic that decides the result.



In the age of composite armor, and DU plates and ammo, THICKER armor does not neccsarily mean better protection. it is a matter of how much Kenetic or chemical energy protection they provide.

personally I have allways been a fan of the Abrams turbine and the acceleration it provides

regardless becasue of secracy invovled with armor, and sesors. There is really no way to know for sure how they compare except in pitched battle, which I hope we never see

256mm gun? Thats a BIIIIGGG gun

Yea






What do you mean by "disable shot"???

Doesnt Kontakt 5 give enough protection too shatter leopard rounds at 2 km? I saw that in a thread not too long ago. Also they apparantly already upgraded it.
I also heared is that some Russian tanks are not completely covered bu Kontakt 5. At least that was the case with a t72 version which had 60% of its front covered by it.

oh yea, the damn israelies got this thing where they put "bombs" on the tank so that when you fire uppon it the round bounces off or somehting?!

doens't that give alot of extra protection or something?

disable... engine or track destruction/damage that immobileises the target.

And how is that achieved? i must assume rounds these days are ment to KILL or destroy not to disable?!

Easier said then done. It would take an extremely well trained unit and good battle positions to flank a force equipped with Abrams.



That's a really tough question. If a tank shell hits where a previous one hit, the armor would most likely be weakened and the second round would penetrate. This is not likely, as round to round dispersion and human error make it mostly based on luck. Even if a tank round doesn't penetrate another tank, the shock of impact can disable electronics and such. One T-90 hitting a M1A2 in the glacis may knock it out with one shot, while a T-90 hitting the frontal turret 3 times may not even penetrate at all.



On purely theoretical averages I'd say it'd be like 1.5-1.7 shots. Problem is, when you shoot you give away your position and will have your target and it's friends shooting back at you if you didn't kill it. This is why not killing your target with the first round is a very bad thing.



LAWs and RPGs use HEAT warheads, which modern tanks have much more protection against. The T-90 has 1200mm of HEAT protection, the Abrams has 1500mm, while the Challenger and Merkava have 1600mm+. You would need multiple side and rear hits against any of the tanks you listed.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Kozzy]

This is called "Explosive Reactive Armor". It is basically plates of steel with explosive behind them. When a incoming round hits the ERA plate, the explosive explodes throwing the plate against the incoming HEAT jet or long rod penetrator. This reduces the effectiveness of the threat.

It's first use was on Israeli tanks, called "Blazer". This was effective against HEAT rounds, such as RPGs and LAWs.

The Russians took the next step and produced Kontakt-5. This is effective against APFSDS rounds too and can reduce their penetrating potential by 30% or more.

This is easier said then done. Tank gunners are not trained to aim for a specific part of a target. As accurate as tank guns are, tank rounds still have dispersion. Tankers are trained to aim for the center mass of the target, to ensure the greatest probability of hit. Hitting a target and not penetrating is still much better then not hitting at all.

Closer in, infantry are trained to aim for the treads and engines.

signature
Current Tank Rating
1. M1A2SEP 2. Merkava Mk 4
3. Leo 2A6 4. Chally 2
5. Leclerc 6. T-90M
7: T-80UM1 8: Type 98G C2 9. Ariete C2 10: Arjun

this is you r siggy. i want know what is perameter of this rating .

in my view ARJUN is better protected than Type98/T-80.T-90/Arite.

ARJUN has chobham class armour protection which not in case of type98/T90/T80 /Arite and Arjun is not protected yet with ERA it has LAHAT missile w/t range 8 k.m. from surface 2 surface.

so my rating is like that

1.M1a2
2.Chally2
3.Merkava4
4.Leclarc
5.Leopard
6.Arjun
7.T-90
8.Type-98
9.T-80
10.Ariete

Most modern tanks today are very much alike. So alike in fact that there are no real advantages of one over the other that make that much of a difference. It will only be when something revolutionary comes along that we start making comparsions.

what ARJUN hehehe

and all the tanks here have chobham style armour. it is called composite armour. the t-98 t90 t80 all have composite armour with ERA to make it more effective.

external image
the chinese horde

how come the leopard is still ranked so high