Which is the best MBT in the WORLD and Why?

[Andyman]

Just wanted to know which MBT you guys think is the best in the world. If you respond please state why you think this and try to provide a picture of the MBT itself. Thanks!! p-)

[Ratamacue]

Well, the problem with a question like this is that the only modern MBT that's really seen combat is the M1 Abrams. That's a great, combat proven design. However, there are other non-proven tanks that have the potential to be very strong as well, namely the Leopard 2A6 and the Merkava Mk3.

[Andyman]

do you know which version of the Leopard Canada uses. I think its called a Leopard C2 but I'm not sure how that relates to the German model

[USMarine3521]

m1 abrams, but of course im just saying because im american woot

i really dont know what the best tank is, but like rat said m1 abrams have had combat expierience.

[usa320]

PRobably the M-1A2.

Its had the combat experience, and it has incredible technology and armor.

Also notable are the Challengers and Leopards.

[ogukuo72]

Well, the problem with a question like this is that the only modern MBT that's really seen combat is the M1 Abrams. That's a great, combat proven design. However, there are other non-proven tanks that have the potential to be very strong as well, namely the Leopard 2A6 and the Merkava Mk3.

That's not true! The Merkava saw action in 1982 - that's before the M1 was even fielded. And let's not forget the Challenger in Iraq.

Another point: If you want to evaluate an M1 and other thanks one on one in a single engagement, the M1 may be the best. But the M1 requires a tremendous amount of logistical support with its gas turbine engine. It's a complex engine that requires a lot of spare parts to be carried, and which burns up fuel at a tremendous rate. Furthermore, if I am not wrong, it uses kerosene, and not diesel . Probably only the US Army could provide the kind of admin tail that this monster requires.

[kutter]

do you know which version of the Leopard Canada uses. I think its called a Leopard C2 but I'm not sure how that relates to the German model

Canada uses the Leopard 1A3 and its original designation was Leopard C1. The C2 designation has been applied to the upgraded version the CF will eventually use which is suppose to incorporate additional armour panels and upgraded electronics. You can find more info here:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehleo2.htm

As for the best tank, its quite hard to say. My personal favourite is the Challenger II, it has the latest chobham armour fitted and its FCC is an upgraded version of the one fitted to the M1 Abrams but until it sees any combat (although the Challenger I saw service during GW1) I can only say it has great potential.

[Andyman]

I know how people hate when someone states undefended points but I'm gonna do that right now. I remember! reading in some military today magazine that the Merkava tank was rated to have the best likelyhood for crew survivability when knocked out. Is this true? :cantbeli:

[JiJoMacLE45]

I'd have to say a metallic blue, 5 speed, 1989 Honda Accord. Low to the ground making a small profile, quiet, agile, will run for ever, retractable antenna, lots of trunk space with a full size spare, comfy interior, optional cup holders, light in the ash tray. Need I say more.

[Argyll]

Kutter,
Challenger 2's were used in GW2 by the RSDG's.

[Saranof]

I dunno, I'd say the Merkava

But the abrams looks much cooler :)

[FallenAngel]

My vote for the best tank goes to the Leo 2A6 EX tank. It's lighter than the Abrams, has the same if not better protection, the same if not better targeting computer, a better gun...

The Merkava 4s I hear are pretty good tanks. Having the engine in the FRONT of the tank helps alow with crew survivability, but that still isn't a guarentee.

The Challenger and the Abrams are also great tanks IMO-- they're battle proven (something they have over the German and Israeli designs).

In the end, I would think it would come down to crew performance to see who would win a "battle-royale" between these four.

[seventy6er]

Didn't we already have a "best MBT in the world" thread here?!?? :|

Anyways...

Germany’s Leopard 2 Remains the World’s Best Tank (http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm)

Forecast International Again Ranks Leopard 2 World’s Best Tank Overall (http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm)

Those two links show the 2001 and 2002 reports from Forecast International.


The company specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market research designed to assist corporate executives, military leaders, and top government personnel in strategic planning and military intelligence. Now in its 30th year of operation, it is the recognized standard bearer in the field of Industry Intelligence and is acclaimed by market planners, government officials, military analysts and other industry professionals. Its products cover over 5,000 military and aerospace programs and provide unique 10-year unit production and value forecasts supported by high-end graphics, statistical spreadsheet presentations, and custom Internet-based data and intelligence centers. The Forecast International consulting group has performed over 500 proprietary research studies for many of the world's top defense companies, and governments, including many classified US government contracts. Classified work is performed at a very high level of clearance. Corporate philosophy stresses completely realistic analysis and forecasts based upon hard data and rational assumptions, and the firm prides itself on the quality and integrity of its work, in the context of an unbiased approach.

This thread will once again proove that WE are biased. Americans will favour their M1A2's, the Brits their challengers, the Israelis their Merkavas, the Russians their T90 and the Germans their Leo2A6 :D

I go for the latest Leo :cantbeli:

[seventy6er]

Btw: here's the link to the Thread Top 10 main battle tanks (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1769&highlight=mbt)

[Seraphim]

I was talking to some guy and he was saying the T72's are just as good as the Abrams. And he was trying to compare the hinds with apaches and he says the hinds are far more superior.

[seventy6er]

I was talking to some guy and he was saying the T72's are just as good as the Abrams. And he was trying to compare the hinds with apaches and he says the hinds are far more superior.

rofl

[ArmoredDov_D9]

I'd say Merkava 4, Leoopard 2A6 and Abrahams M1A2 are the world best 3 MBTs were Merkava 3Baz is also a serious competitor. Each tanks was built for different terrain and for different requierments.

I think the internal ranks of the TOP 3 can only be determined in a showdown contest such as "Top Gun" for US fighter jets.

[Dave.mil]

Challenger 2 is combat proven in Iraq it's got a very powerful gun, very well armoured a decent engine very good reliability, There is one better which is the Challenger 2E which is the export version that has all the faults of the original ironed out, It's as fast if not faster than an M1 has better armour an improved Thermal system and lots more mods. Everybody goes on about Leopard but when was it has it seen any action!!!

[GazB]

"And he was trying to compare the hinds with apaches and he says the hinds are far more superior."

Talk about comparing apples and oranges. The Hind is an assault helo, the Apache is an attack helo... ie the Hind supports assaults and the Apache is a tank killer.

The Apache has superior night/all weather capability at the moment, though there are TI upgrades for the Hind there are no plans for MMW radar. The Hind is superior in that it can carry reloads or a small unit in its cabin.

Really to be fair you'd have to compare the Apache to the Mi-28N... and really there is no real way to compare them yet.

[Adri]

the overlord tank in "Command & Conquer: Generals" :lol:

or... the leopard 2 :roll:

but I have seen a movie of the T-90, it looked very good !

http://www.thatcherthunders.org/ttruscom2.htm <--- a lot of russian armory, btw found the link on this forum.

roll down the page to the T-90 (the tanks wich jumps) and look on the three movies !

[cuirassier]

Since international competitions the best tank are the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc. Unfortunately the Merkava and the K2 were not in competition. For example in Greece:
Fire : 1sr Leclerc, 2nd Leopard 2, 3rd Abrams, 4th Challenger 2, T84


Proctection : Leopard 2, Abrams, T84 and equality Leclerc Challenger 2


Moblity : Leclerc, Leopard 2, Abrams, Challenger 2, T84


C3l ( electronic ? ) : Leclerc, Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, T84

Lelcerc has a bad note in protection because French didn't agree to give informations about armouring, Greek considerated Lecerc protection = AMX 30 protection !!!
So the result is Leopard 2 winner.

The Challenger 2 won on competion in .... Great Britain.
Leopard 2 won in Sweden and in Greece.
Leclerc in UAE.

[Mordoror]

nice necropost

the answer is simple
best MBT is the one with the best trained/drilled crew and the one with the best logistic support
/thread

[Damian90]

Non of these are true.

All modern tanks have equall armor protection, it can only differ in how many and how big are weak zones at respective surfaces of armor.

Crew survivability, only M1 have descent crew survivability, second will be Merkava and then rest equall.

Mobility, of course Leclerc, rest are more or less equall.

C3I, well these tests were old, fact that then Leclerc FINDERS were better than IVIS then, but currently all BMS systems are equall so here all modern MBT's are equall.

So there is no one best tank, there are plenty of great designs.


Leopard 2 won in Sweden and in Greece.Only because economic and politicall reasons. I would recommend to read some books. Prefered choice was M1A2, but in the end US did not want to export their DU armor, DU ammo and fuel efficency was lower than in Diesel powered vehicles + price was high.


The Challenger 2 won on competion in .... Great Britain.And is used by Oman. Once again, read some books first.


Leclerc in UAE. IRCC earlier than leclerc M1A2 and CR2 were tested there, M1A2 was again preffered choice but in the end France probably had better offer and tank was not downgraded monkey model like US offered.

[Bro Jangles]

M203

/thread

[cuirassier]

Yes I agree but don't neglect the tank too because a t-55 with a good crew has any chance against a Leopard 2 with an
unexperienced crew... Unfortunately the best method to compare two MBT and to confirm what you say is a war.

[Bro Jangles]

Yes I agree but don't neglect the tank too because a t-55 with a good crew has any chance against a Leopard 2 with an
unexperienced crew... Unfortunately the best method to compare two MBT and to confirm what you say is a war.
Id rather no war and always be curious over a war and find out.

[cuirassier]

And is used by Oman. Once again, read some books first.

Make the difference between win a competion and win a contract. Abrams didn't won competions but won many contracts in Australia... And my informations come from a book (exactly a magazine).

[Damian90]

I hate such threads, remind my of stupid Discovery Channel "documentaries"... Child talking not good discussion.


Make the difference between win a competion and win a contract. Abrams didn't won competions but won many contracts in Australia... And my informations come from a book (exactly a magazine). Do You understand that if one design was preffered this means it was probably in some areas better? In fact many times armies around the world choose cheaper and political correct design than design that is better from a technical point of view.

Of course this doesen't mean that there is one best design. unfortunetly only looking at who wins competitions and contract and ignoring design solutions and technical data will be cause of a silly "the best tank" competitions like in Discovery Channel where so called "specialists" don't know about what they are talking.

And what magazine it was? Any bibliography?

[cuirassier]

For information I am 18 years old and like you i hate discovery channel documentaries. I know different armies buy MBt for specific needs and not with the idea "who is the best tank in the world" like Tsahal with the Merkava. My objective was to show an internationnal competition by an army who has some needs for his future tanks. The magazine is RAIDS, it is a serious and deemed magazine since 1986.

[Fallap]

Well, the problem with a question like this is that the only modern MBT that's really seen combat is the M1 Abrams. That's a great, combat proven design. However, there are other non-proven tanks that have the potential to be very strong as well, namely the Leopard 2A6 and the Merkava Mk3.

The Leopard 2A5DK has been combat proven by the Danish Army (=

[Damian90]

For information I am 18 years old and like you i hate discovery channel documentaries. I know different armies buy MBt for different needs and not with the idea "who is the best tank in the world". My objective was to show an internationnal competition by an army who has some needs for his future tanks. The magazine is RAIDS, it is a serious and deemed magazine since 1986.

1) Thats good.

2) Yes there are different needs, however many designs were meet these needs in different counries. But the problem have a political nature, not only by a customers state, but also producer state. look at this, US design was a favorite, customer state wanted to buy a producer state product but producer state don't agree to sold them a product with their full specifications and capabilities. However different producer state agrees even for license production in a customer state.

Who will win? of course producer state B and technical data of both products doesen't matter here in fact.

As for that RAIDS magazine, need to find it and read, can be a good lecture.

[cuirassier]

I have not say the contrary. I think you have not seen that i don't want to make a stupid ranking like we can see in youtube about MBT but show competition make by the greek army with his needs not by me. And if you want i can show you the rest of their article in an hour.

[Damian90]

I will be very thankfull. :-)

BTW there are some detailed photos there? I'am interested in serial numbers of turrets and hulls. Can be very helpfull in research.

[GottLuft]

Since international competitions the best tank are the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc. Unfortunately the Merkava and the K2 were not in competition. For example in Greece:
Fire : 1sr Leclerc, 2nd Leopard 2, 3rd Abrams, 4th Challenger 2, T84


Proctection : Leopard 2, Abrams, T84 and equality Leclerc Challenger 2


Moblity : Leclerc, Leopard 2, Abrams, Challenger 2, T84


C3l ( electronic ? ) : Leclerc, Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, T84

Lelcerc has a bad note in protection because French didn't agree to give informations about armouring, Greek considerated Lecerc protection = AMX 30 protection !!!
So the result is Leopard 2 winner.

The Challenger 2 won on competion in .... Great Britain.
Leopard 2 won in Sweden and in Greece.
Leclerc in UAE.

What's with Merkava IV with Trophy ?

[Damian90]

What's with Merkava IV with Trophy ?

These are from Greek trails from the 90's, so both Merkava Mk.4 and Trophy APS were not existing back then.

[crush6655]

I personally think the M-16 is bester than the AK-47, but who knows..

[JoaMei]

Yes, but the AK-47 is more reliable and you have to consider 5.56 vs. 7.62 mm question... ;)

[crush6655]

Yes, but the AK-47 is more reliable and you have to consider 5.56 vs. 7.62 mm question... ;)
Russia str0ngggggg111! is in my top-10 countries for sure.

[xristar]

Since the Greek 1998 contest was brought up, one must note some things. As happens with oppinion polls, "you can prove anything if you ask the right questions", the tests did not show which tank is the "best". The tests were determined by the Greek committee and did not necessarily bring the tanks to their limits. For instance, the night-firing tests were made at a range of 2,000-2,500m maximum, where the Leo2A5 and the M1A2 both scored 20/20. The M1A2 however has superior thermal sights to the Leo2, and in greater ranges (3,000+) would probably outperform the Leo2. Such tests were however not done, so, as far as the contest goes, both tanks have identical night firing capabilities. That of course doesn't mean that the contest didn't put the tanks to great strains. The contest showed clearly what some tanks can't do, not everything they can.

[Damian90]

Also British and US teams have problems with training ammo used on contests. US team used finally combat ammo while Brits needed to order ammo from UK.

There were probably more of such situations, Ukrainians and Russians (or Russians, don't remember) had also problems with ammo.

[cuirassier]

I will be very thankfull. :-)

BTW there are some detailed photos there? I'am interested in serial numbers of turrets and hulls. Can be very helpfull in research.

The rest of the competion in Greece in 1998, of course some information are not right today. Sorry if there are english mistakes
MBT
Leopard 2A5
advantage
-good shoot against static target at long distance
-execellent front and roof protection
-fiability and precision of the turret
-cross obstacle the only one which can cross 2 m of water height without preparation
disavantage
-short gun calibre 44
-ammo not isolated
-no mine portection
-bad autonomy
-no GAP (?)
-no air conditioning
Challenger 2E
advantage
-long gun calibre 55 good precision at long distance
-ammo (50)
-good autonomy 2nd after Leclerc
-good engine
-adjusting track tension
disavantage
-bad shoot in moving against moving target
-bad protection
-only 8 ammos ready to fire
-ammoand viewfinder not nato standard
-battlefield management system realy bad
-no GAP
-immersion not deep
-no portection against fire next to the crew
-fire control not reliable
Lerclerc tropical
advantage
-good shoot in moving against moving targets 100%
-good system hunter killer
-stabilisation of the turret reliable
-good autonomy 472 km
-adjusting track tension
-cross all obstacles
-air conditonning
-good ergonomics
-ammo isolated
-best BMS (?) easy to use
disavantage
-problems with shoot in standing position at long distance
-no GAP
-12,7 not easy to use
-no immersion capacity
-no information about protection... ?
-no roof protection
M1A2 Abrams
advantage
-realy good hunter killer (the best)
-good front potection
-cross obstacle easy except river without preparation
-good BMS (?)
disavantage
-bad autonomy
-bad fiability of the turbine
-short gun 44 calibre
-no roof portection
-no submersion capicity

[cuirassier]

I have one question about abbrevation what C3I, BMS and IVIS are exactly?

[Jdam1]

Challenger 2, bad protection, really, where are you getting this?

[Damian90]

Some mistakes here.


MBT
Leopard 2A5
advantage
-good shoot against static target at long distance
-execellent front and roof protection
-fiability and precision of the turret
-cross obstacle the only one which can cross 2 m of water height (all MBT's can do that, depends on deep water fording kit design)
disavantage
-short gun calibre 44
-ammo not isolated (15 rounds from 42 isolated)
-no mine portection
-bad autonomy
-no GAP (?) (GAP? Or GAS? Yes Leo2 have GAS)
-no air conditioning
Challenger 2E
advantage
-long gun calibre 55 good precision at long distance
-ammo (50)
-good autonomy 2nd after Leclerc
-good engine
-adjusting track tension
disavantage
-bad shoot in moving against moving target
-bad protection (armor quality is good, however there are some weak zones over frontal arc)
-only 8 ammos ready to fire
-ammo and viewfinder not nato standard
-battlefield management system realy bad
-no GAP
-immersion not deep
-no portection against fire next to the crew (Yes, ammo is completely not isolated)
-fire control not reliable (why? it is derivative of M1A1/A2 FCS)
Lerclerc tropical
advantage
-good shoot in moving against moving targets 100%
-good system hunter killer
-stabilisation of the turret reliable
-good autonomy 472 km
-adjusting track tension (all tanks have this, like M1 series, Leo2 also have this I think)
-cross all obstacles
-air conditonning
-good ergonomics
-ammo isolated (only 22 rounds, 18 in hull are not isolated)
-best BMS (?) easy to use
disavantage
-problems with shoot in standing position at long distance
-no GAP
-12,7 not easy to use
-no immersion capacity
-no information about protection... ?
-no roof protection
M1A2 Abrams
advantage
-realy good hunter killer (the best)
-good front potection
-cross obstacle easy except river without preparation
-good BMS (?) (IVIS was awfull, this is why when it was possible it was replaced by FBCB2)
disavantage
-bad autonomy (what bad autonomy?)
-reliable turbine (reliabale is not disadvantage, and indeed AGT-1500C is reliabale)
-short gun 44 calibre (not problem with US M829A2 and M829A3 ammo, unfortunetly like DU armor it is not exported)
-no roof portection (there were tests to integrate roof protection for M1 series, i think if Greece wanted to have it, GDLS would integrate it in to design)
-no submersion capicity
I have one question about abbrevation what C3I, BMS and IVIS are exactly? BMS - Battle Management System,
IVIS - Inter Vehicular Information System,
C3I - Communications, Command, Control and Intelligence,
FBCB2 - Force XXI Battle Command Brigade & Below.

[Jippo]

T-72M1 is the worlds best tank for ever cause I love it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Tanks/11.jpg

[cuirassier]

jdam1 damian90 To answer, this competition was maded in 1998, since that many things have changed like a better potection for the Challenger 2, if they are mistakes ask the Greek army!!! And thanks for abbrevation.

[Damian90]

I would rather say that this is bad translation. Challenger 2 armor from the start had good quality, but design of a tank have some rather big weak zones over frontal arc (lower front hull).

Problems with them were however solved after Iraq.

[Corrupt]

Challanger has a BV therefore it wins by default. You can't fight a battle without a good brew.

[cuirassier]

I would rather say that this is bad translation. Challenger 2 armor from the start had good quality, but design of a tank have some rather big weak zones over frontal arc (lower front hull).

Problems with them were however solved after Iraq.

Greek rank the Challenger2 4th for the protection, the sentence say exatly balestic protection weak and no roof protection. About the leopard 2 it is the only one wich can cross 2 m height water without preparation. Bad autonomy for the abrams the said only 270km while Leclerc 472 km and Challenger2 424 km. And a bad translation maybe reliable= fiablity.

[xristar]

Few remarks:


Leo2:
cross obstacle the only one which can cross 2 m of water height
(all MBT's can do that, depends on deep water fording kit design)Actually the C-2 and the Leclerc didn't do the test. The M1A2 tried but had its engine flooded. Only the Leopard2 and the T-84 did the test successfully.
M1A2:
bad autonomy (what bad autonomy?) - M1A2 - 365 km
- Leopard2- 375 km
- Challenger - 440 km
- Leclerc - 500 km (without two additional barrels)
- T-84 - 450km
(data from Russian report)

[Damian90]

Greek rank the Challenger2 4th for the protection, the sentence say exatly balestic protection weak and no roof protection.

Ballistic protection of Challenger 2 was good, something fishy here.


About the leopard 2 it is the only one wich can cross 2 m height water without preparation.

Again something fishy, all of them can do the same more or less.


Bad autonomy for the abrams the said only 270km while Leclerc 472 km and Challenger2 424 km.

You mean range? Again something strange.


Leopard 2:
Fuel capacity: 1,200 litres
Max road range: 550 km

Leopard 2A6 EX:
Fuel capacity: 1,200 litres
Cruising range road: 450 km

Leclerc:
Fuel capacity: 1,300 litres (1,700 litres with external fuel)
Max road range: 450 km (550km with external fuel)

Challenger 2:
Usable fuel capacity: 1,592 litres
Max range: (road) 450 km
(cross-country) 250 km

Challenger 2E:
Usable fuel capacity: 1,962 litres
Max range: (road) 550+ km
(cross-country) 350+ km

M1A2:
Fuel capacity: 1,907.6 litres
Max cruising range: 426 km


And a bad translation maybe reliable= fiablity.

?? Reliability is reliability.

[ayanami_tard]

old thread is old

[cuirassier]

For the Challenger 2's protection ask the greek army! About the capicity of Abrams, Leclerc... to cross 2 m height water without preparation was maybe (i don't know) not possible in 1998 except the Leo. 2. And the Abrams they made a test, it stoped the first at 270km.

[C.Puffs]

Yes, but the AK-47 is more reliable and you have to consider 5.56 vs. 7.62 mm question... ;)

6.8mm FTW p-)

[Seek]

This thread was stupid even back in 2003...

[Jippo]

And it still is.... :)

[xristar]

The Challenger 2 protection was not deemed poor by the Greeks. The British, together with the Russians and the T-80U, were the only ones who accepted to put their tanks to test their armour. The others refused. After the Leo2A6 was purchased by the Greek army, the Greeks put a production turret to the test. The turret was penetrated at the 11th or so hit. The Greeks asked the manufacturer to improve the protection to the advertised level without additional cost, and succeeded.

[Leaper]

Swedens new Viking tank will pwn you all

[Corrupt]

The Challenger 2 protection was not deemed poor by the Greeks. The British, together with the Russians and the T-80U, were the only ones who accepted to put their tanks to test their armour. The others refused. After the Leo2A6 was purchased by the Greek army, the Greeks put a production turret to the test. The turret was penetrated at the 11th or so hit. The Greeks asked the manufacturer to improve the protection to the advertised level without additional cost, and succeeded.

How did the T-80U and the Chally do?

[Pointman070]

Swedish OLD Volvo tanks (240/740/940) still rule the world!!!

For the rest let it come to a shoot out, By example in Libia.
We can then see wat the tanks are worth.

[xristar]

How did the T-80U and the Chally do?They weren't tested, exactly because everyone else refused. The Greeks entered the clause to the contract that whichever design was chosen, would be tested before being accepted into service. That's why the first production turret of the Leo2A6 was put to the test, and why the improvement was made on the manufacturer's expense.

[poolboy]

i say the merkava mk4 (specially with trophy) since its armour was able to withstand decent soviet/russian ATGM

[flanker7]

Chineese farmer tanks are the best AFAIK

[CarrierFan2006]

Quite where this idea that Challenger 2 is "weak in armour" comes from I cannot work out. It's funny how the rest of the world regards Challenger 2 as one of the toughest tanks around. Only one has ever been destroyed in combat, in Iraq, and that was by another Challenger 2, by mistake. Another was hit by 7 RPGs and a MILAN TOW AT missile system. It lost it's tracks, and the optics were damaged, but none of the 4 man crew was injured. The vehicle itself was returned to service after field repairs. Another was damaged by an IED consisting of several 155mm shells buried in the ground. The driver lost 2 toes. In Tank to tank combat, it has been thoroughly tested. 14 Ch2 went up against an Iraqi column including 15 T55s (my mate was there...). They destroyed all of the Iraqi vehicles without even being seen, or at least not being shot at.

Although several M1A2s were lost in combat in Iraq I would suggest that because there were a lot more of them, it's not necessarily a fair comparison. It should perhaps be noted that the Ch2 and M1A2 both use a very similar Fire control systems.

Merkava is a compromise between APC and MBT, which must by definition lead to problems. Leopard is a great vehicle, but the last time the Germans used their tanks in anger, it led to a whole world at war! They've never really been tested properly. T72/90 etc are good, but follow the old Soviet mantra of Quantity over Quality. The fact that the Iraqis used them to such miserable effect suggests to me that they are probably not likely to stand up well in a toe to toe with either the M1 family or Challenger 2.

In summary, I would say, finally, that in my view the Abrams and the Challenger 2 are probably level pegging in terms of "the best tank in the world" and it does come down to personal preferences. Both are battle tested, both have had their weaknesses probed in combat and have been suitably modified. The M1's TUSK upgrades, and the Challenger 2's Street Fighter upgrades make the two of them the best in the world.

Personally, as a personal preference, therefore, I'd pick Challenger 2, but that's because I'm British!

[flanker7]

Merkava is a compromise between APC and MBT

I think you lost it right here ^

[CarrierFan2006]

I think you lost it right here ^

It is. It has a compartment in the rear for I think 6 infantrymen. This will inevitably lead to compromises elsewhere, in order to make space.

Did you not know that?

[flanker7]

I know that but it's not a compromise but rather an inherent feture of it's design. At least this is my opinion(sorry for any spelling errors)

[Damian90]

It is. It has a compartment in the rear for I think 6 infantrymen. This will inevitably lead to compromises elsewhere, in order to make space.This compartment is for ammo storage, not for infantry.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/51077-1.jpg


Quite where this idea that Challenger 2 is "weak in armour" comes from I cannot work out. It's funny how the rest of the world regards Challenger 2 as one of the toughest tanks around. Only one has ever been destroyed in combat, in Iraq, and that was by another Challenger 2, by mistake. Another was hit by 7 RPGs and a MILAN TOW AT missile system. It lost it's tracks, and the optics were damaged, but none of the 4 man crew was injured. The vehicle itself was returned to service after field repairs. Another was damaged by an IED consisting of several 155mm shells buried in the ground. The driver lost 2 toes. In Tank to tank combat, it has been thoroughly tested. 14 Ch2 went up against an Iraqi column including 15 T55s (my mate was there...). They destroyed all of the Iraqi vehicles without even being seen, or at least not being shot at.Challenger 2 that was completely destroyed was hit through TC hatch, ammo stored in hull cook-off. 2 crew members that were inside died.

Second Challenger 2 was hit in to weak zone, front hull area where are no special armor cavity there. RPG-29 perforated but crew was lucky, shaped charge jet did not hit in to propelant charge for ammo stored behind driver.

Third Challenger 2 heavily damaged by IED.

Many more were more or less damaged.


Although several M1A2s were lost in combat in Iraq I would suggest that because there were a lot more of them, it's not necessarily a fair comparison. It should perhaps be noted that the Ch2 and M1A2 both use a very similar Fire control systems.Most M1A1's and M1A2's that were disabled or destroyed were victims of IED's, rest were RPG victims, mainly because US did not have by a long time up-armor kit for side armor like the British Army had for their CR1's and CR2's.

And also because Yanks got more tanks there and operated in more hot areas.

Yes Challenger 2 FCS is derivative of M1A2 FCS.

[CarrierFan2006]

I appreciate what you are saying. I would respectfully suggest, however, that adding a crew compartment, whether or not as part of it's design, must by definition be a compromise. To carry 6 Infantrymen, the vehicle must compromise elsewhere. Therefore it must either be x metres longer (decreasing mobility / manoeuvrability), x tonnes heavier (decreasing mobility / manoeuvrability / causing more damage to roads etc), carry x litres more fuel (More weight...), or less ammunition (less fire power / more logistics support), or a smaller engine (decreased mobility), or less armour (decreased protection), to compensate for the additional human cargo. It would, therefore be a compromise. Don't get me wrong, it is a great vehicle, and suits the IDF very well, but if it came to a fight with a full up Main Battle Tank, it would inevitably suffer.

PS. No spelling mistakes!

[Damian90]

151010

Another shot of Merkava interior, as we can see this tank is not capabale to transport infantry, unless someone don't want to take full ammo load but only around 10 rounds in turret basket racks.

[Steak-Sauce]

Holy Threadrevival!

[Leaper]

Seriously, this thread is retarded, and it has been since 2003.

On MP.net, necroposters posts you!!!!!!

[CarrierFan2006]

This compartment is for ammo storage, not for infantry.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/51077-1.jpg

Can also be used for a Mortar, or as a crew compartment. Hence the huge, man sized door at the back!!




Challenger 2 that was completely destroyed was hit through TC hatch, ammo stored in hull cook-off. 2 crew members that were inside died.

Second Challenger 2 was hit in to weak zone, front hull area where are no special armor cavity there. RPG-29 perforated but crew was lucky, shaped charge jet did not hit in to propelant charge for ammo stored behind driver.

Third Challenger 2 heavily damaged by IED.

Many more were more or less damaged.

I said "destroyed in combat". Nothing is undamageable...

[Damian90]

Can also be used for a Mortar, or as a crew compartment.

Then tank have only few rounds for a main gun, waste of tank.


I said "destroyed in combat". Nothing is undamageable...

Yes I know, I only extended the list. ;)

[CarrierFan2006]

Seriously, this thread is retarded, and it has been since 2003.

On MP.net, necroposters posts you!!!!!!

Dude! I'm with you. I was just browsing and found this!! I hate these stupid "best tank in the world" conversations. Something inside me just snapped...!

[poolboy]

151010

Another shot of Merkava interior, as we can see this tank is not capabale to transport infantry, unless someone don't want to take full ammo load but only around 10 rounds in turret basket racks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSww8vkjGIM

[CarrierFan2006]

Holy Threadrevival!

What? Batman and Robin are here too??!

[Arctic Leopard]

The T-34. .....

[Leaper]

^I was just about to ask if I'm dead cuz nobody noticed my post. Thank you kind sire for letting me know I'm alive :D

[Russianlynxy]

The T-34. .....

well technically the T34 is not considered an MBT.

[CarrierFan2006]

^I was just about to ask if I'm dead cuz nobody noticed my post. Thank you kind sire for letting me know I'm alive :D

Just made me laugh!! You're welcome!

[CarrierFan2006]

well technically the T34 is not considered an MBT.

Oh GOD NOOOO!!!!

[Leaper]

I say CV90 FTW.


Eat it bitch

[flanker7]

I see your CV90 and raise you by a PKM

[kawaiku]

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n73/kawaiku/Random%20Images/Tinkles.jpg
/thread

[Leaper]

I see your CV90 and raise you by a PKM

Holy ****! A member who got the message!

Sir, you're amazing! I love you!

[ghostdog]

.....the MBT which will come

Enzo Ferrari Docet

[Arctic Leopard]

well technically the T34 is not considered an MBT.


This is an outrage!

[Leaper]

An outrage is this!