Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By dmwyant
  • 2 Post By dmwyant
  • 4 Post By John Galt

Thread: Tanks

  1. #1 Tanks 
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Which is the best main battle tank currently in service?


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Top 3 Main Battle Tanks and Fighting Aircrafts of the World's Most Powerful Nations - Technology - InfoNIAC - Latest Inventions
    I would say the M1A2 Abrams tank, also if your interested I found a cool video on youtube. it's the future main battle tank of america.



    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Hey cool looking new tank, reminds me a bit of the one in Aleins but with a central cannon.
    When it comes to military hardware the US always have the best.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    M1A2 Abrams – USA

    Are you looking for the most powerful tank in the world? It’s right in front of you. The M1 Abrams is believed to be the most powerful tank in the world. This tank is an American third-generation main battle tank. The tank is named after Gen. Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972.

    Notable features and specifications:

    • It uses a powerful gas turbine engine
    • It adopted a sophisticated composite armor
    • It has separate ammunition storage in a blow-out compartment for crew safety
    • It is one of the heaviest tanks in service – 62 metric tons
    • It is anticipated to be in U.S. service until the 2050s,
    • The tank reaches a speed of 67.72 km/h.
    • It costs US$6.21 million

    Challenger II – UK

    The pride of the UK – the FV4034 Challenger 2, it is the main battle tank (MBT) of British Army and Oman. It is advertises as the world’s most reliable main battle tank. During the 2003 Invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks operating in the Gulf suffered no total losses to enemy fire.

    Notable features and specifications:


    • It can survive 14 hits from rocket propelled grenades and from one MILAN anti tank missile.
    • A unit of Challenger II £4,217,000 or ~$7,921,000
    • It weighs 62.5 tonnes
    • It has a length 8.3 meters, 11.50 m with gun forward
    • Its width 3.5 meters
    • It is operated by 4 crews (commander, gunner, loader/operator, and driver)
    • It can attain a speed of 59 km/h


    I think these are the current No.1 and No.2 tanks already in service.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I'd probably add the Merkava IV to that list as well. All three were remarkably effective and represented the best of 20th century style tank warfare.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    1- What are tanks used for, and what kills (or neutralizes) tanks most of the time?

    2-If the fist tank that spots another can kill it with no problem, isnt the sensors/detection suite of prime importance so that they can spot the enemy first and kill it before it detects them?


    "It can survive 14 hits from rocket propelled grenades and from one MILAN anti tank missile."
    Its sounds hard for infantry to kill that tank (unless they have some sort of uber anti-tank rocket)

    3- Are modern tanks safe from infantry with modern version of bazookas, and if not, are they more suited for battlefield engagements than for urban warfare or deep forest/jungle (where infantry can presumably hide and ambush with anti-tank weapons)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'd probably add the Merkava IV to that list as well. All three were remarkably effective and represented the best of 20th century style tank warfare.
    Yeah, I didn't know to much about this tank other than the fact that the Israelies use it and that it's massive and very heavily armed. It's probarbly a contender though I'm not sure it has quite the versatility of the brit and american tanks as it's been designed for desert warfare.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    1- What are tanks used for, and what kills (or neutralizes) tanks most of the time?

    2-If the fist tank that spots another can kill it with no problem, isnt the sensors/detection suite of prime importance so that they can spot the enemy first and kill it before it detects them?


    "It can survive 14 hits from rocket propelled grenades and from one MILAN anti tank missile."
    Its sounds hard for infantry to kill that tank (unless they have some sort of uber anti-tank rocket)

    3- Are modern tanks safe from infantry with modern version of bazookas, and if not, are they more suited for battlefield engagements than for urban warfare or deep forest/jungle (where infantry can presumably hide and ambush with anti-tank weapons)?
    Yes certainly, some tanks are going to have advantages over others depending on where they are going to be deployed and the type of enemy that they'll be facing, to that end again I think the speed, power, composite armour and versatility of both the brit and american give them the edge.

    As far as I am aware I only know of one MK II Challenger being blown up, and that was by another MK II Challenger in an accident when the turret hatch was actually open at the time. They use a special secret composite armour, that I believe the Abrams also uses, to make them almost indestructible.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    1- What are tanks used for, and what kills (or neutralizes) tanks most of the time?

    2-If the fist tank that spots another can kill it with no problem, isnt the sensors/detection suite of prime importance so that they can spot the enemy first and kill it before it detects them?

    3- Are modern tanks safe from infantry with modern version of bazookas, and if not, are they more suited for battlefield engagements than for urban warfare or deep forest/jungle (where infantry can presumably hide and ambush with anti-tank weapons)?
    1- the number one killer of tanks, other than other tanks, is aircraft, either fixed wing suchas the A-10 or rotary like the Apache.
    2-Sensor/detection is always one of the key elements in combat. Whether it is air to air air to ground or ground to ground the first one with eyes on target is the first one with the oppurtunity to make a kill.
    3- Modern weapons like the AT-4 Will kill a tank with the first shot. It is designed to punch through the armor and then turns the inside into a thousand some odd degree oven. There are many other man portable weapons specificaly designed for killing tanks.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    So, is the Mk II Challenger's virtually indestructible armor able to take several hits from this AT-4 weapon or was the reference of taking several RPG hits about older/lesser AT weapons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'd probably add the Merkava IV to that list as well. All three were remarkably effective and represented the best of 20th century style tank warfare.
    The Merkava is a nice tank, and it also is my choice.
    • Engine/transmission located at front for added crew protection.
    • This allows rear door and entry/exit without going in/out of the top.
    • Also, room in back for more people, so it can act as an APC or Armored Command Post. (Nice)
    • Trophy point defense system destroys incoming anti-tank missiles. (Nice)
    • A skirt of metal chains helps foil projectiles entering turret/body "HEAT pockets".
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    So, is the Mk II Challenger's virtually indestructible armor able to take several hits from this AT-4 weapon or was the reference of taking several RPG hits about older/lesser AT weapons?
    I don't know the age or type of weapons involved, but this exert gives a discription of the attack.

    In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[12]

    Source: Wikipedia

    Challenger 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Of course it survived a MILAN hit. MILAN's are french and we all know how well the french fight.
    KALSTER and Dave Wilson like this.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    There are an evolution of anti-tank weapon... here's several that I saw from documentary:
    - 1st (or 2nd?) there was kinetic penetrator (a high speed projectile that penetrate metal) --> countered by angled/slanted armor (which increase armor 'thickness').
    - 2nd? an explosive projectile (an explosive projectile that explode on contact with armor, then deliver shockwave inside the tank) --> countered by ceramics?... (I forgot)
    - 3rd: liquid copper (a handheld rocket propelled grenade, RPG-7 which melt the armor and kill occupant inside) --> countered by reactive-explosive which deflect the liquid copper (an explosive placed on top of armor which explode on contact)

    But then there's also Javeline (4th) which hit tank from top (on top has less armor).

    And I think handheld anti-tank weapon (eg: RPG-7, Javeline) can be as powerfull as the tank itself in killing other tank. eg: When RPG-7 was first used (I think I heard it says during Israel/Egypt war or something), the RPG-7 is said to able to penetrate every tank's armor and afterward they even conducted research on how to counter it, and this is just a handheld weapon/not even a cannon. -Perhaps future handheld weapon can be more powerfull, and maybe in future tank armor need to be soo bulky and impractical (just to counter handheld weapon) they just throw away tank altogether in favor of more mobile/faster/cheaper armored vehicle (eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzi8c...eature=related )
    Last edited by msafwan; June 5th, 2012 at 01:08 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I'm not sure of the evolution of armor-defeating projectiles, but it might be:
    1. kinetic energy penetrator (typical solid bullets followed later by APFSDS and DU rounds)
    2. explosive projectiles (simple designs similar to artillery rounds)
    3. HEAT aka shaped-charge projectiles (I think you refer to this as "liquid copper")
    4. HESH (which, interestingly, doesn't make a hole but causes spalling)
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    5. Daisy chained bombs under the road surface......
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Hehehehe... Lynx said Daisy chain... I miss EOD
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    Of course it survived a MILAN hit. MILAN's are french and we all know how well the french fight.
    Their Exocet's decimated our frigates and destroyers in the Falkland's War.

    I have to vote for the Challenger II, purely out of blatant national pride.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    Of course it survived a MILAN hit. MILAN's are french and we all know how well the french fight.
    It has been said that, "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

    Then again, France was right that there weren't any WMD.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    It has been said that, "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."
    Them's Fightin' words... unless your french.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    It has been said that, "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."
    sure, I'll even go further


    Butchering people in a serial murder spree without Norm McSane, is like going deer hunting without an accrodeon.




    Decapitating civilians with jet fighter bombs and burning toddlers into charred remains by the thousands, without Sean Pen, is like going deer hunting without an accrodeon.



    Going house to house on a killing rampage with Robert Bales, but without Desmon Tutu, is like...



    Raping and torturing prisonners without ... is like...



    Going on a brown shirt Nazi military parade and burning books to fascist music, without...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    NOTE: This is a idea, not saying that this can magical happen, but you can't say in 1000 years we will not have something close to this created and functional, so its a mater of trail and error and pursuit. Perhaps it can be like reactive armor, placed externally ect, or maybe some sort of electronic energy device, who knows. Just know magic doesn't exist.
    Tanks with Eve-online style smart bombs?
    Basically a point energy device that can explode a bomb around the vehicle, 'more like reactive armor but more versitile'. It would explode creating a sphere of energy 'and that energy not effecting or not touching the vehicle inside the sphere' but creating a explosion developed either in the center or around of the vehicles mass and damaging everything in its radius.

    Think of a Super Abrams tank driving in to tight corridor inside a mega city tower. The tank would basically be in this tunnel following and tracking down a enemy super tank. Inside this tunnel is a ambush. Our friendly super Abrams tracks down and follows this enemy super tank in to a massive corridor built as a transit tunnel, the tank drives in and all of the sudden tens men rush out from access points firing rocket propelled grenades at the tank, the tank takes some hits. Quickly thinking that the super abrams can not shoot off these enemy shock troops with the cannon, and or machine gun the pilot of our future super Abrams activates the vehicles smart bombs, they explode around the vehicle (not effecting the vehicle, not hurting the vehicle) damaging anything in its radius, any men not behind tough enough cover are instantly killed. Leaving the rest of the men to be easily shot down from the tank, and the tank.. drives on its way across this transit tunnel to fight 1v1 with the enemy super tank.

    Last edited by Japith; June 12th, 2012 at 01:12 AM.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    You cannot break the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics... you cannot break the laws of physics, laws of physics, Captain.

    Japith,
    It is not possible to create an explosion that will not effect the vehicle at the center. And in your example of a narrow tube or passage the concussion wave would backlash right into the tank, this would be devastating to the vehicle as well as the others in the area. I am guessing that you do not have a lot of real world experience with explosives and demolitions. That is ok, as a matter of fact there are times when I wish I did not have the knowledge about them that I do. It would make movies a lot more fun if I did not constantly think "that explosion was all wrong because..." I have spent many years working with and around explosive devices and I have vast respect for the destructive force they possess and the physics involved in those forces.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    You cannot break the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics... you cannot break the laws of physics, laws of physics, Captain.

    Japith,
    It is not possible to create an explosion that will not effect the vehicle at the center. And in your example of a narrow tube or passage the concussion wave would backlash right into the tank, this would be devastating to the vehicle as well as the others in the area. I am guessing that you do not have a lot of real world experience with explosives and demolitions. That is ok, as a matter of fact there are times when I wish I did not have the knowledge about them that I do. It would make movies a lot more fun if I did not constantly think "that explosion was all wrong because..." I have spent many years working with and around explosive devices and I have vast respect for the destructive force they possess and the physics involved in those forces.
    Note that this is a idea, not saying that this can magical happen, but you can't say in 1000 years we will not have something close or remotely close to this sort of smart explosion device created and functional, so its a mater of trail and error and pursuit. Perhaps it can be like reactive armor, placed externally ect, or maybe some sort of electronic energy device, who knows. Just know magic doesn't exist.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    An intense energy pulse would be possible as you describe above. My response came from your use of the term smart bomb and explosion. These terms, especially smart bomb, imply an explosive charge rather than an energy wave emitter system. You have to apply the laws of physics to such things. If we are talking about a ring of emmitters around the skirt of the tank that fire a focused energy wave like neutrons or something then I could see it being possible. I simply misinterpreted what you were saying to mean a conventional explosive. A very wise man once said, and I cannot remember if it was Einstein or Asimov, That technology that was significantly advanced would appear as magic to the less advanced.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    However! Tanks are not effective if there is no air cover. you can't build a tank the air force can't take out
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Forgot to mention, future combat system was killed some time ago--it had become an enormous self-licking icecream cone full of snake-oil selling contractors.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    So, is the Mk II Challenger's virtually indestructible armor able to take several hits from this AT-4 weapon or was the reference of taking several RPG hits about older/lesser AT weapons?
    I don't know the age or type of weapons involved, but this exert gives a discription of the attack.

    In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[12]

    Source: Wikipedia

    Challenger 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Raises an interesting question. If your army was a rag tag army with limited means, would it make sense then to focus on targeting the tank's optics in order to render it useless, rather than try to destroy it? How susceptible are those optics? Could you disable them with paint bombs that simply cover the lens?


    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    You cannot break the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics... you cannot break the laws of physics, laws of physics, Captain.

    Japith,
    It is not possible to create an explosion that will not effect the vehicle at the center. And in your example of a narrow tube or passage the concussion wave would backlash right into the tank, this would be devastating to the vehicle as well as the others in the area. I am guessing that you do not have a lot of real world experience with explosives and demolitions. That is ok, as a matter of fact there are times when I wish I did not have the knowledge about them that I do. It would make movies a lot more fun if I did not constantly think "that explosion was all wrong because..." I have spent many years working with and around explosive devices and I have vast respect for the destructive force they possess and the physics involved in those forces.
    Wouldn't some types of bombs be less likely to damage an armored vehicle, though, and more likely to kill personnel? Like I think I heard somewhere that bombs with fragmentation, or other projectiles are more lethal to unarmored people.

    I'm thinking that, in Japith's example, would it make sense to set off a bomb that does minimal damage to the tank, but would kill all the people in the area?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    If your army was a rag tag army with limited means, would it make sense then to focus on targeting the tank's optics in order to render it useless, rather than try to destroy it? How susceptible are those optics? C
    An automatic paintball gun can blind a tank.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    An automatic paintball gun can blind a tank.
    Very true. During World War II my uncle served on a destroyer escorting Atlantic convoys. They were pursuing a German U-boat, but had run out of depth charges. They dumped gallons of green paint overboard and when the submarine's periscope came up the lens was coated with paint. Thinking he was still submerged the U-boat commander kept ascending. When the submarine was 100 feet in the air they shot it down with anti-aricraft guns.
    Lynx_Fox, KALSTER, Japith and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    I believe it's a Russian one that's the most incredible. Lightning fast and computer tracking. Forgot the name. Blows any American tank out of the water.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Are you talking about the T-80, T-90, or the new T-99 platform which is under development?
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    I'm not sure. I once saw a video of it in action. I think it actually had small guns that could whip around instantly and keep target locked even when going over huge bumps.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Stabilization has been around for 50+ years and computer fire control that work with those systems for nearly 25. Of what I saw the russian stuff was much better on paper than in operation--their machine work was often crude and tolerances rather horrible even where it counted like consistent size of the penetrators on their sabot rounds. Like much of their equipment it's inexpensive, easier to operate and maintain, but not nearly as capable as the best stuff.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    You do realise that Soviet/ Russian mechanics, machinery, and optics have always been WAY better than USA ones, right? Not other technology, like electronics, though. They were behind.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You do realise that Soviet/ Russian mechanics, machinery, and optics have always been WAY better than USA ones, right?
    Perhaps it was by share coincidence all the equipment at US Army test centers acquired from high ranking Russian military officers, purchased overseas, or captured was FAR below US specs. That general statement doesn't apply to everything of course, generally their visual optics were fine, for example.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2012, 07:41 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •