[Tk3997]

Originally Posted by Tak

Yes, absolutely. One shot in a tank battle is enough to be the decisive factor of victory or failure.

Acutally it's almost always the case since if one shot didn't get through three more probably won't.

Or, during later stages of WWII, there were accounts where a Tiger tank can knock out two Shermans with one single shell.

That's just hogwash acutally looking at the penetration tables of an 88 with even the best possible ammo says as much. Never mind that the shell would decap and deform after impact reducing any damage if it did somehow did come out the other side anyway. Which they didn't as dozens of images of trashes tanks will show one entrance hole and no exit, a KE shell more or less blows itself apart when it hits armor of any real thickness. The only time you'll see total blow through is when there is no real armor just thin sheet metal or the like (which is also why you don't use AP on say trucks and jeeps).

On that note I also don't buy the legends about M1A1s one shoting two T-72s either since going at over 1500 meters per second a sabot round would more or less flash vaporize to plasma on impact. What comes out the far side of those armor plates on penetration isn't so intact dart it's a spray of molten metal and white hot gas.

On the other hand, like JagdPanther noted, you simply can't reload a tank that fast, even with an autoloader.

- Tak

Depends some Naval Autocannons can nearly reach that speed with mounts in the 75 to 100mm range being able to fire at from 80 to 100+ rounds per minute.

That said rate of fire is often of dubious value on a tank as the instances where one would be presented with multiple targets that could be engaged within a second of each other are quite rare. Since you should only need one good hit (assuming a decent gun) to kill the target rapid fire isn't nearly as vital as stopping power and range. Ammo is also a concern even with older lighter weapons shell count rarely reached even a hundred rounds in the vehicle modern tanks can have as few as 40 shells available.

Originally Posted by Mgz

well in Company of Heroes - Tales of Valor there is 1 mission that you have to play a lone Tiger tank and have to face a whole US armor brigade and it is fairy easy to win.

I love Company of Heroes greatly but realism was a means to an end not the end in itself for that game. Last I checked getting “fired up” didn’t allow you to ignore bullets, “Falling back” didn’t grant you the ability to sprint at 30+ miles per hour, and Bren guns could not blind and nearly immobilize a Tiger tank.

Originally Posted by Tak

One answer: Michael Wittmann.

Learned the hard way life isn't a video game when an "inferior" Firefly blew the ass off his Tiger.

Now that I begin reading it, the Edelweiss shares a lot of specification similarities with the E-50 series.

Der E-50 sollte den Panther ersetzen: Das 50 t schwere Fahrzeug sollte von einem 800 PS Motor auf 60 km/h beschleunigt werden. Zusätzlich wurde hier ein neuer Drehturm für eine 8,8 cm KwK 42 entwickelt.

The Edelweiss also has a 800HS motor, running at 60KM/h, armed with the exact spec of the gun at 88mm KwK 42

It also has the curved turret design. Shoot, this might be the answer I have been looking for Actually, you know what, THIS IS IT! EDELWEISS IS THE E-50!

Nonsesne not least becasue a final design for this supposed tank was never produced so more or less all images and specs of it are basically speculation.

Even then the resembles is rather weak the road wheels look nothing alike in fact they're completely different, the turret shape isn't even vaugely simliar being angular and fairly flat much like a later Panther turret (unsuprisngly) but having nothing like the smoothly sloping Edelwiess turret it's also much smaller compared to the vehicles total size, the hull form bears little in common either with the forward being sharply sloped (the Edel is near vertical frontally) and it appearing to be fairly low and squat all around while the Edel resembles nothing so much as a brick shithouse on treads.

Actually looking at the two I struggle to find ANY common features beyond some supposed engine and speed commonality (Laughable since the E-50 was never actually built, fitted with an engine, or put through speed tests) and a vaugely similar gun which is hardly shocking since many tanks of the same era had very similar weapons in the 85 to 90mm range.

I have not seen a E-series picture, but now you've shown me, and I am enlightened.

- Tak

So am I, as to how completely alien the two vehicles are to each other.

Originally Posted by solembum

nobody else noticed the skidding part? lol a tracked vehicle skidding . and I dont think I've seen their turret traverse yet..

That's entirely possible:

It's use in combat is rather debatable, but it's possible.

Originally Posted by Wild Goose

It did happen, and it's called Operation Desert Storm (aka Gulf War I). The Iraqi T-72s that went up against the US Army's M1A1 Abrams MBTs were massacared. M1A1s were sniping T-72s from afar, outside of range of the T-72. The few T-72s that managed to close the gap and fire were treated to the unpleasant sight of their shells bouncing off the M1A1's chobham armor.

Pretty much:

Though exceptional crew training for the M1 in very similar terrain (many of the US armies biggest tank ranges are out in the middle of South Western Deserts) only compounded the issue.

A well trained M1A1 crew can do 1 round every 4 seconds.

The guy in the video acutally claims his loader could do a round every three secods... take that as you will.

The Merkava has a good gun, good armor, good speed, can carry a 4-man infantry team and holds smoke dispensers and a 60mm mortar.

Acutally the Merk can carry a full squad of eight to ten men, a mobile command post, or up to four litters and a medic.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

My take on the Edelweiss.

To me it seems like a mix of a Pzkpfw VI and M24 Pershing. The turret looks like that of a M60 Patton.

Pzkpfw VI

Spoiler for image size:

M24 Pershing

Spoiler for image size:

That is an M24 Chaffee light recon tank.

The M26 Pershing was a 45 ton heavy tank.

Spoiler for M26:

Originally Posted by Father Hentai

I really doubt that a M1A1 Crew has that potential but that depends if they use an autoloader while the leo2 has a loading gunner and their gunnery training.

I really don't doubt it much since frankly when your life is on the line you can do some crazy shit. When it amounts to "Load fast or DIE"... hard to beat that for motivation!

Still just to go into your comparison between leo 2, abrams and merkava.
Currently the abrams and the merkava are slight weaker then the current version of the leo 2 although the other tanks are more proven combat tested.

That last bit to me acutally says that the Leo 2 should be considered the weaker tank since the other two have both proved there worth in live battle. The Leo 2 is forgive the pun "A Paper Tiger" at the moment whatever the hype it's never acutally faced battle. Further the exposure to battle and highlighting of issues this brings is allowing the Merk and M1 to be improved and upgraded to better face current threats while the Leo 2 is largely static or being upgraded more or less based on a best guess of what's needed.

Also the leo 2 and the abrams are most "brothers" because on the leo 2 construction american engineers were involved and later went with the invention of the abrams.

the merkava has it's strengths in combined group combat but has looses against both tanks in a 1on1 combat situations if both commanders are on the same skill level

Not really no, it mounts the same gun as 99% of Western Tanks and has superb ammunition including a number of types not available to any other vehicle. (It has in Service Gun Launched missiles and long range indirect fire top attack guided projectiles) It also mounts the latest fire control and battle management systems to direct it’s weapons. It’s armor is at least as good as that of other Western MBTs and it’s also of a modular design allowing rapidly replacement of damaged sections, engine upgrades have removed any doubts about it’s speed. Finally unlike any other tank in service in the west new build Merks are rolling off the line with built in active protection systems to counter missile threats (with the possibility of upgrades to allow them to intercept KE rounds).

Israel has more experience with large scale armored warfare in the post World War II era then more or less any country on earth and it shows. There tanks have always been simple but effective and crewed by superb troops and led by battle hardened veterans.

Originally Posted by Wild Goose

The pics do seem to indicate a resemblence...

I don't see it.

With regards to that timing, my information was derived from an aquaintance of mine. Before I lost touch with him, last I heard he was deployed in Iraq. His job? Abrams crewman.

The guy in the video I linked above agrees in fact he cites and even more rapid reload.

Also, the Abrams doesn't use an autoloader but a human loader. The US Army did tests once and found that human loaders were actually faster than autoloader mechanisms.

Keep in mind said test was back in the 70s and newer auto-loaders are much better, and most importantly safer. The older designs all tended to have random shells inside the crew compartment around the gun, this was perhaps the most grievous issue with regards to T-72 survivability for example.

Newer designs are about as good and possibly better then human loaders, but that said the human loader does have one advantage that’s not always discussed: he’s an extra pair of hands. Even simple maintenance on a tank is a very labor intensive process and I’ve heard many tankers express some reticence at the prospect of losing a forth of their manpower for the task whatever the technical advantages of an autoloader might happen to be. There's also the fact that a human loader doesn't break down or require mechcanical upkeep you feed him MRE and he'll keep feeding the gun shells.

The Auto-loader seems to be in vogue though and will probably continue to take over and in the end replace the loader.

As for all this MBT faggotry, it's all pointless. No MBTs have fought with each other so predicting who wins and loses is part guesswork, part prediction, and part nerd rage. But the Abrams has one thing in it's favor: it appears to take friendly fire quite well; even point blank silver bullet hits can't kill it.

Yes and no while we have no examples of last gen MBTs fighting each other we have many examples of them functioning against infantry and AT weapons, and the results of some competitive testing we can go on.

The thing is though that between most modern MBTs the differences are pretty small and any slight edge in one area tends to be countered by a slight weakness in another. So for instance while I say I’d favor the Merk over an Abrams that margin is small and the biggest thing that tips me to the Merk is that it’s rapidly gaining active defense systems. If the US Army sucked up its pride and started fitting Trophy to M1 tanks and bought some of the newer main gun rounds tomorrow I’d seriously reconsider by view.

Both are good tanks and if they fought each other it would be a crap shot as to which might win, but I'd give the Merk a slight edge overall in terms of its total capabilities which is what's most important when considering a tank. Anti-tank ability IS important, but it's not the sole factor to consider.