project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > Project Reality Mod Archives
01 Nov 2014, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Contact Support Team Frequently Asked Questions Register today!

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2006, 09:21 PM   #111
InFuSeR
Default

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp
"Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.

But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.

The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.

Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.

Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.

Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.

Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.

Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.

Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.

Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98.

Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield."
InFuSeR is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 09:33 PM   #112
Pence
Banned

Pence's Avatar
Default

InFuSeR, you do know that the only way the Abrams could ever be better is if they upgraded the armour to the level the Challenger 2 has.
Guns can be debatable.

Nice post.
Pence is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 10:29 PM   #113
InFuSeR
Default

M1a2 vs Challenger 2

Armour Protection Levels

M1A2 SEP
vs KE Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590,Lower front hull:580-650
vs CE Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050,Lower front hull:800-970

Challenger 2
vs KE Turret: 920-960 Glacis:660,Lower front hull: 590
vs CE Turret: 1450-1700 Glacis:1000,Lower front hull: 860

Difference is so minor and it seems alot of people on this forum think these two tanks use different armour which is not the case both m1a2 and challenger 2 use Chobham second generation armour.But the m1a2 has a modify verison with DEPLETED URANIUM. Overall the Challenger 2 has better protecting but by a very slim margin but the M1a2 still has the best frontal protecting.

M1 was made to ATTACK
Challenger was made mainley for DEFENCE

MUNITIONS
The 120mm APFSDS-T M829E3 is the third generation of depleted uranium armor penetrator tank rounds. It will replace the M829A1 and the M829A2 projectiles. Although its armor penetration performance is classified, this round is considered as the most powerful anti-armor ammunition in the world. The E3 round will provide the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks with greater armor penetration capability than previous generation depleted uranium penetrator rounds, while increasing accuracy. Estimated penetration performance: 1040mm at 2,000 meters.

The Challenger 2 has no sabot round near the performance of the M829E3.

The Challenger 2E has a 120 mm rifled main gun. they are planning on upgrading to a 120mm smooth bore using the Rheinmetall L55 as a model, but the Leopard and Abrams already have the better gun which can fire the next advanced sabot rounds like the M829E3 currently the Challenger 2 cant.

The M1A2 has the best ammo, armour, target aquisition systems, maneuverability. M1A2 is the better overall tank.

M1a2 hits Challenger 2E ANYWHERE its dead (due too the M829E3 ) , The Challenger 2 hits the M1a2 most likey its dead but has a very good chance to survive if hit in the front.
InFuSeR is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:01 PM   #114
Crawley
Banned

Crawley's Avatar
Default

Theres no need to argue about this, we already established the Challenger 2 and Abrams as virtually equal in the tank discussion.
Crawley is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:12 PM   #115
Pence
Banned

Pence's Avatar
Default

Hehe, you waste all that time typeing.

Challenger 2's 2nd Generation Chobham is up to 4 times better than the previous Chobham Armour that is on the Abrams and Challenger 1.
I have been to a press day in 2004 near British tank research centre in West Clandon, Surrey where they were presenting the Challenger 2's advances over old tanks like the Abrams and Challenger and they showed it to details that i could not keep up with. It was quite a good day actualy, a very nice public house near to it too.

Quote:
Difference is so minor and it seems alot of people on this forum think these two tanks use different armour which is not the case both m1a2 and challenger 2 use Chobham second generation armour.But the m1a2 has a modify verison with DEPLETED URANIUM. Overall the Challenger 2 has better protecting but by a very slim margin but the M1a2 still has the best frontal protecting.
The Abrams uses the First Generation Chobham and Depleted uranium is nothink to get exited over.

If you have to know, DU is worse off if you are in a nuclear war because it has a high effect rate on radiation, they use it in nuclear power stations as a sub reactor and to shut the plant off safely.

For the Challenger 2's 2nd Generation Chobham:
The differences in layer 1 such as heating levels were improved and the use of Carbon nanotube is extensive along side Tungsten.
The arangment of the MMC had to be changed for weight reasons and probably became more advanced in the process and Tungsten again was used in the weithing process.
Pence is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:18 PM   #116
six7

six7's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to six7 Send a message via Skype™ to six7
Default

Guys, watch it. Make sure this doesn't turn into a flame fest. You two tend to get into fights far too often

Quote:
Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain. -Niccolò Machiavelli
six7 is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:21 PM   #117
Crawley
Banned

Crawley's Avatar
Default

Pence why are you denying the facts layout out too you, about everything just blatantly denying them?
Crawley is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:22 PM   #118
Pence
Banned

Pence's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-PUB]six7
Guys, watch it. Make sure this doesn't turn into a flame fest. You two tend to get into fights far too often
Oh, i did not notice Crawley.
Pence is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:22 PM   #119
Pence
Banned

Pence's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawley
Pence why are you denying the facts layout out too you, about everything just blatantly denying them?
Because i have SEEN otherwise, dont start it again.
Pence is offline
Old 06-07-2006, 11:25 PM   #120
Crawley
Banned

Crawley's Avatar
Default

Interesting, what scientific data have you collected, feel free to post it i will read through it, no really i believe you. If you have the facts post them.
Crawley is offline
 


Tags
challenger, mbt, model, revised, stigger, wip
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2014, Project Reality.