Classic Top Ten Tanks

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Not yet, what do You want to know about Leopard tank, and BTW what Leopard You have in mind? Leopard 1 series or Leopard 2 series?
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Not yet, what do You want to know about Leopard tank, and BTW what Leopard You have in mind? Leopard 1 series or Leopard 2 series?
I was just commenting on seeing no comments comparing Leopard1/2 to similar tanks. I also know nothing about its development.

As an aside, as a loader in an M60 crew (4), I was aware the the Russian tanks (T-72, I guess, was the opposing tank at the time) had a crew of 3. Is there a conclusion about which system is better?
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
From what I know, the AMX 30 had a 105mm rifled gun. But there was another AMX-30 model called AMX-32 with a Rhinemetal 120mm smoothbore gun meant for export.

The AMX-30 had gun stabilization while the AMX-32(both 105mm and 120mm versions) did not have gun stabilization. We know that the Dutch army preferred the Leo-2 over the AMX-32. I guess AMX-32 lost in Spain as well. Lack of gun stabilization killed it's prospects. There was no smoothbore gun on French AMX-30s as far as I know. Perhaps a few may have been tested with a 120mm smoothbore from Rhinemetal. But I doubt the tank would have been any better considering you can't simply stick a new gun on an old tank and hope it does better.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
I was just commenting on seeing no comments comparing Leopard1/2 to similar tanks. I also know nothing about its development.
I will wrote about it's development more later because it is a bit long story, but also very interesting.

As an aside, as a loader in an M60 crew (4), I was aware the the Russian tanks (T-72, I guess, was the opposing tank at the time) had a crew of 3. Is there a conclusion about which system is better?
From the late 60's to the end of cold war, Soviet Army had 3 MBT's as their primary armored force.

Elite units were mostly equipped with T-64 and T-80 series, while 2nd line units were mostly equipped with T-72 series.

What system is better, ah and here is a very complex problem.

From the crew point of view, the more hands to work, the better situation, also 4 man crew have better situational awareness due to simple fact that there are more eyes scanning horizon.

However tank with 4 man crew need to have enough space inside for these 4 men, so such vehicle is rather big and heavy.

Autoloader permitts to decrease internal volume in a vehicle and thus while vehicle can have the same protection as heavier one, also is much more lighter, easier in transportation etc.

Also there are many more differences between Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) and most NATO designs.

The most basic difference is turret size and composite armor placement.

Soviet design have composite armor placed on in front turret cavitis, rest is simple CHA or RHA, side turret armor of Soviet tanks is 70-80mm thick. But it is placed in such way that within safe manouvering angles (+/- 0-30 degrees from turret center axis) this weak side armor is completely covered by front armor. So from the most predictible hit angles it is immposibile to hit this weak armor.

On the other hand NATO tanks turrets not only have very thick frontal armor (phisical thickness is bigger than in Soviet tanks, however Soviet tanks have front armor angled at very high angles, so LOS thickness at 0 degrees from turret center axis is same or similiar on Soviet tanks as in Western tanks), but also side armor is very thick (no less than 300mm) and made from composite materials.

So thanks to thicker side turret armor, protection is still high within safe manouvering angles, at the most predictible hit angles over frontal arc.

So we have here the same protection levels over frontal arc, but Soviet vehicles are smaller and lighter.

However we can upgrade western tanks to improve further their protection levels on turret and decrease weight.

First step is to design new turret with 2 man crew and autoloader, we can place 800-900mm front composite armor and no less than 300mm side composite armor over crew compartment only, turret bustle with autoloader can be protected by lighter and less dense 150-200mm composite armor.

So we will preserve current protection level with at least several tons lighter vehicle, or we can increase protection levels using densier composite armor while preserving current weight.

I hope that this is clear enough.

From what I know, the AMX 30 had a 105mm rifled gun. But there was another AMX-30 model called AMX-32 with a Rhinemetal 120mm smoothbore gun meant for export.

The AMX-30 had gun stabilization while the AMX-32(both 105mm and 120mm versions) did not have gun stabilization. We know that the Dutch army preferred the Leo-2 over the AMX-32. I guess AMX-32 lost in Spain as well. Lack of gun stabilization killed it's prospects. There was no smoothbore gun on French AMX-30s as far as I know. Perhaps a few may have been tested with a 120mm smoothbore from Rhinemetal. But I doubt the tank would have been any better considering you can't simply stick a new gun on an old tank and hope it does better.
It is possible that such vehicles were tested and here is a source of confussion and misinformation.

http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=835&Itemid=36

Indeed here is mentioned a prototype with 120mm gun.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Ah! Then it seems the AMX-32 had a French smoothbore gun and not Rhinemetal.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
I suppose that this prototype smoothbore gun was later used as a base for CN-120/26 L52 smoothbore gun for Leclerc. But in any means France not developed smoothbore guns (first was Soviet Union) nor AMX-30 was vehicle armed with this weapon, so it was also not the first tank armed with such gun (again, first was Soviet Union with T-62).
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
The AMX-40 meant for export used smoothbore gun as well but none were ordered. The first true production run of the French 120mm gun was on the AMX-56.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
How the hell Tiger helped western Allies build their own heavy tanks if their heavy tanks were developed with different design pilosophy in mind and they did not repeat wrong decisions that Germans made?

KV-1 was a very good tank for it's time. Churchil never was good tank design, it was too archaic. US relied on M4 and from initial versions they developed incredibly good medium tank, M36 was TD not tank so what the point?

And this all because Germans completely ignored all basic principles of tanks design, they were putting more and more armor making bigger and bigger vehicles that were underpowered, overweighted etc. etc. etc. even promisive E series that were intended as replacement for used vehicles, had the same wrong design philosophy of incredibly big and heavy vehicles, while You can have smaller, more compact still well protected vehicles.

Superior quality? Tiger with it's unreliability was far from the term "quality".

And? What is the point, we are not talking here about battles, operations, specific crews battles records but about specific vehicles.Why You just don't accept simple facts that Germans never builded really superior from design point of view vehicles, they just have luck that Allies and Soviets concentrated on mass production not production of superior vehicles.
If you have read abt history..

It was a Churchill disable and lead to capture of first Tiger..

Thier Principal were same, But steady course of War change it..

That is simple mistake in understanding..

Fact is decided by outcome of battles in battlefield were the machine face real tests..

I gave you the link, Download it if you like, And read books abt history of tank warfare..

Btw, I have seen plenty and read tons of such books in proper Military Liberty in a well establish Military Organization..

'Knowledge is good and ignorance is evil '
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
If you have read abt history..
I read.

It was a Churchill disable and lead to capture of first Tiger..
Lucky shot thats all, and if crew of that Tiger would not panick they still had a chances by using tank and it's gun in the same way as SPG's are fighting.

Thier Principal were same, But steady course of War change it..
Churchill had a problem, outdated design, but if designers would keep low sillhouete and just redesign it in a more modern way, overall this tank could be a very good design.

I gave you the link, Download it if you like, And read books abt history of tank warfare..
Where did You give me that link?

And yes I read allmost all time about history...

The AMX-40 meant for export used smoothbore gun as well but none were ordered. The first true production run of the French 120mm gun was on the AMX-56.
AMX-40 was just late, when it was designed market was allready controled by Americans and Germans.

And yeah, it seems to be true, France started to manufacturing really modern components of tanks when production of Leclerc started. Still Leclerc until Serie 2 variants came in to production, was a very hmmm... bugged design with many problems, especially with it's electronics, for example the digital engine control was too much sensitive and just shut down engine if system detected even a bit of dust or other trash in the engine components, I think that currently no Serie 1 vehicles are even in use, most probably stored, some rebuilded in to specialized vehicles.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
I read.

Lucky shot thats all, and if crew of that Tiger would not panick they still had a chances by using tank and it's gun in the same way as SPG's are fighting.

Where did You give me that link?
If you have read, I dont thing i would have replying you by now..

Do you know where the hit took place ?

Check my previous post..
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
I feel like Damian is the Polish version of Armand ... only for Damian anything Polish made is best, anything Soviet made is better and anything made by other (former) eastern block countries is good! :D

For Armand, it is France all the way ...

:D
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I feel like Damian is the Polish version of Armand ... only for Damian anything Polish made is best, anything Soviet made is better and anything made by other (former) eastern block countries is good! :D

For Armand, it is France all the way ...

:D
I agree with you bud!

For a great admirer of the USSR that I am, or even JBH22, I think Damian beats all of us in his praise for anything Polish, Soviet, Slavic or from the former Communist Bloc or Warsaw Pact.

Nonetheless, he does have a lot of knowledge though.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
I agree that this top ten business is subjective but for whatever its worth here's the top ten ranking of best tanks of all time by Discovery Channel:

1.T-34 -
2.M1 Abrams -
3.Tiger I -
4.Mark I tank -
5.Centurion tank -
6.Panzer IV -
7.Challenger 1/Challenger 2 -
8.T-54/55 -
9.Merkava -
10.M4 Sherman -

Sorry Armand, still no French tank on the list. :laugh:
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
I agree that this top ten business is subjective but for whatever its worth here's the top ten ranking of best tanks of all time by Discovery Channel:

1.T-34 -
2.M1 Abrams -
3.Tiger I -
4.Mark I tank -
5.Centurion tank -
6.Panzer IV -
7.Challenger 1/Challenger 2 -
8.T-54/55 -
9.Merkava -
10.M4 Sherman -

Sorry Armand, still no French tank on the list. :laugh:
Poor armand !

And disc channel lists sucks big time!!!!!!!!!
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Do you know where the hit took place ?
Under barrel of Tiger main gun, it blocked turret race ring.

I feel like Damian is the Polish version of Armand ... only for Damian anything Polish made is best, anything Soviet made is better and anything made by other (former) eastern block countries is good! :D
Where did I say that anything made in my country is best? Please make a citation of my words to proove that.

I praise Soviet made weapon systems not because they are Soviet but because the principles, logic, solutions standing behind such designs were just good.

And I currently prise more US designs, that are underestimated over world, mainly due to lack of understanding and poor propaganda of other countries.

And there is a huge difference between me and Armand, I use arguments, proofs, many of them provided by known and respected authors of good books, I back up my arguments by observations and conclusions based on these observations.

For a great admirer of the USSR that I am, or even JBH22, I think Damian beats all of us in his praise for anything Polish, Soviet, Slavic or from the former Communist Bloc or Warsaw Pact.
I do not like communists/socialists, but indeed, Soviets had many good, sometimes superior to others ideas.

And we all need to face simple facts, the only country that was capabale to design similiar or superior designs was US, Germans also tried but their designs lacked funding and there were less of them.

Rest of Europe was irrevelant for Cold War arms race. But still they were abale to design good weapon systems, just not so revolutionary in many aspects as US, SU and in some points Germany.

I agree that this top ten business is subjective but for whatever its worth here's the top ten ranking of best tanks of all time by Discovery Channel:

1.T-34 -
2.M1 Abrams -
3.Tiger I -
4.Mark I tank -
5.Centurion tank -
6.Panzer IV -
7.Challenger 1/Challenger 2 -
8.T-54/55 -
9.Merkava -
10.M4 Sherman -

Sorry Armand, still no French tank on the list.
This is just plain stupid, a cpmpletely failed design, the T-34 is on number one, and a much better, reliabale, simple M4 is at number 10?! What idiot made such list?

Where are such revolutionary designs like T-64? Oh I know, authors of these list probably don't know that T-64 ever existed, and they would confuse this tank with T-72. :lol:

Where is Leclerc? Yes I will defend Leclerc, even if S1 versions were bugged designs with many design problems, the S2 and S3/SXXI versions are very good tanks with many interesting design solutions.

However to allready show one myth about Leclerc I need a photo here.



The most popular myth is Leclerc is using modular armor, as we can see, turret is actually normal welded construction with composite armor cavitis. So armor is actually semi modular as in allmost all modern MBT's, like M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 1/2 or T-90A etc. etc.

So from where this myth came from? I have two theories, a bad translation from French, and because of these storage boxes mounted on turret, yup these things that are looking like armor modules are actually storage boxes, they can act like simple, light standoff armor.

Personally I would redesign Leclerc in some areas (hull ammunition storage, driver station placement, engine) but overall it is very good tank with good protection, comparabale to other modern MBT's, it laos proofs that concept of smaller, more compact vehicle with same protection as bigger and heavier vehicles is not a false concept.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
@Damian: Was the T-64 succeccfull isn't it only 38 Tonnes. What protection does it have ???
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Depends on what variant of T-64 we are talking about, initial T-64 weighted around 37-38 tons (combat weight!!!), T-64A was somewhat heavier, around 38,5 tons, and T-64B around 42 tons.

Protection depends on variant. T-64 used Combination K composite armor, A. Tarasenko shown on his blog elements of turret composite armor.




andrei_bt - Габариты башни советских танков



Основной боевой танк T-64А




Основной боевой танк T-64

T-64 for it's times had excellent protection, higher than any heavy tank used when T-64 was fielded. With it's small size, high protection levels and low weight it was trully revolutionary design.

But T-64 had somewhat different composite armor compared to T-72 series, especially T-72B, also T-80U/UD had different composite armor.

Бронирование современных отечественных танков

ОСНОВНЫЕ НАПРАВЛЕНИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ЗАЩИТНЫХ УСТРОЙСТВ ДИНАМИЧЕСКОГО ТИПА, ПРОБЛЕМЫ, ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ

Closests to each other in terms of composite armor were T-64B and T-80B.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
TV vs Books

Discovery Channel and History Channel programs are intended to be watched by simpletons. The fewer references to either of them the better. :)

I agree with Damien. Books are best.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
And now a short history of Leopard 2 as I promised. It is mostly based on Jerchel M. and Schnellbacher U. book Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998 from Osprey New Vanguard series.

Everything actually starts in the 1960's when US and FRG goverments signed Joint Venture agreement to co-develop new MBT, this project is currently known as Main Battle Tank/KampfPanzer - 70 (MBT/KPz-70). As we know not everything went good and even when program still was active, Germans were seeking eventual alternative, this alternative was national tank design program.

Everything started even earlier when Leopard 1 was fielded, then Porsche company signed agreement with German goverment to develop upgrades for Leopard 1, this program was designated [FONT=&amp]"žVergoldeter Leopard" and in 1967 when for German goverment it was obvious that MBT/KPz-70 will be problematic, they widened [/FONT]"žVergoldeter Leopard" program, this is how "Keiler" program started.

"Keiler" program was coordinated by Krauss-Maffei company, Weggman company was responsible for turrets and Porsche was responsible for hulls. In 1969 and in 1970 there were builded two prototypes, ET 01 and ET 02, both powered by 10 cylinder Diesel designated MB872.

In 1969 there was also made decision to incorporate some technologies from MBT/KPz-70 program in to national tank development program, this initiative ended with 2nd program after "Keiler", it was designated "Eber".

But "Eber" was quicklu closed, not even single prototype was builded.


Krauss-Maffei company recived order from goverment to build 16 or 17 prototypes (from PT 01 to PT 11 and from PT 13 to PT 17, where is PT 12 someone will ask? I do not know why it looks this way, it can be some error in book).

There was also order for 17 turrets prototypes, all of these were builded between 1972 and 1974.

Initially prototypes were very similiar in apperance to Leopard 1A4 variant, but there were many small differences between them.

Wheels and tracks were taken from KPz-70 program, and return rollers from Leopard 1.

PT 11 and PT 17 prootypes also used the same hydrogas suspension system as KPz-70. But torsion bars were seen as simpler and cheaper so thes were choose as suspension system for serial produced vehicles. PT 11 also had RWS mount with 20mm automatic cannon on turret.

[FONT=&quot]PT 07, PT 09, PT 15 i PT 17 were using slightly modified engines, but rest of prototypes were using [/FONT][FONT=&quot]MTU MB873 Ka500 1500HP Diesel with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Renk HSWL354/3 transmission.

Ok, this is enough for know, I need to finish my article about Leopard 2, then I will post more about Leopard 2 development.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top