The Leo uses RHA. The leos armour is generally rated as between the Chally 2 and Abrams.elkaboingo said:
The chally 2 is using gen 2/3 chobham. abrams uses a lesser capable version of chobham
Which is the World's Best Tank??
- Thread starter Red aRRow
- Start date
- Status
The chally 2 is using gen 2/3 chobham. abrams uses a lesser capable version of chobham
yutong chen
New Member
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.yutong chen said:
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
New Member
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.gf0012 said:
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.elkaboingo said:
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
New Member
How many hours of trainning does Iraqis have through their whole service?
elkaboingo
New Member
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.gf0012 said:
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
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.yutong chen said:
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)
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
New Member
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.gf0012 said:
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.
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.
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.
yutong chen
New Member
Why would you'll consider beating Iraq a huge victory?
Who's the question for? have I indicated that Iraq is a huge victory?yutong chen said:
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
New Member
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 said:
yutong chen
New Member
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
Banned Member
woot i guess so far the Al-Khalid ROXORS!! just like i thought 
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Status