Main Battle Tanks

[Yosy]

The Main Battle Tank, or MBT, is the most powerful land-based weapon system found on the conventional battlefield. The typical MBT has a combination of three vital characteristics:

*It can traverse difficult terrain at speed

*Its high velocity cannon can deliver a formidable punch

*It can survive the impact of all but the most powerful projectiles and warheads

This iron trinity of mobility, firepower and protection shapes the design of all modern MBTs.

So, given the intense competition between rival manufacturers, which are the best MBTs on the market today?

Leclerc

http://www.combat-online.com/leclerc.gif

The French Leclerc, unusually for a Western-designed tank, has a three-man crew. The fourth crewman is replaced by an auto-loader. The compact Leclerc has a low battlefield silhouette, making it more survivable. It also has a detachable, modular armour suite. This allows for upgrading as material technology improves. Firepower is provided by a 120mm smoothbore cannon.

Leopard 2

http://www.combat-online.com/leopard.gif

The excellent German Leopard has a well-balanced mix of mobility, firepower and protection. A high power-to-weight ratio, a 120mm smoothbore cannon, advanced fire control and special armour laminates make a formidable adversary. This is perhaps the best MBT in service today - at least in a European environment.

Merkava 3

http://www.combat-online.com/merkava.gif

The Israeli Merkava 3 has a unique configuration with a front-mounted engine, which helps to protect the crew compartment from frontal attack. The tank is fitted with replaceable modular armour. Merkava has a very advanced 'hunter-killer' fire control system, coupled to its 120mm smoothbore cannon. Its power-to-weight ratio is lower than some MBTs, though.

T-80

http://www.combat-online.com/t80.gif

The Russian T-80 has a compact low silhouette and a three-man crew with autoloader. Its mobility is good, and armour protection is reasonable.

Its 125mm cannon has a rather basic fire control system. However, as well as regular cannon rounds, it can fire a tube-launched missile for long distance sniping.

Challenger 2

http://www.combat-online.com/chall2.gif

Britain's Challenger 2 has excellent armoured protection, thanks to its sophisticated Chobham special armour. Its firepower, from a 120mm rifled cannon, is also formidable. However the Challenger emphasises survivability and firepower at the expense of a rather low power-to-weight ratio.

M1A2 Abrams

http://www.combat-online.com/m1a2.gif

The United States' M1A2 Abrams has a turbine engine which gives it class-leading speed and mobility. The price of such impressive performance, however, is a very thirsty engine. Firepower is provided by a 120mm smoothbore cannon, and electronic fire control is comprehensive. Protection is high, provided by Chobham armour similar to that used in Britain's Challenger 2.

[shadower]

I think Israelis has best posible veapons and combat sistems money can make and buy and bigest acumulation of quallity veapons in not that big area,so I am going with Merkava 3.

[foxtrot023]

I think Israelis has best posible veapons and combat sistems money can make and buy and bigest acumulation of quallity veapons in not that big area,so I am going with Merkava 3.

I disagree. The Merkava Mark 3 is a good tank, the best protection, however it is the slowest, and it was developed due to the unique needs of the IDF.

The ¨experts¨ think that the best is a coin toss between the Leo2A6 and the M1A2, but I think all the tanks mentioned are excellent (although the japanese type 90 needs to be mentioned)

Regards

[FallenAngel]

just FYI- that pics is of an origional M1 Abrams with the 105 gun. ;)

[UoUo]

The Israeli Merkava 3 has a unique configuration with a front-mounted engine, which helps to protect the crew compartment from frontal attack. The tank is fitted with replaceable modular armour. Merkava has a very advanced 'hunter-killer' fire control system, coupled to its 120mm smoothbore cannon. Its power-to-weight ratio is lower than some MBTs, though.


The Merkava mk3 is not our best MBT...our army already reccived the brand-new Merkava mk4...that have power-to-weight ratio like most of the MBT oin the world...with an engine with 1500HP.


Any way guys...the merkava is the best for our environment..and i don't think any other to tank will do better in the rocky environment of the golan hights (our border with syria..and most likely the enemy we will have to fight with)......but we may meet the the M1a1 in a war in the future.

[UoUo]

I think Israelis has best posible veapons and combat sistems money can make and buy and bigest acumulation of quallity veapons in not that big area,so I am going with Merkava 3.

I disagree. The Merkava Mark 3 is a good tank, the best protection, however it is the slowest, and it was developed due to the unique needs of the IDF.

The ¨experts¨ think that the best is a coin toss between the Leo2A6 and the M1A2, but I think all the tanks mentioned are excellent (although the japanese type 90 needs to be mentioned)

Regards

Why do you think the merkava is the slowest? :|

Maximum speed : over 60km/h

Cross country speed : up to 55km/h


And acording to FAS the M1A2 can speed up to 41.5 MPH

How much 41.5 miles is that in km?

[OldRecon]

The M1-Abrams I think work best in an environment where those that operate it enjoy the comfort of relatively safe supply lines and command of the air space over supply lines and battlefield, on behalf of its thirsty engine.
The Abrams was not fully configured for network centric warfare at the outset either, though the latest model are. How this has been retrofitted to older models I don't know.
Battle tested.

Leo 2 - Didn't it win the CAT-shot competition a couple of years in a row at the end of the Cold war period with West-German conscript crews?
Which should imply simplicity of teaching and use (relatively speaking) and/or a good training simulator package.
Have some ammo stored in hull I think, besides turret ammo in magazine with blow-out panels. How this affects crew survivability is a question. Unless drill strictly hammered inn during training, it may also be tempting for loader to keep sliding door of turret magazine open (same goes for M-1 Abrams).
Only Swedish model fully configured for network centric warfare.
If reliability is as good (or better) as on the Leo 1 this should also bee a boon.
Battle tested??

Leclerc - The only tank to be fully designed for network centric warfare from the outset. License manufactured version of engine also used in latest Merkava, should imply (perhaps?) it works ok.
With regards to the modular armour, will be interesting to watch how the structural integrity of the hull will stand up to carrying the ad-on armour package over time.
Emergency procedures if auto-loader fails would also be interesting to wathch.
If the VAB wheeled apc is anything to go by, with requards to technical quality of the product, there is a risk the vehicle contain a mix of excellent (on VAB suspension and radio), delicate (on VAB transmission/gearbox) and undesirable (on VAB need for 5 min. warmup of engine before any driving) features.
Battle tested??

Latest model Merkava - Beside the Challenger-2 perhaps the heaviest contender in the market.
With licence produced French 1500 hp diesel not that bad power/weight ratio however.
Ammo appears to be stored in turret rear in a revolving magazine with blow-out panels and small feeder opening for loader to fetch rounds.
While this to large part limits risk of loader laziness, emergency procedures if magazine mechanism fails would be interesting to watch.
Early model Merkavas had a shot-trap under turret overhang, how's this now? Late model Merkavas appear to have some network centric features.
Ability to carry on-board infantry, gives added tactical options + rear door should speed up reloading of ammo.
Though Israelis claim Merkava's cheaper than imports, no one else have bought Merkavas or signed agreements for licence production so..??
Battle tested.

Challenger-2
A Challenger-1 fix so should be better. Besides Merkava perhaps the best protected tank on the market, but also one of the heaviest and, as said, with weakest power train. Despite that have good suspension that enables the challenger to keep up with competitors on terrain speed.
Configured for network centric warfare?? (probably not??).

Just some impressions.

[OldRecon]

Why do you think the merkava is the slowest? :|

Maximum speed : over 60km/h

Cross country speed : up to 55km/h


And acording to FAS the M1A2 can speed up to 41.5 MPH

How much 41.5 miles is that in km?

41,5 x 1,659 = 68,85 km/h

[Marsh]

Hi Yosy,

The photos and text that you have posted on MBTs were written and provided by me to the owner of the site you took them from. It would be nice of you to aknowledge the site where you posted the material from. Otherwise it looks like the text is yours and we both know it is not.....


Cheers
Marsh

:roll:

[drGreen]

the old leo 2a4 got up to 80 km/h and without engine limiters up to 100-110 km/h :P, driving these speeds is sure no fun in a tank. pretty scairy when u suddenly encounter a big hole in the ground (old prepared positions in training area's).

the newer version 2a5 was total shiat, more weight and no engine improvements (in our dutch version). torsibars (only know the dutch word) kept breaking due to the weight of the tank combined with heavy terrain. speeds we had those days were around 60 km/h in the field, real lame when is speed is everything.

[Yosy]

It's pretty obvious that most articles posted in this section aren't written by the users that posted them, but copy/pasted. I wasn't expecting people to belive that I actually wrote all this by myself.

Anyways, here's the site where this is taken from: http://www.combat-online.com/

[UoUo]

no one else have bought Merkavas or signed agreements for licence production so..??
Battle tested.


Merkava 2 3 and 4 are not for exsport....we don't sell them.

[RS_Leo1A5]

the newer version 2a5 was total shiat, more weight and no engine improvements (in our dutch version).
The German ones had problems, too.

The first batch were simply A5 turrets put onto A4 hulls without compensation for the added weight.
Mechanical failure due to overstress is the logical consequence...

That's why the 2A6 also has a redesigned hull.

[aartamen]

I do not know who's got the best tank. But "Who's got the best tank" is the most annoying thread there is.

[perdurabo]

this list lacks russian T-90, Ukrainian T80UD, Polish PT-91, Indian Arjun, Italian one (don't remeber name), Chinese tanks, Japanese and Korean...?? there is lots of MBTs around and this list have only moust known :)

[Marsh]

this list lacks russian T-90, Ukrainian T80UD, Polish PT-91, Indian Arjun, Italian one (don't remeber name), Chinese tanks, Japanese and Korean...?? there is lots of MBTs around and this list have only moust known :)

Hi,
The list is several years old. I wrote the text and provided the photos. In essence, my brief from the web site owner was "explain and describe the best MBTs to morons in a few hundred words" (no, I am not suggesting you are a moron, I am simply explaining the remit of the web site owner), hence the simplicity of the information. That is why the list misses out the Merkava 4 for instance, it didn't exist at the time of writing. Even with the benefit of hindsight, none of the tanks based upon the T-72 would have been included, nor would the Arjun. The Japanese Type 90 would have been incorporated if the web site owner would have allowed me 100 more words.

It is as simple as that.

cheers

Marsh

[Tim]

Leclerc & Leopard 2. Not combat proven & doubtful if they will be, look pretty but can they fight?
Merkava 3, ideal if you want to scare some Palestinian women & children.
The T80 is a re vamp of the T55, 62, 64 & T72. A basic rugged tank for 3rd world/ developing countries not a match for modern western armour as shown by its predecessor T72.
Abraham’s had to be fitted with an aux power unit to reduce its high fuel consumption when static with gun kit running. Poor rear armour as shown in Iraqi when RPG 7s easily disabled them.
Challenger 2. As they say only fools rush in so why the need for an excessive top speed. Only 1 challenger was disabled when another challenger engaged it. Of the 4 crew 2 survived, ask them if they would have preferred a faster vehicle.

[UoUo]

Merkava 3, ideal if you want to scare some Palestinian women & children


:roll:

**** you.

[Tim]

Merkava 3, ideal if you want to scare some Palestinian women & children


:roll:

f*** you.

Touched a nerve there did I.

[UoUo]

No...you are just an ass hole...go invade some country with WMD...*yeah right).

[Operation Ivy]

i think u know what id say p-)

Well if we are goin by looks the list would be
1.Merk4
2.Abrams
3.LeClerc
4.Leo
5.Chally2
6.T-80

:D

[UoUo]

i think u know what id say p-)

Well if we are goin by looks the list would be
1.Merk4
2.Abrams
3.LeClerc
4.Leo
5.Chally2
6.T-80

:D

Hehe....

I whould think the same....i think the M1a1 look very nice...

1.merk4.
2.Abrams
3.leo

And i am talking about the look...

[foxtrot023]

I think Israelis has best posible veapons and combat sistems money can make and buy and bigest acumulation of quallity veapons in not that big area,so I am going with Merkava 3.

I disagree. The Merkava Mark 3 is a good tank, the best protection, however it is the slowest, and it was developed due to the unique needs of the IDF.

The ¨experts¨ think that the best is a coin toss between the Leo2A6 and the M1A2, but I think all the tanks mentioned are excellent (although the japanese type 90 needs to be mentioned)

Regards

Why do you think the merkava is the slowest? :|

Maximum speed : over 60km/h

Cross country speed : up to 55km/h


And acording to FAS the M1A2 can speed up to 41.5 MPH

How much 41.5 miles is that in km?

Merkava 3- Speed 55 km/h
Merkava 4- Speed 60 km/h
Leo2- Speed 72 km/h
M1- Speed 42 MPH or 67 km/h (Miles X 1.6)
Leclerc- 70 km/h

source: www.army-technology.com

regards

[UoUo]

That my point...the M1a1 have almost the same speed as the merkava.

[foxtrot023]

True, but it is still the slowest. Not that that is a bad thing, it merely reflects the reality of the IDF, and that is that they need well protected tanks, not speedy tanks. Another example being that the merkavas had mortar tubes, etc.

regards

[Sayeret]

Merkava 3, ideal if you want to scare some Palestinian women & children

You sure are funny Tim. :cantbeli: :cantbeli:


Abraham’s had to be fitted with an aux power unit to reduce its high fuel consumption when static with gun kit running. Poor rear armour as shown in Iraqi when RPG 7s easily disabled them.

How do you come to that conclusion.

Btw last time I checked theres no such thing as a tank called the "Abraham"

[Marsh]

Hi Foxtrot,

All the figures you have quoted are totally meaningless. Every modern tank can run over rough countryside at a speed, that risks injury to its crew. The important differential is which tank is best at ensuring crew comfort and effectiveness, at speed, over tangled terrain. What you should be looking at is the sophistication of a different tanks respective suspension systems and their efficiency over difficult terrain, with particular emphasis on the length of the suspension's bound/rebound.

Cheers

Marsh

[UoUo]

True, but it is still the slowest. Not that that is a bad thing, it merely reflects the reality of the IDF, and that is that they need well protected tanks, not speedy tanks. Another example being that the merkavas had mortar tubes, etc.

regards

Ok. i agree. :D

[UoUo]

Hi Foxtrot,

All the figures you have quoted are totally meaningless. Every modern tank can run over rough countryside at a speed, that risks injury to its crew. The important differential is which tank is best at ensuring crew comfort and effectiveness, at speed, over tangled terrain. What you should be looking at is the sophistication of a different tanks respective suspension systems and their efficiency over difficult terrain, with particular emphasis on the length of the suspension's bound/rebound.

Cheers

Marsh

Oh...thanks for the info.

[foxtrot023]

Hi Foxtrot,

All the figures you have quoted are totally meaningless. Every modern tank can run over rough countryside at a speed, that risks injury to its crew. The important differential is which tank is best at ensuring crew comfort and effectiveness, at speed, over tangled terrain. What you should be looking at is the sophistication of a different tanks respective suspension systems and their efficiency over difficult terrain, with particular emphasis on the length of the suspension's bound/rebound.

Cheers

Marsh

True, and I understand what you say, and that is the reason they have speed governors in the engines of the MBTs. But my point is that design of a tank goes into the necesity of the country that designes it, hence the M1 is a powerful beast but very heavy and a gas guzzler that only the US army logistics can support, the Leo has the best combination of firepower/ protection/ speed but has not been battle proven, and the Merkava is the best protected tank. It is a question of need and design philosophy.

regards

[Marsh]

Hi Foxtrot,

Here is some data which I have collated re the bound/re-bound distances of various tanks suspension systems. You might find it interesting. The higher the figure the better.

Merkava 1-3, (4 unknown) - 604mm. The Merkava pays a penalty by having a very heavy suspension system.

Leopard 2 - 526mm

M1 - 558mm

Challenger 2 - 450mm. Compensated, to an extent, by having a pretty sophisticated suspension set up.

:)

cheers

Marsh

[UoUo]

p-)

[S'13]

True, but it is still the slowest. Not that that is a bad thing, it merely reflects the reality of the IDF, and that is that they need well protected tanks, not speedy tanks. Another example being that the merkavas had mortar tubes, etc.

regards

Very well put, the IDF's task is the defense of Israel (as we can learn from its name) and has no need for super fast tanks that will be used in some kind of blitzkrieg campaign to take over land.
Speed is less important especially now that tanks are used by the IDF (and the U.S for that matter) mostly in urban settings where protection plays a much bigger role than speed.