_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern Armor
Modern armor in general.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Best Main Battle Tanks in the world?
mudblood
Joined: July 04, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 04:53 AM UTC
has to be the chally2, may not be the fastest, or have the most gagdets on it but it is a good honest tank which does what is asked of it,
Someone said on here that it is a fallied tank? our Dorchester armour has stopped everything thrown at it,the only time it has been breeched was when something went through the front /bottom and took out the drivers legs, compared to the Abrams seems to brew up as soon as some one gives it a dirty look.
Untill a Afv is combat tested i dont see how the others can make any list we put forward.
The chally 2 kept me safe when it counted.
Now putting on kevlar and body armour awiting incoming from any U.S Cav reading
jam2727
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: June 28, 2007
KitMaker: 171 posts
Armorama: 37 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 11:38 PM UTC
Only 2 people have mentioned T-90.
Why, isnt it one of the best tanks in the world??
Fitz
Visit this Community
Minnesota, United States
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:17 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Someone said on here that it is a fallied tank?



Objectively, the Challenger I was a failure, as evidenced by its short service history and early retirement. It proved greatly inferior to other NATO tanks of the time. The Challenger II was designed to correct the original vehicles faults. Even still, it is in the process of being re-gunned because the L30 rifled gun has fallen behind in performance.


Quoted Text

our Dorchester armour has stopped everything thrown at it,the only time it has been breeched was when something went through the front /bottom and took out the drivers legs, compared to the Abrams seems to brew up as soon as some one gives it a dirty look.



That "something" was an RPG. The MOD confirmed this. An Abrams has NEVER been penetrated frontally by an RPG and it has seen a lot more action.

Bleak
Visit this Community
Calvados, France
Joined: January 17, 2006
KitMaker: 26 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Only 2 people have mentioned T-90.
Why, isnt it one of the best tanks in the world??



Simply because there is not much russians in here...

Americans say that there Abrams are the best tanks ever made + there boys are outstanding and have the best training while driving daily cars as big as the tank himself...
Israelis say that there Merkava is the best because it's beautiful and it saves a lot of people as the engine is placed in the front...
French say that the Leclerc is the best tank because it's compact, fast and the food inside is great with a french cook specialy deployed as the 4th crew member...
British say the Challenger II is the best because blablablabla etc...

Somebody was talking about the fact that Abrams are the best because it destroyed thousands Soviet Iraqi tanks... I'm sorry to say that, but as during the WW2 the quality of the tanks have nothing to do with that, Allies crushed german tanks with their air domination and not with their Shermans... Same goes for Iraq...

This topic is just pointless as each tank is in constant evolution and as each one is promoted as the best in his own country...
I'm sure that even if we talk about the design it will be way less subjective than "Best MBT in the world"...
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:14 AM UTC

Quoted Text

has to be the chally2, may not be the fastest, or have the most gagdets on it but it is a good honest tank which does what is asked of it,
Someone said on here that it is a fallied tank? our Dorchester armour has stopped everything thrown at it,the only time it has been breeched was when something went through the front /bottom and took out the drivers legs, compared to the Abrams seems to brew up as soon as some one gives it a dirty look.
Untill a Afv is combat tested i dont see how the others can make any list we put forward.
The chally 2 kept me safe when it counted.
Now putting on kevlar and body armour awiting incoming from any U.S Cav reading

He said the Challenger 1 was a failed tank not the Challenger 2.
spongya
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
MODELGEEK
Visit this Community
Budapest, Hungary
Joined: February 01, 2005
KitMaker: 2,365 posts
Armorama: 1,709 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 03:17 AM UTC
The discussion really is pointless; I would add something though. I had a friend in the lab I worked in, and he was serving in M1A1 in the early '90s as driver/loader/gunner (not in the same time). He said the following: "if it wasn't for the high-tech gadgets, the US Army would be in great trouble as the training is incredibly low-level..." (Might not be an exact quote.) He said he was genuinely surprised that there were so few friendly-fire incidents in the Gulf War... and not at all surprised that in Afghanistan the troops are firing at everybody (themselves included).
Just his 2 cents. Since then I headed similar opinions from other people who served as enlisted personnel. I'm quite shocked.
mudblood
Joined: July 04, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 05:04 AM UTC
are you sure it was an RPG that went through the chally 2 front,ive not heard anything yet,and im still serving with these things,
Chally 1 a failled tank? i dont6 know ,yes it was a mix up of bit and pieces,but it did the job it was asked,had we had to go into gulf 1 with the old chieftain then we would of been a laughing stock im sure.
And yes the U.S stuff has seen alot more action but then you have alot more of it,but there is an auwfull lot of pics showing burnt out m1's which cant be good for moral, if these afv's are being taken out by long range rpg's or some little bugger running up and slapping a shaped charge on the back i dont know.But if its the latter then you have to ask why are they getting so damn close? we would give them a burst from the GPMG and tell them to frack off.
i would still prefere to be in our chally2 when the rounds start flying,but the leopard is also a good wagon but unproven.
cheers all
PS
But of course if the real shooting match had ever started in Europe then regardless of how good our wagons are we would of been no match for the amount of anti armour stuff the Soviets could throw our way,both land and air
JeepLC
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: June 20, 2007
KitMaker: 510 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 04:52 PM UTC
U.S.'s M1A2 Abrams
Britain's Challenger 2
Israel's Merkava 4
Germany's Leopard 2A6
France's Leclerc

Simply put: The Abrams has been battle tested in nearly every AO... from snow to sand and has proven to be extremely effective. The First Gulf War is a case in point. Only 14 Abrams tanks were taken out of action with no crew losses! They inflicted extremely heavy losses not only because the crews were well trained but also because the tank is damn good.

The Merkava has also proven to be survivable. The Merkava is also playing at an unfair advantage. Israel is able to gear their weapons and AFVs toward the desert and urban AOs because... well that is where they always fight. The Merkava is battle tested and holds up very well; like all other Israeli engineering!

The British Challenger 2 is also battle tested and has proven itself worthy. They held up just as well as the Abrams in the march to Basra and Baghdad.

The German and French tanks are supposed to be very well engineered, but are yet to take incoming...

PS: Most of the M1s taken out in Iraq are from IEDs... There was one that flipped into a canal during the battle of Nasyria(sp). Many pictures of burnt out M1s are from the inital advance and the thunder run into Baghdad. One M1 was lost in the first thunder run as I recall and it was simply disabled by a mine... the reason it was burning in the subsiquent pictures was because our lovely Air Force dropped a J-Dam down its hatch to keep the looters off the $10,000,000,000,000 worth of equipment the crew left. They got out ok though and that is what I look for in a tank.
Johnston_RCR
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: April 01, 2006
KitMaker: 470 posts
Armorama: 367 posts
Posted: Friday, July 06, 2007 - 12:51 AM UTC
Michael, as others have done, I would have to argue that the Abrams, Challenger and Merkava tanks haven't really been battle tested. They have experience in combat operations, but thats not the same. They have faced outdated, under-maintanenced tanks, and those are only the very few that survived the heavy airstrikes that preceded the ground action. Other than that, the heaviest competition they fave is IEDs and RPGs.

The time of superpowers facing off seems to have been over for a while, so really no modern tank has been battle tested, or will be.
mudblood
Joined: July 04, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Friday, July 06, 2007 - 01:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Michael, as others have done, I would have to argue that the Abrams, Challenger and Merkava tanks haven't really been battle tested. They have experience in combat operations, but thats not the same. They have faced outdated, under-maintanenced tanks, and those are only the very few that survived the heavy airstrikes that preceded the ground action. Other than that, the heaviest competition they fave is IEDs and RPGs.

The time of superpowers facing off seems to have been over for a while, so really no modern tank has been battle tested, or will be.


that is a fair comment but we can only beat what is put in front off us, unless the Russians start to get a bit of a strop on again we will never see a Tank vs Tank battle again,and even then the air power bit would take its toll first.So perhaps the way of comparing MBT's has to change, how i dont know, im only a poor gunner
JeepLC
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: June 20, 2007
KitMaker: 510 posts
Armorama: 469 posts
Posted: Friday, July 06, 2007 - 11:46 AM UTC
That is a good point, but insurgents have used AT4s and other anti-armor missiles against the Abrams and it has held up well. People tend to forget the lethality of the RPG. It is a terribly old weapon, but its design was flawless. The Russian principal of 'shoot it alot' is alive and well in Iraq right now. Insurgents are liable to get a lucky hit when they fire 50 or 60 RPGs at a tank...

The IED question is rather odd to me. Most IED our troops face consist of several artillery rounds strapped together and detonated. How, if a tank is built to survive a single impact, can it be expected to survive an explosion that large. A friend of mine was a Marine tanker in Iraq for two tours. The fact that an IED picked up his Abrams and dropped it several feet away with no crew losses posts it damn high in my book.
mudblood
Joined: July 04, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Friday, July 06, 2007 - 07:17 PM UTC
This is it,there is no real way to stop IIED's,except not to travel up and down roads like we all do out there and that is just what they want..
It seems we are asking the tank to do a job that it is not designed to do.

As for the UK i think that the Chally 2 will be the last true British tank, we have lots of up grades planned for it but as yet there is no true replacement on the drawing board.
Tankleader
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Friday, July 06, 2007 - 11:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

This is it,there is no real way to stop IIED's,except not to travel up and down roads like we all do out there and that is just what they want..
It seems we are asking the tank to do a job that it is not designed to do.



I've essentially been saying this, that when you decide what tank is the best you must look at what is designed todo and or counter. Many people thought that the Tank was or is a thing of the past. The Canadian's had essentially killed off the LEO's because they thought they wouldn't be needed in the types of fighting that we are doing today. WRONG, they have reversed their decision. Even the U.S. Army discovered that there would still be a need of heavy armor in the future to supplement their Future Combat System. Each Tank should be evaluated for what it was designed for and then a judgement should be made. Now, how different are tanks today, many share the same systems or weapons, even armor packages, so how different are they really. The biggest difference between some the vehicles is the type of fire control system used and what it can or can't do, but that's where the training of the crews come in. When you evaluate a system of vehicles, you also need to look at the training of the crews when evaluating the system as a whole.

Tanks
Andy
AVRE165
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: December 31, 2002
KitMaker: 181 posts
Armorama: 145 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 12:42 AM UTC
hi

Now I have had the privilege to drive a lot of tanks and work on them as well. So my views are of those from a personal note
BUT a serious NOTE a tank is only has good as its CREW, and the theatre which it is designed for.
But No tank can or has been able to with stand a IED.
I will talk firstly about the tanks in service this way it is easier to distinguish which what order.


UK British Challenger ok only two only ever been knocked out one by blue on blue and a lucky shot, second recently a large IED. None have been penetrated by a RPG. Not driven a challenger two but have a challenger 1

USA M1 well this is tank is heavily armoured for frontal attack but it has suffered in its time from RPG and IED but more over has been updated with each hurdle it faces , Driven a M1 ( hated it )

Leopard 2A5 /6 one of the most common tanks in service in Europe but has not been battle proven other the short time there were in Kosovo but not faced another tank or RPG. Driven this tank and gives a driver a sense of confidences

T72 ok this is used by many people but has a tank it was mass produced but if used correctly it can and would be a nuisance to modern tanks, you ask why well it is fast and very agile. Driven this tank very agile, easy to drive like a sports car.

Merkava
This is a tank which has been designed from battle /urban experience and is for there battle theatre great tank taken hits and survived

Centurion yes it is still in service at least three countries it is a tank which has been around a long time but it is now at a stage where it can compete with all tanks, it has a far superior engine a fire control systems based on some of the modern tanks and a rate of fire which is really fast, the Swedish army before changing them use to be able to fire 14 rounds a minute each hitting different targets.

T55/T54,T62 and others I have driven these and can say they are hard work more then a Centurion.

Challenger 1 a proven tank and holds the longest first round hit at 5000mtrs a great tank.

Kahlid another great tank based on Chieftain and challenger it was the original Shir

Leclerc. French tank on paper is good and fast.


Type 90 on paper it is a good tank
New Korean tank again looks good on paper.


So my personal lists in no order.


Challenger 2 battle proven
M1 battle proven
Merkava battle proven
T90
Type 90
Leclerc

But which would I would drive into battle.
Centurion upgraded
Or a Challenger 2.

But a tank is only as good has the CREW in it and the support which it has and what it was designed for. Take it to another environment which it is not designed for then it will suffer.
mudblood
Joined: July 04, 2007
KitMaker: 6 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 03:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

hi

Now I have had the privilege to drive a lot of tanks and work on them as well. So my views are of those from a personal note
BUT a serious NOTE a tank is only has good as its CREW, and the theatre which it is designed for.
But No tank can or has been able to with stand a IED.
I will talk firstly about the tanks in service this way it is easier to distinguish which what order.


UK British Challenger ok only two only ever been knocked out one by blue on blue and a lucky shot, second recently a large IED. None have been penetrated by a RPG. Not driven a challenger two but have a challenger 1

USA M1 well this is tank is heavily armoured for frontal attack but it has suffered in its time from RPG and IED but more over has been updated with each hurdle it faces , Driven a M1 ( hated it )

Leopard 2A5 /6 one of the most common tanks in service in Europe but has not been battle proven other the short time there were in Kosovo but not faced another tank or RPG. Driven this tank and gives a driver a sense of confidences

T72 ok this is used by many people but has a tank it was mass produced but if used correctly it can and would be a nuisance to modern tanks, you ask why well it is fast and very agile. Driven this tank very agile, easy to drive like a sports car.

Merkava
This is a tank which has been designed from battle /urban experience and is for there battle theatre great tank taken hits and survived

Centurion yes it is still in service at least three countries it is a tank which has been around a long time but it is now at a stage where it can compete with all tanks, it has a far superior engine a fire control systems based on some of the modern tanks and a rate of fire which is really fast, the Swedish army before changing them use to be able to fire 14 rounds a minute each hitting different targets.

T55/T54,T62 and others I have driven these and can say they are hard work more then a Centurion.

Challenger 1 a proven tank and holds the longest first round hit at 5000mtrs a great tank.

Kahlid another great tank based on Chieftain and challenger it was the original Shir

Leclerc. French tank on paper is good and fast.


Type 90 on paper it is a good tank
New Korean tank again looks good on paper.


So my personal lists in no order.


Challenger 2 battle proven
M1 battle proven
Merkava battle proven
T90
Type 90
Leclerc

But which would I would drive into battle.
Centurion upgraded
Or a Challenger 2.

But a tank is only as good has the CREW in it and the support which it has and what it was designed for. Take it to another environment which it is not designed for then it will suffer.


again good points, our blue on blue ,the guy only got killed as he was half in his hatch, so we never had a round go through the armour(thank god) and it does seem that some form of RPG did go through the drivers armour at the front.Plenty of rumours of what it was and was not,but no ones said "this is what is was" and i guess we will never know, but it makes u wonder
woltersk
Visit this Community
Utah, United States
Joined: May 27, 2003
KitMaker: 1,026 posts
Armorama: 654 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 07:49 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

This is it,there is no real way to stop IIED's,except not to travel up and down roads like we all do out there and that is just what they want..
It seems we are asking the tank to do a job that it is not designed to do.



I've essentially been saying this, that when you decide what tank is the best you must look at what is designed todo and or counter. Many people thought that the Tank was or is a thing of the past. The Canadian's had essentially killed off the LEO's because they thought they wouldn't be needed in the types of fighting that we are doing today. WRONG, they have reversed their decision. Even the U.S. Army discovered that there would still be a need of heavy armor in the future to supplement their Future Combat System. Each Tank should be evaluated for what it was designed for and then a judgement should be made. Now, how different are tanks today, many share the same systems or weapons, even armor packages, so how different are they really. The biggest difference between some the vehicles is the type of fire control system used and what it can or can't do, but that's where the training of the crews come in. When you evaluate a system of vehicles, you also need to look at the training of the crews when evaluating the system as a whole.

Tanks
Andy



So what is the future of the MBT? Armor will be around for a long time, but in what form? Are heavy tanks still needed? Or will they go the way of the battleship which was replaced by newer technology (mainly cruise missiles and bomber aircraft).

From outside the armor world it looks as if armor is going through a metamorphosis as wheeled vehicles like the Stryker are produced and fielded. Will tracked vehicles become a thing of the past in the next decade or two? Will more specialized vehicles come along and replace the old standbys of the MBT and APC?
Razor635
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: September 11, 2006
KitMaker: 45 posts
Armorama: 46 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:40 PM UTC
From personal experience M1A1/A2, Leopard 2 and Chally 1mk3 in no particular order. How ever as a former Abrams tank commander, A14 2-81 AR is at the top of my list. When I left it in 99 the thing was older then most of the recruits I tought and the thing could still hit a fly at 4000m. As others have posted the makings of the best Armor in the world is not the vehicle but the crews that man them. Even a T55 can take out an M1A2 with the right crew.
goldenpony
Visit this Community
Zimbabwe
Joined: July 03, 2007
KitMaker: 3,529 posts
Armorama: 588 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:57 PM UTC
I've posted on different sites for different hardware, best fighter, best surface ship, best sub, best personal weapon. Every tiem you can make an argument for each and every example posted. To me the each and every tiem the best comes down to the people you put in touch with the hardware.

You can take a crew from an Abrams and have them beat by a top notch crew in a T-55 as stated. I do feel the top three tanks are the Abrams, Challanger II, and the Lepoard. Training a crew and giving them the best machine you can makes a good tank great. Those three are at the top of thier games because of thier crews.

Just my opinon.

FuNsTeR
Visit this Community
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: October 19, 2005
KitMaker: 273 posts
Armorama: 243 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 01:28 AM UTC
Leopard 2A6 EX
Merkeva 4
Callenger 2
Leclerc
Abrams/Arietei
T-90

Abrams has a severe design flaw that allows the tank to be knocked out by a single Rpg round between the 1st and 2nd road wheels which exposes the tank's weakest point

battle proven means he haw nato trials show that the Leopard IS the best tank
873rdJoltinJosie
Visit this Community
New Hampshire, United States
Joined: June 09, 2007
KitMaker: 45 posts
Armorama: 43 posts
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2007 - 12:59 AM UTC

Quoted Text

SimonAFV, sorry.... as an M1A1 tanker you are going to have to explain yourself alot better than what you did for your #6 ranking of the M1A2. If I'm right and I believe I am, the M1A1 fleet is upgrading to the M1A2, then M1A2 SEP. But until the others you listed get into combat I dont think they can touch the M1 Family, Challenger Family or Merkava Family of tanks. Battle tested and survived, pretty impressive resume. If I had a dollar for every T55 that was knocked out in combat...well I think I'd have a pocket full of dollars.



Well said
BorisS
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: October 07, 2007
KitMaker: 144 posts
Armorama: 91 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 02:53 AM UTC
The fact that a lot of people seem to forget when they say that the Abrams or challenger are the best because they have been blasting soviet tanks in Iraq by the dozens is that most of those soviet tanks were 50's 60's and 70's technology going against state of the art tech used by the US and Britain.
Now I'm not saying that modern Russian tanks are the greatest, but in a one on one engagement between an Abrams and the latest T 90, the Abrams might have a good fight on its hands.

Also the fact that the T 90 is still being produced is a good bonus. The Abrams may be salvaged and fixed up, but not making any more of them still limits the maximum amount of tanks you can field at a time. Also fighting against a better force that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan (which people falsely assume to be good fighters) a better force may not make it all that easy for you to get your busted Abrams off the field.
kevinb120
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: May 09, 2006
KitMaker: 1,349 posts
Armorama: 1,267 posts
Posted: Monday, October 15, 2007 - 02:48 AM UTC
Well I'm in the Abrams camp on this one based on experience in combat and numbers as well as the paper numbers. As for saying to the effect fighting 'on equal terms' there really is no such thing versus the US Armed Forces. Numbers of vehicles, support equipment, overall technical advantages, and training/experience are all in play as tanks just don't go out in the middle of a field and fight other tanks all by themselves. If there were a large armor column moving in there's no need to send other tanks in after them anyway. And if you are going into a 'fair' fight in the first place.......

Abrams' and thier crews are out there working every day, right now.
jareistrup
Visit this Community
Alabama, United States
Joined: October 15, 2007
KitMaker: 2 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, October 15, 2007 - 03:35 AM UTC
Gentlemen: Great discussion, hitting many major considerations. My hesitation with Leopard would be, how many shots has it fired or heard in anger? Same with Sheridan,which US tossed pretty quickly despite seeming advantages. As top ten lists indicate, what the criteria are drive the outcomes -- innovation or success; ease of use? As for crews, sure but if is to be assessment of vehicles, I'd think you need to take this out (as compared to effectiveness of vehicles in units). Top ten list of "fear factor" is suspiciously difficult to ascertain. As for Soviet vehicles, numerosity but at Fort Irwin, the OpFor has never been able to use the captured soviet-made vehicles without extensive maintenance & re-engineering. How about, what are criteria, then build the list?
 _GOTOTOP