The best tank!

[sealteam6]

So what would you guys say is the best tank used by any army in the world. I am specifically looking for a rating based on the combination of speed, gun, armor etc. so which one do you think is the best overall

[sealteam6]

Hey guys REPLY!! please its an easy question maybe yall no nothin about tanks just kidding

[British and proud]

Challenger 2.......some of its components are out performed by other tanks (not many at all though) but its all round sophistication and integration of technology is un matched. It combines agility and speed, radar and stealth, both short range and long range weaponary, heavily armoured and extremely efficient.

[sealteam6]

yeah the challenger is one mean tank, but did you know that the M1A1 abrams used by the U.S. is plated in Uranium 238, making it the best armored tank. I got the impression that that metal was used in nukes...


I quite like the gun barrel on the russian "T" series, which is 125 mm and doubles as a missile launcher

[British and proud]

yea that is true. But like I said, some of it's components are out peformed (armour like you said) but its the lethal combination that makes it a formidable fighting machine.

[rangerzrock]

ya the best EVER is the russian t4, as a fact, if the challenger2 or abrams took on this one they'd get ther arses whopped, i know this for a fact cause ther was a worldwide study on it, with tank crews, former tank crews, and historians, and tank experts :cool:

[sealteam6]

Thats interesting however we may never know for sure unless there is a war betwix those three countries, it is interesting to think about, however the challenger 2 is the most sophisticated tank, followed by the abrams, and they both are reportedly able to survive a nuclear blast

[British and proud]

I think my ex-girlfriend would have made a good tank :D She could stop anything!

[rangerzrock]

ya one tank crewmember was caught in a burning abrams and so the marines went back the next day to find any remains, and when they opened the hatch, he was still alive and unhindered. but a t4 would seriously take out any tank :cool:

[sealteam6]

Thats funny since a t4 is susceptible to get run over by another tank, gotta love that gun tho :cool:

[British and proud]

Yea the Challenger is bit of a beast. Did any of the British guys see Top gear on BBC2 last Sunday when Clarkson was in the new Range Rover sport and was trying to out perform the challenger 2 tank on the British armie's training ground? The tank out paced the Range Rover and always ahd the car in its sights due to the gun rotating a full 360 in 9 secs!

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/ops/basrah_cr2.jpg

[CanadianSoldier]

Leaopard C2 Tank:
Armament:
105-mm L7A3 gun
1 x 7.62-mm co-axially mounted machine-gun (C6)
1 x 7.62-mm crew commander's machine-gun (C6)
76-mm grenade launchers (2 clusters of 4 launchers)
Ammunition types: Armour-Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS)
High explosive squash head (HESH)
White Phosphorous Smoke (WP)

Specifications:
Length: 8.17 m (gun at 6 o'clock), 9.54 m (gun at 12 o'clock)
Width: 3.37 m Height: 2.62 m Weight: 42.5 t
Engine: Multi-fuel engine, 10 cylinders, 830 hp
Speed: 65 km/hr
Range: 600 km
'' I think this tank is good as it is the most polyvalent one I have found, sure some may have better guns, but try to find atank with 600km range tank. (Challenger 2 is 450km)''

[British and proud]

600km? Blimey that is incredible!

[rangerzrock]

actually if u look up the facts, the t4 has some of the best armor, and ya gotta luv that gun :cool:

[sealteam6]

damn that is incredible thats what i call a sniper tank

[royal marine]

ok ranger are you talking about t34 used by russians in WW2

[M4M203]

the M1-Abram...mostly because the crew.

[js_mac]

Look at my post in "who has the best army". As far as crew, the british tank crews are absolutely 100% the best in the world - that i am certain off. This is based on the fact that british tanks were used to wipe out the elite republican guard tank divisions of saddam's army in the recent gulf war. Also, during the whole of the cold war, the likely soviet invasion spots were all manned by British armoured divisions, as they were the only divisions of 'Class A' standard under NATO rankings.

[andoman_42]

Hmmm, you seem to be quite certain again.....and now you use the "elite" republican guard as "proof".....what was the challenge in wiping them out? You had the superior HW and manpower.....I just have to quote torspo[fin] from the other thread:

"oh.. looky.. there goes anotherone... Pete! could you press the trigger.. my coffee is getting cold"

Heck...even the french could have wiped them out.....

[torspo[fin]]

indeed.. i dont doubt a second that the French couldlt have done the same thing in iraq.

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best
MBT there is.. tough the Leopard 2 was better in the early stages of development IMO
(it had better HEAT resistance than Abrams.. not anymore tough.)
nowadays it doesnt match up because of the lesser armor since it doesnt use Chobham armour. otherwise very fine tank tough.. near match even with the lesser armor.
with modern ERA it would easily beat Abrams.

we have a handful of leopards and lots of modernized t-72 in finland..
well.. we dont need em that much anyhows. Finlands terrain can be quite problematic for tank warfear. atlleast the eastern provinces.

what andoman_42 is referring is the scenario of
challencer 2 versus Lion of Babylon...

well. the outcome of that "match" is quite obvious.
Lion of babylon is type-69 copy with some modernizations to its armor..
for example hardened frontal and rear armor..

[js_mac]

Hmmm, you seem to be quite certain again.....and now you use the "elite" republican guard as "proof".....what was the challenge in wiping them out? You had the superior HW and manpower.....I just have to quote torspo[fin] from the other thread:

Quote:
"oh.. looky.. there goes anotherone... Pete! could you press the trigger.. my coffee is getting cold"

Heck...even the french could have wiped them out.....

Eh, yeah, I'm certain because I know what I'm talking about. You want to me argue with me again, like you did in the discrimination thread? You fared well in that didn't you?
The republican guard is proof, as they were the only armoured units that posed any threat, and, seeing as you all seem to think the americans have the best tanks, the fact that the british desert rats were used to wipe them out (losing no tanks in the process, i add) proves my point.
You see, it isn't just how good the tank is - it's how good the crew are... an iraqi tank could most likely take out a challenger 2 or abrams if it managed to get up behind it

Your anti-french comments show your lack of knowledge and how you base your admittedly **** knowledge on stereotypes and your own opinions. The french, in fact, are a pretty formidable fighting force. The top 4 most powerful militaries (in order) are the american, russian, british, then french.

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best

Why do you think this? Do you even know what the challenger 2 is? No, you don't... you are just (like every other moron on this planet) falling for the american bull**** media praising every aspect of their military.

[torspo[fin]]

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best

Why do you think this? Do you even know what the challenger 2 is? No, you don't... you are just (like every other moron on this planet) falling for the american bull**** media praising every aspect of their military.

i know what Challenger 2 is... its fine modern British tank with ultramodern qualitys and equipment.. and yes.. its good. bit slow tough.

you should know that im not praising every aspect of U.S military...
this is a thread about tanks... and the tank i see is M1-abrams.
its my opinion and you have yours.

in theoretical battle between modern Abrams and challenger 2 i'd say the abrams
would win... IF equiped with DU rounds and armor.. otherwise the table would turn
for the Challenger 2. (im not including the trainning of the crew to this because the equipment is the main point in this thread.)

[andoman_42]

Your anti-french comments show your lack of knowledge and how you base your admittedly **** knowledge on stereotypes and your own opinions. The french, in fact, are a pretty formidable fighting force. The top 4 most powerful militaries (in order) are the american, russian, british, then french.



I have to apologize for writing it a bit unclear. I just took the french as one example. My point was that any army with such a destinct advantage in superior HW would have wiped out the elite republican guard. I ment no disrespect towards the french army.

[sealteam6]

Russia ha! thats a laugh they may be good, but britain is way better than them, simply because russia has not had enough funding ever since they stopped being communist

[sealteam6]

']i know what Challenger 2 is... its fine modern British tank with ultramodern qualitys and equipment.. and yes.. its good. bit slow tough.

you should know that im not praising every aspect of U.S military...
this is a thread about tanks... and the tank i see is M1-abrams.
its my opinion and you have yours.

in theoretical battle between modern Abrams and challenger 2 i'd say the abrams
would win... IF equiped with DU rounds and armor.. otherwise the table would turn
for the Challenger 2. (im not including the trainning of the crew to this because the equipment is the main point in this thread.)


theoretically I think an Abrams would win but not without being basly damaged itself, but historically Britain has had better training for its crews so...

[farman19840124]

make you **** tool strongly and he will kill anyone if like
he will be the most horribleful killer in the world!

[royal marine]

since when have russia been so good

[sealteam6]

They were ok tankwise in WW2 and they have haid some powerful tanks since, their tanks have always had the distinction of being the most heavily armed (Guiness World Records)

[BeaufordBuddy]

yeah the challenger is one mean tank, but did you know that the M1A1 abrams used by the U.S. is plated in Uranium 238, making it the best armored tank. I got the impression that that metal was used in nukes...

Which is why you don't want to be next to one while that sucker is burning.

[Balic]

Challenger 2.......some of its components are out performed by other tanks (not many at all though) but its all round sophistication and integration of technology is un matched. It combines agility and speed, radar and stealth, both short range and long range weaponary, heavily armoured and extremely efficient.

Challenger 2, M1a2, Leopard2a5/a6, Ariete, Leclerc, T84, Merkava4, Type 90 etc are all on about the same lenght, they are all very good tanks, as for the superb components, can you tel me how you know this, because it isn't superior in electronics to all of the tanks metioned...

Also, a MBT doesn't have radar and a MBT (especially the Chally2) is far from stealthy.

yeah the challenger is one mean tank, but did you know that the M1A1 abrams used by the U.S. is plated in Uranium 238, making it the best armored tank. I got the impression that that metal was used in nukes...

The Callenger 2 also uses DU in its armor. And I don't think anbody her eis able to tell wat kind of DU is used, and nobody said it automatically makes it the best protected tank in the world, and if it is used in nukes, does that gives you a safe feeling, all those radio-active materials in you tank?

ya the best EVER is the russian t4, as a fact, if the challenger2 or abrams took on this one they'd get ther arses whopped, i know this for a fact cause ther was a worldwide study on it, with tank crews, former tank crews, and historians, and tank experts

Haha, you are funny, the T4 doesn't even exists

it is interesting to think about, however the challenger 2 is the most sophisticated tank, followed by the abrams, and they both are reportedly able to survive a nuclear blast

Nobody said the CHallenger 2 is the most sophisticated tank, it is well known among tankers that the Frenc Leclerc uses the latest electronics in it's C&C + FCS. One agency claimes that the Japanese Type 90 is the most sophisticated tak in the world, but it comes with a cost, ts the most expensive MBT in the world.

I think this tank is good as it is the most polyvalent one I have found, sure some may have better guns, but try to find a tank with 600km range tank. (Challenger 2 is 450km)

The Ukrainian T-84 (Oplot) has a range of 400km, but it can carry 2 fuel drums at the back of the hull, each can carry 200 liters of fuel, thats 400 liters extra fuel, that gives it almost a max range of 600km

actually if u look up the facts, the t4 has some of the best armor, and ya gotta luv that gun

LOL, again, there is no''t4''

the M1-Abram...mostly because the crew.

We weren't talking about its crew where we...
And still I don't think US tankers are better trained than any other Western country tankers.

As far as crew, the british tank crews are absolutely 100% the best in the world - that i am certain off. This is based on the fact that british tanks were used to wipe out the elite republican guard tank divisions of saddam's army in the recent gulf war.

Thats BS ... first off all, most Republican Gaurd divisions where stationed in Baghdad, english troops didn't even get near Baghdad... Second, the Republican Gaurd where driving downscraped T-72's that didn't even have modern night-vision to spot the Challengers or the Abrams, so it where nothing more than sitting ducks waiting to be blown up. Also the T72 is a generation behind the Challenger 2...
Third, if WE are talking about Elite, we are talking about the best of the best, but Iraqi Elite means something like a Britisch tanker that just got out from tankschool...

indeed.. i dont doubt a second that the French couldlt have done the same thing in iraq.

yep, some surces say they have the4th best tank in the world with challenger right behind it on the 5th place.

nowadays it doesnt match up because of the lesser armor since it doesnt use Chobham armour. otherwise very fine tank tough.. near match even with the lesser armor.

The US Abrams used some sort of armor SIMILAIR to that of the Britisch Chobam, it is not the same.
About the Leopard2a5/a6 armor: It combines to types of armor, the first is the Leopard2a4 armor wich consists of multi-layer armor using all kinds of ceramics similair to Chobam armor, atop of this they added hollow armor to the A5/a6 with some sort of panels in it that direct the penetrator to the left or right IF penetrated, s it is a very smart and cheap solution, but it certainly isn't lesser armored than the M1 Abrams or the Chally 1/2

but to the matter at hand... m1-Abrams with the latest gear/upgrades is obviosly the best
MBT there is.. tough the Leopard 2 was better in the early stages of development IMO

Personally I don't like the Abrams engine at all, its a gas-turbine that uses ALOT and than I mean ALOT of fuel (much more than any other tank using a diesel engine) and it is not very reliable, only advatage is that it has some more torque tha the Leopard2a6 (for example) and it doesn't maken much noise, but the fuel consumption is the main disadvantage.

Eh, yeah, I'm certain because I know what I'm talking about.

No, you don't...

The republican guard is proof, as they were the only armoured units that posed any threat, and, seeing as you all seem to think the americans have the best tanks, the fact that the british desert rats were used to wipe them out (losing no tanks in the process, i add) proves my point.

The US Abrams engaged and where enaged by Republican Gaurd troops much more than the Britisch, the Britisch mostly engaged stationary T-55's, and again, the Republican Gaurd isn't much of an opponent for the Chally 2 or Abrams with there downscraped, badly maintained T-72's.

You see, it isn't just how good the tank is - it's how good the crew are... an iraqi tank could most likely take out a challenger 2 or abrams if it managed to get up behind it

Agreed, but really, the fact is that the Iraqi soldiers weren't good trained, so they weren't much of an opponent for the Britisch/American tactics.

Your anti-french comments show your lack of knowledge and how you base your admittedly **** knowledge on stereotypes and your own opinions.

Readig all this you are the one with the ''****'' knowledge on this particulair subject.

Why do you think this? Do you even know what the challenger 2 is? No, you don't... you are just (like every other moron on this planet) falling for the american bull**** media praising every aspect of their military.

Why do you say this, can't you discuss with people without calling them moron?

IF equiped with DU rounds and armor.. otherwise the table would turn
for the Challenger 2.

Nowadays every Abrams (M1a1, M1a2, M1a2SEP) is exuiped with DU rounds AND DU armor, but I think its a matter of who shoots first and on what place.

have to apologize for writing it a bit unclear. I just took the french as one example. My point was that any army with such a destinct advantage in superior HW would have wiped out the elite republican guard. I ment no disrespect towards the french army.

I agree, the Iraqi army just wasn't much.

Russia ha! thats a laugh they may be good, but britain is way better than them, simply because russia has not had enough funding ever since they stopped being communist

Do remember that there infantry divisions alone are probably 10 times bigger than the whole Britisch army, they also have 25.000 tanks (If I'm crrect about 7000 of them are T-90's and T90's) and who knowns how man IFV's, and armored tansport vehicles, this time size DOES matters...

since when have russia been so good

If there was a war between the US and Russia in the Cold War I think Russia (former Soviet-Union) would have had a good change wining.

They were ok tankwise in WW2 and they have haid some powerful tanks since, their tanks have always had the distinction of being the most heavily armed (Guiness World Records)

LOL, maybe in WWII.

Also, during the whole of the cold war, the likely soviet invasion spots were all manned by British armoured divisions, as they were the only divisions of 'Class A' standard under NATO rankings.

Can you give me any source or is it another ''I know this for a fact'' statement?

[An Army]

I thought I'd just put in my 2 favorite tanks, for the heck of it.

1. Leopard 2 A6
2.Challenger 2

[Nord-West]

Russia ha! thats a laugh they may be good, but britain is way better than them, simply because russia has not had enough funding ever since they stopped being communistsorry, I don't speak english. you opinion not justment.
GB:
386 Chellenger-2
156 Chellenger-1
Russia (Military Balance-2002):
Т-54/55 1200
Т-62 2020
Т-64 4300
Т-72 9700
Т-80 4500
Т-90 150

In 1985-1987 we have 64000 tanks. This three times as much it is more, than all NATO. and now Russia stay most big tanks nation. After break (1991-1999) in Russia Army again to deliver tanks. In 2005 year supply 97 T-90.

Кто-нибудь говорит по-русски???

[torspo[fin]]

In 1985-1987 we have 64000 tanks. This three times as much it is more, than all NATO. and now Russia stay most big tanks nation. After break (1991-1999) in Russia Army again to deliver tanks. In 2005 year supply 97 T-90.


and as a reminder.. the tanks named "t-80" or "t-72" in Russia aint that crap you see in video games
kids....
they are much more.



" кто-нибудь говорит по-русски?" я не говорю на русском языке.
Я являюсь финским? :)

[Texas]

']and as a reminder.. the tanks named "t-80" or "t-72" in Russia aint that crap you see in video games
kids....
they are much more.



" кто-нибудь говорит по-русски?" я не говорю на русском языке.
Я являюсь финским? :)

I think we proved how good they were in Iraq . Baked Bean tins offer more protection.

[torspo[fin]]

I think we proved how good they were in Iraq . Baked Bean tins offer more protection.

i wouldnt have guessed that you would be the first fella to match
"Lion of Babylon" with the original Russian gear....

shows what you know.

you fought against bad copy's from a copy from non-uptodate t-72.

modern T-80 with systems like "ARENA" and reactive/cheramic armoring
are something very very different.

[Texas]

']i wouldnt have guessed that you would be the first fella to match
"Lion of Babylon" with the original Russian gear....

shows what you know.

you fought against bad copy's from a copy from non-uptodate t-72.

modern T-80 with systems like "ARENA" and reactive/cheramic armoring
are something very very different.

Sorry ,didn't mean to tag that on to your message Torspo .It was aimed at that Russian babbling on about 64,000 Tanks .
I'm sure the T80 can make good account of its self in the right hands ,but this theory of superior Soviet tank numbers overwelming the west during the cold war was a joke . The majority of those 64,000 tanks(if this is a true figure ) were out of date pieces of junk .A lot of them were T34's ,T55 `s etc:confused:

[Texas]

I've done some reading on the T80 .I've not found anything favourable said about it .It had a bad press in Grozny .Do you have any quality info on it and the T72 .Basic differences etc with the Iraqi version .
Maybe my opinion is incorrect but I'm struggling to find any info that says anything good about them ... :)

[torspo[fin]]

I've done some reading on the T80 .I've not found anything favourable said about it .It had a bad press in Grozny .Do you have any quality info on it and the T72 .Basic differences etc with the Iraqi version .
Maybe my opinion is incorrect but I'm struggling to find any info that says anything good about them ... :)

bad press is bad press... there can be bad press for abrams or challenger also...
depending from the situation they get in.

as i see it.. the modernized T-80 variants can be quite effective.
with new generation ERA and ARENA protections..
quite mobile.. i also have heared from computer aided response capability..
(kinda devastating against the one who decides to
shoot the tank with RPG or similar)
its capable of firing ATGM from its main gun while moving.
while ARENA protects it from such missiles (Hellfire, TOW, etc..)
with DU rounds this tank is nowhere near piece of junk.
T-80 has no relation to T-72.. it's a different tank alltogether.

T-72 on the otherhand... while its good basic all-around tank.. is
outdated. modernized munitions even the scale a bit but noot too much.
troughly modernized, this tank is the bears probably the lowest place in the
list of "Tanks to use in modern warfear". But still.. its a tank.. and it works.

and then.... the famous "Lion of Babylon" or "Asad Babil" ....
I wouldn't use the definition "T-72" from this piece of iraqi made
copy of Chinease Type-69... it just doesn't reach near enough..
most of thease didn't even have laser range finders? :confused:
some added armor against air attack? yep...

don't call that tank T-72 please... since it definetly is not one.
(i did that mistake my self in the previous post of mine... which i have now corrected.)

"Asad Babil" is a copy from Chinease "Type-69"
which is development from "Type-59" which
on the otherhand was a copy of soviet "T-54/55"

[sealteam6]

The T-80 is good but it too is becoming oudated, by the T-90, which is regarded as the best armed tank, although it isn't much in the way of sophistication

[torspo[fin]]

The T-80 is good but it too is becoming oudated, by the T-90, which is regarded as the best armed tank, although it isn't much in the way of sophistication

i hope to find some specs from the new Chiorny Oriol or "Blackeagle tank"..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Russianblackeagle.jpg
Black eagle MBT (clearly edited image.. but anyhows.)

new ERA and very sloped design i can see...
there is also something said about Drozd-2 APS...
http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/drozd-2.htm

[Harrington]

leopard 2 definately, a great addition to the German's legacy of superior tank designs

[Ruskisniper]

May i suggest the t-34 the best tank during wwii, even the highest german tank commanders admitted it. Also the t-90 and the t-80um (black eagel). Challenger is cool its got a mini gun in it and i was wondering if u can get radiation poisining from the depleted uraniun on the M1 and i would preffer ERA ( explosive reaction armour ) over steel, composite and depleted uranium. but thats just me

[Phisy]

Just to make one small point - as far as I'm aware; and I welcome any evidence to the contary - Not a single Chally 2 was destroyed by enemy action during Op Telic/OIF. The only Chally lost I'm aware of, happend during one of the largest tank engagements of the war, at night, when one accidently engaged another.

There are many personal reports that when crews entered Basrah, they would routinely hear RPG-7s' from Iraqi AT crews bouncing off the hull.. as opposed to the M1, which we have all seen evidence of them being lost to RPG-7 crews.

The M1 may be a very good tank - it undoubtledy is - it's speed and firepower is up there with the best, however, it's armour is 2nd rate, as Iraq has shown, and it remains a 20th century tank in a rapidly growing field of modern, 21st Century MBTs.

[Spike]

British 2nd generation Chobham Armour is the business .Its also used on the M1 .Oh by the way the barrel on the M1 is german.

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

[Ruskisniper]

the M1 is a good tank but it eats way too much gas because of its gas turbine ingine, the Challenger 2 is a great tank but one thing that the western MBT's dont have is a low silhouette like the t-90 and t-72 and, and that the western MBT's cant fire anti-tank missiles out of there main gun like the eastern MBT's and i was wondering if the M1 and the Challenger 2 have a multi-fuel engine that is able to run on kerosine, gas and benzine.

[Spike]

the M1 is a good tank but it eats way too much gas because of its gas turbine ingine, the Challenger 2 is a great tank but one thing that the western MBT's dont have is a low silhouette like the t-90 and t-72 and, and that the western MBT's cant fire anti-tank missiles out of there main gun like the eastern MBT's and i was wondering if the M1 and the Challenger 2 have a multi-fuel engine that is able to run on kerosine, gas and benzine.
On the height issue .The Russians make them that way to help the crew bail out quicker after the tank gets hit .... :rolleyes:
What the ***** do you want to fire missiles out of a MBT for . Thats sillly !

[Ruskisniper]

On the height issue .The Russians make them that way to help the crew bail out quicker after the tank gets hit .... :rolleyes:
What the ***** do you want to fire missiles out of a MBT for . Thats sillly !

a missile is much more accurate than a shell flying at who knows what speed because you can guide the missile at the target, but on the down side the missile can get (distracted) by countermesures like a smoke screen, foil strips and flares but still its a good thing to have

[Texas]

a missile is much more accurate than a shell flying at who knows what speed because you can guide the missile at the target, but on the down side the missile can get (distracted) by countermesures like a smoke screen, foil strips and flares but still its a good thing to have
Could you show us some info on that pal?

[sealteam6]

the M1 is a good tank but it eats way too much gas because of its gas turbine ingine, the Challenger 2 is a great tank but one thing that the western MBT's dont have is a low silhouette like the t-90 and t-72 and, and that the western MBT's cant fire anti-tank missiles out of there main gun like the eastern MBT's and i was wondering if the M1 and the Challenger 2 have a multi-fuel engine that is able to run on kerosine, gas and benzine.


Nope the M1 is soley dependent on gas, anything else just messes with the system, not sure about the challenger II

and the reason why the U.S.'s MBT 120mm gun doesn't fire missiles is because we have a special tank specificallly for that

[kraut :-)]

hi everybody!
this my first post so ill write a lil introduction to introduce myself:)
im (i think my name makes it clear) german :D
id like to talk with you guys about guns and stuff
i mentioned some of you guys are real genuis about tanks and and know almost everything about ervery single aspect of the different tanks
i just wanted to say something bout that t34s that have beaten the german tanks (königstiger and others)
well the problem was that it was a freakin cold winter in russia and the german tank which were (i think) the best ones in ww2 had one bad handicap
the fuel(leitung? dont know the english word, the thing thas leads the fuel from the feulbox to the engine)
freezed up so the modern german tanks got stuck one by one.
the sowiet t34 had an engine that was much more simpel but it worked even in these cold conditions. i think we are all very lucky that the russian tanks could stop the german ones!
im freakin out when i think about being in the hitleryouth or something (i guss i would be shoot because of not being nazi enough:D )
i just wanted to mention that because im proud of the tank designs the germans made(NOT OF THE POLITIC OR THE HOLOCAUST!!!!)
i hope you understand that;)

oh
i apologize for errors in my writing but i havent been writing englich for a couple of years^^

p.s.
my favorite tank is the (what else could it be) leopard a6

[Texas]

hi everybody!
this my first post so ill write a lil introduction to introduce myself:)
im (i think my name makes it clear) german :D
id like to talk with you guys about guns and stuff
i mentioned some of you guys are real genuis about tanks and and know almost everything about ervery single aspect of the different tanks
i just wanted to say something bout that t34s that have beaten the german tanks (königstiger and others)
well the problem was that it was a freakin cold winter in russia and the german tank which were (i think) the best ones in ww2 had one bad handicap
the fuel(leitung? dont know the english word, the thing thas leads the fuel from the feulbox to the engine)
freezed up so the modern german tanks got stuck one by one.
the sowiet t34 had an engine that was much more simpel but it worked even in these cold conditions. i think we are all very lucky that the russian tanks could stop the german ones!
im freakin out when i think about being in the hitleryouth or something (i guss i would be shoot because of not being nazi enough:D )
i just wanted to mention that because im proud of the tank designs the germans made(NOT OF THE POLITIC OR THE HOLOCAUST!!!!)
i hope you understand that;)

oh
i apologize for errors in my writing but i havent been writing englich for a couple of years^^

p.s.
my favorite tank is the (what else could it be) leopard a6
The T34 influenced the design of the Panzer V(Panther).The Panther with the Tiger(PVI) entered service enmass in 1943 at the Battle of Kursk in Russia (a small quantity of Tigers were used in Tunisia). The first production models were not perfected before entering service and so consequently many broke down during the battle .Later models of the Panther and Tiger were of far superior quality to anything that the allies had ,without question !
The only problem was quantity of production .Germany was out produced by America /UK/ Russia

To my knowledge the King Tiger entered service in Autumn 1944 . The design was years ahead of anything the allies envised producing . Again ,because it was a complex design , production figures were low . It was a beast weighing in at 70 tons with an 88mm gun . The American equivalent "the Sherman" only weighed 32 tons .Luckily the allies had an air force to compensate .

[Texas]

King Tiger with henschel turret

[Texas]

King Tiger with Porsche turret

[royal marine]

the king tiger was in my opinion the best of WW2 behind the t34 soviet armalite
it could pack one hell of a punch but extremely slow, it took about 4 shermans to take a tiger and about 2 t34's to take a tiger aswell

[sealteam6]

Yeah and the T34 was one of the fastest, if not the fastest, tanks of its time, so it got two rounds off pretty easily before getting hit itself.

The Sherman tank was horrible against the german tanks, its gun was not capable of breaching the armor of your standard Tiger, or whatever, at least without firing several shots, and that spelled disaster when the Germans had lots of tanks and used Blitzkrieg. We mostly relied on the Brit tanks to do the hard work for us.

[royal marine]

yeah the sherman was nicknamed the tommy firecracker becauseafter 1 hit it would burst in flames because it relied on petrol

the british introduced a new gun for our sherman which had a MUCH bigger range and could match the tiger because of the speedy turret and the capability of penetrating the tigers armour and blowing it up after 1 shot
we offered to the yanks aswell but they didnt accept it and stuck with their old turret
it would be nice if someone could let me know why!

[Jim76]

The King Tiger was a powerful tank but too much greedy out of gasoline too much heavy it could not pass on certain bridge xD and with a capricious mechanics many of these tanks were captured because of a breakdown of engine. The Panther G with the Soviet T34/85 seems to me a good compromise combining speed precision maneuverability reliability and a reasonable gasoline consumption for their time.

[Texas]

The Panther combined Fire power ,speed and effective armour . A good all rounder !

45 ton Panther Auf D ,Speed 45 km/h road , 24 km/h off-road ,Armour 100 mm

[Texas]

Jagdpanther (tank killer) with 88mm gun barrel

[Texas]

T 34
Weight 32 t , Speed 55 km/h road , 24 km/h off-road , Armour 90 mm

[royal marine]

ha ive been right up to that t34 in that museam!
the jagdpanther was a tank buster though so i wouldnt really class it as tank.

[Texas]

ha ive been right up to that t34 in that museam!
the jagdpanther was a tank buster though so i wouldnt really class it as tank.

Turret or not its still classed as a tank . Look at the British Mark1 from WW1 ,that doesn't have a turret either.

[Jim76]

WWI Tanks

The Mark I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_%28tank%29)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.j pg/300px-British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.j pg

The Renault FT-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT-17)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/US_Renault_FT-17.jpg/300px-US_Renault_FT-17.jpg

The A7V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/A7v.JPG/300px-A7v.JPG

[royal marine]

im not argueing here texas but tha mark 1 was no tank buster

[Texas]

im not argueing here texas but tha mark 1 was no tank buster
Thats right , but they are all classified as Tanks !

[royal marine]

i know i is a tank but when you are talking tanks you mean the main battle tanks
i got that from duxford land hall museam
they said if you are talking tanks you do not put tank busters into consideration

anyway ive just started reading bravo 2 zero,brilliant book,has anyone hear read it before?

[Texas]

i know i is a tank but when you are talking tanks you mean the main battle tanks
i got that from duxford land hall museam
they said if you are talking tanks you do not put tank busters into consideration

anyway ive just started reading bravo 2 zero,brilliant book,has anyone hear read it before?
Your making a good point . I'll read up a bit more ,and let you know exactly how they are classified
:)

[Morten]

the M1A1 Abram Main Battle Tank.... ofc ;) i love that piece of metal :D

[Jim76]

The Leclerc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclerc)

http://www.kotsch88.de/lader/leclerc/leclerc.jpg

[Texas]

the M1A1 Abram Main Battle Tank.... ofc ;) i love that piece of metal :D
German gun barrel ,British Armour . Fantastic tank !

[Morten]

German gun barrel ,British Armour . Fantastic tank !

hehe true :P :D

[Jim76]

After having consulted many forum and site I can say that currently the best tank is the Leopard 2 imo.

[Texas]

After having consulted many forum and site I can say that currently the best tank is the Leopard 2 imo.
What has the world come to ? French men praising Kraut (Bosh) vehicles .Napoleon/De gaulle would turn in their graves !;) :)

[Jim76]

What has the world come to ? French men praising Kraut (Bosh) vehicles .Napoleon/De gaulle would turn in their graves !;) :)

I have remorses xD

[Texas]

I have remorses xD
You may have to go into hiding ,the French resistance are looking for you !

[sealteam6]

Ooooohhhh I bet he is really scared, although la resistance francaise did have rather *ahem* creative ways of dealing with German sympathizers... a la bataille!

[royal marine]

sealteam the french resistance did an absolute outstanding job even though they knew they would be tortured and executed if captured
read up some stuff on them and you'll see what they were like!

[Jim76]

sealteam the french resistance did an absolute outstanding job even though they knew they would be tortured and executed if captured
read up some stuff on them and you'll see what they were like!

moreover the plans of allies (informed by resistants) on the German military device in Normandy, were more complete than those of Germans lol !

[royal marine]

im gonna be a right dickhead here and say
''did'nt get that''
sorry just didnt understand what you said

[Texas]

What he means is .We were so thorough ,We knew more about the coastal defences,bunker positions etc than the Germans did ! Due in large part to the the efforts of our French spies .:D

[Jim76]

lol thx Texas your english is better than mine, hé hé...

[futer_soldier]

SHERMAN!! ALL THE WAY

[bop_2k]

Best tank IMo is the leo, look at exports of the leo compared to other tanks, eg chally, lecerc, m1a1. The chaaly gun, will do my reasearch before going into it is inferior to the leos.

[Zeus185]

Best tank IMo is the leo, look at exports of the leo compared to other tanks, eg chally, lecerc, m1a1. The chaaly gun, will do my reasearch before going into it is inferior to the leos.


i`d like to see it in action all the same.........but it dose look as if its a superb tank
the look of it reminds me of the tiger alot

[bop_2k]

Leo is a beautiful tank. Was thnkin about my top 3 and they go like;
1. Leo (various variants, all have their various strenghts)
2. Chally/m1a1/merkava
3.Lecrec

My favourite is the Leo2a6HEL used by the Greek army. Basically this is an upgraded starv-122 in use by the swedish armed forces. When Greece were selecting their next generation main battle tank all the major competitors sent over their tank including alvis with the chally. After rigorous tests the LEO2A6 was considered the best (same earlier in sweden).

Reasons why the LEO2a6HEL is my favourite over the starv-122 version is that it uses the longer L-55 barrel gun - best in the buisness. Leo is superb in all major departments spped armour electronics. 2A6HEL also is the most advanced optics in the Galix-protection-system. Although the starv is better armed (suppose its personal choice as to which is best).

2 is a tie the chally has the chobam armour, well protected however i think it still uses the L-44 barrel which IMO is inferior. When it gets the upgrade which is coming it will be on a power with LEO. Also a bit slow and heavy for my liking but arguably the best protection that any tank in NATO has to offer. M1A1 same only with again L-44 barrel. Merkava - excellent for street warfare and urban senarios. Also combat proven

3.Lecrec - arguably has most potential with auto loading system but little lightweight and not as well protected as rest - faster and more manuavourable tho!

Well thats my opinions IMO - anyone agree?

[Zeus185]

Leo is a beautiful tank. Was thnkin about my top 3 and they go like;
1. Leo (various variants, all have their various strenghts)
2. Chally/m1a1/merkava
3.Lecrec

My favourite is the Leo2a6HEL used by the Greek army. Basically this is an upgraded starv-122 in use by the swedish armed forces. When Greece were selecting their next generation main battle tank all the major competitors sent over their tank including alvis with the chally. After rigorous tests the LEO2A6 was considered the best (same earlier in sweden).

Reasons why the LEO2a6HEL is my favourite over the starv-122 version is that it uses the longer L-55 barrel gun - best in the buisness. Leo is superb in all major departments spped armour electronics. 2A6HEL also is the most advanced optics in the Galix-protection-system. Although the starv is better armed (suppose its personal choice as to which is best).

2 is a tie the chally has the chobam armour, well protected however i think it still uses the L-44 barrel which IMO is inferior. When it gets the upgrade which is coming it will be on a power with LEO. Also a bit slow and heavy for my liking but arguably the best protection that any tank in NATO has to offer. M1A1 same only with again L-44 barrel. Merkava - excellent for street warfare and urban senarios. Also combat proven

3.Lecrec - arguably has most potential with auto loading system but little lightweight and not as well protected as rest - faster and more manuavourable tho!

Well thats my opinions IMO - anyone agree?


there all great tanks to be sure(apart from the lecrec.....it has more reverse gears than forward:p )

the m1a1 has a new defensive armor system composing of steel encased depleted uranium
its suppposed to be better than the chobam armour

but i heard(im not sure where)that us brits are developing a new type of armor stronger than the chobam or the uranium armor systems

the isrealy merkava is a superb tank for what its intended purpose is(defensive warfare and crew survivability)also good at what youv said urban combat....a well designed(however unconventional looking)tank

i cant talk much about the leo cos iv not really studied it much........but i will now

[storstark]

Leo is a beautiful tank. Was thnkin about my top 3 and they go like;
1. Leo (various variants, all have their various strenghts)
2. Chally/m1a1/merkava
3.Lecrec

My favourite is the Leo2a6HEL used by the Greek army. Basically this is an upgraded starv-122 in use by the swedish armed forces. When Greece were selecting their next generation main battle tank all the major competitors sent over their tank including alvis with the chally. After rigorous tests the LEO2A6 was considered the best (same earlier in sweden).

Reasons why the LEO2a6HEL is my favourite over the starv-122 version is that it uses the longer L-55 barrel gun - best in the buisness. Leo is superb in all major departments spped armour electronics. 2A6HEL also is the most advanced optics in the Galix-protection-system. Although the starv is better armed (suppose its personal choice as to which is best).

2 is a tie the chally has the chobam armour, well protected however i think it still uses the L-44 barrel which IMO is inferior. When it gets the upgrade which is coming it will be on a power with LEO. Also a bit slow and heavy for my liking but arguably the best protection that any tank in NATO has to offer. M1A1 same only with again L-44 barrel. Merkava - excellent for street warfare and urban senarios. Also combat proven

3.Lecrec - arguably has most potential with auto loading system but little lightweight and not as well protected as rest - faster and more manuavourable tho!

Well thats my opinions IMO - anyone agree?

It is strv122 (shortening for stridsvagn 122, swedish for tank) :)

Interior pics:
Driver: http://www.mss.mil.se/photo.php?id=5462&aid=2123
Loader: http://www.mss.mil.se/photo.php?id=5465&aid=2123
Gunner: http://www.mss.mil.se/photo.php?id=5471&aid=2123
Commander: http://www.mss.mil.se/photo.php?id=5472&aid=2123
The commanders tactical terminal (gives information about own position, friendlies, enemies etc.): http://www.mss.mil.se/photo.php?id=5467&aid=2123
Drivers information terminal: http://www.mss.mil.se/photo.php?id=5466&aid=2123

[Balic]

My favourite is the Leo2a6HEL used by the Greek army. Basically this is an upgraded starv-122 in use by the swedish armed forces. When Greece were selecting their next generation main battle tank all the major competitors sent over their tank including alvis with the chally. After rigorous tests the LEO2A6 was considered the best (same earlier in sweden).

It is not really an upgraded STRV-122, you can say that the STRV-122 is an upgraded Leopard2a5 co-manufactored in Sweden with soem Sweden systems installed, the Leopard2a6HEL is a new Leopard2a6 variant based on the Leopard2a6ex, the ex is a demonstrator tank, they are used to show future buyers of the Leopard2 what it is capable of, the HEL version looks alot like the ex-demonstrator but with some Greek demands trown upon it, but it certain we can say its the best Leopard2 out there, with the Spanish Leopard2a6 on the second place and possible STRV-122 on the third place.

Although the starv is better armed (suppose its personal choice as to which is best).
The armament consists of:
-1x 120mm L44 smoothbore cannon
-1x 7,62mm MG mounted at the left of the main gun (coax)
-1x 7,62mm MG mounted on the loader's place.
-And the smoke grenade launchers, I guess it are those frence Galix things.

The Leopard2a6HEL has about the same (except from the Galix smoke grenade launchers if I'm correct) armament + the 1.30m longer L55 smoothbore cannon wich is more powerfull and can shoot newer ammunition than L44.

2 is a tie the chally has the chobam armour, well protected however i think it still uses the L-44 barrel which IMO is inferior.

The Chally 2 doesn't use the L44, it has its own L30 (wth L30 they don't mean the cannon lenght) wich is a rifled cannon wich they are looking to replace with the German made L55 smoothbore cannon.

When it gets the upgrade which is coming it will be on a power with LEO

Yep, it will probably get the same cannon as on Leopard2a6.

3.Lecrec - arguably has most potential with auto loading system but little lightweight and not as well protected as rest - faster and more manuavourable tho!

I wish we (The Netherlands) had the Leclerc or atleast a Leopard2a6 with autoloader system..
I'm currently in Cavalery school trained to be the Loader of Leopard2a6, and I did not yet trained in driving in the terrain with 50+km/h, but it seems that if you drive with 50+km/h in the terrain with turret traversing and the hull moving it is almost impossible to fast-load a cannon, the Leclerc won't have any problems with this.

So imo: If you engage a Leclerc with your Leopard2a6 in heavy, difficult terrain and you have to load the cannon when traveling at high speed, and moving all kinds of directions to avoid being hit, or atleast make it more difficult for the Leclerc's gunner to hit you...I'm pretty sure the Leclerc can take you out even before you got the change to load a round into the chamber, so when moving the Leclerc has a clearly, BIG advantage opposed to the Leopard2a6, but thats just my opinion.

Lecrec - arguably has most potential with auto loading system but little lightweight and not as well protected as rest - faster and more manuavourable tho!

The auto-loader takes up less room so thats why the tank could be ade smaller and it will have less armor to worry about and thereby is lighter, so I don't think there is a big difference between Leclerc and other modern MBT's (except from the ussian T-series)

[SniperAlpha1]

M1A1 all the way. The thing is fast, agile, and powerful. Especially with their "silver bullets" That ammo can knock out any tank in the world!

[Kaibil1944]

M1A1 all the way. The thing is fast, agile, and powerful. Especially with their "silver bullets" That ammo can knock out any tank in the world!

The Canadian Coyote tank its very good and i read that could take out a m1 easily. :)

[SniperAlpha1]

Just wondering where did you read that?

[SniperAlpha1]

From Wikipedia.org :M1 Abrams:

The Abrams is protected by a type of composite armor (derived from British Chobham armour) formed by multiple layers of steel and ceramics. It may also be fitted with reactive armor if needed; however, this modification has never actually been done. Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blow-off covers to reduce the risk of and protect the crew from cooking off if the tank is damaged. Protection against spalling is provided by a kevlar liner. Beginning in 1988, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor thus reinforced offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank. The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US tankers participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well. :) The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A2/M1A1 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including depleted uranium 120mm APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.:)

[Kaibil1944]

From Wikipedia.org :M1 Abrams:

The Abrams is protected by a type of composite armor (derived from British Chobham armour) formed by multiple layers of steel and ceramics. It may also be fitted with reactive armor if needed; however, this modification has never actually been done. Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blow-off covers to reduce the risk of and protect the crew from cooking off if the tank is damaged. Protection against spalling is provided by a kevlar liner. Beginning in 1988, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor thus reinforced offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank. The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US tankers participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well. :) The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A2/M1A1 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including depleted uranium 120mm APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.:)

Im wrong is not the coyote armed vehicle its the Leopard C2 Tank from Germany and Canada.

[SniperAlpha1]

Between the smilies show proof that the MIA!/M1A2 can take multiple hits from any armor in the world. It has similar armor to the Leopard

[Kaibil1944]

I love tanks but not working in them. :)

[Zeus185]

Between the smilies show proof that the MIA!/M1A2 can take multiple hits from any armor in the world. It has similar armor to the Leopard



i dont think it does have similar armor mate the M1A2 has steel encased depleted uranium
as its armor(tougher than chobham but far heaver too)i cant mind what armor the leoperd
has but ill look it up.................yes in the 2nd gulf war the M1A2 took multiple hits from another abrams in a friendly fire moment it was knocked out of the fight but it was fixed up and the crew survived

[SniperAlpha1]

The best part (well worse if you are an enemy tank) is the depleted 120mm silver bullet that is only a couple of inches thick. when the round hits, it penetrates armor and explodes by fragmentation. it's the kenetic energy that does the damage not the eexplosive.

[Zeus185]

The best part (well worse if you are an enemy tank) is the depleted 120mm silver bullet that is only a couple of inches thick. when the round hits, it penetrates armor and explodes by fragmentation. it's the kenetic energy that does the damage not the explosive.



yeah i know but the tank that got hit in my post was hit by three of those babys and the crew still survived:eek:and the tank could be recoved and fixed which shows outstanding performance (in my opinion anyway)

[SniperAlpha1]

Definately, but im jsut showing the extent of damage that could be put on someone.

[Zeus185]

Definately, but im jsut showing the extent of damage that could be put on someone.



yeah mate i agree but i heard that us Brits are trying to make some new and improved armor to give to our chally2s mmmmm onley time will tell

[Lenin]

Good on yer ....... Brits.
;)
Us Bulgars are sooooo far behind we still got T72's ........... our modernizations is set to be complete in 2015 to get the army up to NATO standards, a few contracts have been signed and we r already short of money to complete the modernization :(

[Kaibil1944]

Good on yer ....... Brits.

Us Bulgars are sooooo far behind we still got T72's ........... our modernizations is set to be complete in 2015 to get the army up to NATO standards, a few contracts have been signed and we r already short of money to complete the modernization :(

At least you have thanks, here in my country we dont, we just have light armoured vehicules like lavII or so. :(

[Lenin]

we've got a good load of T72's though :D some 700

[Balic]

Between the smilies show proof that the MIA!/M1A2 can take multiple hits from any armor in the world. It has similar armor to the Leopard

The article you mentioned is from just somebody that has found some of this informaton on the web and made up some story around it, everybody can post at the website you mentioned, its not proof at all, just an opinion.

tougher than chobham but far heaver too

The only people that I k now off that have acces to that kind of information are the developers/testers, so where did you get it from?

The best part (well worse if you are an enemy tank) is the depleted 120mm silver bullet that is only a couple of inches thick.

You must be speaking about a APFSDS round (KE), available around the world...
''silver bullet'' accounts to the fact that it is (or atleast partially) made out of depleted uranium, very dence material, very good at penetrating armor.

Its a fary-tail that the M1a1/a2 can take out any tank in the world, yes, it can take any tank in the world when standing 500 meters away from it...

[Zeus185]

Between the smilies show proof that the MIA!/M1A2 can take multiple hits from any armor in the world. It has similar armor to the Leopard

The article you mentioned is from just somebody that has found some of this informaton on the web and made up some story around it, everybody can post at the website you mentioned, its not proof at all, just an opinion.

tougher than chobham but far heaver too

The only people that I k now off that have acces to that kind of information are the developers/testers, so where did you get it from?

The best part (well worse if you are an enemy tank) is the depleted 120mm silver bullet that is only a couple of inches thick.

You must be speaking about a APFSDS round (KE), available around the world...
''silver bullet'' accounts to the fact that it is (or atleast partially) made out of depleted uranium, very dence material, very good at penetrating armor.

Its a fary-tail that the M1a1/a2 can take out any tank in the world, yes, it can take any tank in the world when standing 500 meters away from it...





(armour info) it was from a book.............ill look it out so i can give you the name of the book its pretty up to date as well......................erm when i said that(in the post) it wasent to discredit the chobham armour as i hold it in high regard(as well as the chally2 its my fav modern tank as a matter of fact)

[Zeus185]

Good on yer ....... Brits.
;)
Us Bulgars are sooooo far behind we still got T72's ........... our modernizations is set to be complete in 2015 to get the army up to NATO standards, a few contracts have been signed and we r already short of money to complete the modernization





i wouldent worry about it the T72 ant a bad tank it dosent compair to the wests "super" tanks but it dosent matter i cant see you guys fighting with us any time in the future;)

[Lenin]

Hehehe hopefully never ....... infact it looks like never ..... they've got 2 bases so far in Bulgaria and our marines train together with the US marines at Novo Selo. ;)
The T72's are looking to be replaced hopefully ..... if not upgraded.

Airforce (Mig 29) are being replaced with F-16's mainly (id really liked to have seen some Su-37's in our force) ..... some are being upgraded aswell (for air policing), ministry of defence was thinking of buyin sweedish grippens but abit too much for our budget.
Light armour and Infantry transport vehicles are being replaced
Anti air defence systems are being replaced.
Mi-24 assault helicopters are being upgraded by the Israelis ..... looking good so far the copters are :)
Transport helicopters are being replaced
New frigates for the navy
More and NEW surface to surface and surface to air misiles
New artillery systems added on.
AND more......
BASICALLY MORE WESTERN EQUIPMENT THAN OLD SOVIET .....

[Zeus185]

Hehehe hopefully never ....... infact it looks like never ..... they've got 2 bases so far in Bulgaria and our marines train together with the US marines at Novo Selo. ;)



do they train with our boys as well? .............. oh isent your country apart of nato too?


also what special forces do you gus have? you hear about ours and the U.S special forces its only fare you telll us about yours :)

[Lenin]

do they train with our boys as well? .............. oh isent your country apart of nato too?


also what special forces do you gus have? you hear about ours and the U.S special forces its only fare you telll us about yours :)
Yes we r with NATO :D
I wish they trained with the brits aswell ...... SPECIAL FORCES we got a regiment within the army which i yet dont know the name of .... MOD sez we have name isnt stated anywhere though ....... and we have 2 anti-terrorist groups who act within bulgarian borders ....... СОБТ(so-bt) and НС БОП (ne-se-bop) they are good from what i've seen

[Lenin]

We've sent batallions on 3 occasions in iraq, missions were a success :D ..... now only a small force is left to portect convoys.
In Afghanistan we have the 61st mechanized brigade of the Third Army ( its a legendary unit that one is ... in our armed force) .... some elemnts of the 5th Shipka Brigade ..... and ... the SEEBRIG ( South Eastern Europe Brigade ) which is compromised of around about 5000 soldiers from Albania,Bulgaria,Romania,Greece, Italy and Turkey ...... our units within the brigade are a mechanised batallion and an infanrty company all together we have about 800 men in SEEBRIG .... and a bulgarian general is in command of the Brigade at the moment .... next inline are Romania i think ( to command the brigade) .... this brigade greatly contributes to NATO :D

[Zeus185]

outstanding stuff lenin what other types of weaponry and stuff do you guys use as well? do you have any sites i can to to learn more?..............when do you plan to join the bugarian(sorry if the spellings wrong)army?

[Lenin]

A site for the army ....... not really .... the ministry of defense of Bulgaria ..... but that just tells u about the structure of the army .... who is who and some news on modernization .... theres another one which is only for recruitin .... and theres some bollocks on Wikipedia. A new site will be out soon tho .... lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Bulgaria this i find most useful.

Army consist of 51.000 regulars and 303,000 reserves.
Army - 29 000 personel ... divided into 3 corps .... DEFENCE FORCE, IMMEDIATE REACTION FORCE (RDF) and DEPLOYMENT FORCE
Navy - 4,370 personel (crapest part of our force , with the worst history)
Air force - 13 , 100 personel

During war time 100 000 personel can be mobilized

Right now theres a big reform in the armament ... i've explained about some of it in the previous posts :D

O i forgot to mention we infatnry assault rilfes ...... we use OUR own AK-105's ...... always reliable them things are :D we are stickin with them

As for me joining the army, im gonna finish my education here in the UK first hopefully get a degree and then gonna join as an officer hopefully.

O and our military history is really interesting .
If you wanna know about it id be glad to tell you.

[Zeus185]

A site for the army ....... not really .... the ministry of defense of Bulgaria ..... but that just tells u about the structure of the army .... who is who and some news on modernization .... theres another one which is only for recruitin .... and theres some bollocks on Wikipedia. A new site will be out soon tho .... lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Bulgaria this i find most useful.

Army consist of 51.000 regulars and 303,000 reserves.
Army - 29 000 personel ... divided into 3 corps .... DEFENCE FORCE, IMMEDIATE REACTION FORCE (RDF) and DEPLOYMENT FORCE
Navy - 4,370 personel (crapest part of our force , with the worst history)
Air force - 13 , 100 personel

During war time 100 000 personel can be mobilized

Right now theres a big reform in the armament ... i've explained about some of it in the previous posts :D

O i forgot to mention we infatnry assault rilfes ...... we use OUR own AK-105's ...... always reliable them things are :D we are stickin with them

As for me joining the army, im gonna finish my education here in the UK first hopefully get a degree and then gonna join as an officer hopefully.

O and our military history is really interesting .
If you wanna know about it id be glad to tell you.




outstanding stuff mate i think the finish use the AK-105s too iv heard its a really good weapon...............yeah iv heard you guys are hardy good in a fight i dont know much about your militarys history im afraid.............im always willing to learn though tell me about some your nations military history: )


im sure youll get in your army but i wish you the best of luck anyway : )

[Lenin]

im sure youll get in your army but i wish you the best of luck anyway : )
THANKS ;)

Which period?

Dark Ages
Medieval
2nd half of the 1800's
BALKAN WARS
WW1
WW2

[Zeus185]

ww1 and ww2 mate :)

[Lenin]

mate ill pm you .... just so we dont go off topic too much . ;)

[DeD]

T-90S Main Battle Tank is the best!

It is enough to look at specifications.
T-90S - http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/specs.html
Abrams - http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/specs.html

To tanks fans I advise to look a videoclip about the Russian tanks: http://www.rusarmy.com/video/bronetech3/rustankmix.avi
Duration 5 m, 27,5 MB

[torspo[fin]]

T-90S Main Battle Tank is the best!

It is enough to look at specifications.
T-90S - http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/specs.html
Abrams - http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/specs.html

To tanks fans I advise to look a videoclip about the Russian tanks: http://www.rusarmy.com/video/bronetech3/rustankmix.avi
Duration 5 m, 27,5 MB

yes well there you go. digging up posts from last year while we are entering next..

T-90 in general is quite respectable machine..
its noted due the fine Russian "all around" engineering and stuff..
but.. the caliber of the gun doenst state the efectivness.
the armor aplications and the desing of the t-90 is seriously
out-dated.. if the "S" model has separate ammostorage..
the armor it self still doesn't match the western ones.
this gap is only filled with the new generation ERA. and the external
equipment such as Shtora and Drozd.. or perhaps the arena
which is shown in that vid. its about the ammonition at hand
as well. the only thing that the caliber brings, is the things you can
stuff in the round it self. nothing more.
the armor value it self is quite poor. even with the
ERA. because practicly every nation has developed effective
warhead against it..

*edit* not all... perhaps.. we have.

[torspo[fin]]

that said... it is "par" but nothing more.

[DeD]

;33977']
...the armor aplications and the desing of the t-90 is seriously
out-dated..
OK. Then what tank is the best in your opinion?
Or even show me the tank which has analogue of systems Arena and Shtora? Abrams? :) .

T-90S nevertheless is the best, whatever one may say...
The tank with system Arena is capable to sustain five hits anti-tank pomegranate or anti-tank guided missile and to continue to carry out the operational task! Operations in the Chechen Republic have shown it. Therefore competition T-90 can make only T-80U-M1 BARS.

[torspo[fin]]

OK. Then what tank is the best in your opinion?
Or even show me the tank which has analogue of systems Arena and Shtora? Abrams? :) .

T-90S nevertheless is the best, whatever one may say...
The tank with system Arena is capable to sustain five hits anti-tank pomegranate or anti-tank guided missile and to continue to carry out the operational task! Operations in the Chechen Republic have shown it. Therefore competition T-90 can make only T-80U-M1 BARS.

well the Israelis developed the thropysystem but its not been used in the field to my knowlage.
according to some sources there was not a single one deployed in Lebanon this summer with that kit.

Trophy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044)

i think that they didn't use it because of the systems evident hazard to the
by standers or flaws in the actual targeting mechanism.. like umm..
lets say that some kid throws a rock at the tank and Throphy cutting
the stone in half with the stoners head. (obvious problem for the Israelis.)
how ever as we all know that the israels weapon development is funded
by USA.. they have those as well. or maybe better.

anyhows.. t-90 is about par with the external protection systems.
this is mostly because its still highly vulnerable to the actual face to face
match with western tank.. and that it can't handle. because Rheinmetall
L-55 bores trough T-80 from 4 kilometers.. well the americans
are using L-44 which again is not that powerfull but they are reaching
the cap by using certain type of DU sabots.
its also to be noted that some of the new generation
antitank missiles are hitting the target from above..
not side. anyhows..
the T-90 is the most battle proven when it comes to the external
protective systems this is noted yes.
only thing about it in chechenya conflict i heared was that
the ammo cooking off the crew was a real problem if the tank was hit and penetrated..
(probably by mine, IED or perhaps tandem head rpg)
T-80U-M1 is truly quite facinating machine..
i dont like the T-80 crew space that much tough.

the best tank is in my honest opinion... umm.. well there isn't one really..
but if the Swedes would upgrade their Leopard Strv 122 to wield the
Rheinmetall L-55 maingun, the answer could be more easier.

[torspo[fin]]

when it comes down to ARENA.. its quite clear that it protects the tank
in some conditions against antitank missiles and recoilles rifles...

here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6h_3O8D7hE)
the tank is shot with SPG-9 recoilless rifle..
how ever one should remember the test conditions this video was made in.
at-4 and at-6 ATGMs penetrate about few centimeters and nothing more
which is quite respectable level of protection against the conventional
old timers. all of thease weapons have HEAT warhead which would not penetrate
the western MBT main armor, unless hitting very critical spot.

[Exo1]

;34036']well the Israelis developed the thropysystem but its not been used in the field to my knowlage.
according to some sources there was not a single one deployed in Lebanon this summer with that kit.

Trophy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62jzAupr044)

i think that they didn't use it because of the systems evident hazard to the
by standers or flaws in the actual targeting mechanism.. like umm..
lets say that some kid throws a rock at the tank and Throphy cutting
the stone in half with the stoners head. (obvious problem for the Israelis.)
how ever as we all know that the israels weapon development is funded
by USA.. they have those as well. or maybe better.

anyhows.. t-90 is about par with the external protection systems.
this is mostly because its still highly vulnerable to the actual face to face
match with western tank.. and that it can't handle. because Rheinmetall
L-55 bores trough T-80 from 4 kilometers.. well the americans
are using L-44 which again is not that powerfull but they are reaching
the cap by using certain type of DU sabots.
its also to be noted that some of the new generation
antitank missiles are hitting the target from above..
not side. anyhows..
the T-90 is the most battle proven when it comes to the external
protective systems this is noted yes.
only thing about it in chechenya conflict i heared was that
the ammo cooking off the crew was a real problem if the tank was hit and penetrated..
(probably by mine, IED or perhaps tandem head rpg)
T-80U-M1 is truly quite facinating machine..
i dont like the T-80 crew space that much tough.

the best tank is in my honest opinion... umm.. well there isn't one really..
but if the Swedes would upgrade their Leopard Strv 122 to wield the
Rheinmetall L-55 maingun, the answer could be more easier.


Very Interesting Torps.... Its it electronic or projectile? I assume the tracking ability leads to a counter shot on target.... or is it electronic?.....

[torspo[fin]]

Very Interesting Torps.... Its it electronic or projectile? I assume the tracking ability leads to a counter shot on target.... or is it electronic?.....

if your talking about trophy.. its projectile based.

[Exo1]

;34072']if your talking about trophy.. its projectile based.

Yea, thats awesome defensive tech... Pitty the IDF dont have the soldiers to match the level of the scientists... Well, I would love to see one up front cos the platform for mounting high elevation projectile defensive weapon must be versitile, unless its laser lock guidence... which would make it a mini missle.... how to they get 360 degree defence on a Merkeva Turret??....:confused:

[DeD]

torspo[fin], Thanks for the detailed answer. ;)

[torspo[fin]]

Yea, thats awesome defensive tech... Pitty the IDF dont have the soldiers to match the level of the scientists... Well, I would love to see one up front cos the platform for mounting high elevation projectile defensive weapon must be versitile, unless its laser lock guidence... which would make it a mini missle.... how to they get 360 degree defence on a Merkeva Turret??....:confused:

it seems that the specs have gone down a bit in the actual
rafael site..

this is what they say about the throphy:

-Neutralization of all known Anti-Tank-Rockets (ATRs), Anti-Tank-Missiles (ATGMs)
-Full performance on AFV in motion
-Full performance against short range threats
-Full performance in close and urban terrain
-Full performance under all weather conditions
-Engagement of several threats from each direction, arriving simultaneously
-Reduced vehicle weight
-Easy integration on to light as well as heavy platforms

they tend to press the weight on the AFV part..

they do have some quite fine reactive/passive add-on armor applications too.
actually the range of different applications in the field of urban warfare is
huge when it comes to Rafael.. (suprise) they also directly market some of their
gear as "suitable for homeland security". :rolleyes:

torspo[fin], Thanks for the detailed answer.

no problemos. "Chtob vse byli zdorovy".

[Exo1]

;34196']it seems that the specs have gone down a bit in the actual
rafael site..

this is what they say about the throphy:

-Neutralization of all known Anti-Tank-Rockets (ATRs), Anti-Tank-Missiles (ATGMs)
-Full performance on AFV in motion
-Full performance against short range threats
-Full performance in close and urban terrain
-Full performance under all weather conditions
-Engagement of several threats from each direction, arriving simultaneously
-Reduced vehicle weight
-Easy integration on to light as well as heavy platforms

they tend to press the weight on the AFV part..

they do have some quite fine reactive/passive add-on armor applications too.
actually the range of different applications in the field of urban warfare is
huge when it comes to Rafael.. (suprise) they also directly market some of their
gear as "suitable for homeland security". :rolleyes:



no problemos. "Chtob vse byli zdorovy".


Nice one man.. but I note the firing and targeting system specs they leave out... its what they do... they blow incoming rockets up.... just seems too good to be full proof.... I for one would not be making a ham and cheese sandwich in an AFV when an attack is incoming and Trophy is active in defence... if ya know what I mean...

[torspo[fin]]

Nice one man.. but I note the firing and targeting system specs they leave out... its what they do... they blow incoming rockets up.... just seems too good to be full proof.... I for one would not be making a ham and cheese sandwich in an AFV when an attack is incoming and Trophy is active in defence... if ya know what I mean...

i dont doubt that the system works when its fired with one atgm or atr.
but i dont think it can take on more than one from one side sametime.
tough the cooldown time can be quite quick.

[Exo1]

;34215']i dont doubt that the system works when its fired with one atgm or atr.
but i dont think it can take on more than one from one side sametime.
tough the cooldown time can be quite quick.

Yea, thats what I was thinking.... tech specs of the firing platform would confirm that....

[torspo[fin]]

Yea, thats what I was thinking.... tech specs of the firing platform would confirm that....

have a defence-update article about it (http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm)

[Exo1]

;34270']
have a defence-update article about it (http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm)
Aha.... thanks Torps... that answers some of my questions, its does not have real 360 degree defence, its arc of fire is limited to axial defence range only.... and it cannot be reloaded... 10 yrs and they still cant get it to reload... would have though mini missle projectiles with onboard targeting system whilst dearer would be more effective....

[torspo[fin]]

Aha.... thanks Torps... that answers some of my questions, its does not have real 360 degree defence, its arc of fire is limited to axial defence range only.... and it cannot be reloaded... 10 yrs and they still cant get it to reload... would have though mini missle projectiles with onboard targeting system whilst dearer would be more effective....

yeah. well thease are not that easy implementations. no matter what they say about
the colateral damage... the system is still a risk to the soldiers and civilians
nearby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


main battle tank is always MTB..


back to the tanks.
tanks.. the best and the worst of em are still (as long as they are modern) a
serious threat to anybody who's not shielded or stealth. even if your
sitting in the most modern APC, stryker or mowag or such.. the thing is
that if there is even a T55 upward in a gentle slope, and that APC goes trough the
viewing zone.. the chances are that the APC blows up.

no matter what one would say about the M1A2.. its still a fact that number of thease
tanks were disabled and destroyed in Iraq war. the overall capasity of the tank
is poor when compared to the Leopard 2A6. and the russian ones?
the armors of the russian tanks are in manycases said to be rubbish...
well the modern ones are not.. and with the external protections as shtora
and arena, they are a match for the western ones. the Kaktus ERA has shown
capability to defend against kinetic hits also. how ever.. when the protection
is high against shaped charges, the western kinetic ammonition is too much
for the t-90. how ever it doesnt mean that it couldnt fight back with the 125mm
smoothbore gun.. its mostly recognized that what ever main tanks there are,
the most modern have the capability to destroy the other one.

the comparison is quite difficult.
Challenger 2 would perhaps have the best armor value
followed by M1A2, Leopard 2A5, Leclerc and Merkava.

in the main guns.. the Rheinmetall L-55 is the clear winner at the moment..
the performance is undenyable. how ever.. this again
chanced by the rounds used.. and the DU sabots the US has
are making the gap quite much smaller.
what comes to the Russian rounds.. they are still quite able
to penetrate such armors which are implemented in
Leopard 2A4 and M1A1.
the fact that T-90s is capable to engage targets to 5 kilometers with its
ATGMs makes up the gap in this prespective.

what comes to the Black eagle tank, one should remember its a prototype
and the company behind it has been in financial troubles for years.

there are three modern tanks which have automatic loader are
Leclerc, T90 and T80UM1, all of thease are capable of firing
much more quickly than the challenger, Leopard or abrams.
it also eliminates the need to have a loader in the tank.. which can be seen
as both, good and bad.. since the Loader can handle a series of tasks
including survailance beside the tank commander.

what comes in the future?
the tanks will noudoubt have different chances in armor structure
and the overall functionality. one of the most noted are the
chances to the maingun and turret.
according to the Finnish sources, the tanks will achive
better no-line of sight capabilities in 15 years..
other variants would perhaps carry some sort of railgun
as the main armament.. electro magnetic main guns...
with un-manned turrets.

during this time, the prices of sensory equipment should go down dramaticly.
and this on the otherhand suggests that so called stealth invasions will be the
thing of the past. the borders will be watched from the ground with sensors
which are stationary. this makes the illegal border crossing and possible hostile
invasion impossible without the other party knowing about it immidietly.
this defence grid can be again incorporated with such systems as
Metalstorm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgtg3MIn3Lw).

[Exo1]

;34279']yeah. well thease are not that easy implementations. no matter what they say about
the colateral damage... the system is still a risk to the soldiers and civilians
nearby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed.... close infantry support would get waxed.... concussion would kill them for sure if not schrapnel...

[torspo[fin]]

Agreed.... close infantry support would get waxed.... concussion would kill them for sure if not schrapnel...

yeah.. only electronical application that im aware of is in tests..
and its only the armor plate which is electrified.

[Exo1]

;34393']yeah.. only electronical application that im aware of is in tests..
and its only the armor plate which is electrified.

Yes, but the incoming rocket exploding especially tank killers will have a kill zone where concussion waves will kill unprotected personnel... If not that then the schrapnel fallout will be just as deadly over wider area... Grand if your in the vehicle... but if your providing close infantry support.... game over.....

[torspo[fin]]

Yes, but the incoming rocket exploding especially tank killers will have a kill zone where concussion waves will kill unprotected personnel... If not that then the schrapnel fallout will be just as deadly over wider area... Grand if your in the vehicle... but if your providing close infantry support.... game over.....

yeah.. its a hard call in which to embrace.. if none. if thease systems would be able to counter
kinetic projectiles also.. they would just swich their tactics to suit it.
perhaps they have already. That Trophy is not neary as visible as the Russian ARENA is.

but the function it self is different also. grately.

[Exo1]

;34482']yeah.. its a hard call in which to embrace.. if none. if thease systems would be able to counter
kinetic projectiles also.. they would just swich their tactics to suit it.
perhaps they have already. That Trophy is not neary as visible as the Russian ARENA is.

but the function it self is different also. grately.

They need a longer range.... it would mean upgrading tracking and targeting systems... and I still think mini missles wouldbe the best... but hey, Im not the highly paid brainiac that gets to invent such stuff...

[torspo[fin]]

They need a longer range.... it would mean upgrading tracking and targeting systems... and I still think mini missles wouldbe the best... but hey, Im not the highly paid brainiac that gets to invent such stuff...

nor am I.
grater rage for the point defence would require better sensory equipment for detecting
the threath further away more accurately. it also would mean that the point
defence would have to be aither beam, highvelocity projectile or rocket..
perhaps a missile.. the problem with missiles is the acceleration..
in that size, their speeds are too slow. beams are not effective enough
or their powersource takes too much space.

rockets or projectiles. untill the technology goes forward enough.

[Exo1]

;34535']nor am I.
grater rage for the point defence would require better sensory equipment for detecting
the threath further away more accurately. it also would mean that the point
defence would have to be aither beam, highvelocity projectile or rocket..
perhaps a missile.. the problem with missiles is the acceleration..
in that size, their speeds are too slow. beams are not effective enough
or their powersource takes too much space.

rockets or projectiles. untill the technology goes forward enough.

Hear what your saying..... how about that tech research on Artillery Guided shells.... They have acceleration of artillery but have a 15% alteration in flight... small enough and it would literally bend around corners with larger ranging.... Although.. Targeting systems would want to be GREAT....

[torspo[fin]]

Hear what your saying..... how about that tech research on Artillery Guided shells.... They have acceleration of artillery but have a 15% alteration in flight... small enough and it would literally bend around corners with larger ranging.... Although.. Targeting systems would want to be GREAT....

artillery kind of ballistics doenst cope with the speed of anti tank weapons in general.
the fin-based manovering is at its best when the projectile is speeding down wards.
"But".. there is a window of opportunity if the shell contains sub munitions.
then it would basicly be like the ARENA. but larger scale?

[Exo1]

;34613']artillery kind of ballistics doenst cope with the speed of anti tank weapons in general.
the fin-based manovering is at its best when the projectile is speeding down wards.
"But".. there is a window of opportunity if the shell contains sub munitions.
then it would basicly be like the ARENA. but larger scale?

Right I hear ya... point defence projectiles.... round discharge in direction and sub mution dishcarge in point defence catching the incoming projectile.... Nice on Torps... I Like it...