I get it, and it's true! Even though the last time I played online was the beta.. shit that was ages ago.
What is the best current tank in the world?
Toss up between the Challenger 2, Leopard 2A6 and the M1A2 Abrams, each with its own slight advantage, but pretty much all as good as one another. Other successful designs include the Leclerc, Ariete, and the T-80.
[QUOTE=1337;20994197]What is the best current tank in the world?[/QUOTE]
When you stack them up the M1A2 is the best when you count its upgrades largely because it has far more advanced electronics, a better loadout, and it is much faster and more powerful than other nation's tanks. But it is a close bout. The Leopard, Challenger II, Mirkerva IV, etc all stack up relatively well against it.
[IMG]http://www.military-today.com/apc/aav7.jpg[/IMG]
The most awesome looking amphibious vehicle.
Looks like a goddamn sandcrawler.
[QUOTE=Linelor;20988149]Looks like one juicy AT missile target.[/QUOTE]
Meant to defend tanks in urban warfare. The fire-rate and sheer amount of explosives being put out means that it's going to rape you.
It's probably the equivalent of the M50 Ontos.
[editline]12:09PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Linelor;20994425]When you stack them up the M1A2 is the best when you count its upgrades largely because it has far more advanced electronics, a better loadout, and it is much faster and more powerful than other nation's tanks. But it is a close bout. The Leopard, Challenger II, Mirkerva IV, etc all stack up relatively well against it.[/QUOTE]
The M1A2 is the best because American tank crews simply just have battle-tested experience, and oodles of it. The other tanks certainly have advantages compared to the M1A2, but the crews simply don't have the experience to make it matter.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20996025]
The M1A2 is the best because American tank crews simply just have battle-tested experience, and oodles of it. The other tanks certainly have advantages compared to the M1A2, but the crews simply don't have the experience to make it matter.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, though the russians have alot of battle-tested tank crews too.
I would give the nod to the americans though, since they've been through two wars already within the timeframe of 10 years.
As have the British. Heck, some could argue French, Dutch, Danish, Canadian and German tank crews have. There was tank on tank fighting in both Gulfs and Kosovo.
[QUOTE=Gregah;20996387]Exactly, though the russians have alot of battle-tested tank crews too.
I would give the nod to the americans though, since they've been through two wars already within the timeframe of 10 years.[/QUOTE]
If anything I find our endless conflicts to be a reason too bash my country.
Us and our meddling in other people's affairs.
Pssh, Abrams are the best. They have a front armor rating of 14.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20996025]Meant to defend tanks in urban warfare. The fire-rate and sheer amount of explosives being put out means that it's going to rape you.
It's probably the equivalent of the M50 Ontos.
[editline]12:09PM[/editline]
The M1A2 is the best because American tank crews simply just have battle-tested experience, and oodles of it. The other tanks certainly have advantages compared to the M1A2, but the crews simply don't have the experience to make it matter.[/QUOTE]
Abrams is the most heavily armed with a 120mm smoothbore capable of firing rounds that the rifled barrel cannot. It commands up to 3 M2 machine guns and a coaxial M240 capable of firing 1100 rounds per minute. It's gas turbine engine makes it far more powerful than any other tank on the field and makes it the fastest tank with its engine only working at around 60% power, but also keep a higher op range than the Challenger and only lower than the Leopard 2. The Armor is very heavy and more upgraded than many people think. A mix of different standard armors and reactive armor gives it one of the toughest skins in the world, though many of these things are classified as are other tanks so a comparison cannot be made here.
The Abrams IS, no questions, the most electronically advanced tank in the world which is probably its biggest up. The Army spares no expense in the manufacture of the electronic systems of the M1A2 and that gives it a huge advantage over anything it comes up against. It's going to know you're there first, be able to see you no matter what, and engage you at ranged up to 12km if it wants.
Again, it's close, but us spending 55% of our money on military shows big time, and for the moment we still have the best thing on the field.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20996025]Meant to defend tanks in urban warfare. The fire-rate and sheer amount of explosives being put out means that it's going to rape you.
It's probably the equivalent of the M50 Ontos.
[editline]12:09PM[/editline]
The M1A2 is the best because American tank crews simply just have battle-tested experience, and oodles of it. The other tanks certainly have advantages compared to the M1A2, but the crews simply don't have the experience to make it matter.[/QUOTE]
Yes, just that some M1A2 tank crews are no longer living for some strange reason.... where as British tank crews have experience and a superior tank.
[editline]08:11PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Linelor;20997279]Abrams is the most heavily armed with a 120mm smoothbore capable of firing rounds that the rifled barrel cannot. It commands up to 3 M2 machine guns and a coaxial M240 capable of firing 1100 rounds per minute. It's gas turbine engine makes it far more powerful than any other tank on the field and makes it the fastest tank with its engine only working at around 60% power, but also keep a higher op range than the Challenger and only lower than the Leopard 2. The Armor is very heavy and more upgraded than many people think. A mix of different standard armors and reactive armor gives it one of the toughest skins in the world, though many of these things are classified as are other tanks so a comparison cannot be made here.
The Abrams IS, no questions, the most electronically advanced tank in the world which is probably its biggest up. The Army spares no expense in the manufacture of the electronic systems of the M1A2 and that gives it a huge advantage over anything it comes up against. It's going to know you're there first, be able to see you no matter what, and engage you at ranged up to 12km if it wants.
Again, it's close, but us spending 55% of our money on military shows big time, and for the moment we still have the best thing on the field.[/QUOTE]
The armour on the Abrams is British.
[QUOTE=Nat562;20997300]
The armour on the Abrams is British.[/QUOTE]
Co-produced bud, we're allies remember.
What, no love for the M-10 "Wolverine" Tank Destroyer?
[img]http://www.battletanks.com/images/M10-1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Norfair12;20997558]What, no love for the M-10 "Wolverine" Tank Destroyer?
[img]http://www.battletanks.com/images/M10-1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Despite normal ideals, the M18 was probably responsible for far more kills in the war and was much more common.
[QUOTE=Linelor;20997613]Despite normal ideals, the M18 was probably responsible for far more kills in the war and was much more common.[/QUOTE]
I know, I just enjoyed it when I use to play Battlefield 1942. However, the M-18 was replaced with the M-36 during the Pacific portion of the war.
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m36.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Norfair12;20997689]I know, I just enjoyed it when I use to play Battlefield 1942. However, the M-18 was replaced with the M-36 during the Pacific portion of the war.
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m36.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Yea, but the Jackson only largely got action in Korea.
[QUOTE=Norfair12;20997689]I know, I just enjoyed it when I use to play Battlefield 1942. However, the M-18 was replaced with the M-36 during the Pacific portion of the war.
[img]http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m36.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
no.
M36 was used in Europe to counter the BIG BAD HUGE HEAVY fail GERMAN tnaks. also korea
In the pacific they were able to use vehicles like the Greyhound as tank destroyers against Japan's piss poor tanks
[QUOTE=Linelor;20997279]Abrams is the most heavily armed with a 120mm smoothbore capable of firing rounds that the rifled barrel cannot. It commands up to 3 M2 machine guns and a coaxial M240 capable of firing 1100 rounds per minute. It's gas turbine engine makes it far more powerful than any other tank on the field and makes it the fastest tank with its engine only working at around 60% power, but also keep a higher op range than the Challenger and only lower than the Leopard 2. The Armor is very heavy and more upgraded than many people think. A mix of different standard armors and reactive armor gives it one of the toughest skins in the world, though many of these things are classified as are other tanks so a comparison cannot be made here.
The Abrams IS, no questions, the most electronically advanced tank in the world which is probably its biggest up. The Army spares no expense in the manufacture of the electronic systems of the M1A2 and that gives it a huge advantage over anything it comes up against. It's going to know you're there first, be able to see you no matter what, and engage you at ranged up to 12km if it wants.
Again, it's close, but us spending 55% of our money on military shows big time, and for the moment we still have the best thing on the field.[/QUOTE]
The turbine is a bad idea logistically, and makes it harder to achieve force projection. The Leopard 2A6 has an equivalent caliber tank gun, with the same design, but with a longer barrel. The Leopard 2A6 also has a better method of lead compensation, with the M1A2 calculating lead based off of an average of the last 2-3 seconds of turret rotation, and the Leopard calculating by holding a LEAD button for about a second, then firing.
I don't know about the M1A2's electronics, but it's only real advantage over other NATO tanks in terms of firepower is the use of DU in sabot rounds. The M1A2's primary weakness is that in tank combat, the turbine makes you incredibly easy to spot via FLIR.
Also, no way in hell will an Abrams be able to engage at 12 km. The maximum range of most tank shells, at the very most would be 5-6 km. After that, the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to engage anything. Besides, the highest number that the FCS will conventionally take for range would be 4 kilometers.
[editline]02:32PM[/editline]
Besides, tanks can easily be raped.
[IMG]http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/boeingmi/AH-64DV.JPG[/IMG]
:smug:
I raise you all...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl37UZvFsz0[/media]
:smug:
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20998676]
[editline]02:32PM[/editline]
Besides, tanks can easily be raped.
[IMG]http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/boeingmi/AH-64DV.JPG[/IMG]
:smug:[/QUOTE]
[img]http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/UNW/UNW892/gepard-anti-aircraft-tank_~u17661190.jpg[/img]
What helicopter?
[QUOTE=Explicit;20933925][img]http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2008/12/killdozer.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5016/killdozer8vhvk1.jpg[/img]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA[/media]
Homemade, bitches.[/QUOTE]
That is what SA calls the killdozer. Even says it in the image URL.
[QUOTE=OvB;20986481][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icJOjKwn_7Y[/media]
I'm not so sure about that.[/QUOTE]
Every time I watch this I just picture the missile going "DURFDURFDURF" as it spins through the air.
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;20994454][IMG]http://www.military-today.com/apc/aav7.jpg[/IMG]
The most awesome looking amphibious vehicle.
Looks like a goddamn sandcrawler.[/QUOTE]
I like it but I like the BTR and BMP better and the LAV.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;20998676]The turbine is a bad idea logistically, and makes it harder to achieve force projection. The Leopard 2A6 has an equivalent caliber tank gun, with the same design, but with a longer barrel. The Leopard 2A6 also has a better method of lead compensation, with the M1A2 calculating lead based off of an average of the last 2-3 seconds of turret rotation, and the Leopard calculating by holding a LEAD button for about a second, then firing.
I don't know about the M1A2's electronics, but it's only real advantage over other NATO tanks in terms of firepower is the use of DU in sabot rounds. The M1A2's primary weakness is that in tank combat, the turbine makes you incredibly easy to spot via FLIR.
Also, no way in hell will an Abrams be able to engage at 12 km. The maximum range of most tank shells, at the very most would be 5-6 km. After that, the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to engage anything. Besides, the highest number that the FCS will conventionally take for range would be 4 kilometers.
[editline]02:32PM[/editline]
Besides, tanks can easily be raped.
[IMG]http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/boeingmi/AH-64DV.JPG[/IMG]
:smug:[/QUOTE]
The Abrams engages out that far by the use of barrel-launched AT missiles. Something that rifled guns cannot do.
[img]http://www.fototime.com/C904F7CAF6A39BF/orig.jpg[/img]
Canadian Coyote FTW !
[IMG]http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/pictured/tsar.jpg[/IMG]
You can even see the wheel of a Tsar on the left.
[QUOTE=Ninja_Duck;21000286][IMG]http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/pictured/tsar.jpg[/IMG]
You can even see the wheel of a Tsar on the left.[/QUOTE]
No, that's just another trench destroyer.
I wish trench destroyers existed. :sigh:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
