Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: top 10 tanks in the world!!!
Hong-Xing    8/12/2003 9:07:05 AM
i think it would be this t-90 (rus) m1a2 (usa) t-98 (chi) m1a1 (usa) Challenger 2 (bri) t-95 black hawk (rus) al khalid (chi) merkeva (bra) arjun (ind) t-90||| (chi)
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Worcester    RE:top 10 tanks: WAR WINNERS:Abrams/Challenger: pedigree counts   11/19/2003 5:40:12 PM
Good point 6pack! War is the ultimate field test. The last two tanks were not meant to be "fair" PLEASE NOTE couac: In 1967 and 1973 Israel beat Syria and Egypt who had more tanks, of the most modern Soviet designs and with Soviet advisors (even for their airforces). Israel used the Brit Centurion (and small numbers of "Chieftain") the direct predecessors of Challenger and the design insiration for Abrams. Pedigree and breeding count especially on a battlefield.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:top 10 tanks: WAR WINNERS:Abrams/Challenger: pedigree counts   11/19/2003 6:06:45 PM
Thats not to say they are the absolute best. Lets not talk about tanks for minute. Lets say Device (A) has been used in the last couple wars and has proven to be very effective and safe on top of that. We also have device (B) that on paper and even in field tests appears to work as well or better than device. As a troop, you'd have trouble convincing me to "try" device B. I think a lot of the resistence to the Leclerc and to a certain degree the Leo is that for many people - the proof is in the doing. Again thats not making any statement about their capabilities... its just that if it's shown they can do it.. people beleive it. Prior to the first Gulf War... I don't think anyone was "really" sure how well the Technology over Numbers was really gonna work. There were plenty of people that were vaery dubious of the M1's abilities....
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:top 10 tanks:MikkoLn   11/19/2003 6:09:05 PM
You suggest the tired old idea that Russian tanks are better than they appear because (a) they are crewed by incompetents or (b) they didn't have the latest model. (1) In 1967-73 the Egyptian army was VERY well trained and equipped as a result of their earlier humiliation during Israel's war of Independence and their tank crews extremely motivated - I know because I trained with them and they were REALLY keen to kick the "Zionists" into the sea. DON'T FORGET, the Egyptians drove the Israeli's halfway across Sinai and the Syrians almost retook Golan. (2) Egypt and Syria had the latest Soviet equipment. If it performs poorly, the Russians (like anyone else) will say they have something better "at home". These were viewed by the Russians and the West as very realistic equipment tests which resulted in many improvements. MikkoLn: To make YOUR case, YOU have to prove that Russian designs have improved FASTER than US/UK design since the mid-1970's (or Soviet collapse) and is now SUPERIOR to Abrams/ Challenger. You cannot just claim "it's not fair" because the Iraqi's were imcompetent.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:top 10 tanks: WAR WINNERS:Abrams/Challenger: pedigree-6pack   11/19/2003 6:30:00 PM
Good points 6pack. Must keep an open mind and we forget all Abrams engine worries. As you say, if any tanker had a choice you'd use the latest model of the proven design. This tends to work because the technology lead (as in aircraft) becomes so great that everyone else tries to play catch-up; until there is a revolutionary change. But tank development has been evolutionary and those who use them get the first benefits of experience. The revolution may be an energy cannon, but only the US and UK are working on this so.... I guess one of my concerns is that the Europeans (I exclude the Brits) NEVER have tech leadership - they try for "better value" ("cheaper") and get upset when told it's not the best. e.g. Neither Leo nor LeClerc have digital Situational Awareness so while they're still trying to tell friend from foe...."shot!", "up!", "away!".... And look at the Euro Trigat screw-up; out-of-date and overpriced - the Brits walked away in 1990 and bought Javelins; even the Dutch left leaving the French and Germans spending on an obsolete system. Even with the most open mind, the technology lag and the lack of combat testing makes me wary of Euroland systems.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:top 10 tanks:Worchester   11/19/2003 9:44:03 PM
Your overall assessment seems good, but just a slight correction- ..DON''T FORGET, the Egyptians drove the Israeli''s halfway across Sinai ... The actual penetration at the DEEPEST was barely 15 km across the Canal, generally stopping at the north-south "Artillery Road". Since al-Arish on the northern coast of the Sinai is about 160 miles from the Canal, halfway is 80 km, HARDLY in line with your assertion. THe Canal crossing was a crossing, gain some territory, and hold operation, not a "kick your butt halfway up Sinai" operation. swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:top 10 tanks:MikkoLn   11/20/2003 5:29:47 AM
One thing I also wrote, and you seem to completely forgot, is that russian and western tanks are built to fit very different specifications. Like I said, western equipment is built to be TD's and are supposed to fare better in one-to-one tank engagements. If purely that's the criteria for the best tank, then, like I've said in many other discussions before, we have nothing to argue about. Soviet tanks were supposed to be used en masse with armoured infantry backup against all kinds of opponents, engaging armour has been since WWII very much a secondary developement specification for them if compared with NATO. Soviet tank won't fit in western role as well as western tank (and vice versa). Their strenghts are elsewhere - in all target engagement capability and versaility - not in FC or gun a/t power. Yes, I said russian tanks have been mainly used by poor crews, but, with the very important point that their enemies have been still somewhat superior. If we look closer at the Syrian drive to Golan for example, Syrians were, as you mentioned, highly motivated and crack troops and very close in achieving a strategically extremely important victory even if they were in a way defeated in a single battle. Valley of Tears only proved very much the point that Isreali crews and tactics, opted for defeating attacking armour, can deliver much damage to the attacking enemy at the opening stages, no matter who's in the receiving end. Heck, they even kicked Patton ass hard with AMX13's, does that make the French light tanks better than long lived US MBT series to you? In wars Israel has participated, my very firm opinion is that it has been first and foremost the crews, leadership and tactics that have made the day, not the equipment. The question is not about that Syrians and Egyptians were bad as tank crew members. It's a question about Israelis being still better. Same thing was present when US/UK drove towards Germany in 1944/45. German outnumbered StuG troops made western allies sometimes to look ridiculously bad, but not because their equipment was significantly better, not because their enemy crews were sub-standard or bad. "MikkoLn: To make YOUR case, YOU have to prove that Russian designs have improved FASTER than US/UK design since the mid-1970's (or Soviet collapse) and is now SUPERIOR to Abrams/ Challenger. You cannot just claim "it's not fair" because the Iraqi's were imcompetent. " How come I have to prove that? T62 was a great disappointment, as we all know, and even 40's vintage T54/55 was in many ways superior. These were the types mainly used by Egypt/Syria. The newest at that time was T64, a vastly improved design. 70's was a greatest time for soviet armour, as they got T72/T80 with west still developing their own new projects. Before that, they were basicly in to the 40/50's technology due to the failure of T62. Current soviet armour won't propably do as well as western ones in tank vs. tank battles under any circumstances. But, like I asked in the beginning, do they have to?
 
Quote    Reply

crna_zvezda    RE:top 10 tanks:MikkoLn   11/20/2003 5:38:27 AM
yes you can! I mean iraq was turkey shooting, the guys were totally inept. I have read Us reports that they engaged Us M1 with APEARS rounds! Some crews missed their target at ridicoulous ranges. Even with the best tank at the world such crews will be beaten! Design has litle to do when u re digged in expecting the americans to shoot you. Again the doctrine rather than the design should be important because the design is made on a doctrine. On europeans lagging behind US/UK , well this point should be reviewed when the european armament agency will be set and running (in some five years time. All current projects are under serious threat as they are incompatible with future euro defence force.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:top 10 tanks:MikkoLn   11/20/2003 6:28:45 AM
>>yes you can! I mean iraq was turkey shooting, the guys were totally inept.<< One lesson that seems to have emerged in the last fifty years is that no one ever lost money betting on Arab military incompetence.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:top 10 tanks:Aarb incompetence....wrong   11/20/2003 9:15:12 AM
The Arab "incompetence" in 1973 was sufficient for the Israeli government to fire Gen Moshe Dayan as Def Minister
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:top 10 tanks:Aarb incompetence....wrong   11/20/2003 10:36:33 AM
>>The Arab "incompetence" in 1973 was sufficient for the Israeli government to fire Gen Moshe Dayan as Def Minister << After years of deliberate preparation by both Egypt and Syria how well did 73 go for them? Egypt meticulously rehearsed, and carried out well, their assault crossing of the canal. As soon as they attempted to move forward past their rehearsed script they were mauled by a numerically inferior force which then subsequently invaded Egypt across the canal. The Syrian drive, with, again, numerical superiority and massive artillery superiority completely ran out of steam in what? 48 hours? At which point they were on the defensive and likewise faced invasion by IDF forces. Israel may have been startled and shocked by the Arab performance in the 73 War, but any competent opponent with the advantages they had should have plowed Israel under, or at least have been able to make some credible initial gains (i.e. seize the Golan on the Syrian front) and hold them.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy