Modern Tanks

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Prydain]

Not any more Bloke, NATO standards come before effectiveness.

MoD Procurement is an utter fucking dick sucking process. We do get to call the older version 'Firefly' now though.

[Crono]

Since when do NATO standards mean anything to the US?  ok, we once did follow those.  but if you look at the myriad of new weapon systems coming out in the US, you wonder if we really plan on letting the enemy get injured and get away on the battlefield.

[Matrin]

i think the Lepord is the best tank or in the top 2

[Ludovsky]

The problem is without a proper war its hard to say how important tanks are in modern warfare.

Problem is, we are in wars. They're called the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts not for nothing.

Except you might feel they are not "proper" because they do not involves full-on open fighting as much as what we were used to in terms of "proper" warfare.

Except, that's the key word. Were used to. Times have changed and, indeed, wars directly involving nations going at each others in fullblown conflicts are much more rare(that is, if you forget about that tidbit about Russia in Georgia).

So, nowadays, the "battlefields" are urban situations, where the opponents are not anymore clearly market millitaries but armed insurgents whose main strenght is to strike without notices. In such a setup, tanks /are/ not really much adapted to the situation or at least very much more situational in their uses.



... oh, and also, hello people. First post here from me >.>; <.<;

[Prydain]

Whos talking about the US Crono? Your lads control those specs anyway.

Matrin, it is diffidently not the best because you are all being too general. The Leo 2 is the most cost effective tank, yes. We pay a shitload for the Challenger 2, its armour is the best in the business and is still one of the fastest tanks over rough ground and all that with only 1200bhp tugging it. That is proper good technology but comes at a price. The Leo2 suits all roles and is cheap in comparison, this makes it a better choice for countrys who can't spend as much money but still want capable platforms.

[Thtb]

[Benevolence]

Matrin, it is diffidently not the best because you are all being too general. The Leo 2 is the most cost effective tank, yes. We pay a shitload for the Challenger 2, its armour is the best in the business and is still one of the fastest tanks over rough ground and all that with only 1200bhp tugging it. That is proper good technology but comes at a price. The Leo2 suits all roles and is cheap in comparison, this makes it a better choice for countrys who can't spend as much money but still want capable platforms.

This, challenger excel in all areas except for cost. As you all know 1 has been destroyed due to friendly fire, one of the damaged ones was actually due to an RPG-29, which is suspected to have been sold by the Russians. Scary.

[Dragon2008]

Well no one knows what the best tank is really. Cos none have gone againsts each other in combat. Challenger 2's classified Chobham armor which is the best in all the world armor on tanks. Also the American M1A2 actully uses that armor.

"Defence

Challenger 2 is one of the most heavily armoured and best protected tanks in the world.[6] The turret and hull are protected with second generation Chobham armour (also known as Dorchester) the details of which are still classified. Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) kits are also fitted as necessary. The nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection system is located in the turret bustle. On each side of the turret are five L8 smoke grenade dischargers. Challenger 2 can also create smoke by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust manifolds."

[Unkn0wn]

Well no one knows what the best tank is really. Cos none have gone againsts each other in combat. Challenger 2's classified Chobham armor which is the best in all the world armor on tanks. Also the American M1A2 actully uses that armor.

Even if they went into combat against eachother, there'd be too many variables to determine which tank is superior based on that.

[Dragon2008]

Thats my point. All todays tanks either have the same armor or have the same weapons so there will be no clear winner. It would come down to just pure lucky and the training of the crews which use them.

It's probly y no one will go to war with each other cos its too hard to tell

[agtmadcat]

Actually the Challenger 2 has Dorchester Armour, which is second-generation Chobham. And it has a 120mm rifled gun, which is non-NATO compiant - NATO tanks use 120mm smoothbore guns, which I think is stupid. Rifling was invented for a very good reason, and if you're not going to be firing missiles through the gun then rifled barrels are the way to go. The Challenger 2 is also about 20 years newer than the Abrams, so it's no surprise that it's more advanced... And the British have their pride to worry about, no one in the world should be able to build a better tank! The early 40s were one of the only lapses in history... <.< >.>

[Dragon2008]

Second generation Chobham armour (also known as Dorchester).

They r the same armor just its called Dorchester and known as.

[stumpster]

Rifled barrels were the 'way to go' before computers.  Now, the actual accuracy is more determined by the FCS than the actual cannon itself.  In fact, the Brits would have probably switched over to a smoothbore cannon for the C2 (they hired a company to test it out with the Leopard 2 smoothbore, IIRC) except they really like HESH warheads, which don't work in a smoothbore cannon.

[Malevolence]

The rifled barrel is still more accurate, but the Abrams with its advanced Fire Control System is more accurate at 30 miles an hour over speed bumps by a wide margin

Also thread necrooooo

[AlcapwneD]

IMO there will be no tank of the future, well maybe just not mass produced? i think Airforce and robotics will be the weapons of the 22nd century along with mechs? but ehh what do i know? Btw Comanches were canceled for UAV's and robotic weaponry =)

[Malevolence]

along with mechs?

The only thing a mech does better than a tank is fall over.

[Falcon333]

Tripods?

[Malevolence]

Still prone to falling, incredibly cost prohibitive to produce the mechanics and balancing systems.

[Mgallun74]

 

[Falcon333]

Pentapods!