Originally Posted by Alexin_Cobra

The T-95 is a new design. It will apparently carry a 152mm gun/missile launcher in a new turret designed to lower the silhouette even more than the current low slung T-72 series of tanks. The main gun will carry more of a punch than the 125mm gun used on current Russian tanks. This is a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, when 125mm armor-piercing rounds bounced off M1A1 Abrams tanks, even when fired from as close as 400 meters. The other major advance will include systems designed to decoy anti-tank missiles (like the Hellfire, Javelin, and TOW). The goal is to jam the sighting systems and to confuse the aim. This also is intended to work against the sighting system for tank guns. Tanks often spend time fighting each other, and their sights work much like the sights used to target and guide anti-tank missiles. The real question is whether the T-95 will see production beyond a few prototypes. Its main competitor, the T-80UM2 ?Black Eagle,? has the advantage of being cheaper and an upgrade of the T-80, which is currently in service. The T-95 will need time to have all the kinks worked out of its design. Much of that has already been done with the basic design of the T-80, and the ?Black Eagle? will not need as much time to be ready for deployment. The T-95 has improved crew survivability over the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks that the Russians currently use, but that is really not saying much, given the fact that the T-72 and its successors provided practically nothing in that area.

That said, the Americans have not stood pat with the M1A1. The 69-ton M1A2 is nearing ten years old. Its major changes are not in terms of the weapons (it maintains the same weapons as the M1A1: a 120mm main gun, a 12.7mm gun for the commander, and two 7.62mm machine guns ? one coaxial with the main gun, the other mounted on the loader?s hatch), but instead, the M1A2 is designed to exchange information with other vehicles faster through IVIS (Inter-Vehicle Information System). IVIS would allow a tank crew to find out what other tank crews are seeing, and to tell those other crews what they see, but troops have reportedly found it to be inconvenient. As a result, crews of the M1A2 will have a clearer picture of the battlefield than their opponents in other tanks when IVIS is used. That pays dividends. Having a good gun is nice, but you have to know where to point it. The American crews will know faster than their opponents due to IVIS. That means they are more likely to get in the first shot. The fire-control system remains perhaps the best in the world. When an Abrams fires at a target, it is probably going to hit the target. The results will usually be fatal to its target.

The technical specifications do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality ? and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and much better training, most notably at the National Training Center. The former is arguably the best teacher in the world. It brutally shows what was done right and wrong, and grading is not on a curve. The latter is the toughest training regime in the world ? often American combat veterans have compared fighting in Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom to the NTC, with the caveat that the Iraqis weren?t as good as the OPFOR (the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment). Training at home bases (American tank crews fire about 100 rounds per year, in addition to demonstrations and NTC rotations) and the constant use of simulators add to the American edge in training.
The T-95, should it enter service, might have a better gun and could exceed the M1A2's 429-kilometer range (Russian tanks usually have a range of 550-650 kilometers when equipped with extra fuel tanks), but the M1A2 is superior in most other aspects by which a tank is judged, particularly in fire control, crew survivability, the IVIS system (when used), and since it is already in service. It might cost $4.3 million per tank when compared to the $1.8 million Pakistan paid for each of the 320 T-80UDs Pakistan bought from the Ukraine, but the U.S. Army, in battles like 73 Easting (where the M1A1HA-equipped Eagle Troop of the 2nd ACR under H.R. McMaster, with other units, defeated elements of the Tawakalna Division) during Desert Storm, has proven that the M1 series of tanks can win when badly outnumbered. The M1A2 still rules the battlefield, and will for the foreseeable future.

ok, the russians have a proven explosive reactive armor that will stop the latest abrams round, also russian training is improving, and are going into a mostly volunteer army, which helps alot. The tanks that we fought in iraq are cheap export models that are not even comparable to the russian versions. Finnally in a large scale war, like a US vs Russia, or US vs China, as Lenin once said "Quantity has a quality all it own" no i not a communist

Originally Posted by Bacara

ok, the russians have a proven explosive reactive armor that will stop the latest abrams round, also russian training is improving, and are going into a mostly volunteer army, which helps alot. The tanks that we fought in iraq are cheap export models that are not even comparable to the russian versions. Finnally in a large scale war, like a US vs Russia, or US vs China, as Lenin once said "Quantity has a quality all it own" no i not a communist

Not correct. Reactive armor is designed to defeat chemical rounds like the HEAT round. Basically the heat round has a probe on the front that initiates the reaction at a set distance from the target. This gives the jet time to form, which then burns through the armor. Reactive armor is designed to explode and interrupt the formation of the jet. This degrades or removes the rounds ability to penetrate the targets armor. Reactive armor does "NOTHING" to KE (Kinetic Energy) rounds. Mainly due to the fact that KE rounds are travelling MUCH faster than the fat dumb and happy HEAT rounds.

I once saw a gunner fire a sabot round at a target that was 3000m away and he had the ammo selector on heat. I think that round actually reached orbit. The gunner reset the ammor selector after the TC finished kicking the back of his head.

Originally Posted by HokieMSG

Not correct. Reactive armor is designed to defeat chemical rounds like the HEAT round. Basically the heat round has a probe on the front that initiates the reaction at a set distance from the target. This gives the jet time to form, which then burns through the armor. Reactive armor is designed to explode and interrupt the formation of the jet. This degrades or removes the rounds ability to penetrate the targets armor. Reactive armor does "NOTHING" to KE (Kinetic Energy) rounds. Mainly due to the fact that KE rounds are travelling MUCH faster than the fat dumb and happy HEAT rounds.

I once saw a gunner fire a sabot round at a target that was 3000m away and he had the ammo selector on heat. I think that round actually reached orbit. The gunner reset the ammor selector after the TC finished kicking the back of his head.

no its is supposed to break in two the round on impact

Im sorry, bacara, but im afraid your wrong. Reactive armor is made to defeat HEAT rounds, in the manner described by hokieSMG. You might be thinking about Active armor systems, or active defense systems....

no i have sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

it is proof to the latests M1A2 rounds like the M939A3

Bacara,
OK. I wonder what the US Army is doing since they are likely to go back to the M68 105mm rifled cannon with the Stryker MGS. That is not likely to do any better than the 120mm smoothbore. Have to use something with a top down attack. Or stop them with FASCAM.
Ultimately, I don;t see this becoming a factor anyway. It is not likely that we will be fighting the russians or the chinese. In any case, since this Kontact-5 was developed in 1985, I'm sure that DARPA has developed something that will defeat the slicing technology of this particular form of reactive armor. Even today most HEAT rounds are using the Tandem charge concept of defeat reactive armor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_ex...i-tank_warhead

Look at the section titled:
Variations.

Originally Posted by Bacara

ok, the russians have a proven explosive reactive armor that will stop the latest abrams round, also russian training is improving, and are going into a mostly volunteer army, which helps alot. The tanks that we fought in iraq are cheap export models that are not even comparable to the russian versions. Finnally in a large scale war, like a US vs Russia, or US vs China, as Lenin once said "Quantity has a quality all it own" no i not a communist

That why the US concentrates on combined arms. We don't rely on one weapon system. Plus Russia still hasn't built vehicles to enphasize on crew survivability. Reactive armor does not stop the abrams SABO round. Size of gun matters not when it comes to proficiency. I've learn on some of the Chinese weapons systems while I was in China. No, you are not a communist, just uninformed.

The Leopard "Cat Shoot" is probably the best tank in the world for few reason :
- The Leopard is a german made and during world war two germany changing the face of the tank.
- The Leopard 1/2 use the world best main gun in the world called "L44/L55" inspired from the Panzer and King Tiger II during World War Two who was called by "Magic Stick".
- The Leopard 1 was create 28 years ago and the only one version who saw action is the canadian variant called " Leopard C2 " (Is a 1A5 ultra modified in 2000s).


Picture of Canadian Leopard C2 (1A5) only 66 still remaning in canadian forces and will be obsolete in 2015 and sold to Afghanistan Army

Canadian Leopard C2 (1A5) in Afghanistan escort a LAV-III and Leopard Bergepanzer ,Armoured recovery vehicle.

The lethal firepower of the Leopard C2 (1A5) during a hard target against a ex-canadian Leopard C2


Picture of Leopard 2A6M CAN (canadian version, the only 2A6 to see action) the best tank in the world.

Are you sure it was Germany that changed the face of the tank during WW2, I think it could be argued that the Russian T34 was the tank that set the standard after 1941 so much so that it was Germanised in the form of the Panther.

In terms of current vehicles I would certainly rate the Leopard 2 amongst the best but without the combat combat experience of both the US and British tanks it would be hard to rate it as better.

A story on TV related an incident with a Challenger 2 in Iraq. The Challenger 2 lost a track and became stranded. The terrs hit the tank with an anti tank missile and a crap load of RPG's taking out all the viewing slots. The crew were rescued and the tank recovered. Despite being hit so many times the crew were unhurt and the tank had very little damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[8]

The Challenger 2 has given a pretty good account of itself. I dont know if its the best tanks in the world, but its got to be one of the best without a doubt.