Rank the Tank!

[Mohmar Deathstrike]

Mine used to be a towed artillery man with the 13th Field Artillery Regiment of the "Granatieri di Sardegna" (Grenadiers of Sardinia) Infantry Division during his compulsory service with the Italian Army in 1969

 

[SHERMAN]

Slthough this is very intresting, you guys should open a "my dad was" topic or somthing. I was trying to put a massage across about tank crews, not start a pissing contest.

 

[Mohmar Deathstrike]

:rambo: :lol:

 

[AlexKall]

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/military/systems/ground/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/military/systems/ground/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.

First, AIM = ?
Second, Chobam. It does have composite mix armor, dont know if its been tested in comparense to the British chobam.

Secondly, every tanks turrent can get blown away in that game
The hit and GPS thing, its a game, it depends on where it hit is.

Secondly, Leo 2A4 isnt the newest leo tank, so why use it?

 

[FO Seaman]

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/military/systems/ground/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/military/systems/ground/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.

First, AIM = ?
Second, Chobam. It does have composite mix armor, dont know if its been tested in comparense to the British chobam.

Secondly, every tanks turrent can get blown away in that game
The hit and GPS thing, its a game, it depends on where it hit is.

Secondly, Leo 2A4 isnt the newest leo tank, so why use it?

AIM: Abrams Integral Management, I don't exspect the Leo to have it, lol. I know its got composite mix armor and Chobam isn't just British. Also The M1A1's turret doesn't blow off, due to the design of the tank. The ammo is ejected form the tank, thus the turret stays attached.

 

[AlexKall]

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/military/systems/ground/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/military/systems/ground/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.

First, AIM = ?
Second, Chobam. It does have composite mix armor, dont know if its been tested in comparense to the British chobam.

Secondly, every tanks turrent can get blown away in that game
The hit and GPS thing, its a game, it depends on where it hit is.

Secondly, Leo 2A4 isnt the newest leo tank, so why use it?

AIM: Abrams Integral Management, I don't exspect the Leo to have it, lol. I know its got composite mix armor and Chobam isn't just British. Also The M1A1's turret doesn't blow off, due to the design of the tank. The ammo is ejected form the tank, thus the turret stays attached.

"Abrams Integral Management" doesnt help me one bit in understanding what it is/does. And doesnt AIM refere to something specific on a Abrams? (hance the name?) If so why would it be part of any other tank, unless you mean a simular thing?

Yes and Chobam is a british armor compostion, there for i'm refering it to as "the British Chobham".

The leo has blowout compartments for ammo storage, which dirrects the blast away from the crew upwords, aswell as fire suppresent system.

Its also refered to that the Leo do have Chobam armor, how much simular it is to British Chobam, i cant say, nor know.

Just made a search of "Abrams Integral Management" an got no hits, so its imposible for me to know what it is. Unless you describe it to me.

 

[Shadowalker]

http://www.gd.com/prod_serv/combat/land/Land.htm

Just had a look on the General Dynamics website and theres a link to Abrams Integrated Management, but it wont open for me.

 

[AlexKall]

http://www.gd.com/prod_serv/combat/land/Land.htm

Just had a look on the General Dynamics website and theres a link to Abrams Integrated Management, but it wont open for me.

Thank you, unfortently it wont open for me either :?

 

[FO Seaman]

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/military/systems/ground/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/military/systems/ground/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.

First, AIM = ?
Second, Chobam. It does have composite mix armor, dont know if its been tested in comparense to the British chobam.

Secondly, every tanks turrent can get blown away in that game
The hit and GPS thing, its a game, it depends on where it hit is.

Secondly, Leo 2A4 isnt the newest leo tank, so why use it?

AIM: Abrams Integral Management, I don't exspect the Leo to have it, lol. I know its got composite mix armor and Chobam isn't just British. Also The M1A1's turret doesn't blow off, due to the design of the tank. The ammo is ejected form the tank, thus the turret stays attached.

"Abrams Integral Management" doesnt help me one bit in understanding what it is/does. And doesnt AIM refere to something specific on a Abrams? (hance the name?) If so why would it be part of any other tank, unless you mean a simular thing?

Yes and Chobam is a british armor compostion, there for i'm refering it to as "the British Chobham".

The leo has blowout compartments for ammo storage, which dirrects the blast away from the crew upwords, aswell as fire suppresent system.

Its also refered to that the Leo do have Chobam armor, how much simular it is to British Chobam, i cant say, nor know.

Just made a search of "Abrams Integral Management" an got no hits, so its imposible for me to know what it is. Unless you describe it to me.

The Leo's design is simular to the M1's. Considering that both tanks are the predecessors of the failed MBT 70. A tank the US and Germany built together. So they are some what equal on some levels.

Abrams Integrated Management (AIM)
The Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program is completely rebuilding every M1A1 Abrams tank in U.S. Army Europe over a three year perios. The AIM program is a part of the Recapitalization Program that was established to extend the life of the Army's aging legacy equipment. AIM will provide long-term sustainment of M1A1 Abrams tanks through fiscal year 2025. Higher-than- normal mileage for the tanks during operations in the Balkans and training in Germany made the overhaul necessary. The Military Traffic Management Command's (MTMC's) 838th Transportation Battalion at Rotterdam, The Netherlands, received the first tanks for shipment to the United States in September 2000. Up to 75 percent of the tanks were not operational. MTMC transported the tanks to Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, where they are be disassembled. The hull, turret, engine, and other parts are sent to the tank production plant in Lima, Ohio, to be reworked. MTMC returns the rebuilt tanks to Europe, where they will be swapped one-for-one with tanks that still need repair. The first shipment of rebuilt tanks arrive in Europe by fall 2001.

Re-built, uparmored, and redesigned M1's.

 

[Shadowalker]

AIM: Abrams Integral Management, I don't exspect the Leo to have it, lol.

Nope if its rebuilding and updating M1A1's the Leo definatly wont have it

 

[AlexKall]

The Leo's design is simular to the M1's. Considering that both tanks are the predecessors of the failed MBT 70. A tank the US and Germany built together. So they are some what equal on some levels.

Abrams Integrated Management (AIM)
The Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) program is completely rebuilding every M1A1 Abrams tank in U.S. Army Europe over a three year perios. The AIM program is a part of the Recapitalization Program that was established to extend the life of the Army's aging legacy equipment. AIM will provide long-term sustainment of M1A1 Abrams tanks through fiscal year 2025. Higher-than- normal mileage for the tanks during operations in the Balkans and training in Germany made the overhaul necessary. The Military Traffic Management Command's (MTMC's) 838th Transportation Battalion at Rotterdam, The Netherlands, received the first tanks for shipment to the United States in September 2000. Up to 75 percent of the tanks were not operational. MTMC transported the tanks to Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, where they are be disassembled. The hull, turret, engine, and other parts are sent to the tank production plant in Lima, Ohio, to be reworked. MTMC returns the rebuilt tanks to Europe, where they will be swapped one-for-one with tanks that still need repair. The first shipment of rebuilt tanks arrive in Europe by fall 2001.

Re-built, uparmored, and redesigned M1's.

Argh this is really long quote.

And yes i know about MBT 70, looked alot like todays tanks

The tanks are usually repaired. Never seen a Leo tank that is not operational and cant be fixed. But every model of the Leo 2 can be updated (atleast from A4, not sure of A1 - A3) to the latest model, currently the Leo 2 A6EX.

I don't see the benefit to take the engine and a few other things and then building a new one unless its not repairable. :lol:

And as Shadowalker said, that would be true :lol:

EDIT: cleaned the quote area :lol:

 

[Kozzy Mozzy]

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.

The damage and armor models in Steel Beasts aren't exactly the most accuate.

 

[Miss-Banned]

I don' t know much about tanks. We don't have a use for them here.

I guess a fast moving tank is better, because you never know when you have to make a quick gettaway.

 

[Doppleganger]

Watched a '10 Greatest Ever Tanks" show broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK. Not sure what research was conducted or who was truly consulted but makes for an interesting list with some odd choices.

10 - Sherman
09 - Sheridan
08 - Panther
07 - T-72
06 - S-Tank
05 - Centurion
04 - Merkava
03 - T-34
02 - Abrams
01 - Leopard 2

 

[Shadowalker]

Interesting, didnt get to see the program due to work, would of thought the T-34 would be up number 1, centurion a bit higher possibly.

 

[FO Seaman]

Watched a '10 Greatest Ever Tanks" show broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK. Not sure what research was conducted or who was truly consulted but makes for an interesting list with some odd choices.

10 - Sherman
09 - Sheridan
08 - Panther
07 - T-72
06 - S-Tank
05 - Centurion
04 - Merkava
03 - T-34
02 - Abrams
01 - Leopard 2

Which Abrams? M1, M1A1, M1A1-D,M1A2 SEP?

 

[Doppleganger]

Watched a '10 Greatest Ever Tanks" show broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK. Not sure what research was conducted or who was truly consulted but makes for an interesting list with some odd choices.

10 - Sherman
09 - Sheridan
08 - Panther
07 - T-72
06 - S-Tank
05 - Centurion
04 - Merkava
03 - T-34
02 - Abrams
01 - Leopard 2

Which Abrams? M1, M1A1, M1A1-D,M1A2 SEP?

Didn't gave any variants for any of the tanks. Rated the Leo 2 as the best because it satisfied best the 3 classic ratings for a tank and because of its modular design which ensured easy component diagnosis and replacement. I'm not sure which M1 variant was mainly shown but it looked like either the A5 or A6 Leo variant.

IMO it's not that useful to have an overall list like this and would be more comparative to have a 'best tank of an era' listing instead.

 

[SHERMAN]

I agree. It's really better to divide them o eras. also note that modern tanks are almost impossible to rate since its all classified...

 

[FO Seaman]

Yes I must agree. The base line M1 was built the same time as the T-72 while the A1 was built at the time of the T-80 and the A2 built at the same time as the T-90.

 

[WARmachine88]

Watched a '10 Greatest Ever Tanks" show broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK. Not sure what research was conducted or who was truly consulted but makes for an interesting list with some odd choices.

10 - Sherman
09 - Sheridan
08 - Panther
07 - T-72
06 - S-Tank
05 - Centurion
04 - Merkava
03 - T-34
02 - Abrams
01 - Leopard 2.

i think it is T-34 ranked the top in that show , as it gave the greatest impact in history compare to all other tanks.