What are the best tanks and why? (No, this is not a Who's is better question at all)

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: What are the best tanks and why? (No, this is not a Who's is better question at all)
GOP 9/3/2005 5:01:53 PM

Now, I do not want to get into any 'my nations tank is better than your nations tank'...because if we do that, we just waste time. This is a serious question about the best tanks in the world and why, and who operates them. So, here are the rules: 1) You don't add a opinion about another tank, just the tanks you think are the best. 2) There is no name calling 3) Don't say that GOP is trying to cause trouble --------------------------------------------------- Here are the tanks that I know about, that I have heard are very good (in no particular order_ ChallyII Abrams M1a2 Leclerq Leopard Merkava

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Privateer 1/19/2011 2:11:29 PM

JTR, sorry to say that but you're flat out wrong when claiming that the M1A2 or Challenger 2 draw from a wealth of combat and design experience drawn from the predecessor models.

Do you actually know when the development of the M1A2 or Challenger 2 started? The plans for the Challenger 2, M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 were already on the table in the 1980s. The nine Challenger 2 prototypes were completed by September 1990, and the first of five M1A2 pilot vehicles were delivered in March 1992. The M1 and Challenger 1 also didn't participate in any other wars prior to GW2. The abovementioned dates make it clear that the developers simply couldn't draw a wealth of experience from limited actual combat like GW2.

I'm not trying to degrade the M1 or Challenger 1 in any way, but to claim that shooting up some Iraqi export-model T-72s which only had (even back then) completely obsolete ammunition, no thermal sights and crews which weren't even able to fully master the fairly basic fire-control systems of their tanks represents a serious test of tank-to-tank combat is laughable. Let's face it: neither the M1, Challenger 2, Leclerc or Leopard 2 have ever faced a modern top-of-the-line enemy tank like a current-model T-80 or T-90 with up-to-date ammuntion and a really well-trained crew in combat. It's as simple as that. That the M1, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 all have done well so far in combat is a testimony to their solid designs, but let's not overhype it, either.

Quote Reply

JFKY Privateer 1/19/2011 2:45:34 PM

Yes and no, on your post.

"Yes"-the M1a1 (120mm) was a programmed upgrade of the M-1 and I agree there's not a lot of "combat experience" in its design...

But also "No." The advantage the M1 and the Challenger have is COMBAT EXPERIENCE, over the Leopard II or the LeClerc. And by that I mean, they've been driven millions of kilometres in combat, and that means the bugs have been worked out, to me at least. All the "Who knew" statements have been worked out, "Who knew that driving 25 KpH would set up a sympathetic vibration in the Sight Unit Mounting and cause the bolts to shear off?" After all the combat time, pretty much all those "who knew" questions have been found, and answered. And that is an inestimable advantage, plus there's the advantage that you really can know the support costs of the M1....it's been supported in combat for years, now. You buy 100 M-1's you can reliably know that for every X number of combat kilometres you will need Y number of "widgets." Not an manufacturer's estimate, but real Honest to G*d numbers...it makes the M-1 a little more marketable, if you ask me.

Quote Reply

JTR~~ i admit i was a little unclear 1/19/2011 2:57:09 PM

JTR, sorry to say that but you're flat out wrong when claiming that the M1A2 or Challenger 2 draw from a wealth of combat and design experience drawn from the predecessor models.

First of all my apologies, my comments were a little unclear. When i meant that the Chally and M1 were able to draw from a wealth of combat experience i was not referring generally to the overall design of the tank itself. Merely that many of the systems that were in place were either drawn directly from or were updated superior versions of those that had served in the previous model. As such there would have been some degree of confidence in the designs as they would have realised that similar components had performed outstandingly in the older models. Also experience from the previous models has been used with the improvement and modernisation programs on the newer vehicles so such input was not necessarily limited to the design stages.

"Represents a serious test of tank-to-tank combat is laughable"

Agreed here, the challenges (or lack thereof) faced in fighting the T 72s made the combat a very one sided affair. i may not even be so much down to the fact that the T 72s were of poor quality, i am sure that there was some variation in the field, and quite a number from accounts that i have read about were in fact crewed by relatively well experienced, motivated and highly determined crews, it may have rather have been that regardless of the Iraqi tank quality that the sheer technology and capability gap that arose when the T 72s were faced with western tanks may have made the quality of the Iraqi equipment seem poorer than it actually may have been in reality. however while not a strenuous test of either the M1 or the Challenger's abilities is was tank to tank combat nonetheless no matter what spin is put on it, by the standards of most modern MBTs (the most notable exception would be the Merkava variants, but even they have only encountered counter insurgency type operations too my knowledge) which have seen little or no combat experience at all it was of a high intensity, and as i have stated these are the only two tanks of the competitors on this board to have seen such experience.

Also no apologies needed, it is beneficial to have ones mistakes pointed out, in my case I had not been clear enough hence this reply

Hope this clears things up a little

Regards JTR

Quote Reply

JTR~~ quite true JFKY 1/19/2011 3:04:37 PM

Yes and no, on your post.

"Yes"-the M1a1 (120mm) was a programmed upgrade of the M-1 and I agree there's not a lot of "combat experience" in its design...

Firstly as you have mentioned, many of the little kinks and faults have been worked out on the Chally and Abrams, there could be an unknown number of kinks as it were that exist on the Leopard no matter how small, in a combat situation they are all an inconvenience.

secondly from what i can gather form your reply you agree that the experience gained in the operation and deployment of the Challenger 1 and M1 tanks provided as i stated before in one of my previous posts invaluable experience in the development of the newer models? Or gave i misread? Certainly from my point of view the newer models have solid foundations afforded to them by through the experience gained with the previous versions I.E as you have stated and as i was attempting to state they have been able to work out many of the faults and failures in the overall design or bits of machinery some of which may have been present in the newer models, as such these problems could be fixed or accomodated for.

regards JTR

Quote Reply

Privateer JFKY 1/19/2011 3:59:37 PM

What you described in your last post is the same that has been done in heavy testing as well as countless field exercises by the Leopard 2's numerous users. 30 years of service have ironed out the mechanical bugs in the Leopard 2 the same way as in the M1 Abrams. Frankly, you don't have to go to war to prove that the antennas on your tank don't fall off as soon as you go for a little cross-country ride.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" />

Quote Reply

JFKY Oh RLY 1/19/2011 4:10:06 PM

Ask the men at Robert's Ridge as to why their satcom systems didn't work...or the USMC about how the MOLLE Pack didn't work...IN COMBAT AS OPPOSED TO TESTING AND PEACE TIME USAGE. Oh ask the French about the fusing of the Exocet or the Americans about their magnetic exploder pistol on their torpedoes....

All examples of real-world systems that did NOT work, in war, even though they passed their peacetime tests....

DOING IT, as opposed to PRACTICING do it, is very different, and the M1 has been "doing it" for years now, in all climes, and terrains...

This isn't some claim that the Leo II "sucks" or the French have "LeCluck"...please let me be clear...my point is, that the Leo 2 and LeClerc have NOT been put to the test in the same way the M-1 has...the M-1 has HISTORY, the LeClerc has CLAIMS...now, as one pro athlete said, "It ain't bragging if you can do it", those claims may be accurate, but they will remain claims UNTIL you put the vehicle into the field, for real. And it is on that front the M-1 has an advantage....Challenger II as well, but they aren't for sale, AFAIK.

Quote Reply

Privateer 1/19/2011 5:32:46 PM

Look, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. If you believe that the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 have an advantage because they undoubtedly have seen some more "action" in the past that's fine with me. In my opinion that isn't really conclusive, though. Sure, the story about that Challenger 2 surviving hits from numerous RPGs and a Milan ATGM during Operation Telic in 2003 sounds great and underlines the fact that this tank is one tough customer, but does it prove the Challenger 2's superiority in comparison to its peers? I hardly think so. Maybe an M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 or Leclerc would have done equally, who knows?

The Canadian and Danish Leopard 2s have seen some very serious action in Afghanistan as well, survived heavy IEDs and whatnot, and provided the required fire support to the troops. The lessons learned are being reflected in improvements, just like in case of the M1 Abrams or the Challenger 2. Just look at the set of upgrades implemented on the Leopard 2A7 proposal or the new Canadian Leopard 2A4M in comparison to the loaned Leopard 2A6M, like the heavy passive armor for the sides of the turret and hull instead of bar armor and the pioneer equipment interface.

Frankly, marketing is quick to label a weapon systems as "combat proven" in order to boost its sales. I shudder at the thought that those in charge would order something because of an add in a military magazine.

BTW: the manufacturers of the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 of course tried to sell their tanks in past, and they also managed some export sales.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 1/19/2011 6:31:35 PM

Thanks for your comment JTR.

JTR, sorry to say that but you're flat out wrong when claiming that the M1A2 or Challenger 2 draw from a wealth of combat and design experience drawn from the predecessor models.

...

Good point, but I've seen arguments elsewhere that the combat they went up against wasn't just 'obsolete T-72s' which also ignore all the other battlefield dangers they've faced, not to mention the added logistical strain.
The time they were designed is a great point in particular, but at least it proves that they are quite effective in combat even if a lack of major redesign based on combat might or might not have happened. Anyway I know very little about such design modifications, but I've heard about some modifications and I'm sure they've built on their lessons.

I might also add though, that perhaps the Germans and others heard and modified their tanks as well? Regardless first-hand knowledge is usually far superior.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 1/19/2011 6:47:28 PM

Just look at the set of upgrades implemented on the Leopard 2A7 proposal or the new Canadian Leopard 2A4M in comparison to the loaned Leopard 2A6M, like the heavy passive armor for the sides of the turret and hull instead of bar armor and the pioneer equipment interface.

You're probably largely right that the Leapord has seen enough combat too, but I think the GWI and GWII was still more intense in the conventional sense than Afghanistan.

Anyway you've convinced me a long part of the way.

Too bad our societies would likely have to become quite militaristic in order to sacrifice a few lives to improve these tanks in combat against each other further... though unmanned technologies are improving at a steady clip. It'll be interesting to see first rate tanks slug it out when and if that time comes... though I suspect it will be difficult to access the full worth of the material, just as it is with air shows these days, especially if they aren't done completely live. :D (in which case its even more likely to be confidential anyway I suppose ^^)

Just some musings~

JYSCG

Quote Reply

heraldabc I go with Privateer here. 1/19/2011 8:12:47 PM

Its not that you need combat to show you what falls off. Its combat that shows you that you screwed up your test program.

I am not a tank expert.

But I do know something about guided weapons and the methods to employ them.

The Mark 13, 14, 15 torpedoes are lessons I trot out repeatedly to show that weapon characteristics can be predicted and measured, tested and proofed, and USED with some expectations of performance in combat, provided they are reliable.

The Mark 13 torpedo (provided it worked) was a statistical 25% PK (chance to hit and detonate) from a plane as intended from its expected 1935 drop of 50 meters altitude at < 60 m/s at an interval lead not more than 30 seconds in front of a 200 meter long target, That was what the Pre WW II (Bliss Leavitt 1938) made Mark 13s actually did at Coral Sea. The Mark 13s at Midway (1939-1940 Navy builds) failed. After the Bu-Ord fix, (essentially duplicating Japanese Type 92 work from recovered Pearl Harbor duds.) the Mark 13 drop increased to 1000 meters altitude and 100+ m/s up to a minute lead from the 200 meter target. Bliss Leavitt fixed Naval Torpedo Factory quality control. There the log models worked

The Mark 14 (all Navy foul up because they botched the test program)with the defectibe Mark V exploder with the (actually working but not properly calibrated Mark VI magnetic influence feature!) based on the fouled up Navy Mark 10 ripped off from the Bliss Leavitt Mark 7 had a theoretical designed performance that was supposed to yield a PK of 30% if it worked. It never worked as the mpdel predicted. The theoretical models for velocity bands and intervals against the target set were calculated wrong. A Mark 13 sub-fired torpedo would have worked better against the target sets!

What has this to do with tanks?

Weapon system designers chose a statistical model based on accumulated data. They are not interested in the best protected or most agile, fastest, or the one with the best gun tank. They have to mix those characteristics in a stew of conflicting engine power and track or wheel carriage limits anyway (Much like the 500 second 200 kW torpedo motors the US was stuck with from the above torpedo examples limited torpedo endurance and velocity over interval). The national tank designer has to use what he knows about the way his nation fights and what that nation thinks it needs and knows from that combat history to design the tank the nation wants.

The Germans, Americans, Russians, British, and Israelis are successful tank users The French are not.

So... the Leclerc is (Russian) imitative and not original..

The Russians (until recently) relied on cheap reliable (for Russians that means it lasts until it is hit) easy to mass produce tanks that work well with hordes of infantry. The gun is good enough to deal with almost 90% of what it meets. The armor is good enough to force a Western tank to waste a HV round on it and aside from that, it isd as small and as light as possible to take the low flotation and rotten track obstacle terrain that is Russia. The engine has to work in hot and cold conditions, but the overriding characteristics are simple and cheap.

To simplify somewhat.

Merkava-armored self propelled pillbox. (Chieftain influence. it worked well in the 72 War and the Israelis are nuts about crew survival uber alles).

The Challenger is all about what the British learned in WW II. They aren't very good in a mobile tank battle at all , but they are fearsome in a combined arms position defense and the slow infantry assault (el Alamein Lesson). All around protection, the most powerful dual purpose gun, and crew survival are paramount, since there are never going to be many British tanks. Mobility suffers somewhat.

Germans and Americans from what I can see, insist on cross country mobility and sacrifice some side and rear protection for mobile warfare. They emphasize the best frontal arc protection and the best anti-tank gun they can. that was the result of their own WW II "blitzkrieg" experience, although it has a healthy dose of German tank as sxccessful antitank weapon and American tank destroyer failure as an anti-tank weapon to reach similar results.

That i

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT