Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Best MBT Today
sniper
Joined: May 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,065 posts
Armorama: 508 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 04:38 AM UTC
Don't know if this has been asked yet but I'm wondering what people feel is the best MBT in the world today.
Mostly I hear about the Abrams, but would like to know how it compares to a Merkava or Leopard or T-82, etc.
I'm sure these are all built for different purposes but it would be neat to hear from some of the guys who have direct experience with these things to share some opinions.
Not trying to start a war here, but my knowledege of modern tanks is limited to the History channel and a few reference books.
So, I guess I would have to say the best today is the M1 because of its armor and electronics. Is this a universal opinion?
Steve
BlueBear
Joined: August 26, 2002
KitMaker: 414 posts
Armorama: 148 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 05:27 AM UTC
I like the looks of the Leopard 2A5---It looks just plain MEAN! The Challenger 2 isn't bad either. 
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 05:35 AM UTC
Steve--I know next to nothing about modern armour, but here's a picture of the Italian MBT "Ariete" I pulled off their defense site:
Looks formidable enough (of course, I'm used to 47mm guns and 10mm armour, so I guess most things would
).
Nic
Looks formidable enough (of course, I'm used to 47mm guns and 10mm armour, so I guess most things would
).Nic
drewgimpy
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
Armorama: 388 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 05:42 AM UTC
By "the best" I assume you mean which one would beat the others head to head. Always a tough question because there are a lot of variables in most cases. I have heard the Challenger 2 has a little more accuracy at long ranges because the barrel is rifled compared to many others that are now smooth bore.
But my vote would have to be with the M1A2 Abrams. It has only gotten better protection since the gulf war (which used the M1A1 in most cases) and we didn't loose a single soldier in a abrams due to hostile fire. Yes they where hit, but took it on the chin and kept going. The depleted uranium sabot rounds the are unique to this tank also give it a huge advantage. It weighs 4 times as much as steal and is much harder. I read a documented account of a single sabot round from an Abrams destroying 2 tanks in Desert Storm. Not APC's or other vehicles, 2 MBT's.
The other tanks you mentioned have some great points also and I would feel pretty good in them, but if I had to choose I would strap my butt to an Abrams.
One question I have about the Leopard is the shape of the front of the turret. While it is one of the coolest looking tanks there is it seems like it may have a fault. Most tanks are shaped to deflect rounds up and away from the tank. The leopard seems to have a point that would force rounds hitting the lower part of the turret into the tank. Does this explanation make sense? Just seems to me although it looks cool as heck, it would deflect founds to where the turret meets the hull possibly causing some real damage. I am sure somebody thought of this before me and made sure this wouldn't happen, just wondering what others think of this.
But my vote would have to be with the M1A2 Abrams. It has only gotten better protection since the gulf war (which used the M1A1 in most cases) and we didn't loose a single soldier in a abrams due to hostile fire. Yes they where hit, but took it on the chin and kept going. The depleted uranium sabot rounds the are unique to this tank also give it a huge advantage. It weighs 4 times as much as steal and is much harder. I read a documented account of a single sabot round from an Abrams destroying 2 tanks in Desert Storm. Not APC's or other vehicles, 2 MBT's.
The other tanks you mentioned have some great points also and I would feel pretty good in them, but if I had to choose I would strap my butt to an Abrams.
One question I have about the Leopard is the shape of the front of the turret. While it is one of the coolest looking tanks there is it seems like it may have a fault. Most tanks are shaped to deflect rounds up and away from the tank. The leopard seems to have a point that would force rounds hitting the lower part of the turret into the tank. Does this explanation make sense? Just seems to me although it looks cool as heck, it would deflect founds to where the turret meets the hull possibly causing some real damage. I am sure somebody thought of this before me and made sure this wouldn't happen, just wondering what others think of this.
matt
Campaigns AdministratorJoined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 07:48 AM UTC
I've heard stories of a M1 getting stuch ib the "mud" in iraq. They tried to pull it out but could'nt. So The US tried to shoot it......Scratched the paint. They then found a favorable angle & shot. The Ammo exploded out the top & fire suppression worked. By then more M-88's arrived to pull it out. Tookback & replaced turret & put back In action.
Matt
Matt
BlueBear
Joined: August 26, 2002
KitMaker: 414 posts
Armorama: 148 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 08:29 AM UTC
I think the shape of the turret on the Leopard 2A5 is due to the reactive armor that the Germans used
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 08:31 AM UTC
What the heck is reactive armour anyway? Does that "Ariete" above have it on the turret or something? What does it do? Like I already said, I know next to nothing about modern armour, but I am still curious.
Nic
Nic
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 08:52 AM UTC
Before you understand reactive armor, you must understand how a modern tank round operates. A modern Sabot (APFSDS-Armor Piercing Fin Stabalized Discarding Sabot) round works in two stages, it first shoots a concentrated jet of molten metal that bores its way through the hull of the tank, then the round impacts and an explosive charge goes off where the hole was created and this blows through the hull and causes the killer effect of the round. Reactive Armor is designed to defeat the first stage of the Sabot round. It is an explosive charge in a box on the hull. When the round impacts and functions with the molten jet, the armor reacts by exploding and dispursing the molten metal. This does not allow the penetration of the hull and the second stage functions against the hull and bounces off. It is very effective. I'm not sure if the Ariet has reactive armor or not and I can't tell from the photo. Many modern tanks and APCs have it if they do not have the most modern hard armor such as Chobham Armor on the Abrams and Challenger. A type of stacked armor with kevlar and ceramic sheets in multiple layers, its exact composition is still classified.
Hope this helps on understanding modern armor.
Hope this helps on understanding modern armor.
kkeefe
Joined: May 12, 2002
KitMaker: 1,416 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 09:18 AM UTC
Hi,
I'm not all that 'up' on modern armour.... ya, I can ID them all generally, but I thought that I recently heard that 'statistically', the Leopard has/had a slight edge over the Abrams. Not sure what variants were judged, and obviously the Loepard has NOT proven itself in combat, but I could've sworn that I heard this fairly recently.
My vote on the best would probably (slightly) go to the Leopard. I just think that there's one heck of a frontal 'shot trap' (read: gap) with the Abrams. Looks wise anyway.
Thanks,
Kevin Keefe
Mortars in Miniature
I'm not all that 'up' on modern armour.... ya, I can ID them all generally, but I thought that I recently heard that 'statistically', the Leopard has/had a slight edge over the Abrams. Not sure what variants were judged, and obviously the Loepard has NOT proven itself in combat, but I could've sworn that I heard this fairly recently.
My vote on the best would probably (slightly) go to the Leopard. I just think that there's one heck of a frontal 'shot trap' (read: gap) with the Abrams. Looks wise anyway.
Thanks,
Kevin Keefe
Mortars in Miniature
shiryon
Joined: April 26, 2002
KitMaker: 876 posts
Armorama: 606 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 09:55 AM UTC
Of the current group of MBT I'll stick with the Merkava. ITs equiped with tha same type weapon as the M1 and Leo but has some added toys. A targeting system capable of tracking and eliminating chopper threats is also a plus. Then there is always that rear door in those cases when a quick exit is called for under fire. But all this is really speculation because when two boys decide to go toe to toe it'lll be the crews that make the differrence.
Josh Weingarten
aKA shiryon
Josh Weingarten
aKA shiryon
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 10:20 AM UTC
My vote will go to the M1A2 and Leo, besides the New Russian one, T-90? looked kinda cool too.
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 10:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Before you understand reactive armor, you must understand how a modern tank round operates. A modern Sabot (APFSDS-Armor Piercing Fin Stabalized Discarding Sabot) round works in two stages, it first shoots a concentrated jet of molten metal that bores its way through the hull of the tank, then the round impacts and an explosive charge goes off where the hole was created and this blows through the hull and causes the killer effect of the round. Reactive Armor is designed to defeat the first stage of the Sabot round. It is an explosive charge in a box on the hull. When the round impacts and functions with the molten jet, the armor reacts by exploding and dispursing the molten metal. This does not allow the penetration of the hull and the second stage functions against the hull and bounces off. It is very effective. I'm not sure if the Ariet has reactive armor or not and I can't tell from the photo. Many modern tanks and APCs have it if they do not have the most modern hard armor such as Chobham Armor on the Abrams and Challenger. A type of stacked armor with kevlar and ceramic sheets in multiple layers, its exact composition is still classified.
Hope this helps on understanding modern armor.
Gino P. Quintiliani
Thanks for the explanation, Gino. It really helped. So, these Sabot rounds work kinda like a bazooka or panzerfaust?
Nic
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 12:05 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Before you understand reactive armor, you must understand how a modern tank round operates. A modern Sabot (APFSDS-Armor Piercing Fin Stabalized Discarding Sabot) round works in two stages, it first shoots a concentrated jet of molten metal that bores its way through the hull of the tank, then the round impacts and an explosive charge goes off where the hole was created and this blows through the hull and causes the killer effect of the round. Reactive Armor is designed to defeat the first stage of the Sabot round. It is an explosive charge in a box on the hull. When the round impacts and functions with the molten jet, the armor reacts by exploding and dispursing the molten metal. This does not allow the penetration of the hull and the second stage functions against the hull and bounces off. It is very effective. I'm not sure if the Ariet has reactive armor or not and I can't tell from the photo. Many modern tanks and APCs have it if they do not have the most modern hard armor such as Chobham Armor on the Abrams and Challenger. A type of stacked armor with kevlar and ceramic sheets in multiple layers, its exact composition is still classified.
Hope this helps on understanding modern armor.
Gino, you are describing a High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) round and a sabot round in the same sentence.
A HEAT round is the one that has a shaped charge that shoots the molten hot metal (which was the tank's own armor) into the interior of the tank. Reactive armor is designed to defeat this type of round, which is why US tankers have been trained to use HEAT on armored personnel carriers, light skinned vehicles and other lightly armored vehicles for at least the last 20 years. ERA does this by exploding and hopefully dissipating the shaped charge’s molten stream.
A sabot round is just a super fast metal dart traveling at mach 5. The sabots are actually just the discarded "petals" that surround the dart (called the penetrator) and allow it to fit in the tube. I believe "sabot" is a French word for "boot" or "shoe" and the sabots are a boot that fit around the penetrator, which is the actual killer. Our (USA) penetrators are made of depleted uranium, a dense metal many times harder than any steel. Steel has a tendency to "mushroom" when it strikes armor, the depleted uranium actually stays sharp as it contacts and passes through the armor plating. As the penetrator passes through the tank's armor, the armor and any other parts inside the tank at the point of contact get super heated but the strike of the round. This super heated metal is called "spalling" and showers the inside of the tank, setting off the ammo, fuel and killing the crew. Additionally, when the penetrator enters the tank interior (if it does), it creates an over pressure which can blow the top of the turret off or finish off the crew. The penetrator can also continue out the other side, setting off any fuel or ammo that didn’t go off from the spalling.
Explosive reactive armor (ERA) has no effect on a sabot round, other than giving an extra amount of material for the penetrator to pass through before hitting the tank.
Late model M1A1s, M1A2s and M1A2SEPs have depleted uranium mesh added to the frontal slopes of the hull and turret, extending a bit to the top of the hull as well as the turret roof. This armor is one reason why an M1 can't kill another M1 from the front.
BTW, any M1 tank hit during the Gulf War was wrapped up in shrink wrap, sequestered, and shipped back to the states for evaluation. They were not "put back into action". The Army has recently discovered that the radioactive dust created when a depleted uranium round is used or any type of round strikes a vehicle with depleted uranium armor may be hazardous to your health if inhaled, contacted or ingested.
Folgore
Joined: May 31, 2002
KitMaker: 1,109 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 12:13 PM UTC
Thanks for the clarification there Rob. I wouldn't want to be in the tank that has all that molten metal being spewed around in it. Almost doesn't seem fair........
Nic
Nic
sgtsauer
#065
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 12:46 PM UTC
In my humble opinion, I don't think there is any such thing as "best" tank. Some tanks have better features than others. As always, the quality of the crew can make more of a difference than the technology. I like the Merkava but man that tank is slow. Speed is survival on the modern battlefield.
I've always been a big fan of the M1 series of tanks but have read some interesting information about the Leopard 2A5 and how it is potentially superior to the M1A2 in some regards. So, who knows!!! I guess you flip a coin and take your pick.
The Russian T-90 is supposed to be a decent platform but I have not been able to find much info on it. The Chinese supposedly have a new MBT that can compete with the M1 series. I would have to see that to believe it.
I am very interested in learning more about Russian and Chinese active tank defense systems though. Are these things as good as advertised?
I've been in the US Army for 13 years and I think one bad habit that has taken place is many people believe that just because it is an american system, it is the best. Not always true folks. We may be the bad boys on the block one day but there are many impressive systems being developed by other countries as we speak. We had better not get to cocky or someone may hand us our ego in a bag some day.
I've always been a big fan of the M1 series of tanks but have read some interesting information about the Leopard 2A5 and how it is potentially superior to the M1A2 in some regards. So, who knows!!! I guess you flip a coin and take your pick.
The Russian T-90 is supposed to be a decent platform but I have not been able to find much info on it. The Chinese supposedly have a new MBT that can compete with the M1 series. I would have to see that to believe it.
I am very interested in learning more about Russian and Chinese active tank defense systems though. Are these things as good as advertised?
I've been in the US Army for 13 years and I think one bad habit that has taken place is many people believe that just because it is an american system, it is the best. Not always true folks. We may be the bad boys on the block one day but there are many impressive systems being developed by other countries as we speak. We had better not get to cocky or someone may hand us our ego in a bag some day.
matt
Campaigns AdministratorJoined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 06:05 PM UTC
Rob,
I stand corrected.
Like I said I "heard" this.
Matt
I stand corrected.
Like I said I "heard" this.
Matt
stavka2000
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 120 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 08:53 PM UTC
I think that the answer on this question depends on what country you're from :-)
Although I am not an expert on the subject I personally feel the M1A2 and the Leo 2A5/A6 are among the best. They both have some ups on the other though, mostly design philosophies as Sgtsauer already pointed out.
For instance, an M1 guzzles more fuel than a Leo but can accelerate faster.
A friend of mine who is an armor officer here in D.C. mentioned that is now been fixed, but on the m1 was possible to have a burnt-out laser if you used it to long, overheating it. The Leo 2A4/5 however never had this, since the laser was equipped with a mechanism to automatically shut it down.
Andrew, the sloped armour on the leopard 2a5 turret is not reactive. It is relatively simple bolt-on armor. The reason it is sloped is partially due to the fact that if you put a plate at a slant, the relative thickness of the plate you need to penetrate goes up.
I am told sabot rounds don't care about slopes to defelct of the armor and into the tank (Sabot, step in any time to shed light on this).
The same reason is why front armor is usually thicker on any tank. Of course the M1 and Challenger have Chobham armor, and I am not sure if the Leo 2A5 has that.
My brigade used to have Leo2A5s, and they can actually attack choppers too since the fire computer is modified so it will "listen" to the results of the 1st echo of the laser, it used to be only the 2nd one on the Leo 2A4. So it is not only the Merkava.
I have no experience with the Merkava, but the fact that it carries troops as well and is slow doesn't really stick up to the other western tanks who are designed aroun survivability and mobility.
As for the T-80s and 90s, the US Army made short work of those in ODS, but that might have been due to the less than quality training of some of these crews :-)
Cheers,
Although I am not an expert on the subject I personally feel the M1A2 and the Leo 2A5/A6 are among the best. They both have some ups on the other though, mostly design philosophies as Sgtsauer already pointed out.
For instance, an M1 guzzles more fuel than a Leo but can accelerate faster.
A friend of mine who is an armor officer here in D.C. mentioned that is now been fixed, but on the m1 was possible to have a burnt-out laser if you used it to long, overheating it. The Leo 2A4/5 however never had this, since the laser was equipped with a mechanism to automatically shut it down.
Andrew, the sloped armour on the leopard 2a5 turret is not reactive. It is relatively simple bolt-on armor. The reason it is sloped is partially due to the fact that if you put a plate at a slant, the relative thickness of the plate you need to penetrate goes up.
I am told sabot rounds don't care about slopes to defelct of the armor and into the tank (Sabot, step in any time to shed light on this).
The same reason is why front armor is usually thicker on any tank. Of course the M1 and Challenger have Chobham armor, and I am not sure if the Leo 2A5 has that.
My brigade used to have Leo2A5s, and they can actually attack choppers too since the fire computer is modified so it will "listen" to the results of the 1st echo of the laser, it used to be only the 2nd one on the Leo 2A4. So it is not only the Merkava.
I have no experience with the Merkava, but the fact that it carries troops as well and is slow doesn't really stick up to the other western tanks who are designed aroun survivability and mobility.
As for the T-80s and 90s, the US Army made short work of those in ODS, but that might have been due to the less than quality training of some of these crews :-)
Cheers,
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 10:29 PM UTC
Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think T-90 was in the OSD, right?
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 11:10 PM UTC
Correct, T-90 was not.
Ranger74
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,290 posts
Armorama: 658 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 01:26 AM UTC
Stavka2000 - you are correct on fact that sabot rounds don't care about sloped armor, other than your statement that sloping armor actually makes it thicker in relation to vertical armor. Sabot rounds are designed to automatically "slant" upon impact so that they penetrate the armor perpendicular to the armor plate- in otherwords they will go the shortist distance thru the armor. I saw a photo of an Israeli M60A1 from teh 1973 war that was struck on the engine deck (A horizontal surface) by a sabot round from an Egyptian T-62 and the round buried itself in the armor.
As for the best tank discussion - Only two of the candidates are combat proven - The M1A1 (all varieties) and the Challenger II.
As for the best tank discussion - Only two of the candidates are combat proven - The M1A1 (all varieties) and the Challenger II.
Catskinner
Joined: May 18, 2002
KitMaker: 15 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 02:37 AM UTC
Iwan allow me fe corrections.
1. The Merkava doesn't carry troops. The space in the back is used for additional storage and for the emergency exit.
2. It's not slow at all, at least as far as MBT go. The top speed is classified but Achzarit IFV and M113 APC eats a lot of dust when they try to compete with a Merkava 3 on rough terrain.
3. As far as survivability goes It will eat for breakfast any other MBT currently fielded
Cheers
Claude
1. The Merkava doesn't carry troops. The space in the back is used for additional storage and for the emergency exit.
2. It's not slow at all, at least as far as MBT go. The top speed is classified but Achzarit IFV and M113 APC eats a lot of dust when they try to compete with a Merkava 3 on rough terrain.
3. As far as survivability goes It will eat for breakfast any other MBT currently fielded
Cheers
Claude
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 03:52 AM UTC
My bet is a well-trained crew using the M1A2. With this tank, the man and the machine interface is a relatively easy to gain and maintain.
DJ
DJ
bodhi75
Joined: September 01, 2002
KitMaker: 18 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 04:08 AM UTC
I'd go with Israel's Merkava. Looks mean, even with the new "flying saucer" turret - and even if it's not really tested against real MBT-threat (the new Merkava I mean), it still has got some combat experience. So does the Abrams.. but that was 10 years ago in Gulf war. I don't want to say, tha M1A2 is a bad choice, but Merkava.. well, it just rocks.
Marko N.
Marko N.
penpen
Joined: April 11, 2002
KitMaker: 1,757 posts
Armorama: 929 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 05:49 AM UTC
Hey guys, you are forgetting the new french tank, the Leclerc ! It's fitted with all the latest gun, armor, fire control... In a very few years, it will be equipped with a mini-UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and active protection...
The Leo 2A5-A6 were chosen by many european countries so they must be very effective...
Personaly, I'd rather use a tank with a good old diesel engine rather than a gas turbine... It doesn't run out of fuel so fast...
The Leo 2A5-A6 were chosen by many european countries so they must be very effective...
Personaly, I'd rather use a tank with a good old diesel engine rather than a gas turbine... It doesn't run out of fuel so fast...
drewgimpy
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
Armorama: 388 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 12:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
M1A2SEPs
Haven't heard of this guy Sabot, fill me in please
Quoted Text
Personaly, I'd rather use a tank with a good old diesel engine rather than a gas turbine... It doesn't run out of fuel so fast...
Ya it drinks, but it can drink anything. If you run out in a diesel you have to have diesel. If you run out in a turbine you can use just about any fuel you can get your hands on. Pretty big plus in my book. Also its much lighter and quiter.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.