Rank the Tank! - Page 12




 
--
 
June 22nd, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Older leopards (Leopard 1) has gone against older russian tanks in the balkans (Danish Leo1). Aswell as RPG so it does have basic "experience".

Newer German tanks are part of peacekeeping missions (Leo 2 A5), not that much resitence in form of tanks left but RPG is still often used, atleast has been until some years ago, dont know how the situation is now.
When did Danish forces battle enemies in the Balkans? Do you know what the most powerful tank was that their Leo 1s faced?
Croatian M-84 (or what ever thay ware called heh)

I'll see if i can find the source. Have gotten a new hard drive now so all my old favorites are gone

EDIT: no use, can't find it
June 23rd, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.
How do you judge whether one country has better crews than another? IMO combat experience is the only real decider amongst western tank crews.
AFIST. My father is a US Army tanker. Trained on 4 platforms of armor. He is a Master Gunner. The US Military has the best trained tank crews.
June 23rd, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.
What is "tech" refering to, technology in the tanks? Better crews, as countries tankers has never met with eachother I bet we will never know that, unless theres a staged a big compatition. Like the Leopard 2 war games that is between all Leopard 2 countrys (not sure if all are in but i think so, atleast germany is), where Sweden has won several times.
The US Military hosts around 40,000 exchange soldiers, most are English, German and Canadian and I've met English, German and Canadian tankers here at Knox.

And I believe that the Swedish won due to their superb training and tactics.

But if you would like to argue on the Abrams advanced technology, I'd be happy too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ound/m1a2.html
--
June 23rd, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.
How do you judge whether one country has better crews than another? IMO combat experience is the only real decider amongst western tank crews.
AFIST. My father is a US Army tank. Trained on 4 platforms of armor. He is a Master Gunner. The US Military has the best trained tank crews.
You mean US Army Tank Commander? I'm sure your dad isn't a US Army tank. :P

It's still an opinion you're stating. The US tank crews weren't any better than the other leading countries in WW2. Why should it be any different today? IMO only battle experience, tactical leadership and to a certain extent equipment can truly place tank crews.

What makes an average US tank crew better than an average British tank crew? Both drive top-of-the-line equipment and both have seen plenty of combat experience in ideal tank-country.
June 23rd, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.
What is "tech" refering to, technology in the tanks? Better crews, as countries tankers has never met with eachother I bet we will never know that, unless theres a staged a big compatition. Like the Leopard 2 war games that is between all Leopard 2 countrys (not sure if all are in but i think so, atleast germany is), where Sweden has won several times.
The US Military hosts around 40,000 exchange soldiers, most are English, German and Canadian and I've met English, German and Canadian tankers here at Knox.

And I believe that the Swedish won due to their superb training and tactics.

But if you would like to argue on the Abrams advanced technology, I'd be happy too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ound/m1a2.html
Might be, the Swedes thought off well trained STRV 122 crews with Centurions using good tactics

By the way, the link is a big 404. Secondly the swedes has already tested a M1A2 here at home. The leo and the M1A2 ware so alike so the price was the desiding factor along with an German offer besides the newer Leo 2S which ware the Leo 2A4.

Correct address: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m1a2.htm

The only thing i see is: Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit which the STRV 122 dont have, but that upgrade is avalible from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann.

Didn't read everyhing though, might do sometime.
June 23rd, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
My father is a US Army tanker. Trained on 4 platforms of armor. He is a Master Gunner. The US Military has the best trained tank crews.
In the hardware zone, and in general, we do not allow "who is the best" argments. The reason is that proving your point is almost impossible, and it tends to get dirty very fast. I will however mke one small reply to this stamtement, since it got a good healthy laugh out of me.

Your father, Im sure, is a superb tanker. However, that dose not imply anything aside from the fact that you are not objective in your sytatment about US tank crew quality. My father, as childish as this may sound, is no less a superbtanker than yours(He is also a Master Gunner, got the certificate from US army and all).... However not all Israeli tankers are up to my dads standart, as not all US tanker are your dads standarts....See where im heading? So can we agree that all western countries have almost equal training, instead of arguing?
June 24th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
Quote:
My father is a US Army tanker. Trained on 4 platforms of armor. He is a Master Gunner. The US Military has the best trained tank crews.
In the hardware zone, and in general, we do not allow "who is the best" argments. The reason is that proving your point is almost impossible, and it tends to get dirty very fast. I will however mke one small reply to this stamtement, since it got a good healthy laugh out of me.

Your father, Im sure, is a superb tanker. However, that dose not imply anything aside from the fact that you are not objective in your sytatment about US tank crew quality. My father, as childish as this may sound, is no less a superbtanker than yours(He is also a Master Gunner, got the certificate from US army and all).... However not all Israeli tankers are up to my dads standart, as not all US tanker are your dads standarts....See where im heading? So can we agree that all western countries have almost equal training, instead of arguing?
To Doppleganger:

My point was that US crews tend to be trained at a high level. I don't know if Britian has a SIMNET that can virtually train 40 Challenger 2's and 20 APC's stationed in London at the same time in conjuntion with a larger mission, with units in Bristol.

To Sherman:
Your right. Hey, whats your dad trained on? M1A1's, M60's Mk 4 Merekava's?
June 24th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.
I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.
What is "tech" refering to, technology in the tanks? Better crews, as countries tankers has never met with eachother I bet we will never know that, unless theres a staged a big compatition. Like the Leopard 2 war games that is between all Leopard 2 countrys (not sure if all are in but i think so, atleast germany is), where Sweden has won several times.
The US Military hosts around 40,000 exchange soldiers, most are English, German and Canadian and I've met English, German and Canadian tankers here at Knox.

And I believe that the Swedish won due to their superb training and tactics.

But if you would like to argue on the Abrams advanced technology, I'd be happy too.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ound/m1a2.html
Might be, the Swedes thought off well trained STRV 122 crews with Centurions using good tactics

By the way, the link is a big 404. Secondly the swedes has already tested a M1A2 here at home. The leo and the M1A2 ware so alike so the price was the desiding factor along with an German offer besides the newer Leo 2S which ware the Leo 2A4.

Correct address: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m1a2.htm

The only thing i see is: Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit which the STRV 122 dont have, but that upgrade is avalible from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann.

Didn't read everyhing though, might do sometime.
What about AIM, Chobam armor,turbine engine.

I've played against Leo 2A4's on Steel Beasts US Army simulator and the Leo's turret pops off when its hit, (most likey ammo cooking off) and the Leo's first APFSDS-T rounds only damagea the M1A1's GPS and the TIS, while the M1A1's takes out the whole Leo, but thats from a virtual prespective.

The 2A4 is protected against HEAT rounds, not APFSDS.
June 24th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
To Doppleganger:

My point was that US crews tend to be trained at a high level. I don't know if Britian has a SIMNET that can virtually train 40 Challenger 2's and 20 APC's stationed in London at the same time in conjuntion with a larger mission, with units in Bristol.
I don't doubt that for one second but the US Army is not the only army in the world trained to a high standard. There are countries that might even be considered by some to be better than the US at some things (shock, gasp, horror)

2 examples:

The West German Bundeswehr Panzer/Panzergrenadier divisions were considered to be the best in NATO during the Cold War.

The British SAS is widely considered to be the best SF in the world.

I don't want to get into a 'my dad's better than your dad' contest. It's just important to appreciate that the leading armies are all trained to a high standard. You are rightly proud of your dad as I was proud of mine and there's nothing wrong in that.
June 24th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I'm proud of my dad too, he's a tankard.

'Nother round barkeep!!