It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tanks

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
We've got:

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


You forgot about Leopard 2A6 and Leclerc.

IMO T-80 and T-90 are weaker in comparison to the rest. Regarding which I think Leopard 2A6 is the best (maybe apart from Abrams).




posted on May, 6 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
NO i didn't, its unlikely that we'll see those tanks in action so never mind them!



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
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?


Well yes, but tanks don't fight alone, they fight in platoons, companies, battalions, and in task forces with infantry. When a tank shell penetrates another tank, it fills the inside of the tank with spalling, basically bits of peeled off armor. These little bits of steel, DU, and other stuff are going very fast and are usually very hot from the entering round. These bounce around on the inside of the tank and injure/kill the crew and disable the tank's systems. So yes, if the T-90 gets the first shot on the Abrams glacis it has "won"


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%)?


The worst thing about Russian tanks is their internal design. Unlike the Abrams, Challenger, and other western tanks that have their ammo stored in their turret bustle seperated from the crew. The Russian tanks have their ammo stored in a ring around the floor of the turret. If a shell penetrates, the spalling will usually hit the ammo and detonate it, blowing the turret off the tank and killing the crew. Western tanks are much more survivable in case of penetration.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   


The worst thing about Russian tanks is their internal design. Unlike the Abrams, Challenger, and other western tanks that have their ammo stored in their turret bustle seperated from the crew. The Russian tanks have their ammo stored in a ring around the floor of the turret. If a shell penetrates, the spalling will usually hit the ammo and detonate it, blowing the turret off the tank and killing the crew. Western tanks are much more survivable in case of penetration.


that way indian ARJUN also has ammu/storage like western tank.so ARJUN is much better than the T-90



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Tank hardware is undeniably important. I certainly don't envy the poor Iraqi tankers who had to take T-72Ms firing out-dated steel penetrators against the Abrams. That being said, tactics and training will often bridge the gap in a close match (sometimes even if it's not a close match.) The Iraqis didn't have any clue what they were doing in 1992, or it wouldn't have been such an awe-inspiring smack-down. They didn't keep their tanks cold to conceal themselves, they didn't try to bring the fight to us so that they could get up close to where their inferior ammunition could penetrate- they just sat around waiting for us to come set them on fire. So we did.

So after you calculate tank rankings you have to factor in the quality of crew training as well as the competence of officers. A huge conscript army might run into problems such as poor maintance or under-training of crews. A well funded volunteer military may greatly out-perform expecatations.

You could give the Iranians the M1A2 and let them go through their typical training cycle with it for a couple of years, then match them up against an equal force of American tankers, and we'd mop the floor with them because we train more intensively. We'd acquire targets put rounds down range faster and we'd probably outmanuever them to gain flank or rear shots.

An interesting point of this is that a well drilled Russian tank unit may very well be able to turn their manueverability advantage into a victory over superior NATO tanks. The catch to this is that while skilled use of Russian tanks is good for killing other thanks, their relative lack of protection makes them easier prey for infantry based defenses. This is acceptible to soviet doctrine though, which considered infantry to be the spearhead and used tanks primarily as a reserve for defeating armored breakthroughts or exploiting breaks made by their own infantry.

The US by contrast has taken a path of using tanks offensively to execute a manuever doctrine aimed at penetrating enemy lines and destroying hardware, which is why heavier tanks only make sense for us. (what doesn't make any sense to me is why they don't replace the M240 on the Abrams with a Mk-19, since running over infantry is part of what the Abrams does, but that's another thread I guess.)


M6D

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
technically a chally should still be ranked over a leo, considering its superior armour protection, and its combat proveness, you cant say somthings better then somthing if its never been tested in combat, same thing to be applied for all who rank a t-90 over the chally



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The most dangerous armoured vehicle allied forces faced in Iraq was actually an Iraqi BMP-2

It's 30mm cannon completely chewed up an Abrams after it swung around a corner where it had been hiding behind some old sheds

The cannon... external sensors and weaponry were all destroyed and the tank was rendered completely useless... In fact it was so badly damaged it was scrapped.

The BMP-2 was destroyed by a 2nd abrams and the crew in the 1st was rescued... though one I believe was critically injured.



So a light, aluminium skinned APC can in fact take out an M1A2

[edit on 6-5-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
The most dangerous armoured vehicle allied forces faced in Iraq was actually an Iraqi BMP-2

It's 30mm cannon completely chewed up an Abrams after it swung around a corner where it had been hiding behind some old sheds

The cannon... external sensors and weaponry were all destroyed and the tank was rendered completely useless... In fact it was so badly damaged it was scrapped.

The BMP-2 was destroyed by a 2nd abrams and the crew in the 1st was rescued... though one I believe was critically injured.



So a light, aluminium skinned APC can in fact take out an M1A2

[edit on 6-5-2005 by Lucretius]


well then the BMP2 failed its job if it dint killed the enemy. if u injure it then it will still just kill u.


M6D

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
its well known anyway that the abrams cant withstand shots to the side especially at such close ranges, however if we look at the numbers, its still obvious the abrams is superior, and the crew didnt get killed, so whats the big deal about?



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
the BMP is a joke


I heavy machine gun can punch through it's armour...

I was implying that yes you are correct... today though technology and firepower can be decisive overall... it can still come down to training and tactics at the end of the day.

Head to head the BMP would not have a chance against a MBT... but given the circumstances I would say the crew did well


Also americans reported that Iraqi's fighting in older T-62's fought better than the Republican guard in newer T-72's... and actually scored some hits.

One abram was "mission killed" by a T-62, though the crew was uninjured.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Wow, Im sitting on the edge of my chair
, a BMP eat an Abram's armor from the side, DAMN, that must have been painfull for us
..
doensn't the BMP-2 have TOW missiles just like the bradly???

-btw, TOWs are just as powerfull as HELLFIRE missiles right?-

I assume that he fired at the lower glacis right?

[edit on 6-5-2005 by 187onu]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
If he disabled the main gun and sensors I'm guessing he was aiming for the turret ring. That's a common weak point on armored vehicles.

I remember hearing a blurb about some mission (I don't remember if it was Granada or where) but a team of Navy SEALs engaged an APC and its infantry (i forget the model of vehicle). They disabled the vehicle's turret with small arms fire.

It's really not all that uncommon for lighter forces to best tank forces by gaining shots at weak points, either by virtue of surprise or agility.
American M2s and LAVs have had no problem punching it out with Iraqi tanks at close range when ambushed.
Chad used "technicals" (civilian trucks armed with heavy machine guns) to rout Kaddafi's Pan-African Legion.
During the Six-Day Smackdown the Israelis broke through a superior Egyptian force and (with partial success) blocked their line of retreat, resulting in the capture of countless Egyptian tanks (leading to a common joke that Russian tanks come with instrumentation already labeled in Hebrew).


Edit to add: The major advantage of the BMP is that it carries it's own infantry. If well employed they have the capability to cover slightly longer distances than tanks and present an infantry and light armor threat, especially in urban areas or other constricted terrain. Their speed, relative easiness on the roads, and the fact that their cannon isn't completely useless at close range does make them a half decent threat to tanks in urban environments, however because they are not adequately protected against HMGs they would not fare quite as well against infantry forces, which would theoretically have a hearing advantage and faster reaction time than a tank. Whip around the corner, pepper an Abrams, and run, maybe it will work. Whip around the corner and open up on infantry, and you better hope they don't have a Ma-Duece or a Mk-19 mounted on any of those hummers.


[edit on 6-5-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

It's 30mm cannon completely chewed up an Abrams after it swung around a corner where it had been hiding behind some old sheds


Is this in 91 or 03, I don't recall seeing sheds and crones out in the middle of the desert in 91.
Also forward deployed Predators armed with Hellfire's will take care of future threats like his, tank crew did not have such a system in 91.




West Point, Out.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The BMP-2 strafed the abrams... starting from the front and working it's way to the back.

Engagement was at a range of under 200 meters.

The attack took place in an Iraqi built up area, Westpoint... obviously the BMP-2 would not stand a chance against MBT's in the open, after all it is only a light APC

EDIT: Found the original quote... from a US tanker just returned from Iraq


sure, we were at a stop point. we had been up and awake for 48hours. so we tried to get a little rest. maybe a hour or two. it was around 05:00 we were near a built up area with some oil industry stuff. A BMP-2 had been hiding around the terminal buildings. The BMP-2 engaged a Abrams at around 100-200 meters with his 30MM. The Abrams main gun , BATTERIES/POWER-PACK , primary site , wind sensor were destroyed. the crew was fine but the tank was "mission killed"

If you can picture a M1 it took all the fire on its right side. the BMP stared shooting to the front and strafed to the rear of the Abrams.


EDIT-2: the BMP-2 uses a smaller cannon (30mm) than the BMP (70mm), but it is capable of rapid fire making it much more deadly

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
This also means that if they would have had HINDs they would have destroyed alot more tanks, without using the HELLFIRE missiles of course!



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
The BMP-2 strafed the abrams... starting from the front and working it's way to the back.

Engagement was at a range of under 200 meters.

The attack took place in an Iraqi built up area, Westpoint... obviously the BMP-2 would not stand a chance against MBT's in the open, after all it is only a light APC

EDIT: Found the original quote... from a US tanker just returned from Iraq


sure, we were at a stop point. we had been up and awake for 48hours. so we tried to get a little rest. maybe a hour or two. it was around 05:00 we were near a built up area with some oil industry stuff. A BMP-2 had been hiding around the terminal buildings. The BMP-2 engaged a Abrams at around 100-200 meters with his 30MM. The Abrams main gun , BATTERIES/POWER-PACK , primary site , wind sensor were destroyed. the crew was fine but the tank was "mission killed"

If you can picture a M1 it took all the fire on its right side. the BMP stared shooting to the front and strafed to the rear of the Abrams.


EDIT-2: the BMP-2 uses a smaller cannon (30mm) than the BMP (70mm), but it is capable of rapid fire making it much more deadly

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Lucretius]


I have a real hard time believing this. What forum did you hear this on? Are you sure he's the real deal.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So after you calculate tank rankings you have to factor in the quality of crew training as well as the competence of officers. A huge conscript army might run into problems such as poor maintance or under-training of crews. A well funded volunteer military may greatly out-perform expecatations.
An interesting point of this is that a well drilled Russian tank unit may very...

This is true, tactics, training, and maneavur is probably the most important thing in a battle. A well trained force equipped with T-55's can outmaneavur and outflank a green force of M1A1s.

The US by contrast has taken a path of using tanks offensively to execute a manuever doctrine aimed at penetrating enemy lines and destroying hardware, which is why heavier tanks only make sense for us. (what doesn't make any sense to me is why they don't replace the M240 on the Abrams with a Mk-19, since running over infantry is part of what the Abrams does, but that's another thread I guess.)


The answer to this question can be found in Thunder Run. The Abrams carries 11,000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo, more then double any other tank. Even with this massive supply of ammo, they were still running out on the thunder run. The Abrams can place a 5 round burst on target at 800mm, enough to kill any person.(I can do it at 1400mm in Steel Beasts). You wouldn't be able to carry nearly as much 40mm rounds, their increased lethality doesn't outweigh the lack of ammo. Any target that can't be engaged with the machine guns can just be killed with an MPAT.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
Wow, Im sitting on the edge of my chair
, a BMP eat an Abram's armor from the side, DAMN, that must have been painfull for us
..
doensn't the BMP-2 have TOW missiles just like the bradly???

The TOW is an american made missile, why would a Russian IFV have one? It probably didn't have a missile equipped, but if it did it would be the AT-3,4,8 or something like that.


-btw, TOWs are just as powerfull as HELLFIRE missiles right?-


No, not at all. The older TOWs didn't pack nearly as much punch, the newer TOWs overcame this by having a top attack warhead, which penetrates the thinner armor there.

I assume that he fired at the lower glacis right?

The tank (I dunno if this incident even happend) wasn't penetrated. The 30mm rounds just damaged to sensors and equipment on the outside of the tank,

[edit on 6-5-2005 by 187onu]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
so how much armor can the -newer- TOWs penatrade?





The tank (I dunno if this incident even happend) wasn't penetrated. The 30mm rounds just damaged to sensors and equipment on the outside of the tank,


oh thats all, ok



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Not much, they have a relatively small warhead. The TOW-2B utilizes a top attack EFP warhead. When the missile is over the tank, the warhead shoots down into the tank's weakest armor, at the top. The armor there is barely over an inch thick so it doesn't take much at all.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join