Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bates17

M1 Abrams v M1 Abrams?

80 posts in this topic

As opposed to Brazil's?....wait....Brazil has armored units?...No they have purchased equipment...U.S. Army and German Army leftovers....

Oh and BTW where do you think the top instructors in most countries go to study at? Fort Knox. Want to deny it? Look it up.

LOL!

Dude... Wake up!

1 - Less "country biased" here. I'm not comparing any country with no other. This is STUPIDITY. You're acting like a 12 yo boy. Are you?

2 - If you had "a little more" knowledge about war equipment, you should know that Brazil sells a lot of them, but not heavy things like Airplanes, Tanks or Boats. Try to READ a little more and you will get it. Now, go to a gun store and see from where most of them are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently saw a doco as well on Discovery where they were asking a lot of tank crews their pick for best tank all round, and all of them said the Leopard II.

History Channel in Australia here ran another doco the week after analysing almost all of the top 10 modern tanks, and Leopard II was also voted the best there.

A friend of mine from my old service days also is a huge fan of the Leopard II, and he's a tank loader. He constantly whines that if Australia ever gets a budget enabling us to upgrade beyond catapults and trebuchets, he'd be after a shiny Leopard II. LOL.

Sadly we went from modified leopard 1 to the yank tank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL!

Dude... Wake up!

1 - Less "country biased" here. I'm not comparing any country with no other. This is STUPIDITY. You're acting like a 12 yo boy. Are you?

2 - If you had "a little more" knowledge about war equipment, you should know that Brazil sells a lot of them, but not heavy things like Airplanes, Tanks or Boats. Try to READ a little more and you will get it. Now, go to a gun store and see from where most of them are.

If I feel like arguing this mute point, I'll pm you, you are right, less bias. Actual events and facts speak louder than words on a forum anyhow.

On to the main topic....one poster hit on the head. A lot of the MBT's of non-third-world or barley-non-third-world countries are so comparable that a straight tank on tank fight would come down to more than just equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a fact.

Training requires time and money, and no one puts as much into everything from simulators to full scale skirmishes as the US does.

No other european army has as much real experience in modern armored warfare as the US does.

where do you get this from?

UK have been in Afghanistan and Iraq since the very begining.

Before that they were in the Balkans. Before that they were in Iraq the first time.

And that's the longest time troops will have served.

ISREAL certainly has more experience than the US having been constantly fighting for survivale since the beggining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of the MBT's of non-third-world or barley-non-third-world countries are so comparable that a straight tank on tank fight would come down to more than just equipment.

yes and US crews while up there are certainly equalled by brits and beaten by isrealis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn´t even the history told us, that morale and faith is playing a major role too?

Defending the "own soil" is quite different from fighting for some wrong-guided politicians.

The best equipment is useless, if the comanding officer talks about retreating. In the oposite - inferior equipment can beat high tech vehicles in a kamikaze-style.

And what i am asking myself all the times:

Whats the use of all that computerized/guided systems, when nuclear EMP can create a malfunction to electronical modules? Simple technics will survive (like an older diesel-engine..... )

Edited by pauker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where do you get this from?

UK have been in Afghanistan and Iraq since the very begining.

Before that they were in the Balkans. Before that they were in Iraq the first time.

And that's the longest time troops will have served.

ISREAL certainly has more experience than the US having been constantly fighting for survivale since the beggining.

1. The UK does not put nearly as many resources into training as the US does, even though they don't neglect their military to the extent the rest of Europe does.

2. The october war is not modern armored warfare.

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The UK does not put nearly as many resources into training as the US does, even though they don't neglect their military to the extent the rest of Europe does.

2. The october war is not modern armored warfare.

all armoured warfare after 1939 is modern warfare.

The US rifle squad is essentially a carbon copy of the panzergrenadier squads of WWII, albeit now reduced in size. When it was 10 man it was identicle.

All conventional warfare since WWII has been blitzkrieg. Yes, even vietnam.

Edited by irelandeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what would happen in the follow tank battles?

m1 abrams v m1 abrams

m1 abrams v challenger 2

m1 abrams v leopard

Challenger 2 v leopard

?

It is like asking which is the best dinosaur. The main battle tank is a relic of previous wars, in the same way that the battleship became a relic in 1945. Heavy tanks have no role in any conceivable modern conflict, apart from a status symbol in the sense of "my tank / car / willy is bigger than yours".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all armoured warfare after 1939 is modern warfare.

Tank dynamics have changed drastically since then. You don't have a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly.

the only reason the challenger II is best is because the other two are **** old, I'm sure if the USA and Germany were to adopt new tanks they would be better than the challenger II.

Perhaps you didn't get what I mean't UPGRADES are made in 29 years. There are several versions of them, Challenger might of been best in that era, but seemingly from how many people consider how uber the leopard is that era is long over.

Seriously it's a simple fact.

Edited by Kroni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tank dynamics have changed drastically since then. You don't have a clue.

tank dynamics have changed how exactly?

Armoured units are still of the exact same size and composition as they were then, witht the exact same role as then.

Nothing has changed in military tactics since 1939, except toehr countries adopting them.

kindly point out what you think has changed. Absolutely nothing has.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq used exactly the same strategy and tactics as the 1940 invasion of France.

Edited by irelandeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you didn't get what I mean't UPGRADES are made in 29 years. There are several versions of them, Challenger might of been best in that era, but seemingly from how many people consider how uber the leopard is that era is long over.

Seriously it's a simple fact.

yes and the upgrades have not brought it up to challenger standard

it only got the challenger's gun witht eh A6 model.

I don't knwo what era you are talking about. The Challener II is from 1998, the Leopard II is from 1979

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is like asking which is the best dinosaur. The main battle tank is a relic of previous wars' date=' in the same way that the battleship became a relic in 1945. Heavy tanks have no role in any conceivable modern conflict, apart from a status symbol in the sense of "my tank / car / willy is bigger than yours".[/quote']

how is the main battle tank a relic? Because it's so vulnerable?

It's less vulnerable now than it was when it was introduced. In early WWI any man could fire anti tank bullets from his rifle, so any enemy soldier with a good lucky shot could potentially kill a tank. Later in the war anti tank rifles were introduced and were attached to any squad that might come across enemy tanks, one per squad is a lot fewer than one per man.

In WWII RPAT came in and was issued about one per platoon. Again that's much fewer AT weapons than early WWI.

Then ATGMs came in and they're kept up at battalion level. Other launchers such as the AT4 are inneffective against armour.

In the meantime tank capabilities have hugely increased. If anything the tank has become less vulnerable and even more useful since its inception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how is the main battle tank a relic? Because it's so vulnerable?

It's less vulnerable now than it was when it was introduced. In early WWI any man could fire anti tank bullets from his rifle, so any enemy soldier with a good lucky shot could potentially kill a tank. Later in the war anti tank rifles were introduced and were attached to any squad that might come across enemy tanks, one per squad is a lot fewer than one per man.

In WWII RPAT came in and was issued about one per platoon. Again that's much fewer AT weapons than early WWI.

Then ATGMs came in and they're kept up at battalion level. Other launchers such as the AT4 are inneffective against armour.

In the meantime tank capabilities have hugely increased. If anything the tank has become less vulnerable and even more useful since its inception.

This article gives a good, simple and brief overview of the subject

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20021111.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article gives a good, simple and brief overview of the subject

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20021111.asp

the reason battleships went obselete is because submarines replaced them

the battleship's role was to sink other ships and provide shore support.

now the submarine does just that, but it can travel in 3 dimensions rather than 2. Submarines are just better battleships, in the same way turreted tanks are better tanks. Battleships are still used by many navies, except they're not called battleships, they're called missile ships, which are just battleships armed with missiles.

that article states the reason for the decline of the tank is that other cheaper alternatives can fulfill the same role.

No they can't. Do you realise the role of the tank? Have you read Achtung-Panzer!? That article states "the main reason for the tank was to provide a weapon that could battle its way past determined infantry and their machine-guns, artillery and anti-tank weapons." There is no alternative that can do that. Accurate artillery existed before the tank: it is not enough. Infantry fired rockets are not mobile or protected enough. Bombs do not have a defensive presence on the battlefield. The Mobile gun system is wheeled tank.

There is also no cheap option to destroy a tank, as I showed above. I mean a month after they were invented the germans had rifle fired anti tank bullets that any man could fire, that's the chepaest we'll ever see and it didn't destroy the tank. There are hardly any infantry launcher rockets that can destroy a tank. The ones that can are prohibitively expensive.

There's a reason every squad has light machine guns even though every other man in the squad has a weapon that can fire 600 RPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tank dynamics have changed how exactly?

Like I said, you don't have a clue.

You may as well say the dynamics of air combat haven't changed since WW2.

No they can't. Do you realise the role of the tank? Have you read Achtung-Panzer!? That article states "the main reason for the tank was to provide a weapon that could battle its way past determined infantry and their machine-guns, artillery and anti-tank weapons." There is no alternative that can do that. Accurate artillery existed before the tank: it is not enough. Infantry fired rockets are not mobile or protected enough. Bombs do not have a defensive presence on the battlefield. The Mobile gun system is wheeled tank.

Wrong.

Trying to breach a prepared position on a modern battlefield with little more than tanks would be suicide. A waste of perfectly good tanks. The last time it tried was 30 years ago and they were decimated by infantry portable anti-tank rockets.

They are cheaper than tanks and easy to hide.

The ones we have now will kill at 5 miles, computer guided, with thermal sights. That's assuming airpower and enemy artillery don't kill them first.

That dynamic might change again if the anti-missile systems prove to be a game changer, but that is not the reality as it exists now.

The tank was built to break through lines (which it still did with heavy artillery support to suppress and weaken the line it was about to break through). Today it is an overglorified uparmored infantry support vehicle. The idea of going toe to toe with an enemy for a direct fire exchange is obsolete as offensive firepower has outstripped defensive technology. In large scale battle against equally strong opponents the true linebreak is airpower and artillery - Killing without putting yourself at direct risk. Until then the tank is just helping hold the line with the infantry unless a breakthrough needs to be exploited by mobility.

Armored vehicles if anything, as the gulf war showed (against a vastly inferior enemy I might add) are just the exploiters of breakthroughs that airpower/artillery enable. Our tanks were able to land the killing blow after everything else had mortally knocked them off balance, but they were using inferior tanks and did not have many alternatives for dealing with the abrams.

That is when you send in tanks these days: When everything else that could threaten it is mostly gone or suppressed.

Ever since WW1 the dynamic has shifted away from being heavy shock calvary, line breakers in their own right, towards lighter and lighter exploitation cavalry as anti-tank technology catches up.

The shock potential they had in WW2 is diminishing with each generation and is almost gone, unless you're facing an enemy unequipped with modern anti-tank options.

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes and the upgrades have not brought it up to challenger standard

it only got the challenger's gun witht eh A6 model.

I don't knwo what era you are talking about. The Challener II is from 1998, the Leopard II is from 1979

Let me ask you something in that case, have you ever been in service in an army tank core or w.e? Because I would happen to trust the tankers who have had service who say leopard is best.

Look at post no13 man.

Edited by Kroni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

Trying to breach a prepared position on a modern battlefield with little more than tanks would be suicide. A waste of perfectly good tanks. The last time it tried was 30 years ago and they were decimated by infantry portable anti-tank rockets.

They are cheaper than tanks and easy to hide.

The ones we have now will kill at 5 miles, computer guided, with thermal sights. That's assuming airpower and enemy artillery don't kill them first.

That dynamic might change again if the anti-missile systems prove to be a game changer, but that is not the reality as it exists now.

The tank was built to break through lines (which it still did with heavy artillery support to suppress and weaken the line it was about to break through). Today it is an overglorified uparmored infantry support vehicle. The idea of going toe to toe with an enemy for a direct fire exchange is obsolete as offensive firepower has outstripped defensive technology. In large scale battle against equally strong opponents the true linebreak is airpower and artillery - Killing without putting yourself at direct risk. Until then the tank is just helping hold the line with the infantry unless a breakthrough needs to be exploited by mobility.

Armored vehicles if anything, as the gulf war showed (against a vastly inferior enemy I might add) are just the exploiters of breakthroughs that airpower/artillery enable. Our tanks were able to land the killing blow after everything else had mortally knocked them off balance, but they were using inferior tanks and did not have many alternatives for dealing with the abrams.

That is when you send in tanks these days: When everything else that could threaten it is mostly gone or suppressed.

Ever since WW1 the dynamic has shifted away from being heavy shock calvary, line breakers in their own right, towards lighter and lighter exploitation cavalry as anti-tank technology catches up.

The shock potential they had in WW2 is diminishing with each generation and is almost gone, unless you're facing an enemy unequipped with modern anti-tank options.

what you just said there has held true since 1939. Attack aircraft capable of killing tanks were even more common back then, as were anti tank rockets (Ones that can actually kill tanks today are all the way up at battalion level, even if they are very long range, back then panzerfausts were issued like grenades and could destroy any allied tank with a single hit frontally). Active missile defence systems can mitigate any threat from ATGMs.

tanks were never line breakers in their own right, this has been known since WWI, they need support, as does every other arm.

read Achtung-Panzer please and then get back to me.

Edited by irelandeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read through all the replys

Baseing on APFSDS and RHAe only

Abrams:

APFSDS 765mm at 2000m (DU rounds)

armor (frontal): from 2002-2004

turret 940-960

hull 560-590

lower hull 580-650

Leo:

APFSDS 750 at 2000m (tungsten rounds)

armor (frontal): from 2002-2004

turret 920-940

hull 620

lower hull 620

Chall2:

New gun L55 (almost same as leo) will be firing DU not tungsten so higher penetration then abrams or leo

armor: no specifications for 2nd gen chob. most likely better then abrams or leo

T90:

APFSDS 750 at ?

armor (frontal):

turret 420-750-920 (dependant on model)

hull 670-710

lower hull 240

Thats about it fellas,

without the use of DU the leo does VERY well.

abrams uses the old leo gun, but its ammo makes up for it.

The t90 has a huge frontal part weakly armored that some older rpg's can even penetrate.

basically Challenger is the best as it uses american ammo, german gun (current brit one is almost as good anyway) and brit armor.

everything can kill everything as long as you dont aim for the turret.

Edited by ocidean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to argue that panzerfausts and modern anti-tank guided missiles are equivalent and don't reshape the fundamental dynamics between infantry and tanks proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Which would explain why you don't have concept of how the line breaking power of the tank (it's shock value) has decreased steadily ever since it was first introduced.

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to argue that panzerfausts and modern anti-tank guided missiles are equivalent and don't reshape the fundamental dynamics between infantry and tanks proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Which would explain why you don't have concept of how the line breaking power of the tank (it's shock value) has decreased steadily ever since it was first introduced.

and here we have a fine example of a strawman argument, for future reference.

ZeroAce I've read hundreds of your posts and I've never seen you make a sensible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
read Achtung-Panzer please and then get back to me.

An excellent resource, but rather dated now. Perhaps a more modern study would be a better read?

You can read the full article at http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc29/mds/lamontagne.htm

but to save time the findings are summarised below in the abstract to the paper:

ABSTRACT

The future of the Main Battle Tank is an issue that has attracted a lot attention over the past few years, especially since the end of the 1990-1991 Gulf War. This study argues that by 2020, second and third generation Main Battle Tanks will have become obsolete and that a new generation of combat vehicles will be required to fight in built-up areas. This study first provides an appreciation of the future security environment to illustrate the obsolescence of second and third generation Main Battle Tanks in 2020. Secondly, an analysis of the operating environment is then performed to demonstrate that a future combat vehicle will be required to operate in urban terrain. Thirdly, the study determines the capabilities and requirements of future combat vehicles. Finally, an assessment of the combat vehicle concepts of three of the most modern NATO armies is provided in order to determine if they meet future combat vehicles capabilities and requirements previously identified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way he keeps telling people to read actung panzer is a dead give away he doesn't know what he's talking about. He reads one old book about WW2 panzer tactics and thinks nothing has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.