Hey everyone,

I know there are probably a ton of criteria with which MBT’s can be judged, but my question is not meant to be comprehensive just conversational.

I recently go back into modeling and specifically into modern armor, so learning a little and getting some different views about these beasts would be really helpful for me.

If possible, I’d be interested in people providing me a list of their top 5 together with perhaps a brief description on why you ranked them the way you did etc.

Thanks,
Noah

Here are mine in no particular order:

1. M1A1 Abrams- Heavily armed and armored, manuverable, and crew survivability
2. Leopard 4- same reasons as Ambrams, and its fast too
3. Merkava 4- perfect for desert guerilla fighting
4. T-55 - reason- the most mass produced and used (IIRC) in the world "only for strength in numbers"
5. Challenger II -same resons as Abrams


Hope this helps

This topic is sort of like discussing which full sized pickup truck is the best. Some will make a decision based on brand (Ford, Chevy, GMC, Dodge, Toyota, etc.) or as with tanks, on nationality (US, UK, German, Soviet, etc.).

Most modern MBTs are fairly equal in lethality, fire control, target acquisition and mobility. Armor protection varies, but not by much.

Which ones are the best are (not in any particular order): M1A1 Abrams, Challenger II, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5, M1A2 Abrams, Merkava, Leopard 2A6. Place them in any order you chose. A well-trained crew in any of these tanks is as good as any other similarly trained crew in another tank. The former Soviet style tanks are not listed because I do not think they are as good as modern western MBTs. They still are very good and lethal MBTs.

Then normally folks from countries that do not produce MBTs themselves start telling us that the imported 30 year old tank they have upgraded to their current standards are much better. Yeah right, if the 30 year old tank was that good, the country that produced it would still be making the tanks for themselves.

The days of massive armor forces maneuvering against one another are becoming a thing of the past. Most armies will not stand toe-to-toe against one another. Massed armor formations are too vulnerable to detection and interdiction from air and tactical missiles.

From what I've read and seen broadcast, the consenses on the 5 best modern MBT's is:

#1 Germany's Leopard 2A6
#2 U.S.A.'s M1A2 Abrams
#3 Israel's Merkava 4
#4 Britain's Challenger 2
#5 France's Leclerc
(the Italian Ariete being a close #6)

The Soviet T-55's, T-64's, T-72's, T-80's et al may have been numerically superior but you apparently had to be "left-handed midgets" to crew them.
Most Russian designs are not exactly noted for having crew comfort or safety in mind.
JUST MY OPINION!!!
Cheers

jjumbo

I agree with Sabot above. It basically comes down to crew training and ability. A great crew in an older designed tank will be able to take out the newest, most modern tank that has an untrained crew fighting it.

CBU-97

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm

Speaking to Rob's point about air interdiction.

Shaun

Opening a can of worm?

In no particular order

Leopard 2A4/5/6
Merkava
Challenger II
M1A1/A2 Abrams
Leclerc
T-72/80/90

Yes I know 6 instead of 5

1 Germany's Leopard 2A6 Heavily armed and armored, manuverable, and crew survivability and still being made also easy to crew

2 Merkava 4- designed to for survivability. every close 1st

3 Challenger II Heavily armed and armored, manuverable, and crew survivability and still being made also easy to crew reson 3rd needs up dating.

4 South Korea XK2 mostly down to cost and stepping on toes of Leopard 2A6

5 T55 why the number still being used and being update with new tank defance systems will make them hard target.

6 M1A2 the reason it is 6, engine runs white hot and canbe knocked out with a can oil placed in right place, not made any more, cost, very knows how to knock it out. fuel 20 lites to start up.

All the above tanks apart from Merkava 4 which being done now a defence system in place like last year.

Not really sure about the "can of oil" thing but while they are no longer making Abrams chassis they are constantly upgrading the existing ones.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/digital-abrams-the-m1a2-sep-program-updated/index.php

The Air Force built 744 B-52s. The last one rolled off the line in October of 1962.
There are still about 90 active air frames and the Air Force plans to use them until 2040. So, just because something is not being currently produced does not reduce its viability as a weapons system.

Shaun

EDIT: Anyone know how many Abrams chassis were built and how many are still considered to be in the inventory?

In order: Challenger 2, Abrahms and Merkava.
All proven in combat, therefore not Leo 2 which is unproven.

A lot of what makes a design "best" is when it was designed. Things are changing so fast in the technology areas that the last one out of the gate is going to have (a small) leg up on the competition but as was stated it comes down to crew training as well. I won't even make a list because it will vary depending on the terrain and the situation as to which is going to come out on top.

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.

How bad have been Russian/Soviet tanks in battle or how useless a tank is without air support.

I don´t think t-55 used by Serbia in Kosovo were so outdated!

It depends the conflict and the budget...

Which is the best car in the world?

For what duty...

Perhaps a

Maybach 57
Bugati Veyron
Ferrari FXX
etc


Perhaps the best MBT are those that show what the most important armies in the world employ:

USA... Abrams M1A2
GB... Challenger II
Israel... Merkava IV
Russia... t-90
Europe... mainly Leopard 2 series

Now, which one is the best...

For - crew protection Merkava
- speed and experience Abrams
- gun power-protection-weight-price ratio T-90
- influence in design, number of different versions and foreign orders Leopard


That´s not to say there are many other interesting vehicles.

The M1A2 is not going to replace the M1A1. In fact, the majority of tanks being produced are M1A1AIMs. The A2 was great for going against multiple enemy tanks, but that threat does not exist any longer.

As far as the T-55, if you read the fourth paragraph in my first response, every time a best MBT topic comes up, someone always mentions an obsolete tank that has been upgraded and thinks it is one of the best.

T-55s are still widely used because they were cheap to produce and readily available because of their own obsolence in modern armies. Many of them are the only tank around which makes them perfectly adequate for the nations they serve in.

The list that have been given coever it pretty well, and as too which is best it is going to be in the eye of the beholder. One question though, is what are the chinese using for their main tank and what is coming down the road for them? I know very little about the chinese army and since they are becoming a power house I am curious.

Simon you state the following



WTF about an oil can? and as far as everyone knows how to knock it out, I have pretty good idea how to knock out every tank listed, and I have never served in the army. Now how easy it would be to actually knock them out is a different story. As far as the Abrams and the Challenger and Merkava go, people have been having a lot of practice lately at figuring out how to take them out, and even then it is still not easy to do so.

Yah, I have to agree with those who disagree about the criticism of the M1A1/A2. To my knowledge, it’s the only western MBT that has seen any sort of sustained combat – so it stands to reason more of them have been KOed than the other contenders listed.

As far as the “can of oil” comment goes, I read about 70% of our tanks in Iraq have sustained some form of attack by the insurgents – yet I think we’ve only had about 15 Abrams crew casualties (with the majority of those coming when crew were riding partially exposed etc) and the military has said most “OKed” Abrams could be refitted if necessary. So, I think you way overstated your case…

Now, if you want the bash the M1A1/A2 for its operating costs that’s another story.

There was a special on Discovery not long ago about the 10 best tanks in the world through history. They got points in 5 different rankings (which I can't remember)

M1 Abrams was ranked 2nd, Tiger 3rd.

Winner was: T-34

[quote]This topic is sort of like discussing which full sized pickup truck is the best. Some will make a decision based on brand (Ford, Chevy, GMC, Dodge, Toyota, etc.) [quote]

Rob-- so who makes the best pick-up?
DJ

PS _ I only drive GMC trucks.

No debate there -- Chevy (or any other GM truck)

The answer is simple: Which one is there to save my fourth point of contact when I need it.
As for the truck, another easy one: The Toyota Tacoma. Tried and true. It was there, where as others were not. Do a search of and you'll find USSF was using them whenever available, not Hiluxes or Landcruisers.
Of course, if it had been a Chavy S-10, I"d be singing its praises instead...

The other guys have made the points about "horses for courses". The claim that the Challenger & Abrams are proved in combat is strictly true, but they were not really "proved" in combat undertaken on a level playing field. It's not totally relevant to the question, but I believe I'm correct in saying @ least one Challenger was taken out in a "blue-on-blue" scenario. It would have been interesting (particularly since I wasn't there!) seeing how the Abrams & Challenger would have faired had Iraq employed the latest Russian vehicles with well-trained crews & equivalent air cover, except of course it would never have happened without complete air superiority on the part of the Alliance. I'm not a modern vehicle buff, but I hope the Chally is a lot more reliable than some of the old Chieftains were! The strength of the Eastern bloc tanks was that they could be fixed by a local blacksmith & would endure the "maintenance" routines undertaken by 3rd World countries - this is a not inconsiderable advantage when the chips are down.
As for crew training, one only has to look back to the Arab-Israeli conflicts to see that a well-motivated & trained crew can offset to some extent the obsolescence of their equipment, after all the Israelis never used Chieftains, but their (obsolete at the time) Centurions were more than a match for the latest Soviet kit in Egyptian hands. Since the Cent or a derivative is still in service somewhere in the world, & it was really the worlds first MBT, it would make my list on it's history alone, but I don't know which position. As for the rest, perm any from Chally, Abrams, Leclerc, T80, Merkava, Leopard etc dependant on your country of origin.

A useful site to look at is http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html.
As in all weapons systems, each of the MBTs have strengths and weaknesses; all are highly developed and have been continually improved
Still! If there has to be a winner...

My pick for best all round MBT would be the Leopard 2A6; it has protection, punch and mobility; the chassis has been adapted for lots of other roles, simplifying supply lines; multi-fuel engine (again, simplifies supply); it's been adopted by several countries, meaning greater user input on possible improvements.

Not to upset anyone with this question, but if the modern tanks are fairly well matched, which armed service has the 'best ' tankers. To clarify, who spends the most time in training, whose training is the most realistic, who has the most time in service, time in combat, etc...?

Considering that most western armies are a fraction of the size of US forces and that the US has been in constant war for half a decade, we've got a lot of war veterans with combat experience. The downside is that large scale (brigade level) training is not conducted as frequently as it is during peacetime due to operational constraints.

Most large western countries have an army smaller than a US corps. Australia has an army roughly the size of a US division. Canada's army is roughly the same size as Australia. Our active army forces number over 10 divisions and several corps.

In my humble opinion.... I like the M60A1...yes its and old tank but it just looks tough...in no order M1A1, T72, T55, The british Challenger and the Leopard ahh yes the Germans and their love of Cats....