Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Who's Got the Best Tank?
James Dunnigan    1/8/2004 10:14:03 PM

Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.

But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.

The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.

Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.

Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.

Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.

Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.

Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.

Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and

 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
gf0012-aus    Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/10/2004 3:13:59 AM
Well this will be interesting. I'm waiting to see how soon the LecLerc, Arjun and Al-Khalid fans start gathering at the front door to lynch you...
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/11/2004 9:21:58 PM
When has the M-1 had more combat experience than the Challenger? As far as I know they have both only fought in the Gulf wars. Anyone know any others?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/13/2004 12:10:24 AM
Nod, maybe it refers to accumulated hours in type, rather than just platform participation..
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/14/2004 3:31:58 AM
As all the major tanks - and most other vehikles - are the product of the cold war scenario, they were developed for that scenario. In consequence they are sub-optimal for the present conditions. Typically there is not much to choose from in combat terms - at least between the top ones. Their characteristics in terms of the supply and maintainence they differ widely. To evaluate quality (and price) it is nescessary to formulate criteria - it is not enough to say a "not-cold-war scenario" Still even if f.i. the Abrams have serious drawbacks in a present day scenario, it might be cheaper to keep them, if the capitalised running cost of a supply and maintainence are lower than the price of a new tank (as a first approximation) Thirdly: It is doubtfull wether a comparison is relevant for a major MBT fleet, as a successor takes years to develop, build and make operationel. In other words: Is reequipment an option at all due to mere physical restrictions??
 
Quote    Reply

Merkava    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/15/2004 3:56:59 AM
with all do respect, you should read some more information about the merkava 4 and decide who has the best tank....
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Who's Got the Best Tank? - Merkava   1/15/2004 7:13:03 PM
I think you'll find that there is general concensus that the Merkava is the ideal tank for it's likely theatre of operations that it was designed for. I can tell you why it is not suitable for some theatres and why it was never a contender in some armies - but that gets back to the issue of selecting a tank platform that is the most comfortable fit in a countries armoured mix, its logistics issues, defensive armour, horsepower, geographical impositions and warfighting doctrine. Its why there is a tendency for some to get into the argument that "my tank is better than yours" Thats why governments have "Tender Evaluation Teams" comprised of warfighters and beancounters. One size doesn't fit all.
 
Quote    Reply

agent_of_change    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/16/2004 1:41:15 PM
The Israeli Merkava gets my vote... I believe that the M-1 has more technological tricks, but the Merkava has a better basic design. Reasons: 1) If Israel loses a war, they are history. This provides great impetus to design the absolute best with no compromises for "political realities." 2) The Israelies do not need their tanks to be transportable to other theatres. This allowed them to largely ignore weight & size restrictions as they apply to aircraft and/or rail transport. 3) They had tank intensive combat operations in during the Merkava's design period. 4) The Merkava was designed in such a way as to increase risk of mobility kill to reduce risk of mission kill. Or in other words, the Merkava can be imobilized but continue to provide fire support from a hit that would kill most other tanks. 5) Extra ammo storage provided 6) Rapid reload under fire
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Who's Got the Best Tank? - agent_of_change    1/16/2004 6:45:55 PM
Hence the term "best in theatre" for what it was designed to do. Stick the Merkava in Southern Germany or across the lush billiard ball table demographic features of Denmark, or in a a greenlaning area of England, and I'll start putting my money on other tanks thanks. 1) applies to every other country that is part of a war prosecution event 2) what pray tell with wings can Israel fit a merkava into? 3) and the US and Russia were not engaged in using any tanks for a variety of battles since 1945? 4) and no other tank can take a hit and keep on shooting? (I can see the M1aX and Challenger advocates getting in on this one) 5) always a good thing - but is it disproportionately unique to the Merkava 6) well, again the rates of fire of the Merkava are nothing unique, look at its main armament, and then have a look at how many other main battle tanks are using the same weapon. (is it a more rapid reload as the loaders are lined in teflon? An excellent tank - but not an uber tank.
 
Quote    Reply

AJ    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   1/26/2004 12:10:06 PM
Hello Mister Dunnigan first, let me thank you for all you did for the wargame community. But with all the respect I owe you, there are some points I have to disagree with you. - Firstly, just a formal precision, the Leclerc AMX MBT name has to be written "Leclerc" and not "LeClerc" as it seems to be something commonly seen in the anglo-saxon countries. Leclerc is the name of WW2 French general (post-mortem Field Marshall) you certainely know, as Philippe de Hautecloque aka Leclerc is the one that disembarked in Cherbourg and took part to Cobra, being one of the allied western exploitation force pool, the 2nd FF armored division he commanded having the privilege (thanks to the SHAAF plans) to enter and liberate insurrectional Paris in late August. - Secondly, it is commonly aknowledged that the Leclerc is having the most advanced fire control/electronic of all its western MBT counterparts. Regularly opposed to M1s and Leos during test sessions or sale competitions, the Leclerc has proven to have a computering roughly equal to the Leo and the M1's one. The initial lack of training of the crews, due to the recent release of the first serial units now half a dozen years ago, is now history. The computering of the Type 90 is not known from me - I suppose it is known from you as Leclerc's, as you draw a conclusion from the comparison, am I right? Is this computering is test-proven with other MBT units during international meetings or contest, or is it a pure supposition? - About "crews that have been longer together", can you explain to me what is the difference between a Japanese crew converting from Type 64 to Type 90, and a French one converting from AMX-30 to Leclerc? - One more thing, can you tell me if there is a rationnal reason why you should be more afraid of a Japanese crew than of a French one, or is it simply your inner feeling? If so, do you thing it constitutes a valid argument de your article? - The Leclerc is also known to be the fastest and the most mobile of all the tanks presented - apart from the fact that he is also the most compact/the smallest of the "Western" tanks (apart from the Type 88) - such a mobility was also a reason to the improving of the fire system, which had to be adapted to its highly-strung behaviour. But I suppose the mobility didn't enter in account, as the Challenger was judged apart from its poor speed and obstacle-crossing abilities (as the Greek official MBT contest shew it). Was it voluntary from you or did you simply forget? - About the Korean "Baby M1", please tell me if I'm wrong, but how can you expect a 51 tons MBT to share the same abilities and do the same job than his 70 tons elder brother? Ive got nothing against my Korean friends, but calling Type 88/120 simply "baby M1" hides a little bit the fact that, without beating about the bush, Type 88 is a lightered/downgraded version of the M1, that never beneficiated of the equivalent of the updates M1A2 received for its part. Type 88/120 is just some years old - do you recall that in the nineties, the main gun of the Type 88 was indeed a 105mm? Type 88 is not really a 10 year- olded concept, but rather in fact a unit comparable to the Improved M1, or the M1A1 both in terms of survavibility, electronics and firepower. In my mind, it can't be compared with latest generation products such as Type 90, Merkava 4 or Leclerc, don't you think so? - Im surprised to see other modern tanks, such as the Italian Ariete, not present in your article. Is there a reason to that? - One last thing: did you take a look at the official results of the selling contests (such as the greek competition some years ago, as mentionned just over), which always end with a traditionnal ranking? Just take a look at this article - it is also interesting in the Leo vs M1 perspective --------------------- The winner of the Greek Main Battle Tank (MBT) competition is expected to be announced in August this year but results of competition trials obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly have placed the German-made Leopard 2A5 in pole position. The first batch of MBTs will be for 250 vehicles plus variants. Between October and December 1998 six MBTs carried out extensive firepower and mobility trials in Greece manned by Greek Army crews. These were the French Giat Industries Leclerc; German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5 in latest Swedish Strv 122 configuration; Russian Omsk Machine Construction Plant T-80U; Ukrainian Malyshev Plant T-84; UK Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2E; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams. Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19% The Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during hunter/killer target engagements. The German 1,500hp MTU EuroPowerPack was f
 
Quote    Reply

Couac_Attack    RE:Who's Got the Best Tank?   2/1/2004 7:02:53 PM
euhh .. Sorry im a little tired to developp so i will just give my rating today, and developp and other day. 1rst-Leclerc ( tank killer ) 2nd-Leo2A6 3rd-Chall2 4rth-Leo2A5 5th-M1A2 6th-dont know between Type 90 and Merkarva4, i dojnt know well the japanese tank, and i dont like much the deffensive aspect of the Merkarva even if its has got many prooven qualities.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics