Tanks

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.

SO according to this, The "LAW soldier" would have to hit it twice at least AT THE SAME SPOT, right? or what also could be done as said earlier, hit it once from the side because it only has like 600mm armor, heat armor or whatever it was!

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.

Even if not penatraded you still knock the electricle system out or THE LEAST you f*** up something of their tank, right?
(like if you punch a human 3 times, that does damage)

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.

Is that new armor ALL around or only at the front? So lets say that the
M1-A2 has to hit the T-90 twice, can you agree?

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

How/what do you mean by "well equipped"??

Im talking about a senario where to tanks (M1A2 + T-90/T-98) meet head on, of course neither can flank it, right?



mirza2003 I love your picture

Originally posted by mirza2003
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

That's not what I've heard. I've heard the Arjun has some serious problems regarding it's engine, FCS, and armor. I'm actually thinkinh of moving it back.

Originally posted by 187onu
SO according to this, The "LAW soldier" would have to hit it twice at least AT THE SAME SPOT, right? or what also could be done as said earlier, hit it once from the side because it only has like 600mm armor, heat armor or whatever it was!

Basically take this as a rule. No rpg or law is going to penetrate a modern MBT over the front. You can forget about hitting twice in the same spot because it's not going to happen.

Even if not penatraded you still knock the electricle system out or THE LEAST you f*** up something of their tank, right?
(like if you punch a human 3 times, that does damage)

Is that new armor ALL around or only at the front? So lets say that the
M1-A2 has to hit the T-90 twice, can you agree?

No, even with Kontakt-5, the T-90 only has 800mm of KE protection on it's front turret. The M1A2 firing the newest M289A3 that gets 960mm at 2km can kill a T-90 in one shot from 2km.

How/what do you mean by "well equipped"??

Im talking about a senario where to tanks (M1A2 + T-90/T-98) meet head on, of course neither can flank it, right?

If the battle range is so close that neither forces have the time to maneavur I would say it's whoever fires first. Which I believe the M1A2 would because it has the x50 FLIR and can achieve a higher rate of fire with a human loader.

Originally posted by Kozzy
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.

You are of course talking about the frontal turret glacial plate. The rest of the tank has far less protection as can be seen with RPG attacks in Iraq.

Basically take this as a rule. No rpg or law is going to penetrate a modern MBT over the front. You can forget about hitting twice in the same spot because it's not going to happen.

ok, how about if a rpg/law soldier stands infront of it and aims for the turrent? will that do the job?

or another tank happens to hit it (the turrent)!

Originally posted by 187onu

Basically take this as a rule. No rpg or law is going to penetrate a modern MBT over the front. You can forget about hitting twice in the same spot because it's not going to happen.

ok, how about if a rpg/law soldier stands infront of it and aims for the turrent? will that do the job?

or another tank happens to hit it (the turrent)!

No, that won't do it. The frontal aspects of tanks are pretty much immune to RPG type weapons. You need to get a flank shots with these to be effective.

It depends, which tank are we speaking of, what ammo is it firing?

Oh i thought the turrent is one of the most vulnarable spots of a tank!!

lets say the M1A2 and T-90/98, I know that the merkava has a # load of protection against RPGs which barely do ANY if not at all to it!!!

by the turrent I mean that thing that turns right, maybe it means something else but...?

Kozzy.. although I completely agree on your assessment of rating the T-90 over the T-98..
I wonder why you rated the T-80 over the T-98 as well..

Originally posted by 187onu
Oh i thought the turrent is one of the most vulnarable spots of a tank!!

lets say the M1A2 and T-90/98, I know that the merkava has a # load of protection against RPGs which barely do ANY if not at all to it!!!

by the turrent I mean that thing that turns right, maybe it means something else but...?

No, the turret is one of the best protected areas of a tank. It depends what type of RPG you're talking about too. The older more common ones can penetrate 300mm while the newer ones can penetrate 800mm. In the first case, against any of the tanks you listed you would need multiple rear engine hits to disable the tank. With the newer RPG rounds, they can penetrate the side of the turret and hull of the tanks you listed.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Kozzy.. although I completely agree on your assessment of rating the T-90 over the T-98..
I wonder why you rated the T-80 over the T-98 as well..

The newer models of the T-80 are superior in some aspects to the T-90. The main reason the T-90 was chosen for the Russian army is because it is much cheaper to produce.

That's not what I've heard. I've heard the Arjun has some serious problems regarding it's engine, FCS, and armor. I'm actually thinkinh of moving it back.

ya you heard that but that old story all the problam are fixed only width is litle probal for tranportion which army correcte by buying the wider trailer.

and armour never had problam it is simler to chobham i wonder where you from where you heard that news.

can you explain what is the perameter of tank listing in your siggy where is you get from any source

Originally posted by chinawhite

how come the leopard is still ranked so high

Whats wrong with the Leopard II tank. Its atleast as good as the Abrams and Challenger tanks.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by psteel]

yea any source info or links regarding the Leopard II, Leclerc 6, ect ect

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by chinawhite

how come the leopard is still ranked so high

Whats wrong with the Leopard II tank. Its atleast as good as the Abrams and Challenger tanks.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by psteel]

hes an antigerman troll, I guess....

the Leopard II is better up to date than Challenger or Abrams...

"Turret front: 27.6 in (700mm) against KE rounds. 39.4 in (1,000mm) against HEAT rounds"

thats the Leopard 2 armor, ITS NOT MUCH comepare to the M1A2 and
T-90/T-98.


ANd for some reason I cant find this armor of the Challenger 2 (DORCHESTER armor), can anybody tell me something about it!


[edit on 3-5-2005 by 187onu]

Originally posted by 187onu
"Turret front: 27.6 in (700mm) against KE rounds. 39.4 in (1,000mm) against HEAT rounds"

thats the Leopard 2 armor, ITS NOT MUCH comepare to the M1A2 and
T-90/T-98.


ANd for some reason I cant find this armor of the Challenger 2 (DORCHESTER armor), can anybody tell me something about it!


[edit on 3-5-2005 by 187onu]

But the thickness of armor doesnt say how modern or old it is!

The leopard IIs cannon is superior, the leopard II is more agile and fast, the leopard IIs cannon has a bigger range, the fire control system isnt worse than the one of challenger 2 or Abrams, its hole electronical part is high tech, it can dive several meters under water, the Abrams KE-protection is not strong enough, Abrams was designed to withstand HE, but a Leopard IIs projectile would cut trough the Abrams like a hot knife trough butter...

(maximum speed of Leopard II is in troop-test 116 km/h)


The Leopards fire control unit makes Leopard II to a great weapon against helicopters, it makes it easily possible to destroy a HIND thats cross-flying at 250km/h, 3000 meters away. And it destroys almost surely helicopters in levitation flight, at 4000 meters distance.

The Anti-nuclear/biological weapon unit in the Leopard II, makes the air cool in summer, and can be used as refrigerator, and exactly a package of 24 beers fit into that place.



And at last, to answer your stupid comment:

OF COURSE IT HAS LESS ARMOR, IT ALLWAYS HAD LESS ARMOR THAN THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH EQUIVALENTS, GERMAN MILITARY THINKS SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND SUPERIOR SPEED IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ARMOR

(blitzskrieg )

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Wodan]

We're just amateurs and specific details on armour protection and all of tank's capabilities are not revealed to us. We can only speculate on what is better than others or if one can penetrate another in the front turret. I don't agree with some of Kozzy's tank rankings but it is only a personal speculation so no harm done there.

Dorchester armour? Isn't it Choubham 2 on Challenger 2s? Choubham is just a certain type of composite armour developed by the British and no one knows of its real ratings.

OF COURSE IT HAS LESS ARMOR, IT ALLWAYS HAD LESS ARMOR THAN THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH EQUIVALENTS, GERMAN MILITARY THINKS SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND SUPERIOR SPEED IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ARMOR

now its my time to answere to your stupid comment, YOUR WRONG JUST AS THE GERMANS WERE!!! anyway what the hell the germans need tanks for? ANOTEHR INVASION??

Btw did you ever hear of a soldier? they can easily blow it up because it has barely any armor!

And now your also saying it can shoot down heli's? Its not an AAA is it?

So if an M1A2 and T-90/T-98 meet head on it is likely the T's will lose, is that what your telling me?
And where would it be the best for the Russian tanks to hit the Abram in order to destroy it head on!???

[edit on 3-5-2005 by 187onu]

Originally posted by 187onu
"Turret front: 27.6 in (700mm) against KE rounds. 39.4 in (1,000mm) against HEAT rounds"

thats the Leopard 2 armor, ITS NOT MUCH comepare to the M1A2 and
T-90/T-98.


ANd for some reason I cant find this armor of the Challenger 2 (DORCHESTER armor), can anybody tell me something about it!


[edit on 3-5-2005 by 187onu]

These ratings are probably for the Leopard 2A4, the newest model has additional frontal armor that gives it an estimated 900mm KE and 1800mm HEAT. It is just as well protected as the tanks you listed, (much more so now then the T-90 and 98)

Dorchester armor, commonly known as Chobham armor is a composite armor which is basically steel sandwiched with ceramics. It's exact composition is unknown, but it protects much better against HEAT threats then just plain steel.

Originally posted by Wodan

But the thickness of armor doesnt say how modern or old it is!

This is true. The Abrams and Leopard have had their armor upgraded significantly since their first production in 1980.

The leopard IIs cannon is superior, the leopard II is more agile and fast,

The L55 gun used on the Leopard is superior to the L44 but the M289A3 used on the Abrams still penetrates more armor then the DM53 out of an L55 gun.

the fire control system isnt worse than the one of challenger 2 or Abrams, its hole electronical part is high tech, it can dive several meters under water

The fire control system is in some ways better then the others. The Leopard's is much easier to use, although not as forgiving if error is involved.

the Abrams KE-protection is not strong enough, Abrams was designed to withstand HE, but a Leopard IIs projectile would cut trough the Abrams like a hot knife trough butter...

I don't know where you're getting this. Both the Abrams and Leopard were designed to protect against a range of threats, but mostly Soviet tanks firing HEAT rounds in the 80s. Since then, they have both recieved upgrades that give them a KE protection of 900-1000mm.

(maximum speed of Leopard II is in troop-test 116 km/h)

That's with the governer removed. The Abrams went 75mph during it's trials without the governer. The Abrams also accelerates faster then the Leopard because it has a turbine.

The Leopards fire control unit makes Leopard II to a great weapon against helicopters, it makes it easily possible to destroy a HIND thats cross-flying at 250km/h, 3000 meters away. And it destroys almost surely helicopters in levitation flight, at 4000 meters distance.

Holy #, that's a little optimistic there. It may be possible, but it sure as hell ain't easy to do what you said. Being as shot dispersion makes hitting any moving target past 3km involve a tiny bit of luck. Hitting something going 250km/h while possibly changing altitude would be wicked hard.