Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Pottsboro, TX USA
Posts: 289

I already have Burned a Godsmack CD!
I'm so effiecent!!!!!!!

------------------
What? I'm not crazy! But the rest of you are!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

its chobim armor. and i am not sure if its reactive armor or not, after all, i am not a tanker, and even if i was, its classified. i do know that its a british invention and is being shared amongst its closest allies (that much is unclassified).
most of the gunnery equipement for the abrams is in the forward end of the turret along with all of the displays for the commander. the entire back end of the turret is used for ammo starage. it looks to me like a portion of the isreali tanks ammo starage has been moved into the hull so that they could trim the turret down.
oh, and as for as i can tell from my research, the isreali tank does have teh night vision capability along with most of the other electronic goodies, though its still a diesel like all of the other tanks (exept abrams of course)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Pottsboro, TX USA
Posts: 289

They all have the NightVision, its the GPS units, infa-red, etc.

------------------
What? I'm not crazy! But the rest of you are!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

yeah, most of the tanks gear is the same, its just the armor/gun/porwerplant combination that makes them similar. about the only tank that is different than the others is the abrams tank. unlike the others, it uses a gas turbine similar to that found on helocoptors for power. this enables it to attain speeds of 55 miles per hour even with its weight. in fact, i have seen footage of these tanks cathing air after going over small hills. their manuverablilty is unmatched in the world. they can even stop in one trak length by locking their tracks.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 928

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charger:
yeah, most of the tanks gear is the same, its just the armor/gun/porwerplant combination that makes them similar. about the only tank that is different than the others is the abrams tank. unlike the others, it uses a gas turbine similar to that found on helocoptors for power. this enables it to attain speeds of 55 miles per hour even with its weight. in fact, i have seen footage of these tanks cathing air after going over small hills. their manuverablilty is unmatched in the world. they can even stop in one trak length by locking their tracks.

---

Mind you I haven't ridden in a Merkava, but as a combat engineer in the IDF we used these turret-less tanks called Puma's based on the old British Centurion. The speedometer on that thing only got up to 35mph, but believe me, at 35mph among the rolling desert hills we went flying over mounds easily. Some nice pics of it [url="http://idfmodelling.free.fr/puma.html"]here[/url] and [url="http://idf-sp.tripod.com/achzarit.htm"]here[/url]. But we didn't have air-conditioning like the Merkava Mk. 3 does... And yes, they both use diesel fuel, which is simply safer (less chance of it catching fire from damage), less costly and more effecient. They also both have reactive armor. Dang, those side plates are HEAVY! The Merkava is widely known to be the best desert tank in the world.

------------------
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."

[This message has been edited by sandwich (edited 03-26-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 928

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charger:
its chobim armor. and i am not sure if its reactive armor or not, after all, i am not a tanker, and even if i was, its classified. i do know that its a british invention and is being shared amongst its closest allies (that much is unclassified).

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Reactive armor was used on some US tanks during the Gulf War. That much I know. More recently the British came up with a newer kind of armor (not sure if its the same one your talking about). What I saw of it had a sabertooth arrangement in the way that the armor fit together. I guess because of the strange shape it can absorb blasts better.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location:
Posts: 97

the challanger 2 is the only tank to be fitted with the BRAND NEW chobram stuff, the challanger 2 takes best things of american and european tanks and mixes it all together, thats why it should be the best, there have been no conflicts yet to proove its abilities.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Pottsboro, TX USA
Posts: 289

The M-2 has done the same also, combining that of the other American tanks and the European Tanks, plus some of the stuff from the israeli tanks. I think they cost like 2.1 million dollars each.

------------------
What? I'm not crazy! But the rest of you are!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

that reactive armor stuff was not being used on the entire surface of the m1. the hull is so strong it was deemed as redundant. the older m60's that the marines were using were covered from stem to stern with the bolt-on version similar to what we always see on russian tanks. the m1 does have a couple of other features. the hull is so strong because of chobum, that the us never lost a tank crew in the gulf war. we lost a couple of tanks, but no crews. it is so strong in fact that even the us has almost no weapons capable of killing the m1's crew. another is with the weapons storage. if a weapon breaches that compartment, blow off panels on the top of the turret fail, which vents the explosion away from the crew. and, if you look at the picture that was included in this topic. the m1 tank shown has reactive armor around its shell storage area. those large panels atached to rails out away from the hull are the panels. they could also be just some panels of chobum armor placed their to cause premature detonation of warheads away from the hull. this would help protect from most kinds of penetrating warheads.

oh, and i agree. the merkhava is probably on of the two best tanks for the desert.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: The Cold Northland!
Posts: 8392

Actually...I think there were a few casualties in tank crews. It was a M2 Bradley...and it had been hit by friendly fire (which isn't so friendly).

But its true, the Iraqi's got a good pounding and the M1's technology is party responsible. So is tactics and well trained crews.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location:
Posts: 97

let us not forget the 15 british servicemen who were killed in a freindly fire incedent, reactive amour is all well and good but depleted urnaium from an a10 is gonna whack you up no matter what.

The column of three warrior apcs was travling up a road in captured allied territory clearly displaying the freindly markings of (in the british case) a black kangaroo in a yellow box and giving off all the right radio signals. When the a10 started its run and blew up the first warrior the calls of cease fire went un heard and it took out a second one as well.

The pilots excuse for this travesty? he was concentrating, he is still flying in the USAF and did not even recieve a reprimand for his actions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 928

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceFire:
Actually...I think there were a few casualties in tank crews. It was a M2 Bradley...and it had been hit by friendly fire (which isn't so friendly).

---

I'm not quite sure you can define a Bradely as a tank... more like a glorified APC.

------------------
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Tania Austrailis
Posts: 3322

Funny how the ion cannon becomes a chat about tanks...



I don't know tanx so... bye

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

yeah, a bradley is designed to carry troops and to support them with its bushmaster cannon. it is very fast wich is attained by using relatively light armor. it is well armored, but not like a tank. the only vehicle that can truly be called a tank that carries troops is the isreali merkhova main battle tank. it is pictured above. it has its engine in the front to make room for a six troop compartment in the rear. it also has a couple of extras to support this capability, like a phone on each rear fender so that troops outside the tank can talk to the crew without a radio.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Pottsboro, TX USA
Posts: 289

Let's not talk about the other Countries of the UN and how "Brave" they were in Desert Storm and in Bosinia, etc. It is obivious the US need to fire the whoever makes these stupid descision about how the other UN countries should be making the US do its dirty work. We are not the big dumb guy that kicks everybodies ass for the little people. The only other contries I see besides the US that are used in UN operations is: Great Britain, Italy(sometimes), Russia, and Canada(these countries are excluded). The rest are a punch of weak little countries that don't want their butts' kicked by the ones that are named above.

------------------
What? I'm not crazy! But the rest of you are!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

well, to a certain extent, i agree, but you must include isreal in your exclusion list. their air force is the best in the world, and that includes the us, thier army is one of the best in the world and maintains itself at a high state of readiness because of the simple fact that everybody in the region hates isreal. also, since they are a rather small country, they don't have alot of equipement to go around, so they need every tank and chopper and truck that they have just in the defence of their own country. their whole force structure is built around the idea of defence with a limited capacity for deep strikes in support of strategic goals.
you also can't fault them for not getting involved with the gulf war either. they were specifically excluded from the war because of the simple fact that every body in the middle east hates them. if the joined into that war. more than half of the coalition participents would have walked. besides, the isrealis don't have to prove anything, they have won seven wars in the last 50 years, with a couple that were so close, it might reafirm your beleif in god. if you want to bash a country on its foregn and military policies, please narrow your ranting and raving to one or two countries at a time please.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Pottsboro, TX USA
Posts: 289

Opps forgot that lil country. I was there in Desert Storm anyways.

------------------
What? I'm not crazy! But the rest of you are!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Hobart, Tasmaina, Australia
Posts: 202

oooohhh wow....
is this the volition watch "politics and war" message board.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Downton, Diego Garcia, BIOT
Posts: 421

hey, i saw this over in united space and thought it was so kickass that i had to bring it over here: [url="http://www.lares.dti.ne.jp/~hamano/FS/fs000.htm"]http://www.lares.dti.ne.jp/~hamano/FS/fs000.htm[/url]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged