Best Tank? Lets figure!

[joey]

Check your PM.
How will ALH or LAH couple with Arjun?

 

[Keysersoze]

Hey thanks for that video info.

There is a good analysis of this on the first link on the failings of the Armoured corp in Lebanon.
With a good layered defence I am sure you can defeat any tank.....A good upgrade to some newer AT systems will make this point moot. After all a few mobility kills will stop a advance just as well as a total kill.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4794829.stm

 

[zraver]

Hey thanks for that video info.

There is a good analysis of this on the first link on the failings of the Armoured corp in Lebanon.
With a good layered defence I am sure you can defeat any tank.....A good upgrade to some newer AT systems will make this point moot. After all a few mobility kills will stop a advance just as well as a total kill.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4794829.stm

yup if tanks are committe dunsupporte dor poorly supported, but properly supported they are devestating.

 

[Riaz Ahmad]

the best tank in the world in french laclerc as it is a true fire on the move tank capable of firing at almost any speed. This capibility is absent from other tanks. Al-Khalid lacks this capibility. Similarly, Russains tanks are said to be able to withstand all types of missile hits headon and this capibility has been tested during trials in the west in which a t-72 was tested in Germany.

Pakistani Khalid tank is heavily based on Russian design despite the fact that Westren designs are considered more safe in case a tank is hit by a projectile as was the case in Iraq.

German Leopard is another example of excellent designs and sophistication.

 

[Keysersoze]

the best tank in the world in french laclerc as it is a true fire on the move tank capable of firing at almost any speed. This capibility is absent from other tanks. Al-Khalid lacks this capibility. Similarly, Russains tanks are said to be able to withstand all types of missile hits headon and this capibility has been tested during trials in the west in which a t-72 was tested in Germany.

Pakistani Khalid tank is heavily based on Russian design despite the fact that Westren designs are considered more safe in case a tank is hit by a projectile as was the case in Iraq.

German Leopard is another example of excellent designs and sophistication.

Which tests are you refering to?
Do you know what systems were used (missles or rpg's?) against the T72?

 

[zraver]

The French leclerc has a move/shoot speed 2kph higher than the M-1 abrams, it is also about 2 seconds fater than the M1a2 0-20mph.

it also has better power to weight and fuel economy.

It does however have signifigant drawbacks.

1- Only 22 rounds are kept in autoloader. The remaining 18 are stored in the hull and the crew must stop to manully transfer them in combat. Not a very apealing task if I do say so. Such pauses might also disrupt the operational tempo allowing the enemy to regroup.

2- 3 man crew means each man has a much higher work load on maintence and standing watches, and command tanks put an impossible burden on the 2 men avalaible to do maintence and stand watches.

3- uneven technology spread. the first 6 batches are now considered so outdated they are being depot level rebuilt to the batch 7-10 standard which is itself using older technology when compared to the newest tanks like the m1a2SEP and Leo 2a6.

4- It is signifigantly less well protected using a titanium tungsten steel weave spaced armor over the updated heavy armors found on the Abrams and Challanger.

5- central and single master computer vs the mutilple digital systems found on the Abrams. If the Leclerc fries it's motherboard it's dead.
Also-This capibility is absent from other tanks.

6- Cost, with less than 500 made each replacement part cost more than say the 8000 plus Abrams where true bulk manufacuring can cut costs.

7- fires a tungsten penetrator with less killing power than the M829A3

like I said it is a whopping 2kph faster in it's move/shoot profile than the Abrams, and only achieved that with a Canadian Cup level team on a preapred course where the Abrams did it in combat.

 

[niaz]

In theory all the modren tanks have something to offer. Based upon the age old battle proven criterian, M-1 Abrams should be the top of the list.

 

[blain2]

Historically this is only partly true. Russian front saw the whole 'tank armies' involved in trying to encircle each other. No one can say that Germans tactics were inferior or they didnot know how to exploit their tanks capabilities.

What made the difference was T-34. A relatively simple tank, not as sophiscated as the Nazi Tigers, but one which was able to operate in extreme weather, was easy to maintain and quite ruggged. In addition, there were sufficient numbers available to replace those that were lost/destroyed.

In a nut shell; quality of tank does matter. But quality should relate to the theatre of operation, also two high quality tanks are better than one high quality tank.

However, in an urban theatre of operation, where the advantages of the tank, which are mainly mobility and punching power and ability to outflank, is nullified. It is reduced to a mobile artillery and there is a big question mark about it usefulness as an offensive weapon against a well trained infantry armed with hig tech anti tank equipment. No different from the scenario where cavalry is trying to capture a town full of well armed infantry and bowman.

I agree that Tank quality matters, however my point was actually more so from a sub-continental standpoint. Neither side has introduced a tank in the class of Abrams, LeopardII, Challenger etc. Its mostly a hodgepodge of technology which is pretty much in the same class (Indians may say otherwise with regards to Arjun, but it has to be inducted in large enough numbers to make a difference). The situation overall is not much different than what it was in 65 or 71 from the standpoint of hardware available...then too the two sides were not able to exploit their armour in the possible way.

Asymmetric warfare does not apply in the case of India and Pakistan at least from a conventional standpoint. If there was a war tomorrow, the subcontinent is the only place in the world where Armoured warfare at the scale of WWII would happen. But waht would really matter in this case is the tactics.

 

[blain2]

In theory all the modren tanks have something to offer. Based upon the age old battle proven criterian, M-1 Abrams should be the top of the list.

Well this goes for most US hardware. It gives you the biggest bang for your buck that is why most countries (including Pakistan) like it, however even the Abrams is not cheap by any means.

On a sidebar, the Pakistan Army likes the Leopard a lot. They would jump on the opportunity to acquire it if it were not that expensive.

 

[vnomad]

Well this goes for most US hardware. It gives you the biggest bang for your buck that is why most countries (including Pakistan) like it, however even the Abrams is not cheap by any means.

On a sidebar, the Pakistan Army likes the Leopard a lot. They would jump on the opportunity to acquire it if it were not that expensive.

A Chinese guy was saying that Pakistan is a potential customer for the Type 99.

 

[blain2]

A Chinese guy was saying that Pakistan is a potential customer for the Type 99.

That maybe the case, I was simply stating what the Pakistani Armoured Corps has preferred for a while....realistically speaking, in terms of the numbers required and the possibility of sanctions, it makes the Leopard a very risky proposition.

 

[waz]

A Chinese guy was saying that Pakistan is a potential customer for the Type 99.

A rumour at best I’ve heard Pakistan will be looking for a tank modelled more along the western MBT types so hence radically different from Al-Khalid .Recent agreements between us and the French for joint developing of armour seem to suggest we are heading this way. We should also do without the 125mm gun and put emphasis on better armour.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well that is interesting....Where did you hear this rumour? Maybe Zraver can shed some light on French armour systems?

I thought that a lot of the postwar French tank systems were lighter on armour, than their British, German or American systems.....

Hopefully any new gun system can be fitted retroactively to the Ak.....

 

[waz]

Well that is interesting....Where did you hear this rumour? Maybe Zraver can shed some light on French armour systems?

I thought that a lot of the postwar French tank systems were lighter on armour, than their British, German or American systems.....

Hopefully any new gun system can be fitted retroactively to the Ak.....

It’s stronger than a rumour the proposed designs for Al-Khalid 2 were being talked about in the “Kanwa” intelligence review 2004.11.30. People who visited IDEAS 2006 also got to talk to people from HIT and they confirmed the same thing along with army sources. We will be seeing more in 2007 about the new tank.

As for Al-Khlaid upgrades they will be running parallel but I very much doubt we will see a 120mm gun fitted to the first Al-Khalid.

You’re right about the amour issue as the French have always followed on from what other nations have done like for example when the French decided to implement the titanium-tungsten system to the Leclerc in 2001, in the Batch 10 lot with the inner spaces filled with non explosive reactive armour. The French tank is still considerably lighter than it’s main rivals at 56 ton compared to over 60 for both the M1A2 and the Leo.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hmm the thing I was refering to, was the armour/speed/firepower balance.

The AMX30 was a lot lighter in it's armour protection (thickness of armour and resilience) than it's contemporaries.

So I guess the question I am asking is........Will French systems be as effective as comparative systems in the M1 or the Merkava? From pictures I have seen. The LeClerc has some sort of replaceable modular armour system so they might have been planning easy upgrades to a lower level system.