Ratus Ratus
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 806
- Reaction score
- 0
We only have the tank, not the variants.
That should be with the next order.
That should be with the next order.
The Best Tank in the World
- Thread starter T-Rex
- Start date
How about the first head on kill by any weapon not launched from an aircraft?
Nope, its about stacking the deck as far as possible in favor of your side.
its the quiestest
it has the best KE ammo/gun combo
it has the best FLIR
it has the most FLIR
It has the best battlemanagement system able to track and communicate with an entire brigade and higher head quarters and a host of other functions.
It has the most combat experienced crews, it also has the most multireenlistment- long serving crews .
Its proven itself able to drive 5x more miles than the design life called for.
it has the most powerful engine which is governed at 1500hp but can do over 3000hp.
The US is in the final stages of developing a round that will give it the worlds only smart BVR tank round
+1
Winter in the states and Germany, rice paddies in S. Korea, deserts in Arabia and Egypt used by the USA, Egypt KSA, Kuwait, and Iraq. Now the aussies have it too.
It's done o.k.
Fixed and +1 again.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
+1 on the affirmation.
-1 on my quote. You butchered it!
Winter in the states and Germany, rice paddies in S. Korea, U.S. deserts, Egypt, KSA, Kuwait, and Iraq. Now the aussies have it too.
"Winter in the states and Germany, rice paddies in S. Korea, deserts in Arabia and Egypt used by the USA, Egypt KSA, Kuwait, and Iraq. Now the aussies have it too."
I'm not describing who has it. Just the turf that's felt an M-1 footprint. Plenty of feedback from plenty of sand, mud, sleet, ice, snow, rain. sun...all over the globe.
-1 on my quote. You butchered it!
Winter in the states and Germany, rice paddies in S. Korea, U.S. deserts, Egypt, KSA, Kuwait, and Iraq. Now the aussies have it too.
"Winter in the states and Germany, rice paddies in S. Korea, deserts in Arabia and Egypt used by the USA, Egypt KSA, Kuwait, and Iraq. Now the aussies have it too."
I'm not describing who has it. Just the turf that's felt an M-1 footprint. Plenty of feedback from plenty of sand, mud, sleet, ice, snow, rain. sun...all over the globe.
only one point, yet to see the impact of latest generation of russian KE penetrators on it. velocity is nearing 2000-2100 m/sec which is potent enough especially with evolution in the design philosophy doing away with long rod theory ...... not sure ..... zraver/s-2 care to elucidate/debunk?
Source please the 2A46M5 gun is a 1750-1800m/s gun for APFSDS unless they have had a huge breakthrough in propellant technology or go for an even smaller sub-caliber penetrator. Possible performance from a 135mm or 152mm cannon does not mean much until its fielded.
yeah will post the link to you asap ...... damn thing I came across a few days back while I was making random checks in literature but cant recal the site ........
queried in case you have any idea. brb asap
Jumping from 1750 m/s to over 2000m/s is a huge increase in barrel pressures if your firing the same weight and would require either more or better propellant and a stronger gun. The other option is to keep a similar weight projectile but go to a bigger gun that has more propellant, or go with a smaller round in the 125mm class.
As for departing from the long rod penetrator design, I guess its possible no projectile is prefect for ever and it is vulnerable to sheer by varying degrees. But I would not count it out yet. Russia is still trying to counter the M829A3 with its latest Kacktus heavy ERA.
I failed to find the post till yet. It has more to do with core research in propellant and density of the KE penetrator which is being further reinforced by varying the combination of tungsten core with DU-Molybdenum/nickel mixture to further enhance the density. In addition since any KE penetrator with L/D ratio in excess of 6-7 is considered unstable, the aim is now to have shorter length of the rod and more dense and maintenance of high muzzle velocity to achieve the necessary KE.
I think the M829A3 you have mentioned is shorter than its predecessors as it was noted that the Kontakt-5 ERA was getting a better length to work with to "cut" the rod and reduce the velocity.
Treat my query as redundant till as such time I come across the necessary post. Kindly do proceed and shed light on evolution of APFSDs in US army and potential impact on tanks.
In correct on several counts
1. the old style Soviet penetrators fired as part of a bore riding sabot package had a L/D ratio of about 16:1. Modern penetrators are around 30:1.
2.The longest in service is the M829A3 at 835mm long. It is also the densest and the most resistant to sheer effects as it was designed to counter the Kontack-5 heavy ERA.
3. Sheer isn't aobut cuttign velocity, the round already hit the target at what ever speed it was traveling. Sheer seeks to A reduce the energy transference but cutting mass and B knock the penetrator off alignment so its impact area goes up so the energy it does deliver it not as tightly focused.
H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the mobility and fire power are the key factors for a tank to be suucessful in any Battalic scenario. But poor Armour makes it extreemly vulnerable to anti tank wepons and Attack Chpers Like Cobra,Appache etc.
The russian tanks are still by far the most effective battle tanks ever.
The russian tanks are still by far the most effective battle tanks ever.
When the Soviet Union was invaded in 1941 they had 50,000 tanks to oppose 3,000 German tanks- The Germans reached Moscow after the Soviets lost 10's of thousands of tanks.
During the war they made more than 50,000 T-34's, 4 out of 5 died in combat.
In the endless Arab-Israeli wars the T-34, T-54, T-55, T-62, and T-72have never even come close to the records of the Western tanks.
In the Iran-Iraq war the legions of iraqs Sovioet tanks failed to defeat Iran and its small fleet of Patton and Cheiftain tanks.
In Iraq (ODS/OIF), the T-72 (export model) got run over like it wasn't even there.
In Chenchynia, the T-72s (non-export model) and T-80's got ripped apart in Grozny.
In Georgia the upgraded T-72's used by Georgia sent thier turrets into the air in firey funeral pyres.
Please can you provide some examples where they were effective at doing something other thanserving as a single use 3 or 4 man creamatorium?
Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
When the Soviet Union was invaded in 1941 they had 50,000 tanks to oppose 3,000 German tanks- The Germans reached Moscow after the Soviets lost 10's of thousands of tanks.
During the war they made more than 50,000 T-34's, 4 out of 5 died in combat.
In the endless Arab-Israeli wars the T-34, T-54, T-55, T-62, and T-72have never even come close to the records of the Western tanks.
In the Iran-Iraq war the legions of iraqs Sovioet tanks failed to defeat Iran and its small fleet of Patton and Cheiftain tanks.
In Iraq (ODS/OIF), the T-72 (export model) got run over like it wasn't even there.
In Chenchynia, the T-72s (non-export model) and T-80's got ripped apart in Grozny.
In Georgia the upgraded T-72's used by Georgia sent thier turrets into the air in firey funeral pyres.
Please can you provide some examples where they were effective at doing something other thanserving as a single use 3 or 4 man creamatorium?
That's a rather high number of tanks, at least for the year 1940, the year in which the T-34 first entered service (first production vehicles per september 1940).
The Soviet Union had about between 19,000 and 28,000 armoured fighting vehicles when it entered the war in 1941.
This included T-27 'tankettes', T-37A/38/40 amphibious tanks, T-26 light tanks, BT-series fast tank, T-28 medium tanks, T38 heavy tanks and relatively few T-34 medium tanks and KV-series heavy tanks. Most of the tank designs were ineffective and/or outdated, with the exception of T-34 and KV-series. These were used against the Germans by poorly trained conscripts, led by what little was left of the cadre of officers (most of the old cadre had not survived Stalin's purges) and political officers. Most of this initial force was thrown away, to buy time to move industry behind the Urals and to train and equip divisions with newly designed materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...le_production_during_World_War_II#cite_note-1
The death rate of the T-34 does not reflect on its qualities vis-a-vis the German tanks (the Panther emerged only after Germans encountered T-34s and only because a more or less straight copy - Daimler Benz VK3002 - was out of the question) but again it reflects how it was used in action by soviet leaders. Despite Panthers and Tigers, the bulk of German armor throughout the war consisted of PzKw IVs and Stug III/IV, which are not at all superior to the T-34.
Also the example of use of the portwar T-series has at many times more to do with leadership than with technical qualities of MBTs. Of course, the T-series are geared to a certain doctrine (massed armor), as are western tanks (combined arms, follow-on forces attack). You can't blame the tank for the doctrine.
Grozny is different due to the urban nature of most combat (tanks don't do well in urban combat, in not supported properly)
^--- excuses for the most part. American tanks generally had thinner armor, a weaker gun and a bigger silhouette, but dominated the encounters almost every single time. The Russian design philosophy has never worked as advertised.
BTW, one of the myths of WWII was that the Germans had superior tanks over all in 1941 vs the USSR. Germany had few modern tanks and was still using the pz II in a direct tank role in some units. It also had large numbers of Pz 35,Pz 38 and Pz III 37mm gun tanks that were not markedly superior to the T-26 which had been the best tank in the war in Spain just a couple of years earlier.
BTW, one of the myths of WWII was that the Germans had superior tanks over all in 1941 vs the USSR. Germany had few modern tanks and was still using the pz II in a direct tank role in some units. It also had large numbers of Pz 35,Pz 38 and Pz III 37mm gun tanks that were not markedly superior to the T-26 which had been the best tank in the war in Spain just a couple of years earlier.
Similar threads
