1121 replies to this topic

[Death_Pheonix]

yes, a 12 year old that is a military expert

[Ubermedic]

Hey guys. Look at it this way.
If shit does go down and the world becomes a wasteland.
I've beaten every Fallout game. I'll live.
Hopefully

[for russia!]

honestly, i would love to see BMP-3s for kassad, light and powerful. i love the russian military. all this statistics that the M1 is ths strongest is wrong. in real life, the main gun of a T-72 can penetrate the frontal armour of an M1 at 2000m. i'm sorta a military expert. the picture is a sprut (u know, BMP-3 artillery version) look at trim vane. (i'm 15)

Edited by for russia!, 04 September 2007 - 01:09 AM.

[Death_Pheonix]

a Sherman could take out 100 t 90 tanks. because it is american

[Pendaelose]

honestly, i would love to see BMP-3s for kassad, light and powerful. i love the russian military. all this statistics that the M1 is ths strongest is wrong. in real life, the main gun of a T-72 can penetrate the frontal armour of an M1 at 2000m. i'm sorta a military expert. the picture is a sprut (u know, BMP-3 artillery version) look at trim vane. (i'm 15)

I'm not calling the M-1 the BEST tank in the world. I resepect all modern battle tanks, but you should consider the fact that the US enganged and destroyed over 1000 T-72 tanks in Iraq without loosing even a single M1 tank. Those kind of statisitcs are glaring when you compare the M1 to a T72. And the front armor on a M1 CAN stop a T72 shell. I personaly know tankers who were in that combat.

More realistic comparisons to the M1 are the Leopard 2, the Merkva, or T90. The old T72 just wasn't in the same legue as the more modern tanks.

a Sherman could take out 100 t 90 tanks. because it is american

[partyzanPaulZy]

But don't forget modernization of these old soviet tanks - for example czech T74e (officially) is equivalent to M1.

On the other hand our stupid politicians bought 200 Pandur infantry carriers in recent years in cost of 270 M1 Abrams instead of creation own czech armored transport like old OT-64. OT-64 was one of the world most modern a. t. in 1970's (1960's ?). In few words they bought expensive small "tins".
And Czechoslovakia was weaponary power

Edited by partyzanPaulZy, 04 September 2007 - 02:16 PM.

[Pendaelose]

But don't forget modernization of these old soviet tanks - for example czech T74e (officially) is equivalent to M1.

On the other hand our stupid politicians bought 200 Pandur infantry carriers in recent years in cost of 270 M1 Abrams instead of creation own czech armored transport like old OT-64. OT-64 was one of the world most modern a. t. in 1970's (1960's ?). In few words they bought expensive small "tins".
And Czechoslovakia was weaponary power

ofcourse if they fully modernize it then its a modern tank and fits the group of modern tanks I suggested, but just to say "T72" is not quite the same thing.

and modernization of old equipment is what keep sthe M1 in service as well. The basic tank is 20 years old, but upgrades (especialy in targeting and acuracy) have made a huge gap between the M1 and the M1A2. So to say TankXX is a match for an M1 doesn't mean it can even get within firing range of an M1A2. But again, this is just another case of Modern vs late cold war era equipment.

Most modern AT shells, armor, targeting, etc, are very comprable to each other, and if the tank has all its equipment up to date its ready for the show, but it should also be called by its propper name.

A quick alibi for the exception. Creator in the past has pointed out that most NATO tanks are Anti-Tank Tanks. While many Russian tanks are more "General Purpose". In this respect many NATO tanks will be able to trounce thier counter parts in a 1vs1 engangement, but the Russian tank is far better suited for use in other roles. This is simply a different aproach to combat, and realisticly (given the combat trends of the last 20 years) probably much more sensable. In the post cold-war era almost all tank use has been vs infantry and insugents etc. There has been very little need for dedicated AT-Tanks.

Edited by Pendaelose, 04 September 2007 - 03:09 PM.

[olli]

the british Challenger 2 tank is the most accurate tank in the world. it can hit a football from over 2-3 miles away. meaning it could take out an M1A2 in 1 hit, because it fires Kinetic penetrating rounds(the armour piercing ones) destroying all the crew members inside and HE rounds.

BUT...it can not fire its gun as accuratly on the move, so it would be equal in combat with the M1A2. the M1A2 I think is the best all round tank. although it may not have the accurcy of challanger 2, it can fire its gun on the move. the both have roughly the same amount and type of armour.

but a challenger 2 Vs an M1A2..... that would be a very interesting and equally matched fight.

Edited by olli, 04 September 2007 - 06:03 PM.

[Pendaelose]

the british Challenger 2 tank is the most accurate tank in the world. it can hit a football from over 2-3 miles away. meaning it could take out an M1A2 in 1 hit, because it fires Kinetic penetrating rounds(the armour piercing ones) destroying all the crew members inside and HE rounds.

BUT...it can not fire its gun as accuratly on the move, so it would be equal in combat with the M1A2. the M1A2 I think is the best all round tank. although it may not have the accurcy of challanger 2, it can fire its gun on the move. the both have roughly the same amount and type of armour.

but a challenger 2 Vs an M1A2..... that would be a very interesting and equally matched fight.

another factor is having acuracy up to 2-3 miles is not the same as having line of sight for 2-3 miles... thats where good planning at the tactical level can make all the difference.

[impi]

I'm not calling the M-1 the BEST tank in the world. I resepect all modern battle tanks, but you should consider the fact that the US enganged and destroyed over 1000 T-72 tanks in Iraq without loosing even a single M1 tank.

Because the USA have Apaches, A-10´s ^^. Whenever US-Soldiers engage enemies, they call them and in a few minutes everything is turned into dust . It would be a wonder if ANY tank would survive that^^

I think the best tank is the Leopard 2A6. German tank

a Sherman could take out 100 t 90 tanks. because it is american

looool

Edited by impi, 04 September 2007 - 09:06 PM.

[olli]

another factor is having acuracy up to 2-3 miles is not the same as having line of sight for 2-3 miles... thats where good planning at the tactical level can make all the difference.

exactly. if a challenger had a line of site fire on a target 2-3 miles away...even if it was moving it would be dead. but like you say...if the enemy has planned well...and is tactical it means nothing

[Pendaelose]

I'm not bashing the brit tank, that kind of acuracy is very impressive, and I think your right, it would be a very hard match between them, or any modern tanks.

The 2-3 mile range demands pre-planning for positions that have that kind of visibility. This implies holding these positions defenseivly. If the enemy is forced to enter such a kill zone it would be toast, but thats only if you can force them. Often such positions are easily driven around, or hit from the air. It really just depends on the situation.

[olli]

yeah...usually they are deployed on higher terrain where they can scan the area.

also in close combat they are really good...but its strenght lies in its accuracy.

the M1A2 in my opinion is one of the best allround comabt tanks...especially in urban comabt.

[for russia!]

the british Challenger 2 tank is the most accurate tank in the world. it can hit a football from over 2-3 miles away. meaning it could take out an M1A2 in 1 hit, because it fires Kinetic penetrating rounds(the armour piercing ones) destroying all the crew members inside and HE rounds.

T-80 and T-90 could fire refleks anti-tank missiles to a range of 5 km. and it can shoot down low-flying helicopters. what MBT can shoot down a helicopter. there is something about russian tanks that make them look awesome. they look robust

[Pendaelose]

I did give Russian tanks credit for being flexable. As for missiles the US mounts TOW missiles on Bradlys and Humvees. they have similar flexable performance for anti-armor and low flying anti-heli. As mentioned previously the NATO tanks (Chalenger2, Leopard2, Abrams, etc) are mision specific Tank killers and would not be armed with the missile.

The missile iteslf is a very awsome toy, but in many ways it fals into the same catagory as the Chalanger's long range acuracy. That range is great if you have a position that allows for a 5km line of sight. And a btw, don't forget to convert you km to miles, or visa versa, it brings that 5km down to size at 3.125. Range comperable to the Chalanger's kill range (as posted by Olli, I've not checked the numbers myself, but I'm taking everyone at face value)

[Creator]

a Sherman could take out 100 t 90 tanks. because it is american

but you should consider the fact that the US enganged and destroyed over 1000 T-72 tanks in Iraq without loosing even a single M1 tank.

US enganged and destroyed over 1000 german Tiger and Panther tanks during WW2 without loosing even a single M1 tank! WOW! M1 is super!

Now let's be serious. About 80% of T-72s had been destroyed by air strikes. About 20% had been abandoned by Iraqi tankeers and then exploded by american demolition troops. And about 1% had been destroyed by common efforts of american infantry and tanks. M1 was used versus T-72 very rarely. Just a dozen of T-72s destroyed by Abramses is not a statistic at all.

Those kind of statisitcs are glaring when you compare the M1 to a T72. And the front armor on a M1 CAN stop a T72 shell. I personaly know tankers who were in that combat.

It had been discussed in this topic as well. The thing is that both tanks have different AP shells. For example, both 3BM22 and 3BM48 shells had been developed for T-72. But they are not the same. 3BM48 has 2 times better armor piercing than 3BM22. Iraquis were using 3BM22 and even earlier models such as 3BM15 and 3BM17 (which are even worse). They had nothing modern. Also both T-72 and M1 tanks have different modifications. For example, M1 and M1A2SEP are not the same. Also the difference between T-72 and T-72BM is as big as the difference between Sherman and Abrams. So, it is incorrect to say that an Abrams is better than a T-72. It's just stupid. Such statement is similar to the words "A tree is better than a bush".

More realistic comparisons to the M1 are the Leopard 2, the Merkva, or T90. The old T72 just wasn't in the same legue as the more modern tanks.

T-90 is T-72BU. This modification had been renamed to T-90 for advertisement purposes. Also you have to take into account that T-72BM (which had been developed in 2006) is better than T-90.

Edited by Creator, 05 September 2007 - 07:45 AM.

[Death_Pheonix]

you see i compare theses arguments, like tank vs tank to two people with 2 different types of tools, really all these weapons are tools, and effectiveness depend on how they are used.

t 72 - vs m1a2 = sword vs bigger lighter sword
f 22a vs mig 29smt = 50 cal sniper vs ak 47

it all depends on the situation and the skill of the operator

all you people assume western tech is better, when really its the same. in the end, a tank is a tank, and a jet is a jet.

and iraq was a joke, 10 year sanctions prior to the invasion, overwhelming air superiority, the iraqs stood no chance. you really shouldn't be proud for destroying an enemy, that had no chance to mount a proper defense because there defense infrastructures was in ruins.

its like comparing a pro in generals that starts of with 50k vs a noob with 10k.

the serbs downed more Nato/American aircraft in 1999 than the Iraqi's did (even though it was like 3, including the f 117), and we had a population of 6 million and an air force of mig 21's. why do i have a feeling that if the us invades iran, they wont find it so easy?

its all about tactics and skill, not hardware.

Edited by Death_Pheonix, 05 September 2007 - 07:47 AM.

[Creator]

the british Challenger 2 tank is the most accurate tank in the world. it can hit a football from over 2-3 miles away

You've missed one word here. It can hit a football field.

because it fires Kinetic penetrating rounds(the armour piercing ones) destroying all the crew members inside and HE rounds.

The same can be said about all other tanks. Nowdays Leopard, Abrams, T-72 and other tanks have НЕ shells, all of them can fire Kinetic penetrating rounds, all of them can fire at 2-3 and even at 6 miles.

Long range shooting is always carried out without aming. Tanks just fire to pointed direction without seeing anything. It is not precisious at all. But simultanious volley of massive tank group can be harmful for massed enemy. It is the very case when tanks were used in artillery role. All tanks can be used in artillery role. Even T-34.

BUT...it can not fire its gun as accuratly on the move, so it would be equal in combat with the M1A2. the M1A2 I think is the best all round tank. although it may not have the accurcy of challanger 2, it can fire its gun on the move.

Ability to fire on the move is given with weapon stabilizer. First weapon stabilizers had been developed in 1940s. So, all tanks developed since the end of WW2 can fire on the move.

Edited by Creator, 05 September 2007 - 08:06 AM.

[for russia!]

it's unfair to compare T-72 with M1. T-72 made is older than the M1. it is like comparing a MK1 tank to a konigstiger or klimenti-voroshilov 1

(is it true that russia is now unbiased towards islam as a concerned muslim (me) shuld ask)

Edited by for russia!, 05 September 2007 - 08:30 AM.

[Capt.Drake]

Well if you are looking for good Tanks and vehicels I personally would search in a small country beeing at war most of the time in the last 60 years and it has the most hated population on this planet^^ Israel
Their selection of APC and IFVs is really impressive and their leatest the Merkava Mrk 4 is most likley one of the best tanks in the world