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.

 

best MBT

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset
how about the chinese ZTZ-99?

they have like a laser defence system or something.....


read the "ACTIVE LASER COUNTERMEASURES" section

www.sinodefence.com...



This I have to say is a interesting sounding system. I dont know how well this works but I guess depending on the target systems it could be effective.

I have personally wondered if a system some what like this that detects when a tank is being "painted" with a laser could then be made to throw out its own multiple dummy laser signals to confuse a incomming laser guided weapon to make it miss. I would think something like that would work in theory.

But of course your enemy could just go back to wire guided missiles.




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
urmomma must be talking about operational range rather than firing range.

Either A. He misinterpreted 5km kill as 5K miles operational range and thought we were crazy

or B. He thinks we're complete idiots and thought that we meant 5km as its operation range.

I have a hard time imagining that he really believes the Chally can hit something from 205 miles away.


lol1 sorry ima horrible typer i need to work on em imeant to 5km is not 2.5 miles i forgot the decimal and accidntally typed a 0 anyways back to the topic true its the longest kill but other tanks are capable of doing it

DU rounds drammatically increase range cseserv.engr.scu.edu... its somewere i there in the first half saying it increases the range to 5km
Just because its the longest doesnt mean its the only one cpapable of it. Its obviously the longest attempted. I mean really is 2.5 miles necessary. Ok now for the armor challenger uses 2nd gen chobham i know the M1A1 uses chobham. Im nut sure about he M1A2 SEP i know it has composite armor like the chobham but instead of asteel case its DU.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

I have personally wondered if a system some what like this that detects when a tank is being "painted" with a laser could then be made to throw out its own multiple dummy laser signals to confuse a incomming laser guided weapon to make it miss.


Not really because the targeting system of the missile in question could be made to only acquire a specific frequency. So unless the lasers emitted from the tank match that frequency they wont do squat.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Well it's always best to go by what's been battle recorded, not by what the engineers say it can do.

Remember, once McDonnel Douglas and Boeing engineers said that it was impossible to land an F-15 in a controlled fashion without a wing, yet an Islraeli pilot managed to do it after a horrific mid-air collision.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
I mean really is 2.5 miles necessary.


I would say so ,
if I can kill the enemy before they can kill me then all the better for me of course it is necessary.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo

Originally posted by urmomma158
I mean really is 2.5 miles necessary.


I would say so ,
if I can kill the enemy before they can kill me then all the better for me of course it is necessary.


depends on what ur facing and how deadly the enemy MBT is.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Well it's always best to go by what's been battle recorded, not by what the engineers say it can do.

Remember, once McDonnel Douglas and Boeing engineers said that it was impossible to land an F-15 in a controlled fashion without a wing, yet an Islraeli pilot managed to do it after a horrific mid-air collision.

Shattered OUT...


true but the M1A2 and Chall 2 both have 120 mm its based on the DU itself not entirely the cannon. Theres no reason why any 120mm gun can fire at 5km the chall and m1 and for that matter any 120mm gunshould be able to



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I thought the ztz99's laser system was for directly attacking enemy MBT's optics and the gunner?

A laser warning reciever is fitted,it warns the crew they face the threat, locate the source using a lower powered beam then increase the power once located , disabling the optics and maybe blinding the gunner.

Forgive me Im not up to speed with chinese tank design if this is wrong please correct me folks.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Not really because the targeting system of the missile in question could be made to only acquire a specific frequency. So unless the lasers emitted from the tank match that frequency they wont do squat.



Ah specific frequencies good point.

But if the system could match the correct frequency it was being painted with could a system like that work in theory atleast?

BTW buckaroo I think you pretty much hit it on the head for the Chinese system. I havent seen much info beyond that though

[edit on 13-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
what I was thinking is that tanks are not like air planes, and they have a very limited fire range
they usually spot their target outside the firing range, and lock it with their tank guns, and gradually march forward untill they can hit their enemy.

so if the laser system of ZTZ99 works as described, it can pretty much disable its enemy tanks optics while both are outside their firing range trying to focus on eachother, and that pretty much makes ZTZ99 very strong

but that is only if the system can work effeciently as described.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
In theory it might work, maybe the targeting system will be confused because it now has two beams instead of one. I guess the only way to be sure is to test it.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In theory it might work, maybe the targeting system will be confused because it now has two beams instead of one. I guess the only way to be sure is to test it.


I see it more as a attack on the enemy gunner, I heard that the chinese tanks laser is actually a burning laser, like i said to disable optics and gunners poor old eyes

Don't know enough about lasers to comment further, but i will say that from what i know that it is designed to be an active rather than passive system ,whever or not it works is another thing.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Supposedly the Chinese laser system overwhelm the sensitive optics by increasing in intensity.
Its like shining a flashlight at someone who is wearing NVG’s, it disrupts the system. However this is what the Chinese claim, their is no way to verify it so I guess you just have to take their word for it.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
The gun in the chally and the gun onj the abrams are 2 totally different concepts one is rifled and th1 other is smoothebore!


M1A2 SEP - as discussed earlier - its a moot point as the us army will only ever have 300 of them

The main tank of the us army is the M1A1



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
The gun in the chally and the gun onj the abrams are 2 totally different concepts one is rifled and th1 other is smoothebore!


Correct ,

but was every one aware that back in 04 BAE land systems was awarded a contract to develop a new smooth bore main gun, for the Challanger II, any one have any more info on this I can't seem to find any thing.

*if the British army are adopting or thinking smooth bore guns (which i think is un likely) it would mean they coudn't fire ther HESH rounds as this can't as far as i know be fired from a smooth barrel the US and germans use HEAT rounds.

*Also folks on the Chlly II range issue the export se version has a a newengine a transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine mated to a 295TM automatic transmission. this is smaller yet more powerful and so lets the tank carry more fuel nudging the range up to nearly 550 km on roads

[edit on 14-3-2006 by buckaroo]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by buckaroo]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158


true but the M1A2 and Chall 2 both have 120 mm its based on the DU itself not entirely the cannon. Theres no reason why any 120mm gun can fire at 5km the chall and m1 and for that matter any 120mm gunshould be able to


not true do not forget that the British army use a seperate powder charge when firing shells this give a higher muzzle velocity which helps with accuracy and range especially when you couple this with the rifled barrel.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Why is this post still open? I had a 3 minutes and did a simple search, here are a few of this same post that have already been done:

www.belowtopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.belowtopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I don’t have the energy or time to post AGAIN, but the Abrams has the best actual combat record of ANY modern tank. Comparing any other UN-battle proven tank to it based on specs is bogus. Come talk to me when your tanks has actually fought.

Analogy:
My boxer has fought hundreds of times and has won 99% of his fights. Your boxer has not fought one fight yet but his stats look good better. Who’s a better fighter? Case and point

There were over 1900 Abrams deployed for Desert Storm, something like 19 were disabled. Today, nobody is reporting officially yet, but there has been an estimated 80 or so Abrams disabled in Iraq so far out of about the same 1900 total tanks, and that’s fighting a style it wasn’t meant to fight!! That’s less than 4 out of a hundred fighting out of its element.

I’m sorry folks; the Abrams is the best tank on the planet. And until another tank can post the same REAL LIVE COMBAT record, it won’t change.

I can make a magical plasma ultimate kill tank of doom with impenetrable uber armor and its second rate as long as it hasn’t fought yet. Period.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc


Analogy:
My boxer has fought hundreds of times and has won 99% of his fights. Your boxer has not fought one fight yet but his stats look good better. Who’s a better fighter? Case and point



Poor analogy both the Challanger I and II are combat proven as is the Merkava, only question marks are over the latest German and French designs.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo


Poor analogy both the Challanger I and II are combat proven as is the Merkava, only question marks are over the latest German and French designs.


I know that, but what are the stats? How many Challengers are fighting in the backstreets of Baghdad right now? How many have taken IED hits? How about IED's made from a half dozen artillery shells that explodes under the tank? RPG's to the rear or from above? Come talk to me when your tank has faced asymmetrical warfare, and bring some numbers.

Until then the Abrams is the best.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Imho theres no clear best MBT. There are multiple areas. Best bang for the buck, best cheap tank and best of the best and the results of that also are influenced by the strategy you are planning to use.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join