Hi Mike,

I figured you were joking, no worries.

Try telling any tanker that their primary role is direct fire support and they will look at you like you have twenty heads. Speed, mobility, firepower, and shock action are not put into the design of a tank to have it primarily move along at the pace of a dismounted Infantryman...that's what they designed the Churchill tank for not the Abrams, Leopard 2A6, Challenger 2, or Leclerc.

Add-ons due to operating in a primarily urban theatre such as Iraq is a good thing. Multi purpose ammo is also a must have...rounds such as the MPAT for the Abrams and APAM for the Merkava and Leopard are good for all kinds of threats.

The current combat environments were not seen as primary combat areas to the developers of the modern tanks...with the exception of the Merkava. It is good to see simple things being done to the tanks such as additional heavy weapons, slat armour, and gun shields being retro-fitted to the tanks. These are low tech solutions to threats never encountered before on these tanks.

The add-ons have both + and - points...Good for increasing crew survivablility in urban areas but possible restricting both vision and egress from the tank...i.e. additional gun shields. The more you add on the more protection but it also means more crew work to maintain systems and equipment. Bar or slat armour is great simple stuff but does it increase the valuable time of the crew to maintain the track or limit areas of operation in urban areas?

Lots of things to think about when considering the "best" tanks.

Eh gads! The T-34 is their consistent top contender? Those schmucks always select it. Think crew metal interaction.....the crews training makes the machine achieve a desired level of perfection. What tank did Whittman use in Normandy when he (or a group of his tanks, I have heard many veriations) nailed an entire column of Shermans? Think M4A3E8 in Korea manned by WWII American tanks going up against the North Koreans in T-34/85s. The crews made the difference.
DJ

I LOVE this website! Where else can you talk modeling with people who have 'been there' with the 1:1 scale versions?

Of course the crew makes the difference. This is no big suprise.

Just think of the alternate possible outcomes if the Coalition forces in Desert Storm or OIF had gone up against very well trained, highly motivated, and well equipped troops using proper defensive, delaying action, counter attack, and offensive operation tactics.

A mate of mine who did his 22 in the REME (attached to several tank regiments) always said he'd take a well dug in company of Greenjackets with plenty of A/T capability over a squadron of tanks any day. I think he was being flippant, but we are constantly hearing that the MBT has had it's day, it can't survive on the modern battlefield, it's too big a target etc etc. Yet all armies still have them. Lets put the Merkava in context, the Israelis have a small population, & the Merkava series was built with the protection of the crew as a major design feature. In the same way that the battleship was superceded by the aircraft carrier as the most significant naval vessel, it is debatable if the MBT hasn't or won't become a sort of super-SPG, & without meaning to tread on too many toes, the concept of the MBT could be viewed as the army macho version of the battlewagon. The idea of a massed tank battle a la Kursk to me just seems a non-starter with modern weaponry, so it's unlikely that any of the world's MBTs will really be "tested in combat" they were designed for. As for combat in built up areas - this just ain't tank country. This has been proved over & over, e.g Stalingrad, Arnhem, where the heaviest tanks available failed to make an impact commensurate with their expense in construction & maintenance. (There, that should rattle a few cages.)

Large scale tank on tank battles may be a thing of the past, but the MBT still has a viable role. While your friend would prefer to be dug in, a tank/mechanized force can attack where you are not. He's thinking Maginot Line and will be bypassed by a mobile force.

Especially in the day of urban combat, a tank (of some type) will be needed to provide heavy firepower and cover to infantrymen as they advance. Because the tank's main opponent in this situation will be dismounted soldiers with portable AT weapons, tanks will require more stand-off armor such as slat or ERA instead of heavy armor to defeat kinetic energy rounds.

I think now it has been over taking by air power and smart weapons after thats happened then the armour would roll in and would then over come the enemy in force and numbers.
Its not like the battles when you would get advancing formations of armour and clash into each other today its get them before they get you at long range if at short range you just would have to pray that you would get the first round off before the other armour did and get the hell out quick.

Its hard to try and choose what is the best 5 tanks that depends on what you want every tank is different they are not the same.

The three main things that a tank needs is:

Protection.
Mobilaty.
Firepower.

All the tanks that are around today have this but one of those three will be greater then the rest.

Pete.

Iraq.

All things said- This question is for Robin (sabot): What is next for American MBT's?

The best tank? Consider this. You are sitting in a tank on a battlefield and prefer to not be remembered as a martyr.

Which tank would you want to be in?

Which tank would you not want to see coming at you?

That should tell you what is number one and two.

I would really want to be in the best tank out there. The crew rating is largly a responsibility of the TC. As pointed out, training suffers in a war. Training also is a responsibility of the Chain of comand, but ultimately, the TC is where the buck stops.

As for numbers produced. During ODS, the T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s had a numerical advantage, which resulted in them becoming decorations in the form of stripes on M1 gun barrels. Why? The superiority of the technology and training.

What would I want to be sitting in? An M1

What would I not want to see coming at me? A Leopard

I feel like I've been debating this since I was 14. That would be 20 years! My how time flies.
It has been mentioned here that the M1 and Challenger have both found themselves in combat. This is true. The value of that experience though is downplayed when one considers the opposition these two were facing. In my humble opinion, other than operational experience, the "combat exposure" factor really is not that great. NFL players against your local high school B-Team really matters little in the end.

The question has also been asked about what country produces best crews in the world. Without a doubt- The Bahamas. No seriously, that too is something that combat experience plays a factor in. Slight edge to the US and UK on that. HUGE advantage to the IDF that must CONSTANTLY be on guard for an invasion from nearly any direction, plus they are defending their own home.

So here is my list of best tanks in the world:
M1, Challenger, Leopard, LeClerc, Merkava

All other factors being equal I think all are so evenly matched that finding one clearly better than the others is hair splitting.

As for the best crews, generalities can be made. But speaking in generalities is dangerous. Here is my list of best crews in the world:

Anyone with the guts to get in a tank and do the dirty work.

Humble opinion from a newbie. Thanks for reading.

Edit: I recently read in another forum that in the 1980s the Soviet army released a study on the western tanks and the basic conclusion was that the Challenger was weak, the Abrams was so-so, and the Leopard II was scarry as hell.

This doesn't necessarily mean the Abrams or Challenger tanks were weaker than the Leopard. I have a relative (I call him an uncle for simplicity) serving with the Russian VDV Airborne. I have learned a lot from him. The Soviets knew America would be their biggest threat, but always had more fear of the Germans. After the second world war especially, the Soviets considered the Germans violent, overly agressive, traitorous, and very dangerous. The Germans are also much closer, geographically speaking. So rating the Leopard as more deadly could be that historical fear speaking, more than the any actual advantage.

I can't help it i've got to put my 2 cents. I have been on the M60A1 the M60a1rise passive. the M60A3, the M1IP and the M1A1. And I have been to a gunnery with the Germans in their leo 2.I have to agree the the leo is one mean tank. But I'm going to have to go with the M1A1 hands down. It is partly the tank but the tank is only a piece of expensive metal without a well trained crew. And US tank crew training is #1.

I watched a doco about a competition held in canada where Americans British and Germans have a compitition where they do time triels and fireing tests and the Americans came out on top and the germans got second close behind.

Gents, check your history books: as with all systems, it is a question of training of crews, exploiting the features of specific vehicles (volume and simplicity of T34 vs power and complexity of KingTiger) as well as adaptation to the overall military doctrine (check any MBT strategy book on the Cold War Warsaw Pact tactics in Europe in the late '80s..)

Last & not least... could you imagine a Merkava operating in a snowy Swedish forest or a Leopard sweating to maneuver in a middle east village ...

As an Airforce type it doesn't really matter what one is best.
They all make for good ground targets.
However, if one had to choose, I would have to agree with jjumbo from Canada.

One has to appreciate the courage and pride shown by the men and women of the Armoured Corps of the world. It not an easy job and take a special person to serve in them. Got my salute.

Leopard I's are currently deployed to Afghanistan where they will shortly be replaced by Leopard II's.

This sort of topic is very,very subjective. Traditionally, people will support the tank that their country produces or what they think is their favourite etc.

In my opion there is no one tank that is the best, each and every tank has strengths and weaknesses.

Based on the Gulf War and a tank-vs-tank scenario. The Abrams and Challenger 1 were far superior to the T-72. This was down to better technology and training. As somebody pointed out the T-72s were dug in and the Abrams/Chally 1 were on the move.

Howerver one key aspect about that scenario is always leftout...air support. Thanks to the allied airpower there was no air support for the Iraqi tanks and the allied planes had already done substantial damage to armoured divisions before the tanks were let loose.

Had there been proper airsupport and helicopter gunships supporting the T-72s, I think it would have been much tougher for the Abrams and Challenger 1.

As for OIF, in my opinion a Challenger 2 vs T-55 doesn't prove how good it is or amount to proven combat.

That being said the Abrams and Challenger2 have been deployed into an environment which they were never intended to be in - ever!!
That being said both tanks have proven their survivability in an urban environment against enemies and enemy munitions that was never catered for in the design of the armour.

Yes there has been damage and losses etc but overall they've done rather well.

My favourite tank would be the Abrams followed by the Challenger 1 series. Just personal preference.

However I would venture to say that none of the modern battle tanks have been battled tested in a proper war environment. ie. both sides have tanks which have been maintained, crews on both sides have had proper training, both sides don't have air superiority over the battlefield, both sides have cas aircraft and gunships available etc

Again my opinion and as I stated earlier I can't accurately say which is the best tank

Thx
John

That was an annual event held in Germany and sponsored by the Canadians. The NATO forces stationed there took part in the contest called the Canadian Army Trophy or CAT. There have been many winners from the different countries throughout the years CAT took place.

If I said it once I said it a thousand times. You can have the best tank in the world, which I'm sure we all think our country produces, but unless you have a well trained crew that best tank is nothing but a piece of junk.

"Man Machine Interface"

Tanks
Andy

I am no armour expert by any means. But it seems to me that given the nature of warfare today, this argument for the "best MBT" is pointless. The west is fighting people that have no "armour" to speak of; be it kevlar vests or fighting vehicles. Someone said a few posts back that a tank must be proven in combat to make the list. Relatively few types of modern tanks have seen combat in the past 20 years. Given all this, I would suggest that even Canada's old Leopard C2 could be considered among the "best" tanks in the world- it's the best tank in Afghanistan right now.

Hi,

first of all: the best MBT is a scrapped (by peaceful means, of course) one!

This discussion reminds me on my childhood were we asked us "hey, was the Me 109 better than the Spit?" or "Was the Bismark better than the Yamamoto...?" By that time we were'nt able to think of the whole context at all. Many aspects were named in this thread. I'll add some more, just to prove, that this question definitly has no (right/wrong) answer.
The economical aspect, ease of production, cost... Or another: for several reason a 30mm autocannon might be a much more appropriate weapon than a 120mm, a question of the intended target! Just remember the 88mm in the Tiger or 75mm in Panthers: high potential against armoured targets, but less effective in the anti-personal role than for example their russian counterparts. Or what's with tactics? Most will agree, that T-34 or KV-1 were better than P-I to early P-IV, in several aspects, but what for? Communication...

So, no answer will be THE right one!

Volker

I agree with Volker.

But I think that we must remember that merely the sight of one of the "best" often is enough to produce some measure of peace.

There is a contingent of Italian leopard Is guarding a church in Bosnia as we speak. German Leopard IIs are in the region as well.

As much as a tank can be an instrument of war it can be of peace as well. In a way athat airpower, naval forces and even infantry cannot, tanks tell the bad guys you mean business and youre there to stay.

Yes, if you go all the way back to the very first reply to the initial topic, I say just about the same thing. Although, I will admit that I neglected to list the Canadian Armed Forces' current MBT. I always forget them, sorry.

Of course, whichever tank they end up using instantly becomes the best in the world. If they chose the M1A1AIM, they would add directional blinkers, a Canadian crosswind senor rename it the M1A1CA2 and it would then be the best tank in the world (or Challenger 2CA2, Leopard 2A6CAXYZ, T-80UDCA2...).

That's not necessarily true. Iraq deployed the T-72 with Republican Guard Armored and Mechanized divisions which were deployed as a mobile reserve in the Iraq/Kuwait border region to protect the regime and keep the regular army in Kuwait. The regular army (conscript) units along the Saudi border largely dug in their much older T54/55/62 and Type 59/69 tanks to protect them from air attack and because they lacked the training and skills for mobile warfare. Ras Al Khafji proved they couldn't manuever worth a damn above brigade level.

Where the Republican Guard units really got let down was in their obsolete night fighting equipment (active IR, not even passive, let alone thermal), outdated ammunition and complete lack of intelligence as to Coalition movements. They were deaf dumb and blind. They could have been riding Leopard II's and it would have made little difference.




Objectively, the Challenger I was a relative failure, as evidenced by is rather short service career and early retirement. It shouldn't be on any "best" or "favorite" list based on merits.

I guess we need the better clarify by what we mean as BEST. Everyone here will argue that the tank that their country uses is the best. Every tank is the best tank when it's the only one on the battlefield. You can have the best tank but the worst crew, you can have the best tank, but the worst ammo, you can have the best tank, but the worst mechanical reliability. I remember being deployed to an to country X where we were training the another armor brigade that used both M1A1's and T74's. Now the field rep for the T-74's argued that his tank was better than ours. This struck me as funny because the battlefields in the area where littered T72's. After he fully explained his reasoning it turns out that he said his was the better tank because of the ease of training the crews but not survivability or lethality. Compared to our training standards here in the U.S. I could see his point of view and why he tought that his was the better tank. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the best tank all depends on your point of view. I often say that every tank is the best because each variant was designed for a specific reason, and that is what makes it the best in the world.

Tanks
Andy