Your favorite Modern tank

No source is self-evident, Grieg. This is why we bother with referring to them at all; so that people can check on your statements. Thanks for supplying them here.

This, however, is not a much appreciated attitude here. In any argument it is a legitimate request to see the opponent's sources to verify his statements. It would add to the value of your arguments if you backed them up with sources, rather than making them look "obvious".

As far as I know, the Netherlands alone has a little over 200 Leopards, and we have a very small army indeed.

 

I apologize if that statement is considering insulting. I was remiss in not supplying sources for my data from the outset. I assumed, wrongly as it happens, that such a well informed crowd would not need sources for the explanation of basics like SEP, Command and Control, Combined Arms doctrine etc.
You must admit that my entry into these forums has stirred up a hornet's nest Sometimes it is good to have one's complacency and preconceived notions challenged..on both sides.

 

Why, of course! I'm not trying to stop you from arguing your case, merely correcting your course within it... As is my job.

Just consider the crowd to be intelligent but ignorant people and you'll make the best case!

 

Grieg a book is a thousand times better reference than a Website !!

Anyone with the knowledge on building a website, could make one and write whatever on it ! So websites aint really the best option, as they can be 'Very' inaccurate !

KBO

 

I agree, in principle however as I explained there was nothing earth shaking in the data I was presenting..just basics, well documented and available almost anywhere. Besides ..all my books are in storage as I'm remodelling my house

 

You know i just happened to look at one of your links, and one of them actually quotes the estimated Armor protection levels of both the Abrams and Leopard !

KBO

 

OK bad choice of words, however, you seem to be hung up on defending the abrams on numbers and logistics when this started out as favourite tank and others as best tank, Nobody has denied the US is probably the most powerful Military, and the chance of a Western European tank battle against the US tanks is very unlikely. Most European and US tanks are such that the outcome of any tank battle would be decided through the abilities of the crews. As we are never likely to see that happen it seams pointless going on in this manner.

 

in one of the links Grieg use as a source, the ESTIMATED armor protection for the Abrams M1A2 SEP and the Leopard 2A5/A6 is the almost the same
http://fprado.com/armorsite/main.html
For the Leopard 2A5/A6: (against kinetic energy, in mm of RHAe)
turret: 920 - 940
glacis: 620
lower front hull: 620

M1A2 SEP Abrams: (against kinetic energy, in mm of RHAe)
turret: 920 - 960
glacis: 560 - 590
lower front hull: 580 - 650

RHAe = Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent

 

A clip from one of your recomended websites http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm


The Challenger 2 is the first British Army tank since World War II to be designed, developed and produced exclusively by a single prime contractor, Vickers Defence Systems, with set reliability goals laid down in the fixed price contract. Challenger 2 was design and manufactured at both Vickers sites, Barnbow Leeds and Scottswood Newcastle.
The hull and automotive parts of the Challenger 2 are based upon its predecessor Challenger 1, but Challenger 2 incorporates over 150 improvements aimed at increasing reliability and maintainability. The turret of Challenger 2 is a totally new design. Armour is an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour. The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO (10) incorporating Chobham second-generation armour plating.

 

I don't recall vouching for all the data presented on any of those websites. As I pointed out classified data cannot be verified no matter it's source.
It was for the publicly available data that I cited those sources. There is no controversy or secrecy surrounding the existence of nor essental capablities of SEP. If you don't like those sites the same data can be had from dozens of other sites.

You miss the point. It's isn't about whose military would win. I think we know the answer to that. From the outset I have tried to explain that MBTs are just one tool in the combined arms toolbox. If you insist on looking at and debating that tool as though it existed alone it distorts the picture. I don't think , when looked at that way, there is a tremendous amount of difference between the top few MBTs in the world...and that leaves very little worth debating.
Whover gets the first accurately placed shot off wins. I have tried to point out that the recon support assets on the ground, in the air, and in space combined with the close cordination possible by computerized Command and Control architecture will give a significant edge in determining who is best positioned to get that first accurate shot off (or shots since MBTs operate in units).
As to this "being pointless" well.. would there be more of a point if I just accepted what I believe to be misguided and inaccurate assessments as though they were unassailable fact? I don't see anyone else doing that here 8)

 

Sorry but it is you missing the point we are not discussing armies but tanks. If you wishto discuss armies then start a thread, or post in the top ten armies.

What you are saying is Challenger against Abrams, whooopssss the US nuke the challengers, US wins. the Abrams is the best tank because we have more nukes.

Another senario we exoatmosphericaly detonate a nuclear device over the battle field bang goes any advantage down to best army.

This is not what we are saying as you keep trying to put forward, we are debating tanks, quite simply tanks.

 

The US dont have the best 'toolbox', it have the biggest, thats the different
In Denmark, we have recon units, we have UAVs, we can supply our units est est.......
but whats the point of this discussion???
Every country have different 'goals' with their armies, some countries want their army to be good at winning a 'open' war, like the US, others, like Denmark, look more at peace-keeping operation and things like that, and we can all see that peace-keeping is not something the US are good at, look at Iraq
So why should we be able to support an amoured corps when we dont have an armoured corps here in Denmark and in many other coutries around the would??

BTW: the topic of this discussion is what is your favourit MBT, not which army is the best

 

I don't recall vouching for all the data presented on any of those websites. As I pointed out classified data cannot be verified no matter it's source.
It was for the publicly available data that I cited those sources. There is no controversy or secrecy surrounding the existence of nor essental capablities of SEP. If you don't like those sites the same data can be had from dozens of other sites.

OK from


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... enger2.htm


The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO.


I haven't seen any site say the Abrams is better armoured.

 

You know it, I know it, most people here know it.

 

So you insist that the debate be on your terms or I must be silenced?
I didn't say the things that you are attributing to me. In fact I think that I said that IMO it didn't make much differnce tank vs. tank since the first accurately placed shot wins. I don't recall mentioning nuclear weapons either.

Talk about not keeping to the point of the thread. Now the US "peacekeeping" in Iraq is repeatedly brought up by the same poster as a way to attack my opinions regarding armored warfare?

It's interesting that the posters that claim there is no point to this thread continue to post in response to every post by me.

BTW IMO peacekeeping and war fighting are two very different things and essentially incompatible. War fighting is brutal, savage and violent by necessity. This discussion is certainly outside the scope of this forum however and I will decline to discuss it here henceforth.

 

See the red portion. It doesn't matter what any site says about armor protection since the armor and tests that determine it's effectiveness are all classified. I stated the reasons those sources were cited, the unclassified data that is not seriously disputed. Do you choose to continue to ignore that?

 

I don't insist that you be silent or agree with me but if people are discussing tanks then dont bring something else in, there are many other topics on this board to discuss something else, elsewhere. You have the right to a point of view but if you want it to be taken seriously then keep to the same thread.

As for nuclear weapons I never said you did say it but you were bringing in the whole army, I was just mearly pointing out to you how far we could go using your arguments.

 

How can you say then, that the US improved on it, if you don't know the start point there is no bench mark.

Is that a hole in your foot?

 

I know that peace-keeping and warfare is two different things, but still not the topic, the topic is your favourit MBT or modren tanks, not best army, not best at peace-keeping, not who have the biggest most digital amry est est, but what is your favourit tank and that cant really be discussed because that is a personal thing on which tanks do you like and which you dont like

 

Thanks for the reminder about the topic of the thread. Please scroll back and see who brought up peacekeeping and the present conflict in Iraq.

This doesn't appear to be getting through. There is data..that which is available and accepted..and that is what those sorces were cited for.

Then there is opinion. I have placed all discussions about who has the best armor under opinion and have repeatedly stated so because of the fact that though data exists it is all classified and unavailable for review.
That includes my opinion that the US improved upon the Chobham armor..if you prefer we can gather from unclassified sources that they changed the armor at least since the US adopted DU plates rather than ceramic. That alone would verify that there is a difference between Chobham armor and Abrams armor.