Which of these tanks can perform the best?
Pale Rider
Active member
throw the bridge at them?
That is how the Russians fight in a conflict, everything is a weapon including the kitchen sink.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
All I can say about the bridge layer is... SMACK! SMACK SMACK SMACK!!!
Cdt Matteo
Active member
I personally like that the T-90 weighs 46.5 tonnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90) compared to the M1A2 Abrams SEP, which comes in at 67.6 tonnes. And, the Abrams unfortunately generates a lot of heat from the rear due to it's jet engine.
However, being a future Canadian armour crewmen, I wouldn't mind serving on a Leopard 2A6, seeing how that's the best we got (and it is a fine vehicle).
However, being a future Canadian armour crewmen, I wouldn't mind serving on a Leopard 2A6, seeing how that's the best we got (and it is a fine vehicle).
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
This is not strictly true as layered and composites offers more protection with less weight, even boxed and spaced armor increased protection without a corresponding increase in weight.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
That of course would depend on the over all displacement of the vehicle.
While I agree that it is unlikely they have shaved a third off the weight and size of the vehicle I would imagine that their experiments with smaller more automated turrets would offer some major weight and profile changes.
coynieuk
You guys need to stop. Was the T-34 the best Tank of WWII no the Panther was the Russians were terified of it and created the T-37/85 to atemp to takel it and were only partialy susesfull. Why was the Panther the Best it followed the T-34 example of heavy sloped armour Desiel Engin wide tracks and Heavy gun but here is the thing it surrpased it with a better gun radio and much better optics. Its problems were that it was not tested properly and due to a complex but very effective design and lack of effective production organisation was not avalibile in the required high numbers. this is were the T-34 comes out on top the design was simplistic due to the limited capaccity of russian factories but this and a near slave like aproch by the work force produced staggering numbers in the same vain as the Sherman (and no one is saying this is a top tank). the best way to look is the Panther was better but the T-34 was avalibile in higher numbers. evidence Kill ratios of Panthers V T-34/85s (as have comparibile gins crews & both (mostly) had Radios) the French and I think the Cechz used the Panther after the war and I think at some point some on in the Middle East had some. The Designs of the Centurion and (to a lesser degree) The Pershing compare fovoribily with both however they to have a better gun than the T-34 and all had Radios (Both theses Vehicals were WWII designs and were on the battle fronts before the war ended however the Centurion saw no combat as war ended befor Front line Issue). Oh and the effective ness of these Tanks in Korea were all 3 saw action show the T-34 to be Weeker due to gun and lake of Radios (in part). The best Tank today is the Leporde 2A6 followed by the Challenger 2 then the M1A2 / Mercave 4. Leporde has best balance of all requirements the Challenger is second for same resone (The reson it is so often forgoten is the fire control system in the old one was so bad and relibility WAS poor) the MI is third as it uses so much Gas and that is a Problem (eg in Iraq a totaly hopless Iraqi army smashed a Number of Supply Trains for M1s a half organised one could criple them) and the mercave its to slow and yes I appriceate it was designed for a diffrent war and thats why its here. All these Vehicals Now (2A6 recintly entered) fall with in the Titile of must heavily armoured Tanks in service they have good power to wait ratios Very Effective opptics and Very Very good reliability and combat effective/suvibility Rates. the Russian stuff even today blows up real easy and lacks the Tacktical mobility of the Big 4 look at Chettchnia and Gergia also Sudan. S o if I was the One getting shot at ether of these 4 would do but the Chalenger due to the Fact it Took a Huge Ied to penitrate the armour and that previouse crews have walked away from disabiled ones after combat in Iraq would put on Top of list
You guys need to stop. Was the T-34 the best Tank of WWII no the Panther was the Russians were terified of it and created the T-37/85 to atemp to takel it and were only partialy susesfull. Why was the Panther the Best it followed the T-34 example of heavy sloped armour Desiel Engin wide tracks and Heavy gun but here is the thing it surrpased it with a better gun radio and much better optics. Its problems were that it was not tested properly and due to a complex but very effective design and lack of effective production organisation was not avalibile in the required high numbers. this is were the T-34 comes out on top the design was simplistic due to the limited capaccity of russian factories but this and a near slave like aproch by the work force produced staggering numbers in the same vain as the Sherman (and no one is saying this is a top tank). the best way to look is the Panther was better but the T-34 was avalibile in higher numbers. evidence Kill ratios of Panthers V T-34/85s (as have comparibile gins crews & both (mostly) had Radios) the French and I think the Cechz used the Panther after the war and I think at some point some on in the Middle East had some. The Designs of the Centurion and (to a lesser degree) The Pershing compare fovoribily with both however they to have a better gun than the T-34 and all had Radios (Both theses Vehicals were WWII designs and were on the battle fronts before the war ended however the Centurion saw no combat as war ended befor Front line Issue). Oh and the effective ness of these Tanks in Korea were all 3 saw action show the T-34 to be Weeker due to gun and lake of Radios (in part). The best Tank today is the Leporde 2A6 followed by the Challenger 2 then the M1A2 / Mercave 4. Leporde has best balance of all requirements the Challenger is second for same resone (The reson it is so often forgoten is the fire control system in the old one was so bad and relibility WAS poor) the MI is third as it uses so much Gas and that is a Problem (eg in Iraq a totaly hopless Iraqi army smashed a Number of Supply Trains for M1s a half organised one could criple them) and the mercave its to slow and yes I appriceate it was designed for a diffrent war and thats why its here. All these Vehicals Now (2A6 recintly entered) fall with in the Titile of must heavily armoured Tanks in service they have good power to wait ratios Very Effective opptics and Very Very good reliability and combat effective/suvibility Rates. the Russian stuff even today blows up real easy and lacks the Tacktical mobility of the Big 4 look at Chettchnia and Gergia also Sudan. S o if I was the One getting shot at ether of these 4 would do but the Chalenger due to the Fact it Took a Huge Ied to penitrate the armour and that previouse crews have walked away from disabiled ones after combat in Iraq would put on Top of list
קודם כל עם הסמל של הצנפים בטח שאין לך מושג מה הסיפור עם התותח החרוק....
Rifled guns have higher acucracy in ammunition that is not stabelized by fins. The british are big fans of the Squash(HESH/HEP) round and the squash is not fin stabelized. The same is true for the WP(White Phosphurous) rounds. At least it was true, I dont know what wierd ammunition is out there for 120 right now. Lets not forget that the British were the first to field 120mm guns on tanks, specifically on the Chieftain, and that 120 was rifled...
Rifled guns have higher acucracy in ammunition that is not stabelized by fins. The british are big fans of the Squash(HESH/HEP) round and the squash is not fin stabelized. The same is true for the WP(White Phosphurous) rounds. At least it was true, I dont know what wierd ammunition is out there for 120 right now. Lets not forget that the British were the first to field 120mm guns on tanks, specifically on the Chieftain, and that 120 was rifled...
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Hey, I thought we were English only 