Best Modern Tank?

Rob Gronovius

If you look at my previous posts, I make no statements regarding the superiority of one modern tank over another (just the better quality model kits as I tried to steer the discussion towards models).

Absolutely Rob, and I agree, the current generation are quite similar in many respects, to the extent that for all practical purposes, without putting them all on a battlefield and shooting at each other till there's one left standing, it's only by looking at the numbers that one can find theoretical advantages/disadvantages in one or another.

If I recall correctly, the Leopard 2 was designed with the prospect of the US being an export cusomer in mind and indeed was (briefly) evaluated by the US Army (and losing to the M1). Both the Leopard 2 and Abrams families of tanks could be considered to be descendents of the MBT-70 program and I believe both incorporate design elements developed from/for the MBT-70.

I agree,  Merkeva is the coolest looking tank out there! it's all in that sloped turret... Though the S-tank comes in a close second

Best looking modern tank? Come on, let's take a look at Academy's new Merkava IV LIC. Doesn't this look like something out of a sci-fi movie? It is extremely cool looking, makes the Leopard 2A6 look primative.

To Jon_a_tis: I tend to kill a lot of threads with logic and facts.

Rob Gronovius

 And let's face it; the entire Canadian Army is a smaller military force than the Texas National Guard. This is not a dig on either forces' fighting abilities, just a fact that soldier-for-soldier, vehicle-for vehicle, one is a larger organization than the other.

, the Australian Army's entire tank contingent is 58 tanks.

I thought everything was bigger in Texas You are right about our armed forces. If the US decided to invade Canada Tomorrow at 6 am it would all be over in time for the 6 pm news. That would not be because of the Quality of our forces but because of the quantity or lack there of. Why would you do that? well if we get some bone headed politicain who decided to cut of the oil, gas and electricity  we send down to you I think you may get just a wee bit p issed off. Plus we have 19% of the worlds free standing fresh water supply and a very small population, you guys are running out of water so....  However just remember we have a bigger supply of snow balls up here and we will use our super secret climate weapon and send down a very cold Arctic cold front or two Hey we get blamed for your crappy winter weather anyway

I believe Canada had first dibs on those Abrams tanks you sold to Australia but our government at the time kept humming and hawing about the cost so Australia grabbed them. We ended up buying the same number of LAV's which I hear ended up costing more than the used Abrams you were offering us. Politicians!!! Sheesh!!! they can't find their asses with both hands in the dark even with a flash light.

We use to be the 4th largest military power in the world after WW II but we blew it. Our politicians are even bigger idiots than your politicians and us Canuks are stupid enough to keep voting for them. We have been brainwashed into thinking of the Canadian army as "peace keepers"

There I have had my rant and now time to get back to model building   sorry about getting off the topic

HeavyArty...

Abrams... A "Ronson Toaster" was meant to be tounge-in-cheek.... 'cos I can't spell fasheshous... missed the smiley.. thought based on some interweb conversation showing that most Abrams knockouts involved engine fires? Any data available?

Multifuel tanks: Cholly.. & Leos' I don't know specifically, a good idea in principle, but the british Chieftan & FV433 series APC's  definately were, & were definately were a royal PITA, & ran on diesel for preference  where possible.

A10 pics are pretty amazing btw!

The Doog... intellectually unarmed... I like it, being 'hard of thinking' in the mornings... 

Saransk & HeavyArty summarises this 'informed debate' nicely, politics & NIMBYism have a lot to do with it.
(Not In My BackYard: eg  never mind cost it's GOT to BE (insert own interests) here), so there!)

Rob G has the most considered thoughts of cost, pragmatism, deployments etc...

So letstalk about kits & vote as below, (my vote filled in).

Best Looking Tank overall: Leopard2 A6 CDN ....groovy

Best Looking Kit: Trumpeter Challenger2 Enhanced, (Heath & Robinson mobile bedstead look here)

Most Accurate Model:  Chad here (I don't mind, so long as it looks like a whatever...)

Easiest to Build Kit: Tamiya Challenger 1

Worst Kit or Aftermarket in this category: Verlinden's Cholly1A3 conversion... yuk!

Phil_H

Rob Gronovius:

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?

Hi Rob,

Isn't the Leopard family (ie both I and II) powered by multi-fuel diesels capable of running on a range of fuels too?

I seem to recall reading somewhere long ago that if you had enough of it, you could run a Leopard on scotch whisky if that was all that was available.

If you look at my previous posts, I make no statements regarding the superiority of one modern tank over another (just the better quality model kits as I tried to steer the discussion towards models).

The Canadians chose the Leopard tank decades ago because their only foreseeable tank-on-tank action was in Germany if the Russians ever came across the Fulda Gap. It makes every sense for them to choose the tank of the nation in where you will be fighting. And let's face it; the entire Canadian Army is a smaller military force than the Texas National Guard. This is not a dig on either forces' fighting abilities, just a fact that soldier-for-soldier, vehicle-for vehicle, one is a larger organization than the other.

The Germans designed their tank to fight a defensive battle for their homeland. It was designed to optimally fight on the German countryside. It is probably the best tank designed for Western Europe.

Same with the Israelis, they designed their excellent Merkava series to fight a homeland battle. It was designed to best suit their needs. It is probably the best tank designed to fight in the Middle East.

The Americans had to design a tank that could fight in the plains of Northern Europe, the deserts of the Middle East, the frozen reaches of the Arctic Circle, the woodlands of Central Europe, the jungles of Southeast Asia, the Korean Peninsula and make seaborne amphibious landings.

Of course certain compromises had to be made in the Abrams' development. It can't be the best in every aspect, but it's probably the one modern tank that can successfully perform any of the above missions under a variety of conditions.

The Australians chose the Abrams because they realize that when they need to deploy heavy armored forces, they would most likely do so alongside the Americans. Their most likely "no joke" deployment would be to defend South Korea against invasion from the North. It makes sense that they would choose a tank that would share a logistical footprint with the US. Although the Abrams is a very expensive tank, the Australian Army's entire tank contingent is 58 tanks. That is merely one battalion of tanks. One US armored brigade consists of two battalions of tanks, and there are dozens of armored brigades in the US Army. By contrast, the USMC alone has three battalions of tanks, or triple the size of Australia's tank force.

This might not be an MBT but I believe they compare in toughness.  Might be used as a tank destroyer as well.

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

What the Military Channel did was post the best tanks FOR THEIR TIME IN HISTORY.  The T-34 did more in WW II than any other tank at that time and came out on top. The Abrams has done more than any other tank in it's time in history. Taking on the 4th largest army and beating them twice is what it was build for.

John Lyle

 

Kentucky Colonel:

 

This is the Military Channel's  list of ALL TIME top ten tanks.

http://military.discovery.com/technology/vehicles/tanks/tanks-intro.html

 

 

A WWi Tank is better than a Challenger??? A t-34 is better than an Abrams??? I don't know about you but I'll put my money down on a Challenger and an Abrams over the other two any day

I think the history channel was speaking in terms of the tank, and the time it was in. The T-34 was probably one of the best tanks when it was released, and overwhelming numbers helped bolster any weaknesses it had. Thus... They are not simply talking about "best gun, best armor, best MPG, best suspension, etc"

I say the Leopard, but thats me being Canadian and Bias . In reality, the only thing that makes modern tanks better than one another would be 1rst off the # of that specific tank on the battle field vs the # of the opposing tank, and in a one on one situation it would come down to the Most experienced / well trained tank crew.

......and as posted a few pages back, if the A-10 or a Su-25 Frogfoot is orbiting the battlefield, none of the modern tanks are any good lol.

Kentucky Colonel

This is the Military Channel's  list of ALL TIME top ten tanks.

http://military.discovery.com/technology/vehicles/tanks/tanks-intro.html

A WWi Tank is better than a Challenger??? A t-34 is better than an Abrams??? I don't know about you but I'll put my money down on a Challenger and an Abrams over the other two any day

Hey Guys I was just trying to get some information  when I started this thread not start WW III.

Okay..Okay I know we are still all on friendly terms. A lot of information has come out such as both the Abrams (without an H...I had a senior moment with the spelling) and Leopard can burn just about anything as fuel (can the leopard burn peanut butter?...someone said the Abrams could if they could pump the stuff). Burning Scotch whiskey seems such a waste, vodka or gin would be much better.  The jury still seems to be out on best survivability. The French seem to be unpopular and Russia only has one vote.

Lets keep the discussion going but hold the friendly fire  

This is the Military Channel's  list of ALL TIME top ten tanks.

http://military.discovery.com/technology/vehicles/tanks/tanks-intro.html

The Russian T-90

HeavyArty

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

LOL!!! You nailed that one... The last page and a half smells like a porta-potty...

saransk

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.

So let me see if I get this straight... you're knocking the Abrams because it was designed better (no opponent equal in design) and the crews are trained better?  Even when I left active duty in 2005, we trained to win, not train to the lowest common denominator we "might" see one day.

I still think it would boil down to personal preference, which tank's drawbacks "most overshadow" the advantages it has.

*removes hot suit*

Rob Gronovius

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?

Hi Rob,

Isn't the Leopard family (ie both I and II) powered by multi-fuel diesels capable of running on a range of fuels too?

I seem to recall reading somewhere long ago that if you had enough of it, you could run a Leopard on scotch whisky if that was all that was available.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

...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.

...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.

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

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

Eric

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;

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.