Tweet
Comments to poll
Germans more thought on its WWII history than about new tank design. Leopard I was entirely uneffective and awfull. Leopard II was improvement, but has much to do until T-80U. Armor about 1000 against standard amunition 1550 HEAT. IR less advanced than top notch Russian.
T-80 with its engine is more moneverable than his counterparts. Aprox 850 standard amunition 1300 HEAT.
T-90 with 1000 against standard 1580 HEAT could do better than leopard. less profile and bulkines. Both Russian tanks have kontakt-5 ERA. They couid fire higher variety of ammo from its 125 mm gun. From missiles to flechete. They could get Arena on top or other cheaper countermeasures. Russia have different ideology than is "standard US WW II ideology of selfprobeled AT vehicle". Their tanks are well all around versed and better suited for fight in difficult combined arms enviroment. Of course they were build with thought that they wouldn't have guaranted air superiority, and thats don't hurt either. With tonage less than 45 for T-80 and 46.8 for T-90 they have much less fear from bad bridges. BTW Russian military doesn't neccesary thing that bridges are first targets in campaign and they have lots of mobile ones. (you blowed bridge? And who cares.)
T-95 is best alternative towerless concept, low profile 152 mm gun. Again missile... Soldiers would be much better protected than in former Russian tanks. I would however redesign lower part of this tank to be more compact and I would like view its engine in front,
Merkava 4 has to high profile to be effective widely. Its another weaknes is 65 tones. Merkava closed more to M1A2 than would be nice. Big armor envelope outdated ERA and its looks like xxxx. Merkava have rather low penetration ammo. Merkava has high top armor, probably as attempt to protect itself against programmable amunitions and top atack antitank weapons.
Leclerc is French highend armored vehicle. It features high armor and is better than L 2. It has high quietnes of componets, but it would need to be in few wars to remove some of its quirks. One disadvantage is its turbine. Tt has higer fuel consumption than it should. Everyone with experience with computer game developing and weapons building could design better controls than they did. I think they should do something with characterstic parameters of that gun. You know they talk about it as tank thad was build too soon. This gun doesn't look so effective.
Chalenger 2 has high armor low anything else, other than steadines of crews.
M1A2 is big with high fuel comsumtion and its armor isn't everywhere reasonable. One of its problem is its turbine. It has high IR characteristic that alows to nice lock for every antitank missile that could lock on IR. Depleted uranium isn't smart thing. I wouldn't like to be close when M1A2 would be hit by some antitank fire. And I would stay rather far away from it for nex 5 minutes. US did some enchancedradiation weapons for use aginst Russia, but if they would be as as efficient against Russian tanks, it would be dissaster for M1A2. Even simple neutron blast could do nasty things with M1A2 armor. Low armor of M1A2 is not nice and back armor is simply bad. It needs a lots of fuel to do anything and its 65 tons wouldn't alow ride in some cities.
T-98 (chinese) Chinese tanks grows somewhat. Its armor is 800 against normal 1000 HEAT. Chinese had big Laser research and T-98 is likely to have its fruits. It looks like old T-80 however.
Its electronic suit is better than early models T-80 electronice equipment.
Black eagle has tower that looks like its wester counterparts, its tower is more advanced however. Export model?
K1A1 is Korean copy of M1A2 with all its problems.
Ariete and Oliphant. I have included them just for conterweight. Every person with brains and creative talent could design better than this two types. I know that without long research you'd have no chance to have perfect armor, but PLEASE THIS? Do better. I think there is hope.
bananas are really dangerous. Some of them could be under your foot, barrel, or in ammo storage and eek.
Sorry for grammar faults too much text for too short time.
Germans more thought on its WWII history than about new tank design. Leopard I was entirely uneffective and awfull. Leopard II was improvement, but has much to do until T-80U. Armor about 1000 against standard amunition 1550 HEAT. IR less advanced than top notch Russian.
T-80 with its engine is more moneverable than his counterparts. Aprox 850 standard amunition 1300 HEAT.
T-90 with 1000 against standard 1580 HEAT could do better than leopard. less profile and bulkines. Both Russian tanks have kontakt-5 ERA. They couid fire higher variety of ammo from its 125 mm gun. From missiles to flechete. They could get Arena on top or other cheaper countermeasures. Russia have different ideology than is "standard US WW II ideology of selfprobeled AT vehicle". Their tanks are well all around versed and better suited for fight in difficult combined arms enviroment. Of course they were build with thought that they wouldn't have guaranted air superiority, and thats don't hurt either. With tonage less than 45 for T-80 and 46.8 for T-90 they have much less fear from bad bridges. BTW Russian military doesn't neccesary thing that bridges are first targets in campaign and they have lots of mobile ones. (you blowed bridge? And who cares.)
T-95 is best alternative towerless concept, low profile 152 mm gun. Again missile... Soldiers would be much better protected than in former Russian tanks. I would however redesign lower part of this tank to be more compact and I would like view its engine in front,
Merkava 4 has to high profile to be effective widely. Its another weaknes is 65 tones. Merkava closed more to M1A2 than would be nice. Big armor envelope outdated ERA and its looks like xxxx. Merkava have rather low penetration ammo. Merkava has high top armor, probably as attempt to protect itself against programmable amunitions and top atack antitank weapons.
Leclerc is French highend armored vehicle. It features high armor and is better than L 2. It has high quietnes of componets, but it would need to be in few wars to remove some of its quirks. One disadvantage is its turbine. Tt has higer fuel consumption than it should. Everyone with experience with computer game developing and weapons building could design better controls than they did. I think they should do something with characterstic parameters of that gun. You know they talk about it as tank thad was build too soon. This gun doesn't look so effective.
Chalenger 2 has high armor low anything else, other than steadines of crews.
M1A2 is big with high fuel comsumtion and its armor isn't everywhere reasonable. One of its problem is its turbine. It has high IR characteristic that alows to nice lock for every antitank missile that could lock on IR. Depleted uranium isn't smart thing. I wouldn't like to be close when M1A2 would be hit by some antitank fire. And I would stay rather far away from it for nex 5 minutes. US did some enchancedradiation weapons for use aginst Russia, but if they would be as as efficient against Russian tanks, it would be dissaster for M1A2. Even simple neutron blast could do nasty things with M1A2 armor. Low armor of M1A2 is not nice and back armor is simply bad. It needs a lots of fuel to do anything and its 65 tons wouldn't alow ride in some cities.
T-98 (chinese) Chinese tanks grows somewhat. Its armor is 800 against normal 1000 HEAT. Chinese had big Laser research and T-98 is likely to have its fruits. It looks like old T-80 however.
Its electronic suit is better than early models T-80 electronice equipment.Black eagle has tower that looks like its wester counterparts, its tower is more advanced however. Export model?
K1A1 is Korean copy of M1A2 with all its problems.
Ariete and Oliphant. I have included them just for conterweight. Every person with brains and creative talent could design better than this two types. I know that without long research you'd have no chance to have perfect armor, but PLEASE THIS? Do better. I think there is hope.
bananas are really dangerous. Some of them could be under your foot, barrel, or in ammo storage and eek.
Sorry for grammar faults too much text for too short time.
Comment