Best main battle Tank In the world?

reply to post by TranscendentSnake


It seems the Merkava Mk. 4 is actually the best tank in modern rotation atm. We , the US , are still on a 3rd Generation hull.

The M1A3 will certainly blow all tanks out of the water if the "hearsay" is actually true.

The M1A2 on the other hand is one of the "Great Tanks" , but is becoming dated. It is sad when your 4th Generation hull is becoming dated. hell we still have 5000 M1A1s in service with 1500 M1A2s with hundreds of those being variants.

If i am not mistaken , the K1 88 of South Korea is basically the M1A2 but highly improved.

America isnt the greatest when it comes to tanks in my opinion , they seem more fascinated with the Navy and Air force. Though without the Airforce controlling the skies , every single tank on the ground will utterly be destroyed without question.

Tanks in the future better start putting in ECCM. ECCM is the future of tanks IMO.

------------------------------------------------------

From what i am seeing ... the MERK Mk4 out performs the M1A2 in every way. Pisses me off :/

Originally posted by irontyrant
...I do like the Leopard 2 as well but I think the Germans get too much credit for tank design which stems form WW II. THier designs in WW II were really not that good. The Tiger and Tiger 2 were lumbering beasts and the Panther was inferior to the Russian T-34/85. In fact, T-34/85s( a medium tank) killed German Tiger 2 tanks which were the heaviest in WW II.

You will always find examples where numerically, technically, conceptually "inferior" forces won against "superior" adversaries. Owing to technological deficiencies, pretty much all tanks in WW2 had severe weaknesses (judged from a modern perspective). Given the right circumstances, a 16 year old conscript can defeat a modern battle tank with a Russian hand grenade made in 1964. Though there certainly IS some forced admiration for german armor design of WW2, which incidentally was rather prevalent among the western allies that pointed towards alleged german technical superiority to cover up their own deficiencies in tactical command on the battlefield.

Now, considering that major tank/AFV components like engines by MTU, Gearboxes by Renk, Tracks by Diehl, Optronics by Zeiss, Armour by IBD or Rheinmetall weaponry and ammunition are used on a whole stable of worldwide tanks and other armoured vehicles, I guess the industry disagrees with your assertion.

Specifically in the world of Main Battle tanks, all of the most modern western MBTs use at least one or more of the major components made by german companies (and most of them pioneered on the Leo2).

The first chechen war was not a good demonstration of what russian equipment was actually worth. The russians were plagued with corruption,under trained crews and horrible leadership.

There's a key question missing from this thread. Any time you ask "What is the best (insert weapon here, in this case, "Main Battle Tank") in the world?", the answer should start with a follow-up question: "Under what circumstances?".

As a quick example...the M1 Abrams is often put at or near the top of this list, and based on its combat record and its capabilities, rightly so. It's a solid, dangerous, fast, reliable machine that works very well in the style of combat and in the combat environment preferred by US armed forces. On the other hand, put it in a position where fuel supplies are limited, and its score would drop considerably...it drinks fuel at a prodigious rate (not that any main battle tank is ever going to be mistaken for a Toyota Prius). I'm not picking on the Abrams, by any stretch...simply pointing out that any armored vehicle that you see didn't come to be what it is by some magical, random process. It's the product of careful refinement within a certain doctrine, and any comparison of weapons is going to have to take those doctrinal influences into account. Picking the "best" in the world isn't as simple as it might seem at first glance.

T-80 picture

Sorry to be off topic but I have a question- what is with the picture on this webpage where there appear to be these "tower" things rising about 20 ft out of two T-80s with guys on top of them. Are these on the tanks or on something behind?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Those towers are snorkels to allow the tanks to move across a river. Instead of using bridging equipment to ford a river, the soviets decided to drive right thru it. Not sure how successful it was and I don't think I'd ever want to try it.

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Those towers are snorkels to allow the tanks to move across a river. Instead of using bridging equipment to ford a river, the soviets decided to drive right thru it. Not sure how successful it was and I don't think I'd ever want to try it.

Hmmm... seems like you are right (after looking up other tanks with similiar snorkels).

I never thought that the snorkels actually meant towers where the tank commander could climb to the top. I didn't know that they could fit that equipment into the turret.

But they would be effective. Most modern Russian (or any) MBTs have NBC protection which would provide some level of waterproofing.

T-90A

Why would I pick a soviet piece of crap? Listen close, you might learn something.

Frontal armor, MBTs across the board all are about equal. Most western tank's bustle is exposed even at 30 degrees off the frontal arc, never mind during turret rotation. T-90 has no such problem because the turret is round.

Silhouette is smaller in both horizontal and vertical profile. Smaller target means less chance you even get hit, better camouflage, and greater armor density. All western MBTs have terribly exposed, flat roof armor. Basically giving the tank's greatest predator the greatest target. Plus ammo is stored in the turret, a no no for surviving aerial attack. In case you didn't know, the majority of hits on MBTs are on the turret, why put the ammo racks there? T-90A, and all soviet tanks descended from the T-55 have much smaller weakened roof areas. Frankly, someone needs to find a KBP engineer and choke him out for not making a top attack munition like the Javelin.

diagrams and other goodies, nice size comparison btvt.narod.ru...

T-90 has great mobility. Remember, mobility is not speed, but is defined by the ability to freely move around the battlefield. By having poor mobility, heavy tanks severely limit deployment options. Being forced to only operate on hard compacted ground or roads makes it easy for ATGM ambushes to be set up and for mines to be placed. Mobility is a major deciding factor in battles, always has been, and always will be.

Weapon wise T-90A comes out on top. Why? Because a tank's intended prey are not other tanks, but infantry and fortifications. Airburst HE FRAG is a devastating round to both these targets. Before you bring up the M1's canister rounds, lets just say its a boilerplate solution to tanks lacking effective anti infantry weapons, it was in WWII, and it still is today. HE FRAG is a far superior weapon, there's a reason certain nations are scrambling to develop it. If a general screws up and puts MBTs against MBTs, gun launched ATGMs, specifically Refleks-M can reach out and cripple half of a charging tank battalion before they even reach effective firing range for APFSDS rounds. It sounds like an exaggeration, but it's what the soviets have been saying since the 70's. ATGM's seemed to work well against Merks in 06, so it seems they were right after all. Despite what the US Army "believes", HEAT is not anti infantry, I don't understand why they just can't bring themselves to develop and field a plain HE round?

Before someone says Gulf War this and that, read up on Kuwaiti M-84 performance during the start of the war, it was outnumbered, but preformed better than the Abrams, suffered no losses against the Iraqis, and had much less support. The M-84 was a actual modern soviet tank, not the monkey model T-55, 62's, and the few 72's the Iraqis had.

All of these factors make the T-90A the most effective tank across the widest spectrum of armored warfare. I will not discuss fantasy tanks or weapons, because they have no place on the battlefield as of now. My opinion may change when more MBT's are developed and fielded. I hope I didn't offend anybody.

M1 or Merkava, IMO.

reply to post by finalflash


45-50 merkavas were destroyed /knocked out in lebonan and hezoballah claimed 125 so like Merkava isn' top dog.

M1A2SEP is the numero uno.

After that the new T-90 with western turret launched in august 2011.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by finalflash

 

45-50 merkavas were destroyed /knocked out in lebonan and hezoballah claimed 125 so like Merkava isn' top dog.

M1A2SEP is the numero uno.

After that the new T-90 with western turret launched in august 2011.

Good point, though, on the Merkava. As a Mechanical Engineering fanatic, I just like the fact that its threads were designed for flexible maneuverability, especially in the desert.

reply to post by mash3d

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

Really? I just recently learned that the Abrams is a logistical and maintenance money wasting nightmare.

Good choice on the Leopard though.

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by mash3d

 

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

Really? I just recently learned that the Abrams is a logistical and maintenance money wasting nightmare.

Good choice on the Leopard though.

Leopard is classic.

Originally posted by finalflash

Originally posted by bastardo
reply to post by mash3d

 

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

Really? I just recently learned that the Abrams is a logistical and maintenance money wasting nightmare.

Good choice on the Leopard though.

Leopard is classic.

Although the leopard's diesel extends the range and reduces the logistics ball and chain, it still shares the same mobility flaws of the M1. The leopard also has piss poor ammo storage, when compared to the M1.