Ok so I've decided to bring things to the modern world. I've really enjoyed the feedback and debates from my other polls so I don't see a reason not to start another one. Anyways as you can see this list consists of the world's current MBTS I tried to included all of them, But there are a lot of tanks nowadays. If I've missed any let me know and I'll add them. So lets get started pick you favorite tank and lets hear what you think!.
Please log in to post a reply.
Yes, please do. I looked up the date and place and could find nothing.Quasi-duck wrote:
Could you explain please?MihailMD wrote:
Or the ones that were made on a factory in Virginia on august 15, at 11-45 am hahaha.
I worked on/commanded an Abrams wile i was in the army it is one beast of a tank, but i give my vote to either the t-14 or the pl-01. I love the Abrams but next wave of tanks is being made and we will have to update or make a new tank with in the next 10 years for sure. remember the Abrams was made in the cold war and might not be able to adapt to the next tank on tank wars. also remember Abrams have never went against modern tanks that are of the same generation as it they have fought old cold war Russian machines but never a true modern tank.
No proper details have been released yet and it has not seen combat. The best we have is the Russian government saying "Oh yeah, this is good. We definitely didn't waste taxpayers money on this instead of boosting our nations failing economy."Gen.Jamison wrote:
i give my vote to either the t-14
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures.html we dont know the armor profile yet that is true.Quasi-duck wrote:
No proper details have been released yet and it has not seen combat. The best we have is the Russian government saying "Oh yeah, this is good. We definitely didn't waste taxpayers money on this instead of boosting our nations failing economy."Gen.Jamison wrote:
i give my vote to either the t-14
What about the british challenger 2 and the leopard 2Gen.Jamison wrote:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures.html we dont know the armor profile yet that is true.Quasi-duck wrote:
No proper details have been released yet and it has not seen combat. The best we have is the Russian government saying "Oh yeah, this is good. We definitely didn't waste taxpayers money on this instead of boosting our nations failing economy."Gen.Jamison wrote:
i give my vote to either the t-14
The armour is one of the most important parts of a tank. I know the aim is not to get hit but with the amount of anti-tank weaponry out there, the armour is key on the weapon that leads your spearheads.Gen.Jamison wrote:
we dont know the armor profile yet that is true.
First of all... Abrams have been lost in combat before.Kehsct wrote:
No M1(A1, or A2) has been lost yet to enemy fire. A few have been lost to friendly fire (before friend and foe tags) and the other few to purposeful friendly fire when a malfunction or other problem occurred.
No leopard or challenger( actually one challenger has been destroyed, however Im not so sure on it) have been lost
Challenger, Leopard and Abrams, are all very similar.
Both are 60+ ton western-style tanks with composite armour, a 120 mm smoothbore gun, 4 crew members for a manual loader and some minor technical differences. The greatest difference I see is, Abrams got the edge in raw speed,
However, I think the Jap Type 10, is just as good if not best here. Has a 120 mm Rheinmetall gun like the rest, with a composite armour, good netcentric integration, 40-45 tons weight, making it more strategically and tactically mobile and for the weird gimmick that is situation in its usefulness, but some may get all amazed over it, it has a suspension that allows for it to drive as fast backwards as it drives forwards. No longer can the world say Japan can't build proper tanks. It's like the Western quality combined with Soviet mobility.( but obviously, the Western parts are the strong suits)
Blue on Blue.oceanhawk wrote:
actually one challenger has been destroyed, however Im not so sure on it
This is laughably incorrect. At face value, yes. Looking at them, no. Very different.oceanhawk wrote:
Challenger, Leopard and Abrams, are all very similar.
i was referring to the specifications above regarding which M1s have not been destroyed. ( trained crew, arab crew and so on )MihailMD wrote:
Or the ones that were made on a factory in Virginia on august 15, at 11-45 amKehsct wrote:
I am not talking about the F-15. Has any M1 Abrams or it's variants the M1A1 and M1A2 with a trained crew been destroyed?Kollin wrote:
Perhaps you are thinking of the F-15 Eagle which has never been downed due to combat, Just a bunch of pilot or mechanical errorsKehsct wrote:
No M1(A1, or A2) has been lost yet to enemy firehahaha.
The factory and time was made up to be more sarcastic
The PL-01, when it's finally completed and produced en masse, will be superior to any tank here. I don't know how good it is with armor and speed, bit it will put all of it's opponents into the dark ages. It's designed to render the targeting sensors of all the other tanks ineffective, meaning you can't shoot it until it's in your line of sight. Fighting one of these will force you to use the same methods they used in WW2, while the PL-01 can still use the fancy modern technology. It will be superior to any tank here by far.
If it works and that is a big if. The V1 and V2 were meant to win a war. So were strategic bombers. Hand-held anti-tank weapons are meant to have made tanks obsolete since WWI.GreatbigHippo wrote:
. It will be superior to any tank here by far.
If it doesn't work someone will try again and make it.
We still have LAWs and ICBMs today.
Lol, that'll put a dent in their pocket. I am on Discord right, by the way, if you want to pop over and we'll talk sleepers 'n ricers.GreatbigHippo wrote:
If it doesn't work someone will try again and make it.
haha dont make me laugh..Quasi-duck wrote:
Blue on Blue.oceanhawk wrote:
actually one challenger has been destroyed, however Im not so sure on itThis is laughably incorrect. At face value, yes. Looking at them, no. Very different.oceanhawk wrote:
Challenger, Leopard and Abrams, are all very similar.
they are just the same.. same gun, armor just engines on a few differences.
oceanhawk wrote:
Challenger, Leopard and Abrams, are all very similar.Kehsct wrote:
Both are 60+ ton western-style tanks with composite armour, a 120 mm smoothbore gun, 4 crew members for a manual loader and some minor technical differences. The greatest difference I see is, Abrams got the edge in raw speed,
However, I think the Jap Type 10, is just as good if not best here. Has a 120 mm Rheinmetall gun like the rest, with a composite armour, good netcentric integration, 40-45 tons weight, making it more strategically and tactically mobile and for the weird gimmick that is situation in its usefulness, but some may get all amazed over it, it has a suspension that allows for it to drive as fast backwards as it drives forwards. No longer can the world say Japan can't build proper tanks. It's like the Western quality combined with Soviet mobility.( but obviously, the Western parts are the strong suits)
As a tank commander for most of my military carer i think i know a thing or two about tanks, first of armor today is alot different than in ww2, most if not all modern tanks have chobham armour that is a secondary charge that stops a AT missile or round before it hits the tank or kills the crew. also in todays wars speed it key the Abrams runs at top of 45mph the t-14 runs about 50-60. Also the 120 smooth bore on the Abrams is not as good as the 128mm on the t-14. sorry Quasi but i think i know my tanks and especially the Abrams and from what we know know the t-14 out classes the Abrams. And dont forget tanks are not that valuable today knowing that jets with laser guided missiles can take out a tank no problem.Quasi-duck wrote:
The armour is one of the most important parts of a tank. I know the aim is not to get hit but with the amount of anti-tank weaponry out there, the armour is key on the weapon that leads your spearheads.Gen.Jamison wrote:
we dont know the armor profile yet that is true.
This is something that straight out smacked me across the face, worse than anything else you have said. Aircraft can't hold ground. Also, armoured units tend to bring AA units with them. Well, that is what US Marines say anyways.Gen.Jamison wrote:
dont forget tanks are not that valuable today knowing that jets with laser guided missiles can take out a tank no problem.
Air superiority is important in modern warfare. If you can destroy half your enemies tanks before they even get to battle, then you're in good shape. And if you have enough airplanes, you could stop an enemy advance in it's tracks. You need guys on the ground to actually advance, but the air superiority is definitely one of the most important things. Of course, it's unlikely you'd see this happen in a war between superpowers because everybody would just nuke each other...
So i take it you just know the whole book on amour warfare? and yes they do bring AA with them but also AA can be countered easily knowing that most nations have stealth jets now and AA is not as fast and cant set upas fast as tanks. Not just to add infantry can hold ground and tanks are easily over whelmed against a organized well armed enemy, I never had to see it due to we where fight unorganized and not well equipped enemy. It all comes down to technology organization and tactical dissuasions made by the crew. I do see how it would be hard for some one who has never spent a day in a tank and probably the closest thing to it is games wouldn't understand what i am saying.Quasi-duck wrote:
This is something that straight out smacked me across the face, worse than anything else you have said. Aircraft can't hold ground. Also, armoured units tend to bring AA units with them. Well, that is what US Marines say anyways.Gen.Jamison wrote:
dont forget tanks are not that valuable today knowing that jets with laser guided missiles can take out a tank no problem.
They do have long range AA missiles set up behind the front lines and they is also SPAA's and MANPADS.Gen.Jamison wrote:
yes they do bring AA with them but also AA can be countered easily knowing that most nations have stealth jets now and AA is not as fast and cant set upas fast as tanks
A good airforce can be overwhelmed by a strong and organised enemy too....Gen.Jamison wrote:
Not just to add infantry can hold ground and tanks are easily over whelmed against a organized well armed enemy
I'd be doubting your legitimacy becauseGen.Jamison wrote:
I do see how it would be hard for some one who has never spent a day in a tank and probably the closest thing to it is games wouldn't understand what i am saying.
1. You don't seem to have much pride for the unit you supposedly served for.
2. Seem to have missed out on all the upgrades that tanks have gone through over the course of the ~70 years since WWII ended.
Quasi-duck wrote:
They do have long range AA missiles set up behind the front lines and they is also SPAA's and MANPADS.Gen.Jamison wrote:
yes they do bring AA with them but also AA can be countered easily knowing that most nations have stealth jets now and AA is not as fast and cant set upas fast as tanksA good airforce can be overwhelmed by a strong and organised enemy too....Gen.Jamison wrote:
Not just to add infantry can hold ground and tanks are easily over whelmed against a organized well armed enemyI'd be doubting your legitimacy becauseGen.Jamison wrote:
I do see how it would be hard for some one who has never spent a day in a tank and probably the closest thing to it is games wouldn't understand what i am saying.1. You don't seem to have much pride for the unit you supposedly served for.
2. Seem to have missed out on all the upgrades that tanks have gone through over the course of the ~70 years since WWII ended.
Yes i should lessen to kid on his computer that hasn't nor will ever be in a tank i am sure he knows every thing in the world with his super google skills. Do you want to see pictures or maybe my discharge papers? I think you should stick to people who use google to find answers and not some one who is the real deal. and you insulting my service is funny i am sure you just know it all with you keyboard skills. Please young man if you have the spine to do it join your nations military and you will then be able to talk about the real military be able to put up a good argument, in till then please stick to your games try to not use google to much.Quasi-duck wrote:
They do have long range AA missiles set up behind the front lines and they is also SPAA's and MANPADS.Gen.Jamison wrote:
yes they do bring AA with them but also AA can be countered easily knowing that most nations have stealth jets now and AA is not as fast and cant set upas fast as tanksA good airforce can be overwhelmed by a strong and organised enemy too....Gen.Jamison wrote:
Not just to add infantry can hold ground and tanks are easily over whelmed against a organized well armed enemyI'd be doubting your legitimacy becauseGen.Jamison wrote:
I do see how it would be hard for some one who has never spent a day in a tank and probably the closest thing to it is games wouldn't understand what i am saying.1. You don't seem to have much pride for the unit you supposedly served for.
2. Seem to have missed out on all the upgrades that tanks have gone through over the course of the ~70 years since WWII ended.
Please log in to post a reply.
