The Ultimate Tank?

[Berkut]

Is the argument here that the Abrams is not that great because it never had to fight tanks that were as good as it is???

[ulmont]

More like M1, IPM1, M1A1, M1A1HA* and M1A2, not only armor was upgraded, but also sight, fire controls and battle manage systems...

Agreed, but the IPM1 and the M1A1HA weren't ever fully rolled out, unlike the 3 main variants.

[Neil]

Doesn't the T-72 date from the early 70s?  I mean, the Iraqis probably had ones that were built later, but generally speaking Soviet T-numbers track to around the year the model entered production with the later models.

[ulmont]

Doesn't the T-72 date from the early 70s?  I mean, the Iraqis probably had ones that were built later, but generally speaking Soviet T-numbers track to around the year the model entered production with the later models.

The original was 1973.  There were upgraded versions in 1979 and 1985.  The export model appears to be a downgraded version of the 1973 original.

Disclaimer: wiki for T-72 stuff, official army sites for M1A1 comments.

[I Killed Kenny]

I thought it was funky that the Centurion only had an operational range of 57 miles.

Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.

:pointlesswithoutpictures:

[Mr.Penguin]

Is the argument here that the Abrams is not that great because it never had to fight tanks that were as good as it is???

No the argument is more that we cant judge the true potential of the M1 abrams due to the fact it has never faced a first rate opponent, the same goes for the Leo2...

[The Brain]

and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.

Come now.  That's a lie and you know it.

There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men.  Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.

Since when is a detail a whole tank? L2R

[Neil]

and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.

Come now.  That's a lie and you know it.

There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men.  Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.

Since when is a detail a whole tank? L2R

Given that many details can go into a single tank, what does it matter.   L2T

[The Brain]

and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.

Come now.  That's a lie and you know it.

There are lead designers, but the tank is a large complex object designed by many men.  Thus, no one man goes down in history as being the revolutionary father of a particular tank.

Since when is a detail a whole tank? L2R

Given that many details can go into a single tank, what does it matter.   L2T

Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.

[Neil]

Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.

This is true, but that's not the question you're asking.  You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not.  Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov.  No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did.  Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.

You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.

[The Brain]

Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.

This is true, but that's not the question you're asking.  You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not.  Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov.  No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did.  Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.

You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.

I asked who designed the tanks and I lamented the fact that tank designers are unknown. I didn't ask why that was the case. L2R

[Syt]

Btw, tonight's episode is about fighter planes.

[jimmy olsen]

Btw, tonight's episode is about fighter planes.

I already slammed that ridiculous episode.

[Neil]

Just because you don't care about the various details of tankmakery (for shame!) doesn't mean no one does.

This is true, but that's not the question you're asking.  You're asking why guns, which are rather small, simple machines, end up with well-known designers, while tanks, which are large, complex machines, do not.  Because no one detail of tank design is as sexy as a complete system, it is hardly surprising that no single tank-designer is as well known as Kalashnikov.  No tank designer ever had as much impact on a weapon as Kalashnikov did.  Moreover, some occasionally revolutionary aspects of tanks are designed by someone different from the people who designed the tank itself, especially weapons, electronics and engines.

You can weep about how you feel that individual designers of armour are unrecognized, but surely you can't be surprised that it is the case.

I asked who designed the tanks and I lamented the fact that tank designers are unknown. I didn't ask why that was the case. L2R

And I corrected your ignorance.  When you asked 'Who designed tanks?', you were asking something stupid.  L2T

[grumbler]

No the argument is more that we cant judge the true potential of the M1 abrams due to the fact it has never faced a first rate opponent, the same goes for the Leo2...

But the fact of the matter is that the M1 Abrams HAS seen action against the enemies it was built to fight, and won overwhelmingly.  The Leopard 2 has not, and yet gets voted #1 in some BS "ultimate tank" poll.

I would argue strongly in favor of the Centurian being the ultimate tank.  It was in frontline sevice for over 45 years, and more than 60 years later is still seing some service in its non-tank vaients.  It has seen more than enough action against contemporary tanks to qualify as "battle tested."

BTW, the "range only 57 miles" bit must apply only to the prototypes deployed during WW2.  It has a very typical range (around 200 miles) for a tank of its generation.

If we are just listing modern tanks, the surely the Challenger 2 deserves a mention.