Battle tanks and fighters

[IxianMace]

IMO, the Su-27 and Su-35 carrier based strike fighters are very capable Russian aircraft (quite nice looking as well ;)). The M-1A2 Abrams Tank (American) has a laser targeting system that improves accuracy for it's shell hits quite dramatically, as far as I know, and is supposed to be more accurate and able to withstand more hits than most 'T' series tanks. Of course, military hardware will always be upgraded and updated to maintain their usefulness in the future, if it's not phased out of service for new fighters/tanks completely, like the F-111 phased out of service. I think the F/A-18 and the F-15C will be phased out of service soon in favour of the F-22, although last time I heard, the US blew their budget on the F-22 (which is supposed to be very expensive, I don't know the exact cost of each aircraft though).

Overall, you can't really say which side is 'better'. Both will be improving to keep up with the other IMO.

[lowzeewee]

Now most US vechicles/planes are based on laser-weapons :P

Only russian tanks and planes still use manual targetting ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Of course not. Even first series of T-72 model where equipped by laser targeting. Today's russian tanks, T-80 and T-90, also can fire rocket-propelled missiles instead of de facto dumbfire bullets what makes them more accurate than Abrams. However, these models haven't been in any tank battle, so it's hard to compare them with western types. If I look on it, they have better armament, but Abrams has better defense. Anyway, best model is Israeli tank Merkava, about which we had a half of thread while ago.

Also, MiG-29 is known as the first fighter enabling use of aiming device linked to helm. In deadly combination with thrust vectoring missiles (like R-83) is pilot able to quickly shoot down any bogie over his shoulder. Newest versions of F-16, Su-27 also swedish J-39 Gripen and most possibly also F-22 have such system too. In naval war isn't maneuverability very important factor (is there a possibility to make a looping with F-14? ;D ), so that's why F/A-18E hasn't it still. Anyway, I am not sure if US Navy plans to replace their new Hornet version by F-22.

[lowzeewee]

Any tank able to restrain uranium shells ???

[Caid Ivik]

Depends on which angle it hits. By this is Abrams magnificient design.

[lowzeewee]

USA can afford to blast a sniper on a rooftop with a Maverick missile[is it a missile?]

And Russia needs funds for their dying military-There is something in Gob's post in Iraq Issues thread in Politics Board about this :)

[Cyborg]

Yes Maverick is a missile normally mounted on an A10.

[lowzeewee]

And I heard from my school teacher that it costs $50K each :O

Singapore has only 100 maverick missiles I think :P

[Cyborg]

$50K wasn't that astounding much...

The Maverick missiles are very powerful.

(Hellfire missiles are also cool. Often shot from Apaches)

[Anathema]

I know Abrams tanks have depleted uranium inside their armour for extra protection, but do other tanks have this too?

[lowzeewee]

I think russian tanks use normal mortar shells and steel armor ???

[ExSPlug]

I think T-80 and later models can also fire that AT missle thing...

[lowzeewee]

But they have limited ammunition of that 8)

[Avrillian_Sard01]

I know Abrams tanks have depleted uranium inside their armour for extra protection, but do other tanks have this too?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I think that they did attempt to test depleted uranium tank armor. While it did offer good protection, the radioactivity made it...erm...harmful to the tank crew...

Unfortunately, I have no idea who did those tests, just read it from a book...

Anyway, nice topic Lowzeewee...

The Su-47 Berkut rocks! It's an interesting design...

[Scrinlord]

Actually, the M1 Abrams armor is classified. we know it is a composite of steel, depleted uranium, and SOMETHING else, but we dont know what it is. but for all intents and purposes, an abrams armor is nearly impenitrable from anything less than a huge tank cannon or a large AT missile. I dont think an Abrams has ever been destroyed in battle, though correct me if I am wrong.

[Anathema]

Er, yes there were. I believe the Iraqis destroyed a couple in the first Gulf War and a few in the most recent one. Not many.

However, none of the British Challenger tanks were destroyed during the first Gulf war.

[lowzeewee]

I think Iraqi troops destroyed about 3 ABRAMS ???

[Cyborg]

But they have limited ammunition of that 8)

I would like to see a tank carrying unlimited ammunition ;D

[lowzeewee]

I wonder......what is the biggest tank in the world ???

[ExSPlug]

I think Iraqi troops destroyed about 3 ABRAMS ???

I thought that they were all shot by another Abrams...yes...friendly fire

[Gobalopper]

I don't think any were completely destroyed but some were disabled and basically undrivable.

[Gobalopper]

Poland is buying some F-16's from the US:

http://www.newsday.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-poland-fighter-jets,0,3264659.story

[lowzeewee]

I just have a question on my mind now....is the F-18 supposed to be newer than the F-16 since it is 2 numbers more ???

[Avrillian_Sard01]

I wonder......what is the biggest tank in the world ???

Can somebody answer that question? I wanna know too... ;D

I know the smallest tank was the Goliath...still remember it from an old thread... ::)

And speaking of big tanks, was there an attempt to put 2 cannons on a single tank turret? (Think RA1's Heavy Tank)

[Anathema]

I think the biggest tank ever built was the King Tiger tank of the Nazis during WWII, though I could be wrong.

There was a particular version of the Russian T-26 that had 2 cannon turrets, and the T-35 used to have 5 turrets.