Best Main Battle Tank!

[MORON]

T-34 > panther, as more tanks > less tanks....

and get under 400 meters, their performance is close enough that they can almost trade 1-1.

For long range snipe matches, thats why IS-2 and ISU-122 are around

[Zkribbler]

"The turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks".

What possible advantage could arise from NOT having a turret?? The article goes onto say that these tanks were more accurate, but it does not say they were more accurate because they didn't have turrets nor does it suggest why not having a turret would make them more accurate.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

What possible advantage could arise from NOT having a turret?? The article goes onto say that these tanks were more accurate, but it does not say they were more accurate because they didn't have turrets nor does it suggest why not having a turret would make them more accurate.

The obvious advan tage of a turretless tank is,
that it normally has a smaller silhoulette and therefore is harder to hit (and to spot).

Perhaps it also doesn´t have some of the weak spots of a turreted tanks (although I don´t know if this makes a difference considering the penetration power of modern sabots)

You also don´t need the machinery that in a normal tank is used to turn the turret therefore perhaps making the tank lighter (and/or making you able to use the weight normally used for this machinery for other things [like more armor for example])

Is there still development going on in the swedish army on turretless MBTs? Or did they quit all of their research in this direction after adopting the Leo 2 for use with their forces?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
The obvious advantage of a turretless tank is,
that it normally has a smaller silhoulette and therefore is harder to hit (and to spot).

Perhaps it also doesn´t have some of the weak spots of a turreted tanks (although I don´t know if this makes a difference considering the penetration power of modern sabots)

You also don´t need the machinery that in a normal tank is used to turn the turret therefore perhaps making the tank lighter (and/or making you able to use the weight normally used for this machinery for other things [like more armor for example])

Whoops. I guess he told me.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Is there still development going on in the swedish army on turretless MBTs? Or did they quit all of their research in this direction after adopting the Leo 2 for use with their forces?

The latter.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


The obvious advan tage of a turretless tank is,
that it normally has a smaller silhoulette and therefore is harder to hit (and to spot).

Yeah, except the S-tank didn't have a signifigantly smaller profile anyway.


And, oh by the way, you had to turn the entire tank to aim the gun. Which means parking the tank behing a hill and leaving onl the turret exposed was a impossibiity.

[BeBMan]

The obvious advantage of a turretless tank is that it has no turret which can be knocked off

[Zoid]

Yes, it´s too bad (so to speak) that the S-tank never got tried in combat.

[Ned]

The Miltary Channel says the best tank is the M1A1. It's main drawback is fuel consumption.

But, from the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, I think that all MBT might need some upgrading/rethinking in armor. The Stryker, of all vehicles, seems very well equipped to deal with the lurking anti-tanker.

[Saras]

My anglophile heart goes out to Chally 2

[Saras]

Sheer beauty:

[Ned]

Saras, how does the C2 compare to the American tank in terms of electronics. This was a major reason the US tank was chosen number 1 by the Military Channel. It had links to other units on the battlefield so the tank could see the tactical situation on a map, and it could acquire and fire at targets faster than any other tank.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned

But, from the recent Israeli experience in Lebanon, I think that all MBT might need some upgrading/rethinking in armor. The Stryker, of all vehicles, seems very well equipped to deal with the lurking anti-tanker.

The striker is under armored - a wheeled APC with a fancy name, that's all.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The greatest MBT of WW2 was the Mustang. Thanks to American fighters less than one out of three German tanks sent towards the western front ever made it to the front lines. I doubt that any Panther or Tiger tank ever so much as scratched a Mustang.

By this definition, the greatest MBT of WW2 was the Il-2 Sturmovik, since a lot more German tanks fought in the Eastern Front, and the Il-2 had far more kills, and was produced in greater numbers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


The striker is under armored - a wheeled APC with a fancy name, that's all.

Apparently your knowledge of the refinements introduced in Iraq is underwhelming. There was a recently Military Channel report that said that the Stryker was the vehicle of choice in Iraq because it was virtually invulnerable to IEDs and rocket attacks. It had a high 90% survival rate.

I think the Israeli's would love to have our modified Strykers for their own armed forces.