+flahr1 you might be surprised that, behind its tremendous cost, and its average reliability, this machine is excellent in accuracy, mobility, and ... surprisingly, protection ! Especially because leclerc can shoot on the move above 15km/h, with 99% first hit ratio. (Merkava and M1 cannot do so above 15km/h if i recall correctly) Also, some tubes do not contains smoke, but anti-personnel grenades, for urban combat. And on some leclercs, there is a remote controlled turret on the top... Some versions of the leclerc are especially designed for urban fighting, but i do not remeber the precise name of the version Oh, and forgot to said : the crew is separated in different compartments, in case of hull penetration, a single crew member should be injured/killed. Vehicle is also certified for radioactive evironment. That's a lot of stuff !
+flahr1 I'm pretty sure this overused joke does not make laugh anyne anymore... ^^ And I find it kind of misleading, France were involved in loadsa wars, and is one of the most overall victorious country, that also helped USA to gain independance. Well, glad you didn't fell on a butthurt dude. :P
The leclerc is for sure the best tank in the world but it's quite expansive (I think it is 9 million € for a leclerc tank) and 5.3 million € for a leopard 2, also 5.3 million $ for a M1 Abrams while the British challenger 2 is 2.2 million £. France have 423 tanks and it's more than UK, who got 407 tanks and Germany who have 408.
RaccoonMoustache I have long since assumed that a modern tank,being so complex,sensitive and expensive is virtually non-repairable.And,if all participants in the next war-god forbid!-are armed each with the "best" tank then it follows that all tanks will be destroyed in one day for they all boast of one round kill rate.Or is my reasoning at fault?I have no military experience.
Squarerig Actually, the opposite. Modern tanks are modular and extremely easy to repair. However, the defective module is not repaired but simply replaced.
nuclear weapons are the dumbest invention ever. they are no real weapons they are apocalypse and have not really an effectiveness against enemy military instead you want to wipe out a whole country
Germany has always produced the best of everything and "German" means quality. And I'm not even German, probably they would be too shy to say something like that :D
I love M1A1 and 2's. They come with a compliment of AH-64, Longbow, Block III, Cobra's, A-10's, AC-130's, B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16's, and F-15's. Now that's POWER.
cut the crap here. Main guns of any mbt can penetrate every mbts armor. Leopard might be the best one with cost effectines, mobility, firepower and reliability. It works as well in arctic conditions as in desert. There hasnt been any conflict where modern tanks faces another. Shooting export versions of t.72s from 70s is as much combat as every army do when they practise.
And the French tank takes the award for being able to run away at high speed with extremely resistant armor on the rear so as to protect their ass when in full retreat. It carries 6 white flags so as to be seen from all sides in case there is no rout of escape and a handy drop hatch on the bottom to dump the feces produced in any dangerous situation. It has excellent ventilation to prevent an overload of natural body odor and ample supplies of perfume for the famous French showers. And, it is such a pretty tank so much so that they hope it will prevent people from shooting at it while it runs away from the battle.
gary winkler Do I detect a note of contempt for the Frenchies?I find it so amusing how old dislikes,prejudices and hatred surface in YT!Please don't take offence.I like such comments!
+gary winkler should i remind you who greatly helped USA to gain independance? you tend to forgot those kind of things, Yep, it is France. Read more books, chauvinist boy !
Yanks:- high tec, powerful and plentiful. Germans:- combination of strength and power. Brits:- Longest recorded tank to tank kill. Frogs:- one forward gear and four reverse. (Only joking)
That famous joke about the leclerc.... allow me to correct your joke by a fact : _______________________ Frogs : Only MBT to have destroyed a Jet fighter with it's main gun... xD *ayy*
One of my favorite jokes from a game it's besicaly a conversation between two German soldiers: General:fuhrer Italians joined the war fuhrer : send a devision to stop the general: they are on our side fuhrer fuhrer: damn it send them an army
For all of you saying the Abrams have been destroyed by an rpg-7 this is false only disabled the tank was destroyed by the crew to prevent it falling into enemy hands the mission was to fast paced to repair the tank. Other wise the tank was an easy fix not destroyed by any means
The Leopard weighs around 12 tons more but besides that it's superior in every way. The T90 also goes at the speed of 60 KMH while the Leopard 2 goes at the speed of 72, the Leopard weighs more yet Germany still beats Russia. Tsk tsk.
Smooth bore has a higher velocity than a rifled. (I could be wrong below) The HEAT rounds stabilize them selves in flight and the Sabot round casing spins while going down the barrel which spins the perpetrator for it's flight.
M1 Abrams SECOND best tank in the world: Gulf War - Challenger Kills 300 Losses 0 Longest range tank on tank kill - 5100m by a TOGS Equipped Challenger Oh and by the way Chobham (the name of the special armour on both tanks was a british development
Dave Hopkin i wouldnt rank that way, i would set either the T90 or the Leopard 2A6 at the Top of the list, that is place 1 and 2 since the T90 can outrange the Leopard, using the ATGMs while beeing protected by the "Stora" and "Arena" protection systems, able to change the course of a guided missile or shoting those out of the sky. the Leopard on the other hand is very manouverable and has a longer calibre gun giving it a better velocity and therefor a higher chance of penetration (the leo2A6 120mm L55 canon is a new kind which the Americans and french dont have, the americans use the old leo series canon that is found lastly found on the A5 model, 120mmL44 overall the american gun gets a worse velocity out of it then the russian Tank series, starting with the T64 when they first introduced the 125mm canon) then i would put the Chalanger 2 on the 3rd place folowed by the merkava on 4th and leclarc on 5th place
why is it that whenever someone posts a video about other countries tanks, people go ape shit and start claiming that theirs is the best without giving facts? here, let me provide them for you: Abrams: 1: armor consists of many layers of steel, ceramic, and depleted uranium. Along with the TUSK urban warfare kit. This makes the Abrams the most heavily armored tank in the world. 2: the abrams is the most battle proven out of any modern day tank, so we know how it works and its pros/cons 3: it can keep up with lighter tanks 4: it's heavy as fuck Challenger: 1: armor consists of many layers of steel and ceramic. Along with the CHOBHAM armor upgrades, this makes the challenger second only to the abrams 2: the challenger is the second most battle proven, serving in the middle east next to the abrams 3: basically the same tank and the abrams, except its armor is a tad weaker 4: it can keep up with lighter tanks 5: it's heavy as fuck Leclerc: 1: Armor is basically the exact same as the challenger, but a bit weaker. The leclerc cane make up for this by installing the AZUR urban protection kit. 2: The leclerc has never seen true combat (tank vs tank/tank vs anti-tank soldiers) 3: lighter than most modern MBT's 4: fast as fuck Leopard: 1: armor is basically the same as the challenger and leclerc, but sloped more. Which increases the armor's deflection capability 2: one of the most advanced tanks in the world because it is constantly updated. It's now on its 7th version, which started in 2010 3: it can keep up with lighter tanks 4: it's heavy as fuck T-90: 1: armor is significantly weaker than the others, but due to it's super low profile and it's advanced active protection system, it is one of the most protected in the world. 2: one par with the german leopard when it comes to advances in tech. Its latest and last model was rolled out in 2004 3: its the fastest tank on this list 4: it wieghs like a feather 5: it's small as fuck 6: also has a more powerful gun, using a 125mm smooth bore instead of the 120mm smooth bore everyone else uses. T-14 Armata: 1: I dont fuckin' know man that shits too new there you go. now that i have stated alot of notable facts, i personally think the abrams rains supreme. But thats just my opinion
+EEProductions EJW ummm, no. While it is true the T-90 uses a 125mm gun rather than the 120, this is a gross oversimplification. Compared to the NATO 120mm gun, the 125mm 2A46 gun actually has inferior armor performance, particularly when comparing APFSDS rounds. This is due to a couple things, most notably the shorter penetrators the 125mm gun fires, 600mm for the Svinets vs 936mm for the M829A3. This is a necessary thing because the T-72 and by extension the T-90 have to fit their ammunition into a hull mounted carousel autoloader. Furthermore, the T-90's protection degrades a lot faster than the protection on western MBTs as the T-90 is essentially a T-72 with some new fire control systems plopped into it and some ERA bolted on. ERA degrades quicker than composite and is far more vulnerable to things like Tandem HEAT rounds
I said that the t-90 had inferior armor compared to other tanks. I also said it makes up for it with its active protection system, which destroys all incoming projectiles
+EEProductions EJW well they don't actually use the active protection systems on the T-90. Only demonstration vehicles have it. It's simply too expensive to put on every T-90 and they already have a new tank that will have active protection as standard with the T-14. But the T-90 has already shown itself to be able to jam and take TOW missiles and survive.
erm, not quite correct on Challenger or Leclerc. Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armour. It's a development of Chobham that we haven't even shared with USA yet. Although I don't think Challenger 2 is the best tank, it has better frontal armour than an Abrams in both thickness and composition. Vs kintetic rounds it's much better, and vs chemical (HEAT) they're about even on their turret fronts but the Challenger hull is better protected too. (Challenger 1 had a very weak 70mm lower glacis but they sorted that) Abrams may be a better tank but it's not as tough, especially vs IEDs, Challenger has a V shaped hull that deflects the blast force, and has never lost a crew member .
Leopard 2 and Merkava are probably the most formidable tanks today. Say whatever you want in the case of Germany, even when they lost both World Wars they could produce a better and powerful tanks than the nations that defeated them way before those nations produce the same adversary tanks. Also the Abrams would not be powerful as today without the licensed Rheinmetall 120mm gun.
The Leopard 2 can wade through 4 meters of water using a special snorkel, the Leopard 2 is the most mobile, It also uses the same ammunition and has the same speed as the abrams, the abrams doesn't have anything that special.
The Leclare tank is fitted with the very best cutting-edge French military technology available, including, 1. Engine transmission with 3 forward and 7 reverse gears. 2. 8 separate ultra rapid deployment flagstaffs with over-sized 8 X 3 meter white surrender flags. Powerful wave action fitted to each staff. 3. Potent 130 decibel loudspeaker system repeats "We give up" in 10 different languages. 4. Night sights which let crew spot the enemy and surrender even before the shooting starts.
It also depends on where you land it, what type of ammunition you were using, what distance you were firing it at and what type of armour the target is equipped with.
Youre right, I never said T-64 was equal to the Leclerc, just pointed out that most of its big innovations were already in existence when the first one rolled off the production line. I hope we don't get to find out which one is the best.
There's one thing all of you don't understand. On the M1 tank the Fire Control System was first used on the m60a3. Stabilization Laser Rangefinder windage all of it. Even an 681 even though it had a stereo stop the rangefinder a good tank crew could fire very very quickly I was on both of those series of tanks. And the M60 series has always had reactive armor before the 1980s it's nothing new. Even the Sherman and I believe the later German tanks and World War II had a form of gun stabilization anyway have a happy day
What one must remember about armoured vehicles is that "mobility" does not refer to tactical speed (IE max speeds and acceleration rate), it refers to strategic speed (road speeds, these only need to be about 30-50 mph, and are more of a minimum requirement, which all tanks since WW2 have been able to meet). At a tactical level, speedy drivers hit ambushes which cautious drivers spot or are at least better prepared to engage. It IS seriously cool seeing tanks ... fly, but useless tactically.
I can't understand why everyone wants to hate on the M1. It is the only modern tank to even fight tank on tank. The rest are what they are until proven otherwise. The M1 is more than a match for any other armored vehicle on this planet. I know I woud much rather risk my life in the one that has been tested.
Essentially, this is a deadly play between stealth, agility, sensors and missiles. From the front quarter the Raptor’s 0.0001 square meter Radar Cross Section (RCS) and the Lightning II’s 0.001 square metres make them difficult targets. The Flanker-E Plus, while having a reduced radar signature, still has a residual RCS of about 2 square metres
only till the M1 Abrams commander disables the rpm governor on it's gas turbine.. you can only safely spin a diesel engine so fast before it fails, a gas turbine can go quite a bit faster before it fails, enabling what it's connected to, to move faster :)
It is the other way around, because of the higher working speed of a gas turbine engine there is more wear on them. Which is the reason why the M1 has limited its engine. The gas turbine engines are also far more sensitive to dust and fine sand.
T-90A has up to 830mm RHA equivalent with Kontakt-5; T-90M has Relikt which provides greater protection. Refleks penetrates up to 950mm RHA equivalent and a range of 5km. PARS 3 LR is still in development and has a shorter range than the Vikhr.
Frank Whittle, an English inventor and RAF officer, developed the concept of the jet engine in 1928, Hans von Ohain in Germany, a decade later developed the concept independently at the end of the 1930s. He wrote in February 1936 to Ernst Heinkel, telling him of the design and its possibilities. However, it can be argued that the English engineer A. A. Griffith, who published a paper in July 1926 on compressors and turbines, also deserves credit.
A single gun weights a couple of tons, takes up quite a lot of space in the tank/turret and also the turret would need to be very huge, that again would require a bigger (non agile) hull. It is well worth to wait 4-6 seconds for a second shot, rather than driving around in a big and slow target. 2 guns only work in Command & Conquer....
technically it's a self propelling artillery gun, self propelling howitzer... but keep in mind that it has strategies to defend and protect itself against armored enemies; believe it or not, but if the PZH 2000 find a tank in 2 miles away and align the gun right down to it, the enemy will be destroid.
The Abrams uses an American made form of Chobham armour given to the US by the UK under a very special agreement, And that's why we in the UK went further and created Dorchester, an even stronger form of Chobham, the next generation upping it's survivability even further. Remember a Challenger 1 or 2 had and has never been lost in combat, to any enemy fire, never been destroyed in combat, one took atleast 30 RPG-7s thousands of rounds of 7.62, plus an anti-tank rocket, it was retrieved with all crew safe and unharmed, the Challenger 2 MBT optics and tracks was fixed or replaced all within 6hrs and it was back out doing it's job as Usual. Can't wait for its replacement, although I'll miss the old girl terribly, tye Challenger 1 and 2 are my all time favourite tanks, with the Abrams a very close second.
A means is my favorite tank, but the challenger 2 got a little bonus the way the turret is designed the tank is half stealth which I think will be better suited for the future
cant beleive he said that, by the time King tiger was operational, the fuel the germans used was ethanol, a low power fuel, and the engine was designed to work with that, thats why it was slow, but it was the only drawback of the King tiger
Its not stupid if built properly. If you have human, you have to feed him, train him, pay him, heal him, carry more equipment for him, he has to rest, sleep, eat and drink, take a shit, he gets ill, he gets tired, he gets demotivated, you need more room so you need bigger tank, bigger means bigger target, more fuel...besides you can fill more tanks with same number of people. Autoloader is fast enough, reliable (again If built properly), and relatively cheap+ ammo is safely stored in hull..
the TAM(Tanque Argentino Meidano) argentina's main battle tank, was designed by germans and argentinian engineers, it was designed for a defense purpose of our territory, thats why is not that big, but its 105mm cannon and the new targeting software makes it one of the best tanks in the regions, so yes, germans were and still are the best tanketeers
T-72 2E28M (and improved versions) stabilization system was great and best of class until Leopard 2 and its entered to service. T-72M1 (T-72A export model) stabilization system works great on rough terrain and does not give problems for gunner to hit targets. It does have own flaws compared to latest FCS and stabilization systems but it isn't terrible at all even today on modernized variants.
anyone else realized, that they forgot to mention, that the m1 abrams is the result of an american-german partnership for the construction of a tank, that later failed (americans gave money and resources, germans gave engeneering and knowledge), and that the abrams still uses the german Rheinmetal L/44 gun? looks like there's some points that were forgotten ... on purpose maybe?
Judging from the graphic content, which was quite old, I believe the main reason the T-90 isn't included is because this documentary is released before one gets to learn about the T-90's potential (which is not until the mid 2000s did they learn about it, IMO)
Actually only British tanks use Chobham armor. The term is used by many to describe any sort of composite armor, but Chobham is a specific type of composite armor unique to the British. The Russian T-64 was the first production tank to have composite armor, and the concept was experimented with by all sides during WW2. The German L44, and L55 120mm cannons are used on several different NATO tanks, but the British, French, Italians, and several others use their own 120mm cannons.
Abrams, Challengers and Leopards are top tanks - no doubt about that, but that Leclerc is also a DAMN BEAUTIFUL machine. I wonder how is it to sit in one of those things...
My Chally 1 in the 80's did 45mph, like the rest of them. Mind you we spent a lot of time cleaning bits of Germany out of the barrel due to the gun stabilizing system being from Chieftain, which generally didn't move much (owing to being shit) so didn't really need it to be very fast!!!
Yes, thats why the Abrams took the Leopard 2 main gun too (Rheinmetall 120 mm gun). And thats not the only thing, that is used from the Leopard 2. Please browse the internet/wiki for further information. There is also a documentation of an international event, where all actual tanks are compared. Some NATO event, or something like that. Maybe you find it.
The USA have nearly always used simpler versions of German or British guns. Using depleted uranium penetrators rather than tungston ones makes up for the slight lack in performance.
It's the older versions that weren't up to necessary specs. Also it wasn't rpgs but RPG-29 'Vampir', AT-5 'Konkurs', AT-13 'Metis-M', and laser-guided AT-14 'Kornet' HEAT missiles. Namely purpose built anti-missiles as opposed to just a general purpose rocket. In addition one those missiles mentioned were the latest possible version so by that time they worked out most the kinks of the previous versions.
The thing is, all the other MBTs are being fitted with tusk kits that are covering them in ERA too. So if you've got chobham and DU and ERA, that big 'ol 125mm isn't going to do a damn thing to you. If you've got mostly just steel and some laminate with kontakt, most things can penetrate. T-90 is still just 830ish with kontakt, and they don't cover the whole thing with it if you look in pictures, it just cover weaker spots or places more likely to be hit.
The point of what I said is that the army does not upgrade it's armor, The M1A2 is being upgraded and M1A3 is In development. M1A2 is basicly the same as M1A1, The working range of the M1A2 is 243 mi (391 km), And M1A1 is 288 mi (463 km), The gun is the same, Speed is the same also. The M1A2 offers the tank commander an independent thermal sight and ability to, in rapid sequence, shoot at two targets without the need to acquire each one sequentially, That is all there is to it.
Minute 15:00 speaking about Leclerc, is it a smoothbore gun? I do not understand the shift of the machineguns from traditionally lighter in the turret and anti-aircraft on the turret Leclerc switches them. What do they have to defend against aircraft/helicopters?Also lightest main battle tank today at 56 tones? The T 90 with an autoloader from its ancestors T-64 (with autoloader since 1966) is 46,5 tones.
French people do read it, so thanks :) Besides, people too often thinks in terms of "My tank is better than yours". Which is silly, since we're allies. By the way, the M1 and Challenger 2 both really look neat.
good solid choice great for invasions or raids problem is with the M1A1 is its very exspensive losing a tank like this will empty your pocket it cant be mass produced in a factory alot of things need to be done by hand + because the M1A1 served for a long time alot of people already know where to hit it to destroy it
Look harder. There are many American/British documentaries dedicated to the Leopard 2, a few of them are even here on TH-cam. All of them make it very clear that it is one hell of a machine.
LOL. Yes, most of the viewports actually have periscope aspects. When they are fully buttoned-up, there is no "straight line" to the TC via the sight; at least for modern tanks.
T-95 and Black Eagle programs were shut down for good back in the 2000 when T-90 was selected for the next main MBT for the Russian Federation. On top of that the company which had developed them filed for bankruptcy and they have been mothballed ever since.
Swedish strv 122 = German Leopard 2.... is an improved version of the German-built Leopard 2A5. Some of the upgrades are improved command, control and fire control systems, heavily reinforced armor( for ex the sloping armor on the torret later adoptet by the Germans) and improved long-term combat capacity and the smoke grenade launchers from Wegmann is replaced with smoke granade launchers from Galix.
Okay, it's cheap for resources. However, it does not take more time to manufacture similar things that are just larger. The length of time is usually based on complexity. Being more complex (containing advanced materials, composites, depleted uranium and good fire control) leads to a better tank. So if Russia needed to quickly rearm themselves, T-90 works. But the easier to manufacture, the less complex and less effective. Tanks are at the bleeding edge. The more advanced and complex the better.
I do agree that, T-90 should be in here too, but then again so should be some other tanks as well, and that would go fairly long lengh of document, and introduction of each tank would be much more short. Its as well logical that these four tanks are shown together, as they all are more or less designed together, and share many same components. Its as well natural competition between friendly neighbors, with similar tanks, and it makes "west" countries feel more safe to have these tanks.
Actually there was a person who wrote the book the Germans read and applied, B. H. Liddel-Hart, formulated various theories that became the blue print for the Blitzkrieg concept. Also an other bloke wrote an interesting essay on "future tank tactiques", his name was Cherles de Gaulle. Here too the concepts were absorbed by the Germans, Guderian being their man.
considering no m1 Abrams tank crewmen has ever been killed by another tank while in an Abrams, and while one may be knocked out by a lucky shot, or bomb, the crew survivability rate is incredibly high
That is true, and forgive me for leaving the Challenger out of the picture. ou have a valid point, but the Challenger is equally as old as both Abrams models and share close similarities, some people can get an Abrams, Challenger and an Aeriete (not sure if spelled right) confused. Challenger is a fine piece of armor definitely worthy of notice.
"In May 2010, deputy defense minister and chief of armaments Vladimir Popovkin announced that a number of programs for development of new armor and artillery weapons would be canceled. The main victim is the Object 195 program (T-95). Popovkin said the military will focus on modernization of the T-90 instead. The reason given for this was the fact that the T-95 was already obsolete, as it had been in development for almost two decades." So why should it be there?
Because they largely were. It's just what happens in peace time, we haven't got an arms race going so we don't need to develop new designs quite as often.
Has anyone but me realized but me that all you have to do is set off shells loaded with paint to coat all these electronics blinding the Abrams tank....Either blasts close to the tank or have troops crazing enough to shoot shells to coat the tanks..
Thats why anti ballistic missile shield is something there working on. THAAD, standart misile 3 arrow 2-3 and patriot PAC 3 "or are they to shoot down the very deadly UAV's" lol Terrorism is used as a weapon to and it's still a very powerfull one. Unmanned weapons were also used in WWII just like the tanks modern ones have bin improved alot. And then you have space warfare; a earlywarning system in space, anti satelites misiles, manned space stations, etc....
every modern tank can fire on the move but only the chally 2 use's a 120mm rifled gun atm and no matter what people say a rifled gun fires more accurately then a smothbore
It was the Brits. Whitley in 1939. They just never took it past test stage. Heinkel was the first German jet. It looks close to the 262 with a different tail and slightly squarish look.
What is that joke? Canadians were hopeful that they would get the best of both continents; American technology, British culture and French cuisine. The reality was they got American culture, British food, and French technology.
They left it out because the T-90's were the one smoking after the Challenger's rolled through. They couldn't get shots of one in action since they were all knocked out.
The M1A1's gun is chrome lined.The charge to send the round out of the barrel is much larger than the old school 105mm. Rifling the barrel would slow down the round too much.Besides the rounds have fins to correct the small amount of spin the rifling would give them. I don't know what ammo types xmeda has in mind,but the main gun can fire much more than the : HEAT/SABOT. How much do you need for anti-personnel?If they get that close,the tracks can make monkey butter out of the chuckle heads...
>>> A QUESTION TO ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO RESPOND: 1 > I've heard many guys (some of them were or even still are tankers) - that fitting tanks with autoloaders to reduce its weight (like it has been done with the "Leclerc") it's an error, and that the quickest and best way to load a gun is always to have a loader with a ready round in hands. Is that TRUE? 2 > Does the "Leclerc" each time it shoots, must align the gun with the autoloader to reload after the shot? PS. Sorry for the ignorance...
I always hate that there are almost only videos of old Leopard 2 versions in videos like this one. Even in 2011 there were the Leopard 2 a5 and a6 with modular armor and many improvements but they didnt mension them.
Based on my exp operating with a short crew everyone gets tired more quickly, maintenance is harder everything is harder. Some like the auto loader + 3 man crew, Its a workable system. The Loader is your go-to guy and an additional set of eyes and a machine gun is nice to have. And a human loader is no more prone to breakdown than an auto loader(actually less). The LeClerc has 22 rounds in the autoloader the other 18 are in the hull. At least Russian Tanks have all 40 ready to go.
Jesus, that Leclerc can PURR.
this is one of the best tank videos i have seen, thanks for the upload :)
1:59 lol the little windshield wipers :D
hah so cute
Great little documentary. Honest, no bias, no propaganda. Rare for a documentary like this.
I like the French Leclerk -- "Fire smoke and retreat to a safe location" 17:06
flahr1 Like all MBT...
+flahr1 you might be surprised that, behind its tremendous cost, and its average reliability, this machine is excellent in accuracy, mobility, and ... surprisingly, protection !
Especially because leclerc can shoot on the move above 15km/h, with 99% first hit ratio. (Merkava and M1 cannot do so above 15km/h if i recall correctly)
Also, some tubes do not contains smoke, but anti-personnel grenades, for urban combat. And on some leclercs, there is a remote controlled turret on the top...
Some versions of the leclerc are especially designed for urban fighting, but i do not remeber the precise name of the version
Oh, and forgot to said : the crew is separated in different compartments, in case of hull penetration, a single crew member should be injured/killed.
Vehicle is also certified for radioactive evironment. That's a lot of stuff !
+Léo VanWillem I am sure it is a great tank. I was just joking about the French stereotype about surrendering
+flahr1 I'm pretty sure this overused joke does not make laugh anyne anymore... ^^
And I find it kind of misleading, France were involved in loadsa wars, and is one of the most overall victorious country, that also helped USA to gain independance.
Well, glad you didn't fell on a butthurt dude.
:P
+WarGamersNL - WGNL they said it, not me -- just for the french.
How wonderful it is to go TH-cam and find masses of military experts there!
The leclerc is for sure the best tank in the world but it's quite expansive (I think it is 9 million € for a leclerc tank) and 5.3 million € for a leopard 2, also 5.3 million $ for a M1 Abrams while the British challenger 2 is 2.2 million £. France have 423 tanks and it's more than UK, who got 407 tanks and Germany who have 408.
RaccoonMoustache By far.
RaccoonMoustache I have long since assumed that a modern tank,being so complex,sensitive and expensive is virtually non-repairable.And,if all participants in the next war-god forbid!-are armed each with the "best" tank then it follows that all tanks will be destroyed in one day for they all boast of one round kill rate.Or is my reasoning at fault?I have no military experience.
Squarerig Actually, the opposite. Modern tanks are modular and extremely easy to repair. However, the defective module is not repaired but simply replaced.
Aha! I knew there was such a thing as IR Smoke on tanks! My friends know nothing!
germany has produced and will always produce the best military equipment
True that!
actually in this day and age its about who has the most inter-continental ballistic nuclear missiles
nuclear weapons are the dumbest invention ever. they are no real weapons they are apocalypse and have not really an effectiveness against enemy military instead you want to wipe out a whole country
4-Fun Productions They're useful for a last resort if you begin to lose though.
Germany has always produced the best of everything and "German" means quality. And I'm not even German, probably they would be too shy to say something like that :D
I love M1A1 and 2's. They come with a compliment of AH-64, Longbow, Block III, Cobra's, A-10's, AC-130's, B-1, B-2, B-52, F-16's, and F-15's. Now that's POWER.
cut the crap here. Main guns of any mbt can penetrate every mbts armor. Leopard might be the best one with cost effectines, mobility, firepower and reliability. It works as well in arctic conditions as in desert. There hasnt been any conflict where modern tanks faces another. Shooting export versions of t.72s from 70s is as much combat as every army do when they practise.
Wrong, the gun means nothing. The ammunition determines if it will penetrate or not, depending on the tank defenses.
And the French tank takes the award for being able to run away at high speed with extremely resistant armor on the rear so as to protect their ass when in full retreat. It carries 6 white flags so as to be seen from all sides in case there is no rout of escape and a handy drop hatch on the bottom to dump the feces produced in any dangerous situation. It has excellent ventilation to prevent an overload of natural body odor and ample supplies of perfume for the famous French showers. And, it is such a pretty tank so much so that they hope it will prevent people from shooting at it while it runs away from the battle.
gary winkler Do I detect a note of contempt for the Frenchies?I find it so amusing how old dislikes,prejudices and hatred surface in YT!Please don't take offence.I like such comments!
Squarerig It's not so old for me, I remember what it was that got us into Vietnam so many years ago.
gary winkler Hatred for communism and overzealousness got you there, nothing more my friend.
+gary winkler should i remind you who greatly helped USA to gain independance? you tend to forgot those kind of things, Yep, it is France.
Read more books, chauvinist boy !
Typical French..
Yanks:- high tec, powerful and plentiful.
Germans:- combination of strength and power.
Brits:- Longest recorded tank to tank kill.
Frogs:- one forward gear and four reverse.
(Only joking)
That famous joke about the leclerc....
allow me to correct your joke by a fact :
_______________________
Frogs : Only MBT to have destroyed a Jet fighter with it's main gun...
xD *ayy*
imho still the strongest tank :D
i thought it was the italians that had the one forward gear and four reverse.
One of my favorite jokes from a game it's besicaly a conversation between two German soldiers:
General:fuhrer Italians joined the war
fuhrer : send a devision to stop the
general: they are on our side fuhrer
fuhrer: damn it send them an army
For all of you saying the Abrams have been destroyed by an rpg-7 this is false only disabled the tank was destroyed by the crew to prevent it falling into enemy hands the mission was to fast paced to repair the tank. Other wise the tank was an easy fix not destroyed by any means
Leopard 2 is the best tank ever made !!!
Fastest too, If I'm correct :)
Zoltan Csikos No, because it is a little bit too heavy....
I'm pretty sure it weighs around the same as the rest...
Zoltan Csikos T90 is a lot lighter.
The Leopard weighs around 12 tons more but besides that it's superior in every way. The T90 also goes at the speed of 60 KMH while the Leopard 2 goes at the speed of 72, the Leopard weighs more yet Germany still beats Russia. Tsk tsk.
Smooth bore has a higher velocity than a rifled.
(I could be wrong below)
The HEAT rounds stabilize them selves in flight and the Sabot round casing spins while going down the barrel which spins the perpetrator for it's flight.
M1 Abrams SECOND best tank in the world:
Gulf War - Challenger Kills 300 Losses 0
Longest range tank on tank kill - 5100m by a TOGS Equipped Challenger
Oh and by the way Chobham (the name of the special armour on both tanks was a british development
Dave Hopkin True. I like the way the American armour is described in the video "Similar to the British armour" It IS British mate.
Dave Hopkin Yeah, so what's you point?
Ishmael3261
"Whats YOU point"........ The point is the Chally 2 is a better tank.
Great, it is totally better at something that will never make a difference.........so awesome
Dave Hopkin i wouldnt rank that way, i would set either the T90 or the Leopard 2A6 at the Top of the list, that is place 1 and 2 since the T90 can outrange the Leopard, using the ATGMs while beeing protected by the "Stora" and "Arena" protection systems, able to change the course of a guided missile or shoting those out of the sky.
the Leopard on the other hand is very manouverable and has a longer calibre gun giving it a better velocity and therefor a higher chance of penetration (the leo2A6 120mm L55 canon is a new kind which the Americans and french dont have, the americans use the old leo series canon that is found lastly found on the A5 model, 120mmL44
overall the american gun gets a worse velocity out of it then the russian Tank series, starting with the T64 when they first introduced the 125mm canon) then i would put the Chalanger 2 on the 3rd place folowed by the merkava on 4th and leclarc on 5th place
Smooth bore gives higher muzzle velocity>less air time for projectile>easier hit on moving targets. Fin stabilization gives accuracy.
why is it that whenever someone posts a video about other countries tanks, people go ape shit and start claiming that theirs is the best without giving facts?
here, let me provide them for you:
Abrams:
1: armor consists of many layers of steel, ceramic, and depleted uranium. Along with the TUSK urban warfare kit. This makes the Abrams the most heavily armored tank in the world.
2: the abrams is the most battle proven out of any modern day tank, so we know how it works and its pros/cons
3: it can keep up with lighter tanks
4: it's heavy as fuck
Challenger:
1: armor consists of many layers of steel and ceramic. Along with the CHOBHAM armor upgrades, this makes the challenger second only to the abrams
2: the challenger is the second most battle proven, serving in the middle east next to the abrams
3: basically the same tank and the abrams, except its armor is a tad weaker
4: it can keep up with lighter tanks
5: it's heavy as fuck
Leclerc:
1: Armor is basically the exact same as the challenger, but a bit weaker. The leclerc cane make up for this by installing the AZUR urban protection kit.
2: The leclerc has never seen true combat (tank vs tank/tank vs anti-tank soldiers)
3: lighter than most modern MBT's
4: fast as fuck
Leopard:
1: armor is basically the same as the challenger and leclerc, but sloped more. Which increases the armor's deflection capability
2: one of the most advanced tanks in the world because it is constantly updated. It's now on its 7th version, which started in 2010
3: it can keep up with lighter tanks
4: it's heavy as fuck
T-90:
1: armor is significantly weaker than the others, but due to it's super low profile and it's advanced active protection system, it is one of the most protected in the world.
2: one par with the german leopard when it comes to advances in tech. Its latest and last model was rolled out in 2004
3: its the fastest tank on this list
4: it wieghs like a feather
5: it's small as fuck
6: also has a more powerful gun, using a 125mm smooth bore instead of the 120mm smooth bore everyone else uses.
T-14 Armata:
1: I dont fuckin' know man that shits too new
there you go. now that i have stated alot of notable facts, i personally think the abrams rains supreme. But thats just my opinion
+EEProductions EJW ummm, no. While it is true the T-90 uses a 125mm gun rather than the 120, this is a gross oversimplification. Compared to the NATO 120mm gun, the 125mm 2A46 gun actually has inferior armor performance, particularly when comparing APFSDS rounds. This is due to a couple things, most notably the shorter penetrators the 125mm gun fires, 600mm for the Svinets vs 936mm for the M829A3. This is a necessary thing because the T-72 and by extension the T-90 have to fit their ammunition into a hull mounted carousel autoloader. Furthermore, the T-90's protection degrades a lot faster than the protection on western MBTs as the T-90 is essentially a T-72 with some new fire control systems plopped into it and some ERA bolted on. ERA degrades quicker than composite and is far more vulnerable to things like Tandem HEAT rounds
I said that the t-90 had inferior armor compared to other tanks. I also said it makes up for it with its active protection system, which destroys all incoming projectiles
+EEProductions EJW well they don't actually use the active protection systems on the T-90. Only demonstration vehicles have it. It's simply too expensive to put on every T-90 and they already have a new tank that will have active protection as standard with the T-14. But the T-90 has already shown itself to be able to jam and take TOW missiles and survive.
iis leopard battle proven?
erm, not quite correct on Challenger or Leclerc. Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armour. It's a development of Chobham that we haven't even shared with USA yet. Although I don't think Challenger 2 is the best tank, it has better frontal armour than an Abrams in both thickness and composition. Vs kintetic rounds it's much better, and vs chemical (HEAT) they're about even on their turret fronts but the Challenger hull is better protected too. (Challenger 1 had a very weak 70mm lower glacis but they sorted that)
Abrams may be a better tank but it's not as tough, especially vs IEDs, Challenger has a V shaped hull that deflects the blast force, and has never lost a crew member .
Leopard 2 and Merkava are probably the most formidable tanks today. Say whatever you want in the case of Germany, even when they lost both World Wars they could produce a better and powerful tanks than the nations that defeated them way before those nations produce the same adversary tanks. Also the Abrams would not be powerful as today without the licensed Rheinmetall 120mm gun.
Leopard 2 - German engineering :) Enough said... :)
Ja! :D Leopard 2 is the best :D
Zoltan Csikos T90 and the M1A1 Abram are the best
The Leopard 2 can wade through 4 meters of water using a special snorkel, the Leopard 2 is the most mobile, It also uses the same ammunition and has the same speed as the abrams, the abrams doesn't have anything that special.
Zoltan Csikos but has it seen combat that what the T90 and the Abrams have against it
Zoltan Csikos but has it seen combat that what the T90 and the Abrams have against it
Careful gentlemen,,, it's never the weapon but the skill and cleverness of the user.
The Germans said that and looked what happened.
WHAT THE FUCK NO MENTION OF RUSSIAN TANKS? Hah hah or is that part missing from the video? lol
The Leclare tank is fitted with the very best cutting-edge French military technology available, including,
1. Engine transmission with 3 forward and 7 reverse gears.
2. 8 separate ultra rapid deployment flagstaffs with over-sized 8 X 3 meter white surrender flags. Powerful wave action fitted to each staff.
3. Potent 130 decibel loudspeaker system repeats "We give up" in 10 different languages.
4. Night sights which let crew spot the enemy and surrender even before the shooting starts.
It also depends on where you land it, what type of ammunition you were using, what distance you were firing it at and what type of armour the target is equipped with.
Youre right, I never said T-64 was equal to the Leclerc, just pointed out that most of its big innovations were already in existence when the first one rolled off the production line.
I hope we don't get to find out which one is the best.
There's one thing all of you don't understand. On the M1 tank the Fire Control System was first used on the m60a3. Stabilization Laser Rangefinder windage all of it. Even an 681 even though it had a stereo stop the rangefinder a good tank crew could fire very very quickly I was on both of those series of tanks. And the M60 series has always had reactive armor before the 1980s it's nothing new. Even the Sherman and I believe the later German tanks and World War II had a form of gun stabilization anyway have a happy day
What one must remember about armoured vehicles is that "mobility" does not refer to tactical speed (IE max speeds and acceleration rate), it refers to strategic speed (road speeds, these only need to be about 30-50 mph, and are more of a minimum requirement, which all tanks since WW2 have been able to meet). At a tactical level, speedy drivers hit ambushes which cautious drivers spot or are at least better prepared to engage. It IS seriously cool seeing tanks ... fly, but useless tactically.
I can't understand why everyone wants to hate on the M1. It is the only modern tank to even fight tank on tank. The rest are what they are until proven otherwise. The M1 is more than a match for any other armored vehicle on this planet. I know I woud much rather risk my life in the one that has been tested.
MY DAD IS BETTER THAN YOUR DAD!!!
Catdog You are a child.
akgeronimo501 actually I was just trying to answer your question. You see thats basicly whats going on at this comment section...
"It is the only modern tank to even fight tank on tank"
Challenger 2s did that...
as have many other vehicles.
***** Where???
Gotta love that 120mm Rheinmetal smoothbore.
Essentially, this is a deadly play between stealth, agility, sensors and missiles. From the front quarter the Raptor’s 0.0001 square meter Radar Cross Section (RCS) and the Lightning II’s 0.001 square metres make them difficult targets. The Flanker-E Plus, while having a reduced radar signature, still has a residual RCS of about 2 square metres
only till the M1 Abrams commander disables the rpm governor on it's gas turbine.. you can only safely spin a diesel engine so fast before it fails, a gas turbine can go quite a bit faster before it fails, enabling what it's connected to, to move faster :)
You just compared a WW2 era tank to a modern main battle tank. Genius.
Documentary of the opportunity of knowledge of all equipment in the world in a little while, nice fast and accurate
It is the other way around, because of the higher working speed of a gas turbine engine there is more wear on them. Which is the reason why the M1 has limited its engine. The gas turbine engines are also far more sensitive to dust and fine sand.
T-90A has up to 830mm RHA equivalent with Kontakt-5; T-90M has Relikt which provides greater protection. Refleks penetrates up to 950mm RHA equivalent and a range of 5km.
PARS 3 LR is still in development and has a shorter range than the Vikhr.
Frank Whittle, an English inventor and RAF officer, developed the concept of the jet engine in 1928, Hans von Ohain in Germany, a decade later developed the concept independently at the end of the 1930s. He wrote in February 1936 to Ernst Heinkel, telling him of the design and its possibilities. However, it can be argued that the English engineer A. A. Griffith, who published a paper in July 1926 on compressors and turbines, also deserves credit.
It's the first and perhaps still the only MBT that can reliably hit fixed wing aircraft moving at supersonic speeds within its range.
This is awesome! I just learned 3X more data about tanks than I normally did.
A single gun weights a couple of tons, takes up quite a lot of space in the tank/turret and also the turret would need to be very huge, that again would require a bigger (non agile) hull.
It is well worth to wait 4-6 seconds for a second shot, rather than driving around in a big and slow target.
2 guns only work in Command & Conquer....
technically it's a self propelling artillery gun, self propelling howitzer...
but keep in mind that it has strategies to defend and protect itself against armored enemies;
believe it or not, but if the PZH 2000 find a tank in 2 miles away and align the gun right down to it, the enemy will be destroid.
I'm talking about hits that would have blown other tanks sky high, some of the hits that they can take are jus amazing
The Abrams uses an American made form of Chobham armour given to the US by the UK under a very special agreement, And that's why we in the UK went further and created Dorchester, an even stronger form of Chobham, the next generation upping it's survivability even further.
Remember a Challenger 1 or 2 had and has never been lost in combat, to any enemy fire, never been destroyed in combat, one took atleast 30 RPG-7s thousands of rounds of 7.62, plus an anti-tank rocket, it was retrieved with all crew safe and unharmed, the Challenger 2 MBT optics and tracks was fixed or replaced all within 6hrs and it was back out doing it's job as Usual.
Can't wait for its replacement, although I'll miss the old girl terribly, tye Challenger 1 and 2 are my all time favourite tanks, with the Abrams a very close second.
A means is my favorite tank, but the challenger 2 got a little bonus the way the turret is designed the tank is half stealth which I think will be better suited for the future
cant beleive he said that, by the time King tiger was operational, the fuel the germans used was ethanol, a low power fuel, and the engine was designed to work with that, thats why it was slow, but it was the only drawback of the King tiger
Its not stupid if built properly. If you have human, you have to feed him, train him, pay him, heal him, carry more equipment for him, he has to rest, sleep, eat and drink, take a shit, he gets ill, he gets tired, he gets demotivated, you need more room so you need bigger tank, bigger means bigger target, more fuel...besides you can fill more tanks with same number of people.
Autoloader is fast enough, reliable (again If built properly), and relatively cheap+ ammo is safely stored in hull..
the TAM(Tanque Argentino Meidano) argentina's main battle tank, was designed by germans and argentinian engineers, it was designed for a defense purpose of our territory, thats why is not that big, but its 105mm cannon and the new targeting software makes it one of the best tanks in the regions, so yes, germans were and still are the best tanketeers
Electronics are EMP hardened with diodes. That is just part of the design requirements.
T-72 2E28M (and improved versions) stabilization system was great and best of class until Leopard 2 and its entered to service.
T-72M1 (T-72A export model) stabilization system works great on rough terrain and does not give problems for gunner to hit targets. It does have own flaws compared to latest FCS and stabilization systems but it isn't terrible at all even today on modernized variants.
First tank with fully stabilized gun was Centurion III. Even russian t54 had the stabilized elevation years ahead of leopard
anyone else realized, that they forgot to mention, that the m1 abrams is the result of an american-german partnership for the construction of a tank, that later failed (americans gave money and resources, germans gave engeneering and knowledge), and that the abrams still uses the german Rheinmetal L/44 gun?
looks like there's some points that were forgotten ... on purpose maybe?
Judging from the graphic content, which was quite old, I believe the main reason the T-90 isn't included is because this documentary is released before one gets to learn about the T-90's potential (which is not until the mid 2000s did they learn about it, IMO)
Actually only British tanks use Chobham armor. The term is used by many to describe any sort of composite armor, but Chobham is a specific type of composite armor unique to the British. The Russian T-64 was the first production tank to have composite armor, and the concept was experimented with by all sides during WW2.
The German L44, and L55 120mm cannons are used on several different NATO tanks, but the British, French, Italians, and several others use their own 120mm cannons.
Abrams, Challengers and Leopards are top tanks - no doubt about that, but that Leclerc is also a DAMN BEAUTIFUL machine.
I wonder how is it to sit in one of those things...
My Chally 1 in the 80's did 45mph, like the rest of them. Mind you we spent a lot of time cleaning bits of Germany out of the barrel due to the gun stabilizing system being from Chieftain, which generally didn't move much (owing to being shit) so didn't really need it to be very fast!!!
Yes, thats why the Abrams took the Leopard 2 main gun too (Rheinmetall 120 mm gun).
And thats not the only thing, that is used from the Leopard 2. Please browse the internet/wiki for further information. There is also a documentation of an international event, where all actual tanks are compared. Some NATO event, or something like that. Maybe you find it.
The USA have nearly always used simpler versions of German or British guns. Using depleted uranium penetrators rather than tungston ones makes up for the slight lack in performance.
It's the older versions that weren't up to necessary specs. Also it wasn't rpgs but RPG-29 'Vampir', AT-5 'Konkurs', AT-13 'Metis-M', and laser-guided AT-14 'Kornet' HEAT missiles. Namely purpose built anti-missiles as opposed to just a general purpose rocket. In addition one those missiles mentioned were the latest possible version so by that time they worked out most the kinks of the previous versions.
The thing is, all the other MBTs are being fitted with tusk kits that are covering them in ERA too. So if you've got chobham and DU and ERA, that big 'ol 125mm isn't going to do a damn thing to you. If you've got mostly just steel and some laminate with kontakt, most things can penetrate. T-90 is still just 830ish with kontakt, and they don't cover the whole thing with it if you look in pictures, it just cover weaker spots or places more likely to be hit.
I believe the fellar at 12:42 was not expecting that tank to fire lol
Same gun, optics, mobitlity and protection. The crew makes the diffirence at this level as i have seen on international contests.
The point of what I said is that the army does not upgrade it's armor, The M1A2 is being upgraded and M1A3 is In development. M1A2 is basicly the same as M1A1, The working range of the M1A2 is 243 mi (391 km), And M1A1 is 288 mi (463 km), The gun is the same, Speed is the same also. The M1A2 offers the tank commander an independent thermal sight and ability to, in rapid sequence, shoot at two targets without the need to acquire each one sequentially, That is all there is to it.
The light weight, reduced crew size, the speed, the firepower, computer integration, auto loading
Minute 15:00 speaking about Leclerc, is it a smoothbore gun? I do not understand the shift of the machineguns from traditionally lighter in the turret and anti-aircraft on the turret Leclerc switches them. What do they have to defend against aircraft/helicopters?Also lightest main battle tank today at 56 tones? The T 90 with an autoloader from its ancestors T-64 (with autoloader since 1966) is 46,5 tones.
*Re-writing that for you* I love M1A1 and 2's they come with Own Oil Refinery to keep them in gas.
View ports can be very tough, but they are not really armored. And yes, "glass" is typically the best material to see through.
Also, T-90, T-80 and T-84 so have serious tech on them so you cannot say they don't have quality.
French people do read it, so thanks :) Besides, people too often thinks in terms of "My tank is better than yours". Which is silly, since we're allies. By the way, the M1 and Challenger 2 both really look neat.
good solid choice great for invasions or raids
problem is with the M1A1 is its very exspensive losing a tank like this will empty your pocket it cant be mass produced in a factory alot of things need to be done by hand + because the M1A1 served for a long time alot of people already know where to hit it to destroy it
Look harder.
There are many American/British documentaries dedicated to the Leopard 2, a few of them are even here on TH-cam. All of them make it very clear that it is one hell of a machine.
LOL. Yes, most of the viewports actually have periscope aspects. When they are fully buttoned-up, there is no "straight line" to the TC via the sight; at least for modern tanks.
T-95 and Black Eagle programs were shut down for good back in the 2000 when T-90 was selected for the next main MBT for the Russian Federation. On top of that the company which had developed them filed for bankruptcy and they have been mothballed ever since.
The comment section in three words: war, denial and propaganda...
Swedish strv 122 = German Leopard 2.... is an improved version of the German-built Leopard 2A5. Some of the upgrades are improved command, control and fire control systems, heavily reinforced armor( for ex the sloping armor on the torret later adoptet by the Germans) and improved long-term combat capacity and the smoke grenade launchers from Wegmann is replaced with smoke granade launchers from Galix.
hey, does anybody know what's the song that the Firepower use?
Okay, it's cheap for resources. However, it does not take more time to manufacture similar things that are just larger. The length of time is usually based on complexity. Being more complex (containing advanced materials, composites, depleted uranium and good fire control) leads to a better tank. So if Russia needed to quickly rearm themselves, T-90 works. But the easier to manufacture, the less complex and less effective. Tanks are at the bleeding edge. The more advanced and complex the better.
I do agree that, T-90 should be in here too, but then again so should be some other tanks as well, and that would go fairly long lengh of document, and introduction of each tank would be much more short. Its as well logical that these four tanks are shown together, as they all are more or less designed together, and share many same components. Its as well natural competition between friendly neighbors, with similar tanks, and it makes "west" countries feel more safe to have these tanks.
Actually there was a person who wrote the book the Germans read and applied, B. H. Liddel-Hart, formulated various theories that became the blue print for the Blitzkrieg concept.
Also an other bloke wrote an interesting essay on "future tank tactiques", his name was Cherles de Gaulle.
Here too the concepts were absorbed by the Germans, Guderian being their man.
considering no m1 Abrams tank crewmen has ever been killed by another tank while in an Abrams, and while one may be knocked out by a lucky shot, or bomb, the crew survivability rate is incredibly high
That is true, and forgive me for leaving the Challenger out of the picture. ou have a valid point, but the Challenger is equally as old as both Abrams models and share close similarities, some people can get an Abrams, Challenger and an Aeriete (not sure if spelled right) confused. Challenger is a fine piece of armor definitely worthy of notice.
"In May 2010, deputy defense minister and chief of armaments Vladimir Popovkin announced that a number of programs for development of new armor and artillery weapons would be canceled. The main victim is the Object 195 program (T-95). Popovkin said the military will focus on modernization of the T-90 instead. The reason given for this was the fact that the T-95 was already obsolete, as it had been in development for almost two decades." So why should it be there?
Because they largely were. It's just what happens in peace time, we haven't got an arms race going so we don't need to develop new designs quite as often.
Has anyone but me realized but me that all you have to do is set off shells loaded with paint to coat all these electronics blinding the Abrams tank....Either blasts close to the tank or have troops crazing enough to shoot shells to coat the tanks..
No, they've shown a Leopard 2 A5, which wasn't in development before 1995 ;)
Thats why anti ballistic missile shield is something there working on. THAAD, standart misile 3 arrow 2-3 and patriot PAC 3 "or are they to shoot down the very deadly UAV's" lol Terrorism is used as a weapon to and it's still a very powerfull one. Unmanned weapons were also used in WWII just like the tanks modern ones have bin improved alot. And then you have space warfare; a earlywarning system in space, anti satelites misiles, manned space stations, etc....
There is a mistake in the video: The main gun of the Leclerc (120 mm L/52) does not fire the same ammunition as the Leopard 2 (120 mm L/44 or L/55).
every modern tank can fire on the move but only the chally 2 use's a 120mm rifled gun atm and no matter what people say a rifled gun fires more accurately then a smothbore
Something the presenter failed to mention is that the French MTB has one forward gear and four reverse gears.
What they should do is to arrange for a few remote controlled tanks to have a shootout to put all arguments to rest.
It was the Brits. Whitley in 1939. They just never took it past test stage. Heinkel was the first German jet. It looks close to the 262 with a different tail and slightly squarish look.
What is that joke? Canadians were hopeful that they would get the best of both continents; American technology, British culture and French cuisine. The reality was they got American culture, British food, and French technology.
They left it out because the T-90's were the one smoking after the Challenger's rolled through. They couldn't get shots of one in action since they were all knocked out.
Didn't know how much tech was in the Leclerec. And of course they save the best tank for last.
tanks, cars you name it.Germans are on top of those lists and you can not replace them from the top.....awesome engineering
The M1A1's gun is chrome lined.The charge to send the round out of the barrel is much larger than the old school 105mm. Rifling the barrel would slow down the round too much.Besides the rounds have fins to correct the small amount of spin the rifling would give them.
I don't know what ammo types xmeda has in mind,but the main gun can fire much more than the : HEAT/SABOT.
How much do you need for anti-personnel?If they get that close,the tracks can make monkey butter out of the chuckle heads...
Its funny cause people are arguing which is the best when most them haven't even seen these tanks in person...
>>> A QUESTION TO ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO RESPOND:
1 > I've heard many guys (some of them were or even still are tankers) - that fitting tanks with autoloaders to reduce its weight (like it has been done with the "Leclerc") it's an error, and that the quickest and best way to load a gun is always to have a loader with a ready round in hands.
Is that TRUE?
2 > Does the "Leclerc" each time it shoots, must align the gun with the autoloader to reload after the shot?
PS.
Sorry for the ignorance...
The torso suspension is back in action baby :D
I always hate that there are almost only videos of old Leopard 2 versions in videos like this one. Even in 2011 there were the Leopard 2 a5 and a6 with modular armor and many improvements but they didnt mension them.
Based on my exp operating with a short crew everyone gets tired more quickly, maintenance is harder everything is harder. Some like the auto loader + 3 man crew, Its a workable system. The Loader is your go-to guy and an additional set of eyes and a machine gun is nice to have. And a human loader is no more prone to breakdown than an auto loader(actually less). The LeClerc has 22 rounds in the autoloader the other 18 are in the hull. At least Russian Tanks have all 40 ready to go.