Main page

blurr91, on Dec 05 2011 - 21:00, said:

I believe he is talking about the TUSK Program for the Abrams. Tank Urban Survivability Kit, ERA or Explosive Reactive Armor. There are other subtle things involved in this upgrade. ERA was developed to defeat Shape Charged Munitions Such as Rocket Propelled Grenades. This might be confused over the abilities of these charges in comparison to K5, they really aren't in the same realm of capabilities nor mission needs. K5 is a supplement for Weak Glacis Armor on Russian tanks to counter the Sabot Round.

Actually, Kontakt-5 was developed as a supplement to Russian armor in general. The reason they developed ERA in the first place was as a mass-efficient means to defeat AT munitions (i.e. instead of adding more and more steel they wanted a weight efficient way to defeat those rounds). First they tried composite armor (this worked out and they became the pioneers to composite and ceramic arrays). Then they developed Kontakt and eventually they developed the first APS systems (Drozd). Kontakt did wonders v.s. NATO CE rounds which were the main rounds in use back in the 60s and 70s. But soon after that the Westerners started a shift towards KE rounds, and so, instead of creating a brand new tank, the Russians improved the domestic armor array of their tanks and introduced an improved supplement to it, Kontakt-5, which would degrade KE rounds enough so that it's domestic armor would be able to handle itself.

I figured that might be one of the key advantages of producing something like that, ERA was fantastic Idea. K5 doesn't do so well against the M829A3 DU rounds. Not sure on the Velocity nor Penitration abilities of this round, if you might enlighten?

Nah, K-5 does still have an affect v.s. the A3 but only diminished effect (instead of -30% penetrative power, it is reduced by half, maybe more). Relikt however, utilizes more then 2 flyer plates, and maintains it's protective capabilities v.s. the M829A3.

According to estimates, the M829A3 can penetrate around 800 mm of RHAe at 2,000 mm.

steroids77, on Dec 05 2011 - 22:26, said:

Ah ok.  Only on the sides to protect the tracks.  When he said "reactive armor" I automatically think tiles like the ones on Russian tanks or the ones on M60A1 used by the Marines in the 1990s.

Reactive armor is not that great if the tank is to be used for infantry support.  I sure as hell don't want to be anywhere near a tank with reactive armor on the outside.

blurr91, on Dec 06 2011 - 20:00, said:

To be fair, if it were an un-ERA'd tank and it got hit while doing infantry support you'd still be in the frag zone, albeit, less so.

If I were an Infantryman I'd have no intention of being within 100m of a tank, regardless of its armor. Too many stories of people getting squished.

Pablo237, on Dec 05 2011 - 21:15, said:

Prototype phase has already ended. It is in production and filling in the army requirements now. K2 Black Panther also beat Leo2 and Leclerc for deal in forming the basis of Turkeys new tank, the Altay.

http://upload.wikime...MITUP_Altay.jpg


Indonesia is also interested in K2.

@brock7142 : please pick up an actual economics book rather than reading Forum posts online. The United States does not owe China 14 trillion dollars, most of the debt is to our own federal reserve. But I do get what you’re getting at in concerns of supporting and developing a modern military reflects the economy and the culture.

@Soukoudragon : The K2 is not the end all in tanks, let’s be completely honest most countries will be updating their Main Service Tanks very soon. I can foresee in the next 20 or so years KE rounds being accelerated by electromagnets; is not that farfetched. So continues the debates on who has the best tanks. Tanks are only a tool on the battlefield; it is who has the most organized and best complementing tool box for the right job will win.

@ironsniper : Just for debate purposes; you had said earlier that it is not that hard to deduce the composite and estimate the potential Armor in each tank. I would hope that the Governments in most countries have a certain level of security? What makes you so confident in declaring certain statistics based off of tertiary sources?

steroids77, on Dec 13 2011 - 20:02, said:

I respond with the impression that my post was not read correctly.

The point of my post was to prove to the poster Pablo237 that the K2 was indeed a complete tank, not a prototype. I used the fact of S. Korea striking a deal with Turkey as further evidence that the K2 is a finished design, not a prototype.

But I have to refute that if there is a debate on who has the best tank, then discussion will be based on present designs, not on anticipated future designs, especially as far down as 20 years. Otherwise the debate will become "who will have the best tank in the future?"

You said "Tanks are only a tool on the battlefield; it is who has the most organized and best complementing tool box for the right job will win. " Yes I agree, but again, that has no relation to my post.

More of a general statement. Not to bash you just to understand your Post for Discussion reasons.


I think this debate needs to transition to tanks that have had real battle experiance, and unfortunately barely any of these tanks really qualify. Another thing that has been ignored, is communications. Since the first radios being placed into tanks in WW2 it has played a huge role on the battlefield, and tank warfare. For some nations Communication is the key to success, The United States and many of its contemporaries invest a large some of their military development into devices such as blueforce tracker. I feel that this overlooked quality is a huge problem. Coordination of Full Spectrum warfare and the development of Force Multipliers is what gives an edge to modern countries, not body armor, or tank statistics. Being able to coordinate and communicate with fellow tank commanders and upwards to their Battalion Commander gives many Modern countries unparalleled abilities on the battlefield. You have to consider SMI or Soldier Machine Interface, the user friendleness and the vast amount of information that can be broadcasted, used and implemented is something that is underminded in this debate. The Philosophy of the United States, South Korea, United Kingdom, Germany, and many other Allied Countries place a heavy interest in developing this feature. The Technology poured into this machine provide the Crews the ability to maximize the performance of the vehicle and make it an extension of themselves.

I just feel that are many realms that aren't really explored in this Thread. I have read a couple people who have seemed to point that out but people spend so much time on Armor and Gun power.

Proposal

Production Value & Amount Produced
Dimensions & Weight of the Vehicle
SMI A) Comfort B .) Communication Systems
Cannon A) Caliber B .) FCS C) Length
Munitions A) Type B .) Penatration C) Role D) Range (Effective & Maximum)
Combat Service A) Role in Combat B .) Number Destroyed C) Number Returned Back to Service
Armor Statistics
Engine A) Top Speed B .) Acceleration C) Fuel Consumption
Suspension
Sources

Now, I spend a lot of time reading the historical section of the Best tanks, and I feel that there is a lot of merit in debating tanks from the Past on their roles and combat service. But unfortunately I feel like there is too much nationalism in these articles about modern vehicles then I can really bare to read. I also find it really hard to even compare these tanks, in all honesty they need to square off on the battlefield to really deem who is the toughest. We have a wealth of information to compare past tanks from past wars from Crew members who have survived to tell. The only thing we can really compare are raw statistics, and another downside to that most of these statistics are speculations, These tanks are either prototypes, or Main Service Tanks, and secrets like Armor design and Weapon systems are coveted. There is demonstrations and a general understanding to the purpose of the vehicles but full statistics are tretairy at best.

steroids77, on Dec 13 2011 - 20:02, said:

They do. What makes me confident is the fact that there's not a lot, if at all, evidence to say otherwise. What people have deduced, let it be via analyzing photos, or extrapolating from manufacturer recounts or simply getting down and dirty with the measuring tape. There are a multitude of ways to predict the protective capabilities of a MBT to a degree of accuracy. It's certainly not enough to write a book about, but it's enough to give you an idea.

Abrams is probably the worst tank listed, and the T90 is the best.

Challegner and leoapard dont even qualify as tank cuz they suck hard. Seriously, since when did Germany make good tanks? LOL Britain XD

Brock7142, on Nov 14 2011 - 02:33, said:

Where do you get your garbage information from, ive seen a case and it does not say "Made in china" on it,  My cousin is a tank commander and I asked him- are the sabot rounds made in China and he laughed in my face. I really think you need to check your sources because their wrong, and the case does not say "made in china on it", its made by General Dynamics Ordinance, witch is a US company.

aPyro_, on Dec 30 2011 - 23:12, said:

Obvious troll is obvious.

steroids77, on Dec 05 2011 - 20:44, said:

yes at 400 meters a dodge would be imposable from seeing it fired too impact more so from a stand still. This is not what i meant in close if the t90 is randomly zigzagging no computer or gunner is going too predict were they are next. Also no m1a2 round goes 1750m/s just the l55 on the leopard does the fastest u.s. rounds from l44 is 1500 to 1600 m/s. If with in close range too sit still like Iraqi tanks did is suicide. randium movement too aviod the gunner gun site/ fire progectory is totally feasible. Don't believe me watch top gear where they play with a CH2 vs a Car. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-wKfpPrRVIo i know you hate videos that show and give prof but buck up and suck it up. i will admit though the rang rover could most likely drive circles around a t90 too even the am.

On the the move in open as you seem too be pointing out the t90 get first shot long before the m1 could fire. m1 failing to sort of range. Then now the m1 round the M829A3 couldn't hope too pen the T90am armor with the newest ERA blocks. M1 pen failing at mid range. THen at sort range it go too the best trained and most able crew as both rounds will easly kill the other. THis we have edge on as we don't us conscripts and ofter non conscripts are better yet Russia now have many more non conscripts in their army. At mid range the t90 can hit wile moveing and showed better on the move hits then the m1 would like a movie lol? totaly missed it didn't you i said tenth of a second. sorry people take longer then this too decided. fast gunner reaction time wins. All of my example us 2 identical crews though which give edge too the t90 at any range.

Actually, the Relikt ERA on the T-90MS doesn't give the T-90's glacis enough protection to protect against a M829A3 from 2 km. It could however, protect it's front turret from 2 km.

starknight97, on Jan 05 2012 - 11:21, said:

The one problem with that video -

The Commander stays inside the tank. They would have done much better if he was out.

starknight97, on Jan 05 2012 - 11:21, said:

honestly you give no solid evidence to the T90 having any real edge here. The SMI or Solder Machine Interface within the M1A2 is far superior to the T90. The Fire Control System can track a moving target quite well at very far ranges. The M1A2 FCS in TIS, GPS-LOS is far better in accuracy then the T-90's. And there is solid evidence behind that in the civilian and Secret level military world, as much as that might be classified as it is. So I don't see your value in doing jumps over dunes and doing zig zags as it held in World war 2. Sorry your video really holds little merit since it was staged.

Picking a Specific tank as the best is fairly Hard, Bot the Russians have a well rounded tank strategy and have been known for that in the last 60 years. Their tanks are considered top contenders in each era of conflict. I don't mean to sound like im attacking you but i want you to take a hard look at your position and actualy give a strong argument to the T90 or T80U which seems to be have been forgotten in these discussions.

I voted none of the above. Even though I wouldn't consider it to be overall the best tank, but for what it's designed for, the new Japanese Type 10 MBT is quite good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

Designed as a light weight urban MBT, to fight in MOUT conditions, with its ability to accelerate to 70kph forwards and reverse in a short amount of time.