Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on December 25, 2005, 09:58:38 AM
-
watched a programme about this tank the other night... :eek:
Hasn't suffered a single loss to enemy action in Gulf War II, its predecessor destroyed 300+ tanks in Gulf War I without loss, the Challenger II holds the record for the longest successful tank vs tank engagement (2.5+ miles) and one also suffered mechanical breakdown in a city, was hit by 8 RPGs and an Anti Tank missile before rescue without a single scratch to the crew.
wow.
-
Looks a bit like a late Panzer..
The Mk. III was a WWII model, right?
-
(http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/picswar1/chall2.jpg)
-
The M1, the Challenger, the Leopard and the Le Clerk are battlefield kings... the T80 is nice but on paper only so far, the turbine has to be more perfected for what I eard.
-
Don't forget the new merkava and type-90.
Leopard 2a5, 2a6, challenger II, and type-90 are the three best MBT's ever. It's a scientific fact.
Shouldn't poopoo the russian t-90 either.
Clarification: Of course I'm talking about the japanese type90, not the chinese type90.
-
I guess this is a typo
(http://www.cavaleriemuseum.nl/cavalerie_museum/tank_modellen/images/uk_challengermk3_210.jpg)
Or it wasn't produced.
(Nevermind, it's a 1 - mark III)
-
Some of those silly Discovery top10 lists had the Leopard 2A6 as the number one. The Challenger2 and Merkva was also pretty high up on the list... and the M1A2 ofcourse.
-
It's a scientific fact :rofl ... that's the undisputable truth statement right there. (Just picking on the choice of wording, no offense).
Hey I still like my Leclerc:p, it's one of the best.(http://www.defense-update.com/images/leclerc.jpg)
Does the Merkva has a stabalized gun? I though only the US/Brit/Germ/Fr had it on operational tanks.
-
I think it does..
The LeClerc is a good tank (no combat data ofcourse), but didnt they opt for speed over armor on that one?
-
Not at all, I think the front armor is the thickest of the M1/Challenger. The Leclerc is much lighter. Let me Google and see.
Here this guy seems like what he is talking about, to be verified since I don't know crap about tanks except for my 2 days course in the Intel 8 years ago:eek:
---------------------------------
RE:How good is the French Leclerc? 12/31/2004 12:16:43 PM
Few people on that thread are mistaking somehow .
To start with ---> : When designing a new Tank you tend to think about 3 things :
1) Type of landscape where the tank is most likely to fight .
2) What is going to be the task of the Tank .
3) What kind of threat the tank is most likely to encounter .
Then , you do your best to come up with a winning formula which includes available technology and cost . Then you think "Futurproof" for at least 10-15 years .
So , what the Leclerc has been design for ?
To put it simply :
To Defeat all T-XX series.
And to fight in a European landscape , from -25c to +35c .
To this extent , it has been made light (56T combat ready for the T5 to T10 versions) , and fast . In fact , really fast ...
So the 3 Men crew +autoloader and very high power to weight ratio .
"Light" does NOT have to mean "less armored" . Because of the relatively small numbers of Leclerc in France (under 500) , the French were able to choose the most expensive steel as well as the latest Plastics/Ceramics available . The Leclerc is tough , real tough ...
All western tanks boost more or less the same thickness of armor up front .
The difference is how the armor react to KE and HEAT , and the quality of the materials employed .
In that department , I believe the Leo 2A5/6 and the Leclerc leads the pack by a good margin . The Brit Challenger 2 with its Shobham being very close behind .
Usually , Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA) appears in 3 forms :
Armored steel(RHA) Value :270-300 BHN
Semi Hardened steel (SHS):400-450 BHN
High Hardeness steel (HHS):500-600 BHN
The M1 steel is "High Yield Steel" (HYS):320-380 BHN .
All western Shobham armored Tanks feature Semi Hardened Steel as a part of the layered structure .
Shobham is assume to use ceramics 4 times harder than RHA and much lighter .
High Hardened Steel (HHS) 500-600 BHN , offer 30-35% more resistance than RHA , but its twice the price , difficult to weld .
The Leclerc and Leo feature this armor as a part or the layers .
On the other hand , the M1 has "added" DU layer to "cope" better against hits due to the average steel quality of its armor . Without it (DU) , the latest ammo would probably go straight through with a laugh .
Leo and Leclerc do NOT need it YET .
Now , keep in mind the Leclerc armor , while being TRIPLE High Hardened Steel , include ceramics and a classified Plastic .
The believed Armor values are the following :
M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2
Turret: 880-900 KE
Glacis:560-590 KE
Lower front hull:580-650 KE
Turret: 1310-1620 HEAT
Glacis:510-1050 HEAT
Lower front hull:800-970 HEAT
M1A2 SEP
Turret: 940-960 KE
Glacis:560-590 KE
Lower front hull:580-650 KE
Turret: 1320-1620 HEAT
Glacis:510-1050 HEAT
Lower front hull:800-970 HEAT
Leclerc
Glacis 580-600 KE , 1040-1060 HEAT,
Hull side: 90 KE, 420 HEAT,
Turret Front 890-910 KE , 1220-1420 HEAT,
Lower front hull : 780 KE , 850 HEAT
We can see that the latest Abrams have a small advantage , but look at the weight of the Tanks !!
Leclerc can archive almost the same protection level while weighting 15 tons less .
I don 't want to turn my post into a book , so I 'll be brief now ...
Leclerc ' FCS is without a doubt one of the best around . Added to the very fast autoloader and its extreme agility and speed , it makes the Tank a excellent Hunter/Killer platform , hard to kill and even harder to hit .
But if there is a downside (and there is) it has to be the main gun and the ammo employed . During joined testing with the Brits , the 120mm French smoothbore (F1) caliber 52 was as accurate as the Brit riffled gun but less powerfull .
The ammo currently employed is the Tungsten OFL 120 F1-A which is on the par with the German/US LKE-1 or DM44 or KWA-1 . A DU round is in service (OFL 120 F2) which ~performance wise~ is almost equal to the US M829A2 .
That DU round is still fielded in very small numbers .
I for one believe the Leclerc is an excellent fighting platform able to win any fight versus any T-xx Tank , even when outnumbered .
And it is its main purpose .
Now , to answer the usual bull question "who 's got the best Tank" , the answer is pretty simple in fact :
As long as you have a very good Tank , the crew will make the difference .
Cheers .
-------------------------------
And if you want to learn a bit more from their makers : Giat's web site (http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/us/sdp_leclerc.asp)
-
You are prolly correct.. I knew it was a fast tank so i ASSumed.
Im navy so tanks and planes are not really my thing.
-
its Chobham not Shobam.
and the Challenger II uses the classified second gen Chobham armour codenamed Dorchester
-
mmm...chobham
bad for your teeth kids
-
Ninja Leopard
http://www.tamiyaclubdata.com/movies/1965/m0Z8OKSRZQ0.mpg
-
Autoloaders don't do so well when it comes time to help pull watches or change track or refuel/ upload ammo. They also don't make a very good cup of coffee. On the other hand, that's one less set of farts to put up with in the turret.
-
Russian t90 sound good,the real minus is a lack of combat data.
Is there any info on a t94 by any chance?
-
Originally posted by ATA
Russian t90 sound good,the real minus is a lack of combat data.
Is there any info on a t94 by any chance?
T-94 was scrapped
-
i think we are all forgetting the most important factor of what is the best MBT: the challenger II has a tea maker, nuff said.
i hear the latest brit tank camo will be plaid, the hull made of the finest mohogany and have lounge chairs with rich people discussing the economy on top of the tank. the idea is to blind the enemy with luxury.
-
The T-90s main problem in this comparison is that it's only a medium tank of 46 tons, only 2/3rds the weight of an M1A2. However it does match it's western rivals in many important aspects such as gun power, agility and frontal armor. The Russian tanks are designed for mass assaults, and not really meant to go toe-2-toe against western MBT's.
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_1.jpg)
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_2.jpg)
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/images/t90_113.jpg)
-
One curious fact about the T-90 and T-80 is that they are not part of the same design family, but two separate line of tanks. The T-90 is derived from the T-72 which itself was derived from the T-55. The T-80 however was based on the T-62/64. The two design-lines have sort of piggybacked each other through history.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
The M1, the Challenger, the Leopard and the Le Clerk are battlefield kings... the T80 is nice but on paper only so far, the turbine has to be more perfected for what I eard.
Turbine was perfected 20 years ago. Tank falls down from a pontoon into the river, they tow it to the ground, let the water pour away from the engine, start it and go. Fish and frogs were not a problem :)
-
Originally posted by Harry
One curious fact about the T-90 and T-80 is that they are not part of the same design family, but two separate line of tanks. The T-90 is derived from the T-72 which itself was derived from the T-55. The T-80 however was based on the T-62/64. The two design-lines have sort of piggybacked each other through history.
It's not true. T-72 is technologically simplified T-64, T-80 is a T-72 with a turbine, T-80 - improved diesel T-72.
Main difference is that tanks were designed and prodused in Leningrad, Kharkov and Nizhniy Tagil. Now Kharkov is in the Ukraine, and they made their own version of T-80.
-
The T-64, introduced in the late 1960s, was the first of a sophisticated new family of Soviet main battle tanks developed as successors to the T-54/55/62 family, the T-64 featured an innovative design incorporating both an autoloader and advanced armor. The T-64 entered production in 1966, was fielded in 1967, and was first seen in public in 1970. Numerous variants were produced during a very long production run.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t64-1.gif)
The T-72, which entered production in 1971, was first seen in public in 1977. The T-72, introduced in the early 1970s, is not a further development of the T-64, but rather a parallel design chosen as a high-production tank complementing the T-64. The T-72 retains the low silhouette of the T-55 series, featuring a conventional layout with integrated fuel cells and stowage containers which give a streamlined appearance to the fenders. While the T-64 was deployed only in forward-deployed Soviet units, the T-72 was deployed within the USSR and exported to non-Soviet Warsaw Pact armies and several other countries. In addition to production in the USSR it has been built under license in Czechoslovakia, India, Poland and former Yugoslavia.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t72-1.gif)
The T-80, manufactured by Transmash of Omsk, appeared as production model in 1984, retaining the basic features of the T-64 series (including the 125mm smoothbore gun with autoloader). Major innovations included the first Soviet use of a gas turnine engine, providing increased speed and power, and the first use of a laser rangefinder providing major improvements in fire control. The T-80 is very similar in appearance to the T-72. It incorporates features common to both the T-64 and T-72, especially in weaponry. Easily distinguishable features of this tank as compared with the standard T-72 are the attachment of side skirts and twelve turret-mounted grenade launchers with seven on the left side and five on the right side.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-80u-line.gif)
The T-90 main battle tank, the most modern tank in the army arsenal, went into low-level production in 1993, based on a prototype designated as the T-88. The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Vagonka Works in Nizhniy Tagil. Initially seen as an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series. The T-90 features a new generation of armor on its hull and turret. Two variants, the T-90S and T-90E, have been identified as possible export models. Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced with T-90s by the end of 1997, subject to funding availability. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District.
Derived from the T-72, the GPO Uralvagonzavod T-90 is the most modern tank currently in service with the Russian Army. Of conventional layout, the T-90 represents a major upgrade to every system in the T-72, including the main gun. The T-90 is an interim solution, pending the introduction of the new Nizhny Tagil MBT which has been delayed due to lack of funding. Produced primarily mainly due to its lower cost, the T-90 it will probably remain in low-rate production to keep production lines open until newer designs become available. Several hundred of these tanks have been produced, with various estimates suggesting that between 100 and 300 are in service, primarily in the Far East.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90_line.gif)
So the family line looks like this:
............................. ..T-62/64----------------->T-80
T-55--------------------^-------->
............................. ..................T-72--------------------------->T-90
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
i think we are all forgetting the most important factor of what is the best MBT: the challenger II has a tea maker, nuff said.
i hear the latest brit tank camo will be plaid, the hull made of the finest mohogany and have lounge chairs with rich people discussing the economy on top of the tank. the idea is to blind the enemy with luxury.
LOL so it's not a joke about a tea-maker? :rofl
I have heard that M-60 had a coffee-maker, and it didn't start engine when coffee-machine was on, so hot coffee won't spill and hurt the crew :)
Shermans were called "the best tank for peace-time service" in USSR.
-
the challenger has a water boiler which can be used for tea or boil in the bag food.
the loader has been trained as a gunner/driver also so if any of these crew are incapacitated for whatever reason the loader can take over, kind of a benefit over an autoloading system ;)
its interesting that the Challenger I had something like 80% commonality with the Chieftan MBT that came before it, whereas the Challenger II has only 5% with the Challenger I, it is very much a new tank over its predecessor.
-
Originally posted by Harry
So the family line looks like this:
............................. ..T-62/64----------------->T-80
T-55--------------------^-------->
............................. ..................T-72--------------------------->T-90
Well, T-80 indeed has features of T-64 as D-81 cannon with autoloader, but T-72 also has it.
T-62 was a last tank with manual loading, it had a smooth-bore 115mm D-61 cannon. It was a different design, in between 55 and 64.
I'd draw it like this:
............................. .........................->T-80
T-54/55 -> T-62 -> T-64 -> T-72< ->T-90
Some version of T-80 is designed and produced in Kharkov, Ukraine.
T-64 suffered of inreliability of suspension and IIRC engine overheating. I don't pretend to tell the "final truth", but 72 was introduced as a more reliable and significantly cheaper alternative to 64. Again, there were at least three design-bureaus working on tanks in USSR, each one having it's own factory (or a factory had a design-bureau), and designing tanks having their own technological lines in mind.
-
The russians opted for an autoloader because of simple arithmetic:
56,000 tanks x 4 trained crewmembers
or
56,000 tanks x 3 trained crewmembers
;)
-
No Boroda, the T-72 is not related to the T-64, but a parallel development. The T-64 and T-72 were both developed as successors to the T-55. The advanced T-64 evolved into the T-80 (just look at the similar running gear), while the T-72 evolved into the T-90 (again, look at the running gear). Naturally there are a lot of similar technology being used in both design lines (armament, electronic equipment etc.) since they were being developed to serve the same army.
-
T90 looks like a t72 dipped in glue and then rolled around in a scap metal heap.
-
Originally posted by Harry
No Boroda, the T-72 is not related to the T-64, but a parallel development. The T-64 and T-72 were both developed as successors to the T-55. The advanced T-64 evolved into the T-80 (just look at the similar running gear), while the T-72 evolved into the T-90 (again, look at the running gear). Naturally there are a lot of similar technology being used in both design lines (armament, electronic equipment etc.) since they were being developed to serve the same army.
There are at least two different T-80s, made by different factories, two different tanks.
Maybe the factory that made 64 then switched to 80, while UVZ switched to 72 from T-55 or 62.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Autoloaders don't do so well when it comes time to help pull watches or change track or refuel/ upload ammo. They also don't make a very good cup of coffee. On the other hand, that's one less set of farts to put up with in the turret.
Hehe.....I see someone was a tanker.
Forget the discussion about armor thickness. It's all about how much crap can I store in the bustle rack. Where can I put the folding lawn chairs.
It's about - where can I park this beast so that I won't be seen. Most importantly, by my own unit.
How can I - NOT get it too dirty. Don't want to spend more then 30 mins on the wash rack.
How fast can I go without losing all my wedge bolts. You want to be the first at the wash rack.
many more, I can't think of them now.
-
Man... I don't know wtf I was thinking when I enlisted as a combat medic.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Man... I don't know wtf I was thinking when I enlisted as a combat medic.
You prolly thought there were alot of cute combat nurses :D
-
Was going to say the same thing before pizza rang the door bell :D ..
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It's not true. T-72 is technologically simplified T-64, T-80 is a T-72 with a turbine, T-80 - improved diesel T-72.
Main difference is that tanks were designed and prodused in Leningrad, Kharkov and Nizhniy Tagil. Now Kharkov is in the Ukraine, and they made their own version of T-80.
No Boroda. T72 and T80 are completely seperate families.
-
Originally posted by Monk
Hehe.....I see someone was a tanker.
Forget the discussion about armor thickness. It's all about how much crap can I store in the bustle rack. Where can I put the folding lawn chairs.
It's about - where can I park this beast so that I won't be seen. Most importantly, by my own unit.
How can I - NOT get it too dirty. Don't want to spend more then 30 mins on the wash rack.
How fast can I go without losing all my wedge bolts. You want to be the first at the wash rack.
many more, I can't think of them now.
That about sums it up! I'dd add to the list a nice supply of heater igniters, 110v convenience outlets in the turret (so I don't have to wire my electric shaver into the dome lights anymore) and some kind of turret self-cleaning feature like my oven has.
-
Being an infantryman, I had a lot of respect mixed with pity for the guys in armor. My attitute waz "yah, thanks, I'll walk.... would rather not be too damn close to the biggest target on the damn battlefield"...
Seems like everything we did in infantry, engineers, artillery and this goes for helicopters and fixed wing air support too... was to kill the tanks. They gave us all kinds of neat cheap tools that open up the spam cans pronto. In fact a tank unit in the open without air, artillery and direct (and considerable) infantry support was just meat for the infantryman's heavy weapons platoon.
Of course, this is back 30+ years now, and our few hundred aging M60's were facing a coupla thousand new T-72's and the planned battlespace was europe where theres plenty of cover for infantry, IR sights were unknown and the air support was more A-10's than you could shake a stiff german dildo at.
Nowadays I wonder how you'd get infantry close enough to pop 'em.. or enough punch on a TOW to get in there...
Mayhaps it is finally safe to ride in a track. ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No Boroda. T72 and T80 are completely seperate families.
"Family" here must mean a chain of designs by the same design-bureau. If so - it is true.
-
Hang
That stiff german dil is still bigger than most our countries armed forces!!!!!!!!!!!!!(probably lesss std's as well ) hehehehehehe
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Seems like everything we did in infantry, engineers, artillery and this goes for helicopters and fixed wing air support too... was to kill the tanks. They gave us all kinds of neat cheap tools that open up the spam cans pronto. In fact a tank unit in the open without air, artillery and direct (and considerable) infantry support was just meat for the infantryman's heavy weapons platoon.
Heavy weapon infantry platoons?
According to Soviet infantry service regulations RPGs are used only to finish immobilised tanks.
PTUR - manually-guided anti-tank missiles - are useless because a tank attack usually scares people so that they can't aim it properly. It's usefull only for ambushes.
Land mines - tanks with trowls are used as well as fuel-air charges to make corridors.
CGS aviation - well, tanks on march or in combat order are covered by radar-guided AAA (Shilka and Tunguska), self-propelled SAM launchers and manpads (manpad is a company-level AA weapon).
What we have been told - the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
BTW, do they practice carrying infantry on armour in the West? Here it is the main reason for not using muzzle compensators on tank guns - it will simply contuse infantry riding on armour.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW, do they practice carrying infantry on armour in the West?
It's in the books, but I've never seen it or done it in practise. It's considered too dangerous and unnecessary.
I was always amused at pictures of the Soviet troops in training with the BTR-70 (I think it was the 70). Imagining troops trying to jump out of the side door which was right between those huge tires and getting run over. It just seemed so "Soviet" to me.
"Don't worry, comrades. If you get run over the Motherland will find someone to replace you!" :D
By the way Boroda, we were always told that Soviet training doctrine would accept up to a 10% casualty rate in training. I always wondered if it was just a story that grew and got passed from soldier to soldier until everyone believed it or if there was some truth to it.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It's in the books, but I've never seen it or done it in practise. It's considered too dangerous and unnecessary.
I was always amused at pictures of the Soviet troops in training with the BTR-70 (I think it was the 70). Imagining troops trying to jump out of the side door which was right between those huge tires and getting run over. It just seemed so "Soviet" to me.
"Don't worry, comrades. If you get run over the Motherland will find someone to replace you!" :D
BTR isn't a combat vehicle, for combat purposes we have BMP. BTR = armoured carrier. It is supposed to provide fire support in some cases, sometimes from specially-prepared position.
Originally posted by VOR
By the way Boroda, we were always told that Soviet training doctrine would accept up to a 10% casualty rate in training. I always wondered if it was just a story that grew and got passed from soldier to soldier until everyone believed it or if there was some truth to it.
10%? Where did you hear it? It's much less even during low-alt parachute landings from IL-76 in multiple streams.
90% of what you have been told about USSR and Russia is... hmmm... let's say "not true". It's interesting when in other thread Vad blows your bubble with pure digits, and you guys pathetically try to keep your illusions.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What we have been told - the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
That's pretty much a universally accepted truth.
-
Originally posted by Boroda....
What we have been told - the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
Bzzzrrrrttt.
(http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2307/04-97.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Bzzzrrrrttt.
Great stuff in theory, but what happens if you lose air superiority? Can it drive through a building? Can it go hull down? Can it shrug off 20-40mm guns like they're just not there? How many Apaches have been lost in combat compared to M1A1s & 2s?
The best (not the only, just the best) weapon to kill a tank will always be a faster, more heavily armored tank, with a better gun platform :)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Great stuff in theory, but what happens if you lose air superiority?
Aircraft kill your tanks. Good point Hangtime. Modern bombs are much more efficient tank killers than tanks are.
BLU-108
http://www.systems.textron.com/movies/blu_108.wmv
-
Consulting Firm's Tank assesment.
#1 Leopard 2a6
#2 M1a2
#3 Type 90 (told ya so!:p )
#4 Leclerc (Boooo! :D )
#5 Challenger II
#6 T-80UM2
#7 ROK type 88/120
#8 T-90
#9 t-72
#10 Merkava mk III (guess this assesment was before the mk IV)
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf
-
Originally posted by Suave
Aircraft kill your tanks. Good point Hangtime. Modern bombs are much more efficient tank killers than tanks are.
BLU-108
http://www.systems.textron.com/movies/blu_108.wmv
That is amazing technology!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What we have been told - the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.
well ... i would guess that guy who told it to you never saw Su-25[T] .. he might change his mind. ;)
-
Originally posted by Suave
Consulting Firm's Tank assesment.
#1 Leopard 2a6
#2 M1a2
#3 Type 90 (told ya so!:p )
#4 Leclerc (Boooo! :D )
#5 Challenger II
#6 T-80UM2
#7 ROK type 88/120
#8 T-90
#9 t-72
#10 Merkava mk III (guess this assesment was before the mk IV)
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf
If you will add price to every tank it will become even more interesting
-
Yep, hundreds of brewed up T72 are a very expensive proposition.
-
Originally posted by indy007
The best (not the only, just the best) weapon to kill a tank will always be a faster, more heavily armored tank, with a better gun platform :)
This reminds me of what was said of battleships.
-
The problem with that list, is the battle proven question.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Great stuff in theory, but what happens if you lose air superiority? Can it drive through a building? Can it go hull down? Can it shrug off 20-40mm guns like they're just not there? How many Apaches have been lost in combat compared to M1A1s & 2s?
The best (not the only, just the best) weapon to kill a tank will always be a faster, more heavily armored tank, with a better gun platform :)
While this line of reasoning certainly sells tanks, it remains documented fact that armor is exceedingly easy to locate and kill with airpower. The man-portable missile system is also a very big threat to armor.. deploy MBT's in an area infested with Dragon or Hellfire teams without artillery and infanty to support 'em, you got dead tanks. Heluva lot harder to find a concealed infantry anti-tank team than it is to find a damn tank.
The MBT is part of a battle system.. alone, without aircover, artillery and infantry support it's vulnerable as all hell... like I say, my hats off to the tread-heads; waltzing onto a battlefield (or up ambush alley in yer average mud hut village) in the biggest, juciest target ever laid on the table... not my cuppa joe. ;)
Thankfully, we own the airspace over the modern battlefield. We have the most effective counter battery self propelled artillery systems ever deployed. We have the finest, best trained and equipped field army ever deployed... and when (and if) some national enitity ever decides to match their line of battle with ours, we'll handily kick their tulips again.
Unfortunately, weekend Baghdad cabdrivers with a seemingly inexaustable supply of worthless junk artillery shells are fashioning ways to kill our kids at their lesiure despite our seemingly 'insurmountable' technical advantages.
Sucks, don't it? A 2 million dollar up-armored Humvee with 4 of our kids in it snuffed by 4 rusty artillery shells dug into a pit in the road, triggered with a toy-store radio controller from half a mile away.
Why, it doesn't hardly seem fair, does it?