Which is the World's Best Tank??

[Red aRRow]

Test poll.

[WebMaster]

Abrams... Leopard and then Alkhalid.

[Destroyer]

Yes Yes I hate to bring this up but I'm an unbiased guy, you forgot the Israeli Merkava 4 which is also one of the best tanks in the world.

Merkava 4 Main Battle Tank

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/merkava4_1.jpg
The Israeli Ministry of Defence held the roll out ceremony of the new main battle tank, Merkava 4, on 24 June 2002. The 65t Merkava 4 main battle tank entered full production in 2001 and will be in service with the Israel Defence Forces by 2004. The Ministry of Defence will manufacture between 50 and 70 Merkava 4 tanks per year and initial estimates indicate that up to 400 tanks will be manufactured. The Merkava 4 has been extensively improved and features new armour protection and gun and electronics systems.

The Merkava 4 is slightly larger than the Merkava 3 Baz, which has been in service with the IDF since 1990. The Merkava 3 is offered for export by SIBAT based in Tel Aviv. The Merkava 4 is not offered for export but the systems and components are exported.

The tank is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions.

Major contractors include: the El Op Electro-Optic Industries subsidiary of Elbit Systems which is responsible for the fire control system; the Israel Defence Force which carries out main construction and system integration and testing; Israel Military Industries for the supply of the main gun, ballistic protection and munitions; Imco Industries for the electrical systems; Urdan Industries for the hull, main turret and castings; and IAI Ramta for protection components.

The main part of the tank production, the construction of the hull and integration of all the systems is carried out in the Israel Defence Force Workshop.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/Merkava4_2.jpg
TANK WEAPONRY

The Merkava 4 has a new all electric turret developed by Elbit and subsidiary El-Op. Only one hatch is installed in the turret, the commander's hatch.

The improved 120mm smooth bore gun has been developed by Israel Military Industries. The new gun is an advanced generation of the gun developed for the Merkava 3. A Vidco thermal shroud on the gun reduces bending of the barrel resulting from environmental and firing conditions. The gun can fire higher power munitions including new 120mm high penetration projectiles and guided shells. The loader can select semi-automatically the ammunition type. The tank carries 48 rounds of ammunition each stored in a protective container. An electrically operated revolving magazine contains 10 ready-to-fire rounds.

The range of ammunition includes APFSDS-T M711 (CL 3254), the HEAT-MP-T M325 (CL 3105) and the TPCSDS-T M324 (CL 3139) supplied by the Ammunition Group of Israel Military Industries. The gun is also capable of firing French, German or US 120mm rounds.

The tank is fitted with 7.62mm machine guns and an internally operated 60mm mortar system developed by Soltam Ltd. The mortar can fire explosive and illumination rounds to a range of 2,700m.

The protection suite includes an advanced electromagnetic threat identification and warning system.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/Merkava4_3.jpg
EL OP FIRE CONTROL

The new fire control system, developed by El Op, includes very advanced features including the capability to acquire and lock onto moving targets, even airborne helicopters, while the tank itself is on the move.

The computer controlled fire control system includes line of sight stabilisation in two axes, a second-generation television sight and automatic thermal target tracker, a laser range finder, an improved thermal night vision system and a dynamic cant angle indicator. The commander's station is fitted with a stabilised panoramic day and night sight. The integrated operating system includes advanced data communications and battle management. Tadiran developed the Merkava's communications system, the inter communication system and the VRC 120 vehicular transceiver radio with embedded auxiliary receivers


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/merkava4.jpg
GD 883 V-12 DIESEL ENGINE

The Merkava 4 is powered by a V-12 diesel engine rated at 1,500hp. The engine compartment and one fuel tank are at the front of the tank and two fuel tanks are at the back. The new engine represents a 25% increase in power compared to the 1,200hp powerpack installed on the Merkava 3.

The German company MTU manufactures the engine components and the GD 883 engine is manufactured under licensed production by General Dynamics Land Systems in the USA. The engine is transferred to Israel for installation and integration with the automatic transmission and with the engine computer control system. The tank has automatic five-gear transmission rather than four gears as in the Merkava 3. The transmission system is manufactured by Renk. The single position rotary shock absorbers are installed externally.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/Merkava4_5.jpg
HULL

The redesign of the hull around the installation of the new powerpack has provided improved frontal armour protection and improvement to the driver's field of view. For improved reverse driving the driver uses a camera.

A new feature of the tank is that the fitted modular special armour covers the turret. The tank is protected against a range of threats, including air launched precision guided missiles and advanced and top attack anti-tank weapons. Automatic fire detection and suppression has been installed. The underside of the hull has been fitted with additional armour protection against mines. The driver and crew compartments are equipped with heating and cooling air conditioning and a Shalon Chemical Industries combined individual and overpressure protection systems against contamination by NBC warfare
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/images/Merkava4_6.jpg

[Red aRRow]

I did put Merkava Mk IV there but somehow it doesn't appear there. I think seven may be the max. limit for choices in a poll.

[WebMaster]

I did put Merkava Mk IV there but somehow it doesn't appear there. I think seven may be the max. limit for choices in a poll.

Max is 10.

[Red aRRow]

I did put Merkava Mk IV there but somehow it doesn't appear there. I think seven may be the max. limit for choices in a poll.

Max is 10.

That's strange :? :?

[WebMaster]

I did put Merkava Mk IV there but somehow it doesn't appear there. I think seven may be the max. limit for choices in a poll.

Max is 10.

You see ALL of your options... look closely. Its at the bottom. :D

[orange_hawk]

i saw a documentary on abram's in gulf war 91 in history channel

they interviewed its commanders and gunners.

one of the tank commander put the debacle at his best

" the Iraqi's T-72 is a formidable tank with fearsome arsenal,

but it is our training which won the battle, in the sense, having the best tank and don't knowing how to use won't help u in winning the war,

if we americans had t-72 and iraqi's had abrams , US would still have won the war because of US army training ideology."

another example history teaches can be found in WWII

german tigers VS allies Sherman.

tiger outguns, outarmors sherman in all aspects but it is the sherman's had the previlage to roll in berlin/paris victoriously.


all the tanks listed are very capable and the training and nimbleness and common sense of its commanders will lead them to victory,

regards

[Bharat_R]

What about the Arjun, its just as good as the leading heavy tanks. If you guys need info, just give me a shout cause I have many sources in my archives. BTW the Al-Khalid is a improved T-72, this can be found on Sinodefence.com which states...


The first model of China's third-generation MBT Type 90-II was revealed to the public in 1991. Although being successfully exported to Pakistan as Al Khalid (MBT-2000), the Type 90 didn't enter service with the PLA, but remained as an experiment platform for the test of various new technologies. In 1995 Russia demonstrated its latest variant of the T-80U MBT to the PLA leaders. This resulted in a major redesign of the third-generation MBT programme, which later led to the new Type-98 MBT.


This states that the T-90 Chinese version is the Al-Hhalid or MBT 2000. If you check the quote below....


PROGRAMME: Since the 1960s China had been facing severe threats of a possible invasion by the Soviet armour troops from the north border. By the early 1980s, most MBTs in service with the PLA (Type 59, Type 69/79, Type 80) were based on the Soviet T-54's design, which can trace its origin back to the 1950s. Therefore the Chinese weapon industry was required to develop a third-generation tank comparable in general performance to the Soviet T-72.


This means the T-90 Chinese version/MBT 2000/Al khalid are equal to an T-72, but I suspect the Al khalid would have better equipment so it would be par to a improved T-72. This means this tank would be par with India's upgraded T-72M1, but does the Al Khalid have night vision? I also believe Iran's T-72 upgrade would make the tank as good as the Al Khalid plus I heard it would have Night Vision sensors/equipment. The Indian T-72M1 would carry NV, so would the T-90 and Arjun aswell. Chinese tanks in the other hand are all designed to be equal to a T-72, the latest T-99 is an enlarge T-72 which is designed to destroy the latest version of T-72 and probably be equal to the T-80UD.

Other Sources:

www.fas.org
www.army-technology.com
www.globalsecurity.org
www.bharat-rakshak.com

[Destroyer]

Well post some specs on the Arjun, I heard that the Arjun program has been taking too long, costing too much for the Indian Army and will end up being a failure.

[Destroyer]

Personally I don't think even India is focusing on the Arjun Program anymore. In February 2001, they signed a contract with Russia for 310
T-90S tanks.

[Bharat_R]

Do you have a source on that? All sites that say that are Americans propaganda websites, if you support that then you would also believe that Saudi Arabia is the MAIN sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

Anyways, here's some facts...


The integrated digital fire control system installed in the Arjun Mk.1 MBT consists of a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, thermal imaging night sight, meterological sensor, stabilised panoramic sight for the tank commander, stand-by (articulated) sighting telescope, GPS...

http://www.drdo.com/pub/nl/mar2003/develpments.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/03/stories/2002030303080600.htm

This source, says that Indian Army likes the Arjun, so your claim is very incorrect.

Specs....


INDIAN MBT ARJUN Mk2

Weight 59 tons (58.5 tonnes)
Length (gun forwards) 10.19m
Width (over tracks) 3.5m
(w/ skirts) 3.85m
Height (w/o 12.7mm AAMG) 2.32m
Engine 1400 HP MTU 838 Ka 501Diesel
Transmission Semi-automatic with 4 forward and 2 reverse gears.(also reported as ZF automatic)
Fuel 1610 ltrs
PERFORMANCE
Max Speed 72-70 kph (55 mph)
Cross Country Speed 40 kph
Cruising Range 200 km (120 miles)
Ground Pressure . 84 kg/cm Square
Ground Clearance .45m
Slide Slope: 60%
Climbing Gradient 35°
Trench 2.43 m (also given as 3m)
Vertical Obstacle .9m
Ford 1.4 m
ARMAMENT
Main Gun 120mm, stabalized w/ MRS (APFSDS, HE, HEAT, HESH and smoke)
12.7mm AA Gun (probably NVST)
7.62mm Coax (probably PK-T)
2 X 9 Smoke Grenade Launchers
LRF Range 10 km
Sights Thermal (Max Rng 5.5 km)
Active and Passive
Defensive Systems 'Arena' a possibilty, probable Laser Warning System

Go here (http://www.defenceindia.com/newforum/viewtopic.php?t=2638) tp see a comparison between other Western tanks. I shall ask this users for the source.

PS: I shall post more laters.

[Bharat_R]

Well post some specs on the Arjun, I heard that the Arjun program has been taking too long, costing too much for the Indian Army and will end up being a failure.

Like I told you, what you are saying is invalid, the Indian Army is happy with the Arjun. We are only getting 300 T-90S til the Arjuns would be selected. Anyways the Arjun is more superior then any Chinese tank and the Al khalid.

[Ameer Kiani]

Arjun was a failure.

And Pakistan doesn't need to be worried from the T-90Ss. India got those to counter Pakistan's T-84s. But Pakistan also has Al-Zarrars and Al-Khalids now.

I say the next tank should be called Ghaznavi :)

[Bharat_R]

Al-Zazzar is basically a T-55 upgrade, a tank that India is scrapping. Pakistan army most powerful tank is the T-84s, but I heard there was some problems getting these so they had to purchase the T-80U. If the Arjun are inducted the T-80UD would have to counter these cause its like a Leoperd 2 or a M1A2 class tank. The Al Khalid could be used against out T-72M1, if we purchase 2000+ Arjun then it would be a different story.

Pakistan Tank Inventory
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-equipment.htm

Arjun MBT
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/arjun.htm

India would have a Arjun MK2 which would have a 1500HP engine from France, and it would make the tank more effective then the 1400HP engine it currently has.

[Destroyer]

I finally found some info on Arjun:

ARJUN MK.I MAIN BATTLE TANK
PICTURE 1 (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images2/0435.jpg)
PICTURE 2 (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images2/0472.jpg)
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader & Driver).

Combat Weight: 58,500 kg (58.5 tonnes).

Power-to-Weight Ratio: 23.93 hp/ton.

Ground Pressure: 0.84 kg/cm2.

Length: 10.194 metres.

Width: 3.847 metres.

Height: 2.32 metres.

Ground Clearance: 0.45 metres.

Maximum Speed: 72 km/h (45 mph) - road.
.......................40 km/h (25 mph) - cross-country.

Maximum Range: Un-refuelled range in combat; 450 km (280 miles) - estimate.

Maximum Fuel Capacity: 1610 litres.

Gradient: 77º.

Slide Slope: 40%.

Vertical Obstacle: 0.9 metres.

Trench Crossing: 2.43 metres.

Shallow Fording: 1.4 metres.

Engine: Prototype variants are fitted with a MTU 838 Ka-501 (from Germany) 10-cylinder, liquid-cooled, diesel producing 1400 hp @ 2400 RPM. Production variants will reportedly be fitted with a locally-designed engine developing 1500 hp.

Transmission: Prototype variants have a semi-automatic transmission (from Germany) with 4 forward and 2 reverse gears. Renk Epicyclic with hydrodynamic torque converter. Production variants will have a locally designed semi-automatic transmission, hydrodynamic torque converter, retarder and integral system.

Suspension: Hydro-pneumatic. The aluminium alloy rubberised track blocks have rubber-bushed pins, the track tensioners have a built-in overload protection.

Steering: Double radii, mechanical steering with neutral turn.

Brakes: Hydraulically operated high performance disc brake that is incorporated into the final drive.

Electrical System: Not known.

Armament: 1 x 120mm rifle bore, electro-slag refined main gun with 39 rounds (HE, HEAT, HESH, APFSDS and smoke).
...............1 x 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun with 1000 rounds - estimate.
...............1 x 7.62mm co-axial machine gun with 3000* rounds - estimate.

Fire Control System: Bharat Electronics AL-4421 Mk.1B Digital FCS.

Turret Power Control: Electro-Hydraulic / Manual.

Gun Elevation/Depression: +20/-10º.

Gun Stabiliser: Vertical / Horizontal.

Rangefinder: Laser from Barr & Stroud Ltd., with a reported range of 10 km.

Smoke Grenade Launchers: Nine forward-firing smoke grenade discharges, mounted on either side of the turret, with the upper layer having five tubes and the lower layer having four.

Projected Variants: Engineer Tank
..........................Artillery Support
..........................Observation Post Vehicle
..........................Armoured Recovery Vehicle
..........................Air Defence (Gun or Missile)
..........................Armoured Vehicle Launched Bridge

Comments: In a written reply to Parliament on 07 March 2001, Defence Minister George Fernandes said the first batch of Arjun Mk.1 MBTs are to be delivered to the Army during 2003/04. This first batch, consisting of 125 tanks to be produced at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, will equip two to three armoured regiments. The government has allocated $425 million for the purpose and reportedly the first of these have been delivered to the 2nd Independent Armoured Brigade. The MoD was considering diverting a large number of the 125 Arjun chassis to its self-propelled (SP) 155mm howitzer program (Bhim) that underwent a successful second round of trials in the Rajasthan desert in 1999. The South African SP system was successfully in 1998 and the MoD wanted another round of trials before opening negotiations of 120 units. The Army ultimately wants an inventory of around 400 SP 155mm systems through local manufacture.

The Arjun has been plagued with technical problems with regards to the fire control system, which has reached its developmental limit. Engine overheating problems in desert conditions as well as poor operational mobility, due to its excessive weight and width are also some of the other pressing concerns. Transporting the Arjun has also proved to be a problem, as the 58-tonne tank protrudes 6cm beyond the permissible 3cm limit on either side of tank transporters used for India's current MBT, the T-72M1. The MoD has allocated $3.9 million to build three transporter types to move Arjun. The improved cooling pack, has limited ammunition-carrying capacity and obstructs gun depression towards the rear. The commander's periscope sight, laser warning sight and muzzle reference sight also need modification. A recent CAG (Comptroller & Auditor General) report stated that Arjun's imported content had risen from 27% to nearly 60% in the 15 pre-production series (PPS), substantially enhancing costs.

The Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE), responsible for developing the Arjun, as of mid-1998 built 32 tanks - 12 prototypes, 15 pre-production series, two torsion-bar versions, one test vehicle, one recovery tank and one Mk.II test vehicle. Officials involved with the project said a proposal to build around 40 tanks, enough to equip one regiment, before moving on to develop and produce an improved Arjun Mk.II was also under consideration. India was also looking for an engine to replace Arjun's 1400 hp MTU 838 after its German manufacturer recently amplified their price. Reportedly a locally-designed 1500 hp engine is under development. MoD sources said the additional cost of ammunition, spares and engineering support to serially produce two Arjun regiments over the next five years would ultimately push each MBT's cost to around US $4.7 to $5.3 million, reportedly far higher than the price for the T-90S MBT.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Features of the Arjun Mk.1 MBT

The integrated digital fire control system installed in the Arjun Mk.1 MBT consists of a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, thermal imaging night sight, meterological sensor, stabilised panoramic sight for the tank commander, stand-by (articulated) sighting telescope, GPS and an electronic gate to ensure a first round hit probability. The third generation director type, fire control system with a 120mm gun electronically slaved to the sights, enables the gunner to locate, identify, track, range and engage moving targets while its moving. This gives a high first round hit probability. The gunner's main sight consists of a day sight, thermal sight, laser rangefinder and stabilised head common, to all three channels. The common sighting head mirror is stabilised in elevation and azimuth. The day sight has dual magnification while the thermal imager provides a night vision facility to the gunner and the commander to observe and engage targets under conditions of total darkness and smoke. The laser rangefinder is integral with the gunner's sight.

The panoramic sight enables the commander to effect an all-round surveillance on the battlefield without moving his eyes from the sight and without being disturbed by the motion of the turret. The field of view is stabilised with the help of a two-axis rate gyro mounted on the platform of the head mirror. The sight has dual magnification. The ballistic computer, computes the gun laying data based on information provided by a number of sensors mounted in the vehicle and on manual inputs and provides the signals corresponding to the tangent elevation and azimuth offset. To increase the accuracy of the firing, the fire control system has a coincidence window that allows firing of the main armament only when it reaches the desired position as dictated by the computer. The 120mm rifled gun will fire APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot), HESH (High-Explosive Squash Head), HE (High-Explosive), HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and smoke rounds. A special 120mm anti-helicopter round is under development as well. All 120mm rounds use a semi combustible cartridge case.

The 120mm rifled gun is made of ESR steel and is fitted with a thermal sleeve and a fume extractor. The thermal sleeve prevents irregular temperature distribution on to the tube due to the weather influences. A new high energy propellant is used in the 120mm rifled gun to give a higher muzzle velocity and therefore greater penetration characteristics. A 7.62mm machine gun is coaxial with the main armament and a 12.7mm AA machine gun is fitted for anti-aircraft defence. Production Arjun MBTs will also have a new composite laminate armour called Kanchan. This will be produced by Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MDNL). The tank also has a NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) system that is designed & built by BARC and a night vision device built by IRDE. To further enhance combat survivability, the tank has an auto-fire detection & suppression system. Ammunition is also stowed in water tight containers to reduce the risk of fire.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL The funny thing is that even the Indian source that I got this info from admits the failures of the Arjun Program.


The Arjun has been plagued with technical problems with regards to the fire control system, which has reached its developmental limit. Engine overheating problems in desert conditions as well as poor operational mobility, due to its excessive weight and width are also some of the other pressing concerns. Transporting the Arjun has also proved to be a problem, as the 58-tonne tank protrudes 6cm beyond the permissible 3cm limit on either side of tank transporters used for India's current MBT, the T-72M1.

MoD sources said the additional cost of ammunition, spares and engineering support to serially produce two Arjun regiments over the next five years would ultimately push each MBT's cost to around US $4.7 to $5.3 million, reportedly far higher than the price for the T-90S MBT.

The Arjun costs even more then the far-superior Russian T-90S MBT.

Info and Pictures courtesy of www.bharat-rakshak.com

[Dezertmirage]

Its hard to have faith in third world projects like the Arjun.
Normally the tank guns are poorer than expected, the engines are either too weak or the tank is too poorly protected.

Pakistan Purchased 320 T-80U From the Ukranian Arsenal with an option for thermal visioning equipment from France. 80 Have Arrived while 240 are pending Production.

I think India should just buy the T-90S and call it a day .. But until now the 1,500 T-72 in inventory should suffice.

P.S- Nice Pictures

[Ameer Kiani]

Al-Zazzar is basically a T-55 upgrade, a tank that India is scrapping. Pakistan army most powerful tank is the T-84s, but I heard there was some problems getting these so they had to purchase the T-80U. If the Arjun are inducted the T-80UD would have to counter these cause its like a Leoperd 2 or a M1A2 class tank. The Al Khalid could be used against out T-72M1, if we purchase 2000+ Arjun then it would be a different story.

Pakistan Tank Inventory
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-equipment.htm

Arjun MBT
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/arjun.htm

India would have a Arjun MK2 which would have a 1500HP engine from France, and it would make the tank more effective then the 1400HP engine it currently has.
Sorry but from what I've heard,
India is going to get 124 of these Arjuns by 2005! $5m a piece! Do you know how many tanks are better than Arjun but have the same or less price?
By 2005, Pakistan would have like 300 Al-Khalid. Maybe even more.

Arjun is a failure. I don't know why Indians keep denying it.

[xtech]

There's no one tank that is best for every situation. Take Israel's Merkava for example. It's one of the heaviest tanks in the world because it's mostly used in urban enviroments. Theres no fear of it sinking or anything, and it's often used as a troop transport as well. It would be too heavy and slow for a country like Pakistan to use. Similar thing with the US Abrams, it's best enviroment is in the desert like Iraq, though(I think?) it was originally developed for use over open plains and woodlands. There are many places where despite its awesome firepower and mobility, it would not be the best tank for the job.

[muaest]

my vote for Abrams

[mmalam]

There's no one tank that is best for every situation. Take Israel's Merkava for example. It's one of the heaviest tanks in the world because it's mostly used in urban enviroments. Theres no fear of it sinking or anything, and it's often used as a troop transport as well. It would be too heavy and slow for a country like Pakistan to use. Similar thing with the US Abrams, it's best enviroment is in the desert like Iraq, though(I think?) it was originally developed for use over open plains and woodlands. There are many places where despite its awesome firepower and mobility, it would not be the best tank for the job.

No , Deserts are not Abrams favourite place. Probably somewhere where there is some hard surface . Deserts is for lighter tanks.

[Bharat_R]

Destroyer, why are you changing info, first of all 72km/h is 55mph, go check Globalsecurity.com, www.bharat-rakshak.com, or Fas.org. The Arjun is faster, and more powerful then the Al-Khalid. Also India's T-90S is superior then the T-80UD/84/Al-Khalid. Also Heavy tanks are the way to go, but light tanks are good too. Provide a neutral on Pakistan's Tanks rounds, India's tungsten rounds are superior to China so I am assuming that our rounds are superior to yours. My point is Al-Khalid is a upgraded T-72, our upgraded T-72 would be better because Russia is claiming that they could get the tank at the same level of the T-90S. BTW Ameer Kiani I don't know what you're saying, everyone can say I hear, but I can say the Al-Khalid is a FAILURE. Think about it, why buy the T-80UDs, why? Please provide source? I can tell you that the T-80UD are much superior to the Al-Khalid.

Destroyer please look at the bottom of the Arjun page of Bharat-Rakshak, btw the page isn't update yet. Don't worry when it gets updated I shall post the entire page on this forum. There is no need of taking all the negative comments. You should note that as you go to the bottom of the page it bring up updated news.

Why can't Pakistan admit the Al-Khalid is a failure. Please answer the questions and provide proper sources. Also check Fas.org, and Global security on the Arjun. It's specs are far superior then any tanks that India, China, and Pakistan are getting or have.

[Bharat_R]

This is what should be read, all the negative news are fixed. About transporting Arjuns, trains have been upgraded to resolve this problem.


Features of the Arjun Mk.1 MBT

The integrated digital fire control system installed in the Arjun Mk.1 MBT consists of a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, thermal imaging night sight, meterological sensor, stabilised panoramic sight for the tank commander, stand-by (articulated) sighting telescope, GPS and an electronic gate to ensure a first round hit probability. The third generation director type, fire control system with a 120mm gun electronically slaved to the sights, enables the gunner to locate, identify, track, range and engage moving targets while its moving. This gives a high first round hit probability. The gunner's main sight consists of a day sight, thermal sight, laser rangefinder and stabilised head common, to all three channels. The common sighting head mirror is stabilised in elevation and azimuth. The day sight has dual magnification while the thermal imager provides a night vision facility to the gunner and the commander to observe and engage targets under conditions of total darkness and smoke. The laser rangefinder is integral with the gunner's sight.

The panoramic sight enables the commander to effect an all-round surveillance on the battlefield without moving his eyes from the sight and without being disturbed by the motion of the turret. The field of view is stabilised with the help of a two-axis rate gyro mounted on the platform of the head mirror. The sight has dual magnification. The ballistic computer, computes the gun laying data based on information provided by a number of sensors mounted in the vehicle and on manual inputs and provides the signals corresponding to the tangent elevation and azimuth offset. To increase the accuracy of the firing, the fire control system has a coincidence window that allows firing of the main armament only when it reaches the desired position as dictated by the computer. The 120mm rifled gun will fire APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot), HESH (High-Explosive Squash Head), HE (High-Explosive), HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) and smoke rounds. A special 120mm anti-helicopter round is under development as well. All 120mm rounds use a semi combustible cartridge case.

The 120mm rifled gun is made of ESR steel and is fitted with a thermal sleeve and a fume extractor. The thermal sleeve prevents irregular temperature distribution on to the tube due to the weather influences. A new high energy propellant is used in the 120mm rifled gun to give a higher muzzle velocity and therefore greater penetration characteristics. A 7.62mm machine gun is coaxial with the main armament and a 12.7mm AA machine gun is fitted for anti-aircraft defence. Production Arjun MBTs will also have a new composite laminate armour called Kanchan. This will be produced by Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MDNL). The tank also has a NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) system that is designed & built by BARC and a night vision device built by IRDE. To further enhance combat survivability, the tank has an auto-fire detection & suppression system. Ammunition is also stowed in water tight containers to reduce the risk of fire.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Destroyer]

Hey bhaRAT Rakshak or whatever ur name is , i didn't change info man I know the Arjun is a failure I don't need to pull some underhanded trick to prove that. That info has been copy and pasted staright from www.bharat-rakshak.com.

[Bharat_R]

HAHA... Nice way to end a discussion it looks like I proved my point the Al-Khalid is a failure but the Army doesn't want to prove it so it produces it, buys the T-80U, and then there were news of Pakistan trying to purchase more. The fact is if India purchases a 1000 T-90S you lose, or if India purchases 1000 Arjuns its bad luck to you guys too. BTW many project went like Arjun, the M1A2 went like that, so is F-22 (which is now a failure because only 3-4 dozen will be purchased, the Typhoon doesn't seem like its going as planned. Right now the ARJUN isn't a failure, why? Did we scrap it like the Trishul? Nope, and also note that BDL (an Indian company) is producing 35km SAM which are just like the Trishul but better. This discussions seems dead to me, cause your rebuddals don't seem to prove your claims.

[WebMaster]

Bharat, understood that your from india that does not give you any right to post disinformation about pakistan because it is india's enemy. Give due respect and credit where it due!

Keep the discussion to tanks and military stuff, don't make it a personal fight!

[Bharat_R]

I ain't doing that, and my nationality doesn't really matter. The point is the Arjun isn't dead, and this tank along with the T-90S is superior to the T-80U and Al-Khalid. I am not offending anyone, I am just spreading the truth.

[WebMaster]

Truth won't come out until both tanks show themselves on the battle field and that won't happen until india attacks pakistan and we all know india would not. ;)

You are in extreme denial state, which is not good. Your nationality matters, that is why you think what you are saying is the truth and ignoring anything that other people are saying. So it all comes down to anything from india is better and anything from pakistan is bad. ;) That is pretty close minded my friend. Hope you realize that.

[Bharat_R]

Denial state, do you know what you are saying. Listen up, all the source, Neutral source, are against your claim and not mines. What I am saying is completely true because all the source support what I am saying. You calling the Arjun is a failure is baseless because that was in 1998, today is 2003, many developments have been made from that year. Right now the Arjun is a very capable tank, and all these neutral sources will back this up. Also note that making a Heavy tank is far more difficult then a Light tank, so India will produce 134 Arjun Mk1, and then there is a big possibility of getting more Arjun Mk2 fitted with French engines.

You need to understand this Webmaster, that what a normal person like we say can be made up, I provide my sources therefore my claims are valid unlike you guys. This doesn't even require thinking, just look at the specs and that's it. You need to understand that the Al-Khalid depends on speed like the T-series of Russia, and also note that the T-90S and Arjun are faster. So what does this mean? Also both tanks have better Armour especially the Arjun which is similiar to the M1A2, so here again the same applies. Overall India's tank inventory is superior unless Pakistan gets M1A2, which they were about to get. I am not making fun of Pakistna's Armed Forces, but right now it isn't that great. Forget about comparing Pakistan's Armed Forces to India, that's a little too ambitious even if we're a 2nd rate military, but you should compare with Iran. Start a thread, Pakistan vs Iran. I garuntee you that this nation is superior, like I said I proved that India is superior. You can go pop up into global security, and see my claim is completely valid.

[WebMaster]

Neutral sources? So any source you post is neutral even though it has indian elements init and any source someone else posts is just plane biase and wrong?

[Bharat_R]

Globalsecurity and Fas.org is neutral, so its good enough; this means my claim is completely valid. If you don't believe about the converting Km/h to mph then go to www.howstuffwork.com .... other then that all the sources provided are Western, and the source saying the T-80 - T-99 are all designed to battle a T-72, so this means Al-Khalid was designed to do the same. This can be found on Sino-Defence.com

[Mujahid]

There's no one tank that is best for every situation. Take Israel's Merkava for example. It's one of the heaviest tanks in the world because it's mostly used in urban enviroments. Theres no fear of it sinking or anything, and it's often used as a troop transport as well. It would be too heavy and slow for a country like Pakistan to use. Similar thing with the US Abrams, it's best enviroment is in the desert like Iraq, though(I think?) it was originally developed for use over open plains and woodlands. There are many places where despite its awesome firepower and mobility, it would not be the best tank for the job.


I agree with you man,

But the abrams didnt work so well in the desert. You can get a report by some military material assesment department or whatever it is called but the point is that the report said that the abram werent ideal for desert combat. too many tanks had problems.

I think the merkava tank is not good versus other tanks. Its maybe good versus t-59 or t-75 or whatever but its not good versus al-khalid because its a slow and a very heavy tank so it would be out manuveured by the al khalid.



Wasalam,

Mujahid :cop

[Oqaab]

The Al-Khalid is more capable then Upgraded T-72s. It carries french auto-tracking system, auto-loaders, it has the ability to fire in motion and the TD-6 engines (1200 hp) powers the tank due to which its speed is 70 km/hr .

[Mujahid]

There's no one tank that is best for every situation. Take Israel's Merkava for example. It's one of the heaviest tanks in the world because it's mostly used in urban enviroments. Theres no fear of it sinking or anything, and it's often used as a troop transport as well. It would be too heavy and slow for a country like Pakistan to use. Similar thing with the US Abrams, it's best enviroment is in the desert like Iraq, though(I think?) it was originally developed for use over open plains and woodlands. There are many places where despite its awesome firepower and mobility, it would not be the best tank for the job.


I agree with you man,

But the abrams didnt work so well in the desert. You can get a report by some military material assesment department or whatever it is called but the point is that the report said that the abram werent ideal for desert combat. too many tanks had problems.

I think the merkava tank is not good versus other tanks. Its maybe good versus t-59 or t-75 or whatever but its not good versus al-khalid because its a slow and a very heavy tank so it would be out manuveured by the al khalid.



Wasalam,

Mujahid :cop



Al-Khalid rules :D


Wasalam,

Mujahid :cop

[AnonymousDoe]

The type 98G have new turret armor configuration. With "dazzler", its more advanced than any other defence. The main gun is 125mm, and can fire a laser guided missile. Abram's armor is about 1200mm, and the penetration of a missile is about 1500mm, you do the math. :cop

[AnonymousDoe]

Admin EDIT-WARNING: Do not post irrelevant BS, stick to the topic.

[AnonymousDoe]

Bharat_R
India army will lose to the Pakistan army, because the only thing India engineers can invent are ****** [Mod Edit: Please stick to the topic..Thank You.]

[corsair7772]

i aint votin 4 abrams cuz any1 can make a good tank if they spen a lot on it . i vote 4 tanks that give more and take less

[Awang se]

Is this a defence forum or another front in the Indo-Pak conflict? Please, keep it neutral will ya.

Anyway, Merkava 4 seems an impressive choice for me. not that i say i'm a strong supporter of Israel. personally i hate Israel since i'm the Muslim. but i cannot denied the fact that merkava is slightly superior (in firepower and protection) from any other tank exist today despite my personal feeling.

[corsair7772]

Isnt the merkava basically a ripp off of the Abrams?
Im not being critical here just curious.

[Red aRRow]

Isnt the merkava basically a ripp off of the Abrams?
Im not being critical here just curious.

Uhhh..no dude..it is a completely different tank.

[Winter]

corsair7772 said:
Isnt the merkava basically a ripp off of the Abrams?
Im not being critical here just curious.

Perhaps you mean the Sabra, which is based heavily on the M60A3...?

[Awang se]

Merkava is a completely new type of tank of it's own class. the only similarity is maybe (i said maybe) in the type of armor they use, that is, the composite armor.

[lamdacore]

Personally i think that al-khalid is a very capable tank and the best for pakistan's needs. also, the m1a2 abrams is a beautiful piece of technology. the merkava is just too heavy and with a large capacity. if you ask me the merkava might have the firepower and strength but once another force gets a kill on it your talking about a big kill.

[suleman]

Different tanks are made for different requirements and conditions so too difficult to analyze like this.All above listed are good tanks and all have edge on others in some field in some specific conditions.I rate AK high when we talk of tough hot desert conditions of subcontinent.One of its very good thing beside manyothers i like is its speed to weight ratio.

[umair]

I hate to admit it but definitely the Merkava4.I would have posted it's specs accordin to Janes but the file I have upon being opened in my MS WORD,it's contents donot appear whereas previously they used to show up.
:( :help

[gf0012-aust]

Its interesting to see all these chest thumpings about the best tanks in the world.

The largest modern tank battle since Kursk has involved M1a2's, Challenger 2's, T80 series, T72 series and T90's.

It was a tank on tank battle, no anti-tank missiles, no air support.
The M1a2's consistently outshot, outranged and were faster across the desert than the Iraqi tanks.

The M1a2 has the most accurate gun in the world and it can be fired AT speed. M1a2's were typically outranging T series tanks by up to 200 metres.

Maybe thats why the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians have got them as well and why the Australians will get them instead of Leopard 2's.

The M1a1's were designed for a war in Europe. The M1a2's are improved models as a legacy of the Gulf War in 1991. They are combat proven.

Proof on the battlefield is all that counts.

[yutong chen]

<Proof on the battlefield is all that counts.>
On the battlefield against Iraqis. How many Iraqis actually resisted? You need a real war to prove it, like Russia vs. US or China vs. US or Pakistan vs. US

[Aussie Digger]

You don't need a "real war" to prove anything. You need to look at how a tank performs in battle. Both the Challenger 2 and M1A2 (and Challenger 1 and M1A1 in the Gulf War) repeatedly engaged Iraqi tanks at extreme ranges (with a Challenger 2 recording the longest range shot in warfare that resulted in the destruction of another tank) and destroyed them. An Australian Military journalist was "embedded" with the British 7th Armoured Brigade (the 'Desert Rats') in Gulf War 2 and saw Challenger 2's take repeated hits from enemy ATGW without any damage caused whatsoever. These weapons were fired at the British tanks during battles with Fedayeen, Special Republican Guard etc who DID resist strongly. Without any evidence to back up a claim, how can a tank be claimed to be the best?

[Aussie Digger]

Oh and gf, whay are you so sure Australia WILL get M1A2's? Our Defence Minister, the Chief of the Army and the head of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps are on publice record stating that they personally prefer the Leopard 2 A6? Plus we could afford to replace our Leopard AS1's on a one for one basis with the Leopard 2's. We could only afford around 60 of the M1A2's. I would rather have 100 Leopard 2A6's, than 60 M1A2's, any day of the week. Cheers.

[gf0012-aust]

Oh and gf, whay are you so sure Australia WILL get M1A2's? Our Defence Minister, the Chief of the Army and the head of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps are on publice record stating that they personally prefer the Leopard 2 A6? Plus we could afford to replace our Leopard AS1's on a one for one basis with the Leopard 2's. We could only afford around 60 of the M1A2's. I would rather have 100 Leopard 2A6's, than 60 M1A2's, any day of the week. Cheers.

Hey AG, my pref is for the Leo, I just don't hold much hope of that happening. I'm resigned to the Abrams getting the gong.

Given up on strat page? They are very parochial in here matey. I feel a bit like an :alian2

Its a good thing that these blokes only have access to keyboards, if they had access to triggers World War 3 would have broken out by now...

Wouldn't want the Mods job!

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry GF, which one is the Strat page?

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry GF, which one is the Strat page?

Mate, I feel a bit of a dick, I though you were AussieGunner from strategypage.com

My stuff up...

[Aussie Digger]

That's ok. Don't tell me there's another of us Aussies here is there?

[Rashid]

hey guys
its not the tanks that win the battles its the courage and training of the personals that work on these killing machines make them deadly.and also the combined arms stratigy which is the key point :smokingc: soooooooo its useless to say ARJUN is batter than AL KHALID or vice versa.
:D

[Red aRRow]

Given up on strat page? They are very parochial in here matey. I feel a bit like an :alian2

Its a good thing that these blokes only have access to keyboards, if they had access to triggers World War 3 would have broken out by now...

Wouldn't want the Mods job!

Oh come on gf0012 that was unnecessary. This is a place for discussion backed by sound argument. Nobody is being parochial here (ok maybe some members :roll ). But it is nice to have diversity since it is our strength. :)

[gf0012-aust]

Given up on strat page? They are very parochial in here matey. I feel a bit like an :alian2

Its a good thing that these blokes only have access to keyboards, if they had access to triggers World War 3 would have broken out by now...

Wouldn't want the Mods job!

Oh come on gf0012 that was unnecessary. This is a place for discussion backed by sound argument. Nobody is being parochial here (ok maybe some members :roll ). But it is nice to have diversity since it is our strength. :)

shamayel, look at the tone and thrust of some of the posts throughout this board. I have no problem about diversity, I have no problem with patriotism. I strongly object to data that is somewhat suspect, and where there is a contumelious disregard for even a notional display of fact.

maybe the standards are more flexible here, but the pak-india, india-china, pak-US stuff is a bit uneccessary.

If you want a place that is about discussion with sound argument, then there are a few that haven't been picked up yet. and there are substantial "flexible" discussions throughout this forum.

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy discussion, I just have somewhat of a disconnect to excessive and dangerous examples of nationalistic fervour.

It's what can cause wars.

[Awang se]

Come on gf0012, don't be like this. this is an open discussion in the net and there is all kind of peoples that posted here. so there is a possibilities of unreasonable and unsound peoples (talk about myself...). unlike Australians who only just recently being threaten by terrorism, most of the people here (i think) have lived their lives under the shadow of conflict since they are a baby. of course there is a little effect on their mind. furthermore even if we are fencing word in here, i still welcome u, aussie or no aussie. Don't let some of this unreasonable guys (especially me) get in to you.

[gf0012-aust]

Come on gf0012, don't be like this. this is an open discussion in the net and there is all kind of peoples that posted here. so there is a possibilities of unreasonable and unsound peoples (talk about myself...). unlike Australians who only just recently being threaten by terrorism, most of the people here (i think) have lived their lives under the shadow of conflict since they are a baby. of course there is a little effect on their mind. furthermore even if we are fencing word in here, i still welcome u, aussie or no aussie. Don't let some of this unreasonable guys (especially me) get in to you.

I don't have a problem with anyone on this board, and yes, even though I am an Australian, I have seen terrorism up close and personal, I have travelled to numerous countries in this region and overseas and seen the effects first hand.

I certainly am not in here to pick an argument, if you have seen it that way then I apologise.

I'm in here for the same reasons as everyone else. :)

[lamdacore]

Hi there gf and aussiedigger. I just wanted to let you know that i am a Pakistani-Australian citizen...well more Australian since i lived there more than in Pakistan. However, i love both countries and am proud of both. So don't change anything in the thread just ignore what you disapprove or dislike. I personally enjoy discussions that give praise to the aussie or pak forces but it is also interesting to know the criticism from those that think different about my nation(s)!!

so chill mates!!!

[Winter]

The World's Best Tank came, saw and self-imploded. :frosty

On Australian M1A2s:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/19/1069027187696.html

For furthering this topic we need more and better material and statistics. Anyone...?

[gf0012-aust]

The World's Best Tank came, saw and self-imploded. :frosty

Australian M1A2s:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/19/1069027187696.html

We need more and better material and statistics. Anyone...?

The decision has NOT been made on which tank will be selected. The head of the defence forces, and the head of the army are interested in the M1a2

There is certainly a personnel preference for the Leo2's for a number of reasons. Mainly on issues of capability, force mix, parallel assets required, training, existing capability issues, current force structure etc...

Like all newspapers, they get excited and say things which are yet to be confirmed.

Personally my preference is for the Leo2.

[Winter]

Seperate from the Australia issue however, and avoiding specifics such as terrain, personnel and environment crudely, the best tank in the world is quite potentially the Abrams...hastily followed by several others...

:cat2

[gf0012-aust]

Seperate from the Australia issue however, and avoiding specifics such as terrain, personnel and environment crudely, the best tank in the world is quite potentially the Abrams...hastily followed by several others.

:cat2

That's for sure. It really has no all round competitors, is theatre tested and certainly has a high kill to loss rate.

In fact none have been lost due to a tank vs tank duel.

Still prefer the Leo2 though... ;)

[Awang se]

I'm actually don't really satisfied with the performance of the T-72 and all of it's advance derivative. They are lighter alright but that give them little advantage against modern AT weaponry. This is not a WW2 era where gunners use their own naked eyes and judgement to shoot. This is an era of digitalized fire control system and ballistic computers. the gunners practically just push the button. What most tankers want is more protection, bigger more powerful guns and better targeting system. Take example of T-72 weapons rack. It's actually inside the crew compartment. i guess the russian tankers concept is that, when your tank died u must die with it. my country recently buy a PT-91 from Bumar Labedy of Poland which is a T-72 upgrade. I don't really agree with this purchase. I read the spec and i don't like it. The Army actually put a request for a Leopard 2 or a Leclerc MBT, but for political reasons the ministry purchase this junk instead.

[dabrownguy]

The best tanks in the world are: (not in order)
Abrahms=overall advantage
Type 98G=laser defence
Arjun=smooth bore rife
Leapord=speed and hunter killer ability

[gf0012-aust]

I would caution you on picking a gun just because it is "smooth bore".

Smooth bore and rifled bores both have their advantages and disadvantages. Smooth bore are cheaper to make (ie no rifling).

eg if you had a finned APSD round then you would use it in a rifled weapon. The brits and the germans probably have the best ballistics technology in the world, both have developed both systems. The trend to smoothbore is based also on ammunition issues, terminal velocity of some ammo types, specific ammo requirements etc.... There is no "best" solution as such.

Re laser targetting. Since the 1980's there was an agreement established by the US and (then) USSR that laser designators would not be used as weapons against humans. The technology has been used in "cold war combat" and hence the reason for the agreement being defined.

China's use of this as part of a weapons suite will raise some interesting issues. The US and Russian technology was probably more advanced in the early 80's as the Chinese tech is now. As there is no agreement between China and the other 2 powers, then the US and Russia may see that China is unwillinging to behave within the principles established long ago.

As a weapon it is limited, and in real terms it is effective against unsophisticated opfors. targetting has to be precise, and the current power restraints I think would see that the firing platform would be very compromised after 1 shot. I actually don't see it as a battle threat, the mere intent to use it as a weapon would see (certainly if a US or Russian opfor) some terrible violence visited on the army that used it.

China just does not have the capacity to implement this as a viable battlefield solution

[yutong chen]

How come so many votes for Al-Khalid, which is a older generation of Type 98

[Winter]

How come so many votes for Al-Khalid, which is a older generation of Type 98

Perhaps because those people specificed voted truly believe the Al-Khalid is 'the best tank in the world,' for various resons, such as bias, or a more in-depth knowledge of that partiular tank affecting judgement, or perhaps an arrival to a general well-reasoned decision that the Al-Khalid is in fact, the best tank in the world.

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf

This still has relevance as armoured vehicle development has not done a quantum leap in progression in the last 4 years.

[elkaboingo]

the Iraqi's T-72 is a formidable tank with fearsome arsenal,
not compared to the m1. an m1 would take out t72 at 4km. this article is bs.

im suprised al khalid got so many votes :) i :pak its good for pakistani territory where light/mobile tanks are needed, but outside pakistan it wouldnt be that good.

i voted for leopard because its a fairly good all rounder

[ullu]

I voted for abrams.

Tanks like arjun and alkhalid haven't seen battle field yet so one can only rely on their stats to see which one is better.

[gf0012-aust]

elkaboingo, yep, it was a tad optimistic, I don't think I'd want to come in the kill range of an Abrams, as per the Iraqi tank commanders comment when he lost 32(?) in 20 minutes.

Imagine the abrams using a LeoA6 long bore... you could go duck shooting... ;)

I voted for abrams, its track reckord proves its ability. I would vote for the Leo next as I know the systems, but it has not been tested in battle. (seeing that the Abrams is using german and UK gear, its a known quantity)

[dabrownguy]

gf0012, Arjun has smooth bore rifle with a range of 4.6 km i think. Besides a tank that cost 6 mill can't be crap, plus it wieghs in at 59 tons.

[Gremlin29]

I agree with gf0012, Abrams followed VERY closely by Leo 2. Both tanks are vastly superior to anything else that's currently being fielded in the world.
Of interest with regard to the M1's turbine is the fact that it can burn Any form of petroleum based fuel including regular gas, diesel, AVGAS, JP4 JP5, Jet A, kerosene, white gas, you name it. There are limitations of course most of which stem from a higher EGT.

[gf0012-aust]

The big factor in this is also what round is used. The Brits have developed whats called a CHARM round. It was developed specifically for use in GW1. This round holds the record for a distance kill ( L27 fired by a Challenger) They registered a confirmed tank-to-tank kill at 5100 meters or 5.1km.

There has also been recorded a dual kill using an M829 round. This round also holds a record for killing 2 x T72's from one shot. It managed to pentrate and punch through the first tank, it then proceeded to travel on and hit the second.

It might have been a "gold shot", but it worked.. ;)

Currently the best guns, platforms, and round designs are on the abrams, chally 2 and Leo2A6's

[elkaboingo]

I agree with gf0012, Abrams followed VERY closely by Leo 2. Both tanks are vastly superior to anything else that's currently being fielded in the world.
Of interest with regard to the M1's turbine is the fact that it can burn Any form of petroleum based fuel including regular gas, diesel, AVGAS, JP4 JP5, Jet A, kerosene, white gas, you name it. There are limitations of course most of which stem from a higher EGT.

ufff, what ever fuel the engine uses it DRINKS it. lucky they were fighting the war in iraq :P
i picked leo. nothing comes close to that rheinmetall gun. the americans have tot but american machinery is not as precise as german.

ak and arjun(if it even works) are tailor made for a specific country. they are cheap, fairly fuel efficient, and have med tech. i cant imagine pakistan buying leo or abrams as its too expensive and it would get bogged down(esp as it doesnt look like it could cross a pontoon bridge)

a quick question, does leo have chobam armor? thats usually the deciding factor in a tank.

[elkaboingo]

another quick question, does leo have chobam armor? thats usually the deciding factor in a tank.

[gf0012-aust]

I agree with gf0012, Abrams followed VERY closely by Leo 2. Both tanks are vastly superior to anything else that's currently being fielded in the world.
Of interest with regard to the M1's turbine is the fact that it can burn Any form of petroleum based fuel including regular gas, diesel, AVGAS, JP4 JP5, Jet A, kerosene, white gas, you name it. There are limitations of course most of which stem from a higher EGT.

ufff, what ever fuel the engine uses it DRINKS it. lucky they were fighting the war in iraq :P
i picked leo. nothing comes close to that rheinmetall gun. the americans have tot but american machinery is not as precise as german.

ak and arjun(if it even works) are tailor made for a specific country. they are cheap, fairly fuel efficient, and have med tech. i cant imagine pakistan buying leo or abrams as its too expensive and it would get bogged down(esp as it doesnt look like it could cross a pontoon bridge)

a quick question, does leo have chobam armor? thats usually the deciding factor in a tank.

The abrams does use a german gun, its just that the US uses a shorter barrel and DU shells. The germans use the longer barrel and conventional armour. the penetration rates are supposed to be similar

as for chobham, the Leo's don't. They use a german version of RHA, plus are capable of adding plates.

I worked on an AFV program where we needed to assess the german armour against some competitors, they wouldn't even let us conduct the tests they were that paranoid about compromising the secrecy surrounding the plates.

The latest iteration of Chobham is better than anything else out there, the M1a2 would be a close second, the Leo-A6 is probably close to the Chally 2.

The Leclerc uses a french attempt at copying first generation chobham, and is not as good but certainly better than the armour on T-80's etc.. (well, the T series tanks that have been captured or bought on the clandestine market)

There is a rumour that the Ukrainians lost one of their latest T series tanks - for some money.. :)

[dabrownguy]

elkaboingo,
The Arjun is not cheap, it costs 6 million and thats with Indian labour force!!!!!!!!! Arjun is compared to western tanks. I think the Arjun is a hybrid between western and soviet tanks. Arjun has a smooth bore rife and with afsds rounds can penatrate any nato armor at 2km distance and any soviet/chinese/pakistani armor at 3km! the 120 smooth bore rifle is like the leapords if i am correct! Yet because the indian media seems to critizize people think its not good! I'd call the Arjun a western tank standard or the big brother of merkeva tank. Arjun has accuracy and range, so its leathal. i'd say its the best tank in the asian contenient! merkeva cost what 2.6 mill! ak cost what 2mill. type 98 is the better and hiever ak but still 10 tons lighter! Arjun is going to be inducted in IA in 300 Arjun MK2, T-72 will be upgraded to Tank Ex(chasis of t-72 with turret of arjun), and 1000 t-90's upgraded by russians and isrealis! DRDO and France tried but were not compatable. 300 arjun mk2 is an effective force.

[gf0012-aust]

another quick question, does leo have chobam armor? thats usually the deciding factor in a tank.

The Leo uses RHA. The leos armour is generally rated as between the Chally 2 and Abrams.

The chally 2 is using gen 2/3 chobham. abrams uses a lesser capable version of chobham

[yutong chen]

If Arjun and Al-Khalid haven't been seen in battle yet how do y'all know it isn't the best tank?

[suleman]

another quick question, does leo have chobam armor? thats usually the deciding factor in a tank.

The Leo uses RHA. The leos armour is generally rated as between the Chally 2 and Abrams.

The chally 2 is using gen 2/3 chobham. abrams uses a lesser capable version of chobham

Well its more about trust rather then testing :)
People of Pakistan believe in Al-Khalid.As indians in Arjun.

[gf0012-aust]

If Arjun and Al-Khalid haven't been seen in battle yet how do y'all know it isn't the best tank?

because the core platform is T series based, there are inherent flaws within that system that cannot be resolved by adding electronics and a different weapons system.

the platform itself has physical limitations which count out some of the popular theories that people have.

The inside of a tank is not like a jug where you can just keep on pouring water (ie weapons, fire control systems, internal protection, crew space, autoloaders, larger guns, crew) the physical internal dimensions of the tank, plus the type of gun system used mean that it doesn't take much for someone with a weapons or AFV background to start working out what can and can't be done. You can also start to work out what armour is being used by the design, by its stance, by its engine size and mass etc....

Its not rocket science.

[elkaboingo]

If Arjun and Al-Khalid haven't been seen in battle yet how do y'all know it isn't the best tank?

because the core platform is T series based, there are inherent flaws within that system that cannot be resolved by adding electronics and a different weapons system.

the platform itself has physical limitations which count out some of the popular theories that people have.

The inside of a tank is not like a jug where you can just keep on pouring water (ie weapons, fire control systems, internal protection, crew space, autoloaders, larger guns, crew) the physical internal dimensions of the tank, plus the type of gun system used mean that it doesn't take much for someone with a weapons or AFV background to start working out what can and can't be done. You can also start to work out what armour is being used by the design, by its stance, by its engine size and mass etc....

Its not rocket science.

i think what usually separates the best tanks from the rest is the chobam armor. also this doesnt have the firepower of the abrams and leo tanks. their range is unrivalled.

this tank is definitly not the best. it maybe the best for pakistan keeping in mind cost of r and d, cost of the tank, maintainence, size, and maneuverability. out side, it would be outranged in long fields and stuff.

personally i believe the leo 2 is the best

[gf0012-aust]

If Arjun and Al-Khalid haven't been seen in battle yet how do y'all know it isn't the best tank?

because the core platform is T series based, there are inherent flaws within that system that cannot be resolved by adding electronics and a different weapons system.

the platform itself has physical limitations which count out some of the popular theories that people have.

The inside of a tank is not like a jug where you can just keep on pouring water (ie weapons, fire control systems, internal protection, crew space, autoloaders, larger guns, crew) the physical internal dimensions of the tank, plus the type of gun system used mean that it doesn't take much for someone with a weapons or AFV background to start working out what can and can't be done. You can also start to work out what armour is being used by the design, by its stance, by its engine size and mass etc....

Its not rocket science.

i think what usually separates the best tanks from the rest is the chobam armor. also this doesnt have the firepower of the abrams and leo tanks. their range is unrivalled.

this tank is definitly not the best. it maybe the best for pakistan keeping in mind cost of r and d, cost of the tank, maintainence, size, and maneuverability. out side, it would be outranged in long fields and stuff.

personally i believe the leo 2 is the best

My personal preference is for the Leo2A6, but that is also based on what I see as appropriate for an australian theatre of operations. The Leo2A5-6 with a longer barrel has a similar "discharge" end result as an Abrams A2. The M1a2 uses DU rounds so doesn't need a longer barrel to get the extra velocity.

As a combat proven unit, the Abrams is a winner, its not only battlefield experince, you also have to remember that the US sourced and has complete armoured units comprised of russian opfor platforms so that it can train and test its men. (eg they bought 21 Mig 29's in 1999, bought some BMP's and T80's)

The Leo on the otherhand is designed by germans who have a demonstrated history of being able to build AFV and IFV's.

You use a tank that fits into your armoured doctrine, not because of its armour rating, it's barrel size etc... Buying any equipment based on bigger etc... is just purchasing lunacy, not an indication of thought out future doctrinal requirements

[yutong chen]

How many hours of trainning does Iraqis have through their whole service?

[elkaboingo]

If Arjun and Al-Khalid haven't been seen in battle yet how do y'all know it isn't the best tank?

because the core platform is T series based, there are inherent flaws within that system that cannot be resolved by adding electronics and a different weapons system.

the platform itself has physical limitations which count out some of the popular theories that people have.

The inside of a tank is not like a jug where you can just keep on pouring water (ie weapons, fire control systems, internal protection, crew space, autoloaders, larger guns, crew) the physical internal dimensions of the tank, plus the type of gun system used mean that it doesn't take much for someone with a weapons or AFV background to start working out what can and can't be done. You can also start to work out what armour is being used by the design, by its stance, by its engine size and mass etc....

Its not rocket science.

i think what usually separates the best tanks from the rest is the chobam armor. also this doesnt have the firepower of the abrams and leo tanks. their range is unrivalled.

this tank is definitly not the best. it maybe the best for pakistan keeping in mind cost of r and d, cost of the tank, maintainence, size, and maneuverability. out side, it would be outranged in long fields and stuff.

personally i believe the leo 2 is the best

My personal preference is for the Leo2A6, but that is also based on what I see as appropriate for an australian theatre of operations. The Leo2A5-6 with a longer barrel has a similar "discharge" end result as an Abrams A2. The M1a2 uses DU rounds so doesn't need a longer barrel to get the extra velocity.

As a combat proven unit, the Abrams is a winner, its not only battlefield experince, you also have to remember that the US sourced and has complete armoured units comprised of russian opfor platforms so that it can train and test its men. (eg they bought 21 Mig 29's in 1999, bought some BMP's and T80's)

The Leo on the otherhand is designed by germans who have a demonstrated history of being able to build AFV and IFV's.

You use a tank that fits into your armoured doctrine, not because of its armour rating, it's barrel size etc... Buying any equipment based on bigger etc... is just purchasing lunacy, not an indication of thought out future doctrinal requirements

thats why you really can say which is the 'best' tank. also, leo2 uses tungsten sabot rounds. is tungsten denser than du? crap wheres that periodic table? the germans also have experience in building tanks. american tank building previous to the m1 was not good. i hated the m60 :barf i wonder if leo2a6 will ever see service.

but then if pakistan ever used the leo, it would get stuck in high mountain patrols etc and arty teams have a field day when tanks hit a choke point

[gf0012-aust]

How many hours of trainning does Iraqis have through their whole service?

Well the big clincher is that the Iraqis have been in two of the largest tank engagements in history in the last 15 years. Prior to that it was Israel and the Egyptians, prior to that it was Kursk.

In modern armoured warfare they would have about 14 years head start on China. (who has had a punch up in Tianeman Sq and a disagreement with India (none of which involved armoured manouvre) and none of which were part of a combined operations meeting engagement.

(refer to your armoured warfare training manual to find out what a "meeting engagement" is)

[gf0012-aust]

elkaboingo

thats why you really can say which is the 'best' tank. also, leo2 uses tungsten sabot rounds. is tungsten denser than du? crap wheres that periodic table? the germans also have experience in building tanks. american tank building previous to the m1 was not good. i hated the m60 :barf i wonder if leo2a6 will ever see service.

but then if pakistan ever used the leo, it would get stuck in high mountain patrols etc and arty teams have a field day when tanks hit a choke point

Not all Leos use the same round - it is a user specific issue, its not a matter of density its a matter of velocity, kinetics, hardness, penetration rate and chemical reaction (eg DU and plasma). thats why the A6 uses a longer barrel with a tungsten round, it has a similar penetration pattern to a short barreled DU firing barrel. The US uses shorter barrels as well for logistics reasons. The germans only use a long barrel as they cannot use DU ordinance

yep, the M60 was crap - and the US learnt several significant lessons from it. have you paid attention to the kill rate of abrams with all kinds of opfor? In one of the assessments from GW 2 an Abrams was simultaneously attacked by 4 T series tanks, not one round penetrated the tanks armout and all 4 were killed within 30secs. Thats a reload kill time of 6-7 seconds per kill.

if any tanker ran their armour into a gully they deserve to get their units killed. don't try to simplify the arguments to the point of being ridiculous.
force is applied when you have theatre and sector dominance, its what makes warfare in this century so very different from the last. You can stand off and control the theatre to maximum advantage BEFORE committing forces on ground.

The Chinese RMA document pays particular attention to that feature - hence their rapid change in doctrine since 1999. Why do you think that the chinese made dramatic changes to doctrinal mix in the last 3-4 years?

If you getting emotional and angry you aren't listening to the arguments presented.

[elkaboingo]

elkaboingo

thats why you really can say which is the 'best' tank. also, leo2 uses tungsten sabot rounds. is tungsten denser than du? crap wheres that periodic table? the germans also have experience in building tanks. american tank building previous to the m1 was not good. i hated the m60 :barf i wonder if leo2a6 will ever see service.

but then if pakistan ever used the leo, it would get stuck in high mountain patrols etc and arty teams have a field day when tanks hit a choke point

Not all Leos use the same round - it is a user specific issue, its not a matter of density its a matter of velocity, kinetics, hardness, penetration rate and chemical reaction (eg DU and plasma). thats why the A6 uses a longer barrel with a tungsten round, it has a similar penetration pattern to a short barreled DU firing barrel. The US uses shorter barrels as well for logistics reasons. The germans only use a long barrel as they cannot use DU ordinance

yep, the M60 was crap - and the US learnt several significant lessons from it. have you paid attention to the kill rate of abrams with all kinds of opfor? In one of the assessments from GW 2 an Abrams was simultaneously attacked by 4 T series tanks, not one round penetrated the tanks armout and all 4 were killed within 30secs. Thats a reload kill time of 6-7 seconds per kill.

if any tanker ran their armour into a gully they deserve to get their units killed. don't try to simplify the arguments to the point of being ridiculous.
force is applied when you have theatre and sector dominance, its what makes warfare in this century so very different from the last. You can stand off and control the theatre to maximum advantage BEFORE committing forces on ground.

The Chinese RMA document pays particular attention to that feature - hence their rapid change in doctrine since 1999. Why do you think that the chinese made dramatic changes to doctrinal mix in the last 3-4 years?

If you getting emotional and angry you aren't listening to the arguments presented.

what i'm trying to prove here is that leo is pretty good even if it hasnt seen action, as previous german tanks were good and the americans produced a good tank even though previous ones sucked.

density matters a lot, as with a denser material, more energy can be packed in it. german tanker said tungsten was denser, so i dont really know. still looking around for a periodic table. (i know it has u238(DU) and tungsten on it). anyways all western tanks have fire selectors so they can choose between teh five nato rounds (sabot, HEAT, MPAT, and i cant remeber the rest). but that is their main armor piercing round.

of course i know the kill rate of the abrams. but its against soviet era t-72's. its a no brainer that t-72( :help ) vs abrams is gonna be a butchering. they wont even see the abrams when the abrams comes into
range. leo could do the same(now it just comes down to crews)

a leo2 just cant be used in pakistan for the main part(maybe in the desert regions it can because of unhindered sight) but when the roads only as wide as a t-72's hull and is a drop to one side and a cliff to the other, how can a leo pass. this just stresses that there is NO perfect tank.

[gf0012-aust]

elkaboingo, if i was saying that the Abrams/Leo was the perfect tank, then I set the wrong impression. They should have been predicated on the theatres that they have been tested in or most likely would be in.

The Abrams has been pushed as the next tank for Australia, most tankers and AFV people in australia want the Leo as it is a better fit into our force mix.

platforms are always theatre specific, in the wide open spaces of europe (which is what the M1a1'2's, Challys and Leos were designed for, they were considered the best. The M1 fought outside of its initial doctrinal environment (desert) and established a capability again)

I'm not sure I'd want to drive any tank around a cliffed or canyoned area - the advantage goes to the defender (as the russians discovered in afghanistan)

i wasn't meaning to dismiss density outright, I was trying to point out that there are other factors which can impinge on selection of a round based purely on a single selection criteria.

I would not like to be at the receiving end of a round from a long barreled Leo A6, it would be going somewhat more quickly than the same round out of an abrams.

I am unsure even as to why the T72 is even used as some sort of benchmark, after all, it was just a tricked up T62 export model.

The T90 is a better baseline vehicle to compare against but IMHO still doesn't make the cut.

[Awang se]

T-72 are intended to be produce in vast number because it is cheap. Soviet have decided to use this tank to overrun europe in time war. It's not really a capable tank by itself. It was intended to be use with numerical advantages.

[yutong chen]

Why would you'll consider beating Iraq a huge victory?

[gf0012-aust]

Why would you'll consider beating Iraq a huge victory?

Who's the question for? have I indicated that Iraq is a huge victory?

Can you try to understand that evaluation of equipment and doctrine has to be done based on history and usually on the most recent trigger events.

Wars acts as reference points for defining doctrine - how else do you undergo tactical change and definition?

What do you think triggered Gorshkovs writings on Soviet Seapower? it was WW2, what triggered the US RMA? Not only vietnam, but a russian tactical paper on warfighting in the future. what triggered soviet russias eventual shift to carriers? etc...... what triggered the chinese submission on warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, both of whom are PLA (People’s Liberation Army) Air Force officers? Gulf War 1, Iraq in 99 and all its precedents.

Why do you think militaries provide observors in war? - to assess equipment, to assess doctrine and its suitability.

Once you start to understand these things then maybe we can have a decent discussion on solid issues - at the moment you want to joust without wanting to understand the reasons and processes etc....

[yutong chen]

Type 98 is better than Arjun, because it have superior firepower and better armor.

[gf0012-aust]

Type 98 is better than Arjun, because it have superior firepower and better armor.

On the basis of the lack of success and recent political funding issues, plus the current production line starting up for T80s, then I'd agree with you.

[yutong chen]

Why is the Type 98's hull the same as T-72's hull, because when i looked at it its very different.

[Majin-Vegeta]

woot i guess so far the Al-Khalid ROXORS!! just like i thought :D

and from wat ive heard thier one of THE most deadliest tanks in the world, because they have this type of radar that can detect enemy tanks..which only France and Pakistani tanks can do.

[gf0012-aust]

AFAIK the hull is a modified T series, it has a derivative of the French Leclercs transmission, the Brit Challengers engine (although I am curious as to what its horsepower rating is), Russian missile defence systems and reactive armour, its using Japanese COTs automotive parts and electronics just to mention few. The laser is based on the devices that were released under Clintons administration and which caused such a furore on the domestic american political scene as they were considered dual purpose.

AFAIAA the laser is a dazzler designed to disrupt external electronics and vehicles by burning out sights, receiver and transmitters. As a low yield laser it means that it can also blind infantry. This is the same technology that is based upon designator systems that the US and Russia developed about 30 years ago.

My question has always been not about the capcity of the technology to be a weapon, but its use and capability as it requires a quantum leap in power generation. I find that difficult to comprehend considering the guessed internal space of the T98 series.

The other issue which I have tried to reinforce here is that under the agreement reached by the US and Russia, any country that used lasers on soldiers, sailors, airmen etc... (as opposed to equipment) would expect maximum violence to be visited upon their forces.