Yes, the U.S. Army is looking at the 105mm LAV. Firepower of a tank but rapid deployable. I feel sorry for the crew.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
vigilantsldr said:Well anyway, what is the best tank?
The M1A1. Plain & simple. Didn't you read the 300+ posts before this?
Is not the M1A2 supposed to be better than the A1? Is this just your own nostalgia, or is the A1 actually a better design? Don't take this the wrong way, I'm honestly curious.
Steele
Steele
Back to my old stand by. The M1A2 is "on paper" better then the A1. It's still gotta prove it. I didn't take your question the wrong way. I posted the A1 again to try to start the arguments again. So, in a sense, I was trying to create a ripple, stir the pot or whatever to get my very first thread to surpass all the rest!
Last edited:
cdat said:Back to my old stand by. The M1A2 is "on paper" better then the A1. It's still gotta prove it. I didn't take your question the wrong way. I posted the A1 again to try to start the arguments again. So, in a sense, I was trying to create a ripple, stir the pot or whatever to get my very first thread to surpass all the rest!
Well .. with you being such an invaluable source of information we've got to please you so we can further exploit you
For your first thread, this is pretty good. 9 pages and 428 posts...
I get your point about better on paper vs. better in combat. Thanks.
Steele
I get your point about better on paper vs. better in combat. Thanks.
Steele
But now seriously... i've always wondered what the effect would be if the front of a M1 would be hit by a HE shell from a 155mm gun(not howitzer) from a range oh about 500m to 1km (direct targeting). Iirc there have been instances of artillery with HE guns blasting the turrets off from even the heaviest tanks in ww2. Obviously nothing like this could happen to todays tanks... (or they'd be all fitted with a 155m artillery gun ) but i assume the crew would be in for a mild shock? Let's also assume that the hit point would be somewhere in the frontal armor or turret.
edit: Let's say from something like This?
) but i assume the crew would be in for a mild shock? Let's also assume that the hit point would be somewhere in the frontal armor or turret.edit: Let's say from something like This?
Any tanker dumb enough to get shot by that thing deserves what he gets. I don't know the answer to the 155mm thing. I don't think a HE round will do anything but piss the crew off. Don't forget, M1's have been hit with 125mm's without major damage done. Anything over 125mm, isn't realistic because of weight. Yes, I know, some of you will say that all you need is an auto-loader. Take one crewman out of the picture and you've just dumped all his duties into the lap's of the rest of the crew. A HEAT round 120mm runs about 70 lbs. Anything over that in a confined space will slow down the reload time. In an A1 on the move, cross country going about 20-30 mph, I can shoot about every 7 seconds. Defense from a hull down position, I can shoot every 4 seconds. Reloaders can't match this rate of fire. 105mm, you can "suction" load. The books say it can't be done, but I've done it and seen it (as the first round is fired and the spent casing is ejected, the loader drops the next round in the breech as the gun is on the return forward after the recoil. The air being sucked out of the end of the gun tube by the reverse flow of air from the bore evacuator "sucks" the round into the breech were it can be fired as soon as the breech block closes). This creates a rate of fire of 2 seconds. 2 rounds in 2 seconds? Not bad. This is why going bigger than 125mm isn't very feasible. It can be done but in the long run isn't viable. Sorry, OT there. If those gun bunnies have to go direct fire in the first place, something is VERY wrong. A HE 155mm will most likely severly damage the tank. It may injure the crew. I don't think it would kill them, unless they had a hatch open and were exposed.
The Russians have build a 135mm, to counter they lack of A class ammunition.
They next tank should future it.
They next tank should future it.
Steele said:
Leo2 A6, Sweden abd Turkey had both systems, and both decided to go for the German machine.
madner said:Give T-55 a chance
Will still be no contest, 'cause the US sighting system is still better and can engage at further ranges.
madner said:
I don't care what anyone says, that A6 is one of the funniest looking things I have ever seen.
cdat said:
A chance is a chance. Who says the next war will be fought in deserts?
Beside, the T-72 will be superior to this "tank"
cdat said:I don't care what anyone says, that A6 is one of the funniest looking things I have ever seen.
I agree, it looks like a caricature of a bodybuilder :rofl:
If we had a single tank vs. tank with equally trianed crews is there anyone who would pick a T-72 over the M1A2 or even the wheeled light tankette we were discussing?
vigilantsldr said:
To pick T-72 against M1A2? ... NO
But against that "Stryker" thingy most likely YES......moreover I assume a single hidden soldier armed with RPG-7 will be enough to blow it up.
Last edited: