Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tanks

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
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]


Yes, since 1980 and on western tanks have generally been superior to Russian ones in one way or another. Western tanks are much more survivable then Russians ones and their weaponry has been better in most areas.

It would have to hit in the glacis or lower hull.




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
"A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull."



Now this is the one Western tankers are going to have nightmares about. Its giant smoothbore cannon combined with the crewless turret are going to make this very frightening.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   


"A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.


Holy #, 152mm cannon, thats alot!!!



Where would the T-90/T-98 have to hit the Abram if facing head on? one shot right...?!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
They would have to aim low and hit the glacis and lower hull.

The T-95 will most likely be a good tank, it could also be an expensive failure.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
They would have to aim low and hit the glacis and lower hull.

The T-95 will most likely be a good tank, it could also be an expensive failure.


Now is the T-95 Chinese or Russian?


And on an earlier note..
I was asking why you ratedd the T-80 above the T-98..
T-90 above the T-98 is understandable but why T-80 above T-98..??



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Isn't the T98 supposed to be rated above the T90 since its newer which = newer electronics, newer version of armor (maybe even better). and besides usually something newer is always better then the older version otherwise why make something new and worse, might as well stick with the older version right
!!!



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
this subject has been disscused many times before.
i think the conclusion was that most of these tanks were designed for different situations. you arent going to send a Merkava to vietnam.

M1A2SEP
Challenger II
Merkava 4
Leclerc
Type-98
leopard A6
T-80um1
t-90


[edit on 4-5-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Kozzy
They would have to aim low and hit the glacis and lower hull.

The T-95 will most likely be a good tank, it could also be an expensive failure.


Now is the T-95 Chinese or Russian?


And on an earlier note..
I was asking why you ratedd the T-80 above the T-98..
T-90 above the T-98 is understandable but why T-80 above T-98..??


The T-95 is Russian

Because the T-80UM1 is in ways better then the T-90. The main reason the T-90 was selected for the Russian army was because it is cheaper.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
Isn't the T98 supposed to be rated above the T90 since its newer which = newer electronics, newer version of armor (maybe even better). and besides usually something newer is always better then the older version otherwise why make something new and worse, might as well stick with the older version right
!!!


No, not really. Newer doesn't mean better. Especially when things are from two different countries with 2 different levels of computing technology



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Well, underestimating is always good for the country being underestimated, I couldn't be happier if Type-98 was rated the worst tank in the world, it'll be a whole lot different in battle though.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
The armor levels on the top tanks are about the same, where they differ would be in emphasis which depends alot on what emphasis the doctrine chooes.Some have better overall frontal protection , while other emphasis improved all round protection of the tank. Still others emphasis front turret protection over over all frontal protection.

In theory the 125mm should out perform the 120mm smooth bore but the 125mm guns use autoloaders that limit the length of the projectiles. Alot depends on these ammunition design. The KE projectiles have emphasised longer and longer rods to gain increased penetration and newer alloy technology has allowed DU projectiles to out perform the tungsten projectiles of comparible mass. However the gap against the latest alloy penetrators at high impact velocities is now insignificant.

Because of the size limitation placed on 125mm autoloaders, this places them behind the 120mm in potential performance. However some of the 125mm CE rounds employ tandem charges with the higher density alloys to reduce the resistance of the modern special armors, and may well allow frontal penetration of modern battle tanks anyway.


In terms of FCS there is not a lot to choose from in the top western tanks,since most of the components in these are the same or were designed to the same specifications. Where there might be a big difference is in real rate of fire. Tanks like the Leopard 2 and M-1A1 can shoot several rounds in 10 seconds under ideal conditions , while the Challenger-2 should not be far behind.

The comparable Russian /chinese tanks are closer to 1 round ever 6-8 seconds. The Leclerc is probably similiar to this since theres a video of that tank firing on the move and it takes about 8-10 seconds on the tap between shots. The latest T-90 model may well employ improvements making it comparable to the Leopard/Abrams tanks ,since its demonstrated to shoot shots in as little as 4-5 seconds.

The Russians do have an improvement program that speeds up autoloader and allows longer projectiles and I gather is safer with a sectioned carrosell loader that has demonstrated ablity to limit/vent[?] blast thus avoiding the nasty ammo fires associated with that design. However as long as they also store exposed ammo in the fighting compartment that feature would be moot.It may be that such modified Russian tanks would also employ a bustle autoloader to achieve these higher rates of fire and store all ammo safely in such autoloaders with blast vents?

Any way thats what I've read from various internet forums etc.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   


Because of the size limitation placed on 125mm autoloaders, this places them behind the 120mm in potential performance. However some of the 125mm CE rounds employ tandem charges with the higher density alloys to reduce the resistance of the modern special armors, and may well allow frontal penetration of modern battle tanks anyway.


Oh so now the Russian tanks CAN penatrade the abram/challenger's, IM GETTING CONFUSED
!!!
Because Kozzy just told me that the T-90/T-98 cant penatrade the front of an Abram/Challenger!!

How about we agree on something and than continue our conversation
!!!



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu


Oh so now the Russian tanks CAN penatrade the abram/challenger's, IM GETTING CONFUSED
!!!
Because Kozzy just told me that the T-90/T-98 cant penatrade the front of an Abram/Challenger!!

How about we agree on something and than continue our conversation
!!!


It may penetrate IF the triple tandem charge does work in series and IF the liner is DU materials.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu



Because of the size limitation placed on 125mm autoloaders, this places them behind the 120mm in potential performance. However some of the 125mm CE rounds employ tandem charges with the higher density alloys to reduce the resistance of the modern special armors, and may well allow frontal penetration of modern battle tanks anyway.


Oh so now the Russian tanks CAN penatrade the abram/challenger's, IM GETTING CONFUSED
!!!
Because Kozzy just told me that the T-90/T-98 cant penatrade the front of an Abram/Challenger!!

How about we agree on something and than continue our conversation
!!!


I don't what Psteel has heard. But I haven't heard of any 125mm HEAT rounds capable of penetrating the front of an Abrams/Challenger, even if using tandem warheads


M6D

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
i dont know why you guys rank the challenger so low..in fact, none of you even give a good reason, which im very confused about, if anything it should be ranked second to the abrams, or in direct contest with the abrams, due to the aforementioned reasons in a topic about this a while ago



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   


It may penetrate IF the triple tandem charge does work in series and IF the liner is DU materials.


Im not following, what are triple tandem and DU, what does it stand for/mean?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
The Challenger II has a firing rate of 8 rounds per minute..

However I don't know how this compares to other tanks... I will look into it



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu



It may penetrate IF the triple tandem charge does work in series and IF the liner is DU materials.


Im not following, what are triple tandem and DU, what does it stand for/mean?



Triple Tandem charge means it has three shaped charges [of differing sizes] One is quite small [about 30-40mm] one is medium [about 75mm], while the other is full sized [125mm]. I'm told that shaped charges can dependably penetrate from 5-7 times its diameter and if these are in series the total penetration should be around 1300-1400mm.

When you read about armor you often read about KE and CE protection. What they are saying is that the same armor has different levels of resistance to different types of shells or projectiles. Normally with modern armors the level of CE protection [protection against shaped charges] is twice as high as the protection against KE [APFSDS AP etc]. However the shaped charge figure assumes a copper liner charge. Since the late 1980s projectile designers have experimented with heavy density shaped charge liners like tungsten alloy and Dupleted Uranium liners. Some french examples revealed penetation equal to 8 to 10 times the shaped charge diameter with the DU liners.

Its not much in the public sources, but these heavy liners are reported to also cancel out most of the 'extra ' benifites that give modern armor the traditional extra protection against these CE projectiles. Its almost as if they are acting like KE projectiles when they penetrate. If this all bares out, then the 125mm shells with that design of shaped charge could well penetate most if not all modern tanks frontal armor.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
The Challenger II has a firing rate of 8 rounds per minute..

However I don't know how this compares to other tanks... I will look into it


The Challenger's rate of fire is slightly lower then other manually loaded tanks because it uses two piece ammo. The loader must slam the projectile then slam the propellent seperately. It's not much, maybe 1 second longer at most.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   


Triple Tandem charge means it has three shaped charges [of differing sizes] One is quite small [about 30-40mm] one is medium [about 75mm], while the other is full sized [125mm]. I'm told that shaped charges can dependably penetrate from 5-7 times its diameter and if these are in series the total penetration should be around 1300-1400mm.


VERY VERY INTERESTING...



allright, Kozzy, suppose an Abram and T-90/T98 meet (you said that the Abram will win), but suppose (I assume the range is equel) the Russian tank shoots first and hits the lower glacis (once again you said that it would destroy it) then the Russain won, right?

and suppose the Abram hits the other first but not at a point where its fatal, how much damage will that do to the Russain tank (1%-100%)?






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join