Most dominating tank in the world

[Wraith]

--"So, do you work on new type of tank to replace M1A2 or you want to upgrade M1A2 with more advanced systems- electronic, defence etc.?"

Both of the above, most likely.

The new project is called the Future Combat System, but it seems to deal with the entire ground forces, and not just heavy armor. (A more tank-specific commentary is here in PDF form).

However, some of the things in the FCS could easily be retrofitted into the exting M1 line. The early guns on the FCS are upgraded versions of what was supposed to replace the M1 main gun, so they shouldn't be too difficult to change. There's some interesting claims on the new ammunition for them, too, like 100%+ increase in penetration. I'd wait for trials before deciding on that one, but with Rocket Assist Kinetic Energy penetrators it's certainly feasibile...

The overall project is very ambitious.

Wraith
You call a plasma grenade a WARNING?

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Serb

May be because not all countries have automatic loading systems more efficient then live man? Frech LECLERC MBT for example have such system.

I don't mean just tanks, I meant all heavy weapons in general. Very few of them have autoloaders. They are very hard to make reliably.

It was just simple calculations based on info about M1A2 which I've read somewhere, there was said that loader must load the gun within 7 seconds. But very good, (veteran) loader can load gun faster then 7 seconds. And yes, I agreed that good loader is able to load a gun within 5 seconds as you said.

We agree on that, then.

Not exactly, because of its lighter weight T-80U is more maneuverable, it able to go through obstacles like hills at higher speed then M1A2 etc. I was quite impressed when on last military exchibition wich happen in my city last summer, I saw the "flight" of T-80U. At full speed muchine jumped from small hill, the tank was few meters abowe the ground and flew seweral meters, and make a shot while 'flight'. I saw other tricks this tank could do, like climbing over 1 meter height absolutely vertical obstacle and others. But jump over hill was the most impressive.

I have a hard time believeing it fired while in mid-air as you say, however, if that is true, then the T-80U is more agile.

M1A2 -1500 HP, T-80U - 1250HP, yes in absolute numbers M1A2 have more powerful engine, but the hevier the tank the more power it needs. That's what for a "Power to Weight Ratio" characteristic are using. The M1A2 have 21.6 hp/ton, while T-80U have 27.17 hp/tn. By this parameter T-80U is better.

The only figure I can find for the T-80U is 1000hp.

Thanks.
But' again this is absolute numbers, while silhouette is more important, and T-80U has smaller silhouette. I'm absolutely sure about this.

The silhouette of the T-80U is smaller; shorter by 3cm, narrower by 1cm, and lower by 8.5cm. That is all the difference, and the silhouette is that much smaller. Not very much.

Yeah, Chobham armour is very good and hard to penatrate. But ERA use different principle, it is an active defence and it could be easily attached to tank of any model.

Chobham and ERA are very similliar. They both provide about the same amount of protection.

I can asure you that it's not true, our tanks showed much better perfomance then German's in hard weather conditions of Russian winter and in hot summers too.

In the winter, yes, the Russian tanks largely outperformed the German ones, as they were designed to operate under such harsh conditions. However, in the summer, when cold, ice, and snow were not factors, the German tanks were equals of the Russian ones, even at the end of the war. The Russian advantage came from having tens of thousands of tanks, far more then their adversaries.

So, do you work on new type of tank to replace M1A2 or you want to upgrade M1A2 with more advanced systems- electronic, defence etc.? What's the plans for near future? If this is not a classified information of course.

Yes, as Wraith said earlier. Its called the FCS, and it incorporates many new advances, and other ideas.

The M1A2 is the second M1 tank the US army has built. The Abrams tank (what we're talking about now) is unrelated to the original M1, built in 1916, the Ford 3-ton Tracklayer.

Today our army semi-professional. Part of it are conscripts another part are mans who signed contracts, but in near future entire army will be consisted of professionals only.

I imagine that your army will move to a fuly professional background, as they already are. However, until they completely reach that point, their will be conscript soldiers running around, and conscript training is ****ty compared to professional training.

Who knows? Just a letter. As far as I remember it means -'Unificirovannyi"- Unificated?

Thanks. Now what does that mean?

Yeah...
The most important without insults.
But I wounder if I'll be able to continue it untill Sunday. I had to go now.

When the insults start flying, it gets unpleasant.

Steele

[joseph1944]

As in the other thread about aircraft the M-1 has never lost in a tank to tank battle.

[HisMajestyBOB]

But the US Army vs the Iraqi army (and their poorly maintained tanks) is like a modern army vs. Greek Hoplites. The Iraqi equipment was extremely inferior and their crews also greatly inferior. Against a worthy foe the M1 probably wouldn't come away without casualties.

[steelehc]

The Iraqui army was the forth largest in the world, after China, the US, and Russia. The Republican Guard was very well trained. They were equipped with the same vehicles that made up the backbone of the Russian arsenal.

Steele

[Case]

Originally posted by Alephz

Can you post some good link about t-95 please?

try google

[Wraith]

--"The Republican Guard was very well trained."

IIRC, we didn't engage the Republican Guard very much. They were kept mostly out of combat so Saddam could keep the core of his military intact.

In any case, a couple of points I probably should have mentioned earlier.

That reactive armour you're so proud of Serb? Reactive armour is an applique thing (you have to replace it, after all). It can be added to the Abrams if we want.
And I'm still highly amused by those RAKE rounds. Someone had one of those "but it was so obvious that no one thought if it" moments.

In any case, the whole "Which xxxxx is best" comments are becoming irrelevant. The days when one single class of combatant could dominate are long gone. Everything is combined-arms these days, and what's important is how well the pieces can function together. This sort of thing is why the AEGIS system is so important. The US, with the FCS, is doing something similar with their ground combat forces. The C3 is going to be more decisive than the individual components.

Wraith
The problem with the easy way out is that it's already been mined

[Saint Marcus]

German Leopard 2a4

Why not the more modern E, A5 or A6 models? Or the adjusted foreign models (like the Swedish or Dutch ones).

The latest Leopard 2s are currently the best MBTs around.

[datakodin]

Originally posted by steelehc
The Iraqui army was the forth largest in the world, after China, the US, and Russia. The Republican Guard was very well trained.

Are you talking about the guys who tried to surrender to your Pioneer UAV flying overhead? Tell that to the Marines

[MORON]

So, how many pages will this go?

PANZERKAMPTWAGEN

[Zylka]

The M1A2 is without question the pick of the litter. Although the Merkava is definitely the coolest one.

Isn't the chinese just an upgraded T-80 (Or T-72)?

[Zylka]

I'd also like to see a "what was the most dominating tank of it's time" thread... probably the tiger, no?

[Zylka]

Just keep in mind that this is the most sinister "tank" of all time

[MORON]

Jadertiger with morter?

(why so much armor for morter?)

[Evil_Eric_4]

M1A2 hands down.

It might be the biggest and costliest in both construction and upkeep but we can afford it.

Also the M1A2 has the best battle record of all the choices.

As far as looks go The French tank looks really cool.

The Abrams looks cleanest(no need for all that reactive armor crap sticking out all over when you got Uranium armor).

The T90 looks plenty lethal and kinda scary.Although I was under the impresion that this is their export version(economy model)and that their best was still the T-80.Also heard about a turretless design somewhere-could this be this Black Eagle ?

Dont understand the leopard series-Its like Germany took a step back from ww2 sloped armor technology.Its all blocky looking -you can almost see a Russian AP round punching right thru it.
Although Im sure the maingun is the best around.

The Merkava is plain ugly but if the crew lives to fight another day I could live with it.The transport capabilities is what makes this MBT shine.

Oh almost forgot the Challenger- I saw nothing remarkable here-probably why I almost forgot.

1.M1A2
2.T-80
3.Merkava
4.Leopard
5.LeClerc
6.Challenger

IMHO of course.