Best Modern Tank?

According to military channel's top ten,they say Challenger.I don't know.I guess it's subjective.I would say a toss up between Challenger and Abrams.Challenger better protection,but Abrams more speed ?

John Lyle

What is the best Modern tank these days?  The Abrahms, Merkava, Challenger, Leopard, etc?

Criteria would be  Survivability, reliability, ease of maintenance, fuel use, accuracy of weapons, operational climatic conditions.

The only thing I really know about tanks is that they have tracks and carry a big gun. Oh yeh they make great modelling subjects

Also what would be the worst modern tank?

I would be hard pressed to pick between the Merkava Mk IV, Challenger II or the Abrams for the top spot because each has good marks in each of your criteria.

Worst modern tank?  Gotta be the LeClerc.  I heard it's weapon system only fires two rounds before a white flag pops out of the commander's cupola and the tank only runs in reverse...

While I'm biased, I'd say Abrams. Abrams is much faster, and if it hits you with a smoothbore round, you're screwed. The challanger is slower, bigger, and in my opinion, more likely to break down. Plus as accurate as rifled rounds are, they are lower on the damage. Really, it's a toss-up. now, if production is a factor, Abrams wins, hands down. Challanger would be facing over 20-1 odds. anyway... I'll leave it to the experts to decide!

This topic comes up quite often and always ends up being a pissing contest of national pride for each of their own tanks. 

Basically, all the contemporary NATO/Western tanks are pretty much equal to each other with minor differences between them since most were jointly developed or share parts. For example, the Abrams is pretty much equal to the British Chally 2, the Leo 2A6, the LeClerc, the STV 122, Italian Ariet, Israeli Merkava, etc.  They all use pretty much the same components and systems. 

The real factor that will make or break a tank is its crew.  A well trained crew will beat a poorly trained crew in equal tanks any day.

The Abrahms...

By the way, there is no "h" in Abrams.  It is named after GEN Creighton Abrams, a US Army tanker of WWII and Cold War fame.

Best modern tank kit is probably the Dragon M1A1 AIM and M1A2 SEP. Best European modern tank kit is probably Tamiya's Leopard 2A6. Hobby Boss made an error on the suspension of the Merkava IV or else it would have been the best Asian modern tank kit.

I thought it was the Italian Ariete jobby that would only run in reverse?

Same old tub-thumping coming up? Yawn,

Anyway it's horses for courses, & who got to spend the pennies on the shiny things! of course, we are all objective scientists & engineers here aren't we? They are all designed to different criteria, according to what the respective design specs were.

Britian got Challenger1's because a near-eastern country had a regime change & the Shir 1 design was adapted to the Cholly 1, (which as fielded in OP Telic, didn't have adequate dust filters initially!). This led to the Challenger 1 & 2 earlier than otherwise planned.
Designed to field against the Russian T72/T80's in Europe.

Its rifled 120mm can and did hit moving targets from a moving platform at up to a (verified!) 2 1/2 miles.
One broke down in GW1, & survived  120mm rounds at point-blank range to disable it.
The only combat loss in GW1

The US/German joint committee designed & then cancelled camel-pig MBT 70 led to the M1 Abrhams and the Leo series.

The US got the Abrams ( BRITISH CHOBHAM Armour, GERMAN Smoothbore 120mm), fast but needs to fuel every 4 hours.
Nick-named 'the RONSON TOASTER' as it lights first-time everytime & burns very well.

The French nicked ideas from everybody, & made their own toy LeClerk that has never been tested in combat.

The Italians have an MBT 'Lite' based in part to Leo1, & designed for Italian conditions.
Rumour has it that where the Cholly has a BV (Boiling Vessel) for chow, the Ariete has a Cappuchino machine?

Let the informed opinion commence?

Well I come from a country that produces no tanks, just LAV III (now that item surprised me as I thought we got those from the US, it turns out they get them from us, take off the Turrent and called it a Stryker) so I really don't have a p iss ing match to get into. Our forces use the Leopard tank and I was wondering how it stacked up against other tanks. I had one Canadian Forces tanker tell me that the Leopard was better than the Abrahms mainly because fuel was easier to get for the Leopard. I would have thought that survivability would have been the number one issue as I heard of an Abrahms that was hit big time  and it was thought the crew were all dead, hours later a recovery crew went back and found all the crew alive, just stuck in the tank because all the hatches were jammed and they were a little pissed off. How true that is I don't know, it is just a story that I heard.

Well I come from a country that produces no tanks, just LAV III (now that item surprised me as I thought we got those from the US, it turns out they get them from us...

Actually, Canada only liscense builds them.  They originated in Switzerland.

"Piranha III is a family of armoured wheeled vehicles developed by Mowag Motorwagenfabriken of Switzerland, now part of General Dynamics European Land Combat Systems (ELCS).

Over 8,000 Piranha family vehicles have been ordered and delivered. General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (formerly General Motors Defense) also produce a version of the Piranha III known as the LAV III. The vehicles are constructed in a 6×6, 8×8 and 10×10 configuration."

It isn't a turrent either.  It is a turret, without an N.  Just like Abrams has no H in it.

The Abrams is a multifuel engined tank. Originally, they ran on diesel, but the army switched it to JP8 because it burns better. As a lieutenant in Germany during the Cold War, we were told that we could fuel it with whatever we could get if war broke out. It didn't matter if it was leaded or unleaded gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. The turbine runs at such a high temperature that it "would burn peanut butter if you could figure out a way to pump it into the engine."

When we switched from diesel to JP8 in 1990, other than changing the fuel filters on the fueler HEMTTs, we didn't do anything to the tanks except disconnect the smoke generators (smoke generators simply operate by spraying diesel fuel onto the hot exhaust grills). Couldn't do that with jet petroleum because it would flame vs. burn as white smoke. All other vehicles in the unit, HMMWVs, M113A2s, Bradleys, trucks, all ran on the same JP8 as the tanks. It's not like we had a separate fuel supply for tanks vs. other vehicles (except for gasoline powered electric generators, they used MOGAS).

So, tell me, what would you rather have, a diesel only Leopard or an Abrams that you could pull next to just about any fuel source and top off?

HeavyArty

It isn't a turrent either.  It is a turret, without an N.  Just like Abrams has no H in it.

OOPS!  I can't even blame that spelling error on fat fingers. No where the devil did I get the idea there was an H in Abrams?  Blame it on a senior moment.

Rob Gronovius

The turbine runs at such a high temperature that it "would burn peanut butter if you could figure out a way to pump it into the engine."

So, tell me, what would you rather have, a diesel only Leopard or an Abrams that you could pull next to just about any fuel source and top off?

I think I would go for the tank that could burn peanut butter.

Best modern tank?

John Lyle

 

Rob Gronovius:

 

The turbine runs at such a high temperature that it "would burn peanut butter if you could figure out a way to pump it into the engine."

So, tell me, what would you rather have, a diesel only Leopard or an Abrams that you could pull next to just about any fuel source and top off?

 

 

I think I would go for the tank that could burn peanut butter.

I bet it'd smell delicious. Mmm...roasted peanuts and death.

John Lyle

 

Rob Gronovius:

 

The turbine runs at such a high temperature that it "would burn peanut butter if you could figure out a way to pump it into the engine."

So, tell me, what would you rather have, a diesel only Leopard or an Abrams that you could pull next to just about any fuel source and top off?

 

 

 

I think I would go for the tank that could burn peanut butter.

Or the block of cheese found in MREs.

DoogsATX

John Lyle:

 

Rob Gronovius:

 

The turbine runs at such a high temperature that it "would burn peanut butter if you could figure out a way to pump it into the engine."

So, tell me, what would you rather have, a diesel only Leopard or an Abrams that you could pull next to just about any fuel source and top off?

 

 

I think I would go for the tank that could burn peanut butter.

 

I bet it'd smell delicious. Mmm...roasted peanuts and death.

You have to admit being able to eat your fuel would be a pretty good thing when you got hungry, I suppose running on Vodka wouldn't be bad either. Sure tastes better than diesel fuel.

DoogsATX

Best modern tank?

How much damage can those things take and Keep flying? I heard things like half a wing and one engine or is that of the "urban legend" variety.

HeavyArty

Actually, Canada only liscense builds them.  They originated in Switzerland.

"Piranha III is a family of armoured wheeled vehicles developed by Mowag Motorwagenfabriken of Switzerland, now part of General Dynamics European Land Combat Systems (ELCS).

Over 8,000 Piranha family vehicles have been ordered and delivered. General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (formerly General Motors Defense) also produce a version of the Piranha III known as the LAV III. The vehicles are constructed in a 6×6, 8×8 and 10×10 configuration."

HA!! I knew  we had to have got the idea from somebody else. 

Jon_a_its

The US got the Abrams ( BRITISH CHOBHAM Armour, GERMAN Smoothbore 120mm), fast but needs to fuel every 4 hours.
Nick-named 'the RONSON TOASTER' as it lights first-time everytime & burns very well.

The M1 has proven pretty survivable in combat (one of its primary design criteria), suffering far more losses from "friendly fire" as opposed to enemy action. Battlefield ID was a bit more of a problem in 1991. And nearly every Abrams knocked out was recovered and restored back in service. Hardly a "Ronson Toaster". I don't know who calls it that, but it's not the users.

But yes, of Modern MBTs that have seen tank vs tank combat, the top three would have to be the Abrams. Challengers, and Merkavas. Take your pick for personal choices of the virtues of the individual design.

John Lyle

How much damage can those things take and Keep flying? I heard things like half a wing and one engine or is that of the "urban legend" variety.

You had better belive it;

Speaking as a person who knows almost nothing about tanks, how come a smooth-bore is better than a rifled barrel?

Eric

I will be VERY sad when they finally do retire these beasts...

...Abrams...Nick-named 'the RONSON TOASTER' as it lights first-time everytime & burns very well.

Not sure where you got that idea, and I don't really agree with it either.  They are no more prone to a fire than a diesel-fueled tank. 

The Sherman was known as a Ronson Lighter though since it was prone to lighting up if hit due to where the ammo was stored, its relatively thin armor, and the fact it used gasoline as opposed to diesel.

...and that proved to be an "urban legend" as tests by Army Oridnance proved that ammunition stowage was the prime culprit of M4s' catching fires, not the fuel type... The M4A2 was diesel engined and burned just a readily as the gasoline powered variants. Not to mention that all German tanks were gasoline engine powered as well.

I'm completely intellectually unarmed in this debate, but I think the Leopard 2A6 is the coolest looking!

echolmberg

Speaking as a person who knows almost nothing about tanks, how come a smooth-bore is better than a rifled barrel?

For a good discussion on smooth-bored vs. rifled barrel, check this thread from almost 5 years ago.

...and that proved to be an "urban legend" as tests by Army Oridnance proved that ammunition stowage was the prime culprit of M4s' catching fires, not the fuel type...

I agree, I didn't say it was the prime culprit, just a factor.  It is a fact that gasoline is more flamable than diesel.

I'd have to go with the Leopard.

The Abrams might have it beat one-on-one but the Abrams drinks gass too fast, has too big of a logistics "tail."  For all of its star qualities, the Abrams hasn't really fought against an opponent equal to it in design or an army equal to the US armored brigades in tactics and training.

the Challenger might be the contender but it remains a "boutique"  tank, more a product of the British need to have their own (much like we can't ever buy anyone else's weapons) than necessary for the British army today.

The LeClerc is the same position for the French.  It is a weapons system looking for a reason to actually exist.

Leopard also has "beat out" the Abrams just about everywhere in "which tank will we buy" competitions.  I suspect the Australians might have gone with Leopard if we hadn't twisted their arms.  The Leopard was able to meet almost the same levels of performance as the Abrams without having to use the exotic powerplant.  For an army, the ease of both maintenance, and supplying, their tank forces gives the overall edge to the Leopard.

I believe a good tank crew is just as important as the features of any particular tank.  All modern MBT's seem to be about the same with the composite armor and weapons systems so that's where I came up with that conclusion.

You can give a novice guitarist a Gretsch Silver Falcon and it will sound like crap.  Give that same guitar to Brian Setzer and your ears will thank you.

As for looks, I would say the Merkava Mk IV.  What a wicked lookin' tank that is.

HeavyArty

The Sherman was known as a Ronson Lighter though since it was prone to lighting up if hit due to where the ammo was stored, its relatively thin armor, and the fact it used gasoline as opposed to diesel.

Or the "Tommy Cooker" as it was known to the Germans in WW2.