Best main battle Tank In the world?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Simple question really, just wanted your opinions as I don't think there Is an actual "best" Tank, all have advantages and dis-advantages over others.

Being British, I'm going down the biass route lol.
The Challanger 2.
Fastest Tank on rough terrain In the world.
Rifled-barrel for accuracy.
It also holds the record for Tank to Tank kill, when In the Gulf war In 1992, an Iraqi T-72 was spotted 3 miles away and was taken out by the Challanger.
edit on 4-12-2011 by Zakka because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I, as an American, shall put bias aside and go with the Israeli Merkava MBT. My main reason is that it has all the capabilities of the Challenger and M1 but can carry a small compliment of Infantry AND can also be used as a battlefield ambulance. Gotta love a multi-tasker!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I too as an American shall put prejudice aside and go with the A-10 Warthog!!!
What do you mean it's not a tank?
Of course it is!
This one just has wings rather than tracks.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zakka
 


As a former Tank commander myself define "Best"?
Best gunnery? best maintenance record? ease of operation (crew ergonomics) survivability?
There is no easy way to define best. I've seen an M1 Tank manned by two different crews on a range,
One crew did great the other couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

For me it's not which is the best tank but who has the best Training, and best maintenance and support system for their tanks. And who has the best combined arms and command and control of the battlefield.

But if I had to chose I'd still pick an M1A2.
Second choice would be the Leopard 2A6



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
The Landkreuzer P-1000 "Ratte" (Rat) was to have been an extremely large tank for use by Nazi Germany during World War II. It was designed in 1942 by Krupp with the approval of Adolf Hitler, but the project was canceled by Albert Speer in early 1943 and none was ever completed.

The 1000 metric ton Krupp P-1000 "Ratte", started construction but was canceled before completion. It would have carried two 280 mm guns (mounted in the same type of gun turret used in Gneisenau class warships), a single 128 mm gun, eight 20 mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns and two 15 mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns.

The primary armament was a warship-like turret holding a pair of 280 mm naval guns. One such turret was built before the project was canceled, and was installed in a coastal defense battery in Norway.



edit on 4-12-2011 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
mail call season one episode one ..i would like that one.as long as i am driving the treads straight into hell.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by KennyDurazo
mail call season one episode one ..i would like that one.as long as i am driving the treads straight into hell.


so just go for that



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I always dug the m4 sherman, of course liked the panzer IV but those are mediums tanks time for the big boys i dunno t-80 t-90 are pretty boss but i would have to say the best could be the AMX-56 Leclerc.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
8,725 US Abrams Tanks
386 UK Challenger 2 Tanks
407 French Leclerc Tanks
400 Russian T90 Tanks
500 Chinese Type 99 Tanks
400 German Leopard Tanks


On a personal note I find the Leopards to be amazing. However, if you see an Abrams, there may be 8,724 more behind it



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
As they say quantity has a quality all it's own.... Now unfortunately with tanks that's not really the case. Look at the T 72 with it's horrific vulnerabilities... There's a crap ton of 'em but they still can't do jack. I'm going to go with the merkava as well due to it's focus on crew survivability.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
What's the point of having 8,725 tanks when you can't afford the fuel for them?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


correction they were lion of babylon tanks.Worse than Soviet T-62's. Check monkey model and what it means.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twiptwop
What's the point of having 8,725 tanks when you can't afford the fuel for them? E


In the late 1970s the U.S. Army had contracts with Stan Myers for his hydrogen engines. He died two weeks later. I believe the military has the technology they need in case we run out of oil. That is just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
The Landkreuzer P-1000 "Ratte" (Rat) was to have been an extremely large tank for use by Nazi Germany during World War II. It was designed in 1942 by Krupp with the approval of Adolf Hitler, but the project was canceled by Albert Speer in early 1943 and none was ever completed.

The 1000 metric ton Krupp P-1000 "Ratte", started construction but was canceled before completion. It would have carried two 280 mm guns (mounted in the same type of gun turret used in Gneisenau class warships), a single 128 mm gun, eight 20 mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns and two 15 mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns.

The primary armament was a warship-like turret holding a pair of 280 mm naval guns. One such turret was built before the project was canceled, and was installed in a coastal defense battery in Norway.



edit on 4-12-2011 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)


Very cool can you post the link where you got that. I have to say that is one I have not seen yet.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
8,725 US Abrams Tanks
386 UK Challenger 2 Tanks
407 French Leclerc Tanks
400 Russian T90 Tanks
500 Chinese Type 99 Tanks
400 German Leopard Tanks


On a personal note I find the Leopards to be amazing. However, if you see an Abrams, there may be 8,724 more behind it
.

From what I've seen on the military channel to German Leopard tank is the most advanced. As far as the overall best the M1 Abrams when you take into account the numbers and the training our troops receive. At the time the Soviets had a great tank but they didn't have the money to train unlike our troops. Our tank troops have something like a flight simulator to train in constantly. You know what they say, practice makes perfect.

Having the number of tanks we have gives it the edge as well. The Sherman tank wasn't all that good of a tank. It was poorly armored and almost always outgunned but we had thousands of them. The Germans just couldn't keep up with production and they made their tanks to intricate which made them hard to repair when the road down.

With the M1 we have plenty of parts and plenty of replacements.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Very cool can you post the link where you got that. I have to say that is one I have not seen yet.


www.tineye.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Being English too, I am going with the Challenger 2. Both the Challenger and Abrahams use the same Chobham armour which is uber impressive. I guess the greatest difference will be the crews and the tactics.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by roguetechie
 


correction they were lion of babylon tanks.Worse than Soviet T-62's. Check monkey model and what it means.


Correction: "Lion of Babylon" tanks were made out of spare parts exported to Iraq. The only thing they had in common with Soviet T-72s were the parts used in them. The Iraqi versions didn't have night vision equipment, which proved to be a major tactical loss considering the US forces specifically chose night time to conduct anti-tank battles.

And what is wrong with T-62s? Just because T-72 is a higher number value in its name, doesn't mean that it was designed to be better. T-72 was designed as an assault tank with lighter armour for faster mobility- it was also a major export tank. The Soviets/Russians don't export their toughest tanks like T-64s or T-80s, hence why they export T-72s and T-90s.


As they say quantity has a quality all it's own.... Now unfortunately with tanks that's not really the case. Look at the T 72 with it's horrific vulnerabilities... There's a crap ton of 'em but they still can't do jack. .


And what vulnerabilities were those?


Its ATGM-enabled 125mm gun? Its autoloader? ERA armor?

The T-72 wasn't designed to be tough- it was designed to be able to overrun the enemy in large numbers in the European theater.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
From what I've read the fuel and ammo placement is suboptimal for crew survival. Which to me is a BIG DEAL... it's one thing to lose a tank but if you lose the crew too every time then you're in trouble. It's the same reason why I'm not and will never be a fan of the bradley until they move it's damn fuel tanks somewhere that doesn't result in instant crew barbecue if it takes a hit.

Honestly with modern technology the offense has a major edge when it comes to the firepower vs armor dichotomy, but I still think we could be doing lots more to improve the chances of survival for our vehicle crews when their vehicles take fire. This includes doing things like moving and altering fuel tanks so even in the event of a critical armor breach fuel cannot get into passenger and or crew compartments. Fire is such a horrible way to die I just can't see why more isn't done to avoid said horrible deaths and maiming.
edit on 5-12-2011 by roguetechie because: edit to add more info



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The M1 Is nearly 20 years old, not sure about the Challanger 2, surely they have a next model ready? Wonder when we will see It.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join