Jump to content


Need some tank experts here


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

Ribbon_chan #1 Posted 07 January 2016 - 02:24 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 73365 battles
  • 561
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012

I was posting some stuff about heavy & medium tanks and how main battle tank (MBT) started replacing them. Then suddenly, a guy popped out claiming with his "experience" that:

  1. Only medium disappears, the heavy tanks stay as mbt.
  2. Leopard 1 sucks beacuse: sh--ty armor, sh--ty gun..., all lost to the Ivan T-62a, T-64 with good armor, firing apcr the whole day. ( I know that during Cold War, armor is meaningless due to HEAT rounds, the German had a harsh lesson from WW2. If war broke out, they couldnt have half of their armors being brokedown and the design concentrated to "hit & run" tactics rather than face-to-face with Russian tanks.)
  3. 99% of the modern MBT today are "Chinese copy & paste style" from the Leopard 2.
  4. All the Leopard 1, Amx 30B, Type 74 (STB-1/2) are medium not mbt and they are sh-t.
  5. "True" MBT were the Tiger, IS-2, not those medium tank like T-34-85/Panther/Centurion... because they have armor, firepower and they kill tanks, bunkers pretty good. However, due to the limit of technology of that time that they couldnt achive great performance?!?!?!?
  6. Weight more than 50-60 tons = heavy tanks?!??!?
  7. MBT was born to go one-on-one with another MBT, other vechiles are sh-t.

I know that there are something very wrong with those statements but my knowledge is limited, I couldnt find a better way to prove him wrong. So, I hope someone can help me enlight him with better counter-agrument & better source. Or the best way I could do is to ignore him :facepalm:


Best joke of lunar new year 2016 made by _HYA_/VPA

Translated

 

 


AnninTofuXD #2 Posted 07 January 2016 - 02:35 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 8918 battles
  • 1,912
  • [YETI] YETI
  • Member since:
    05-02-2014
Ignore him . 
怕你飛遠去 怕你離我而去 更怕你永遠停留在這裡

DanLBob #3 Posted 07 January 2016 - 02:47 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 22666 battles
  • 3,113
  • [LUCK] LUCK
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

I'm lazy so I'm going to cut and paste something I wrote elsewhere some time ag0

 

Block Quote: Me

 Generally though heavy tanks were an evolutionary dead end, during WW2 and the post war period, pre MBT period production of medium tanks ran to 350 000+ while all up heavy tank production has amounted to maybe 30 000 vehicles. heavy tanks offer little real increase in capability over medium tanks while having significant costs, not just economically but also in terms of strategic and tactical utility. This proposal focuses primarily on the true main battle tanks and their descendants, the MBT of the modern army.

 

The clue as to what counts as a main battle tank is in the name. 

 

Dan



Takashi_Kurita #4 Posted 07 January 2016 - 03:03 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 46579 battles
  • 77
  • [G-I] G-I
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

1. The classifications had changed ... 

 

2. I think the chap is thinking that they will fight face to face on the battlefield like history ... times have changed, these tanks are more of a mopped up team and to lay suppressive fire ... too expensive to have the tanks destroyed ... earlier russian tanks like the T62 etc are cheap to produce as compared with the "souped up" NATO tanks .... too much technology on the vehicle ... that's the reason, they have drones now ... remove the people element in the physical tank

 

3. Yes, they use the same software to design the tanks ... drag and drop, change the gradient parameters of the hull, stretch the turret abit, etc ( Layman analogy - similar to how you design a proposal or any document, you take a sample document and modify )

 

4. Just because they are fast, does not mean they are not MAIN BATTLE TANKS (MBT) .... their weight is not light either ...   https://en.wikipedia..._classification

 

5. There will be no end to this argument ... different perspective ...

 

6. https://en.wikipedia...iki/Leopard_2  https://en.wikipedia...iki/M1_Abrams   ,    https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Merkava   ,    https://en.wikipedia...Challenger_2    ,    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

 

7. During WWI and WWII, yes ... they have no choice because of technology not being available .... now everything relies on computers and other technologies (Eg. IR scope, Aiming computer ... ) in the new MBT tanks ... why would they need to go so close? They can shoot from the maximum distance with the computer doing all the calculations and aiming ... the gunner just need to decide on the target and pull the trigger ... in the older days, you need to be close to be sure that you can get a good hit ...

 

The chap is stuck in the past and refuse to accept the truth aka reality ... maybe he should use TYPE WRITER for his formal documents ... :)

 

Just to add on, before missiles, rockets, cannons, guns or spears or bows or slingshots were invented, warriors had no choice but to fight face to face. The best that they can do was they use small stones or pebbles to throw at enemies from a distance... :P

 

 

 


Edited by Takashi_Kurita, 07 January 2016 - 03:06 PM.


SanyaVladimirovnaLitvyak #5 Posted 07 January 2016 - 03:12 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 42980 battles
  • 1,100
  • [CIV] CIV
  • Member since:
    03-22-2013

he sounds like a russian teen who watched too many movies and thinks nothing can beat russia

 

seriously though, arguments go nowhere on the internet very often because some people simply do not understand logic or their "logic" is flawed. i wouldnt bother wasting my time on thatm id actually rather play the churchillgc than try to convince him



Aoyama_Blue_Mountain #6 Posted 07 January 2016 - 04:28 PM

    Is the order a blue mountain?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 65884 battles
  • 7,088
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
"I played 200 WoT battles, I am tank history expert now"

You silence those who speak the truth, and you wonder why everyone is talking rubbish

You reward those who win by cheating, and you wonder why you can't produce people who can win while playing fairly

You punish people who put in effort to play, and you wonder why all who remain are the unmotivated


Otakubouzu #7 Posted 07 January 2016 - 05:07 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 15320 battles
  • 10,027
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostMikiMikiMiki, on 07 January 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

I was posting some stuff about heavy & medium tanks and how main battle tank (MBT) started replacing them. Then suddenly, a guy popped out claiming with his "experience" that:

  1. Only medium disappears, the heavy tanks stay as mbt.
  2. Leopard 1 sucks beacuse: sh--ty armor, sh--ty gun..., all lost to the Ivan T-62a, T-64 with good armor, firing apcr the whole day. ( I know that during Cold War, armor is meaningless due to HEAT rounds, the German had a harsh lesson from WW2. If war broke out, they couldnt have half of their armors being brokedown and the design concentrated to "hit & run" tactics rather than face-to-face with Russian tanks.)
  3. 99% of the modern MBT today are "Chinese copy & paste style" from the Leopard 2.
  4. All the Leopard 1, Amx 30B, Type 74 (STB-1/2) are medium not mbt and they are sh-t.
  5. "True" MBT were the Tiger, IS-2, not those medium tank like T-34-85/Panther/Centurion... because they have armor, firepower and they kill tanks, bunkers pretty good. However, due to the limit of technology of that time that they couldnt achive great performance?!?!?!?
  6. Weight more than 50-60 tons = heavy tanks?!??!?
  7. MBT was born to go one-on-one with another MBT, other vechiles are sh-t.

I know that there are something very wrong with those statements but my knowledge is limited, I couldnt find a better way to prove him wrong. So, I hope someone can help me enlight him with better counter-agrument & better source. Or the best way I could do is to ignore him :facepalm:

 

Ignore him, people like him will stubborn with his 'knowledge'

But AFAIK...

1. Generally, MBT was born from medium tank development. While size-wise modern MBT might closely remind you to HT, role-wise they are quite different as modern MBT can do both HT and MT (and in some respect, LT) role.

2. Personal opinion

3. Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams actually developed quite in parallel time IIRC.

4. Personal opinion.

5. And Panther and Centy didn't has firepower and didn't kill tanks? 

6. If you are using WoT definition, then yeah. Role-wise? Noooope.

7. Tank vs tank is just one MBT role, and MBT was born to combine both WW2 Medium and Heavy tank role in one package.


Edited by Otakubouzu, 07 January 2016 - 05:09 PM.


Mudguts4710 #8 Posted 07 January 2016 - 05:14 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 39063 battles
  • 444
  • [LEFT] LEFT
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

As you suspected - your "m8" is a goose.

Armoured doctrine (and therefore tank design) has always been about balancing up fire-power, manoeuvrability and protection (armour). Up until the advent of the genuine MBT - arguably the later Pattons, T54 onward and early Leo 1's were probably the MBT generation - the technology of the day really forced the different classes of light, med, heavy.

 

If you wanted the best armour then you struggled to keep the mobility - coz best armour = lots of armour = struggling engines and drive trains

If you wanted the best mobility you usually gave up protection - as there was a limit to how much weight the engines of the day could push

If you wanted the best firepower you compromised on the other 2 - coz best gun = best pen gun which often = bigger heavier guns or longer barrelled higher velocity guns = bigger turrets, bigger tanks blah blah

 

Innovations like sloped armour meant a sudden surge in tank development and often an OP leader in the field would appear - think the t34 and the Panther - which was then countered after a period of time by more efficient or effective weapons and Ammo - HEAT, HESH which gave greater pen to smaller calibre guns. This would then lead the tankies to bolt on more crap onto the their tanks to counter the ammo (think the sandbags on the Jumbo, extra track plates on Tiger, Shurtzten on PzIV) and then the tanks weigh more, strain engines and drive trains and we're back to trading off mobility for protection.

 

Nowadays you've got undreamed-of tanks as far as the tankies in the start of WW2 would see it. Mobility out the wazoo, guns that pen just about anything at incredible ranges, and armour to suit. What happens? Warfare is a lot more asymmetric and these guys are finding themselves in urban and close combat against IED's, shaped charges, and the modern day equivalent of the Bazooka or PanzerFaust. What are they doing? Bolting on reactive plates, spaced armour, ceramics, or even good old mesh screens like Shurtzen.

 

TL;DR It's all just a cycle of develop something new, develop a counter measure, develop a counter-counter measure.


Edited by Mudguts4710, 08 January 2016 - 02:37 PM.

Cynic - someone who sees the world as it actually is, not as everyone wishes it was...


Shoot it with Sabot until it stops, then shoot it with HEAT until it changes shape. ('Israeli method' of ensuring a tank kill)


tequila_powered #9 Posted 04 March 2016 - 05:00 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 28824 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    06-14-2013

 

 

MBT was born to go one-on-one with another MBT, other vechiles are sh-t.


 

That statement alone shows lack of understanding of things tanks. Tanks were invented to punch holes through frontlines and once through, to envelop the soft areas behind and basically cut off big pockets for other forces to destroy. Tanks were not invented to go hunting other tanks. While tanks were progressively up-armored and up-gunned to deal with enemy tanks [for those moments when they did encounter them], calling for a tank unit to specifically go fight an enemy tank unit should be last option. Preliminary options are sending in arty, airstrikes, land missiles etc. When defending, there is also additional preliminary option of using manpads and tds. Tanks are almost invariable strategic and tactically reserves to commit only when other options are unavailable or exhausted. Just look at the biggest WWII tank battle - Kursk. That popular "image" came from that singular gigantic front-on clash at Prokhoravka. Most people forgot that prior to Prokhorovka, there was still the Panzers hitting the front lines against AT guns and arty and small flanking counter-attacks by Russian tank units. So, this one battle (of many at Kursk) was when Russia sent in a Guards tank army to expressively to try to stop the SS in direct confrontation. And by seeking a frontal tank-vs-tank confrontation against a relatively-strong opposing tank force, the Russian armored charge was basically beaten at Prokhorovka. (Yes yes beaten). If we look at another more enlightened usage of armor by the Russians, go back a year earlier to Stalingrad.  Even with local tank superiority during Operation Uranus, when the Russian tank forces encountered the sole Pz unit around the area (48th Pz Korp with only about 30 tanks iirc mostly Pz 38t), they simply changed direction and continue the envelopment of Stalingrad.



BomberOfHell123 #10 Posted 03 April 2018 - 08:40 PM

    Private

  • Member
  • 4189 battles
  • 3
  • [GUARD] GUARD
  • Member since:
    04-30-2016

View Posttequila_powered, on 04 March 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

 

 

MBT was born to go one-on-one with another MBT, other vechiles are sh-t.


 

That statement alone shows lack of understanding of things tanks. Tanks were invented to punch holes through frontlines and once through, to envelop the soft areas behind and basically cut off big pockets for other forces to destroy. Tanks were not invented to go hunting other tanks. While tanks were progressively up-armored and up-gunned to deal with enemy tanks [for those moments when they did encounter them], calling for a tank unit to specifically go fight an enemy tank unit should be last option. Preliminary options are sending in arty, airstrikes, land missiles etc. When defending, there is also additional preliminary option of using manpads and tds. Tanks are almost invariable strategic and tactically reserves to commit only when other options are unavailable or exhausted. Just look at the biggest WWII tank battle - Kursk. That popular "image" came from that singular gigantic front-on clash at Prokhoravka. Most people forgot that prior to Prokhorovka, there was still the Panzers hitting the front lines against AT guns and arty and small flanking counter-attacks by Russian tank units. So, this one battle (of many at Kursk) was when Russia sent in a Guards tank army to expressively to try to stop the SS in direct confrontation. And by seeking a frontal tank-vs-tank confrontation against a relatively-strong opposing tank force, the Russian armored charge was basically beaten at Prokhorovka. (Yes yes beaten). If we look at another more enlightened usage of armor by the Russians, go back a year earlier to Stalingrad.  Even with local tank superiority during Operation Uranus, when the Russian tank forces encountered the sole Pz unit around the area (48th Pz Korp with only about 30 tanks iirc mostly Pz 38t), they simply changed direction and continue the envelopment of Stalingrad.

 

Now here is some good historical reference. Completely true. That kid doesn't know sh-t.

TheBudgiesmuggler #11 Posted 15 June 2018 - 08:34 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 22909 battles
  • 163
  • [DOGS-] DOGS-
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

Str8 out of left field

- During World War 2 the German Tiger's 88mm ex-AA gun effective range was 1500 - 2000 meters

- On July 7, 1943, a lone German Tiger tank commanded by SS Oberscharfueherer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Panzer Regiment engaged a group of about 50 Russian T-34 tanks in southern sector of the Battle of Kursk at 2000 meters. Staudegger used up his entire ammunition supply and destroyed 22 Russian tanks. The remaining T-34 retreated

   

 

 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users