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.

Tanks:

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.

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.

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.

There is the Japanese Type 90.

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.

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]

Only Russian tanks should even be considered in this conversation. They are the only ones worthy of consideration.

T 95 owns all no doubt in my mind.

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.

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?

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]

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)

EDIT:

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

[edit on 15-6-2005 by chinawhite]

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.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT (<--- BTW its "Leclerc")
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.

Originally posted by chinawhite
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.

I agree with you on that. I have read similar numbers except for the Leclerc (to my knowledge the numbers are a bit too high) before. The newest chobham might be state-of-the-art, but I consider it to be debatable whether this really has a huge lead over other composite multi-layer armors (on Leo2 for example, look at the numbers). This is often fielded as an argument for Challenger 2´s estimated superiourity, but I wonder how much of this is wishful thinking in accordance with the usual point-of-view of Brits that they had an undefeated lead in tank technology since WW2.

I really cant argue about the performance of these tanks fielded against each other, these are all such highly-tuned mean machines with the power to destroy each other that IMO it really depends on the battlefield situation and crew performance.

However, I consider the Merkava IV to be the most promising design with the little but very inventive ideas like engine in the front, that it can carry a little squad of soldiers when most of the ammunition is removed, the extensive use of MFDs, the 360° camera surveillance and, last but not least, the back door. Although the Leopard 2 has shown a remarkable capability to upgrade, too.

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by chinawhite

Lacrec- 800 vs KE 1600 vs HEAT (<--- BTW its "Leclerc")
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.

Originally posted by chinawhite
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.

However, I consider the Merkava IV to be the most promising design with the little but very inventive ideas like engine in the front, that it can carry a little squad of soldiers when most of the ammunition is removed, the extensive use of MFDs, the 360° camera surveillance and, last but not least, the back door. Although the Leopard 2 has shown a remarkable capability to upgrade, too.

opps my french is not good

yes i agree i think the merkava is a revolutionary design. super versatile. can also have a 60mm mortar. its like having a IFV mixed with a tank but with lots of armour.

the israelies are the most sucessful tankers ever. many people think the russians had good tactics but if you look at ww2 figures they didn't win by tactics they won by mass of numbers. the russians had everything the germans didn't post 1942 and the germans managed to kick their ass