Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why does the MOD have more horses than tanks?

mod horses tanks british army

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#16    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:22 AM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 21 June 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

But don't forget they were old export models with only steel armour, lower powered amunition and demoralised crew. I don't pretend that T-80 and T-90 are not now obsolete, but they, with Russian crews, would not have been "mincemeat". And I already know the arguments about performance of T-80 in Chechnya, but as you will know, urban warfare against enemy, some of whom would have served on those tanks in Soviet Army, is somewhat different to mobile tank warfare. Also the overwhelming airpower employed in both Gulf wars would make it difficult for even the best tanks in the world to operate in, as Germans found out in Normandy.
This is not military type forum, so to show what I mean to any who are not familiar with this argument, a picture. There are many technical differences, some obvious, some hidden.
Posted Image


T-80/T-90 are probably part of the reason for investing hundreds of millions in Apache AH-1's.  Imagine how useful they would have been in the Falklands.

Saying that the T90 still lacks explosive reactive armour, a decent high velocity gun and lacks speed.  The Russians say it is capable of fighting 95% of modern tanks used.  You can bet the M1, challenger 2 and Leopard are the other 5%.  An M1 was known for knocking out T72's at 4km.  The challenger 2 has an even better gun being rifled and far more accurate.   I bet they could easily ad another 1km onto the kill range.


Urban warfare is the worst place for tanks.  When Iraq war started getting into urban areas the USA started to lose M1's at an alarming rate.  They apparently even consulted the Israeli's on the best way to fight without such heavy losses.  They just bulldoze all the buildings and roll the tanks in.  Not something the US/Uk would have like to have seen doing.

Edited by skookum, 22 June 2013 - 09:26 AM.

Posted Image

#17    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:12 AM

View Postskookum, on 22 June 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Saying that the T90 still lacks explosive reactive armour
What you say is true for Iraqi T-72, but not Russian. I do not dispute that an M1 or Challenger is a better individual tank, but Russian tanks are not the death traps so often very inacurately portrayed as in Western media. It is simply propoganda. All Soviet/Russian tanks from T-64 in late 1960s to T-90MS have composite armour, not seen on any Western tank until M1 many years after T-64. No export model T-72 has composite armour, only the steel outer shell, that is why they were defeated at the ranges you state. A Russian tank will not be defeated over the frontal quadrant at those ranges, or closer....

Another picture, and not even the latest model. It shows the reactive armour and two box shaped objects either side of gun. These are the Shtora system that by electronic and optical means, disrupt laser sight and other targetting devices used by ATGM. Iraqis never had this, and neither does any Western tank. What is unseen is the composite armour behind the steel outer shell of the turret and hull. It is not a bragging game, Soviet tanks could have been as big as any Western ones. That they are small is because that is what was required a long time back when design of T-64 and T-72 started. That and interferrence by Krushchev......

This is T-90A with cast turret, behind is newer T-90S with welded turret
Posted Image

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 22 June 2013 - 10:22 AM.


#18    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,826 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:41 AM

The Challenger 2 gun being rifled was simply to allow it to fire HESH rounds which the MOD believes is an essential element of the armament capabilities. In terms of making it more acurate is a misnomer as I can find no relative data to support that statement. The UK withdrew from International Tank Trial days back in 1987 so getting a solid comparison between the main contenders is very difficult.

It was the Leopard 2 that was offered to the UK but was not selected because it was "not a British Tank". With the Leopard 2 offer came full license rights to build and export it to other nations which would have paid for its own procurement needs, as well as turn in some impressive profits. Challenger 2 has only sold to 1 other nation (Jordan I think, but could be wrong) whereas leopard 2 is in service with 13 nations.


#19    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:56 AM

View Postkeithisco, on 22 June 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

The Challenger 2 gun being rifled was simply to allow it to fire HESH rounds which the MOD believes is an essential element of the armament capabilities. In terms of making it more acurate is a misnomer as I can find no relative data to support that statement. The UK withdrew from International Tank Trial days back in 1987 so getting a solid comparison between the main contenders is very difficult.

It was the Leopard 2 that was offered to the UK but was not selected because it was "not a British Tank". With the Leopard 2 offer came full license rights to build and export it to other nations which would have paid for its own procurement needs, as well as turn in some impressive profits. Challenger 2 has only sold to 1 other nation (Jordan I think, but could be wrong) whereas leopard 2 is in service with 13 nations.

The 1987 British tank was the Challenger 1.  It was due to be withdrawn from service because of performance issues stated above. Although many see the Challenger 2 as an upgrade of Challenger 1, less than 5% of parts are said to be interchangeable.  So essentially a massive upgrade or a totally different tank.

However Challenger 1 still holds the record for the furthest distance tank to tank kill.

Although I think the British have to ultimate piece of equipment that gives them the edge over anything else.

Quote

Similar to every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs.[9] This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK.


Afternoon tea in your tank, how very eccentric and British :clap:

Edited by skookum, 22 June 2013 - 11:13 AM.

Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users