Rank the Tank! - Page 25




 
--
 
September 29th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet 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 AlexKall
"A2 maybe a gas hog, but then again it takes four types of fuel"

Leopard 2A5 and up (not sure about A4 fut expect the same from it) can take several different kinds of fuel, its a multi fuel engine.
Tubine?
No? I'm sure you know what engine the Leo 2 A5 got

Even a normal diesel engine in your ordinary car is multifuel, well for most part atleast
Ya, but can it take diesel, JP-8, gasoline, and kero.
Yes a diesel can take diesel JP-8, not sure, but it can take Ethanol. And no I don't know every type of fuel it can take. I'll try to find out, unless someone here knows
Almost anything can take Ethanol.
Yep, which means it is multifuel hehe, there is other fuel types it can take but im not sure what they are. Sweden only use one and that is Diesel as there is no need to use anything else.
September 29th, 2005  
Wham-size
 

Topic: reply to early statement about challenger 2 main gun


i would hope you look asround more the bristh army is still using a rilfed gun and will so for the future they are also in the development for a 125mm or 130mm rilfed gun. they see this weapon as a better then a smoothbore gun as it can fire hesh round that is deadly againest most armour and inf bunkers.
i would point out longest tank kill was made be a rilfed gun in the gulf war with the use of a hesh round.
also to some people on this forum the challenger 2 use 3rd geneation chombon armour were the US army is using 1st on it abrams tanks all ver as brits sold you it in the late 70's so the armour on a challenger 2 is far better then a abrams as the brit made it made it and imporve it. it also point out this weakness as been tryed to be solved by the US army by fit du plate in weak spots it on tanks.
i still don't get this why have a gas turbine engine it burn fuel like no one else it produce hugh amounts of heat ever that aux side turbine does so you be seen for mile with any infrared goggle so not good for a tank when it see at night with these goggles.
so in my eyes the brits have it right they have the best armour on a tank it has one of the best if not best gun on a tank it may not be the fasted but that does not matter that much the german proved that with there tanks in ww2. and has the same of sort of equiment as the abrams has on coms and data links and sight for guns. that why it the sound be number 1
sorry for bad spelling i am dyslexic
September 29th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 

Topic: Re: reply to early statement about challenger 2 main gun


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
i would hope you look asround more the bristh army is still using a rilfed gun and will so for the future they are also in the development for a 125mm or 130mm rilfed gun. they see this weapon as a better then a smoothbore gun as it can fire hesh round that is deadly againest most armour and inf bunkers.
i would point out longest tank kill was made be a rilfed gun in the gulf war with the use of a hesh round.
also to some people on this forum the challenger 2 use 3rd geneation chombon armour were the US army is using 1st on it abrams tanks all ver as brits sold you it in the late 70's so the armour on a challenger 2 is far better then a abrams as the brit made it made it and imporve it. it also point out this weakness as been tryed to be solved by the US army by fit du plate in weak spots it on tanks.
i still don't get this why have a gas turbine engine it burn fuel like no one else it produce hugh amounts of heat ever that aux side turbine does so you be seen for mile with any infrared goggle so not good for a tank when it see at night with these goggles.
so in my eyes the brits have it right they have the best armour on a tank it has one of the best if not best gun on a tank it may not be the fasted but that does not matter that much the german proved that with there tanks in ww2. and has the same of sort of equiment as the abrams has on coms and data links and sight for guns. that why it the sound be number 1
sorry for bad spelling i am dyslexic

The M1A1 used Generation 1 Chobaham the M1A1HC and M1A2 SEP use Generation Two Chobham and Depleted Uranium mesh. Now if the U.S. fit DU plates on weak spots (they fitted the turret and hull front with DU), why in the Gulf War did M1A1's with just Chobham get hit with Iraqi 125mm APFSDS rounds and the penetrators got stuck in the armor "Like arrows".


HESH (High Explosive Squashing Head) is similiar to HEAT except that the round squashes rather than crumpling.


I've asked my father if the M1 would be up gunned of put out of commision if the Chinese of someone else up guned their MBT to 130mm or even 140mm, and he replied "It's not a matter of how big your gun is, but what your shooting out of it."

I can't agree with you on that the M1A1 and CH2 have the same comm's, data links and sights. Both countries use different sights, and use different comm's gear.

Actually the Brits use CHARM3 against heavy armor, while the US uses M829E3 APFSDS-T. They similiar as well.

The M1A1/A2 also carries the M1040 Canister round, the 120mm acts as a giant shotgun for use against infantry and light armor. The M830A2 HEAT is used against light and medium armored vehicles.

Why have a gas turbine that has 25hp/ton power to weight ration when powering a 70 ton tank, because as you add armor on you still have good speed and it can haul a mule.

You as state that the longest kill was by a Rilfed Gun firing HESH, do you have any proof of this? If so, please prove a link.
--
September 29th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
Quote:
You as state that the longest kill was by a Rilfed Gun firing HESH, do you have any proof of this? If so, please prove a link.
I've heard about that shot and Im quite sure it was just a lucky shot, nuff said.
September 29th, 2005  
Wham-size
 

Topic: about the new rilfed gun


on the stat of the bigger rilfed gun it is so the a new high speed APFSDS round in development.
that is why they are developing a bigger gun
on the thing about the round brit us they us both charm 1 and hesh as the latter is fine for taken out most tank expected the mosted up to date tanks. as well as being a good bunker breaker
charm 3 is in development right now and does not equip an units.
The charm 1 round was the one that recond the longest tank kill. it was fired by a challenger 1 and with the old gun the new one L30 which improves over the old L11 rilfed gun in all areas.
on the thing about Chobham which is the name on "Chobaham" the brit only sold the design for the 1st gen of it but that is all we did not sell 2nd gen Chobham which is used on the challenger 1 and brits have not sold the 3rd gen Chobham this means that there is no way the US use 2nd gen Chobham armour and just upgrading it with du plates does not mean it is 2nd gen Chobham.
so i do not know ow the US use 2nd gen armour on there tank.
so can you al tell me why the challenger 2 is always low down on your listed when it has so many thng better then other tank expect speed.
well you do not need to use a turbine for a 70 ton tank we briths use a Diesel engin and just had a upgrade making it a high hp and increasing the range to 550km.
that is why the list should look like this
1) challenger 2
2)Merkava
3)leop 2
4)m1a2 sep
5)Leclercs
that is what i see as the best for there money and protection for crew.
here is the site there are more comfirm this kill
http://www.army-technology.com/contr...ion/apfsds.htm
September 30th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 

Topic: Re: about the new rilfed gun


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
on the stat of the bigger rilfed gun it is so the a new high speed APFSDS round in development.
that is why they are developing a bigger gun
on the thing about the round brit us they us both charm 1 and hesh as the latter is fine for taken out most tank expected the mosted up to date tanks. as well as being a good bunker breaker
charm 3 is in development right now and does not equip an units.
The charm 1 round was the one that recond the longest tank kill. it was fired by a challenger 1 and with the old gun the new one L30 which improves over the old L11 rilfed gun in all areas.
on the thing about Chobham which is the name on "Chobaham" the brit only sold the design for the 1st gen of it but that is all we did not sell 2nd gen Chobham which is used on the challenger 1 and brits have not sold the 3rd gen Chobham this means that there is no way the US use 2nd gen Chobham armour and just upgrading it with du plates does not mean it is 2nd gen Chobham.
so i do not know ow the US use 2nd gen armour on there tank.
so can you al tell me why the challenger 2 is always low down on your listed when it has so many thng better then other tank expect speed.
well you do not need to use a turbine for a 70 ton tank we briths use a Diesel engin and just had a upgrade making it a high hp and increasing the range to 550km.
that is why the list should look like this
1) challenger 2
2)Merkava
3)leop 2
4)m1a2 sep
5)Leclercs
that is what i see as the best for there money and protection for crew.
here is the site there are more comfirm this kill
http://www.army-technology.com/contr...ion/apfsds.htm
From what I understand the U.S. had Gen II Chobham.

Even if the CH2 has Gen. III Chobham the M1A2 has DU. Trust me, as soon as we got our hands on the Chobham design we threw in some of our own stuff. The DU is a mesh not plates. Also knowing the components and materials used in producing Chobham the U.S. could indeed make Gen. III Chobham or even a more powerful armor. The use of Gen. I Chobham and DU maybe stronger than Gen III Chobham.

IMO the list should be like this:

(1)CH2/M1A2
(2)Leo 2A6
(3)Merkava Mk.4
(4)Leclerc


The US is currently investigating a new turbine that is fuel efficent and smaller.


You link really doesn't provide anything other what and how APFSDS rounds are made and used. I know how they work and I know how they are made, I myself have dummy rounds and my father has a sabot and a penetrator.

I don't understand why the Brits would upgun when you could throw a smoothbore on her. Thats the whole point of having one, a high velocity and they types of rounds it can fire. Thats why the US doesn't have to upgun, our smoothbore can handle the velocity.

Sabot's have been used since WWII.

When did the CH2 receive an engine upgrade?

According to globalsecurity.org the CH2 only has Gen. II Chobham.

Quote:
The Challenger 2’s fire control system is the latest-generation digital computer from Computing Devices Company (CDC) of Canada and is an improved version of that installed in the US M1A1 Abrams tank
.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...hallenger2.htm
September 30th, 2005  
Wham-size
 

Topic: on the fact of armour the abamss use


Quote:
"From what I understand the U.S. had Gen II Chobham."
no the is the miss understand as 2nd gen was not developed till the challenger 1 which was made after the US army had start makeing it abrams and this mean you bought the 1st gen that was used on the Chieftan and if you look it was that was design in the late 60's sorry jsut like the US the brits would not sell a peices of tech like that to an one if it meant it would have tanks as good or better no one in the right mind would.
and du mash does not improve that much it a mesh as the name say a mesh so not a solid it got hole in it which mean it well let thing still though.
i will bet that chobham 3rd gen is the best it would be better then a 1st with a du mesh i heard it got it made in to it mix of stuff used to make it.
anyway when would the US army get to change it tank are all the m1a2 new tank from what i understand it a upgrade program put new stuff in to them so the du meah is a bolt on as the tank is of this armour it not easy to change you may as well buy a new tank if you were.

you could not find the thing in it i show just look hard nest time and if you what if i dare say it use google to find out about the longest tank kill.
Quote:
"Hyper-velocity APFSDS rounds have significantly increased the leathal range of tank fires, and combined with improvements in tank gunnery this has meant that combat engagement ranges have been dramatically increased. During Operation Desert Storm a British Army Challenger tank achieve the longest range confirmed tank-to-tank kill at 5100 meters or 5.1km with an rifled 120mm APFSDS 'Charm' depleted uranium round."
there it is for you.
September 30th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 

Topic: Re: on the fact of armour the abamss use


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
Quote:
"From what I understand the U.S. had Gen II Chobham."
no the is the miss understand as 2nd gen was not developed till the challenger 1 which was made after the US army had start makeing it abrams and this mean you bought the 1st gen that was used on the Chieftan and if you look it was that was design in the late 60's sorry jsut like the US the brits would not sell a peices of tech like that to an one if it meant it would have tanks as good or better no one in the right mind would.
and du mash does not improve that much it a mesh as the name say a mesh so not a solid it got hole in it which mean it well let thing still though.
i will bet that chobham 3rd gen is the best it would be better then a 1st with a du mesh i heard it got it made in to it mix of stuff used to make it.
anyway when would the US army get to change it tank are all the m1a2 new tank from what i understand it a upgrade program put new stuff in to them so the du meah is a bolt on as the tank is of this armour it not easy to change you may as well buy a new tank if you were.

you could not find the thing in it i show just look hard nest time and if you what if i dare say it use google to find out about the longest tank kill.
Quote:
"Hyper-velocity APFSDS rounds have significantly increased the leathal range of tank fires, and combined with improvements in tank gunnery this has meant that combat engagement ranges have been dramatically increased. During Operation Desert Storm a British Army Challenger tank achieve the longest range confirmed tank-to-tank kill at 5100 meters or 5.1km with an rifled 120mm APFSDS 'Charm' depleted uranium round."
there it is for you.
You Brit'sonly have Gen II Chobham, I have visited three sites and each says that the CH2 has Gen. II Chobham.

Yous seem to have no great kowledge of US tanks. The DU mesh is incorperated into the armor like a sandwhich. The DU is put in layers then a layer of Chobham is placed over it. You can't claim Gen II Chobham is better because the Gen. I on the M1 has never been penetrated. Just becasue it's a mesh doesn't mean it's going to let things through, look at Kevlar.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to rearmor a tank? We are currently rearming and reamoring all M1IP to M1A2 SEP and leaving all M1A1HC's as they are.

Most M1A1's where uparmored to M1A1HC from 86'-88'.
September 30th, 2005  
Wham-size
 
i sorry this does not meet to your standards but i well say this yes your armour has been penetrated it right now under review as they do not now what did. from what i read it hit the tank in the turret ans what strainght though grazing the gunner flank jacket in the kidney area.
now the challenger 3nd gen this is called Dorchester armour this has not been sold to anyone.
the 1st gen was on the Chieftan and 2nd on the challenger 1 but in all repects the 2nd became the first in brit terms as it was basic the same as the chieftan armour with some improvment un like the challenger 2 armour which is the best in the world.
and i think you find that teh area were the du plate is in the front of the hull and turret and are sandwich in between steelplates and are blt on plate as it is hard to up armour tank armour after it built as you woul have to take ever thing off first to put new armour on the tanks chassics.
so the US army use 1st gen with bolt on plate of du not rally an thing need to write home about.
while the challenger 2 has it romour to had it put in to the mix before the tanks were made mean it all over in layer in the tank armour.

here a site saying about the armour that got hit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010258/posts
read before post message.
September 30th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
i sorry this does not meet to your standards but i well say this yes your armour has been penetrated it right now under review as they do not now what did. from what i read it hit the tank in the turret ans what strainght though grazing the gunner flank jacket in the kidney area.
now the challenger 3nd gen this is called Dorchester armour this has not been sold to anyone.
the 1st gen was on the Chieftan and 2nd on the challenger 1 but in all repects the 2nd became the first in brit terms as it was basic the same as the chieftan armour with some improvment un like the challenger 2 armour which is the best in the world.
and i think you find that teh area were the du plate is in the front of the hull and turret and are sandwich in between steelplates and are blt on plate as it is hard to up armour tank armour after it built as you woul have to take ever thing off first to put new armour on the tanks chassics.
so the US army use 1st gen with bolt on plate of du not rally an thing need to write home about.
while the challenger 2 has it romour to had it put in to the mix before the tanks were made mean it all over in layer in the tank armour.

here a site saying about the armour that got hit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010258/posts
read before post message.
I know about the penetration. After reading about a paragraph into that article it says and I quote "According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull", the skirts are on the left and right of the tank, not the turret or hull front where the DU is.

I know the whole story, I spoke with a captian who was in the company of that tank that was hit.

I can't vouche for the CH2 but the M1's turret is not attached to the chassis, it is removable. It is not hard for us to disassemble our tanks.

I've said it three times and I'm going to ay it again. Our DU is not bolted on. It is incoperated into the armor. We us Ballistic Steel, DU and Chobham.

The DU isn't bolted on, is incorperated into the armor when the tank is built, or incoperated when it's rebuilt from an older platform.

The Chobham is the outer layers, then steel that incases the DU.

Another thing is that the M1A1 and M1A2 have different armor thickness.

I happen to know this because I have been on numerous M1A1's and M1A2's and my father is a Master Gunner on both platform's. I have spent quite a bit of time on both platform's.