@real tankers

[Destraex]

What does this game leave out when it comes to classified information?
Surely if you buy it to train your men at home and the home user has access to buy it their are some things removed for secrecies sake.

Not that its likely that peeps will just get their hands on real tanks without being in the military ;)

[Trekker]

When it comes to classify gear, it's normally a timespan how long can things be keept secret. Eventually enought people has gained experiance, in this case tanks, for it to be impossible to keep classified. These vehicles are relativly old and can be seen at any armybase or armour museum around the world. But some stuff are sure to be secret, like true Rha values, but the game doesn't show that.

[Elf`]

.. evidenced by the way Chobham armor is dealt with... Its WAY too weak in the game compared to real version...

[Bluewings]

May I ask you how you know that Elf ?
Do you have infos that eSim , or Tanknet , or Paul L. , or V. Fofanov , or anyone else do not have ?

Share it please !
.............................
(sarcastic mode off)

You might be right , but there is very little way to find out actually . Now , regarding the armor values used in ProPE ~when it works the way it is intended to~ , we 're not that far from the truth . But the problem is two-fold :

#1 : Penetrators are usually or underestimated or overestimated .
#2 : Armor values are usually or underestimated or overestimated .

Back to square one .

Few facts can help nevertheless :

The Leo2A4 can be penetrated up front by DM53 at up to 2000m where the Leo2A5 cannot .
The M1A1HA can be penetrated up front by M829A2 at up to 2000m but not by M829A1 (unless fired at point blank range) .
The T72 can be penetrated up front by both M829A1 and DM53 at up to 3500m .
Kontakt-5 ERA can stop DM43 at all range .
Leclerc and Challenger II are irrelevant for SB .

From there , it is possible to have educated guesses .

To be honest , I think that in fact you 're just bitching about the SB Abrams being too weak and the DM53 being too strong . :wink:
And don 't start talking about the M829A3 as this penetrator is NOT fielded in the US because it wears out the barrel too fast . The US did develop this round as a futur penetrator for a possible L52 or L55 gun .

Any Tank can be penetrated from the flank anyway , especially by the latest RPGs . Some Abrams in Irak fell to them . The only tank who has never been penetrated by RPGs is the British Challenger II , simply because they mounted some awesome add-on armor like shown on this pic :

http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/4061/challenger2advance5ps.jpg

I posted numerous things in the past about armor values and penetration of many different rounds . The fact is Countries are stuck with how much they can afford to equip their respective Tank fleet . As an exemple , it is relatively easy for France to get the best for only 400 Leclercs but it is a different matter for the US or Russia , or China as they have huge Tank fleet . It simply cost too much . Even the simple quality of the employed steel comes into play .

The debate still going on ... :?

In ProPE , it works pretty well , as long as things work the way it is supposed to , which is not totally the case now , but the good news is that it can only get better . :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Elf`]

How do I know that....Well, BW, since there is a preponderance of REAL data from 2 REAL wars, where M1 was getting shot at, by both enemy and Friendly, it should be obvious to you. Unfortunatly, it isnt. You are a Leophile, and that cannot be changed. Ask Real tankers who have been in Real wars if the M1 armor is accurate. They will tell you it not even close.

[FlatTax]

I've gotta say, (regularly) losing an Abrams to a single frontal shot from a T-72 seems out of step with historical reality...

[CommC]

Elf is 100% correct. I can get you the references if you wish.

I agree the M1 armor is significantly underpowered in SB and Pro PE.

[Elf`]

CommC please do, lets settle this paper tiger M1 crap once and for all. Thank you in advance.....

[3Star]

I don't know of any M1A1s that have been hit frontally by M829A2 rounds. The M829A1 was the 'silver bullet' of the 1991 war fame, and in SB, you're going to be bouncing shots off the front of an Abrams with that round just as happened in real life. (The glacis seems to be your best shot in the game, which is about right since it's only about two inches thick, even though radically sloped) Ultimately, it's all 'guessing', but the result seems pretty close so far.

As for the rest of the systems, I can't think of anything in the tank that might have been dropped from SB for security reasons. There are things not implemented, such as MRS updates, or the filter/clear switch, but that's just pointless fidelity.

I'd be curious to see CommC's figures and sources. I wasn't aware anything had been publicly released. Heck, I don't know them, and I'm an armour officer with a 'Secret' clearance.

NTM

[Bluewings]

REAL data from 2 REAL wars, where M1 was getting shot at

Elf , are you saying that being shot at by Irakis BM15 rounds (steel penetrators) or BM12 ~ training rounds~ is an accurate way to mesure the toughness of the M1A1HA 's armor ??! :shock:
You must be joking ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Bluewings]

I can get you the references if you wish.

Let 's see them .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[smangs]

I just know that we weren't told ANYTHING about the Leo2A4 armor capabilities in the Bundeswehr. They just taught us how to use the damn thing and keep it going :-).

[Hell_Hound]

I've gotta say, (regularly) losing an Abrams to a single frontal shot from a T-72 seems out of step with historical reality...

Check the ammo in the scenarios you're playing. Many scenario authors up the challenge by giving T-72 the best-ever Warsaw Pact ammo, which if memory serves is BM-42. Designed to kill composite-armored NATO tanks.

In comparison, the rounds which hit M1s in Desert Storm (and were soundly defeated by the armor package) were first-generation garbage.

Asking real tankers is no way to get good information on a tank's armor; this is one of those cases where a statistician can tell you more than anyone with 'first-hand knowledge'.

By way of illustration, 100% of the Sherman crewmen I've spoken to were not killed by enemy fire while in their tanks. Makes Sherman's armor sound pretty good.

[Bluewings]

I got datas , here they are :

You don 't choose an armor package simply because you like the words "DU layers" or "Dyneema" or "Titanium" .
You choose an armor package because of 2 things :
#1 : its efficiency proven during TESTING
#2 : its cost (value for money)

The US ran many tests on the M1A1HA 's armor in 1989 . These tests were to show the quality of the whole package as well as the effect of DU toxic dust on the crew in case of penetration .
During these tests , the US fired different things at the Abrams HA front turret ~where the DU Layer is~ .

They fired :
# Hellfire missile Block 1 .
# 120mm APFSDS, KE Tungsten
# 120mm, Heat-MP
# 100mm AP-C steel rod
# 120mm APFSDS, KE DU rounds (M829A1)

Without going into details ~it would take pages and ages~ the results talk for themselves :

The Abrams M1A1HA front turret has ben penetrated by both ATGM and DU penetrators . The "armor values" that you can find on the net are well off the mark . As an exemple , it is reported that the M1A1HA turret has a resistance of 1080 RHA against CE (Chemical Energy : HEAT/ATGM) . WRONG !
The Hellfire Block 1 can only penetrate 900mm equivalent RHA ! But it DID penetrate and (quote) "caused a fire that consumed the vehicle" and "a penetrator might have been ejected from one of the storage compartments into the crew compartment and then completely oxidized during the test" :shock:

Same with KE values , It is reported that the front turret has 750mm RHA versus Sabots hits , but the M829A1 rounds did penetrate and the turret 's interior was severely damaged by fire due to the pyrophoric effect of the DU rounds . It has to be noted that the rounds were fired at almost point blank range .
The M829 Tungsten penetrators did NOT penetrate ...

When the results of these tests were shown to the US Military and to the US Congress , they decided to untake the developement of the M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2 which have a much better armor packages .

The HA version of the Abrams is almost 18 years old and it shows .
Similar tests conducted on the Leo2A5 and Leclerc demonstrated the opposite , both Tanks did withstand multiple hits from various ammunition .

The facts reported in this post come from Fliszar, Richard W., Edward F. Wilsey, and Ernest W. Bloore, Radiological Contamination from Impacted Abrams Heavy Armor, Technical Report BRL-TR-3068, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Ballistic Research Laboratory, December 1989.
I have the reports under my eyes and only copy/paste the results .

The "Invincibility" of the Abrams M1A1HA is a legend who does not stand scrutiny .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Enrage]

BW,

I think you a forgetting or don't completely understand American political-military-contractor relations. Let's say the US Army wants money for a new tank or updated. The only way they can get a bill through Congress is to prove to Congress just what a piece of crap we have to use. So you do some "tests" that prove just how outdated and underperfoming the current equipment is and therefore secure your funding for a new tank. I mean after all, how many Senators want to have mothers of dead tankers knocking on thier offices because the Senator wouldn't spend money on new equipment?

As a sidenote, that is why so many American media sources doubted the M1 during Desert Shield. They all exercised thier rights under the Freedom of Information Act and looked at the paperwork from the development of the M1. It was mostly negative and cast doubts on the Abrams ability to perform in an ideal environment, much less the hot and dusty deserts of the Middle East. These reporters also forget about military-contractor relations. The only way the Army will get a contractor to chnge a spec on a vehicle is to write a report on how seriously messed up a specific part is. So all the paperwork these reporters looked at was negative! No wonder the Abrams survivability was called into question! If you only look at "official" data, you're bound to get "official" and not nessacarily realistic results.

The best test of equipment is combat, and is ultimately is the final one. A tank will be remembered for what they did or failed to do in combat. Laboratory tests do not matter. The Abrams has been involved in two major wars in 12 years, and has performed to a standard above any tank in the world. It's record is sterling, a testament to those who built it and crew it. So wave RHA numbers in our face, the only tank I will be riding in combat in is an M1 Abrams.

[Bluewings]

Well , I do not deny that politics are deeply involved in decision making . The F22 Raptor is a prime exemple :wink:

But you cannot dismiss scientific reports simply because you like your Tank , which is perfectly understandable :)
The facts remains .
The Abrams has been involved in two major wars in 12 years, and has performed to a standard above any tank in the world
"Any Tank in the world" ... That is pushing a bit , don 't you think ?

IMHO , the Chally performed as well if not better than the Abrams and the French AMX-30B2 was no push over neither .
Just try to invade the United Arab Emirat , they have 390 Leclerc T5s and we 'll see which Tank will get the upper hand :wink: :lol:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

The United Arab Emirat (UAE) are our good buddies now. The UAE is overrun with US forces at the moment. There's no need to invade. We are already there.

[trackblock]

Well , I do not deny that politics are deeply involved in decision making . The F22 Raptor is a prime exemple :wink:

But you cannot dismiss scientific reports simply because you like your Tank , which is perfectly understandable :)
The facts remains .
The Abrams has been involved in two major wars in 12 years, and has performed to a standard above any tank in the world
"Any Tank in the world" ... That is pushing a bit , don 't you think ?

IMHO , the Chally performed as well if not better than the Abrams and the French AMX-30B2 was no push over neither .
Just try to invade the United Arab Emirat , they have 390 Leclerc T5s and we 'll see which Tank will get the upper hand :wink: :lol:

Cheers . :3starSK:

French AMX-30B2, 390 Leclerc??? what about concusion tests? oh, they've never been in combat. They should also be concerned about the rear armor ratings! :lol:

[Bluewings]

oh, they've never been in combat.

AMX-30B2 was in the first GW mate .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[trackblock]

oh, they've never been in combat.

AMX-30B2 was in the first GW mate .

Cheers . :3starSK:

any get hit?

[Enrage]

But you cannot dismiss scientific reports simply because you like your Tank

I am not dismissing it without considering the info. The info you put forth was published by the US Army. However, the US Army has a tendency to underevaluate thier equipment for multiple reasons, mostly to push the powers that be for better equipment and to hide the true capabilities of our equipment.

The Abrams has been involved in two major wars in 12 years, and has performed to a standard above any tank in the world
"Any Tank in the world" ... That is pushing a bit , don 't you think ?

No, I don't think it is pushing it. Considering the actions the M1s have taken part in, I would not call it a stretch it at all. The Abrams was the first American vehicle into Bahgdad, a situation supposed to be impossible for tanks. The fastest movement it military history (in the right direction) was undertaken by American armor. The action seen by the Callenger was mostly in the south, far easier than the Karbala gap or the Sunni triangle. So, no I don't think I'm stretching it.

[Hell_Hound]

"There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am.
Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming."

That's Gandalf the Grey talking - but it could just as well be the Challenger or Leclerc. ;)

[chrisotto]

If you only look at "official" data, you're bound to get "official" and not nessacarily realistic results.

"Official" vs. "Realistic"? What's the difference? You can always changes the variables and conditions to work scientific evidence in a certain direction, but publishing the what the difference was about makes science science.

"Realistic"? Again, the M1 has managed to build an impressive combat record solely on the fact that the systems was in use vs. obsolete or incorrectly used equipment. So again, combat results were impressive, but nonetheless, that is not what results from a controlled environment. Then, the M1s availability ratio sure is high, but again uncompareable vs. peace-time armies. M1 mechanics don't get payed overtime in the field, I'm sure, but then again, the situation requires different preparedness. The M1 has experienced losses, in GW1 (most notably Medina Ridge), and OIF (the misterious small hole in the side, the POL situation during the first Thunder Run towards Baghdad Intl Airport, and some) - no tank is invincible.

BW: The LeClerc is a mighty thing on any range, but it lacks combat experience and the wear and tear of 24/7 operations. You sure know alot, is there any reference to a "stress-test" done by Thales? Anything similar for other equipment?

I can speak for the Swiss Army in the following way: The equipment (Leo 2/ Pz 87, Piranha, M109, M113, G Wagon / Puch, CV 1090) used by the reservists here is insofar impressive, that a totally chaotic bunch of civilians can perform at combat standards while 3 weeks a year. That says alot to me on flexibility, complexity (better the lack thereof) and survivability (ever seen hydraulics, explosives and loads of bhp in the hands of imbeciles? I have, again, and again...)

[Bluewings]

I know that the UAE is a friendly Country TopKick , I was just kidding around :wink:

What is striking me is the fact that US Citizens don 't even know ~or don 't want to remember~ who was fighting GW1 and what with .
And what is ennoying me to the highest degree is the fact that both Gulf Wars were fought against stupid Irakis who don 't have a clue on how to fight a War , and have totally crap systems and did not know how to use them . So , now the US think that they have the best guns and that they are the best and can take anyone on ! :casstet:

This is a joke .

When one presents scientific evidences , they get dismissed because "There is always a political decision behind it" ! :lol:
Germany , England and France could have done the same with their respective Tanks too , but it is not the case because these Tanks are performing the way they are expected to perform . No need to "falsify" reports to get money here .

When you put a Tank in a middle of a field and start firing stuff at it , you clearly see if it works or not . But no , some people don 't "accept" the results of very serious tests because it goes against their beliefs and "dreams" . What kind of partiality is that ??!

The M1A1HA was the 1st Tank in Bahgdad so it has to be the best Tank in the entire World ! What kind of bullshit is that ??!
*********************************
Yes , the AMX-30B2 did get hit in Irak by Iraki sabots too and we didn 't loose one . We returned fire and beat the crap out of T-55s and T-72s too . Did you hear me bragging about it ? no .

Leclerc was the 1st Tank to enter Kosovo and the Serbs simply retreated when they saw the French Tanks coming . Did you hear me bragging about it ? no .

If you want to compare an Abrams model against the Leo2A5/Leo2A6 or the STRV122 or the Leclerc , you 'll better choose the M1A2SEP and not the HA . That Tank is 18 years old and would be wiped out .

When some US posters on these forums will leave their "Cowboy" attitude outside the door , we might have a decent conversation ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[trackblock]

unfortunately, the M1A2 isn't in PE. Us former/current U.S. tankers get an 18yr old tank.

[3Star]

I seem to recall that the Qataris lost a couple of AMX-30s at Khafji. That was a nasty little fight.

Unfortunately, in real life I use an 18-year-old-tank.

OK. I lie. The builder's date on Barely Legal was 1989. 16 years old.

NTM

[ShotMagnet]

"There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are greater than I am.
Against some I have not yet been measured. But my time is coming."

That's Gandalf the Grey talking - but it could just as well be the Challenger or Leclerc.

:)


Shot

[-=2RTR=-SOMNUS]

HA!

Two interior shots of Challenger 2! I found em on the army site! You can see the CCP and parts of the GCP too... I don't know who the knobs in the pics are though... Probably some cav punters... Wait... Thats not even the real fighting compartment. Thats the TGT... Turret Gunnery Trainer

Mind you the last image with the bike is of a QRL tank that we had on loan because we were diffy a tank... Looks like Sgt. Mads on the turret there... Funny finding guys you served with in big picture things like the Army's site... Like people always said "The Army is a small world"

[-=2RTR=-SOMNUS]

MAN!

I miss my wagon, dammit!!!





FYI the extra armour on the Chally 2 is called "DORSET", from what I was told in Lulworth... But they never really told us much of anything about our protection exept that it was the best in the world... Also the heaviest... Not a great combination, but still good...

[-=2RTR=-SOMNUS]

Holy crud!

I know these knobs!

The one on the left is a full screw now and the other one is fresh as a virgins brown eye!!!

The full screw was a recce punter, but before I left he was moved to Cyclops...

[Bluewings]

The Chally II is a Beast , it has to be said . I love it ! :P

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Enrage]

BW, in the interest of blood pressure I am going to stipulate the following:
1. The Leopard 2A4, 2A5, LeClerk, and Challenger II are more survivable, with better protection in terms of equivilent RHA than the M1A1 (HA).

I will still say the the M1 has faired better in combat than any other tank in the world. To me, that is the ultimate test of a tank. If you were to put me on any tank in combat, not a lab, I would choose an M1.

If you think I have a cowboy attitude, then fine. Does that make you any smarter or better person than me?

EDIT: Chrisotto, the difference between "official" and "realistic" can be seen in the Abrams top speed. I won't reveal the top speed, but according to people in the know, it is far in excess of 68 kmh.

[3Star]

Pointless bloody argument.

NTM

[Sean]

The best kind!

Pointless bloody argument.

NTM

[12Alfa]

M1 has faired better in combat than any other tank in the world

uuuummmmmm, er,,ah,,,lets see..

# of m1A1s made combat ineffictive.....1 or greater
# of Challenger2's made combat ineffictive...1 reported.

I find that statement rather vauge, but will look up the details, however off the top of my head, i would say the challengers 2's (in combat) have had a better time of it, this of course all things (# of mbts for each nation) being equal.

I can see that you both love your tanks, BW I knew, and now another person of "blood pressure" hehehe. I found another button to push....standby.....

[Bluewings]

It wasn 't an argument , really . Just a hot chat ! :)
No bad feeling :wink:

I certainly do not wish to see the Leos , Challys or Leclercs going to War but I am pretty sure that they would kick ass big time .
Btw , Leclerc has been taken to 76km/h . I got a video of it .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[3Star]

TankNet has reported an instance of Abrams breaking 100mph on a test track. (160 km/h). Of course, it wasn't combat loaded, and the tracks were ripped apart doing it, but it did it... I had my clapped-out tank doing 45mph (72 km/h) on level ground in Iraq; one with a working engine and not carrying a full load of ammo would do better.

It seems to me that you're as guilty of saying Leclerc is the best tank in the world as the Abrams mafia is of saying the Abrams is the best tank in the world.

NTM

[Elf`]

I Like the M1A4. It has Laser guns, a dual Plasma coax and RHA eq on the front turret of 4 KM!. Beat that Leclercies!! :)

[Bluewings]

It seems to me that you're as guilty of saying Leclerc is the best tank in the world

Certainly not . The Leo2A6 is a better Tank , with better Gun , better Armor and better Tracks .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Volcano]

Again, the size of the gun does not matter (it is how you use it, j/k):). The doctrine, tactics and training and proficiency level of the crew are combat multipliers that can override any tank design. Also, if the crew has a higher likelyhood of surviving the tank getting killed, then they will only grow in experience when they get their next tank, and you do not have to draw on lower quality replacements.

This is the biggest advantage of stressing crew survivability in tank design. All of the western tanks are good designs, and some may have little edges over the other in certain aspects, but none just totally outclass the other. So what it comes down to is how it is used and the brains that sit inside the thing.

[Bluewings]

Volcano , it is like saying Shumacher is a better driver than me . Of course He is .
But a Ferrari is a better car than a Citroen 2CV . We compare cars so why not comparing Tanks ?

The Leo2A6 is the best Tank in the World .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Hellfish6]

Have any Leopard 2s ever seen combat anywhere in the world? I know I've seen a gunfight involving a German Leo in Kosovo, but IIRC the crew wasn't even in the tank.

Likewise, have LeClercs?

[Lone*star49]

...

~ The best tank in the world ~ hasn't been built yet

The exsisting best tanks in the world have.

So, let the next tanking contest (and their crews) begin.


LS :?

[Wahrborg]

There where some unconfirmed roumers that some LeClercs where caught up (read deployed) in the fighting around Tetovo Macedonia during the civil war in 2001. I didnt see them thoe, but was sneaking around in the mountains mostly.

[Bluewings]

No . But Leo 1s and 2s as well as Leclerc were deployed in Kosovo .
The Serbs avoided any direct contact with them .

http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/8250/mac00179oj.jpg
http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/3579/mac00286bb.jpg
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8338/leopard2a5018ag.jpg
http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/4829/leclerc00823yp.jpg
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8872/leclercserie20053bq.jpg

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Hell_Hound]

Can we start a separate forum for "Best tank in the world" threads? :)

[12Alfa]

The Leo2A6 is the best Tank in the World .

Cheers . :3starSK:

I would think that the Merkava-4 would out class the Leo2A6

And given it I think has seen combat, little I know is as all of you stated "combat proven" meets all of the facts debated here.
Better armour, better FCS, beter C3,better crew protection, better mine protection, better tracks,and of course and modular armour system to fit the mission.

and as we all know a atgm/ammo through the tube system.

So there, ponder that for a moment and reconsider you best tank statements....

I love this thread, heheheheh :oops:

[ShotMagnet]

Holy crud!

I know these knobs!

The one on the left is a full screw now and the other one is fresh as a virgins brown eye!!!

English, please.

:)

Can we start a separate forum for "Best tank in the world" threads?
Can we start that thread, then nuke it from orbit, then salt the earth from which it spawned? 'It's the only way to be sure'.


Shot

[RecceDG]

Can we start a separate forum for "Best tank in the world" threads?

WHAT?? Are you CRAZY?

This forum is CLEARLY the best place to have this discussion. What are you, some sort of crazy Yankee cowboy or something?

:D :D

(I'd take Chally 2 with the gun swapped out for the gun from the Leo 2A6)

DG

[Bluewings]

Better armour, better FCS, beter C3,better crew protection, better mine protection, better tracks,and of course and modular armour system to fit the mission.


# Better armor : I don 't think so . I 'd like to see a Merk4 taking 13 DM53s up front without dying . But the Merk4 has an excellent top turret protection .
# Better FCS : from what I 've been told , the Merk4 is using something very similar than Leclerc . If it 's true , the Merk4 has indeed the advantage . (I believe Leclerc has the best FCS bar none)
# Better crew protection : I don 't know ...
# Better mine protection : That 's possible . The Chally II is very good in that compartment too .
# Better tracks : No doubt . There , the Merk4 wins hands down .
# Modular armor system : add-on armor can be used on German Tanks as well .

It is a very close call anyway ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[smangs]

I believe that this thread is moot, especially since not all of these tanks mentioned have been in combat and combat alone is also not really proof. If you had combat between a Leo2 and an M1 then we can compare facts but talking about Iraqi tanks vs US's M1's is just silly. M1s could engage them on a distance where the Iraqi's did not even know what was going on. The US had satellite and air coverage, while the Iraqi's were running blind. In addition, Iraqi armor training and doctrine was Cold War Soviet doctrine and very predictable and therefore catastrophic to their troops. I believe that any of those tanks mentioned would have done VERY WELL in the hands of a well trainined and equipped force and would have caught the Iraqi's with their pants down. Russian tanks were developed to win because of numerical superiority and not because of survivability and modern fire control systems. I do not believe that the US would have lost any Leo2's if they would have been deployed in any of the Gulf Wars. I believe that the main discussion should be concentrated on costs and supportability in the field. The Leo2, for example, does not require as much support as the M1 does, so that would be an advantage. In addition, diesel fuel is easily available and cheap to produce. On the other hand, the M1's turbine is pretty quick to bring the tank to full speed but sucks gas like no other. The Merk was specifically developed for inner city fighting and against an enemy that would use unconvential weapons and tactics and therefore it's armor depicts this. However, it would probably not fair so well in open Cold War style maneuver warfare. However, it was not designed for that purpose, so why compare it? This again, is just my opinion and I only have first hand experience with the Leo2A4, and not even our officers that went to Israel were able to check out the interior of the Merk, so all of this could just be BS :-).

[Hell_Hound]

Smangs wins the thread. :)

[Ssnake]

What does this game leave out when it comes to classified information?
Crypto modules of radio equipment are not modelled - but then again, that's user transparent anyway and we don't need to know or model that anyway. Armor strengthes are estimates. They can be accurate - or not. For the required degree of fidelity of this simulation, what we have is probably good enough. Ammo performance. Well, I think that we're pretty good here, though not perfect.
We don't have access to classified information, and we don't want it (makes talking to customers and on the internet too complicated for my taste). Actually, I think that we don't need it, given the scope of what Steel Beasts attempts to portray. Don't use our software to predict the outcome of future battles. Don't use our software to determine the exact "safe range" against a particular type of ammunition that will leave you unharmed in your tank. Don't use our software to determine the exact range below which you are guaranteed to kill a certain type of target with a specific type of ammunition.

[-=2RTR=-SOMNUS]

Sorry kids... M1's combat rating is not so good.

I watched an M1 take an RPG in the kiester and she was diffy. The only thing thats completely written off a CHally 2 so far is another Chally 2. The blue on blue case with Cpt. Pinkstone 2RTR on the QRL tank at 4000m with long range HESH engagment.

Pinky was my commander (prat)... And I trained the gunner on the QRL wagon... Trp. Granger if I recall correctly, atleast thats what I last heard.

We had one tank from Cyclops take a MILAN and that pierced er. But they were aquired by the republican guard off some of our commandos. I had to clean that stupid wagon and get someone to guard er while we waitted for Vickers to come and take er back to the UK for testing. They were quite confused that the tank had been penatrated. Mind you is was in a really weak spot. But the Jocks had one wagon take nine RPG hits and two MILAN and after RTBing they replaced their episcopes and were back in action the next morning.

The M1 would wasn't even on the list of gunnery gurus down at lulworth. Actually the Merkava Mk IV was ranked number one more then once. Very nasty piece of kit. Even though I worked with Chally 2 I think her teething problems were similar to that of the Panther of WWII. And if the UK took it'sfinger out of it's butt and forked over the little bit extra for a domestic version of the Chally 2 Echo, we'd have been better off. That's like the TES kit out in BATUS, for an extra 12 quid each soldier could have had GPS on his chest rig! We had one guy run over by a tank and lost two for a couple of days out in the area... For a couple of quid!? I mean each figure 11 is worth no less then $450,000 canadian after his training phase on and two.

Favorite tanks will always be down to which one got you through combat. most will praise the tank that got them through, but the ones who lost mates will curse it. I don't care which is the best aslong as it has the Challenger 2's gunners control handle. and similar tracking system. So far I've see nothing like it, nothing evern close to being as good. Unless someone else has *class one classified*?

[-=2RTR=-SOMNUS]

just a note...

Also we bumped into alot of iraqi wagons with one guy crewing em... or maybe two, very very hard to find a tank fully crewed. So it was like shooting fish in a barrel...

I was petrified of getting "gulf war syndrome" so I didn't climb on knocked out tanks. The DU made em more then 4000x more radio active then a human should be subject to. Thus I stayed a hell of a far distance away.

My mate had some good pictures of an iraqi T-72 about 500m to his front go like a bat outta hell towards his CVRT, so he got closer then me! Great picture... His rational was "My poxy 30mm aint gonna hurt it so I might aswell hide and take pictures instead" plus he has some great shot of a cobra knocking it out about 200m to his front...

All my pics got confiscated...Bas*ards! But I did get some iraqi mortar cases back, great for carring maps, fully waterproof...

[Bluewings]

I don't care which is the best aslong as it has the Challenger 2's gunners control handle. and similar tracking system. So far I've see nothing like it, nothing evern close to being as good. Unless someone else has *class one classified*?

Try to put your hands on the Leclerc's handle and FCS if you get the chance :wink:
But if you 've been in the CHII Echo , you 've seen some of SAGEM stuff . First rate .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[-=2RTR=-SOMNUS]

I 'd love to play with the leclerk...

The way I see it, if its got tracks and a big f*ck off gun I'm there mate!
Nothing on this planet like sending a 120mm HESH down range and watching your target disapear in a cloud of fire and dust!

[CommC]

There were really only two relevant data points from the (1st) Gulf War:
1. A US M1A1HA got bogged down in sand. US troops tried to destroy it with another M1A1HA, firing a DU round (829A1?) at the front turret which did not penetrate. Subsequent shots in the rear destroyed the tank.

2. In several friendly fire incidents, M1A1HAs were hit in the side turret by DU sabot rounds which penetrated and passed through out the other side.

These events are documented in many Gulf War books including "Crusade" by Rick Atkinson, and "Certain Victory", the US army's official version. I don't believe there are any reports where an Iraqi tank round caused damage to an M1. There are a couple accounts where Iraqi rounds hit the front turret armor and bounced off.

[12Alfa]

The Merk was specifically developed for inner city fighting and against an enemy that would use unconvential weapons and tactics and therefore it's armor depicts this. However, it would probably not fair so well in open Cold War style maneuver warfare. However, it was not designed for that purpose, so why compare it?

Why would a mbt need a 120 for street fighting?. Why would a mbt meed 70+ ton of armour for street fighting?.
You post makes no sence. The tank is designed for the open battfiels, or against Sirian tanks, or Egypt's tank force which happends to be M1's.
They have apc/micv to work the citys. The tank is used for city fighting , but not designed for it as a starting point.
I hope some of our IDF friends will set you stright on this as you seemed to be way off on this tank.a 120 for city fighting, ya right.

[3Star]

I don't believe there are any reports where an Iraqi tank round caused damage to an M1

There apparently were two instances of Iraqi equipment penetrating Abrams, one by a tank, the other a BMP. In both cases, the shot came from the side/rear, and in neither case were there any crew casualties.

The Merk was specifically developed for inner city fighting and against an enemy that would use unconvential weapons and tactics and therefore it's armor depicts this.

I'm with 12A on this. Merkava was designed as a conventional-combat tank, taking the lessons from the 1967 and 1973 wars into account. All its features, from the heavy armour, frontal engine, and crew evacuation hatch, were designed with this in mind.

It happens as a happy coincidence that the tank is unusually useful for the urban fight as well, especially with the later modifications that they have put in, such as the CCTV system, remote MGs, and so on, but as 12A says, that was not the main point of the design.

NTM

[mbv]

According to Steven Zaloga in the Osprey volume on the M1 in the 1st Gulf War at least seven M1A1 Abrams took direct hits by 125mm projectiles. None of these penetrated and no M1's were disabled. There was one case of a M1A1 being hit by two 125mm APFSDS fired in succession from just 500 metres. One hit the hull front and one hit the turret front and there was no injury to the crew or vehicle. In all there were 18 cases of combat damage to the M1A1 and of the 9 permanent losses all were due to friendly US fire. The other nine were mainly due to mines with all mined cases being repairable.

[smangs]

First off, I am not going to get into a pissing contest over this. I said that it was my opinion and that's that.

About the 120, why develop a tank that has less firepower? Israel had some bad experience in Lebanon's cities with tanks, so the Merk depicts that. You DO need heavy armor for inner city fighting, especially top armor, which is also depicted by the Merk.

Believe me that IED's can have more descructive power than a Sabot hit, especially if it is dropped on any of the hatches or directed against the track. All I said, is that the tank was developed with inner city fighting in mind and not just for large scale maneuver warfare, which was the design focus of the M1 and Leo2. However, I do also believe that Syrian and Egyptian tanks were definitely a consideration.

However, I do NOT believe that my post does not make any sense. No one has the complete picture, especially when it comes to the Merk (any info on it is very secret) and dismissing a post based on one fact is just plain silly. I notice that with a lot of people on message boards. They concentrate on a single point in a post that might be a little vague or could be interpreted differently, so suddenly EVERYTHING does not make sense and therefore the entire arguement is wrong. Well, if you got knowledge that contradicts my post then I am more than happy to learn something from you.

However, I used to be a tank gunner in the "Bundeswehr" so I got a little experience with tanks and their use. However, as I mentioned in another post, I do have very little experience when it comes to strategy and tactics because that is what our tank commanders were concerned about.

Got this from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava). So it seems that both of us were right. The original Merkava was not designed for Urban Warfare but all the improvements to it seem to concentrate on that. So, I guess my post was NOT complete BS, right?:

The Merkava Mk 2 was first brought into service in 1983. It introduced several improvements focusing on urban warfare and crew survivability including an internal 60mm mortar system, following Israel's incursion into Lebanon in 1982 and the battles in Beirut.

Merkava Mk 4
The Merkava Mk 4 is the latest generation in Israel's Merkava main battle tanks series, in service from 2004. It offers extra protection to the crew with more powerful and accurate fire systems.

Optimized for urban combat, the Merkava has improved armour not only on the front of the tank but on the sides and top as well. The armour is modular so only damaged plates need replacement when the tank is hit. The Mk 4 also has additional crew survivability features: each component is designed to act as back-up protection if the main armour is penetrated. The Mk 4 has an integrated air conditioning and NBC protection system. Ammunition is stored in fire-proof canisters.



The Merk was specifically developed for inner city fighting and against an enemy that would use unconvential weapons and tactics and therefore it's armor depicts this. However, it would probably not fair so well in open Cold War style maneuver warfare. However, it was not designed for that purpose, so why compare it?

Why would a mbt need a 120 for street fighting?. Why would a mbt meed 70+ ton of armour for street fighting?.
You post makes no sence. The tank is designed for the open battfiels, or against Sirian tanks, or Egypt's tank force which happends to be M1's.
They have apc/micv to work the citys. The tank is used for city fighting , but not designed for it as a starting point.
I hope some of our IDF friends will set you stright on this as you seemed to be way off on this tank.a 120 for city fighting, ya right.

[chrisotto]

Crypto modules of radio equipment are not modelled - but then again, that's user transparent anyway and we don't need to know or model that anyway.

You could redesign the Dongle to resemble a Fill-Gun, to add a certain amount of realism to the dongle thingy.

That's my idea, and you're gonna pay for it - IPR! IPR! IPR! - :twisted:

[12Alfa]

ummmm ok