It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Modern Day Tanks

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
I need some information from those of you who are well informed about tanks (Kozzy and a few others), how do the many different tanks fielded by different countries fare against each other, or at least an estimation. I am not very well informed on this topic, and I wish for the tank experts to teach me more on this field

After some debating, I come to the conclusion that quite a few tanks are considered to be the best. I will list them out here, I hope for meaningful discussions about the modern day tanks and their developements here.


Challenger 2 : UK
M1A2 Abrams : USA
T-90 : Russia
T-80UM1 : Russia
Type-98 : China
Arjun : India
Leopard 2 : Germany
Merkava : Israel
Leclerc : France

Any discussion about any tanks other than the ones listed above are also welcome.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:21 PM
To start it off, 300 Type-98Gs were recently acquired by the PLA, with more plans to upgrade the Type-98Gs to a newer version. ERA armor tiles will be fitted to the ones that are going to be sold to the PLA. It is currently undergoing more vigorous field tests.

[edit on 14/6/05 by W4rl0rD]

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:24 PM
u want some more debate about this tank versus that tank eh? ok ill wait for anibody who likes to present their tank and ill put my cards to show mine is better than yers.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:30 PM
Tactics and training play a far more decisive role in tank warfare than equipment, unless of course there is a large gap in capabilities (e.g. Sherman versus King Tiger).

For the modern MBTs you listed there isn't a lot of difference in capability between any of them, assuming of course that each has a main armament capable of defeating each of its opponents. While that may be true for the Challenger 2, M1A2, Leopard 2 etc there were numerous instances in the Gulf conflict where Iraqi T-72 hits on M1A1s just bounced off the latter's Chobham Armor. If that saituation would apply to any of the tanks in your list, then obviously they have a big problem, if on the other hand they can all shoot APFSDS DU rounds and defeat Chobham Armor, then there's little to choose between them.

If it was one on one and it was my choice, I would probably go with the M1A2 simply because it's battle proven, but it's close.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:44 PM
There is the Japanese Type 90.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:46 PM
There is something to be said about the old Russian tanks. Granted, they are in fact old tanks that had their day back in the 70's and 80's, but they too are battle proven and possibly even moreso than any other tank, since they are so plentiful. As said before, it comes down to crew training in a perfectly even fight, but very minor differences, like composite armor, or an autoloader, or a low profile, or even a big gun, will make a large difference.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:49 PM


"The Type 90 is a modern, well armed, and strongly defended combat vehicle. It has a great power-to-weight ratio. Tank is fitted with a very accurate fire control system. Tank is completed with a reloading mechanism unlike it's prototype the "Leopard 2" Main Battle Tank.


The main advantage is very expensive price. One more disadvantage is that Type 90 has vertical turret boards which makes it a good target for an anti-tank weapons."

here is the information about the Japanese T-90

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:22 PM
Japanese Type-90s entered service in VERY VERY small numbers. And to better compete with the other modern tanks, it should adopt sloped armor similar the the Leopard 2A5 upgrade which Type-90 was based on.

But Japan has no need for tanks, if the enemy already landed in Japan then Japan has no hope left.

I'd say its around 50% technology and 50% training that makes the performance of a tank. Having tech that you don't know how to use is not good, having crews that are over kill for Chinese Type-59s are not good either.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by COWlan]

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:33 PM
Only Russian tanks should even be considered in this conversation. They are the only ones worthy of consideration.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:14 PM
T 95 owns all no doubt in my mind.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:19 PM

T 95 owns all no doubt in my mind.

When the T-95 gets of its research and development stage and IF it enters production and when its battle tested please let us know about it.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
While that may be true for the Challenger 2, M1A2, Leopard 2 etc there were numerous instances in the Gulf conflict where Iraqi T-72 hits on M1A1s just bounced off the latter's Chobham Armor.

The Iraqi T-72s were not properly maintained, and they were using steel penetrators, compared to the M1A2s in the gulf war 2 which used DU penetrators.

Another question, how well has the Merkava performed in battle? The IDF needed a tank with good armor, the Merkava has that good armor, but how does that help it? Can T-72 or T-80 shells penetrate its armor? It is the direct opposite of the T-72, the T-72 being fast and poorly armored, while the Merkava is rather slow and well armored. What exact specification are tanks designed to meet?

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:22 AM
my vote for most versatile - merkava.

best armoured -Chaddy 2

Best looking- Russian Black eagle aka t-95

Most use of high tech gear - T-80U

Chinese - T-98G


M1- 400 vs KE 600 vs HEAT
M1A1- 450 vs KE 700 vs HEAT
M1A1HA- 600 vs KE 1150 vs HEAT
Leopard 2A4 - 700 vs KE 1000 vs HEAT
M1A2- 760 vs KE 1400 vs HEAT
Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT
M1A2SEP- 840 vs KE 1400 vs HEAT
Leopard 2A5- 870 vs KE 1500 vs HEAT
Challanger 2- 960 vs KE 1700 vs HEAT
Leo 2A6 may be as high as 1000mm vs KE.

Now compare to Russian tanks:

T-72B - 530 vs KE 620 vs HEAT
T-72BV- 580 vs KE 1120 vs HEAT
T-80B- 550 vs KE 650 vs HEAT
T-80BV- 600 vs KE 1150 vs HEAT
T-72BM- 780 vs KE 1220 vs HEAT
T-80U- 820 vs KE 1350 vs HEAT
T-90- 1000 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT

do you guys agree with this.?

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:41 AM
I roughly agree with that, but I think the Challenger 2 and M1A2 should have better protection with their Chobham armor.... Btw, how did you get all those numbers? The T-80UM1/2 is supposed to be more heavily armored than the T-90..

And, how well does APFSDS-DU fare against modern tank armor? The future of tank vs tank battles seem to lean towards tanks using DU penetrators instead of normal APFSDS rounds. With those estimations, I can see M1s having trouble with double charged RPG-7s, which can probably disable a M1A1 from the side or rear. This will be quite dangerous, since that would be a common situation in urban warfare, and the M1A1 is still the US Army's MBT,and not the M1A2/M1A2SEP.

Btw Chinawhite, I think you mean Chinawhite=heroine, not Chinawhite=heroin in your signature. Heroin is a drug

[edit on 15/6/05 by W4rl0rD]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:50 AM
i've being reading on other forums and they generally agree on these numbers.

I dont see why Chobham is so good. the idea of multi-layered armour wasn't invented by the british. the russians first started it was there lesser known tank the t-64 before 1966.

With those numbers i think they underestimate the M1 series tanks.. i consider it the best all round tank in the world(except its overweight)


I got my name from a movie about chinese triads. called chinawhite 1990

[edit on 15-6-2005 by chinawhite]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:16 AM
i think the T-64 is the most forgotten tank in the world. the t-64 was only used by russian forces while the less capable t-72 was exported to allied countries.

pioneneered multi-layered armour
probaly incorparted a onboard .
some might have a laser range finder..

If you compare it to other tanks in its generation the comparision is tilted much to the favour to the T-64

T-64 vs M601
T-64 vs leopard 1
T-64 vs Chieftain

the T-64 wins hands down.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:26 AM
Yeah...the T-64 is to the T-72 what the T-80UM1 is to the T-90. The former ones are designed as heavy tanks, have heavier armor while the latter ones were designed for export, and for speed and manoverability.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:26 AM

Originally posted by chinawhite

Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT (

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by chinawhite

Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT (

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:48 AM
Very imposing figure

*has out-side cameras to see side-ways + backwards
*Very spacious turnet
* high level of protection
* advanced fire control.( i heard it has a tracking system like a attack helicopter)
*Able to carry 8 infantry soldiers/or 3 stretcher casualties
* im not to sure but it can carry mortar + troops.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in