Rusting Tank
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
Add to favorites Tags: Military
Processing your request, Please wait....
Leave a comment ?
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...Add to favorites Tags: Military
May 28, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Looks more like a fading paintjob to me.
May 28, 2009 at 7:38 pm
agreed…mostly camo paintjob on the reactive armor appliques that give that appearance.
The russian tanks may have been worthless on the battlefield against the likes of the British Challengers and US Abrams but they are still a very nice looking design. Sized like a damn sports-car compared to the two previous mentioned tanks.
May 28, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Yeah, but it’s a fact that more space and climate controlled tanks makes the tankers more comfy and that in turn increases morale and performance.
May 28, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Inferior to British tanks? Yeah the British tanks cost so much you could have 6 t-90′s for the cost of 1 challenger. Modern western tanks have never faced off with a worthy opponent.
The question is…will the active defense systems on Russian tanks work? If it doesn’t they can build ten times as many anyways and pwn the western tanks where they have air superiority.
Worthless….I think not.
May 28, 2009 at 8:27 pm
T-90 cost per unit: 2.23 million USD (Jan 2007)
M1A2 Abrams cost per unit: 4.35 million USD
Challenger 2 cost per unit 7.92 million USD
Using this model, we can assume that you can get roughly three and a half T-90s to every Challenger 2, or about two T-90s to every M1A2 Abrams. Your math is flawed.
May 28, 2009 at 9:06 pm
It just wants you to think it is out of commission, then – BOOM – you be dead!
May 28, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Take all the weapons you think have ever been decommissioned.
Put them in the hands of volatile, angry, young people. With ATTITUDE.
Start a new world order.
May 28, 2009 at 9:26 pm
count me in.
May 28, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Ah yes but let us all remember a lesson proven in/by history. In WW2 German Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger tanks were far outnumbered by Sherman and T-35/85 tanks in nearly every engagement. Look up the “battle of the bulge” for an example. Tiger crews killed allied tanks at nearly a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio if not more. They only stopped cause they ran outa gas. My point being quantity is not better than quality and in tank warfare the past has proven that painfully true.
May 28, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Yeah. The Abrams can hit a moving target while moving. As far as I know, and I could easily be wrong, the Russian designs are not quite so gifted. That can make all the difference.
May 28, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Also a point of note. The M1A2 has the most advanced computer integrated gyro stabilizer mated to its main gun and drive system. This means the M1A2, is as far as I know, the only main battle tank in the world that can fire “accurately” on the move, on rough ground, and at about 35mph to 40mph. All other tanks I’ve ever seen tech. data on, including Challenger and German Leopard, have to stop to fire. Even then the Leopard has the biggest gun and range over challenger but a tank at rest is a dead tank.
May 29, 2009 at 1:53 am
Eh? The Leopard 2 can move and fire at the same time. I’m pretty sure the Challenger 2 can do the same. In fact, I’m pretty damn sure and modern tank of the western world can do that.
May 30, 2009 at 1:33 am
Since we are going to be a little to literal…
Of course all tanks can fire on the move but they all can’t do so with great accuracy and that is not even accounting for uneven terrain. When I said stop to fire I was pointing to the issue of the inability to produce accurate fire without stopping not firing at all.
May 29, 2009 at 2:12 am
All modern tanks can shoot on the move. In addition to this the M1A2 is not the most advanced tank out there, it doesn’t even have an autoloader…LOLOLOLOLOL.
Oh, and if diesel fuel was a problem with the german tanks then having more tanks wouldn’t have solved the problem eh?
May 30, 2009 at 1:47 am
Check my wording again. I said the M1A2 has the “Most Advanced Computer Integrated Gyro” for its main gun targeting system. Not the entire tank. Everywhere you are better at something your lacking elsewhere. This go’s for all things and the difference maker is which half is greater. My money is on shooting with a high efficiency on the move, in combat circumstances, in day or night. M1A1 can do that.
Oh and with the Germans thing. If you’re out of fuel you can’t move. If you can’t move you can’t adjust position or pull back to re-arm ammo when you run out from killing other tanks. Worse than that and more likely to happen first is you’re inablity to move gets you an ass or side shot and dead or artillery shelled, or smoked by aircraft.
May 30, 2009 at 3:31 am
Where do you get your crap information? The computer systems on that tank are no more advanced than French or German tanks, I’d put my money on them. Just cause it was made in ‘Murrica doesn’t make it better. Oh and the M1A2 sports a german 120 cause the 105 the US had on it was teh suck.
May 29, 2009 at 2:14 am
Oh and the French LeClerc has the biggest gun out of all the NATO tanks.
May 29, 2009 at 6:01 am
I love when people bring up the auto-loader issue.
a manned loaders station has two advantages over an auto-loader.
first, the tank with the manned loader will always be able to keep up a more rapid amount of fire than the auto-loader. I remember reloading times in basic training at Ft. Knox of 3-5 seconds. the russian autoloader would ker-chunck a round into the breach about every 8-10 seconds. speed is life on the battlefield.
second, an autoloader won’t be able to provide an extra pair of eyes on fire-guard, air-watch, go out on LP duty, or most importantly, help fix or break down the track.
As for the main-gun stabilization, that was actually started with the M-48′s IIRC. Albeit in a limited form. The M-60′s had a very good stabilization system, but still was a 60′s design and basically a holdover from WWII tank ideas. The Abrahms, Challenger, Leopard, and LeClerc are based on a simple idea of overwhelming an ATTACKING enemy with super-accurate fire. It just so happens that the same design lends itself to an excellent offensive tank as well. At least as long as the Abrams sticks close to her supply lines…she can be thirsty. We were told that the M1a1 has enough fuel for a full 24 hours of operations running for those 24 hours. yeah…
IF I were to pick the perfect tank, it would have to be the Merkava III. Basically a reliable, diesel powered Abrams with a squad of crunchies in the back. I am all for that.
D
May 29, 2009 at 7:30 am
Indeed older Russian auto loader designs were slower and not as reliable as a loader at the time. Modern auto loaders designed by Asian and European companies are just as fast if not faster than a man and it doesn’t get tired and doesn’t make mistakes.
I do have to say though you make a good point on having the extra man for fire-guard and the likes, hadn’t taken that into consideration, though given the choice I’d go with the modern auto loaders.
What it really comes down to is if you pay for a modern tank you will get a modern tank. Modern Korean, German, French, Russian, American, British tank are all very well designed machines. The training of the crews, the numbers deployed, the quality of the officers(logistics involved and deploying them correctly) will make a bigger impact that the tank itself.
The Russians realized that, in the end, tanks are most vulnerable to enemy aircraft and not so much enemy armor. This is why they have cheap and mobile air defense systems such as the s-300 and the very scary s-400 missile defense systems. If they can deny any modern enemy air supremacy in a theater of operation they will most likely win(conventional of course, without tactical nukes and biological warfare.)
Tank to tank is something I don’t think most colonels are worried about, course they have more war college than me.