Originally Posted by Jtf2

I dont want to seem late or anything but why is it called reactive armor?

Here's good old Google to the rescue..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&i...tive+armor&lr=

Good serach red found this as an easy explantion on how it works

http://www.aipac.org/documents/TILES.html

But as i siad erlyer they allreay have smart weapons capable of penetrating reactive armor.

What we are forgetting is the training and skill factor of the crews in the tanks. A well trained platoon of T-72s will be able to take a platoon of rookie M1s. A platoon of Swedish Centurions took a company of Strv-121s in training out. This is one reason why the Gulf war went so well for the Coalition, U.S crews are quite simply the best trained in the world. The NTC gives near battle experience to soldiers.

U.S crews are quite simply the best trained in the world

We are trying to avoid, "whos best" arguments!!!!!


Now, as to the training, this is true(Israeli Shermans took on T62s) but still also offtopic. Stay on-toppic please.

How is it off topic? When discussing tank battles the training of the crews is a major factor.

true, but the T-72 has an autoloader, that's bad bussiness, it will load a shell automaticly, but the tank cannon and turret have to swing back to a preset setting, basicly it goes to the tank version of "attention" which does a coupel things, let's everyone know you are loading, it can take tiem that is supposed to be saved AND it eliminates a 4th and possibly valuable crewmember

If I had the opportunity to choose one of those tanks then I would like the T-90M or S for European battle (fields) forest and so on. The M1A2 and the Challenger 2E are good tanks in conditions there the roads and the ground are not to heavily damaged. I find out that in Bosnia there was some problems with the M1 tanks. They were to heavy for the ground on some parts. Thats why I would choose a T-90M or S.

In Desert conditions and with a lot of open terrain and a good air cover I would prefer the M1A2 or the Challenger tank. Or If the Merkava 4 was on pictures on main post I would take that one for a ride in the desert undoubtly before the M2 and the Challenger.

If there would be a country with bad infrastructure or a lot of djungels and there was no tanks greater than the T-80 or T-55AMs I could think of the Russian T-62 but with some modifications - I would take the BM BULAT Modernisation of T-64B Battle Tank from Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (KMDB). T-62 is still a good tank If you just have the up-to-date Upgrade Packages for the vehicles.

http://www.morozov.com.ua/images/bulat07l.jpg

Cheers:
Doc.S

Correction of my own....

What I mean is that I would rather have an T-64B upgraded then a T-62 because there are no in common with T-64B and the T-62 when it is two different tanks. From the beginning the T-64B did have the same main gun a 115mm as the T-62 but in later production there was the "infamous" 125mm gun. What I meant was that a T-64B BM BULAT is what I would choose.

Cheers:
Doc.S

No mention of the swedish tank? True it hasnt been battle tested, although the Leo 1 was in bosnia and the Leo 2 A4 is used by the dans in kosovo I guess there arnt many tanks there though

How is it off topic? When discussing tank battles the training of the crews is a major factor.

Because we are discussing hardware not training.