Best main battle Tank In the world?

Originally posted by irontyrant
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Please get you facts straight about the two tanks you mentioned. Even the basic model of the T-72 has considerably better armor protection than the T-62. The T-72 is a fine and adaptable MBT hence its continuing use by the Russians in conjunction with the T-80 and T90. The T-62 was a marginal,and unsuccessful design that was actually not much of an improvement over the T54/55 that is was supposed to replace. The T-62 had extremely poor hull side/rear and deck armor. The Russians were not to keen on this tank and in fact in its first combat use against the Chinese it fared poorly. It was seriously outmatched by contemporary Western designs and was too expensive for Soviet client's to want to invest in.

I don't recall mentioning the T-62?

I was talking about the T-80 being the next generation tank compared to the T-72. Geez.

reply to post by Zakka


Indeed it is. In the First Persian Gulf War M60s destroyed T-55s/T-62S/Type 59S and T-72s without loss. The M1A1 is a much superior fighting platform than the T-80. The M1A1 has superior optics,a longer ranged and more accurate main gun. Not to mention that the American arsenal provides much better rounds for the M1A1. The M1A1 has better protection as well. The T-80 has had a horrible combat record the Russians lost more T-80s in one month of fighting(225) than the U.S. lost (M1 series) in 8 years in Iraq. The T-80 is so bad that the Russians are trying to replace it with the T-90. Later model T-72s are much better tanks than the T-80.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Please read your post again. I have a great appreciation of Russian tanks but the T-62 was a waste. The T-54/55 was the world's best MBT when it was introduced. The T-62 was not. The T-64, was awesome. It was much better than other tanks of its era.

Originally posted by Zakka
Simple question really, just wanted your opinions as I don't think there Is an actual "best" Tank, all have advantages and dis-advantages over others.

Being British, I'm going down the biass route lol.
The Challanger 2.
Fastest Tank on rough terrain In the world.
Rifled-barrel for accuracy.
It also holds the record for Tank to Tank kill, when In the Gulf war In 1992, an Iraqi T-72 was spotted 3 miles away and was taken out by the Challanger.

edit on 4-12-2011 by Zakka because: (no reason given)

To answer your question, the attack helicopter.

Superpowers will always need tanks while they are convinced they have air/space superiority for gound domination so I would say the west will have tanks for the next century...unless we have a permanent power cut to satellites and that's only a prob for GPS guided enemy munitions in my uneducated opinion.
But in answer to the question I think it's who ever links their tanks together better sharing real time info as a fighting unit with other weapon systems not necessarily who has the best individual tank. In my opinion that would be the U.S. and the U.K. as demonstrated over the past decade or so.

reply to post by Zakka


Although I am American and my favorite MBT is the M1A1, I agree that the Chally 2 is a great tank. It has better overall armor protection than the M1A2,even though, their protection is relatively equal across the frontal arc vs kinetic rounds. However, the Chally 2 has better flank and rear protection. The Brits learned well from World War 2. America did too. We focus more on air power. The M1 series is a great tank. The Chally 2 is better. 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. The Russians did much better than the Germans in tank design in WW II. Towards the very end of the war the Russian IS-3 was the best tank in the world. It weighed much less than the German Tiger 2 and had much better armor protection and mobility and similar if not better fire power.

reply to post by irontyrant


225 armored vehicles not T-80's,refer to FAS not wikipedia. And the main reason was its gas turbine engine and the targeting of the rear ends of the tanks that 62 T-72's/T-80's were lost in first chechen war.

Secondly soviet doctrine was a blitzkrieg Doctrine which is why all armor protection was frontal,unlike Western tanks which have all around protection.

mro.massey.ac.nz...

Check 75-76 on this issue.62 tanks lost in first month of fighting.

reply to post by Zakka

This isn't something you just give opinions on. I mean, when it comes to tanks, the statistics are clear. As of right now, the M1A2 has the best armor, a really sweet cannon, and while it isn't the fastest, it still has tons of power (A Jet engine). Also, it's fairly high-tech compared to any other tank which gives it gigantic advantages. Ever read about how the Iraq invasion went down? The Iraqi T's were embedded, waiting for the Americans. Boy must they have been surprised when the shells started to literally bounce off the armor. My personal favorite tank is the T90. But the Abrams is by far the best. It's not even a discussion. But the styling of that T90 sure looks epic. It's super fast too because it's a lightweight compared to the M1A2 and runs on Diesal.

Originally posted by irontyrant
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Please read your post again. I have a great appreciation of Russian tanks but the T-62 was a waste. The T-54/55 was the world's best MBT when it was introduced. The T-62 was not. The T-64, was awesome. It was much better than other tanks of its era.

Yeah, considering you didn't bother to quote my post from over a month ago, it took me some time to even figure out what you are referring to.

The individual capabilities of tanks during the 50s and 60s were secondary to quantity. More than 22,700 T-62s were built and deployed by Soviet and Soviet-allied forced during the early Cold War. That was the strategy behind the production of the T-62.

ludwigvonmises003-
225 armored vehicles not T-80's,refer to FAS not wikipedia. And the main reason was its gas turbine engine and the targeting of the rear ends of the tanks that 62 T-72's/T-80's were lost in first chechen war.

Aside from the fact that Chechen rebels are not pushovers, the reason I heard for this was tactical error. Apparently a commander in charge of the deployment of these tanks ordered these tanks to be loaded with fuel containing high levels of kerosene so the fuel lines wouldn't freeze up. Turns out that it also made the tanks more explosive.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Chechen rebels were mainly soviet ex-military vets under Dudayev and battle hardened Al Qaeda under Basayev and the russians were conscript teenagers.Yeltsin was a fool and moron.

reply to post by irontyrant


I agree...the T-34 was a great tank....surprised the Hell out of the Germans with it's slant armour. It was the best tank in WWII.

Now Days....Airpower whether it me Attack Chopper or an F-15E Mun Hen or a few A-!0's will destroy so many tanks in so little time that it is possible the days of the tank are ending. The U.S. is developing a new AIR/Tank...one that basicly can hover above the terrain and be so fast and mobile that another tanks ability to hit this target is almost Zero.

The advent of the Free Electron Laser will make ordinary projectile firing platforms obsolete...and these are being tested NOW. We may be in the very near future ...seeing the end of the traditional ground based tank.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by mash3d
reply to post by Zakka

 

As a former Tank commander myself define "Best"?
Best gunnery? best maintenance record? ease of operation (crew ergonomics) survivability?
There is no easy way to define best. I've seen an M1 Tank manned by two different crews on a range,
One crew did great the other couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

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

You are absolutely right. Taking all these factors you mentioned it will come down to taking out the enemy (tank).

I do not know much about modern warfare on the battlefield but is it that tanks of both sides meet eachother at the front of the war. Much like what happened in WW2?

Well if it is, maybe we should just consider well trained crews, same amount of tanks and see which tank will be "alive" at the end of the battle.

BTW....would it not be cool to have pictures of these tanks mentioned by the repliers in this thread?

Originally posted by SmashPapayaKC
I always dug the m4 sherman, of course liked the panzer IV but those are mediums tanks time for the big boys i dunno t-80 t-90 are pretty boss but i would have to say the best could be the AMX-56 Leclerc.

The brits did not call the sherman 'ronson' for nothing (alight first time) and the germans called it 'tommy cooker', the suspension on the 'easy eight' was very good for its time.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Chechen rebels were mainly soviet ex-military vets under Dudayev and battle hardened Al Qaeda under Basayev and the russians were conscript teenagers.Yeltsin was a fool and moron.

Yeltzin was a moron for securing rebellion within his own territory? It was a nationalist initiative.

Putin did not make the same mistakes the second time around. OMON/GRU brought the terrorism to the terrorists and regular separatists alike (yes, there's a difference between rebels and terrorists).

But again, the point is emphasized that the Chechens were not farmers with RPGs like in Afghanistan or Iraq. They knew how to strategize and attack armour.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Yeltsin was a moron no doubt.Buying off Dudaev would have successful.Putin implemented buying off Kadyrov.And today Chechyna is stable.Not everything requires military option.

What if I said Chechen war was a fabrication??a fake which only benefited the western elite and jewish russian mafia??

Originally posted by Zakka
Didn't the US take out 5000 Iraqi T72's with only 3000 M1 Abrams In the Gulf war without a single loss?

Sorry but that Is crazy.
Either those T72 are really crap, the M1 Is simply a monster of a Tank or the Iraqi Tank crews were a few 16yr olds with a week training.

What T-72s the Iraqi's had in 1991 were not the T-72s the Soviets were fielding at that time, and the Soviets were moving past the T-72s by then anyway. The Iraqi version was far inferior and their crews were very poorly trained compared to Soviet tank crews of that era. No comparison. Even Schwarzkopf and the other American Generals of that time said it was one thing to face Iraqis in those tanks, but they really didn't ever want to face the Soviets in a similar sized battle because it would not have been such a walk in the park. Not a good comparison.

reply to post by TranscendentSnake


The shells that you mentioned bouncing off the front of M1A1s were early 1970's Russian rounds that the Soviets stopped using in their tanks around 1972. I would hope that the M1s would be able to shrug these types of rounds off. There is some evidence that at least one MA1A was killed by an Iraqi T-72 (flank shot). Yes, I agree that the M1A2 is a fine tank,it is my favorite. However, when we are comparing tanks we need to compare apples to apples and I wouldn't put to much faith in how well the M1A1s performed against Iraqi T-72s. There is almost a 20 year technology gap between them. If the Soviets had ever pushed into Western Europe during the Cold War I think you would have seen drastically different results. The U.S. would not have had air superiority and the M1s would have been seriously out numbered to the point of ridiculousness. One on one I think the M1A1 would be more than a match for any Soviet tank. In my opinion, a fair comparison of American and Russian tech would be to take an unmodified M1A1, using rounds from the late 1980s, and have it a face a T-90 using BM-46 rounds. This round can potentially penetrate the M1A1 frontally.

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

I concede the point on the T-80's. However, the loss rate for them was still untenable. I think the Russians thought so too. They seem to phasing out the T-80s in favor of the T-72/T-90 lineage. I disagree on the point you made about Western tanks all around protection, at least from the American perspective. American tanks were designed with an emphasis on heavy armor protection in the frontal arc(particularly the turret). American tanks would hopefully be able to fight defensive actions in hull-down fighting positions which they would then abandon if things got too hot and move to the next one. There really isn't a meaningful difference in hull side or rear armor protection between Soviet/Russian and most Western designs with the possible exception of the Chally 2 it is an armored beast. I think the recent conflict in Iraq is evidence of just how weak the M1 series side armor is RPG-7s killed many M1s. If you look at the armor estimates of modern tanks and compare them with WW II tanks you can see that side/rear protection is not much better today than it was then. Some WW II guns could easily kill modern MBTs with a flank shot. I think the difference between the T-80 and the M1A1 lies in the survivability of the crew that is enhanced by the larger size of American tanks. When an M1 is penetrated there is a lot more room to dissipate the energy of the incoming round than there is in Russian designs, plus ammo storage practices make a big impact as well.

reply to post by irontyrant


room is not the issue.Ammo storage is superior in western MBT plus they have more armor on the sides and the back compared to soviet tanks.

What about the T-90 and the new Chinese variant of it? There is also an Indian variant as well.