But the M1Abrams and challenger 2, which are both very good tanks, have they been in a (real) battle against T90 or better tanks?
I do think that we, (the western world) creates and makes better quality, be it air units, naval units or tanks, but it’s not fair to say that the M1Abrams is very good just b/c it’a taken out a number of T-72’s.
Does technology trump a crew’s experience? Example: could an experience crew with years of training in a Desert Storm style M-60 tank take out a modern M1A1 with a raw trained crew?
@ABWorsham:
Does technology trump a crew’s experience? Example: could an experience crew with years of training in a Desert Storm style M-60 tank take out a modern M1A1 with a raw trained crew?
No, imo, b/c even if the raw trained crew lacks war experience, they have been trained, and the M1A1 is very good tank, amongst the best in the world.
If the questions was real veteran soldiers with lots of war experience and still gong strong, vs fresh Navy Seals (etc) with no experience other than that they actually came through the graduation, then I’d say the question is more open, it would depend on the situation. But with air units, tanks, and naval units tech is mighty important, especially if the difference in the tech level is very high. Idk much about the M60 though.
If fresh SEALs were up against crack vets in a conventional war, their best bet is to stay hidden. The enemy has supior experience and fire power, and the classic SEAL ambus can only result in heavy casualties in an open battlefield. Best is hit and run, with specific targets to destroy, though casualties will still be heavy. In non-conventional scenarios, like Vietnam, SEALs are in their own realm, and dominate due to superior training.
On the subject of LEO vs Abrams, yes, experience is very important, but the Germans may develope superior tactics. Germany would allow deep penitrations by US Armored columbs, while LEOs would bypass the main armored formations and go after the fuel trucks. LEOs could be supplied by locals and pre-placed hidden fuel dumps, idealy under ground. Or, the German tanks could be supplied by airdrop via heavy drones.
After the Abrams run out of fuel, and the LEOs push to the landing zone to cut off the supply chain, the German army will have to contend still with a large armored pocket. Cut off and nearing the end of their fuel, Abrams would dig in and cover their tanks with cammo. An Abrams tank, even when heavily damaged and nearly out of fuel, is still dangerous, and like a mini armored fortress. US Tankers would probable fight to the death. They would have to be taken out with percission artillery with drone spotters.
If fresh SEALs were up against crack vets in a conventional war, their best bet is to stay hidden. The enemy has supior experience and fire power, and the classic SEAL ambus can only result in heavy casualties in an open battlefield. Best is hit and run, with specific targets to destroy, though casualties will still be heavy. In non-conventional scenarios, like Vietnam, SEALs are in their own realm, and dominate due to superior training.
On the subject of LEO vs Abrams, yes, experience is very important, but the Germans may develope superior tactics. Germany would allow deep penitrations by US Armored columbs, while LEOs would bypass the main armored formations and go after the fuel trucks. LEOs could be supplied by locals and pre-placed hidden fuel dumps, idealy under ground. Or, the German tanks could be supplied by airdrop via heavy drones.
I agree, the battle for Patilla Air Field in Panama in 1989 is a case example.
Wiesel AWC would take out the remainings of wich was left on the battelfield or shoot 'em down one by one upside down turtle…
After the Abrams run out of fuel, and the LEOs push to the landing zone to cut off the supply chain, the German army will have to contend still with a large armored pocket. Cut off and nearing the end of their fuel, Abrams would dig in and cover their tanks with cammo. An Abrams tank, even when heavily damaged and nearly out of fuel, is still dangerous, and like a mini armored fortress. US Tankers would probable fight to the death. They would have to be taken out with percission artillery with drone spotters.
I would prefer an experienced crew and a proven vehicle over one that has had only simulated practice or operations. The M-60 and its crew I commanded in Kuwait, would I feel have had a good chance to take out any of the tanks on the list. Provided I got the first shot off :lol:
And I would prefer a tank that has a full crew (4 tankers) as opposed to the auto loader system as so much on the tank is physical and the needs to check so many things that the extra body is really a positive. The auto loader can’t check the track or the oil or stand watch in the turret.
Agreed. I’ve never driven a tank, but some of the new auto loaders seem pretty compact, that is, they seem to come right up out of the floor. You could probably have an auto loader and still fit that fourth guy in there.
My pesonal tank mod would be a Co-Axil 20mm for the gunner, a 40mm auto-grenade launcher with thise niffty time-fised rounds for the commander, and a mini gun for the loader.
Also, they seed to find out how to make Carbon Nanotubes into armored plated. That stuff is harder than diamond!
Lastly, check out the new Russian RPG-30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B6WUMUkLQw
For my part, the important thing to know is that all the varieties of first-rate main battle tanks are on my side.
I still think the Abrams is the best. I hope we never have to learn if it is better than a Leopard.
Why is this in WWII history?
??? That’s a good question……I have no answere. It should be in general discussion, I guess. sorry
I remember a show on Military channel that had something similar and voted the Loepard II as the best modern tank. Something like top 10 tanks.
Yeah, I saw that show. It’s partially what inspired this thread.
Tom Clancy said the Abrams can go 70+mph w/o a governor. Is that really true? It’s a lot higher than the “official” stats.
Man, 70+ tons going 70+mph…that’s a load going fast! It’s faster than the Leopard’s “official” top speed. However, it’s suposidly ad risk of destroying the drive train, but if that’s true, couldn’t you just somehow make it stronger? I’m no mechanic, but I’m sure it could be done.
A 70 mph tank would kick @$$! :-D
Cool!!! Wow, I wonder what kind of damage the Abrams could do going that fast!!!
Yeah, I saw that show. It’s partially what inspired this thread.
Tom Clancy said the Abrams can go 70+mph w/o a governor. Is that really true? It’s a lot higher than the “official” stats.
Man, 70+ tons going 70+mph…that’s a load going fast! It’s faster than the Leopard’s “official” top speed. However, it’s suposidly ad risk of destroying the drive train, but if that’s true, couldn’t you just somehow make it stronger? I’m no mechanic, but I’m sure it could be done.
A 70 mph tank would kick @$$! :-D
