ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:31 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What is the best tank in the world?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
in honour of D-Day (vaguly) I'd like y'all to list your favorite tank and why

but first a few points. when i say 'tank' i mean Main Battle Tank, or Gun Tank, that is to say *not* APC or other AFVs, ie a Sherman 2 is an MBT, a Bradly IFV is *not* Try to provide pictures or links if you can, i'll help out if you can't etc

put forward any tank (light, medium, heavy, super heavy) from any era, for any reason whatsoever, i'll be putting the dis into discussion by commenting on your choices and we'll eventually get the best tank in the world decided right here.

LETS GO

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:07 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
<obvious joke>
The Killdozer.
</obvious joke>

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:23 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
armoured engineer vehicles don't count

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Image

Well my choice is the US M1A2 Abrams Tank obviously, I'll go over the main reasons why here.

Speed

The US Abrams tank has a max speed (with regulator) of 42mph, it goes up to the mid-50s, possibly even as high as low 60s (if you push it) without it, compare the British equivalent with a 36mph top speed on the road and you see a clear advantage in several situations, cross-country, large-scale manueverability (Iraq), quick-reaction forces on a smaller scale and the ability to keep up with convoys of regular civilian/non-60-ton-army vehicles without them feeling like they're being forced to inch along.

The disadvantage of that is that the Abrams is a gas guzzler, starting with Iraq I however the US Army began to get a resupply system going, especially for cross-country it was particularly effective, allowing the Abrams to go long distances and fight with little problems. The advantage of being able to go those kinds of speeds, both in the macro (Iraq I famous 'left hook' etc) and micro (quick-reaction forces can be scrambled much...uhm...quicker) combined with the effective resupply doctrines clearly puts the Abrams at an advantage.

Ammo Compartment

Perhaps more of a psychological thing than anything else, the Abrams has a seperate ammo compartment which, if compromised, ensures that the crew survives (losing a well-trained crew and tank being considered a bad thing) if the ammo compartment is hit. There is also the whole "not surrounded by ammunition" thing, a psychological benefit if there ever was one.

The disadvantage to this (suppsoedly) is a decreased rate of fire. Compare, however: BBC lists the Challenger II's ROF as 8 targets engaged per minute, whereas the US Abrams has a ROF of 6 to 8, depending on the skill of the crew etc. Thus the problem of a lower RoF seems to be solved by some additional training. The actual prevailence of the additional training in US <strike>college bums</strike> tank crews is, however, open to debate.

Operational Readiness

As of Gulf War 1, the M1A1 Abrams tank achieved a 90% rate of operational readiness (being able to go out on a mission), Gulf War 2 has given rise to some complaints, however I have been unable to locate if this has decreased the combat readiness or if these have been (somewhat) isolated incidents, just seemingly more prevailent due to the tanks being out there more often. So I am sticking with the 90% rate, that being the closest operation data and hopefully teh US army didn't just add stuff in figuring the tank would never encounter a grain of sand ever again.

Still, 90%, especially in the desert, is amazingly high and worthy of note.

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
I've got the Challenger 2's road speed as only 10km/hour slower than the Abrams (both on standard, unmodified engines etc) and with modded engines both would be looign at aboytteh same speed gains, relativly. And also rate of fire is different than ability to engage targets, ie the Abrams can fire 6-8 shots per min, where as a Challenger can fire 8 shots at 8 different targets, all laser designated and computer targeted, like comparing a machine gunner's ability to actually pump out bullets and ability to move on to and hit a string of targets in sequence

otherwise it's not a bad tank, even with all the losses in Iraq, i mean, it's not every day thatyou see images like these is it?

Image
Image

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
How many Abrams were lost in Iraq? Is there an exact count or even an estimate?

I remember being told by a tank crew a while back (well before 9/11) that an Abram had never been destroyed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
None have ever been lost directly due to enemy fire, disabled on the other hand...

Several tanks have been destroyed by our own forces, either due to friendly fire or being disabled and us not wanting the tech to fall into terrorist/Iraqi hands.

Actually I believe 2 tanks were lost to direct fire in Iraq 2, ollie would be best t o ask this however.

Speaking of which...

Ollie wrote:
Cheap shot


Thank you, I know the Abrams is best.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 5:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
well, the Ramzej Group, who are clearly crazy, claim that 25 have beed destroyed and 60 damaged to the point of needing a full refit, but they're mad. as far as i know at least 3, possably 4 have been 'destroyed' including the most recent to a massive IED, one that fell from a bridge into a river and one (possably 2) that were hit by Iraqi fire during the Baghdad Raid and disabled (engine hit etc) and abandoned and destroyed by the crew then hit by allied aircraft and tank fire to finish them off rather than let them fall into Iraqi hands, these are the pictrues from above

a number have been badly damaged and even abandoned by the crews, but all have been recoverd and either repaired in country or sent back to the US for repair/refitting

the British forces lost one Challenger 2 from friendly fire, another C2 ripped it's turret off with a DU round, killing half of the crew, none were lost to enemy action

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:17 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 16
Location: (Native Texan) now located in Washington DC Area

Just out of curiosity, how many Abrams were over in Iraq, All I ever see on the news are aluminum armored Bradleys. They hardly even qualify as a tank...

_________________
Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and formal education positively fortifies it.

--Stephen Vizinczey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:51 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Pretty sure its Armored Fighting Vehicle, not technically a tank.

Also:
Discourse.net wrote:
Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.
Army officials still are puzzling over what that “something” was.

According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted.

The “something” continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner’s seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of “mobility kills” since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers.

Mystery and anxiety

Terry Hughes is a technical representative from Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., who examined the tank in Baghdad and wrote the report.

In the sort of excited language seldom included in official Army documents, he said, “The unit is very anxious to have this ‘SOMETHING’ identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round and precisely what sort of round is it? The bad guys are using something unknown and the guys facing it want very much to know what it is and how they can defend themselves.”



The soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division who were targets of the attack weren’t the only ones wondering what damaged their 69-ton tank.

Hughes also was puzzled. “Can someone tell us?” he wrote. “If not, can we get an expert on foreign munitions over here to examine this vehicle before repairs are begun? Please respond quickly.”

His report went to the office of the combat systems program manager at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, Mich. A command spokesman said he could provide no information about the incident.

“The information is sensitive,” he said. “It looks like [members of the program manager’s office] are not going to release any information right now.”

While it’s impossible to determine what caused the damage without actually examining the tank, some conclusions can be drawn from photos that accompanied the incident report. Those photos show a pencil-size penetration hole through the tank body, but very little sign of the distinctive damage — called spalling — that typically occurs on the inside surface after a hollow- or shaped-charge warhead from an anti-tank weapon burns its way through armor.

Spalling results when an armor penetrator pushes a stream of molten metal ahead of it as it bores through an armored vehicle’s protective skin.

“It’s a real strange impact,” said a source who has worked both as a tank designer and as an anti-tank weapons engineer. “This is a new one. … It almost definitely is a hollow-charge warhead of some sort, but probably not an RPG-7” anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.



-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:06 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
I've read about this from a number of sources, the best (and most interesting) version I found commented on the 'yellow metal' as actually being gold

see most hollow charges work with copper, it's easy and cheap to get, machine and it's works very well, but technically gold would work too (being a very good conductor etc, check your computer pins and plugs connections) though it's really too costly to mass produce, it could be fielded in low numbers as an experiment, either home made by a terrorist cell (RPG rounds aren't that high tech if you've got weapons grade explosives around and/or you're retro-fitting/modifying an existing round etc) or a short run/experiment by an arms company and sold/stolen for use in Iraq. the middle east make a hell of a lot of differet RPG 7 rounds for all sorts of combat uses afterall

it has actually been referred to directly as "a golden RPG" either as a 'one in a million' phrase or as an actual, and not picked up on, admission of cause, but you can't really go around telling terrorists how to kill an Abrams can you? best leave it unsolved

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:27 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Michael Moore.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
fat political revisionists don't count

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:56 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Alicorn Mk. VI heavy tank.


10 bonus points to the nerd who tells me what it is.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:49 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
tanks that have an onion for armour dont' count

(it's a Battletech assault class tank)

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:06 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
+10 for Ollie. Lemme know if you ever feel like playing, I'll hook you up with the online game.

I like the T72 myself. But only because it's actually possible to own one in my lifetime. 8)

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:28 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
I'm a bandit out in the Periphery actually, wonderful lack of hanger space and factories to build anything more than light mech and vehicles...

anyway, T72s are actually pretty good, there was quite some worry when th US moved into the Gulf back before Iraq1 as the T72 easily outclassed their previous tank, the M60 (still in use at that time with the USMC forces) on just about all grounds, the Americans were still in WW2 mode where tanks were concerned. the British tank befor ethe Challenger series, the Chieften outclassed all the tanks of the time by the way, especially with it's 120mm gun that the Abrams decided to copy with much haste in the buildup to the Iraq1, the M1A1 Abrams is an upgunned, from 105 to 120mm product improved version as they finally realised a few decades late that 105mm is good for light tanks only, heavy tanks should have a heavy gun

anyway, the T72 was rightly feared by the allies, luckily it was employed with poor tactics and even poorer training, crews often firing over open sights rather than using their computer systems, having not been properly trained on them etc. Also the T72, while having good armour for the 70s, had pretty shoddy armour for the 90s and died with just about every hit it took (again, bad tactics and training meaning the allied forces usually got off the first shot and won in one)

but as a product improved tank it's still a valid weapon of modern war, you'll note that most nations who use it today cover it in a coating of ERA boxes and generally tweak it's systems up a little, as such it' s great second rate tank if you can't afford top of the line stuff, and unless you're actualy up against top of the line stuff, you really dont' need to bother.

one of it's main advantages is that it's relativly small and fast for a MBT, when you sit it next to an M60 it looks like a 2 seater sports car next to a dumptruck, and it's auto-loaded 125mm cannon can kill just about anything you point it at (as long as it doesn't have a foot of uranium and ceramic armour on it)

American tankers from Iraq1 claimed that if they had T72s and the Iraqis had Abrams they would still have won. and giving th money that each side spent on the war they'd have really outnumbered the hyperthetical Iraqi Abrams force by a vast number.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:15 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Alicorn Mk. VI heavy tank.


10 bonus points to the nerd who tells me what it is.


It's spelled "Alacorn", and it's a 95 ton heavily armored tank packing 3 gauss rifles. I have a lance of them back home. Scary motherfuckers.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:46 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 308
Location: http://the-expatriates.com
Gauss meaning electromegnetic propulsion in general, or railguns/coilguns.

Does it generate energy through nuclear power (one would assume to to have a high rate of fire).

How large are the capacitor banks?



I don't really have a favorite tank, except for the Baneblade. But thats 40k, not real life :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Fusion plant. In the Battletech universe, most vehicles are run by fusion plants, though it's fairly common for internal combustion vehicles to be fielded, especially in the pre-Clan era. Nearly all battlemechs are fusion powered. The few with ICE engines are civilian models that have been jury-rigged with a few guns and are easy prey for just about any other mech on the field.

The Alacorn Mk. VI heavy tank (I still want to know why it's called a heavy tank when it's an assault class vehicle. For that matter, why are several tanks in the medium weight class called heavy as well?) is a tracked tank with massively thick armor and a trio of turret-mounted gauss rifles. They're not rail guns so much as coil guns. Long range weapons with some serious punch. Two or more Alacorns are a serious threat on the battlefield, but like all tanks they're vulnerable to the superior battlemechs. Terrain can be used to block line-of-sight until you close to the minimum range on the gausses, at which point the crew has to be lucky to hit you. Now add that tanks are easy to cripple with LB-X or missile fire, are slow, can only move on certain types of terrain, and burn like motherfuckers, and they're not as big a threat as most players think they are. Park 'em on a hill and let them beat the crap out of the enemy from a distance.

The Alacorn Mk. VII has a pair of heavy gauss rifles mounted in the forward arc only. Basically the same thing, but the damage is weaker at long distance and more powerful up close. This version is even worse since it has a bigger minimum range on the weapons and can fire only into the forward arc. At least the Mk. VI can rotate fire 360 degrees to hit the mech/infantry moving in from behind.

I take it you play the MMNet campaign, Ollie. Which server? I'm a Steiner player, myself. Always liked whipping Periphery scum, until the fricking Liaos gave 'em rocket launchers.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group