best modern mbt?

It seems to be a toss-up of three tanks.The U.S. M1A2 Abrams,the German Leopard 2,and the British Challenger 2.I'm no expert,but the Chobham armor on the Abrams was developed by the Brits.I assume the Challenger has it as well.The main gun on the Abrams is built by Rheinmettal in Germany.I'd bet the Leopard has something similar.It's a hotly debated topic.Maybe someone here could shed a little more light on the subject.

Just a civilian here! Maybe the best tank in the world is the one that has the best crew?
Are the technologies of the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard so slight that the difference in a firefight is the people inside these three tanks operating at their peak efficiency? I leave this to those of you out there online with real world experience! What do you think?

Glenn

I agree with Glenn,I was watching a program on this subject some weeks back.A tank commander was asked the same question,He said,that he could take a T-72 and destory an Abram with on problem.This commander command an Abram an as he keeped talking his words was,That the T-72 was a fine tank and that his crew could have just as much suceess in a T-72 as well in a Abram.It is the tech that makes it easy for the crew but the crew with or with out the tech has to do the same thing in operating a tank,hi tech or low tech.I think the man is right.Digger

I believe you guys are on the right track, with the crew being the main force behind the machine , no tank is invencible and the war in Iraq has proved this, but if an intelligent group of men know the capabilities of their machine and know how to utilize its strengths and weaknesses you end up with an unstoppable man & machine.

While it is an accepted truth that the crew is among the most important factors in determining the capacity and effectivity of the tank we cannot discount the advantages of having a tank with better mobility, protection, firepower and advanced technology.

Even a highly experienced crew of a T-72 (very much familiar with the capacity of their tank) if unable to see an M1 or a Challenger far ahead because of lack of effective sensors would still be at a great disadvantage. And even if the crew of the M1 and Challey are still on their first mission...seeing the enemy first will definitely give them the ability to strike from well beyond the enemy's visible range.

I agree with Dwight. A USMC tanker once told me that at night an abrams can knock out targets 2000m away, but a T-72 at only 800m. I don't know a whole lot about the Challenger or Leopard, but I can say that I'd never want to be in a T-72 going up against an Abrams day or night.

1:72 Challenger 1 Revell

Hey heres an idea for a group build Modern MBTs. I fancy adding to my collection

I've only crewed the M1. To me, it was a super fun vehicle to work on. It was fast, easy to drive and had excellent night vision capabilities. My only complaint is that the loader wasn't allowed to lap load for safety reasons (holding a round in his lap to get it into the breech for a quick second shot). That didn't matter on the M60 series and was even encouraged... since the rounds were aluminum cased and in the open anyway.
I've been in the Challenger and it looks like an excellent vehicle also, although it is much bigger than the M1. I've never seen a new Leopard, just the old ones... however, the Germans have an excellent reputation for making fine armor.

My TC was a Desert Storm vet who said that the Abrams could kick the s... out of anything the Soviets had made. This, again, was due to the excellent night vision sights. They were shooting before the Iraqis even knew they were there. As a matter of fact, things happened so fast, he only got to kill a T-62, several trucks, bunkers and artillery pieces before the war was over. Nobody in his unit was even injured.

I'll stick with the M1, although I wouldn't mind trying the Leopard! In spite of that HUGE shot trap in its front turret armor.

Ron

the t-72's night vision consists of a big spot light, which makes them an easy target at night. true a crew is a desideing factor of a good tank, but htey go hand and hand; what good is a good crew in a t-55? or a very inexperienced crew that knows nothing about the computer systems in a very advanced tank?

canada is still using leopard 1s. we upgraded the armour and technology, but the gun is useless against a t-72!!! i read on some site that our leos are being replaced by those striker lavs, but they will be modified (armour taken off) so that the c-130 can carry them. what are they thinking?!!

gb might be a good idea Jeff Gunn, but i'm a bit short on $$$ right now, so maybe. If we do do one i will be doing a leopard 2a6 in canadian markings.

Since a lot of the actual capabilities aren't published due to national security reasons, I think this is a hard question to answer. Tank crews are clearly important, but so are their mounts. I heard the assertion by the Gulf War vet who felt that his crews in T-72's could have defeated Iraqi crews in Abrams. Perhaps the skill disparity in that instance is that great, but typically I would I think that the older Soviet stuff is not up to snuff compared to the Leopard II's, Challenger II's, and Abrams.

However, amongst those three, there may not be that great of difference, so the combat results may well come down to the crews and the specific combat situation encountered. There are also a lot of intangibles in the comparison as well. Which tanks are easier to operate and be used most efficiently? Which tanks are cheaper and quicker to manufacture? Which tanks are more reliable? Which tanks require less maintenance? Which tanks are easire to repair? How about fuel economy? Range? For as bad as the Sherman was in terms of armor, firepower, and soft terrain mobility, it was able to perform well in the other intangibles such that in the very big picture, it was able to do its part to defeat the Germans.

The tank vs. tank question seems vaguely analagous to the question of which was the better fighter in the Battle of Britain. Even after more than sixty years, the answer is not clear. Some Germans swore by their 109's others longed for a squadron of Spitfires. Likewise, some Brits swore by their Spitfires while others felt the 109 was better. In reality the result in the dogfight between the two usually came down to the quality of the pilot and who had the better tactical situation when combat was engaged.

To those of you who actually have placed your cherished cheeks in one of these tanks for real thanks for your input!

I drive an electric trolley bus. Should I ever see a real Leopard rolling down the road...well I'm opening both doors and running like heck! Or maybe I'll just surrender!

Glenn

QUOTE: Originally posted by 53ryder I drive an electric trolley bus. Should I ever see a real Leopard rolling down the road...well I'm opening both doors and running like heck! Or maybe I'll just surrender! Glenn

Now that's a smart decision from an experienced crew with a clear understanding of the capabilities of his vehicle and an even greater awareness of his opponent's advantages.

This is pretty subjective, but what the Abrams has accomplished on the battlefield speaks volumes. The Leopard, unless I'm wrong, hasn't fired a shot in anger against another tank. The trained crews sure has a lot to do with making a tank complete. No question the USA has a fine balance of both weapons and crew to run them.

BestTank? I would go with the M1, Leopard 2 , Challenger 2, and the Merkava. Except for the Leopard 2, all of these tanks have been in combat and did well. Each tank has it's good points and bad points. As for the Canadian Leopard , not being able to knock out a T-72 , NOT , with " fin stabilized" ammunition, our rounds go through a T-72 ( Former East German T-72's), easily. Talk to the boys , in the Armour School, in Gagetown, they shot at some , and our rounds went through them , like a hot knife through butter. I have climbed around on T-72's , and compared to the M1 , Leopard , and Challenger, the T-72 , is a piece , of junk.When the Israeli's first encountered the T-72 , their tanks had 105 mm guns ( Yes , I am saying Merkava's , Centurions , and M-60's), and they destroyed T-72's , it went up in smoke , ending up with the turret upside down , just like any other Soviet Tank, ( IE the T-62.)
Frank
"PERSEVERANCE"

Further to my last , I must agree that a well trained tank crew is important. And yes t3488g , I agree, getting rid of our tanks for this Stryker MGS, is a bad thing, these "whistle heads" , in Ottawa are nuts. How about a Leopard 2A6? If I had my way t3488g , all us "Strats" , would be in Leopard2A6's. I'm an old " Centurion" guy in the twilight of my career! Happy modelling , and take care all!
Frank
" PERSEVERANCE"

QUOTE: Originally posted by Strathcona As for the Canadian Leopard , not being able to knock out a T-72 , NOT , with " fin stabilized" ammunition, our rounds go through a T-72 ( Former East German T-72's), easily. Talk to the boys , in the Armour School, in Gagetown, they shot at some , and our rounds went through them , like a hot knife through butter.

i read this somewhere but, i'll take your word for it. you probaly know more about the canadian leos than where ever i read it. there is a t-72 at the museaum of hte regiments here in calgary, haven't gotten areound to seeing it yet though.

I think we had a discussion like this not too long ago. In any case, some very valid points have been brought up. The whole t-72 thing aside (After all, it is an old machine. Maybe compare it to a t-80 and so on, with more advanced electronics and armor) it's fairly difficult to determine which tank is technologically superior at the moment. The reigning kings are the Challenger II, The Leopard 2A6, and ofcourse, the Abrams M1A2. Firepower-wise, they're in the same ballpark, as all use standard 120mm NATO ammunitions. The chobham armor on an Abrams was indeed developed by the Brits, and is on their Challenger IIs. Don't know much about the Leo, but as far as history dictates, the Germans are not to be found lacking in anything.
Ultimately, I would say that the determining factors between these three machines are the crews who man them.

oh well in that case the Brits have it hands down

Best MBT? An A-10 Thunderbolt II. yuk yuk yuk

You have a point there Sub.... are the days of the MBT over.... are we looking at lighter, faster more transportable vehicles?

No, not yet at least. There's just something about a real live monster on the ground to scare the crap out of the locals.

I think its all a matter of cost....how much does it cost to build vs How much does it cost to destroy. You know you dont see many Abrahams down town Baghdad ...they are mainly static on check points.....and I offen wonder if they have one up the spout...granted a 120mm would make a hell of a mess but a .50 cal has enough stopping power for a VBIED

BTW, Jeff, I like your T-55. I thought it was 1/35 until now. Very nice!

Thanks Sub..... I like the small stuff ...... but can be hard on the eyes sometimes ;)

I think the Iraqi vet who said his crews in a T-72 could defeat 'his' crews in an M1 is nuts. There is no comparision between the two vehicles. With its auto loader, cramped crew area and sights, the T-72 is at a distinct disadvantage to any western tank (M1, Leo, Challenger, LaCl...). Good luck to the T-72's TC looking over his butt while buttoned up!

Ron

i'm sure it depends on the time of day too. the m1 can take out a t-72 at night because the t-72 doesn't have good night vision. the m1 is as good, if not better at night than day. most people here are considering the t-72 but not the t-80 of t-90, probley because the t-72 is the only one of those that has seen action.

which country does have the best crews? isn't there a compitition like top gun?

and nice t-55 Jeff Gunn, i thought it was 1/35

I think the M1 vs T-72 scenario was used because the idea being proven is that it is mainly the crew and not the tank per se can dictate the outcome of a tank battle. By using a scenario of say M1 vs T-90, we will be more or less giving weight to the though that it is indeed necessary for a tank to be at par (at least) with its possible opponents (since it is advertised that the T-90 is as good if not better than the M1) to ensure a possibility of success.

I think Tank vs Tank these days comes down to first round kill if you dont get the opposition with the first round then you will be in a world of pain...then again how offen to we get 1 Tank Vs 1 Tank ?

I think this whole thing is coming down to what would win a Polar Bear Vs a Tiger, the answer ! well of course they would probably never meet. I really do think we are going down that road with the future of MBTs. What are the chances of a M1 vs Chally 2? probably the same as my Polar Bear and Tiger meeting.

But all the same it still doesnt answer the question ...hehehehe ;)

Well if we think about it...it is really hard to answer the question...