It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

best MBT

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
an intelligent conversation is required please inclide firing range of gun,ammo type,armor,speed,range etc




posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
What a way to start a thread, suprised it hasn't been closed yet. Anyways there are many other Best MBT threads out there.

Just do a bit of searching.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
This will probably be closed but I would say the best Main Battle tanks in the world are

#1 Challenger 2
#2 Leopard 2
#3 Leclerc
#4 Merkava
#5 T-90

No doubt peoples opinion will differ and I suspect some will froth at the mouth I have not included the Abrams.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
This will probably be closed but I would say the best Main Battle tanks in the world are

#1 Challenger 2
#2 Leopard 2
#3 Leclerc
#4 Merkava
#5 T-90

No doubt peoples opinion will differ and I suspect some will froth at the mouth I have not included the Abrams.



u underestimated the T90 and the Abrams the abrms is the challnger's biggest rival rite now



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
This will probably be closed but I would say the best Main Battle tanks in the world are

#1 Challenger 2
#2 Leopard 2
#3 Leclerc
#4 Merkava
#5 T-90

No doubt peoples opinion will differ and I suspect some will froth at the mouth I have not included the Abrams.



Are you nuts? Baed on what? A stat sheet?

Cold hard FACT: The M1 Abrams has the best ACTUAL BATTLE record of any tank in the history of modern combat. Not one tank on your list even comes close is actual combat performance.

This post has been done so many times its silly. I dont have the energy to post the links to the REAL STATS on combat performance, look up an old thread.

You guys can SPECULATE all you want, but actual fighting record in real live combat is what counts, and no tank has a better record than the Abrams. FACT.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
A word on my ratings: I'm assuming that everything works the way it's supposed to on these tanks, especially LeClerc. We're dealing with some new hardware that's never been shot at seriously. The Abrams has certainly seen more action than any other tank in the world, but even it is suspect in my mind since the Iraqis in Desert Storm were using obsolete APFSDS rounds with steel penetrators rather than DU or Tungsten.

If there were a major war that pitted these tanks either against one another or against equal foes, for all anybody knows these ratings would be turned completely on their head due to unexpected failures of various systems on different tanks.

Ratings: Horses for Courses
The top 5 tanks in the world depends on where you want to fight.

If I was going to fight a war in hilly terrain, but otherwise open terrain, especially if I expected to be moving a lot:
1. Leclerc
2. Leo 2A6
3. M1A2
4. Chally 2
5. Merkava Mk. 4

If I was going to be slugging it out in constricted terrain, especially urban:
1. Merkava Mk. 4
2. Chally 2
3. M1A2
4. Leo2A6
5. Leclerc

Long range shooting match with noplace to hide- maybe on the Great Plains or the Iraqi desert:
1. Chally 2
2. M1A2
3. Leclerc
4. Leo2A6
5. Merkava Mk.4

Point 1: Auto Loaders and my distaste for the T-90 and skepticism of Leclerc
I do not care for autoloaders. They need maintenance and people are easier to replace. The Abrams gets rounds off far faster than auto-loading soviet designs. If you aren't going out of your way to make your tank as small as possible, let a human load the shells.

That being said, Leclerc's autoloader is definately the best designed one in the field and I'm far less aversed to that than I am to Russian designs.

Also since they've got a new turret on the newer T-90s (the Turret designed for the apparently aborted T-95 was added to the 1999 models) it's possible that they've gone the GIAT route and built their turret around the loader to rectify some of the problems, but I haven't heard anything about that.

Point 2: The relative lack of difference between NATO main guns
We're all firing 120mm and will likely by sharing eachothers ammos for the foreseeable future, which is why the X-Rod doesn't put M1A2 at number one for flat terrain. I don't like Chally's rifling because if I understand correctly it presents a very minor logistical problem for sabot rounds (i seem to remember hearing that they use a sleeve of some kind to keep the sabot rounds from rifling), but it's almost negligible, and I do like HESH just a little in urban terrain, although HEFRAG kills too obviously.

On the other hand I distrust Russian guns and the availability of high quality ammo. Look what happened to Iraq in desert storm. Granted they were very undisciplined but even if they had hidden themselves better they wouldn't have done much damage with steel penetrators.

Point 3: Fuel Range and Manueverability versus T-H-I-C-K FRIGGIN ARMOR
If I'm in terrain where you can get the drop on the enemy from high ground, and have things to hide behind, I like a manueverable tank. Yay for Leclerc. Fuel range is nice too.

On the other hand if I'm in an area where someone might get the drop on me at close range, or where there's just nowhere to run, just give me better protection- preferably not from Explosive Reactive Armor, because the last thing I want is to be over-dependent on reactive armor in a place where I might be taking multiple RPG hits.

This rationale results in the polar flip between my first two lists, as heavy and protected becomes more or less favorable depending on the situation.

Naturally logistics are a concern, so I like the fuel range of the Euro tanks, and I also like the fuel versatility of the decidedly inefficient M1A2.

Point 4: Russian Tanks come with instructions in Russian, Arabic, and Hebrew
I hate to break the bad news, but if the world has ever seen a Russian MBT worth building (and that's one heck of an if) that tank ceased being worth building in 1988 when the M1A1HC came out.

Russian tanks have an awful habit of showing up in enemy hands, especially when the enemy is Israel, and in general tend to have their butts handed to them when they go to war against anything other than their fellow Russian tanks.
T90 is Peter McNeeley's son; it'll have to whip the holy snot out of somebody very very big before anyone ever takes it seriously, on account of how badly its ancestors did.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by Teknikal
This will probably be closed but I would say the best Main Battle tanks in the world are

#1 Challenger 2
#2 Leopard 2
#3 Leclerc
#4 Merkava
#5 T-90

No doubt peoples opinion will differ and I suspect some will froth at the mouth I have not included the Abrams.



Are you nuts? Baed on what? A stat sheet?

Cold hard FACT: The M1 Abrams has the best ACTUAL BATTLE record of any tank in the history of modern combat. Not one tank on your list even comes close is actual combat performance.

This post has been done so many times its silly. I dont have the energy to post the links to the REAL STATS on combat performance, look up an old thread.

You guys can SPECULATE all you want, but actual fighting record in real live combat is what counts, and no tank has a better record than the Abrams. FACT.


Always makes me chuckle when I see these threads, they tend to be filled with Americans quoting stats about the superiority of the M1, usually taken from American sources. Vagabond has the right idea - horses for courses.

Can't say I like this type of thread, it brings nothing to the forum.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   
anyone care to back up their opinions with a few facts and figures.

Justin



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
anyone care to back up their opinions with a few facts and figures.

Justin


This is just bad form. Let's hear your opinion and your facts and figures if you want to make such demands.

The only post here that seems more lacking than yours is that which started the thread.

Facts and figures aside, plenty of people in this forum (who will probably arrive in this thread sooner or later) have given well reasoned explanations of their opinions on these matters which really have very few facts and figures to name aside from physical dimensions and information that governments have released for public consumption. These tanks just haven't seen a real war yet, and I'm in no great hurry to advocate the starting of one just to find out. So there really aren't reliable facts and figures on what will happen in the field if these tanks fire on one another.

We know what happens when you set up a shot under experimental conditions, but we don't know if you can hit a Leclerc when it's hauling over hill and dale and deploying infra-red screening devices.

We don't know if the Abrams can score first shot kills against the Chally2 at long range when they're both moving, (I sort of suspect not), but it's all a matter of where you hit and how well you can do it.

If we could remote control these things and have a "Tank Olympics" that included live fire duels, it is absolutely anybody's guess who would win. So how good could facts and figures be when we can't do that and sort it out once and for all?

Really everyone is right; this isn't the most productive kind of thread. Its nice to talk tech with people who follow it; it's fascinating. I wouldn't hold out for an infallible answer though, and I don't think there are any statistics that could establish such an answer.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Out of those lists only the Challenger 2 and the Abrahms have been `battle tested` and both kicked a$$ - and looking at it , based on cold hard stats the challenger has the best combat record in history - 1 tank lost in combat (and that was a blue on blue) since it began production.


But as i said - both of the actual combat tested tanks in the list are rather good


On paper , the chally has thicker armour , whilst the rnds shot by the Abrahms penertrate more....but as i said its a moot point as they both are darn good and both are battle tested


And the chally holds the record for the longest tank kill shot at 5km`s



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   


the challenger has the best combat record in history - 1 tank lost in combat (and that was a blue on blue) since it began production.



And the chally holds the record for the longest tank kill shot at 5km`s


very impressive.



On paper , the chally has thicker armour

I think that although the challenger 2's amour is thicker the abrhams amour is made from a more effective material and so the abrahms has better amour.

As an Englishman id like to think that the challenger 2 is the worlds best mbt but everything i have read seems to suggest that the abrahms are better. but maybe that is only the authors predjudice.


Justin



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Out of those lists only the Challenger 2 and the Abrahms have been `battle tested`


No it hasn't. The Abrams has not been battle tested; not really. People who make that point would also tell you that if the Oakland Raiders beat a highschool team that there is no doubt at all that they are on par wih Steelers. Obviously beating a highschool team is not 'battle testing' for the Raiders, and destroying the T 72M, commanded by one of the least disciplined militaries in the world, is not battle testing for the Abrams.

Having been a Marine infantryman, I'm a big fan of the Abrams as great big frigging gun that probably would have made my life a lot safer if I'd ever gone into combat supported by it, but I can still acknowledge that we just don't know it would do against more modern tanks in various circumstances.


and looking at it , based on cold hard stats the challenger has the best combat record in history - 1 tank lost in combat (and that was a blue on blue) since it began production.


Even that assessment, which frankly is probably correct since the chally is better protected than the abrams, is statistically flawed because there are so many more Abrams deployed. If i send one boyscout to Iraq and he comes back safe, does that make him more survivable than the Marines?



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The chall2 and abrahams are the most battle tested out of the list making for an impressive 1-2 punch one if fast and the other is a rock, if I was an enemy tanker I wouldnt want to be in their path.

the chall getting the Rheinmetal 120mm smooth bore and the m1a2 is getting the Tusk is impressive but I wonder how far they can take these.

Actually I wish the US had a mix tank force with abrahams and chall2s along with warriors and in exchange for some abrahams and some m4s.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
ABRAMS.


Not Abrahams.

ABRAMS.

Named after the general Abrams.

And in my opinion the M1A1 is the most successful MBT in the world.(It doesn't hold ALL records, but it is still pretty great, better than the T-80 counterpart).

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

No it hasn't. The Abrams has not been battle tested; not really.


The Abrams and Chally are way more battle tested then the other modern MBTs. Nobody would ever call the German Tigers that came up against US Shermans not battle tested. The Shermans were junk compared to Germans tanks and the still lost thanks to numbers.

The T-72 arent the complete garabage some people make them seem they were infact relatively capable . Many countries are still using T-72s more then a decade after the Gulf war. Including Iran, Russia, India to name a few. Iraqs T-55s those I would agree were junk in the early 90s.

Most Tanks were taken out by air assets like A-10s and Apaches I believe any way a testimony to Saddams Airforce which couldn't control the air then that of his armoured divisons. But against the US bread and butter you couldn't really expect him too have.

The Iraqis were also not the "least disciplined militaries in the world" they were infact at the time on of the few battle harden ones. They were just comming out of 8 years of some of the most bloodiest combat in recent history in the Iran-Iraq war. The Republican Guard divisions were actually well trained and equiped for that region of the world.

They were stupid though and quickly lost all will to fight a battle they had no hope of winnning. They were fighting a massive coalition lead by a Super power. There was no hope of victory for them. Some might call them not disciplined for not marching on mass to near certain death I would consider that smart.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The Abrams and Chally are way more battle tested then the other modern MBTs.

True, they've had more. But more is relative; it has no bearing on enough. They're more battle tested, but they're not battle tested enough to really make strong conclusions.


Nobody would ever call the German Tigers that came up against US Shermans not battle tested.

Nobody in America
. I wonder what the Germans were saying in the Early 40s.


The T-72 arent the complete garabage some people make them seem they were infact relatively capable.

They had better be upgrading them. Most of the nations you named are using them because they're broke. India is working on a replacement.

The T-72 is a reasonable tank for most nations, and it was a good tank in the 70s-80s I suppose. If you've got the right combined arms tactics and doctrine, have clever commanders and disciplined troops, you can still win battles with the T-72.


Iraqs T-55s those I would agree were junk in the early 90s.

I hear that T-55s are funny little creatures. They aren't sufficiently gunned to defeat their own armor supposedly, so I've heard that in Afghanistan the warring factions sometimes had very interesting clashes between T-55s, trying to get around eachothers sides to score a kill and bouncing rounds off eachothers frontal armor.


Most Tanks were taken out by air assets like A-10s and Apaches I believe any way a testimony to Saddams Airforce which couldn't control the air then that of his armoured divisons.


"On 17 January, I started with 39 tanks. After 38 days of aerial attack, I had 32, but in less than 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had zero", that is what a captured Iraqi battalion commander had to say about our airpower in 1991.


The Iraqis were also not the "least disciplined militaries in the world" they were infact at the time on of the few battle harden ones.


Battle-hardening isn't discipline.
Stupid is a very good word for it, but I can't imagine that after 8 years of war they didn't know better. They didn't stay in their tanks and they didn't keep their tanks cool. They did what they should have known was wrong because they didn't think anything bad would happen, and that is undisciplined in my mind.


Some might call them not disciplined for not marching on mass to near certain death I would consider that smart.


They should have concealed themselves and tried to get into close action; it was their only chance at even making a decent account of themselves against the Abrams. If they weren't prepared to do that, they never should have presented themselves on the battlefield- they should have surrendered or deserted; that would have been smart.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

"On 17 January, I started with 39 tanks. After 38 days of aerial attack, I had 32, but in less than 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had zero", that is what a captured Iraqi battalion commander had to say about our airpower in 1991.



What were the numbers of Tank kills by the M1A1? I cant find that information anywhere.

I know 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes with more then half of that being thanks to the A-10 along with 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery site

www.dissidentvoice.org...



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The Abrams and Chally are way more battle tested then the other modern MBTs.

True, they've had more. But more is relative; it has no bearing on enough. They're more battle tested, but they're not battle tested enough to really make strong conclusions.


It's hardly "battle", but I would say the Merk is fairly well combat tested...



Nobody would ever call the German Tigers that came up against US Shermans not battle tested.

Nobody in America
. I wonder what the Germans were saying in the Early 40s.


Probably not much, Tigers, certainly Konigstigers, and Shermans didn't meet until '44, which would make it mid-40s.



Iraqs T-55s those I would agree were junk in the early 90s.

I hear that T-55s are funny little creatures. They aren't sufficiently gunned to defeat their own armor supposedly, so I've heard that in Afghanistan the warring factions sometimes had very interesting clashes between T-55s, trying to get around eachothers sides to score a kill and bouncing rounds off eachothers frontal armor.


Sounds like Shermans vs Tigers. T-55 has a 100mm gun, that's pretty good armour, then.



Most Tanks were taken out by air assets like A-10s and Apaches I believe any way a testimony to Saddams Airforce which couldn't control the air then that of his armoured divisons.


"On 17 January, I started with 39 tanks. After 38 days of aerial attack, I had 32, but in less than 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had zero", that is what a captured Iraqi battalion commander had to say about our airpower in 1991.


Sounds like the Hawker Typhoon. With its rockest and cannon it was the thing panzer columns feared the most. But what it really seemed to do (under post-war analysis) was little more than force advancing columns to leave roads, scatter and burn up fuel they couldn't replace.


The Iraqis were also not the "least disciplined militaries in the world" they were infact at the time on of the few battle harden ones.


Right. And in North Africa General Wavell used 30,000 Commonwealth troops to defeat more than 90,000 Italians. Who were supposedly battle-hardened. the Aussies and Kiwis certainly weren't, they'd never seen combat before.

In New Guinea in 1942 a battalion of Australian militia with almost no training were able to hold, contain and then defeat the Japanese South Seas Detachment. The Japanese had been advancing since 1937.

Battle-hardened means squat without discipline.

As for kills, check out Challenger 1 in Gulf War. It's a percentage thing, but they advanced further (in real kilometres) than the Abrams, killed more (in percentage terms) Iraqi machines than Abrams and suffered no combat failures. And the ones that broke down were returned to service in the field.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The M1A1 in the First Gulf War had never been battle tested before, however they launched several hundred to thousands of Abrams to the battlefield. One account was with a small Scouting squad of 9 M1A1 Abrams that encountered the very first Iraqi Defensive positions.

There were 38 T-72's all camoflauged and hidden behind sand dunes and in ditchs dug before the arrival of the M1A1's.

The commander of the very first M1A1 had no idea that he led his scout group into enemy territory, the M1A1's literally rolled on top of the T-72's before noticing where they were. This all happened in the darkness. I'm not sure who shot first, I think it was a T-72, but the very first Tank to tank battle started on those hills. While the T-72's were spending 10 seconds reloading after each round, the M1A1 spent 4 seconds. So for every 2 shots an Abrams got off, the T-72 would only get out one if lucky. And the T-72's were a formidable machine, their armor wasn't too good, but they were equiped with a 125mm smooth-bore cannon that fired HEAT Sabot rounds.

The 9 M1A1 Abrams tanks suffered no casualties, they decimated ALL T-72's.
The M1A1 performed superbly in the Gulf, better than anyone had expected. It was just so much more powerful and advanced than the T-72, the T-72 really did not stand a chance.

What were the numbers? Like 20 M1A1's damaged throughout the ENTIRE war? And damaged, not totalled.

Shattered OUT...

P.S. For anyone who is curious, I got this off of History Channel "Man, Moment, Machine" when they talked about the leading general who sent in the Abrams and they also talked about the Abrams and it's combat record in the Gulf.



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV


It's hardly "battle", but I would say the Merk is fairly well combat tested...



It all depends on what you consider combat





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join