Best Main Battle Tank in The World

[Ratchet]

No trolling intended

[myk]

I love tanks and all, but this thread won't see daylight...

[Ratchet]

If they have an aircraft thread, tanks and ships should also be up. The M1A2, Leopard 2, T-84, and Merkava are my favorite tanks in the world.

[Sdf-1]

Where's the Bonaparte option?

[Lynx7725]

Where's the M.A.C. II option?

[Macross73]

I've never driven one so i can't say which one of these I'd like more than the other.

[mechaninac]

The two best MB Tanks in the World are the Abrams M1A2 and the Challenger 2. Of the two, the British beast has a slight edge in overall sophistication and capability (it was designed based performance and shortcomings of its predecessor, the Challenger 1 and the Abrams).

[Ratchet]

The two best MB Tanks in the World are the Abrams M1A2 and the Challenger 2. Of the two, the British beast has a slight edge in overall sophistication and capability (it was designed based performance and shortcomings of its predecessor, the Challenger 1 and the Abrams).

I'm partial to the M1A2 since I've been around it(I voted for it), but the Leopard 2 might be the best tank in the world. It's longer range 120mm gun alone gives it a strong nod.

[Gaijin]

I'm willing to bet most people won't recognize more than 2 or 3 on the poll.

[sketchley]

I saw this show in Discovery a couple of years ago.

The hands down best MBT is the Soviet T-34; and it's not on the list! What's with that?

More than 84,000 were built. Swarm! Swarm!

[eugimon]

nice to see the merkava get some love.

[Ratchet]

I saw this show in Discovery a couple of years ago.

The hands down best MBT is the Soviet T-34; and it's not on the list! What's with that?

More than 84,000 were built. Swarm! Swarm!

If we're mentioning the best all-around tank in WW2, I'd personally vote for the Panther V after the bugs were sorted out that is (after the Kursk battle).

[MilSpex]

nice to see the merkava get some love.

Yeah. It probably sees more combat than most tanks and was the first to use a land based phallanx style system to protect against incoming projectiles.

[Ratchet]

I saw this show in Discovery a couple of years ago.

The hands down best MBT is the Soviet T-34; and it's not on the list! What's with that?

More than 84,000 were built. Swarm! Swarm!

Try watching the Military Channel. They have the Leo 2 as the best tank in the world. The only reason I voted for the M1A2 is because of it's excellent performance in Iraq ( I'm a U.S. Army lifer) and the Abrams having the TUSK option. M1 and Leo are offsprings of the defunct MBT-70 joint program back in the 70s.

[bsu legato]

If they have an aircraft thread, tanks and ships should also be up.

The difference being that one or more mods here (and their hangers-on) are plane nuts. I can't think of any mods here with a hard on for armor.

F-14 minutiae = acceptable topic

Main Battle Tanks = doomed topic.

I know it sucks, but sadly thats the way it is around here. My suggestion would be to appeal to the toy collectors. Maybe post some picks of the GI Joe M.O.B.A.T. or some 21st Century Toys.

Oh and my money is still on the Leopard 2. Panzers FTW!

[promethuem5]

I'm no expert on modern armor (but I'm well-versed in WWII,) but I'm willing to say that it's certainly between the Merkava, Chally2, and Leo2...

[MilSpex]

The difference being that one or more mods here (and their hangers-on) are plane nuts. I can't think of any mods here with a hard on for armor.

F-14 minutiae = acceptable topic

Main Battle Tanks = doomed topic.

What about Destroid fans?

[Ratchet]

I'm no expert on modern armor (but I'm well-versed in WWII,) but I'm willing to say that it's certainly between the Merkava, Chally2, and Leo2...

Chally 2 is a good tank, but awfully slow (heavier too) compared to it's main rivals: The M1, Leo, Leclerc, and the Ukranian T-84. It does sport the 2nd generation chobham armor though. I'd vote Leo 2 for it's all-around capabilities and longer range gun. The Swiss version is amphibious too.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Ratchet

[eugimon]

I wonder if the US army will stick with their no auto loader policy in enlistment rates continue to stagnate.

[Ratchet]

I wonder if the US army will stick with their no auto loader policy in enlistment rates continue to stagnate.

A human is faster than an autoloader.

[eugimon]

A human is faster than an autoloader.

I have no doubt, it just seems like auto loaders are the "in" thing to have in most recent main tanks.

[Warmaker]

I place the M1 series first. From Desert Storm and all the way into the Global War on Terror, the M1 series has seen by far the most combat action of modern MBTs, and it has proven itself, while undergoing necessary changes from that experience.

I place the British Challenger 2 second, over the German Leopard 2A6. Why? Challenger 2's have seen much more action and direction for refinement than the Leo 2A6.

Now, don't get me wrong, the Leo 2's are mighty fine MBTs, but they haven't faced the rigors you only see from actual combat operations, and the unforeseen factors they bring. Until Leo 2's see more combat ops (if they are operating in Afghanistan), then I'll place the M1 and Challenger 2's above it.

[valkyrie13]

Of the MBTs listed, the K-2 Korean MBT is the most recent addition. It's still early to tell but the test results that have been announced were quite impressive. It's a bit smaller than the M-1 but it has the perfect size for the Korean mountainous/hilly terrain and has shown impressive speed and maneuverability. As for the engines and the fire control system, the Korean military benchmarked the Leopard 2 German MBT. Some footage below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ1seG7MHZU

[eugimon]

is that submerged operation thing a standard feature in tanks?

and man, the commentary in youtube is horrible. talk about a bunch of ignorant racists.

Edited September 10, 2007 by eugimon

[Ratchet]

Chally 2 is getting the new longer range German Rheinmetall L55 120mm gun found on the Leo A6.

M1A2 > car *lol*

Edited September 10, 2007 by Ratchet

[valkyrie13]

is that submerged operation thing a standard feature in tanks?

It has to be for a "Korean" MBT. Korea is filled with rivers and lakes.

and man, the commentary in youtube is horrible. talk about a bunch of ignorant racists.

I stopped reading the commentaries a long time ago...

[Noyhauser]

I place the M1 series first. From Desert Storm and all the way into the Global War on Terror, the M1 series has seen by far the most combat action of modern MBTs, and it has proven itself, while undergoing necessary changes from that experience.

I place the British Challenger 2 second, over the German Leopard 2A6. Why? Challenger 2's have seen much more action and direction for refinement than the Leo 2A6.

Now, don't get me wrong, the Leo 2's are mighty fine MBTs, but they haven't faced the rigors you only see from actual combat operations, and the unforeseen factors they bring. Until Leo 2's see more combat ops (if they are operating in Afghanistan), then I'll place the M1 and Challenger 2's above it.

They already are there now with the Canadian Lord Strathcona's Horse regiment, and the apparently the Dutch army.

Personally I wouldn't rate "seen more action" as a useful indicator: it has the propensity of actually being a detriment. In the US's case constant combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has whittled the R&D/upgrade budget for the M1 to low levels, in order to pay for day to day operations, maintenance/refurbishment of existing M-1s, and R&D for other vehicles, like the MRAP.

Its also important to remember that the Government of Canada decided to go with the Leo over the Challenger and the M1 in a rush bid to get units in the field last year. This was after the Chief of Defence Staff Served as the deputy commander of III Armoured Corps in Fort Hood and Him and the Commander of the Army are former tankers. Now that might have to do with the best price, and the state of the U.S. military (ie burning through the M1's service life due to constant use), but that in itself illustrates the above point.

Since the bundeswehr sold off a large portion of its tanks to European countries, and are committed to upgrading its current force, you see alot of R&D going into the Leos. The Canadian Leo 2s for example come with slat armor and Reinforced mine protection (an added plate on the belly). Not that either of these are some sort of breakthrough, but they were specifically asked for as a result of experience gleaned during Canadian operations in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. The decision to bring tanks was made by Department of National Defence after operation Medusa in Panjway valley where they decided they needed direct fire capability. Then they realize they needed better tanks, so they went with the Leo.

All in all though (and I'm going to speak only to military tactics) one of the reasons why there is no R&D going into tanks in the US is because senior officials do not see a great utility in tanks being deployed into places like Iraq. Now before you get on my case about how great it is, read Gen. Petraeus counter insurgency manual, there has been a definate move to get people out of vehicles and into the general populace, as per the "best practices" of counterinsurgency. Money that could be spent on upgrading M-1s I think is deliberately going elsewhere.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Hurin]

I love tanks and all, but this thread won't see daylight...

This thread will live as long as I still draw breath!

I've let my interest eb. . . but ever since I was addicted to Microprose's M1 Tank Platoon simulation circa 1990, I've always had a soft spot for the M1.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I joined the Army back in the '80s to drive tanks and kill commies. I wound up a schmuck in a truck with a map and a hat.

Having seen a lot of the Abrams tank inside and out, in action and at base I love those big guys. I also saw a lot of T-72ish junk piles in my time in the Army and they really made me appreciate the design of the M1 so much more. Albeit I never crewed one they were around me a lot so I have a soft spot. I'm sure there are "better" tanks out there in the stables of the other big budget first world armies... but the Abrams holds a place in my heart, kind of like a kid's first car.

The actual vehicle I crewed (Humvee) on the other hand...

[Mr March]

I always loved the British Challenger series myself. I know Canada likes the Leopard 2 and it's good machine, but personally like the Challenger better. I've always wanted to know the intricaces of the Dorchester armor; it's just sounds really cool. For some reason I really like reading about armor and high energy ballistics. Probably why I like mecha so much and why I find the Macross armored variants of the Valkyries so fascinating

I've actually driven an old Leopard 1, one of my claims to fame as a civilian. In my home town a good friend of the family purchased a disarmed Leopard 1 in Germany and had it shipped in pieces over to Canada. With some help he put the thing back together and now drives it around his acreage outside of town. I've had the pleasure of being behind the controls and what a beast it is! Quite hard to handle if you're not used to it like I was, but it sure is fun to try

[Mislovrit]

Where's the M.A.C. II option?

They're really more of the self-propelled artillery ilk, not a mbt.

[Mislovrit]

I wonder if the US army will stick with their no auto loader policy in enlistment rates continue to stagnate.

The holdup is the Army will have to create a new designed turret created to go with the AL. Two, they won't get rid of the loader as he is too valuable for the extra sets of hands and eyeballs in and out of combat.

Chally 2 is getting the new longer range German Rheinmetall L55 120mm gun found on the Leo A6.

They're getting the gun but also having to designed a new turret and redesigning the hull in the switch from two piece ammo to one piece ammo requiring a different stowage scheme.

but the Leopard 2 might be the best tank in the world.

Abrams, Chally 2s, and Merkevas, have proven their worth in the field of combat. Leo 2

It's longer range 120mm gun alone gives it a strong nod.

Without the latest DU ammo the gun is equal to the older model the Abrams use with the new ammunition. The longer length of the barrel is to increase muzzle velocity not range. Edited September 11, 2007 by Mislovrit

[Mislovrit]

(ie burning through the M1's service life due to constant use),

Tanks can and are being rebuilt to like new condition. Keeping them maintained at depot level is where lurch is.

[Uxi]

Am I the only tank crewman here? With a CAR?

I'm biased on the M1A1 myself. The gadgets on the A2 (CITV mostly) are really useful for acquiring secondary targets, but they have little to no advantage in acquiring the first target... and realistically, that's what wingmen are for. The fewest tanks we had in a regimental combat team any one spot for OIF-1 was a platoon of 4, though we usually went in companies (14-18, as we were actually slightly over TO) if not the whole tank batallion (56). And for the advantages the A2 does give, logistically, it screws everything up in the long haul with the "black box" mentality even moreso than the earlier Abrams. While I'm not one of the old school grognards who longs for the M60 and I realize the improvements are good, there is something to be said for pure mechanical (rather than electronic) wizardry. Even without power, we can fight an M1A1... not so much with an M1A2.

From my own perspective as a tank commander, I much prefer the CIWS to the ICWS which is anything but improved - the Commander has to expose himself to fire where I was nice and safe with my closed hatch on an A1 (though realistically outside of an NBC environment I was always partially open, even in Iraq).

The same pitfalls go for the Leo 2A6. All in all the Leo 2 is more similar than dissimilar from the Abrams in all but minute details. Those logistical concerns for the electronic gear are not quite as noticible given the comparably miniscule numbers of Leo 2 that have been produced (particularly when compared to the total number of Abrams - total program for the Abrams is much much larger).

1 on 1, it's a crew match with the better crew winning. 4 on 4 or 14 on 14 in a CAX? Best Platoon leader with the best (accurate) intel. etc

Merkava's are great on defense. They're slower than turds, though, so hypothetically an Abrams platoon/company/bn could well outmaneuver a Merkava platoon. Set up a base of fire with one section /platoon/company and flank, for example fairly easily.

Challenger 2 are good tanks, but inferior to Abrams and Leo IMO. Queen's Royal Lancers relieved us in place in Basra, so we could push on northwards IIRC. Good guys. Multi-piece ammo is a biatch and we're faster, too.

All the FSU stuff is junk and will get blown straight away. No tank armor will stop the M829A3 120mm depleted uranium penetrator from 1500-2000m. Even from 4000m, I give even odds on blowing them straight away well before max range. Provided they don't have any AT11's around that is.

Korean?

In Iraq, the only thing I was afraid of was the US Air Force.

[VF-19]

I have no doubt, it just seems like auto loaders are the "in" thing to have in most recent main tanks.

The autoloader also gives the T-72 it's famed spring loaded turret.... Unless of course, newer autoloading systems don't require a round to be exposed in the turret.