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
cerbere       3/23/2011 2:32:06 PM
I agree with most of your statement at least regarding  the Leclerc, you mention 1920's i think its what when the socialist started to be in power we can see where they took us :) , the s35 was a excellent medium tank for that time but like i said the TC had to do multiple job at once ( and the fact that it was difficult to maintain, slow and expensive to build etc ...), the design in itself was good (beside the turret, the fact that unbutonned the back was fully open) the armor was very good for that time (1 account mention a s35 being hit 144 times and being able to come back, i will find the link if you are interested), now about WWII and the battle of France, one book will be interesting for you(as you like to read on theses matters) the french paradox, it explain the why this battle was lost and who made it happen clearly,  for the amx13 well it might have been a light tank but still did its job same with amx30 good or not in your eyes it did what it was built for nothing more nothing less, not trying to pretend it was the best thing ever just it did get the job done, you are right regarding the CS but its the same for everyone, i do tend to have a huge issue with the separated cell, now a good source for the WWII tank will be battleground europe, I know its a game but the dev did push the realism to the maximum regarding the differents weapons of that time, back to the Leclerc not sure what is the issue for this tank beside for you guy that its french, I will say wait and see, at some point this tank will be engaged but still against what? t55, t64, t72? is a export and old version of russian tank suppose to be able to hold their ground against any modern western tank? I really dont think so and by this i mean is it supposed to be a good testbed for theses beasts?
Quote    Reply

cerbere       3/23/2011 2:36:09 PM
ROfl i forgot about bw and fs, ok i will not pretend to have a rafale with the deathstar ray in it (could it be?!) i cannot pretend to know better than any of theses 3 on a lot of technical matter, I am good in regard to infantry and weapons used but above this, i.e: tank, plane and whatnot i can only read and try to learn a bit from here but it get confusing by the bias some have. I do recall we argued for a bit regarding Legion training a while back
Quote    Reply

cerbere       3/23/2011 2:40:31 PM
Argh forgot about the WWI tank the mark IV (if i recall the name right) was alright the renault was better ... for that time, like i said they were getting the job done as long as it does, i dont see any problem "chest thumping mode on" it was renault that invented a features that all tanks still use today and the brits didn't have "chest thumping mode off" so that's probably why the US army did use the french tanks, hmm 3 comments in 10 mn that's more I ever written on this site in 5 years.
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Human factors Situational awareness.   3/24/2011 2:13:09 AM

kenshoaski, please argument, this kind of comment are useless unless you can back your claim, with something intelligent ...

Herald you say the french were/are not successful with their tank, well WWI french tank were good enough for the US army; S35, B1Bis for WWII were efficient as well but not in number nor employed "correctly" (B1 had a major flaw on the left side, S35 was hard to kill and of course the 1 man turret, no radio etc ...), AMX13 was employed by Israel during the 60's/70's wars and they didn't complain much about it(didn't they got a long range kill with it?) AMX30 did its job during GW1 and I tend to think a tank is the best platform for a 20 mm gun on the side note, the Leclerc should be on par with the others models mentioned above, I do not say it's the best nor will I say the merkava or M1 are best as well, like it has been said numerous time here the crew will make the difference if they know perfectly the tool they are using and as long as it fit the country's tactic. So let's see when it will see combat how it will fare, still if it is in Libya the tank encountered will be t72 (a few) t55(a bit more) and their crew not trained like their western counterpart you will still say that it is crap, not matter how good it might be, sometime i wonder if you get paid to display your dislike ( or should i say rage or hate?!) of french, french army and/or french hardware ...

1. WW I was at the beginning of the learning curve. Nobody knew how to design or build a decent tank or use it. The best attempt of the era was the Italian Fiat 2000 
2. I would say that the FT-17 two man tank side-tracked France's tank development and actually took them away from a correct Human factors design path. Humans have to serve the gun, drive the tank and look around for threats. At the least that means THREE men with one man free to look around to tell the gunner what to shoot and the driver where to steer.
3. The French did have three and four and even five man tanks, but they kept making the tank commander the gunner in the 1930s. He, the commander, could not pay attention to what was the fight outside the tank.  That was a serious design mistake. The French also did not equip a tank with a set of radios and tank intercoms that were effective so that the crew could share information among themselves, and talk to other tanks. Half of a tank's fighting ability is the crew talking to each other, friendly tanks, artillery, and their own friendly aircraft AND ESPECIALLY THE INFANTRY. The French lost in 1940 because of that communications and Human factors failure. They had some later WW II experience with successful American three man in the turret tanks, but they did not adopt the US design and combat practice they learned when they returned to the auto-loader as a manpower savings solution. The French army is plagued in this mistake that they trust their own failed combat experience too much and do not learn from others' mistakes.               
3. The AMX-13 is properly a tank destroyer and is NOT a real tank. I would hesitate to try to use it as a tank .Its very troublesome gun, defective auto-loader, and clumsy crew distribution, etc., have ALL come under savage Israeli criticism after they used it in battle. The Israelis, actually at that time, preferred their French modified  Super Shermans because the crews had better external situational awareness and could use their ISHERS offensively successfully, even against the eras very successful T-55s. The modifications (new gun and optics) did not change the Super Sherman American pattern internal crew layout at all.
4. The Americans by the way learned that pattern from British mistakes made in 1939-1942. At that time the Britisb passed their lessons that the Germans taught them on to the US Army. Arrogance is DEADLY when the guys you fight are just so much better at it then you are. The Germans were the best tank users, period. The British were next (Crusader, Citadel, the Cauldron, my god, GOODWOOD and MARKET GARDEN! showed how bad they still were at it in 1944.) the Americans and the Russians are next (toss up, Bulge and Bagration showed some real stinker tactics for each as late as 1944-45) and who was dead last in WW II tank warfare? It was not Japan or Italy. It was Quote    Reply

cerbere       3/30/2011 4:24:10 PM
Yes they all had defect, but the s35 was considered at that time the best medium tank will the b1 bis was just the biggest, now because of their defect it will make them "not good" at best in our eyes today, but at that time not really, or did the tiger was not a efficient tank in combat just because his transmission crapped out 9 out of 10 times? The sherman was considered a great tank, but its not its quality that helped against germany, but its sheer number in europe, the only thing i am saying is no matter their defect each tank have been successful at some point, the main issue with the french tank i mentioned were the way they were employed (infantery support instead of using them as a different army branch like the german), you cant expect (at that time) a tank to do 200 km back and forth without maintenance and being able to fight efficiently (gembloux gap) if the right support and tactic the outcome might have been sightly different (not talking about the air cover or the AA extremely limited for the 1st army (24 recon planes, no fighters, 12 AA guns ...)), one last thing, s35 and tiger have 1 thing in common the pricetag   and the difficulty for each to be built. my 2 cents.
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    obviosly i have missed something here   4/1/2011 1:26:59 PM

TO be clear my list based of facts is:

Leclerc, STR122, Leopard 2 A6, Japanese T90, M1A2, Challenger 2, Merkava MK4, M1A1, T80.This is based of effective firepower, effective mobility and effective survivability.And not a supposed bias to a supposed combat experience vs T55.

Full of shitt as usual.  The LeClerc or whatever it is?  It's made in France..  That's all I need to know. 

there is absolutely nothing on this earth at the present time that could convince me that the Leclerc is a better tank than its modern contemporise in other armies, certainly this list provided above that places the Leclerc as leading the pack is false and based solely upon baseless assumption and/or extensive patriotic bias (but you seem to find that with the French and their military tech just look at the number of Rafale pages on here) anyway i digress. The Leclerc has nothing unique about it that would convince me that it is the best tank on the field today. Firstly and somewhat crucially it has no field experience whatsoever. Yes it is fairly up to date and i would hope so too, so that?s nothing to shout about. In terms of firepower, again nothing has been proved about it and the use of an autoloader is a mistake in my opinion if not in terms of reliability then in terms of increased crew fatigue and general lack of flexibility and increased complexity.

Now there seems to be a general consensus (one that i have contributed too and thoroughly agree with myself) that out of any MBT mentioned on here the Challenger 2 is the best as it were. Each tank has its own party piece, an example if i may. the Challenger is an excellent tank in almost every aspect, it excels however in its protection, similar things can be said of the Abram?s, good levels of protection, high tech electronic suites its party piece its is speed (on road i may note, again there is a consensus, well no one has disputed the claim so far that due to its hydro pneumatic suspension the Challenger is the fastest off road tank in the world).  Personally i have never experienced anyone other than a French man speak highly of the Leclerc?s armour, and claim it to be some unique world beating formula. i am sure it is sufficient, but i would hazard to call it the best.


so in general summary the complete use of unsubstantiated assumption concerning the leclerc has actually quite annoyed me as whoever compiled the so called list (and i use the term lightly) seemed to be making their claim in all seriousness, the naivety or ignorance or whatever you may call it actually annoys me somewhat, or am i just being oversensitive?


Quote    Reply

JTR~~    misquote   4/1/2011 1:36:54 PM

TO be clear my list based of facts is:

Leclerc, STR122, Leopard 2 A6, Japanese T90, M1A2, Challenger 2, Merkava MK4, M1A1, T80.This is based of effective firepower, effective mobility and effective survivability.And not a supposed bias to a supposed combat experience vs T55.

Full of shitt as usual.  The LeClerc or whatever it is?  It's made in France..  That's all I need to know. 

"Now there seems to be a general consensus (one that i have contributed too and thoroughly agree with myself) that out of any MBT mentioned on here the Challenger 2 is the best as it were. " 


it was meant to say best in terms of protection as that is what i was moving to address in that particular paragraph. but also despite the misquote it is my personal belief that one for one the Challenger is the best tank fielded today and if it were not for the many Abrams tanks that have been produced (the lack of numbers is the one serious let down for the Challenger) i feel that the Chally would be the undisputed best in all terms and unlike the Leclerc the Chally has real, hard and substantiated evidence and EXPERIENCE to support my claims, as does the Abrams for all those on here who follow the Abrams camp

Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6