The Best Modern Tanks.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-04-2005, 04:31 PM

this's simply about the best tank, surely value for money should be considdered?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonskimmer

I'm just a bit curious about one thing concerning the Abrams. Why did they give it a gas engine? As I understand it, it was designed to have a larger magazine, but then it was decided to stick a gas turbine in it instead of a diesel, which necessitated larger fuel tanks. This all but negated the extra room for ammo.

Your guess is as good as mine on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

this's simply about the best tank, surely value for money should be considdered?

You are correct as I said however in me and Sorens argument it weighs no value due to the fact that the tanks are not shooting dollar bills at each other, it has no merit on the battlefield if a Abrams and a Leopard were squaring off.

Soren · 12-04-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

So being from the Swedish military would make it very well known as you said.

Never said it was Very well known, but yes there would probably be a greater chance of you knowing about it then.

Quote:

Yes I know that Turbines creat alot of heat. The Abrams uses the same turbine just modified that my helicopter uses. The little bit that the Leopard would be less vunerable would not make a difference against modern heat seeking weapons.

That is what is said though, but I don't really have alot of knowledge on heat seeking missiles.

Quote:

Basically what I am getting at here Soren is the fact that if you are going to go out and discredit things as you do, you need to give more reasons other than because I said so, which you are notorious for.

Well Im sorry if I come across like that, cause thats not at all how I'm like, just sharing what I know thats all.

I don't think I've discredited anything though... Oh well...

Soren · 12-04-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

this's simply about the best tank, surely value for money should be considdered?

Absolutely, and it is.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Never said it was Very well known, but yes there would probably be a greater chance of you knowing about it then.

Are you sure you did not say that, here is what you said:

Anyway these tests are quite well known, so I'd be surprised if there inst someone on this site with a little knowledge on modern armor to verify this for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Well Im sorry if I come across like that, cause thats not at all how I'm like, just sharing what I know thats all.

I don't think I've discredited anything though... Oh well...

No worries, it is just the way you come across sometimes. Please dont stop sharing your thoughts and what you know.

Soren · 12-04-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Are you sure you did not say that, here is what you said:

Anyway these tests are quite well known, so I'd be surprised if there inst someone on this site with a little knowledge on modern armor to verify this for you.

Yes Im sure I didn't say it was Very well known, hence why I highlighted that, I did however say it was "quite" well known. (It is to those who regularly read about modern armor atleast

)

There are even pictures of the trials, I'll try digging some up for you.

Quote:

No worries, it is just the way you come across sometimes. Please dont stop sharing your thoughts and what you know.

Hey, no sweat, its already forgotten

Glider · 12-04-2005, 06:05 PM

I did agree with Soren so its only fair that I should put why I agreed with the view that the Leopard and the Challenger are slightly ahead of the M1.

Firepower is more or less equal in all three. The Challenger is slightly more accurate but the difference is small and none of us would want to be in the sights of any of these three tanks.

The Challenger is slightly less agile of the three but its enough to get around the battlefield and that's what really counts. The same argument as used against the Centurion which was the best tank from 1946 to early 70's. So I tend to discount the speed is protection argument as long as you have enough.

For my money the difference is the engine. First the plus's.
The Gas Turbine was chosen as its power to weight ratio is much better and its physically a lot smaller. This is of course a significant plus. This gave it more space inside the tank to be used for whatever the designers wanted and one intention was to carry more ammo.
At this point it should be remembered that the M1 was designed and first built for the 105mm not the 120. I cannot be sure as I don't know but logic tells me that if you up-gun the tank to a 120, the shells are a lot bigger that is likely to be why you lose most of the spare space available. Just a thought but it makes sense to me

The downside of the Gas turbine are two fold. We all know that they generate more heat which means that you are more likely to be seen. Its the being seen bit that makes it more vulnerable.
Also its more difficult to hide in ambush with a Gas Turbine on, as the signature will give you away and it uses a lot of juice compared to a diesel. Obviously there isn't much point hiding in ambush if you cannot do much with the gun.
As for Sweden, again I don't know but its an area that is very cold most of the year and any extra heat that is produced is something that they would want to avoid. It isn't that the Swedes were against the the Gas Turbine. The Swedish S tank has a Gas Turbine but it also had a diesel for the hydraulics which were used to point the tank and gun.
The Gas turbine is also more vulnerable to things like petrol bombs as the flames are drawn into the engine and I know that a small number in Iraq have been lost in this manner.

I cannot guarantee that I am right as I am no tanker but it the basis of my estimation and as I said its only fair that I share these with you.

PS the Challenger wasn't part of the Swedish trials as the government would release one to take part. Dumb logic or what.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 06:10 PM

Thankyou Glider that was a good post. I agree with you on a lot of the parts of your post.

I think that we are all going to agree to disagree.

I personally think that the 3 tanks mentioned in this argument are the best tanks in the world. The main reason why I believe that the Abrams is better is mostly due to its track record. It has fought more battles and lost more battles.

I too have argued many points for the Leopard. Some people stated that the Leopard can not be even thought of because it has not really seen combat. I disagree and think the Leopard is a marvelous tank. I just however feel that is slightly, maybe half a point behind the Abrams.

Glider · 12-04-2005, 06:19 PM

With you on that. Between these three tanks its almost certainly down to the better trained crew and tactical position. Against any of these you are almost certain to only get one chance, and any mistake would be your last.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

With you on that. Between these three tanks its almost certainly down to the better trained crew and tactical position. Against any of these you are almost certain to only get one chance, and any mistake would be your last.

Now that I can 100 percent agree with.

Soren · 12-04-2005, 06:39 PM

I can definitely also agree with that.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 06:41 PM

102first_hussars · 12-04-2005, 06:50 PM

One thing I am curious about, the Abrams tank uses depleted Uranium armour, isnt the DU just plain lead? if not how the hell are the makers able to make the stuff non radioactive?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 06:56 PM

Here you go:

Q. What is depleted uranium?

A. Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

Natural uranium contains nominally 0.7110% U-235 (+/- 0.1% variation) and 99.28305% U-238 (and 0.0054% U-234), while depleted uranium contains only 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent U-235. The U-235 is concentrated into enriched uranium through the process of isotope separation for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.

The enrichment process does not create U-235 but merely separates the different isotopes of uranium. Therefore the process leaves large amounts of depleted uranium as a waste product. For example producing 1 kg of 5% enriched uranium requires 11.8 kg of natural uranium, leaving about 10.8 kg of depleted uranium with 0.3% U-235.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Soren · 12-04-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

PS the Challenger wasn't part of the Swedish trials as the government would release one to take part. Dumb logic or what.

Yes, thats right. And yeah, a good opportunity was lost there for Vickers Defence Systems.

However Greece had trials with all three tanks in May 2000. And in March 2002, Greece decided to procure the Leopard 2A6 (to be designated the Leopard 2A6 GR), selecting the German tank over five competitors from the United States and Europe.