EXACTLY!!...many parts and features that would be able to kill a m1a2 were stripped and not replaced. A real T-80 would probably win over an M1A2, although the M1A2 is an incredible machine...its closeAlso, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.
Poll
In RealLife The Better Tank is ?
| T72 | 2% | 2% - 9 | ||||
| T80 | 10% | 10% - 35 | ||||
| M1A Abrams | 62% | 62% - 220 | ||||
| others | 24% | 24% - 86 | ||||
| Total: 350 | ||||||
It would maybe take out an Abrams if you drop it from a plane and it lands on the Abrams. Then maybe you take it out just maybeFlyingPenguin wrote:
EXACTLY!!...many parts and features that would be able to kill a m1a2 were stripped and not replaced. A real T-80 would probably win over an M1A2, although the M1A2 is an incredible machine...its closeAlso, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-05-28 10:27:37)
1. It's called Dorchester armour on a CR2.scouseclarky wrote:
thats a bit wrong the m1a2 is good but in a tank on tank battle the challenger2 would win . thanks to it's 2 special ability's. 1) the chubbm Armour it is fitted with. in Iraq at the beginning in Basra a challenger lost its track then it was attacked by insurgents, for 12 hours it was pounder with rpg's a total of 19 times and hit with a anti tank missile 1 they recovered the crew and tank and it was operational the next day no lives were lost. i say this is impressive. (2) the tog or target optical gunnery system, it allows the commander to select a target the turret the automatically traverses and lays the gun on target so the gunner can shoot while he is doing this the commander searches for his next target when the first target is destroyed the gun automatically traverses on 2 the next designated target and the process starts again. this means that in the time it takes an enemy gunner to move the turret the challenger 2 has already acquired the target the gunner has probably fired and the next target has been selected.silentsin wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
ooh yeah i almost forgot in the first gulf was the challenger 1 entered the record books by making the longest tank on tank kill ever recorded at a distance of 2.1 miles the shell was in the air for 3 seconds before destroying the enemy tank
2. TOG is not as you describe it. The system you describe is nick-named Hunter - Killer and 6 targets can be inputted in a row. TOG stands for Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight, which was used on Challenger 1. Now superceded simply by TI, or Thermal Imaging.
Haha, a T80 can't even touch an M1A2.herrr_smity wrote:
It would maybe take out an Abrams if you drop it from a plane and it lands on the Abrams. Then maybe you take it out just maybeFlyingPenguin wrote:
EXACTLY!!...many parts and features that would be able to kill a m1a2 were stripped and not replaced. A real T-80 would probably win over an M1A2, although the M1A2 is an incredible machine...its closeAlso, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.
And yes, liberian rebels did have some T55s. They stole them from Burkina Faso and the ivory coast
Last edited by Sh1fty2k5 (2006-05-29 08:40:27)
Don't know if it's been pointed out already, but the statement that the Abrams is limited by the fuel it burns (ie, only jet fuel) is false. The Abrams will burn almost any combustible liquid...much like Russian fighters from the cold war. It's primary fuel is JP8, but it will burn diesel, kerosene, mogas, etc.
Ok, people look at this video and then this discussion will come to an end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa … eopard%202
Heres the whole list.
#10: M4 Sherman - United states of America
#9:Sheridan M551 - United states of America
#8:Panther - Germany
#7:T-72 - Soviet union
#6:S-tank - Kingdom of Sweden
#5:Centurion - United Kingdom
#4:Merkava MK4 - Israel
#3:T-34 - Soviet union
#2:M1A1 Abrams - United states of America
#1:Leopard 2 (Stridsvagn 122) - Germany/Kingdom of Sweden
I don't really understand what the Sheridan is doing on this list.
It was made out of alimunium and couldn't even take one RPG on front.
The jury consisted of Tom Clancy and a number of War Historians and retired soldiers.
Makes me kinda proud that two of the tanks are from sweden
Discuss what you think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa … eopard%202
Heres the whole list.
#10: M4 Sherman - United states of America
#9:Sheridan M551 - United states of America
#8:Panther - Germany
#7:T-72 - Soviet union
#6:S-tank - Kingdom of Sweden
#5:Centurion - United Kingdom
#4:Merkava MK4 - Israel
#3:T-34 - Soviet union
#2:M1A1 Abrams - United states of America
#1:Leopard 2 (Stridsvagn 122) - Germany/Kingdom of Sweden
I don't really understand what the Sheridan is doing on this list.
It was made out of alimunium and couldn't even take one RPG on front.
The jury consisted of Tom Clancy and a number of War Historians and retired soldiers.
Makes me kinda proud that two of the tanks are from sweden
Discuss what you think
yeah ! they pwn
for the motherland russia xD
for the motherland russia xD
No Tiger ? hmm suprised about that oneSh1fty2k5 wrote:
Ok, people look at this video and then this discussion will come to an end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa … eopard%202
Heres the whole list.
#10: M4 Sherman - United states of America
#9:Sheridan M551 - United states of America
#8:Panther - Germany
#7:T-72 - Soviet union
#6:S-tank - Kingdom of Sweden
#5:Centurion - United Kingdom
#4:Merkava MK4 - Israel
#3:T-34 - Soviet union
#2:M1A1 Abrams - United states of America
#1:Leopard 2 (Stridsvagn 122) - Germany/Kingdom of Sweden
I don't really understand what the Sheridan is doing on this list.
It was made out of alimunium and couldn't even take one RPG on front.
The jury consisted of Tom Clancy and a number of War Historians and retired soldiers.
Makes me kinda proud that two of the tanks are from sweden
Discuss what you think
The tiger wasn't special in any way. It was like any other tank, except for the fact that it had a hellovalotta more armor on the front. Which also made it heavier, and harder to maintain.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
No Tiger ? hmm suprised about that oneSh1fty2k5 wrote:
Ok, people look at this video and then this discussion will come to an end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa … eopard%202
Heres the whole list.
#10: M4 Sherman - United states of America
#9:Sheridan M551 - United states of America
#8:Panther - Germany
#7:T-72 - Soviet union
#6:S-tank - Kingdom of Sweden
#5:Centurion - United Kingdom
#4:Merkava MK4 - Israel
#3:T-34 - Soviet union
#2:M1A1 Abrams - United states of America
#1:Leopard 2 (Stridsvagn 122) - Germany/Kingdom of Sweden
I don't really understand what the Sheridan is doing on this list.
It was made out of alimunium and couldn't even take one RPG on front.
The jury consisted of Tom Clancy and a number of War Historians and retired soldiers.
Makes me kinda proud that two of the tanks are from sweden
Discuss what you think
Just remember, those tanks were pretty much nothing more than hulls with guns on them. All electrical systems had been stripped from them when the soviet union sold them to Iraq. So write "Iraqi tanks" instead.rdx-fx wrote:
If you want to compare the T-72 versus M1A1;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
(synopsis: the russian tanks got completely smoked)
thats true, but if you would place a Tiger against a Sherman in this case, i think the Tiger would winSh1fty2k5 wrote:
The tiger wasn't special in any way. It was like any other tank, except for the fact that it had a hellovalotta more armor on the front. Which also made it heavier, and harder to maintain.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
No Tiger ? hmm suprised about that oneSh1fty2k5 wrote:
Ok, people look at this video and then this discussion will come to an end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa … eopard%202
Heres the whole list.
#10: M4 Sherman - United states of America
#9:Sheridan M551 - United states of America
#8:Panther - Germany
#7:T-72 - Soviet union
#6:S-tank - Kingdom of Sweden
#5:Centurion - United Kingdom
#4:Merkava MK4 - Israel
#3:T-34 - Soviet union
#2:M1A1 Abrams - United states of America
#1:Leopard 2 (Stridsvagn 122) - Germany/Kingdom of Sweden
I don't really understand what the Sheridan is doing on this list.
It was made out of alimunium and couldn't even take one RPG on front.
The jury consisted of Tom Clancy and a number of War Historians and retired soldiers.
Makes me kinda proud that two of the tanks are from sweden
Discuss what you think
of topic, start your own thread, this is about modern tanks that have seen battle in real war.
Ín the gulf war (i cant remember wich one) the Abrams took out 600 (i think) T-72s, withuot loosing a single Abrams. Smply because of their computer aiming cannons, that could shoot much longer than the T-72s.
The Sherman had to be shipped halfway around the world, thats why it was built like it was. and the Sheridan used to get dropped from planes until recently and was the best air droppable tank ever.
As far as modern tanks, here is my top 3 and I could never put them in order, it would depend on the war and situation and I never served on two of them.
M1A2 Abrams
Leopard 2
Merkava
As far as modern tanks, here is my top 3 and I could never put them in order, it would depend on the war and situation and I never served on two of them.
M1A2 Abrams
Leopard 2
Merkava
Thermal sights, night and smoke. Most of the Iraqi equipment only had IR vision for night. The only chance the Iraqi armor had was surprising US tanks up close which did happen in a few battles. But the greatest threat to our big cats by far was friendly fire. We moved quickly and aggressively. A lot of confusion and risk taking.engineer wrote:
Ín the gulf war (i cant remember wich one) the Abrams took out 600 (i think) T-72s, withuot loosing a single Abrams. Smply because of their computer aiming cannons, that could shoot much longer than the T-72s.
don't forget the 88 mm gun that could take out any other tank at a 1000 meters( it was a long distance in those days).Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
The tiger wasn't special in any way. It was like any other tank, except for the fact that it had a hellovalotta more armor on the front. Which also made it heavier, and harder to maintain.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
No Tiger ? hmm suprised about that oneSh1fty2k5 wrote:
Ok, people look at this video and then this discussion will come to an end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa … eopard%202
Heres the whole list.
#10: M4 Sherman - United states of America
#9:Sheridan M551 - United states of America
#8:Panther - Germany
#7:T-72 - Soviet union
#6:S-tank - Kingdom of Sweden
#5:Centurion - United Kingdom
#4:Merkava MK4 - Israel
#3:T-34 - Soviet union
#2:M1A1 Abrams - United states of America
#1:Leopard 2 (Stridsvagn 122) - Germany/Kingdom of Sweden
I don't really understand what the Sheridan is doing on this list.
It was made out of alimunium and couldn't even take one RPG on front.
The jury consisted of Tom Clancy and a number of War Historians and retired soldiers.
Makes me kinda proud that two of the tanks are from sweden
Discuss what you think
88 Flakgun... MMmm. *jerks off*
i'm sorry but the two best tanks out there are the M1A2 and the Challanger II, they are so close in design, because of the joint programs in which they were designed, there are some obvious differences looking at the two side by side but the concepts are the smae under the body. T80's Leopards what ever dont have a chance as these two babies will knock them out from 2km away with ease.
As for the chob armour its only in use when the challies are in eroupe otherwise they got some new form of hybrid reactive armour on now.
As for the chob armour its only in use when the challies are in eroupe otherwise they got some new form of hybrid reactive armour on now.
bah bah bah, im british so ofcourse our own tank is the best even though there's no way to prove it bla bla blaaa
I think this discusion will never end untill they all face eachother in combat. There are so many variables like weather, terrain, crew and moral that make any past battles or tests of the tanks, useless to compare. Add that to the adition of other forces while in combat, it is unlikley even in the most god awfule future wars that there will never be tank vs tank battles without interferince from air ground and sea forces. Not to mention, there will always be a better tank.
So the Abrams wins!
neener neener neener!
neener neener neener!
Good point. Let's all meet in Sweeden and slug it outdark110 wrote:
I think this discusion will never end untill they all face eachother in combat. There are so many variables like weather, terrain, crew and moral that make any past battles or tests of the tanks, useless to compare. Add that to the adition of other forces while in combat, it is unlikley even in the most god awfule future wars that there will never be tank vs tank battles without interferince from air ground and sea forces. Not to mention, there will always be a better tank.
That also raises an interesting point. Why would Sweeden even want the "best tank" anyhow. I can't really recall a conflict that they even stuck their noses into over the last 50 decades. If I'm wrong, please feel free to enlighten me.
Also, do not leave out the Merkava 4 from Israel. It is a tank that is constantly being used as well, and has some very innovative features. It may not be one of the largest main battle tanks out there, but it's just as leathal in it's own rights.
Last edited by howler_27 (2006-06-01 15:37:15)
No tank beats the Abrams
Why can't people just understand that it's spelled simple, sweeden what the fuck were you thinking?howler_27 wrote:
Sweeden
Sweeden
Last edited by Sh1fty2k5 (2006-06-02 00:07:32)
It's because our education system is lacking. Had my teachers told me to spell it that way, I would have. Frankly, I could care less how it's shown.