Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams

[osti]

Russia has always built excellent tanks, and both east and west are great at adding bandaids to "fix" problems that crop up as battlefield reality changes with time.

I agree, T-34+ and JS were a good match to Tigers and Pkfw IV.

I still maintain that the urban setting of recent battles has marginalized the role of tanks in the future, as tanks don't belong in a well armed urban setting.

I disagree, Israeli tactics have proven to be feasible. However, they tend to strenghten their armoured units with APC that have sensors and high-fire-rate machinguns, to acquire and neutralize man-portable AT threat. Similar to Russian use of "tunguska" and "shilka" in urban fighting.

Then again, it seems clear to me that the most active area of development for tanks today (and the most secrecy in terms of work in progress) is in the area of modifying current models to survive highly man portable threats that used to be a mere footnote in the armored warfare playbook.

The trend in modern warfare is to design wheeled platform with tank armament (8x8 or 10x10 wheeled platform with 105/120mm canon). that way you get a well armed armour unit, that can be quickly transported via air (C-5/17 or An-124). Contrary to ship transport of todays tanks.

Tanks are still impressive, but then again, so must have been the last Tyrannosaurus Rex in it's time.


Voyager

LOL, wouldn't wanna meet a T-Rex in any setting. ;-)

As for "which tank is better", ... the moment a T with Russian crew, and a M1 with US crew meet in a fight is the moment when the world will see who is better tank builder. It is accidentally also the moment that WW3 starts and I don't believe that after WW3 anyone will be interested to know which tank is better. We'll all be more or less radiated and dead.

As for me, I'll stick to my M-70 (Yugoslav AK-47 model) and my LAW (Panzerfaust3). Infantry is still the king of the battlefield. ;-)

Lepe pozdrave,
osti

[osti]

Originally posted by limey_defence
Just one thing, well two actually.

1. The Isrealis hold the longest kill shot do they, at 3,800m? How come in World War 2 it was reported a German Ferdinand took out a T-34/76 at over 4500m?

[osti]
Could You please give me a link or some source to go with this fact. I'm somewhat of a freak on records ;-).

2. Did none of you see the M1 in action recently? One was hit by at least two RPGs and it was still moving and in fact still in action.

[osti]
Three to six hits (by RPG-7/18) were necessary to put a T out of commision in Grozny (http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=73708). So I guess M1 needs extra hits to get killed.

The M1 isn't invunerable, neither is the T-90. They are both very good tanks, and they do their job, the job a tank should do, very well.

[osti]
There is also the different doctrine in use of armoured units. US bets on quality and Air-Ground offensive, Soviets beted on quantity and Airborne troops combined with Armoured assault thrust.

LP
osti

[limey_defence]

Russians made very good tanks in World War 2, the T-34, KV and JS series of tanks were all good matches for the Tiger, PZ.IV and Pz. V 'Panthers' although I always still say the German ones were better (on paper and in battle), until they broke down..haha.

Of course, depending on area of the tank that was hit would be make it more or less vunerable, but as I remember it was hit on the side at least twice, the third strongest part on a tank (Turret front being strongest, and hull front being second).

Voy, well said, as long as the tank crews know what they are doing, it'll be 'fine'. The tank will never be replaced, it has a certain presence, not everyone knows it is practically useless, against a disorganised bunch of rebels with little or no knowledge of warfare, it'll have the kind of 'glow' around it that will cause fear. Modern conventional warfare will be fought in the air but I believe that the tank assualts will still be present for the fear factor...would you enjoy 20 or so T-90s rolling over the desert towards you?

Shilka, high-rate fire machineguns? 4*25mm AA cannons, it's not machineguns, but I get your point.

The Isrealis haven't proven anything, the Palestinians aren't equipped for even the slightest defensive or offensive operation. The Arms Embargo on them has prevented little if any anti-tank capability, I've seen them throwing stones at tanks...I bet the tank crew got really scared....haha.

The ones in the tanks won't be radiated, they have anti-radiation armour. One of the Soviet battle plans was to advance under Nuclear Strikes with Tanks, they wouldn't want to kill their own, would they?

I'll find a site, I got the info from a book, but I'm sure they'll be a site out there somewhere.

[osti]

Originally posted by limey_defence
Russians made very good tanks in World War 2, the T-34, KV and JS series of tanks were all good matches for the Tiger, PZ.IV and Pz. V 'Panthers' although I always still say the German ones were better (on paper and in battle), until they broke down..haha.

[osti]
Or ran out of gas :-).

Of course, depending on area of the tank that was hit would be make it more or less vunerable, but as I remember it was hit on the side at least twice, the third strongest part on a tank (Turret front being strongest, and hull front being second).

[osti]
As I recall, Chechens used to target fuel, engine and back of the turret. But that was possible because the depression/elevation of a T (or any other tank) didn't allow the main gun to be used against shoters in basements and third floors.
Iraqis and Palestinians lack that knowledge.

...would you enjoy 20 or so T-90s rolling over the desert towards you?

[osti]
Even one is good for scaring me. Don't want to be on the wrong side of the main gun of a T never again.

Shilka, high-rate fire machineguns? 4*25mm AA cannons, it's not machineguns, but I get your point.

[osti]
That 'machinegun' part was ment for the Israeli APC's (modified M113a3). And, ... isn't "shilka" a 4 barrel 23mm Anti-Aircraft radar-guided gun?

The Isrealis haven't proven anything, the Palestinians aren't equipped for even the slightest defensive or offensive operation. The Arms Embargo on them has prevented little if any anti-tank capability, I've seen them throwing stones at tanks...I bet the tank crew got really scared....haha.

[osti]
OK, that was a bad example.
However, I hope Russia won't sell any more guns to Arabs. They somehow manage to discredit excellent hardware, by loosing to a inferior enemy.

The ones in the tanks won't be radiated, they have anti-radiation armour. One of the Soviet battle plans was to advance under Nuclear Strikes with Tanks, they wouldn't want to kill their own, would they?

[osti]
This rises the point of advancing with tanks if the conquered territorry is radiated. Wouldn't a nuclear war mean the death of humanity? Or at least the large part of it.
As for killig their own, ... weren't there some rumors about deliberate friendly fire among Soviet Armies, advancing to Berlin, on a regular basis?
One of the Soviet doctrines included Airborne units seizing La Manche ports and waiting for tank columns from east to reach them. That's why US had tactical nukes in Germany (to stop the armour columns, then to destroy the Airborn element).

I'll find a site, I got the info from a book, but I'm sure they'll be a site out there somewhere.

[osti]
OK, thanks.

LP
osti

[limey_defence]

Well, the Armour units would not be destroyed by the radiation, maybe the blast, but not the radiation. This is why they could do it. Deliberate friendly fire, in the case of commisars shooting their own for cowardice or as the Americans call 'fragging' where two of the same kill one another for certain 'dislike', happened a lot in Vietnam apparently.
They wouldn't want to wipe out their whole army with such strikes. I'm sure NATO had similar plans resting on the Soviet Union. It was said to increase the advance by some 20 miles a day, so, they obviously knew not all would be dead. Nuke blasts would wipe a lot out, but most forces would be ready for the radiation with NBC suits, sat in their tanks or underground bunkers.

The Shilka does have a Quad 23mm Radar AA Cannon, you're absolutely right.

Here's a site, it does have a slight mention of the 4.5km kill...but it's a good site if anyone is interested in German Armour...maybe he's read the same books as me...haha....http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

[osti]

Originally posted by limey_defence
Well, the Armour units would not be destroyed by the radiation, maybe the blast, but not the radiation. This is why they could do it.

[osti]
Wouldn't their tanks be radiated. Since radiation would saturate armour? That would make them a rolling radiation sources? And also a hazardous objects.

Deliberate friendly fire, in the case of commisars shooting their own for cowardice or as the Americans call 'fragging' where two of the same kill one another for certain 'dislike', happened a lot in Vietnam apparently.

[osti]
I was reffering to the artillery of one SU general shooting at advancing infantry of the other SU general that was further into Berlin. It had to do with the prize and glory of being the first to conquer Berlin.
As for Vietnam, there is a good book, featuring stories by soldiers that fought in Vietnam. It was said by one flight crew member that if a pilot on the carrier *****ed about lazy mechanics, they took a screwdriver and put it in the turbine, and the pilot was MIA. ;-) I'll try and get the title of the book. It's funny. And gory.

Here's a site, it does have a slight mention of the 4.5km kill...but it's a good site if anyone is interested in German Armour...maybe he's read the same books as me...haha....http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

[osti]
OK, thx. I'll get right to it.

LP
osti

[Balamut]

Ok all you tank mm.. dislikers. Mine term paper went gold. Bring it on. I'll defend tanks role in the modern combat.

scandinavian wrote:

think it is obvious that a combination of stealth and intelligent weapons is the future. The tank represents the opposite.

US developes stealth tank. And what do you mean by inteligent weapons. I think tanks are intelligent enough.
And further more - tanks would not fight something stealth. Stealth is not suited for earth.

[Edited by Balamut on 29th April 2004 at 20:37]