Jump to content


T90, Leopard 2 or Abrams

Modern tanks

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
48 replies to this topic

spenny506 #41 Posted 26 November 2014 - 11:51 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9953 battles
  • 1,491
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View Posta flappin cod, on 26 November 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

Not really. You get a higher muzzle velocity as you don't have gas escaping down the grooves of the riflng, and they last a lot longer and therefore finacilly are a better option to go with. The accuracy diffrence today is negligible so anyone who says htey are more accurate is talking out of their ar$e and don't have a clue. Only thing with them is that you have to use properly shells. By that i mean the projectile in the casing with all the stuff that goes boom. Now on the Challenger we just stick the projectile in, followed by 2 (i think) charges, followed by a detonator. The advantage to that is it's easier to handle and store the ammunition and you dont get big hot casings flying out the breach once you fired. You just get a tiny bit of metal which won't get in the way. Disadvantage to that is that you need a very highly trained loader topull of the same RoF as a regular shell like what is used in most other MBTs. Luckily the british army have enough highly trained tank loaders.

 

Don't quote me exactly on the projectile type of the Chally though. It is something very similar to that, maybe one charge and detonator, or maybe the charge and detonator come together now, I'm not sure. I just said the above off the top of my head from when I got the chance to talk about it through work.

So it's loaded like artillery or mortars, with charge bags?


Remember, Play stupid games, and you win stupid prizes! This applies to tanks as well as life.
 


KuroFelidae #42 Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:11 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9825 battles
  • 8,305
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

View Postspenny506, on 26 November 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

So it's loaded like artillery or mortars, with charge bags?

Yeah that's right. Couldn't really think of the right words as I was writing that lol.


R6tP6te.gif

The No.1 worst unicum player on World of Tanks.

 


spenny506 #43 Posted 26 November 2014 - 12:16 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9953 battles
  • 1,491
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View Posta flappin cod, on 26 November 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

Yeah that's right. Couldn't really think of the right words as I was writing that lol.

 

I always wonder'd that. The only thing I want to know, is which on can you place wet boots and socks on and have them dry in a 1 or 2 minutes;^)

Remember, Play stupid games, and you win stupid prizes! This applies to tanks as well as life.
 


Hasbroh #44 Posted 26 November 2014 - 04:10 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15509 battles
  • 408
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
T90 for me because it's the only good looking tank out there at the moment. 
Groovy

TGS Killinitems #45 Posted 28 November 2014 - 07:36 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 7799 battles
  • 651
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View PostxXlAmbitionzlXx, on 31 October 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

South Korean black panther? Good choice though the tank is prone to alot of suspension failures. Good looking tank though

It is Chinese 
Council men of TGS

InitialD Driver #46 Posted 29 November 2014 - 09:14 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 15814 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostDAMIEN71, on 09 November 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

 

Quite a few 7+ abrams tanks lost in Iraq no Challenger 2 tanks lost one Challenger counted 48 RPG strikes the driver was very badly wounded and was awarded the George cross, Abrams aint a great tank it just has a lot of tech and very limited as it uses an aircraft engine and really don't go far with out filling up

 

i'll give you the losses of the abrams in battle but VERY few of those are attributed to enemy action but mostly inexperienced TCs and drivers "mis-positioning their tanks" or the tank being put in a vulnerable position but C/Os with little to no exp in tank tactics...and as far as that's concerned the abrams was meant to repel soviet tank divisions in west germay and it needed to be fast to be able to re-position from 1 defensive position to the next and at the time the most effective engine able to do this was a helicopter turbine engine...and on top of that it STILL holds the record for the fastest [ungoverned] top speed in a production MBT of 47mph or 85km/h...but its limited to 40mph or 80ish km/h due to wear and tear reasons...as well none here can meet the production numbers of the tank [only russians and chinese may be able to do so] there are approx 10 abrams for every 1 chally and 2 for every Leo 2.

InitialD Driver #47 Posted 29 November 2014 - 09:17 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 15814 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostDAMIEN71, on 09 November 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

 

Quite a few 7+ abrams tanks lost in Iraq no Challenger 2 tanks lost one Challenger counted 48 RPG strikes the driver was very badly wounded and was awarded the George cross, Abrams aint a great tank it just has a lot of tech and very limited as it uses an aircraft engine and really don't go far with out filling up

 

also don't misunderstand me i AM NOT a fan of Abrams in any way shape or form...i am very passionately in the Leo 2s corner.

Magical molotov #48 Posted 29 November 2014 - 04:51 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 1528 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013
I choose the K-2 Black Panther! Most likely the most frightening thing any subsidiary of an Asian car company will ever make in this century.

Soon: A copyrighted term created by a game development corporation based in Russia to be used when asked about anything deemed of importance, now used by countless numbers of politicians at numerous conferences to the masses.
 


ErwinJA #49 Posted 05 January 2015 - 03:16 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8590 battles
  • 97
  • Member since:
    03-20-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 21 November 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

Only going ~400 km is truly terrible. I guess Leopard II's go ~500 on its fuel tank, but that doesn't seem significant enough to say the one "can't go very far without filling up" and have no complaints of the other.

Isn't the T-90 worse than the T-80? I was reading a master's thesis from some american military college, which asserted the T-64 was more advanced than the T-72, which was a simplified T-64 more suitable for mass production, and the T-80 was in a similar state to the T-90. Or something along those lines anyway.

The T-72 was indeed started as a "less expensive" T-64. However, it was never a monkey model. Rather, it had a larger, more powerful (but cheaper) engine, and this necessitated a redesign of the hull since it was not sufficient for the new engine. A few additional technologies that were not available when the T-64's production started were applied, and simplified (and thus more reliable) versions of several unreliable components, were added and substituted to make the T-72 a generally superior tank, despite being cheaper. The T-64 got upgraded more often though, and that's where the relative superiority of it and the T-80 stem from - neither line was actually innately superior to the other.

The T-80 was initially an attempt to build a turbine powered tank like the M1 Abrams, loading a turbine engine on a tank that incorporated T-64 components. However, in the end, the hull, drive system, and engine were all new - only the turret from the T-64 remained. The T-80 is, like the T-64, more complex and thus more expensive than the T-72, but with the turbine engine replaced by a diesel one, which has been the case (the Russians decided the turbine just ate up too much fuel), the T-80 is not particularly better. The historical superiority was simply due to more expensive upgrades always going to the T-80s first. However, there are few, if any, upgrades of one tank that cannot be applied to the other.

The T-90 is a direct upgrade of the T-72, and was originally designated T-72BU. However, the upgrades were ones being used on then-current model T-80s, and closed the historical gap. It was literally a T-72 that incorporated the armor and fire control of the T-80, along with several smaller improvements. As such, the T-90 shed the "budget" aspect to draw parity with the T-80 series at a time when they were in serious competition, as the Russians could no longer afford to have two separate tank lines. It is, again, no better, or worse, a tank overall.

 

tl:dr:  the T-90 is no worse than the T-80. The performance and cost differences are increasingly insignificant.

 

View PostBF3ZKILLER, on 26 November 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

Leopard 2 even tho T 90 is best armored tank out there

The T-90 is not the best armored tank. Armor protection is partially captive to size and weight. Since that generation came out, tanks like the Challenger and Abrams have always been better armored than their Soviet (and later Russian/Chinese) counterparts. It's also why tanks like the Ariete & Type 90 were less well protected. ERA is touted as a way to close that gap, and supposedly even overmatch the heavies, but it's much less useful, and more expensive, than good old fashioned plate. Even with the latest generation in ERA, I'd rather be in a Challenger 2 than a T-80U or T-90.

 

View Posta flappin cod, on 09 November 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

Type 10 because most other tanks are a generation behind it. Including the Abrams, Chally, and T-90. And IMO The Type 10 is better than the K2 BP. 

 

I mean come on, 70-72 kph in forward and reverse, armour equivalent to that of the Chally and Abrams + Additional modular armour can be put on as well very much like the Leopard 2. Autoloading 120 l/44 gun equivalent to that on any other MBT around the world and because of the autoloader it only requires a crew of 3. I also believe it has a hydro-pneumatic suspension which allows it to not only dampen the recoil when firing and such but can also alter the profile of the tank for different scenarios.

 

By all means try to find a more advanced tank in service today, you wont.

 

 

The armor in the base configuration is not equivalent to the Abrams or Challenger. Even fully decked to the 48 tonnes, it's unlikely to be as well protected. However, it doesn't need to be. The Abrams, however, has superior ammunition. The Leopard 2 has a superior gun, and is cheaper and easier to operate. The Merkava has superior crew survivability to all of those. And so on. It's an excellent tank on paper, but a lot of things have not been revealed yet, and it's certainly not seen actual combat results. Let's not forget how the K2 Black Panther didn't quite live up to its hype.

 

 

As for me, if I'd have to choose one to fight with, I'd go with the Leopard 2. Not because it's the best protected (it's not), or the fastest, or the best armed. But because it's the simplest and easiest to operate, yet still coming close to the top players in every category of note.


Edited by ErwinJA, 12 January 2015 - 04:48 AM.






Also tagged with Modern tanks

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users