New Russian MBT..

[KingBeast 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Jan. 21 2002,01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a2 and challenger also tie for the most accurate main armorment too..

and i dont see how anyone could say nthe challe has better armor than the a2.. since noone knows anything about either.. both are still classified as to their abilities in that area..<span id='postcolor'>

Wobble im not quite sure, but i believe people generally think the Challengers armour is the best because it uses the most advanced Chobham. And what with chobham being a british design (??) then obviously our tanks get the nice stuff.

[Silencer 0]

Russia is not that bad as you said in canada where you live in tents ;(

most of russia lives in apartments.We hvae everything in the store,the problem is they cost little more.2,000$ computers

7-10$ loaf of bread.soo you have jut have to work extra hours to get what you want.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 21 2002,16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a2 and challenger also tie for the most accurate main armorment too..

and i dont see how anyone could say nthe challe has better armor than the a2.. since noone knows anything about either.. both are still classified as to their abilities in that area..<span id='postcolor'>

Wobble im not quite sure, but i believe people generally think the Challengers armour is the best because it uses the most advanced Chobham. And what with chobham being a british design (??) then obviously our tanks get the nice stuff.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, thats what I thought too, but I'm probably wrong. I thought that the Challenger had some newer armor called "Durham" or something, but I'm most likely mistaken

[PFC_Mike 2]

What's the difference between a civil engineer and a weapons designer? One builds weapons and the other builds targets.

Considering the advancements in guided weapons systems, I think tanks are on the way to becoming targets. How many iraqi tnaks were lost to US action in desert storm? Western tech can kick the ass of anyone, anythuing, anywhere.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Canada and the U.S. have now adopted the L.A.V. III for use. In Canada it is replacing the Grizzly and Cougar L.A.V.s. The Canadian versions will keep the stock turret, which uses the 25mm Bushmaster Chain Gun. However, the L.A.V. III will not replace the 100 or so upgraded Leopard 1's that Canada has.

IMHO The only reason that the U.S. brought the LAV III to Afghanistan instead of the Abrams is probably because they don't consider the old Taliban T-55s and BMPs to be much of a threat. If they ever did encounter them on a large number, they would have just called in air support. That didn't happen because the U.S. destroyed as much tanks as possible before they put a large contingent of troops on the ground.

I don't think that Abrams will be replaced anytime soon, they might just scale down the numbers in service. I am willing to bet that the U.S. will develop some kind of 2 man computerized tank with a low profile and stealth-like abilities in the next 20 years or so. I have seen various concepts of this and it seems the U.S. military is going this way.

Tyler

[Sandman 0]

From what I´ve read the currently best "ranked" MBT is the Swedish STRV122 (Leopard 2A5 modified) and the Leopard 2A6. This is an overall verdict, taking everything into count.

here´s a ´lil promo...

http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-42039/strv_122_.htm

[madmike 0]

There wont be many more traditional tanks being made in the next ten years.

Britian and US are doning joint trials on a new type of plastic tank armed with a bushmaster cannon and 30 cannon

The tanks wieght will be under 10 tonnes which is good because that will make it more reliable and cheaper to run

[Wobble 1]

Wobble im not quite sure, but i believe people generally think the Challengers armour is the best because it uses the most advanced Chobham. And what with chobham being a british design (??) then obviously our tanks get the nice stuff.

the A1 used chobham.. the A2 uses a little bit of it and something totally different everywhere else.. its classified.. I think on some lists they A2's armro is listes as chobham.. but thats just because thats its 'offical' armor.. and as you know in military 'offical' doesent really meant thats what it is..

for example the A2's top speed is listed at 45mph OFICIALLY.. yet everyone knows its much faster.

the latest US aircraft cairriers are listed as having a top 'OFFICAL' speed of 30 knots.. but then they say you could barefoot ski behind one...

the bottom line is you cant make any comparison about things of which NOBODY aside from top brass and designers know ANYTHING about..

its like saying which alien race has the best UFO

P.S. according to what I saw on the history channel the A2 weighs about 1/4 less than the A1. .. but its offical weight is listed as almost the same...

as for the whole 'MBTs are obsolete'

thats been said since WW1.

[madmike 0]

Chobham armour is so clasified that if a warrior breaks down in bosnia it has to be gaurded.

A worrior took a hit from a challenger that had a dodgy fault making the gun fire.

The armour saved the crew and they had no damage on them

Also the people that up-armour the warriors and challengers have to sign a more detailed offical secrets act paper that if about them being imprisoned if they tell anyone about the armour or something like that

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Jan. 22 2002,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chobham armour is so clasified that if a warrior breaks down in bosnia it has to be gaurded.

A worrior took a hit from a challenger that had a dodgy fault making the gun fire.

The armour saved the crew and they had no damage on them

Also the people that up-armour the warriors and challengers have to sign a more detailed offical secrets act paper that if about them being imprisoned if they tell anyone about the armour or something like that

<span id='postcolor'>

Wow, now the Challenger can't even take out an APC anymore? They should make the MBTs out of the same stuff!

[Aaron Kane 0]

Naah... those Brits have absolutely NO friendly fire skills whatsoever! We have to teach them everything, its not even funny...

[Sambo_69 2]

oddly enough, in my copy of the guiness book of records for 2002, the tank with the best armour is the russian T80-T90 class tanks, the abrams and the challenger wern't even mentioned at all...

[Wobble 1]

oddly enough, in my copy of the guiness book of records for 2002, the tank with the best armour is the russian T80-T90 class tanks, the abrams and the challenger wern't even mentioned at all...

like I said.. nobody knows anything about them.. so they cant really be listed as anything because their true performance is unknown.. to any of us and I doubt Guiness could pry it loose either..

RING RING RING!!

Hello.. Colin Powell's office

Hi this is marty from Guiness book of world records.. I was wandering if you could give me a detailed analysis of the M1A2's armor capabilities?

Umm thats classified information..

PLEEEEEASE!!

Umm.. wll ok sure

LOL!!

[Sandman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sambo_69 @ Jan. 22 2002,08:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oddly enough, in my copy of the guiness book of records for 2002, the tank with the best armour is the russian T80-T90 class tanks, the abrams and the challenger wern't even mentioned at all...<span id='postcolor'>

Well...thats not exactly the source I would refer to if the discussion were of any serious kind...if U dont mind me saying that...

Just the fact that they mention T80 in the same sentence as T90 makes one suspicious...they are not the same at all.

[Dr Bibber 0]

So sick of these stereotypic people who still think that their country has the best equipent (even tough they use the most crappiest assault rifles en crap equipment compared to Russian stuff)

More then 75% of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by allied planes and comparing a T-55(wich were only left) with a M1A1 is nuts.

Russian ERA(explosive reactive armor) is a lot more effective against HEAT and LAW's

In Cheyna the mujhadeen needed more then 13 RPG's to destroy a T-80U, try that with chobbam armor.

APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside

[Diablo_NL 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While the IAV is in use, the Army and several military contractors will develop a replacement for the Abrams. This most likely will be another tracked vehicle, highly automated, and with an emphasis on stealth and survivability. Rather than relying on brute firepower and thick armor, the idea is to never get detected in the first place, and avoid getting into a firefight with a 60+ ton MBT behemoth.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well there you have it usa are cowards when it comes to fighting.

back to discussion the IAV might be a good tank untill detected in a fight with a tank or rpg it will certainly be destroyed cuz they put light armor and not such a powerfull gun on it.

remember world war 2 when germans met the T34 for the first time they couldnt even destroy them only when the panzer 5 (tiger tank) appeared they had a tank that could fight with a T34.

I still think a lot of ppl in western countrys especially usa think their country has better weapons then russia.

Maybe russian stuff is cheap to make that makes it even better.

If a T80 can destroy a M1A2 and costs only half as much they realy hve the adventage not the guys wih more expensive tanks

[madmike 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, now the Challenger can't even take out an APC anymore? They should make the MBTs out of the same stuff! <span id='postcolor'>

The challenger has the same gun as the Abrams and the leapord(I think???).

Its not the challenger that is bad it is the amount of armour on the warrior that is good.

In Bosnia a warior went over a AT mine and all the crew were fine.

[Armpit 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside<span id='postcolor'>

Depleted uranium rounds don´t cause damage with radioactivity. Depleted uranium is a very dense matter and therefore ideal for punching through armor with sheer kinetic energy.

I had no idea that the use of depleted uranium ammo has been banned, in fact I was under the impression that the US used missiles with DU warheads against taleban tanks just a few months ago. I do remember Gulf War veterans and later UN/NATO soldiers who served in the Balkan complaining of symptoms and deseases which may have been caused by dust from DU rounds, but AFAIK there´s no firm evidence.

[sgtdwetzel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ Jan. 21 2002,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the new US tanks in development are made from tree products.

The "armor" will be forms of paper.

The Abrams tank is going to be obsolete in the US in less than 3 years.

The US just doesn't have enough soldiers to man the tanks.

The US always got 10% of the population to join the army every year.  Now only 80,000 or so are expected each year.

That means that 4-man crews are unrealistic.

And the US doesn't always make the best stuff.

The AK74 is better than the M16A2 in every way except one.

The M16A2 is a lot easier to hold.  The AK74 is awkwardly shaped, and has a clip that extends to the soldier's waste-line.

The T80U was the best tank in the world until 1990.  Then Russia went bankrupt.

The M1A2 Abrams was only the best tank in the world for 2 years.  Then the Challenger2 was considered the best.

Then the Leopard2 took over recently, but only because it was perfectly balanced.<span id='postcolor'>

Obsolete in less than 3 years? Considering that the M1A1 Digital is extending main gun range to 7500 meters, and it is still the fastest, most stable gun platform on the battlefield...I think the M1 series will be around a while. That LAV based vehicle is going to be used mainly in the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept....which is a STOPGAP measure until heavier forces arrive. They tried to say the same thing when the Bradley came out - "The MBT is dead...long live the Bradley" but the fact of the matter is neither the Bradley or the up-armored LAV can take any kind of direct fire and survive. The M1 series can.

You should check your numbers again....if 10% of the US population joined the Army, we would have 25 million people joining every year.

And 4 man crews unrealistic??? I hate to tell you...armor crewmen in the US Army right now are OVERSTRENGTH...we don't have enough tanks for the personnel we have right now.

About the M16A2....I can't comment on that - I carry my M9 Beretta on the tank, but I would like to see your reasoning - I have fired both weapons, and except for the AK's ability to be covered in mud and still be able to fire, they are fairly evenly matched.

The T-80U "best tank in the world"?? What are you smoking? Can I have some?

Flame me all you want - I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @ Jan. 22 2002,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So sick of these stereotypic people who still think that their country has the best equipent (even tough they use the most crappiest assault rifles en crap equipment compared to Russian stuff)

More then 75% of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by allied planes and comparing a T-55(wich were only left) with a M1A1 is nuts.

Russian ERA(explosive reactive armor) is a lot more effective against HEAT and LAW's

In Cheyna the mujhadeen needed more then 13 RPG's to destroy a T-80U, try that with chobbam armor.

APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, there were plenty of T-72's left on the ground for the Yanks to take care of. They could destroy them because the gun on the Abrams is alot more powerfull and has a longer range than anything the Iraqis had. The gun on the Abrams has nearly twice the range as anything the Iraqis had to offer.

No wonder it took those Mujahideen folks so long to destroy a T-80 with RPGs. In case you havent heard RPG (7)s are total sh*t they have been obsolete for a number of years against any kind of modern armour.

About ERA. Its useless against APFSDS DU rounds. As armpit said, DU has not been banned and is still in use. It does not kill with radioactive dust, as you said. It kills with white hot shards of molten steel from the tanks armour that is melted on contact with a kinetic energy round.

I would rather be in an Abrams or Challenger or Leopard than any Soviet tank. True, the sword can only be as strong as the arm weilding it. But the cash strapped Russian Forces can't afford to train their guys like they used to. My money (and life) in any war is on Western crews + Western armour.

Tyler

[Dr Bibber 0]

"In case you havent heard RPG (7)s are total sh*t they have been obsolete for a number of years against any kind of modern armour. "

The RPG-7V can fire 88mm HE rounds wich can easily destroy an M1A1's cannon(wich is also one of the most popular rocket launchers because of its sights and range).

"DU has not been banned and is still in use."

DU rounds are banned by the geneva connection, so are napalm and landmines.

Childeren who have played in burned out Iraqi tanks all have cancer right now, not to mention how many loaders have a brain tumor.

I wouldn't call the 125mm gun used on Iraqi T-72's crap, wich can also fire APFSDS-T rounds wich is also capable M1 Abrams armor at a range of 1000m and can engage targets at 4000m.

The T-72 is a far more reliable tank than the M1A1, did i already mention how much oil the M1's engine slurps?

"Actually, there were plenty of T-72's left on the ground for the Yanks to take care of."

Wrong again, most T-72 tanks were all destroyed by airstrikes etc.

They did have T-64 tanks wich are pretty much the same as the T-72.

These first M1/IPM1 series have no chance against a T-72 untill they upgraded the 105 MM gun to a West -German made Reinmetall 125mm gun, those first series didn't had any chobbam armor either.

It's all about the crew and training

A MIG-29 can own any fighter jet's ass while it was one of the world's most maneuverable and toughest fighter jets in the 80's, but still none of them had a chance against US F16's as i mentioned before, it's all about training

[FetishFool 0]

@sgtdwetzel:

I heard all that on a TLC program one day. It was an Extreme Machines episode, where they did a 15 minute segment on tanks, and their futures.

They were saying how it was difficult to man the Abrams for 4 people.

That's why most new vehicles being developed need 1 or 2 people to man them.

The new stealth tanks in development will take a crew of 2.

I heard that up until a few years ago 10% of the US joined military services every year. Maybe it was 1%. I'll go look for some reports now.

The AK74 is known to be more accurate than the M16A2. Someone on these threads was also saying how the 5.56-mm NATO round broke into two pieces after impact. While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled.

I said the T80U was considered the best tank in the world until 1990.

It had armor just as tough as the M1A1 Abrams, but was a lot smaller.

The armament was pretty much the same between the two. Both were just as lethal.

When the T90S was made, it was too late. - The M1A2 was already in service.

But both lost to the Challenger and the Swiss Leopard2.

[Dr Bibber 0]

"I said the T80U was considered the best tank in the world until 1990.

It had armor just as tough as the M1A1 Abrams"

Correction: the T-80UK was invented in 1992/1993

You are right about that armor part, T80UK is alot more advanced then the M1A1(better engine, snorkels, all equipped AT-3 missles)

And T90S are mainly produced for export(in fact it is just a modified T-72)

"While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled."

5.54×39 FMJ 7H6 bullets are also more effective then the regular 5.56mm x 54 M193 (203.).

Russia used 5.54 bullets wich release some kind of posion and kills the victim slowly, 5.54 also have a better stopping power.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obsolete in less than 3 years? Considering that the M1A1 Digital is extending main gun range to 7500 meters, and it is still the fastest, most stable gun platform on the battlefield...I think the M1 series will be around a while. That LAV based vehicle is going to be used mainly in the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept....which is a STOPGAP measure until heavier forces arrive. They tried to say the same thing when the Bradley came out - "The MBT is dead...long live the Bradley" but the fact of the matter is neither the Bradley or the up-armored LAV can take any kind of direct fire and survive. The M1 series can.

You should check your numbers again....if 10% of the US population joined the Army, we would have 25 million people joining every year.

And 4 man crews unrealistic??? I hate to tell you...armor crewmen in the US Army right now are OVERSTRENGTH...we don't have enough tanks for the personnel we have right now.

About the M16A2....I can't comment on that - I carry my M9 Beretta on the tank, but I would like to see your reasoning - I have fired both weapons, and except for the AK's ability to be covered in mud and still be able to fire, they are fairly evenly matched.

The T-80U "best tank in the world"?? What are you smoking? Can I have some?

Flame me all you want - I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions<span id='postcolor'>

Dr Bibber, I figured that you needed to read this post again before you go making claims about Russian superiority in every feild.

Since this guy has been a tanker, I would take his word over yours.

Do you represent the Russian arms industry? What are you trying to sell?

Tyler

[Vir 0]

A MIG-29 can own any fighter jet's ass while it was one of the world's most maneuverable and toughest fighter jets in the 80's

I just had to comment on this. Dogfighting, which seems to be what you based this opinion on, is a very small part of modern air battles. Id put my money on the F-14 with its pheonix missles, which have a range of something like 60 miles.