Modern Tanks

[South African Military]

Which modern tank is better? The British Challenger 2 or the American Abraham M1A2?

[Gen. Sandworm]

I just happened to watch a special on modern tanks today. It looked to me that the Challenger 2 and the M1A2 were about the same. The M1A2 is much faster by about 10-15 miles per hour. A face off between the 2 would barely favor the American tank. Mainly just do to the speed. Otherwise they are basically even.
A french tank the LeClerc was pretty impressive. However I dont think I could trust and automated loading system. Im not in the military or am i a tank driver. I just see alot of problems with this idea.
The best tank out there has to be the German Leopold 2 tank. Might be a bit impractical in an all out war because of all the addons it has. This thing is incredibal. If it is properly maintained and the maintenice crew is with it..........its ready for just about anything. Damn Germans must eat engineering schematics for breakfast. :P

[FW-190 Pilot]

I just happened to watch a special on modern tanks today. It looked to me that the Challenger 2 and the M1A2 were about the same. The M1A2 is much faster by about 10-15 miles per hour. A face off between the 2 would barely favor the American tank. Mainly just do to the speed. Otherwise they are basically even.
A french tank the LeClerc was pretty impressive. However I dont think I could trust and automated loading system. Im not in the military or am i a tank driver. I just see alot of problems with this idea.
The best tank out there has to be the German Leopold 2 tank. Might be a bit impractical in an all out war because of all the addons it has. This thing is incredibal. If it is properly maintained and the maintenice crew is with it..........its ready for just about anything. Damn Germans must eat engineering schematics for breakfast. :P
i am not sure about this, but i heard the British tank has less horspower than the US M1A2

[Gen. Sandworm]

The M1A2 is much faster by about 10-15 miles per hour.

Yes the M1A2 does have more horsepower. Hence the faster speed. Twin Turbine engines!!! Dont remember the figures right off hand.

Maybe a Good idea. I say we take the M1A2, Challenger 2, LeClerc and the Leopold 2 out in Kansas(Coz there isnt anything out there anyhow :) ) and have a good tank battle.

Also they didnt meantion the Russian T-90 tank(I believe this is the main Russian battle tank). I know nothing about this. Extremely disappionted it was not mentioned in the show i watched. Please update if you know anything about it.

[South African Military]

i am not sure about this, but i heard the British tank has less horspower than the US M1A2

The American tank has 1500hp, and the British one has 1200hp. Cross country max speed is only different by 8 km per hour w/ the M1A2 being faster. Max speed is different by 12km per hour w/ M1A2 being faster. Armament is exactly the same. Challenger 2 has a greater max range by about 40km. I think they are about the same.

The chanllenger 2E seems much better than the Challenger 2. W/ 1500hp it still mantains same speed however it is optimized for the harshest enviroment, with better survivabillity.

Id have to say the Leopard 2 is the much better than the ones above. Its an amazing tank

[FW-190 Pilot]

i think those horsepower is an important issue, but if the engine are requried to repaired frequently, then its not a good thing. i guess a good tank is depend on its engine's quality

but how can a tank design to withstand a nuclear missile attack, can be take down by just a anti-tank rocket?

(i dont mean to hyjack your topic, please continue the thread starter's topic)

[South African Military]

maybe hes saying that it can withstand radiation?? I dont know.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Does anyone have any pics of Modern tanks??? There are quite a few of the American Abrams and British Challenger on the site. Any others. Ive mentioned a few tanks from France and Germany above. Any pics of modern tanks from countries around the world would be cool.

[South African Military]

the South African Olifant:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/images/olifant_tank5.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/images/olifant_tank1.jpg

Im currently making a topic about the current South African Military, hope to gather loads of info and put it up maybe in a week or less.

[FW-190 Pilot]

i know american tank has the edge on horsepower, about 300 hp more

[BDL]

The Chally has far better armour than the M1 - it is THE best tank in the world. There is no known tank or anti tank weapon in the world that can take one out - apparently the one that got hit in Iraq had a hatch open and the round went through that. Speed's not that important anymore because the gun sighting is all automatic - the gunner just has to tell the tank what to shoot and the computer does the rest, aiming off automatically for wind and target speed. Going faster just means you're in range quicker.

[Bluffcove]

I was of the impression the Chally had a slightly higher range on the main armament, meaning that we would get a cheap shot in before the adversarie even gets to fire, though Im unsure where I have herad this and may not be correct etc......

[BDL]

I was of the impression the Chally had a slightly higher range on the main armament, meaning that we would get a cheap shot in before the adversarie even gets to fire, though Im unsure where I have herad this and may not be correct etc......

Sounds about right mate - the only modern MBT in the world (apart from the Indian one) to use a rifled barrel - that must give some kind of range advantage?

[Gen. Sandworm]

The Chally has far better armour than the M1 - it is THE best tank in the world. There is no known tank or anti tank weapon in the world that can take one out - apparently the one that got hit in Iraq had a hatch open and the round went through that. Speed's not that important anymore because the gun sighting is all automatic - the gunner just has to tell the tank what to shoot and the computer does the rest, aiming off automatically for wind and target speed. Going faster just means you're in range quicker.

Glotting a bit are we. Are you refering to the M1, M1A1 or the M1A2? And im assuming that Chally = Challenger 2 Coz i would have to same that the M1A2 and the Challenger 2 are about the same with a slight advantage to the American tank. Info on both

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/

Insofar as your one tank being destroyed. The Abrams series have seem far more combat than the 2 and 2E. Also the German Leopold 2 tank is probably the best in the world. However has not been battle tested much.

To say speed in not important is a very nieve statment other wise i think you would see the modern battlefield litered with P1000 Ratte Landcruiser's. :lol: You cant fire at something you cant see.........so if me ass takes cover before you punch in my position on your computer(same with abrams) you cant hit me. Meanwhile my friend in his tank could already have you targeted.

And dont give me that crap about there is nothing in the world that can penetrate its armor. Take a look at the "What hit this tank" topic! Its still unknown what hit that tank but i can garantee whatever it was can penetrate a Challenger or just about any MBT.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Some more MBT's

ARIETE MAIN BATTLE TANK, ITALY
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ariete/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ariete/images/ariete5.jpg



K1/A1 MAIN BATTLE TANK, SOUTH KOREA
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k1/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k1/images/k1_6.jpg



LECLERC MAIN BATTLE TANK, FRANCE
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/images/Leclerc_11.jpg



LEOPARD 2 MAIN BATTLE TANK, GERMANY
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/images/leop113.jpg



MERKAVA 4 MAIN BATTLE TANK, ISRAEL
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/merkava4_1.jpg



OLIFANT MK 1B MAIN BATTLE TANK, SOUTH AFRICA
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/olifant/images/olifant_tank1.jpg



T-90S MAIN BATTLE TANK, RUSSIA
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_1.jpg

So there are some other good ones out there. :D

[BDL]

Glotting a bit are we. Are you refering to the M1, M1A1 or the M1A2? And im assuming that Chally = Challenger 2 Coz i would have to same that the M1A2 and the Challenger 2 are about the same with a slight advantage to the American tank. Info on both

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/

Insofar as your one tank being destroyed. The Abrams series have seem far more combat than the 2 and 2E. Also the German Leopold 2 tank is probably the best in the world. However has not been battle tested much.

To say speed in not important is a very nieve statment other wise i think you would see the modern battlefield litered with P1000 Ratte Landcruiser's. :lol: You cant fire at something you cant see.........so if me ass takes cover before you punch in my position on your computer(same with abrams) you cant hit me. Meanwhile my friend in his tank could already have you targeted.

And dont give me that crap about there is nothing in the world that can penetrate its armor. Take a look at the "What hit this tank" topic! Its still unknown what hit that tank but i can garantee whatever it was can penetrate a Challenger or just about any MBT.

Challenger's armour is far better than Abrams - we haven't told America how to make the Chobbham armour that the Chally has - the version you have is inferior to ours.

Obviously speed is important to a tank, but is not AS important as it was - you would have to be driving a very fast tank to get behind something inpenetrable in the couple of seconds a computer will take to track the target. Abrams isn't that much faster than Challenger though - 45mph road speed compared to 37mph for the Chally.

Abrams has seen more combat than the Challenger 2, but Chally has deployed to a fair few warzones itself and as far as I am aware, only one has ever been destroyed (by one of its mates when a round went through an open hatch). I seem to remember an Abrams being taken out with an RPG in Baghdad city centre during the invasion, and I saw a couple being taken down the motorways in Iraq to get repaired (mobility hits with RPG from what I could make out as I drove past the convoys).

Like I said, I would take the battle proven, virtually invulnerable Challenger 2 over the equally battle proven, not quite as invulnerable, bigger target (six inches wider and four feet longer, but with ab out 2 inches less height) that is the M1 Abrams.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Challenger's armour is far better than Abrams - we haven't told America how to make the Chobbham armour that the Chally has - the version you have is inferior to ours.

Obviously speed is important to a tank, but is not AS important as it was - you would have to be driving a very fast tank to get behind something inpenetrable in the couple of seconds a computer will take to track the target. Abrams isn't that much faster than Challenger though - 45mph road speed compared to 37mph for the Chally.

Abrams has seen more combat than the Challenger 2, but Chally has deployed to a fair few warzones itself and as far as I am aware, only one has ever been destroyed (by one of its mates when a round went through an open hatch). I seem to remember an Abrams being taken out with an RPG in Baghdad city centre during the invasion, and I saw a couple being taken down the motorways in Iraq to get repaired (mobility hits with RPG from what I could make out as I drove past the convoys).

Like I said, I would take the battle proven, virtually invulnerable Challenger 2 over the equally battle proven, not quite as invulnerable, bigger target (six inches wider and four feet longer, but with ab out 2 inches less height) that is the M1 Abrams.

Actually no Abrams tank has been taken out by another tank as of yet. They have been disabled by RPG's. A Challenger 2 has been taken out by another tank...........and guess what that was. Another Challenger 2 tank. See we arent the only one's that make mistakes. :) Im assuming this it the tank you are refering to. Also your Chobham armor is simliar to the American armor. You might be refering to the Dorchester armor which is your new upgrade. This has not been shared with the Americans as far as i know.

Anyhow you might want to check out these 3 sites.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/M1-Abrams

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Challenger-2

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chobham-armour

And while your there you might want to check out some of the stuff on the German Leopold tank. Which I "feel" is superior to both. Yet to really be battle tested which IMO is a must to "make" it superior.

[Tubbyboy]

GS,

Great photo of the T-90.

[Gen. Sandworm]

GS,

Great photo of the T-90.

Yea I know that T-90 is haulin ass as we like to say in the states.

Here is a pic(s) of a new Russian tank called the T-95 Blackeagle that looks pretty mean. Just learned about this one.


http://www.ginklai.net/images/galerija/817_t95_blackeagle.jpg

[student-scaley]

Those of you who read Soldier magazine may remember an article a few months back about the best tanks in the world that put the Jap mitsibushi as the world's best tank, any thoughts?

[Gen. Sandworm]

Those of you who read Soldier magazine may remember an article a few months back about the best tanks in the world that put the Jap mitsibushi as the world's best tank, any thoughts?

Havent heard anything about that. Would be cool if you could get the article and make some quotes from it. Well from planes to TV's to Cars to tanks ........what a company. :lol:

[King_Nothing]

Sounds about right mate - the only modern MBT in the world (apart from the Indian one) to use a rifled barrel - that must give some kind of range advantage?

More accurate than smoothbore, but it looses pressure IIRC.

[King_Nothing]

That tank up there isn't a T-95, T-95 is still computer concepts as far as I know, that is the Object 640.

[South African Military]

I beleive the japanese tank you are talking about is the Type 90. Started in 1977, in service in 1990. 120mm gun w/ smoothbore barrel.

max speed: 70kmh
engine: 1,500 horsepower


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/type_90-90tk08m.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/type_90-90tk05m.jpg

more information here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/type-90.htm

[FW-190 Pilot]

i can notice most modern tank are not sloped armour

[South African Military]

i can notice most modern tank are not sloped armour

mmm interesting point. I suppose modern armour does not need sloped armour as much as it did during WW2. Now we do not rely on the thickness of the armour but the kind of armour. There are many types:

Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) where as the object hits the tank, the outside plates explode and that lessens the damage of the tank. I do not
think we use that exact method today.

Chobham armour, made by a British tank research center, is basically ceramic between armour steel plating, the exact configuration is left a secret. It is similar to ERA, as when the object hits the tank, the ceramic layer shatters forming a dust under high pressure, this again lessens the damage.

The Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armour(it is similar to Chobham armour, but I do not know anything about it)

Those are the main types of armour, however the German Leopard 2 uses perforated armour, anyone care to give us info on that?

[maninblack]

The answer to this question is not as simplistic as the members of the forum seem to think. The answer to what is the best tank is not a simple “willy waving exercise” about range, speed etc but is subjective based on the environment that it is used in and the role it is carrying out.

For example, the current role in Iraq has proved that the Abrams is very susceptible to low velocity shaped charge weapons such as the RPG. Reports I have seen have mentioned 15 Abrams being declared beyond economic repair including 3 fatalities to crew whilst within the vehicle. Conversely, a vehicle that would stand no chance against an Abrams, the UK’s main APC Warrior, has had one vehicle declared beyond economic repair and two declared beyond recovery due to the situation in which they were damaged.

Within the Iraq environment the Warrior seems superior to an MBT against the weapons being used yet nobody could sensibly take a Warrior out against an Abrams.

Perhaps jingoism is not the best basis for a discussion.

[LargeBrew]

Maninblack has hit the nail It's about job and working environment. Both Abrams and Challenger were prototyped during the cold war with a European theatre in mind. During Granby both had major sand issues.
During Granby UK tankies deployed their last Centurion, which was a 1950's vintage.
The crew got ripped by a collum of M1A's steaming for the start line and and where able to return the compliment to the same sand clogged collum a few klm,s further on off road as they sailed past.
The Centurion was developed during WW2 with all theatres in mind and performed well for ANZAC forces in Vietnam and for the IDF right up to Yom Kippur, two totall'y different enviroments
The mistake in developing the next generation of MBT's would be to look at the last conflict . Yes look at partiularly mobility kill's in the sand box but the boffins need to be projecting future hot spots for AT capability.

[Canaris]

Challenger 2 probably has the edge over the M1A2. The Abrams's engine is more powerful but it is so thirsty! This is an M1A3 Abrams which is better still but it is not in service. Also there is an export version of the Challenger 2 which has a number of improvements.
Also I think experience in Iraq will prove the utility of the rifled gun firing HESH rather than the smooth bore firing HEAT.

[Gen. Sandworm]

K we will get this issue sorted. You Brits go dig up Monty and bring him back to life and stick him in a Challenger. Ill go get Patton and stick him in an Abrams. Then we will see which tank is better. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[student-scaley]

Monty would win of course, after all he's british! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gen. Sandworm]

Monty would win of course, after all he's british! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


"He's British" that just tells me nothing besides he has bad teeth.
:mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just Kidding :wink:

[student-scaley]

you obviously haven't heard the famous line 'you were born english and consequently have won first prize in life' or something like that. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[student-scaley]

ooh look i made sergeant! Does that mean i get to tell young officers that they're wrong and make everyone's life hell?

[reiver]

you obviously haven't heard the famous line 'you were born english and consequently have won first prize in life' or something like that. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cecil Rhodes :
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life." :lol:

[IRONMAN]

Here's the data on the Abrams, Leapard 2 and Challenger 2 for comparison:

Designation: M1A1/M1A2 Abrams
Manufacturer: Chrysler
Country: United States
Type: Main Battle Tank (MBT)
Service Date: 1980
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader and Driver)
Length: 25.9 ft (7.9 m)
Width: 11.9 ft (3.7 m)
Height: 9.5 ft (2.9 m)
Weight: 125,890 lbs (57,154 kg)
Powerplant: Textron Lycoming AGT-1500 gas-turbine; 1,500 bhp at 30,000 rpm.
Max Speed: 41 mph (67 kmh)
Max Range: 480 km

Armament: 1 x M256 Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore gun 1 x M240 7.62mm co-axial machine gun 1 x M2 12.7mm 1 x M240 7.62mm anti-aircraft machinegun


Designation: Leopard 2
Manufacturer: Krauss-Maffei
Country: Germany
Type: Main Battle Tank
Service Date: 1979
Crew: 4
Length: 9.67 m
Width: 3.70 m
Height: 2.48 m
Weight: 55,150 kg
Powerplant: 1 x MTU MB-873 Ka-501 12-Cylinder liquid-cooled diesel; output 1,500 hp.
Max Speed: 72 km/h
Max Range: 550 km

Armament: 1 x 120 mm main gun 1 x 7.62 mm co-axial machine gun 1 x 7.62 mm AA machine gun


Designation: Challenger 2
Manufacturer: Vickers Defense Systems
Country: Britain
Type: Main Battle Tank
Service Date: 1994
Crew: 4
Length: 8.3 m
Width: 3.5 m
Height: 2.49 m
Weight: 62,500 kg
Powerplant: 1 x Perkins CV-12 Condor V12 12-cylinder diesel engine delivering 1,200 hp of power.
Max Speed: 56 km/h
Max Range: 450 km

Armament: 1 x 120mm L30 CHARM Gun (CHallenger main ARmament) 1 x Co-axial 7.62mm chain gun 1 x 7.62mm GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence

It appears that the Challenger 2 is considerably heavier than the other two, hence the slow speed. That knocks it out of the running IMO. A difference of 10km in an hour can make an important difference in getting to where you are needed quickly, especially when you are driving one over existing roads for 100km or more. While tanks are not driven at maximum speed for long distances, this is where wight becomes an important factor, because it effects the acceptable cuising speed at which it can be driven for an extended period of time without a mechanical failure. The Abrams and Leopard seem pretty evenly matched. However, the Leopard has better range.

Challenger 2 probably has the edge over the M1A2. The Abrams's engine is more powerful but it is so thirsty!
I don't know the fuel consumption rate or fuel tank size, but the Abrams does have greater range than the Challenger 2. If you have any info on that, it would be interewsting to know. However, since the range is greater, I personally do not think that the fuel consumption rate is a big deal, regardless of which gets better "mileage". However, the Abrams does consume more fuel at slow and crawling speeds, and that is not a good thing if supply were somehow short.

M1A1/M1A2 Abrams
Max Range: 480 km

Challenger 2
Max Range: 450 km

Here's some interesting thought on power/fuel/weight aspects of modern tanks:

"For instance, a given design may be able to support the weight of a certain amount of armour; however, a heavier design could be made with more armour and a larger engine, giving the same performance. What may be overlooked, however, is that unless fuel capacity is increased, the latter would also have shorter range. This comparison is useful for understanding why tank designs of a given class tend to become heavier and heavier, and why lighter classes then need to be introduced. Monetary cost can also be an important factor. For example, more armour and a bigger engine would be heavier, but would also normally cost more. It may be more cost effective to use a combination of higher quality armour and a more efficient drive train."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

[student-scaley]

Although there have been some very informative posts about the specs and capabilities of MBTs and some quibbling over who is better based on ranges and fuel consumption etc... I think its fairly safe to say that most of the tanks mentioned Leopard, Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc are fairly even matched on specs alone. The real test would be in pitting them against each other in combat and this would heavily rely on situation (terrain, weather etc) and the crew, I'm sure a very good T-90 crew could make mincemeat of a Abrams or an experienced Leopard crew could defeat a challenger. lets not forget that in war, as the wehrmacht found out in WW2, you can have all the gucci kit in the world (i.e. Tigers) but that won't achieve sh*t if you can't resupply or effectively maintain your armoured force in the field.

Just my humble opinion.

[South African Military]

Although there have been some very informative posts about the specs and capabilities of MBTs and some quibbling over who is better based on ranges and fuel consumption etc... I think its fairly safe to say that most of the tanks mentioned Leopard, Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc are fairly even matched on specs alone. The real test would be in pitting them against each other in combat and this would heavily rely on situation (terrain, weather etc) and the crew, I'm sure a very good T-90 crew could make mincemeat of a Abrams or an experienced Leopard crew could defeat a challenger. lets not forget that in war, as the wehrmacht found out in WW2, you can have all the gucci kit in the world (i.e. Tigers) but that won't achieve sh*t if you can't resupply or effectively maintain your armoured force in the field.

Just my humble opinion.

Totally agreed Student Scaley, those mbts are just too evenly matched that it would be practically useless arguing over which one is generally better. Well just have to wait and see which one will win when battling eachother on the front line. :D

[2nd of foot]

Weights are out of date, the combat weight is about 70tons. The fuel consumption of the M1 is horrendous it has a gas turbine and drinks and drinks fuel. Max speed is another red herring. If on road and travelling distance then they go my transporters, if its across country then its down to suspension and crew fatigue. Unlike on road, when cross country you are continually slowing down and speeding up depending on the ground, or you will get a boot in the back of the head.

A quote from a US tanker at Bovy.

If the decision to go forward with smooth bore is made for CR2, I hate to see the loss of the HESH round. Good peice of ammunition.

The main advantage that C2 has over the rest is that it fires HESH a point tht the US now realise was a drawback in smooth bore guns. Very good for mouse holes. :D

[Voluntary Escaper]

The Americans wish to develop lighter more mobile armoured vehicles to replace the MBTs. I think that the UK is investigating the same misguided proposal! This is crazy after the experiences of Somalia (where Pakistani armoured vehicles had to rescue Humvee crews) and of Iraq!

[Bluffcove]

The Stryker has been facing problems. (not being resistent to attack :o ) and is being subsituted with M113 variants designed prior to Vietnam!

Light and easily deployable as the stryker is, it carries no armour when stripped for transport and cannot actually go on patrols until a second plane flies out with all the bolt on armour, still it is their problem and not ours - yet!

[2nd of foot]

This is one possible direction.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/

As with all armour it is a trade off. Speed, firepower or protection. The Stryker may not be as bad as its press. I have seen some horrendous pictures of before and after an IED with the crew getting out alive. It may have more to do with defending positions (within the establishment) than the vehicles suitability for task. The Stryker is far better than the Humvee in the support role. The US needs a good vehicle for convoy (CVR(T)/(W)?) work which they are in great need of. Given a choice which would choose?

[IRONMAN]

Although there have been some very informative posts about the specs and capabilities of MBTs and some quibbling over who is better based on ranges and fuel consumption etc... I think its fairly safe to say that most of the tanks mentioned Leopard, Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc are fairly even matched on specs alone. The real test would be in pitting them against each other in combat and this would heavily rely on situation (terrain, weather etc) and the crew, I'm sure a very good T-90 crew could make mincemeat of a Abrams or an experienced Leopard crew could defeat a challenger. lets not forget that in war, as the wehrmacht found out in WW2, you can have all the gucci kit in the world (i.e. Tigers) but that won't achieve sh*t if you can't resupply or effectively maintain your armoured force in the field.

Just my humble opinion.

Excellent point. Except for the quibling point. There was no "quibbling" - the subject of fuel consumption/weight had not been brought up. That was just slanted enought that I thought for a second you must be in the press!

[Bluffcove]

For instance, a given design may be able to support the weight of a certain amount of armour; however, a heavier design could be made with more armour and a larger engine, giving the same performance. What may be overlooked, however, is that unless fuel capacity is increased, the latter would also have shorter range.
I Believe that that is related to fuel consumption and weight, personally. A "quibble" can involve only one person if two views are weighed against one another or if one person explores an idea in depth postulating theorie as to how a certain course has been chosen consequently you had a one man quibble.

a quiffle is very different being a bit like a wiffle and a qui...............anyway enough of that there might be children listening.

[IRONMAN]

The Americans wish to develop lighter more mobile armoured vehicles to replace the MBTs. I think that the UK is investigating the same misguided proposal! This is crazy after the experiences of Somalia (where Pakistani armoured vehicles had to rescue Humvee crews) and of Iraq!

You hit on an important point. The future of MBT's is limited. War has shifted toward airpower and efficient combat troops with lighter, shorter, faster-firing weapons (AR's). In WWII for example, the tank was used more in the countryside than in city fighting. Now it is used every bit as much in urban warfare. I think it's safe to say that large tanks with large guns are going to dissapear in the next few decades. There will be no need for them, since serious artillery, guided weapons, and smaller fighting vehicles will replace the need for mobile cannon of their size.

Eventually, human soldiers will be replaced as well. And that is something that is closer to reality than some might think. A few more decades, and there may not be human soldiers at all. They may be replaced with remotely-operated ones.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QRIO/story/

[FW-190 Pilot]

find something about perforated armour
"...perforated steel, with hollow spaces serving the same function that they do in spaced armour, often filled with ceramic foam and backed by layers of Kevlar or similar material to trap and reduce fragmentation."

That quote taken from 12 seconds of searching on google. Of course, I don't really have any idea of what they're talking about.
this is kevlar, very tough stuff
http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/cudec/ressources/kevlar.jpg

[Crab_to_be]

I think the MBT has plenty of life yet. Before Desert Storm, the consensus was that MBTs were an expensive folly as there would never be another large scale tank battle. Then the consensus changed to Desert Storm being the last ever war with a decisive part role for MBTs. Now, Gulf II is that last war.

[Bluffcove]

Humans will always fight battles - purely because people fight for what they believe.

It is the nature of people to want to fight, if they feel unjustly treated for one thing. If on 9/11 George Bush has said, he was sending a legion Sony toys to fight freedom and Liberty Im not sure that there would have been a groundswell of public support.

There is a particular mindset that necessitates going into conflict that cannot be superceded by the knowledge that R2D2 is out there fighting for you.

MBT's will continue to exist in one guise or another for as long as war is waged. Even the advent of Drones like Shadow and predator cannot replace the ability of land forces to "hold ground" post conflict. For as long as people fight in cities or on land, a physical presence needs to be felt on the ground. If a tank is the securest place from which to exert that presence so be it.

[2nd of foot]

This is more like the future of robotic within the field of conflict. It is more towards Starship Trooper (the original not the crappy film). The use of UAV for recce and targeting will probably increase, but they will not be the be all and end all of combat.

http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/bleex.htm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/Monkeyhammer/Picture3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/Monkeyhammer/Picture1.jpg

They have been telling us that the tank is dead for 40 years. That the attack helli would take over its role. The attack helli is too soft a target, it does not carry very much ammo, it does not have a presence, you can take it out with rifle fire and RPG, it can not stay on target for long, it requires a big logistical tail, and it can not work away from a base (the base may be mobile but it still needs a base).

ATGW was supposed to kill off the tank after Yon Kippur but it is still here. You will always have tanks as long as the enemy have them. Are you going to be first to get rid of your tanks?

The M1A2 can only be operated by a country that has easy access to oil or a very good logistical tail. It drinks and drinks it also has a very high heat signature. On one occasion a tank recovering another tank set it on fire. The heat produced from the gas turbine is so great. The driver left the hatch open of the towed tank, the exhaust heat went through the hatch incinerating the crew area, the crew where not in the veh.

The reason MBTs are being looked at is that they are difficult to get to operational areas. It is difficult to fly tank regts around the world (I know they have gone in the back of aircrafts)

The USArmies ideas for the future

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/november_2004/11_04_1.html

Ironman you are assuming that in WW2 tanks were not used in FIBUA because they could not be. This is a misconception. There was not a great deal of FIBUA, but when there was tank were used very effectively. The problem the tank has is that it has difficulty seeing and requires infantry support to protect it. The tank offers mobile artillery and support fire for the infantry. That’s why the US would now like to have HESH reintroduced to its tanks.

FW-109 pilot wrote
That quote taken from 12 seconds of searching on google. Of course, I don't really have any idea of what they're talking about.
this is kevlar, very tough stuff

Research into a number of armour types are ongoing. One that is looking good is electrical armour. This a s is understand it puts a current through the armour and sets off HEAT and HESH ammo. It is light and could be retro fitted to existing veh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour

Electric reactive armour

Recent research has produced the idea of Electric Reactive Armour, where the armour is made up of two electrically charged plates separated by an insulator. When an incoming body penetrates the two plates and closes the circuit, a high current and voltage will flow through the penetrator, and tend to vaporize it, and significantly reduce the resulting penetration. It is not public knowledge whether this is supposed to function against both KE-penetrators and shaped charge jets, or only shaped charge jets. This technology has not been introduced on any operational platform.

[student-scaley]

Also in response to this stuff about robots fighting, did you see the new star wars films? The robots lose, now if that isn't enough to convince the defence procurement agency i dont know what is. :lol: :lol:

But on a serious note heavily armoured vehicles either MBTs or IFVs (warrior/bradley) are very important as they provide excellent protection for infantryman during FIBUA. E.G. during GW2 the Brits used warriors to great effect to move thier troops around urban areas protected by their excellent armour. This sort of action has extended the lifespan of such heavily armoured vehicles though i can agree that few mass armoured engagements will ever happen again, as the owners of all heavy MBT hardware are very unlikely to go to war against each other.

[IRONMAN]

They have been telling us that the tank is dead for 40 years. That the attack helli would take over its role. The attack helli is too soft a target, it does not carry very much ammo, it does not have a presence, you can take it out with rifle fire and RPG, it can not stay on target for long, it requires a big logistical tail, and it can not work away from a base (the base may be mobile but it still needs a base).

ATGW was supposed to kill off the tank after Yon Kippur but it is still here. You will always have tanks as long as the enemy have them. Are you going to be first to get rid of your tanks?

I believe both tanks and manned helicopters will be replaced with remotely controlled stealth flying battle machines. The US military is already using them in Iraq, and has used them to kill terrorists there from the sky without even being noticed. It uses small, fast, yet powerful rockets.

Consider also: In Iraq I, the US and coalition forces used a great many tanks. In Iraq II, the number of tanks used is a fraction of what it was in Iraq I. This trend will continue. I doubt there will be another war which uses MBT's to any large degree. They will be replaced with better technology before too long.

The tank was developed because in WWI troops faught a largely stagnant, imobile war, and a tank represented a way to push into the enemy without a bolt action rifle taking your head off from 700 yards. That kind of war is gone. The vehicles designed for that kind of war are going too.

[Crab_to_be]

But the tank was vital to the manoeuvre warfare tactics developed by Captain Basil Lidell-Hart and advanced by Guderian as 'Blitzkrieg'. This used the tank for the fast moving warfare seen in the invasion of Poland, the Battle of France and Barbarossa. That was very different to the static trenches of WWI, yet the tank could dominate.

The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards fought the largest British tank battle since World War II on Op. Telic. 14 Challenger 2s took on 14 T55s. I'm not claiming it was a fair fight, but the overwhelming superiority of the Challenger 2 made it a short fight, won 14-0. Without a powerful MBT of our own, it would have been a much tougher engagement.

The usefulness of the MBT is self perpetuating - they are mainly useful to counter themselves on the battlefield.

EDIT: Corrected unit name from Queen's Dragoon Guards to Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.

[IRONMAN]

But the tank was vital to the manoeuvre warfare tactics developed by Captain Basil Lidell-Hart and advanced by Guderian as 'Blitzkrieg'. This used the tank for the fast moving warfare seen in the invasion of Poland, the Battle of France and Barbarossa. That was very different to the static trenches of WWI, yet the tank could dominate.

The Queen's Dragoon Guards fought the largest British tank battle since World War II on Op. Telic. 14 Challenger 2s took on 14 T55s. I'm not claiming it was a fair fight, but the overwhelming superiority of the Challenger 2 made it a short fight, won 14-0. Without a powerful MBT of our own, it would have been a much tougher engagement.

The usefulness of the MBT is self perpetuating - they are mainly useful to counter themselves on the battlefield.

Here's my take on it. Technology does not stop. It is constantly being developed, and in the US alone, billions of US dollars are spent on research and development for military applications. Many things have become obsolete. As airpower becomes more and more important because it saves the attacking force's soldiers from peril better than ground conflict, so will the tank and other heavy land machines go by the wayside.

Police in the US are already begining to use miniature remotely controlled helicopters with video cameras and a small firearm on them to enter buildings into which heavily armed criminals have been chased. This kind of replacing humans and big machines with smaller, lighter and faster ones will not stop. Nanotechnology will before your great grandchildren pass from this Earth provide machines small enough to be injected into the human body to investigate illnesses or "live" inside of them to fight disease an infection. It may happen sooner than that.

The tank is a machine concept that is 100 years old or so. It's time is coming soon.

[Crab_to_be]

You are right - air power has certainly reduced the power of the tank, and will continue to do so. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) will become increasingly important in the coming years. UCAVs are especially important where the enemy has a significant anti-air capability as the use of air power will present less danger to human life.

The major limitation of air power is that it cannot hold ground, which is essential to win wars. The Kosovo campaign illustrates this well. Heavy armour, as part of an all-arms battlegroup, will have a role to play well into the future.

OT, and I mean no criticism by this:
I would interpret the phrase "Its time is coming soon" as meaning that soon it will be of great / greatest importance, rather than cease to be important. Is this another case of two countries divided by a common language?

[2nd of foot]

VAUs are all very well when dealing with technologically inferior enemy. But have limited use against an enemy who can see and deal with them. One or two UAVs were shot down/crashed in GW2. Aircraft cannot hold ground and an unwillingness to take casualties will hamper how you operate. Again Kosovo is a prim example of the US not willing to put its forces at risk. This attitude hampered the US foreign policy after Vietnam. It only changed after the 11 Sep when the state believed that the public would support the use of troops and casualties. As you can see the attitude in the US to casualties has changed and they accept that troops die.

If you are not willing to take casualties do not fight wars. War is nasty and people die, some not very quickly or cleanly. By sanitising it into a video game you make it fluffy and no one gets hurt.

By having tanks in close support I can remove obstacles (the enemy) that may impede me. Its fire power is instantaneous, it has direct, fire it can give me covering fire as I move, it intimidates the enemy, it has viewing equipment that I can use to locate the enemy. The tank is not dead it is far too useful. It may get lighter, but only if it is used against an enemy who does not have them.

Chine has a lot of tanks. :)

Police in the US are already begining to use miniature remotely controlled helicopters with video cameras and a small firearm on them to enter buildings into which heavily armed criminals have been chased. This kind of replacing humans and big machines with smaller, lighter and faster ones will not stop. Nanotechnology will before your great grandchildren pass from this Earth provide machines small enough to be injected into the human body to investigate illnesses or "live" inside of them to fight disease an infection. It may happen sooner than that.

Short range, small = small fuel tank. It also needs to be soldier proof (Now that’s a philosophical argument).

[Bladensburg]

The Queen's Dragoon Guards fought the largest British tank battle since World War II on Op. Telic. 14 Challenger 2s took on 14 T55s. I'm not claiming it was a fair fight, but the overwhelming superiority of the Challenger 2 made it a short fight, won 14-0. Without a powerful MBT of our own, it would have been a much tougher engagement.



'Twasn't the QDG it was the Royal Scots D.G.s, QDG are formation recce.

[Crab_to_be]

Now I do feel silly. I even checked on Google. But, I thought it was QDG, then found 'Dragoon Guards' in the Sandy Times and missed the 'Royal Scot' bit. And I was so sure it was the Welsh Cav too.

I've amended the original post and I'll look out for my schoolboy errors better in the future

<hangs head in shame>

[student-scaley]

Especially as the Welsh cav are recce! :lol: :lol:

[IRONMAN]

OT, and I mean no criticism by this:
I would interpret the phrase "Its time is coming soon" as meaning that soon it will be of great / greatest importance, rather than cease to be important. Is this another case of two countries divided by a common language?

Perhaps. In the US the statement "It's time is coming soon." can mean "It's time for demise or abandonment is coming soon." or "It's time for maturity is coming soon." It depends on how it is used.

It seems we Americans use the English language a bit differently. But that is true of other countries which speak English too I am sure. We all have coloquialisms and applying our own meanings to phrases. Some of the things the British say, for example (not insulting, just observing) seem odd to Americans as well. :D

[Bladensburg]

Now I do feel silly. I even checked on Google. But, I thought it was QDG, then found 'Dragoon Guards' in the Sandy Times and missed the 'Royal Scot' bit. And I was so sure it was the Welsh Cav too.

I've amended the original post and I'll look out for my schoolboy errors better in the future

<hangs head in shame>

To make you feel better IIRC C sqn QDG was awarded the Commando dagger badge by one of the RM units they were working with.

[Stainless]

I hope you don't mind me joining in your Best Battle Tank discussion, I found this site while trying to answer this very question following a UK Channel 5 documentary about the ultimate top 10 Battle Tanks, in which the Challenger 2 didn't even get a mention.

This surprised me as I always thought the Challenger 1/2 family were in the top 3 best Tanks in the world. I will try not to repeat anything I have already read in your discussion, so I will only mention the facts as I remember them, together with TV documentary information

Last year a UK TV documentary told of the renovation of a Centurion Mk5 AVRE 165 MBT, which was actually the very first tank into Iraq during the original Gulf War. It was fitted out with fascine carrier and dozer blade, its purpose was to clear and level a path for the following Abrams M1A1 MBTs. The original Centurion crew recounted being teased by the Abrams crews, about where did they find the old scrap Centurion, and why was it spearheading them into the Iraqi desert.

As the Tank column advanced, the teasing stopped as several Abrams became stuck and had to be recovered from the Desert sand, even though they were driving in the cleared, levelled and partially compacted sand behind the Centurion, which didn't get stuck even though it was driving through virgin sand dunes.

Then when the US and UK MBTs advanced deep into the Iraq Desert, the following differences between the Abrams and Challenger 1 Tanks became clear.
Fuel Consumption. Abrams around 8 to 9 gallons per mile. Challenger around 1 to 2 gallons per mile. During the recent Channel 5 documentary a US Tank commander explained the Abrams takes 8 gallons of fuel just to start the Lycoming Textron AGT1500 Gas Turbine Engine. UK Tanks had to wait for Abrams to be refuelled during the push through Iraq.
Comforts. The Abrams had their own armoured Mcdonalds style food/drink vehicles, whereas the Challengers had their own internal rations and cooking facilities.
Camouflage. Once the Tanks gug in, the Abrams had to keep their Gas Turbine running, whereas the Challengers cut their Main Diesel, and ran the Tank on Servo power, leaving their position secret, whereas the hot exhaust from the Abrams was clearly apparent for miles.
Reliability. Both UK and US Tanks were affected by sand ingress, but the Abrams proved more reliable than the Challenger overall.
Fire Control. The Abrams state ot the art gun control could track more targets at once than the Challenger, although the Challenger riffled 120mm gun was slightly more accurate than the smooth bore Abrams, once locked onto target.
Protection. Both Tanks have the Chobham armour, (The German Leopard does not).
So there you have it, any way you look at it, the Abrams M1A1/2 and Challenger1/2 Main Battle Tanks are extremely potent and closely rated, which makes the Challenger's ommission from the recent UK TV Channel 5 documentary somewhat confusing.
Information. All the above information came from TV/Newspapers, so if you know anything different, please post it here, as I want as much accurate information as possible. Thanks for reading this my fellow enthusiasts.

[2nd of foot]

I will comment more soon but as a starting line the C1 and C2 have major differences that make them different tanks as opposed to different marks. It would be closer to say that C1 and Chieftain are related but C2 is not.

The gas turbine has caused problems for the US and I have seen one tank that was burnt out when under tow due to the hot exhaust.

Most if not all US tanker would agree that the BV in the C2 is the best thing since sliced bread.

[pdf27]

Most if not all US tanker would agree that the BV in the C2 is the best thing since sliced bread.
BV = kettle, right?

[festamus]

I see recently they were procuring external telephones for the M1's, so supporting infantry can talk to the tank commander.

I wonder if they had to ask for volunteers to test it? :)

[2nd of foot]

Most if not all US tanker would agree that the BV in the C2 is the best thing since sliced bread.
BV = kettle, right?

think of a box that you can stand 4 bean tins in with a tap at the bottom. can boil, fry and if you are REME toast.

[2nd of foot]

I see recently they were procuring external telephones for the M1's, so supporting infantry can talk to the tank commander.

I wonder if they had to ask for volunteers to test it? :)

I hope they are not at the back next to the exhaust :lol:

[2nd of foot]

This was the result of towing an M1 with an M1 with out heat shield.

http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/towfire1.JPG

But it’s good for toast.

http://data.primeportal.net/iraq/towfire3.JPG

I think we can say it is a right off.

[pdf27]

think of a box that you can stand 4 bean tins in with a tap at the bottom. can boil, fry and if you are REME toast.
Should soon be (of the part time variety) - I've got an interview with Colonel of the battalion I'm trying to join on tuesday.
Mmmmmm... Toast..... :)

[festamus]

This was the result of towing an M1 with an M1 with out heat shield.

<snip piccies>

I think we can say it is a right off.

Don't talk soft! Bit of T-Cut and it'll be right as rain in no time. :wink:

[Bluffcove]

That looks ever so slightly like my wagon does on a good day!

[Walther]

I have heard stories about impatient German drivers tailgating a M1 tank convoy on a German road. Quite a surprise when they discovered that the paint on their car bonnets was gone!

Jan

[2nd of foot]

I have heard stories about impatient German drivers tailgating a M1 tank convoy on a German road. Quite a surprise when they discovered that the paint on their car bonnets was gone!

Jan

This was a common occurrence. The look on the face is a sight to behold when you put on the anchors and the tail lifts up then drops as the car behind tries to stop in the same distance.
Another time I was standing at the back of a stoly keeping warm as we drove to an exercise area. The exhaust pipe was back right and would glow red in the dark. If the locals got too close the driver would drop down and cause a backfire. The resulting 8-foot flame out the back, not to mention the ammo/explosive warning plates ensured they left a large gap.

[2nd of foot]

I see recently they were procuring external telephones for the M1's, so supporting infantry can talk to the tank commander.

I wonder if they had to ask for volunteers to test it? :)

You may be referring to this.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK)

As I understand it this is a suggested upgrade from lessons learnt. The US has lost a number to tanks to side hits from RPGs.
The full page.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985

[Fuchs66]

I see recently they were procuring external telephones for the M1's, so supporting infantry can talk to the tank commander.

I wonder if they had to ask for volunteers to test it? :)

There's nowt new about tank telephones, all our AVREs and AVLBs had them in 32 AER during the 80s, I admit though not a lot of them worked. :lol:

[Walther]

I've seen tank telephones in pictures of M-60 tanks during the Vietnam war.

Jan

[festamus]

I appreciate that tank telephones are nothing new...

but telephones strapped to a metal box they put a gas turbine in ... that's something else. ;)

[Cuts]

There's nowt new about tank telephones, all our AVREs and AVLBs had them in 32 AER during the 80s, I admit though not a lot of them worked. :lol:

If you were lucky enough to use one that did work, the answer on speaking into the handset was generally something like:
"Hello, Fulda Exchange here. What number do you require ?"

[2nd of foot]

I’m afraid I never plucked up enough courage to use one. I could just see myself picking up the phone and hearing “driver reverse”. :cry:

[StalingradK]

Abraham M1A2 ish awesome, but why didn't you list French Armour? I mean, they are the world's leader in revolutionary tanks and assault vehicles.

[Canaris]

Not France on the planet Earth. You must be thinking of some other France.

[Firefly]

Abraham M1A2 ish awesome, but why didn't you list French Armour? I mean, they are the world's leader in revolutionary tanks and assault vehicles.

Please give some examples mate.