Which tank is the best one and why?

[ArcticWolf]

The American Abrams M1A2
The British Challenger 2
The French Leclerc
The German Leopard 2
The Israeli Merkava Mk. 4
The Russian T-90/T-80

Any other tank?

[Bombardier]

I will say the Challenger 2 and not because its British.
I do not know enough of all the tanks so i will compare between the Challenger 2 and the M1A1.

http://www.militaryimages.net/vbpics/challenger_vs_m1a1.jpg

From what i have read the 120mm L30 gun of the Challenger is far superior to the Rheinmettal 120mm gun of the M1A1 and the diesel engine is less troublesome that the M1a1's gas turbine. I have heard that the gas turbine engine was prone to overheating in hotter/dustier climes.
As you can see the range of the Challenger is also 150 miles greater than that of the M1A1.
Not sure what the changes are on the M1A2

Anyways, just my two penneths worth. solthum

[Drone_pilot]

range of the Challenger is also 150 Km greater than that of the M1A1.

Psst Bombardier it's not, it's 30 km shorter

[Bombardier]

oops!! didnt notice that it was Km not miles :rolleyes:
Any feckin way its still bettersolthum

[TankBuster]

Well thier out dated old grandpa's but i loved the Crocodile and M4 shermans because of simplicity. However the sherman, when compared to the bulk of Nazi panzers and tigers, may have well had a BB-gun for main armament and a slingshot for infantry defence. As for the nazi's i do like the JagdTiger, for what reason i dont Know. also the British challenger, because of its overall power and reliablity........................... (Y) (Y)(Y)

[TankBuster]

rbo;Course the good ole' A-10 warthog can Blast em all away with its powerful cannon and rockets or Cluster bombsm_gun;

[Bundu Basher]

Best tank historically - no competition - the T-34.
T-34 proved it was a multi-task tank with decent armor, main gun and other well balanced capabilities.It prooved itself against the then might Germans and was probably the basis of design for most future MBT's.

The best modern tank - probably the one we don't know about yet....!:)

[TankBuster]

Yeah the T-34 was also the best in numbers.....It was produced in greater number than any other tank of the war........as for power, the nazi's were running from thousands of tanks all the way home. So kudos to the ruskies on that one.

[ArcticWolf]

My personal opinion is that it matters little how technologically advanced a tank is, unless it has a crew that knows how to operate it to its full extent. Tanks are replacable, crews are not so easily replaced.

I mean, let's face it, any tank without a crew is basically worthless. This is also what I base my personal favourites on: crew survivability is paramount.

Therefore my two favourites are:

Challenger "Chally 2" hel;
Merkava Mk. 4 al: Psst! Have you seen the UFO turret design? LOL

I'm backing my statements up with info from, among other places, the following sources:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

http://www.army.mod.uk/scotsdg/cr2/challenger.htm

http://fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Merkava,,00.html

[ArcticWolf]

Can I just say that I'm a little surprised not to see anyone bring up the lesser known tanks out there...?

I'm not too familiar with Arjun and Al-Khalid, but have heard some people praise them. Perhaps it's too difficult to find one tank that is good in all terrains, which is why some countries have to start almost from scratch with design to suit their particular terrain? :confused:

Lately I've been told that the Japanese Type 90 is NOT the same as the T-90, but I can't seem to find any particular information surrounding this statement. Does anyone know something about this? :confused:

As always some tanks are still in development, so Bundu Basher is more than likely correct about the modern MBTs. Also, not all MBTs have been battle 'tested' enough for good comparisons to be made to other tanks. rbo;

Anyway, just wanted to mention the latest interesting tanks to keep an eye out for:

Korean XK-2
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/xk-2.htm

Black Eagle
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html

T-95
http://www.salute.co.uk/cms/show.asp?docid=111

PS I've not read much of the information on the above websites, my concentration level is sub zero at the moment, so these websites may not be as informative as I would hope...

[Nightstalker]

Ask Hans-Ulrich Rudel what he thought about the invincible T-34 tanks (519 is what he destroyed alone). The JagPanther,KingTiger and the Pershing should all be considered.

[PoPs]

Because I was a tanker in the US Army I am going to have to chose the M1A2. Not so much because it is an American tank but more so because I have no experence on any of the other tanks. In Vietnam we had the M48A2 (gasoline engine) and later on we got the M48A3 with the diesel engine. The gasoline engine tanks burned really good when hit in the engine compartment. We were really glad to get the A3's

[Matzos]

I know that I posted before and listed the British Challenger.

But I have have always had a liking of the German Tiger Tank,

http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/tiger-tank-images/tiger-tank-01.jpg

It was armed with the most powerful German gun, the 88mm, which was used both as a heavy anti-aircraft gun and as an anti-tank gun. At the time, this machine could and did out gun all allied tanks in the west.

I know in the East, the Russian T34 was involved in a number of battles with the Tiger and won, this was mainly due to the fact that they would charge the German tanks and get in very close so the Tigers could not use the superior long range of their guns.

If the Germans had got the right numbers of this vehicle, along with the King Tiger

http://chsk.com/steppenwolf/kinginbudas.jpg

Who knows what the out-come would have been.

[Bombardier]

Agreed mate the Tiger in its day was leaps and bounds ahead of all others, like you say in the right numbers the outcome would have been much different.

[Bombardier]

What about the French Le Clerc? how does that compare to say the ......M1A2

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/501/french_tank_kosovo.jpg

[Matzos]

Sorry about the problem with the images on my last post, I have now read your post on the using and displaying imagery. solthum

[Bombardier]

Its not a major problem mate, just thought I would give some guidance to our newer members.

[Matzos]

What about the French Le Clerc? how does that compare to say the ......M1A2
Weighing only 56 tons, the Leclerc is lighter and more compact than its foreign counterparts, the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and M1A1.
Powered by a SACM V8X-1500 4-stroke liquid cooled V8 diesel engine capable of 1,500hp, the Leclerc's acceleration capabilities exceed the Leopard 2, accelerating from 0 - 32km/h in 5.5sec. The innovative hydropneumatic suspension system allows the Leclerc to reach a top speed of 72km/h on-road and 50km/h cross country.

Incorporating more computer technology than any previous MBT, all vital components of the Leclerc, including firing, loading, steering and communications are fully computerized, with the Leclerc capable of real time direct communication with commanding headquarters and friendly vehicles.

The Leclerc is fitted with a French developed CN120-26 120mm smoothbore 52 caliber main gun which is capable of firing standard APFSDS ammunition at 1750m/sec and OFL 120 F1 tungsten ammunition at 1790m/sec. The Leclerc also features an auto-loading system mounted in the turret bustle which contributes to a more compact silhouette.
The automatic loader can fire 6 rounds in 35 seconds, while on the move.

Removable modular armor is placed directly on the tank allowing easy and quick replacement if damaged.

[John A Silkstone]

Being a medic, I believe that the best tank to be a water tank, its juice keep you alive.

[ArcticWolf]

Being a medic, I believe that the best tank to be a water tank, its juice keep you alive.

sal; sal; sal;

[TankBuster]

Amen to That! Actually one of the more slightly odd tanks is the Sheridan airborne tank of vietnam. The U.S had a good idea but the tank was too lightly armored, unstable when firing, and was prone to breakdowns. However the ability to get armor into a battle field quickly is invaluable and has been a dream since the 40's when the russians tried a tank with glider wings that was ment to get armor deployed quickly. Pic of the sherridan w/105mm gun
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/M551_Sheridan.jpg

[John A Silkstone]

Though I have an H driving licence (allowed to drive track vehicles) because I was in an Armoured Field Ambulance unit, I know very little about tanks. However, I was once told that the Israelis in the ‘Six day War’ against Egypt used an American tank and placed the British Centurion gun turret on top. Does anyone know if this is true?

Silky

[ralphrepo]

I think that ANY tank, when nearly as good as any other tank (almost same specs, main gun, fuel, etc), using the same well trained crew, will certainly out fight the other tank if it can also fire missles, launch mortars, AND carry it's own infantry.

Oh, and lest we forget, the Merkava 4 was designed to meet the needs of fighting against Russian ordnance typically found in Syria, and against the US M1 Abrams commonly found in Egypt.

Historical fact: Four US M4 Sherman KIA'd per German tank KIA'd. But US tank production outpaced German capacity to kill Shermans. Israel found that manufacturing and replacing a tank engine took one month. While training and replacing a tank crew took eight months. Hence the crew was the more valuable asset. Had the US run out of tank crews, then it's better mfg capacity would not have mattered in WW2.

Speed and long range was not a consideration. The Merkava was not going to need to race to the Fulda Gap; it was needed to dig in against outside invaders.

Someone had mentioned the Indian Arjun. It's a joke. Even the Indian Army doesn't want them. They're overweight, underpowered, and are a logistical nightmare to support because they don't "fit" with anything that India already has. The Indian's Army wants Russian tanks instead of their own home grown version. I suspect that they would know.

Ralph

[watty]

Though I have an H driving licence (allowed to drive track vehicles) because I was in an Armoured Field Ambulance unit, I know very little about tanks. However, I was once told that the Israelis in the ‘Six day War’ against Egypt used an American tank and placed the British Centurion gun turret on top. Does anyone know if this is true?

Silky


John, bit late I know, but I think you will find that they used the Centurion, complete and as an entity, for quite a few years. Check the following link...

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/shot/Shot.html

[Michael Z.]

If the Germans had got the right numbers of this vehicle, along with the King Tiger Who knows what the out-come would have been.

Of course that's one of the reasons the Tiger was inferior, if you look at the big picture. Bigger and more powerful can be exciting, but that doesn't necessarily mean better, especially from a strategic outlook. Heck, why not build a 190-tonne tank, or study designs for thousand-tonne land battleships—they would be better still! (Oh right, the Nazis did do that.)

A tank so heavy and complicated as the Tiger could never be built in sufficient numbers. The same could be said of the Panther, in the same 45-tonne weight class as the KV-1 and 122mm-armed IS-2 heavy tanks. Committing to the development and production of such supertanks, then shaking out the bugs in service was a fatal German mistake (and tragic for some of the machines' first crews).

Perhaps if they had listened to the general who suggested copying the T-34, they could have had the numbers. As you say, who knows, but if it would have helped the Germans win the war, then I say that it clearly would have been the better tank for them.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/vk3002db.jpg
VK3002(DB), the other Panther prototype, originally specified at 30–35 tonnes.

[Duivel484]

Any diesel-powered unit is (far) superior to a nondiesel unit on sheer principle. And the M1A1 is a Chrysler product. 'Nuff said.

[mineman65]

My money goes to Leopard 2. Why? It has been chosen by so many country as MBT. People who make these decisions has to know something about tanks they choose. box;

[Duivel484]

I'd go with the choice of the Leopard 2. It is an excellent tank on balance.