Modern Tanks

I thought we needed a new tank thread.
So i made one.
In your opinion what is the best tank. Don't just say some thing stupid like Abrams is best cos it's American.
Give the facts out on the tank-like- price, speed, kills, weapons, target accusition etc.
In my opinion Challenger2 is the best tank.Although very expensive at £3.3 million.
It has the best armor called chobham, it's the only tank though to have the 2nd generation of it called Dorchester.
It has the best running gear(suspension) of any tank in the world which gives the Challenger2 the fastest and most stable ride "cross country".
The Challenger2 has scored the longest recorded kill ever by a tank because of it's 120mm L30A1(rifled) gun.
On another note though the Challenger failed hard in canada. It failed because it was a little slower at finding targets compared to other mbt's, but chally hit it's target every time, CAT is a timed test remember scored on time and accuracy.
(Don't use WIKI because any monkey can edit there own stuff onto there)

[edit on 16-1-2007 by SKUNK]

SKUNK,

In your opinion what is the best tank.

The German Wiesel.

Light Enough to RORO off the back ramp of a CH-47 or 53, thus able to be air transported around chokepoints faster than any conventional armor force can keep pace driving thru them. Sufficiently protected to actively engage light infantry, depots and CS/CSS logistics which are the rightful primary targets of tanks. Highly Mobile compared to the grunt in a Humvee it would replace. Cheap Enough (15 for 11.8 million USD or 780 grande each) to be /lost/ at a ratio of 6:1 with each worthless MBT that they swarm over to destroy.

Equippable with a range of prepalletized roof mount turrets and sensors that allows for C2, ADV, ATGW, CASEVAC and Tankette models all in one basic chassis.

It also has greatly superior mechanical reliability and fuel economies compared to the gas sucking pigs that the U.S. Army Drives.

With CKEM/Javelin and strapon Urban Armor packages, it could easily be the best tank we've ever not owned, simply because it is THERE where the infantry need it at the time of first attack.

About the only thing 'not missing' are the men at the controls. Dump them (thereby TRIPLING the internal volume available for frontal slope armor, fuel and reloads) and you have yourself the potential of a fine weapons platform.

I also like the MULE as being in the same basic system class (potential UGV) with an even lower laden weight and footprint issues (you can literally fold them up on their aft tires and stack them like Pringles inside a Stallion) but alas, you wanted a 'tank'.

Our view of warfare is so incredibly antiquated that it's a wonder we haven't had our heads handed to us long before now. If we keep up the stupid notion of riding armored dinosaurs into battle that situation is bound to correct itself Real Soon Now.

ALL wars are won by ambush and deep maneuver beyond fixed defenses. Just as all are LOST by standup fights engaged in by John Wayne mentalities fighting vicious animalistic instinct.

Once you accept that fact, there is no functional need for armor heavier than what is required to protect you from what you cannot see on a first-shot basis of engagement.

As a starting point to designing **REAL AFV** systems platforms instead of crude, bulky, toys for over aggressive, mentally challenged, old boys, there is no better starting point than tankettes as a lesson in how EASY the overly huge may fall.


KPl.

mod edit: added quote tags
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 16-1-2007 by UK Wizard]

Its hard to say, so Ill give a top 3.

Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2.

Let me make this complicated with one of my infamous point scales.

Speed - 1. Abrams and Leopard 2, 2. Challenger
Range - 1. Leopard 2 2. Abrams 3. Challenger 2
Firepower 1. Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 2. Abrams
Armor 1. Challenger 2 2. Leo 2 and Abrams
Aiming 1. Abrams 2. Challenger 2 3. Leopard 2

Speed: The abrams and the leopard have a top speed that is so close that it really dosent make a difference, however the challenger is significantly slower (even though it isnt slow)

Range: The Leopard 2 dominates here, about 100km greater than the other two tanks. The abrams range is 15km larger than the Challenger 2.

Firepower: Both the Leopard 2 gun and the Challenger 2 gun are longer than the Abrams, allowing for greater range and penetration

Armor: The Challenger 2 uses Dorchester, so it wins here. The Leopard 2 has extra top armor, and the abrams has DU so they tie here.

Aiming: The aiming and sights on the abrams are unmatched in accuracy, it has a great computer inside and great compensation by the computer. The Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 have great computers too but they miss some things the Abrams computer has, like x50 FLIR.

I thought threads like this were frowned upon? Anyway, I'd add combat record and weaponry (tank rounds) as a category.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by WestPoint23]

All Posters Read This!
Please could members refrain from starting threads that are based around:
what is your favourite gun
who would win if the ??? and ??? went to war with each other
who has the best army/navy/airforce/secret service........
etc etc ...
This forum is for information about Military weapons technology past, present, and future.

*closed*