OK, so 'Uigi can’t get onto the tank to graffiti the windows, unless he wants to spout several thousand bullet holes… But what about a long-range paint weapon? It’d have to be easier to black out a tank’s periscopes than to get through all that armor. Is there some defense against this built in, too?
Oh, and Alessan? What science-fiction videogame did you get that vehicle from? I didn’t know that real-world weaponry was allowed to look that cool 
.
Can anyone elaborate on the “fourth generation armour packs applied to the turret” caption on that link for the Merkava? It almost looks like a weld line of sorts above the break on the turret and around the mantlet.
I once asked the same question about my own personal favorite tank, the Leopard 2A6 (Projects Archive - Army Technology), and its predecesor 2A5.
If we were still using WW2-technology ammunition, it would be a shell-trap (Granted, a shell-trap with probably around 10 times the armor at -least-). But with the extremely high velocity of modern tank rounds (APFSDS, or Sabot) it isn’t, because the round doesn’t have enought time to deflect. The velocity changes a -tiny- bit, but not enough to deflect it down into a vulnerable spot. Instead, it functions just as well as a normal, upward-facing slant (Unlike WW2, the slope of modern day tanks does almost -nothing- for glancing rounds off harmlessly, instead it simply increases the armor thickness).
In fact, if the slop -starts- to trap the round, it gives even more protection. The round starts to rotate, and the surface area increases dramatically. Same energy over more area results in less penetration. As a result, most rounds nowadays are designed to resist this rotation or trapping, making them even -less- likely to turn, so that they have higher penetration.
The only rounds it increases the chance of trapping are small-arms, like .50 BMG. Not a risk to a tank 
And another correction; While the M1 Abrams series tanks are fast, they aren’t the fastest. The Leopard 2 series tanks and the entire T80 line is faster than any of the M1 incarnations (Though the M1 has more torque). The Merkava and Challenger 2 are slower, though. It’s kinda middle-of-the-road, really
OK, thanks for the info on the ‘shell trap’.
M1 Abrams: 42mph (governed) max road, 30max mph cross-country
Leopard 2: 44mph max road, 28mph max cross-country
Leopard 2i: 43mph max road, 28mph max cross-country
T-80: 43mph max road, 30mph max cross-country
Challeger 2: 37mph max road, 25 max cross-country
Merkava: 37mph max road, 34 max cross country (!!!)
<all kph-mph conversions rounded up to the nearest whole number>
So, actually, while the road race is pretty close between the Leopard 2, Abrams, and T-80, cross-country is the real issue, and there the Merkava wins handily, with the Abrams coming in second, just a smidgeon faster (.25 mph) than the T-80. That’s still pretty d*mn fast, and speed-wise, there’s not much to choose from. I’d really like to see what happens if the governor is pulled off the M-1 (besides a blown tranny, that is).
I’d also like to get a close look at the drive train on a Merkava to see what they’ve done with suspension and gearing to get max road and max cross-country speeds so close to each other.
I’d like to know if cross-country speed is comparing like with like - desert is a lot faster to drive across than mud.
Remember that the Sinai and the Golan (Israel’s main fighting grounds) are not flat, sandy deserts like that of Arabia, but rather hilly, rocky, ravine-filled badlands. “Cross-Country” there is no laughing matter.
Tanks, after all, are designed for specific terrains. The Abrams was designed for broad, sweeping maneouvers in the European farmlands and Russian steppes - that’s why it has the greatest “road” speed, and it probably handles excellently in snow and mud. The Merkavah, on the other hand, was designed for shorter thrusts in rough, dry, complicated terrain, and is better with steep slopes . Note, for instance, the small, narrow turret - perfect for popping up over a hill, letting off a shot or two, and dropping back, while exposing as little as possible to the enemy. That’s also probably why the tank doesn’y have an American-style “open protected” turret cover - the commander needs to be able to see the ridgeline above his.
And Chronos - one reason the tank looks so cool (besides the small, sloped turret) is the fact that it;s the only tank in the world with the engine in front of the turret. Just give a little more protection to the crew… and makes the tank look almost aerodynamic.
Nor anywhere else, and the Abrams also is designed for “hull-down” combat. Hull-down is a standard tactic in any armored force I know of, in fact. Observe how little of the M-1 turret actually projects above the main gun. It’s not quite as svelte as the Merkava, but it’s still quite low profile. Also, Europe isn’t quite so flat as people think, and is a very congested place. While the ridges may not be so sharp as the terrain the Isreali forces have to deal with, there’s still plenty of hills. Combat in Europe would rarely, if ever, be be confined to the roads, so cross country performance is critical. It’s likely, I suppose, that Europe’s more developed road net would make high road speed important, but all that’s really beside the point.
My point is, Something interesting has been done to the Merkava’s drive train and suspension to provide such a high cross-country performance. It’s not a simple design criteria, and you don’t just slap a beefier transmission and bigger springs on the machine to get higher performance. There are the considerations of enourmous mass, crew survivability, function, and comfort. If you create a fast, manueverable tank that gets it’s crew to the line all battered, bruised, and exhausted, you’ve got a crap machine. Designing a fast, comfortable, survivable tank is hard. Acceleration, power-to-weight, torque, and spring-rate need to addressed. High accelleration requires high torque, which requires a beefy tranny and final drive, which frequently mean more weight, which means a bigger engine, which means more fuel for any decent endurance which means more weight which means more load on the chassis, which means a stronger, heavier suspension to keep the crew in one piece which means… You get what I’m saying.
What was done to the Merkava to get that impressive cross-country performance, and the high ratio of CC-to-Road performance? I’ll guess that the Merkava has an unusually strong suspension, a very powerful engine for it’s weight, and a fairly low gear ratio, but that’s purely a guess.
Anyone out there got any detail?
I vaguely recall that there was one kind of tank with a particular design flaw that caused some radiator grill or exhaust vent or something to get red hot. This vent also happened to be a vulnerable spot on the tank. All the enemy had to do was wait until it got dark, hide in the bushes, and aim for the red light.
Does anyone have more details about this or am I just making stuff up?
Err… Are you sure about those? Though I suppose they could be right and still mis-representational. What version of M1? What version of T80? What version of Leopard 2? They make big differences. The M1 series has added over 10 tons in weight going from the M1A1 to M1A2-SEP, and still has the same engine output. But, most of my knowledge is coming from a few tankers I know (Some US, some German). By all accounts, the only time the M1 series even ties the T80 for top speed is the M1A1 vs T80BV (The heaviest version without the newer up-powered turbine). Take the M1A1(HA) or M1A2-SEP vs a T80U-M1, and the T80U-M1 is a good deal faster. The Leopard 2 series out-performs all M1 tanks unless you compare the M1A1 to the Leo 2A5, in which case speed is equal (The Leo 2A5 would probably vastly outperform the M1A1 in all other respects attributable to the tank itself).
Of course, I can only find the overall top speed, not specific on/off-road speeds. But The M1 series has the highest ground pressure of those three tanks (With the exception of the somewhat under-armored M1A1, which is lower GP than the Leos yet still higher than all the T80s).
It’s a general reflection of the overall percieved doctrine of a warshaw-pact engagement. Western tanks were designed to be defensive units; Heavy armor, lower mobility, higher survivability. Russian tanks were designed to be used more in rapid offenses; Cheep, small, light, and highly mobile. I really don’t see how a T80, having higher overall top speed and only about 3/4 the GP of a comparable M1, would be -slower- offroad.
That’s fairly true of most tanks, except for the red-hot part. I don’t know if any tank has ever -visibly- glowed because of exhaust, though almost every tank’s radiator would glow in a thermal sight. The M1 series is particularly known for it. That huge turbine heats up the rear grill reeeealy hot, making it glow in the TIS (Thermal Imager System) of an enemy tank. And the rear, being the weakest part… Don’t let anyone get behind you
Tanks are a hard nut to crack, but they can be cracked. Look at the Soviet losses during the battle of Berlin or the Americans in the French Hedgerows. American armor would rarely enter into heavily wooded or confined areas without infantry support.
Many Sherman tanks were lost to a lone German soldier armed with a Panzerfaust.
Small arms fire can be effective also, if not from the damage inflicted (broken vision blocks, antennas shot off, optics destroyed) then from the psychological effects. The effect on the tank crew of volumes of small arms fire can be crippling. Most of the crew have only a small vision port or block to look out. Fear of being surrounded and cut off is just as pronounced in a tank as it is in a foxhole.
I spent 10 years in the US Infantry, I was even a Dragon (M47) Gunner. It would be extremely difficult to even hit an armored vehicle with a Dragon under battlefield conditions. First, the Dragon has a large signature when it fires. Second, you have to remain completely still and guide the missile to the target. It takes about 10 seconds for the Dragon to go 100 meters. All the while you are in plain sight of the enemy.
The best way to take on a tank is to immobilize it. Knock out the engine or treads. Then you can take you time while the fear factor works on the crew. Often the Germans would knock out a Sherman by taking out a tread, and then hammering the tank until the crew bailed.
This was true on the Eastern front as well. The German Pak 50 and Pak 37 Antitank guns could barely dent the T34, but the German gunners became proficient at knocking off the tracks. Then the infantry would place bundles of hand grenades under the overhang of the turret and blast it.
I remember once during wargames in Germany (1986), the opposing team got one of their M60 tanks stuck in a field. We were using MILES (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System) at the time. A M113 APC came onto the field and started racing around the M60 in circles. The M60 could not traverse its turret fast enough to engage, and when they tried to spin the turret in the other direction, the ‘113 would stop and a couple of guys would jump out. This continued until several of the infantry climbed aboard and covered the vision slits with what ever they had on had. Several of us watched this from a distance. The tank was part of an assault force that had broken through our lines, but we had stopped the infantry cold. The tanks took off and left the infantry behind.
Make that 1000 meters for the Dragon.
As sure as I can be without actually putting them to a measured mile. The M-1 figures are for an M-1A1, the Leo figures are for a Leo 2 and a Leo 2i, The Merkava figures are for an A-3 varient, and I have no idea what version the T-80 is. What part in speed does ground pressure play? I would think it has only a little to do with flatout speed except in soft terrain. Russians design their tanks with extremely wide tracks, as they’re used to having to move in the crappy conditions common to a Russian winter/spring. Unfortunately, that also means that the mass of the drive train is greatly increased, which means they accellerate more slowly than if they had narrower, lighter, tracks.
I’ve heard from US tankers, further, that bypassing the mechanical portion of the governor on the M-1 series is straight-forward, and can be done by any competent tank crew. This only yields small increases in speed, but an extra 4-5mph cross country means a lot. It also means that the maintenace guys are going to kick your butt if they catch you, but I’d be surprised to find that it wasn’t done fairly often in field conditions.
I’m completely unfamiliar with the performance characteristics of the M01A2 SEP. I imagine an extra 10 tons would have a large impact on performance, unless some of that weight went into imporoving the drive train. I’ve heard that the new-construction A2 varients will be using a new engine, one designed fot the Abrams/Challenger common engine program.
Seems like, with the exception of the Merkava, you’re comparing tanks that are about two decades old. As I understand, virtually all of the M1A1 fleet has been upgraded to the M1A1(HA) package, which adds another 6 tons, almost entirely armor. There are also a few M1A2-SEP, which are 10 tons heavier. And none of them, yet, have done any significant changes in drivetrain (I believe they’re all using the same type of turbine, in fact).
Even then, the Leopard 2A1 through A4 is listed as faster than any M1A1 or A2 tank (Don’t have data on the original M1, though). The T80, while adding a few tons, has also gotten a new turbine engine in some of the later version (T80U-M1). So has the Leopard 2A6 (Though that one is diesel, not turbine).
But then, it isn’t really a huge deal. They’re all fairly fast offroad. The T80 series would definatly be quicker on long treks across broken ground, given its high speed, low weight, and low GP.
Could be, but now I have to go and source-check my sources (while they’re mostly less than a year old, they could be quoting old data. I’ll see). This wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been bitten by an inaccurate reference.
Anyway, as you say, any of them are going to get you where you’re going in a hurry.