Future Main Battle Tank
-
Why the infantility? Look, you really don't need to prove anything to us, we accept you as you are. Just because your ideas are really bad does not mean people dun like you, just your ideas... xiao qi man...Originally posted by gogogogo:
i am always under control....situations included......, i am just not paid that well. And now that you are back to get some more wanking from me........i think your visions of a future main tank sucks! it never will work! you went too far out.
one suggestion on main tanks which i think you should know. Paintwork is important. Not the weapon capabilities. Dun laugh if i tell you that paintwork is neglected and the whole tank (no matter how fantastic the firepower may be) just rust out of service. -
On the internet, words speak louder then denials, and if you would take pause to think, you would realize that you are only proving my point and contradicting yourself more and more with every one of your attempts to "get the last word in". Step back and notice how much this seems like "truly asia's" attitude towards communication, which is a three step process... Blast your grieviences, deny offense, shoot yourself in the foot... and then Blast even more greviences for shooting yourself in the foot... so on and so forth.Originally posted by gogogogo::....i am the MODERATOR! i dun fear if i ever get banned. really i dun. about my ego...what makes you think that i lost it or got mr ego hurted?
where did you get this idea? oh yes, from my previous postings i presume?
Not again!
Nuff said. -
Errr. back to main battle tanks?
-
Sounds good, assuming that is, there is no more noise from up north.
So be it back to MBTs. -
A possible future weapon for MBTs will be rail guns... whatchya think?
-
A distinct possibility. They are looking into it as a matter of fact for the beyond intern FCS systems.
-
erm, sorry about my suaku-ness, but will anyone pls explain how rail guns work??? thx in advanceOriginally posted by Shotgun:A possible future weapon for MBTs will be rail guns... whatchya think? -
Electromagnetic gun... aka E.M
hmm.. watch ERASER the movie with Arnie in it.... Has Rail Guns.... -
Upz
-
I'm for the M1A2 as being the best tank about... The Leopard 2 does not quite cut it... they only look similar on paper but the M1A2's IVIS ability allows it far greater coordination and SA then any other current tank (M1A2s can be intergrated with the force 21 systems), including the Leopard 2.
Armour is superior as well, besides the Chobhamm, the M1A2 has the extra DU layer that gives it the best protection armour wise, though for survivability in event of penetration, the Isreali Merc is far ahead of any western tank.
It seems that the main reason people pick the Leopard over the Abrams is because they look similar on paper, but the Abrams has the turbine engine. Said and done, the turbine engine is no less then an ordinary one and is in fact the most fuel efficent engine when going full out (though it burns almost as much fuel while idle). The use of the turbine was selected on basis of understanding the advantages (greater realibility, less weight, maintainence ease) and the limits (fuel consumption). -
sorry hor but i thin the M1 tank's main disadvantage is it's heavy fuel comsumption?
click here: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6747/abramsdiesel.htm
sure the turbine engine does provide impressive start up speed as well as cross country speed, but everything comes at a price. for the M1 tank, it's fuel comsumption.
during the 1991 gulf war, U.S. Army VII Corps General Franks commented that they could have got more iraqis t-72 tans had they not stop to wait for the refuelling trucks.
dun get me wrong, the M1 tank is a very good tank but pls dun say until it's so great like there's no faults with it. every tank does.
better amour protection means a a heavier tank, slower speed.
faster speed means less protection,less u've got lots of fuel to burn and a very good logisitics support.
cheers. -
Nah harh, wrong again, the M1A2 Abrams has both great mobility and armor. Realibity issues topped all other tanks too...
It's the best. -
Did Sg brought markava 3? Ppl in sa say sg brought 100 of them secoundhand recently. Anyone can comform that?
-
If we really did Johor Baru is screwed...Originally posted by Anza Andy:Did Sg brought markava 3? Ppl in sa say sg brought 100 of them secoundhand recently. Anyone can comform that? -
haha, I only heard that 100 Merkava 3 went 'missing', unaccounted for. . . nobody mentioned where they went. . .
-
jus wondering. this is the forum that we talk about real equipments and real weapons , not those you encounter in computer games rite?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Nah harh, wrong again, the M1A2 Abrams has both great mobility and armor. Realibity issues topped all other tanks too...
It's the best.
M1a2 do really have great mobility,(tot they lost to german leopard latest version it this category?) and armour ( most would agree that mervaka has the best amour around rite?)but to keep these beasts at their tip top condition requires hell lot of effort, and $$$...
it's one of the best, not really the best.
so suck it. -
no lah. challenger 2 has the strongest armour.however it is among the worst in terms of speed.
-
ok. perhaps the mervaka has the best protection around?
-
Nope, Mercava MK4 has best crew survability, not armor protection. It is considerably less well armored then some western tanks but it's crew protection and system redundancy is far better, so while it's easier to penetrate and damage or disable, it's harder to knock out the crew. The Merc is a special case, in which the designers did not follow the tank "triange" of speed, firepower and protection, but rather designed in crew protection as a new aspect seperate from actual tank protection. A tank "square" was the term the main designer behind the Merc said.
In terms of more conventional tanks though. The Abrams armour is certainly heavier then the Challanger 2, the clumsly Challanger 2 lacks the DU package that enhances the protection of the Chobhamm. Mobility of the Abrams is top notch, second only to Leopard, marginally... However it's the technology that makes it argubably, if placed in the hands of a competent tank crew, the deadilest tank around. Tank crews of similar skill are going to be more effective in an Abrams then if they were mucking around in a Leopard or Challanger, which electronically, is pretty much dumb and deaf and chaotic next to the IVIS Abrams. -
-
I think it is just mistakenly put down as Singapore rather than Israel. Singapore did not announce any purchase of the Sabra2 nor any well known military analyst like Janes release any news about Singapore purchasing any MBT. The only rumour that has anything to do with secondhand M60s (and AMX-30s) was more than 10 years ago (I have a copy of the Military Technology stating this as well) when SAF was looking at replacing the Centurions for the 32nd Div. However, this rumour simply faded away and nothing was heard of it.Originally posted by cavsg:
If Singapore had indeed purchase M60 derivatives (albeit Israeli modified Sabra version), it will be the first time I've heard of it. In other threads, there are discussion about SAF purchases of Merkava. I think unless we can see proof, eg. 'leak' reports or official announcement from SAF, everything is just speculation and hear-says. Furthermore, all these inaccurrate info are everywhere. Even Straits Times can make mistakes about RSAF with 5 F5 sqn, what can we say about other reports or websites ????
-
chey... i thought what...
the Sabra is the modernised israeli version of the M60A3.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sabra/index.html#sabra1
i've about read it in tim huxley before... that Sg's m60s' are upgraded to IAF specifications... but i don't think the picture feathered was a real Sg tank lah... probably israeli... pictures of those are much easier to come by... -
yup it's not SG tank.....Originally posted by CX:chey... i thought what...
but i don't think the picture feathered was a real Sg tank lah... probably israeli... pictures of those are much easier to come by...
the "3" make no sense in SAF and that white Arrow thingy is trademarked in Israeli Armors..... -
You meant Centurions right. I don't think I read anything about Sg having M60 in the book. Will check again. The Centurions were in fact upgraded with Israeli stuffs including the 105mm gun, the Commander's cupola, add-on armour, fire-control system, etc.Originally posted by CX:chey... i thought what...
the Sabra is the modernised israeli version of the M60A3.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sabra/index.html#sabra1
i've about read it in tim huxley before... that Sg's m60s' are upgraded to IAF specifications... but i don't think the picture feathered was a real Sg tank lah... probably israeli... pictures of those are much easier to come by...
