The Ultimate Tank?

[The Brain]

Who designed the different tanks btw?

You always hear about Kalashnikov, the M16 guy etc, but tank designers are almost completely unknown to the wider public. Fuck that.

[Neil]

Who designed the different tanks btw?

You always hear about Kalashnikov, the M16 guy etc, but tank designers are almost completely unknown to the wider public. Fuck that.

I would imagine that, like dreadnought battleships, tanks are complex systems that are designed by committee.  PzKw III was designed by Daimler Benz, PzKw IV was designed by Krupp, Panther by MAN SE and Tiger by Henschel and Son.  The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler, and is probably the only non-shitty vehicle they've ever produced.

[The Brain]

Who designed the different tanks btw?

You always hear about Kalashnikov, the M16 guy etc, but tank designers are almost completely unknown to the wider public. Fuck that.

I would imagine that, like dreadnought battleships, tanks are complex systems that are designed by committee.  PzKw III was designed by Daimler Benz, PzKw IV was designed by Krupp, Panther by MAN SE and Tiger by Henschel and Son.  The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler, and is probably the only non-shitty vehicle they've ever produced.

There's still a lead designer, and various revolutionary details were most often thought up by one guy.

[Syt]

Also check out the rack on the Merkava instructor.

Yes. She could tank me anytime. The Swedish conscript racing the Leo2 reminded me of Carolus Rex.

[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.

[Razgovory]

Gotta agree with our Southern idiot, which pains me.

The Leopard was not designed to kick ass against IED and insurgents wielding rust AK-47s, it was designed to take on and destroy enemy armor in the Fulda Gap. Until that happens, it remains untested.

What was the M1 Abrams designed for?. Shooting up 20-30 year old rusting Tanks in the desert, not much differents from what the leo2 is doing in Afghanistan...

The M1 did destroy quite a few T-72's, T-62's and T-55/54 which made up almost the whole of the Soviet arsenal when the M1 was produced.  Granted the Iraqi tanks were export models and inferior and were not being used according to the doctrine they were designed for but still it's a worthy test.

Yes, when the basic M1 was produced, but the M1A1's used by the US doing Desert Storm was atleast 20 years ahead of any Tank the Iraqies could field. The iraqies didnt even posses a tank round that had any chance of defeat the front armor of the M1A1, The Iraqi T-72's had to be with in a range of 1200m even to stand chance of hitting a M1A1, while the M1A1's could take out any Iraqi tank at as much as 4000m with out any problem. So a insurgent with a rusty AK-47 is infact just as likely to take out a M1A1 or a Leo2 for that matter, as any Iraqi Tank was doing Desert Storm. The iraqi armor was far from any worthy test of the M1A1 Abrams strengh...

The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985.   The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979.  So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.

[Syt]

The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985.   The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979.  So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.

Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.

[ulmont]

Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.

Constantly?  I thought that's why there was the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2?

[Mr.Penguin]

The M1A1 came in to service in in 1985.   The T-72 that were used were knocks off of the T-72A which was produced in 1979.  So it's not exactly 20 years of difference.

The T-72 was an attempt to make a cheaper version of the T-64 from 1967, they succeded in not only making a cheaper version, but also a more crappy version. The only thing on the Iraqi T-72's that wasnt 60's erea tech was the laser range finder some of them had installed...

[Syt]

Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.

Constantly?  I thought that's why there was the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2?

They did update the design over time, did they not? The same can't be said about the T-72.

[Lucidor]

The M1 Abrams was designed by Chrysler, and is probably the only non-shitty vehicle they've ever produced.

Being based in Detroit finally counts for something.

[Warspite]

This thread needs Sir Hockey.

[Mr.Penguin]

Unlike the T-72 the M1A1 has been constantly upgraded and modernized, though.

Constantly?  I thought that's why there was the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2?

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


*) first version with DU armor saw action in Desert Storm

[Malthus]

This thread needs Sir Hockey.

Need to grease the treads with *something*, right? 

[ulmont]

They did update the design over time, did they not? The same can't be said about the T-72.

Yeah, but as Raz pointed out, the baseline T-72 used was around 1979 and the upgraded M1A1 was a 1985 variant.