 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Natan
M1A2 is the best all-around. The Merkava has more armor and the Leclerc has more speed, but IMHO the M1A2 is superior to them both. |
Yes it is. And they are getting a new upgrade in Electronic. Source is History Ch. last week.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
I believe that Leopard 2 and Abraams are the best MTBs currently.
I choosed Leopard though because of its higher mobility, good armor and the Rheinmetall cannon. I think that both MTBs operate better in different environments. In deserts like Iraq Abraams would probably operate better but in a European theater Leopard 2 would be more successful.
Abraams is a very heavy MTB but if use the uranium armor and shells then no enemy MTB can stand a chance against it.
T-90 is a very new MTB and I don't know a think about it but T-80 was a good MTB.
Merkava has a high survival factor.
Leclerc had good electronics.
BTW, why Leopard 2 A4 and not Leopard 2 A5?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:18
|
|
Serb: The M1A2 is better because it is better.
-The T-80/T-90 tanks have an "auto-loader" in place of a crewman. The crewman in an M1A2 can load shells faster and safer then an autoloader, and help out with damage control, maintainance, re-arming, and various other tasks, in addition to weighing less, and being more reliable.
-The M1A2 tank is faster then the T-90.
-The M1A2 tank consumes fuel at roughly the same rate as the T-90.
-The M1A2 has a larger fuel tank then the T-90.
-The Chobham reactive armor on an M1A2 is almost impossible to penetrate with any consistancy. This is the best and most efficient armor plating in the world, per inch and per pound.
-The main cannon on the M1A2 can fire farther and with greater accuracy then the gun on the T-90, especially when the vehicle is moving perpendicular to the angle of fire.
-The US army can afford more M1A2s then the Russian army can afford T-90s.
-Quality control of Abrams tanks is far superior to that over any Russian design. This is a problem that has plagued Russia since WW1.
-American soldiers have been driving the M1 series longer then Russians have been driving the T-80/90. This means that American tankers are better trained then their Russian counterparts.
-The vast majority of American combat tanks are M1A2s, or a variation thereof. There are some specialized versions of other vehicles (engineer tanks, bridge-layers, minesweepers...). The T-90 makes up less then a third of the Russian arsenal. Other vehicles include the T-80, the T-72, the T-55, and even some (in the Far East Military District) JS-3s, and T-34/45s.
I hope this helps.
Steele
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steelehc
Serb: The M1A2 is better because it is better.
-The T-80/T-90 tanks have an "auto-loader" in place of a crewman. The crewman in an M1A2 can load shells faster and safer then an autoloader, and help out with damage control, maintainance, re-arming, and various other tasks, in addition to weighing less, and being more reliable.
-The M1A2 tank is faster then the T-90.
-The M1A2 tank consumes fuel at roughly the same rate as the T-90.
-The M1A2 has a larger fuel tank then the T-90.
-The Chobham reactive armor on an M1A2 is almost impossible to penetrate with any consistancy. This is the best and most efficient armor plating in the world, per inch and per pound.
-The main cannon on the M1A2 can fire farther and with greater accuracy then the gun on the T-90, especially when the vehicle is moving perpendicular to the angle of fire.
-The US army can afford more M1A2s then the Russian army can afford T-90s.
-Quality control of Abrams tanks is far superior to that over any Russian design. This is a problem that has plagued Russia since WW1.
-American soldiers have been driving the M1 series longer then Russians have been driving the T-80/90. This means that American tankers are better trained then their Russian counterparts.
-The vast majority of American combat tanks are M1A2s, or a variation thereof. There are some specialized versions of other vehicles (engineer tanks, bridge-layers, minesweepers...). The T-90 makes up less then a third of the Russian arsenal. Other vehicles include the T-80, the T-72, the T-55, and even some (in the Far East Military District) JS-3s, and T-34/45s.
I hope this helps.
Steele |
The Abrams is the best tank.... by far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
BTW, if it is about most dominating tanks ever, I vote for the T34. For today´s tanks I can´t decide between M1 and Leo2... |
I'd vote for the Tiger Tank... the only reason they were not a factor in the outcome of WWII is because there weren't enough of them.
"Quantity has a quality all of its own."
-Lenin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Keygen
T-90 is a very new MTB and I don't know a think about it but T-80 was a good MTB. |
T-80U is entierly new tank (I don't know why constructors didn't gave different name for him, but just added one letter 'U'), it is not the same as old T-80 and it is better then T-90.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-03-2002 06:27
Attachment: 
|
