SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

How would you rate.......

2842 views
39 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: The Buckeye State
How would you rate.......
Posted by Panther 44 on Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:03 PM
How would you rate modern battle tanks based on the three aspects of armor design?
1Mobility (maneuverability, speed, fuel efficiency)
2 Fire Power ( destructive force of gun, accuracy)
3 Armor ( survivability of crew as well as that of the vehichle to remain in action after being hit)
What would be you top three choices (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being best) and why?
Sorry if this or a similar post has been made. New to the site and would really like hear from all of you.
Regards,
Joe
Just remember, ignorance is no excuse for the law. - Moe
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: The flat lands of the Southeast
Posted by styrene on Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:29 PM
Joe,
I'm going WAY OUT on a limb here, but I think the overall answer from most, if not all, of the armor guys is going to be the Abrams. However, if I may, my personal favorite is the Israeli Merkava. With the engine in front, instead of the rear, crew survivability is supposed to have been substantially increased, according to some of the literature I read during the build-up of my Academy Merk II. That has been increased with the hatch doors located at the rear of the hull. Accuracy and destructive power, I think, is about equal...the Merk also uses the Rheinmetall barrel.
OK guys, I now have a plastic sheet over my head. You may fling tomatoes when ready....except for Robert (shermanfreak). He's probably going to tell you that the Sherman is still the best thing going. Trouble is, he may be right.... :) :)
Gip Winecoff

1882: "God is dead"--F. Nietzsche

1900: "Nietzsche is dead"--God

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:37 PM
Looking at track records, it's hard to argue against a tank that has never lost a crew member to hostile fire, so my vote goes to the M1 Abrams (all makes, all models)

demono69
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 31, 2003 6:42 PM
i prefer the Challenger 2 Smile [:)]


dont like the Merkava


But this makes a good diorama


Abrams is a good tank


  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:08 PM
Sweet photos Caveman! I'd also vote for the M1, like gee, almost everyone else. I do like the Challenger though.

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: USA
Posted by okieboy on Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:18 PM
Being a formerly active duty Marine, I'm going to have to say the M1 Abrams. Trust me.

Roy
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." George Orwell
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:43 PM
Having commanded Abrams tanks on three continents, I'd say it's the best. Fire power is comparable to most modern tanks, depleted uranium mesh coupled with Chobam armor make it virtually inpenetrable. The 1500 hp AGT turbine engine will move that 70 ton tank faster than most modern tanks. The thing will stop on a dime, and the A2 variant has a digitized system allows this tank to see other friendly tanks on the battlefield as well as be seen giving armor force commanders an unprecedented view of the battlefield layout.
  • Member since
    January 2003
Posted by shermanfreak on Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:07 PM
When all the factors are taken in ...... speed, firepower, armour protection ..........
I would have to say the M4A3 Sherman .....LOL

Even I would have trouble picking something other than the Abrams. She is a gem.
Happy Modelling and God Bless Robert
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:20 PM
I have to say M1 all the way
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:23 PM
I would have to agree the M1 is amazing but the T-72 is no joke in it's self. Larger gun, (by 5MM) and a slightly loinger range travel wise..makes it a pretty good contender.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: United Kingdom / Belgium
Posted by djmodels1999 on Friday, August 1, 2003 2:32 AM
The Abrams certainly has a very decent record, however, and please do not hit me, I'd think that other MBTs such as the Merkava, the Leopard and the Challenger probably have similar, if not better ones, while newer MBTs such as the T-90 and the Leclerc would probably score very well, if not as well, in those 3 categories... The M1's turbine is still its achille's heels, no?
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 1, 2003 4:06 AM
1- Mobility (maneuverability, speed, fuel efficiency): Leopard 2
2 - Fire Power ( destructive force of gun, accuracy): C1 Ariete
3 - Armor ( survivability of crew as well as that of the vehichle to remain in action after being hit): M1 Abrams
Overall I'd say the Leopard 2 and the Abrams
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Philippines
Posted by Dwight Ta-ala on Friday, August 1, 2003 5:59 AM
All of these new MBT's look good on paper and I believe that they actually are.

However, only the M1 (M1A1 & M1A2) has had a very remarkable combat record in the two major wars so far. So...I think it is no.1.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 1, 2003 7:46 AM
Leopard 2A5 and M1A1 or A2

M1 only one proven in combate (other then Challenger, but thats English so we wont count that LOL). Helps if you keep starting wars with people. Image what would happen if the Germans decided to go to war with someone for no reason these days? Remarkable record for the M1 in 2 wars Dwight? Not like they were up against much was it. Not doughting it's abilities but lets face it Iraq didn't have much to offer. The fact that you lost a couple is a bit of a shock (I was allmost in tears).
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Friday, August 1, 2003 8:48 AM
hmmmmm.... let's start on the T-72. Its gun calibre may be big, but it is not as powerful as most other MBTs these days, It has been knocked out in droves by Mekavas and M1s. The merkavas, although they have the best crew survivability in the world, its gun isn't the most powerful in the world, and its slow as molasses in january. but panzerIV is right, the Leclerc and the leopard 2 and C1 Ariete, etc. would probably have as good a combat record as the M1 and Challenger, but I say whats the use of having a MBT if you don't fightWink [;)]

for mine see top-left corner. only the Leclerc is faster, I'd say its gun is at the very top, and armor I would say the Merkava has got it pushed into 2nd place. besides it has combat-experienced crews (which can be a deciding factor)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 1, 2003 10:55 AM
Ok i agree the T-72 has been knocked out, but i still think it looks cool....lol
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Friday, August 1, 2003 12:05 PM
I agree, it does look cool.Smile [:)] low turret on relatively flat hull, woops just looking at it I realize it is faster than the Leclerc and Abrams(50mph-45.6-45), but thats because it doesn't have as much armor. (it,s 85,000 lbs compared to the Abrams119,000)(leclerc is 117,000)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 1, 2003 2:35 PM
I have to agree with most that you can't argue with crew survivability but overall in personal opinion i think the Leopard 2A5 would be better mostly due to it's diesel engine. That gas turbine is nice but you can't beat the rumble of the diesel to make you feel secure in your hole.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 1, 2003 10:25 PM
Sean,
Or deaf on the battlefield. Not that the Abrams is much quieter...
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 2, 2003 2:06 PM
I've seen Leopards and M1's train. As an M1 cmdr, I sure would have hated to have to fight the Germans in their Leopards. But, I would still pick the M-1
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posted by maddafinga on Saturday, August 2, 2003 2:19 PM
<< Image what would happen if the Germans decided to go to war with someone for no reason these days?>>


The Germans have already done enough of going to war with someone for no reason to last them for decades to come. The last time that happened, they had better tanks than us going in, but we still beat them in droves. The real stregnth of American armies is adaptability and the ability and freedom to improvise new and better solutions to a problem. That can overcome any mechanical advantage.
Fwiw, I have to go with the M1 also though :)

madda
Madda Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle. -- Leonardo Da Vinci Tact is for those who lack the wit for sarcasm.--maddafinga
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: The Buckeye State
Posted by Panther 44 on Saturday, August 2, 2003 3:42 PM
O.K. guys, the general consensus is the Abrams ( I think I detect a little prejudice), still as an American I'm very proud of the fact that we
have it. Maybe it's the best because we have taken armour from the British and the gun from West Germany. So we have accumulated the best of
all worlds. But, which do you think rank 2nd and 3rd? How great is the difference? Abrams a 9.2, Challenger a 9.0, or maybe the Leopard or
Merkava.
While I'm at it, soccia, what is a C1 Ariete? I'm not making fun, I'm just not that knowledgable about armor and have never heard of it.
So, now that we see which was voted #1, where do the other two place and what's the margin of victory?
Regards,
Joe
Just remember, ignorance is no excuse for the law. - Moe
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Saturday, August 2, 2003 6:39 PM
C1 ariete is the I talian MBT that was built in 1982 to replace their m47 pattons. 2nd I'd say is the Leclerc with the Leopard 2 a close 3rd.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: The Buckeye State
Posted by Panther 44 on Saturday, August 2, 2003 6:49 PM
M1,
Thanks for the clarification on the C1Ariete. I was guessing that it may have been Italian but just didn't know.
Regards,
Joe
Just remember, ignorance is no excuse for the law. - Moe
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 2, 2003 7:19 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by M1abramsRules

C1 ariete is the I talian MBT that was built in 1982 to replace their m47 pattons. 2nd I'd say is the Leclerc with the Leopard 2 a close 3rd.


WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT a french tank 2nd a German tank 3rd ?????????
where is the Challenger 2 or Challenger 1 two tanks with combat action, all the photos ive put up on this thread have been taken in hostile land (and no its not france)
the challenger hasnt lost a crew to any hostile action

a thing about the Abrams http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=abrams2.htm&source=abrams_lessons_learned
its a shame the French didnt back the war instead of trying to stop it
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Saturday, August 2, 2003 7:27 PM
well they all have 120mm guns and probably about the same armor(they should declassify that info). but here is the clincher: the challenger is bigger(and heavier), so it doesn't go near as fast or near as far. its engine isn't as powerful either(1200hp compared to 1500hp for the leclerc and leopard.) I think the challenger is a great tank, but its underpowered.
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Saturday, August 2, 2003 7:28 PM
But they do combat-experienced crews too, I forgot. with that I'll give them all a three-way tie
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: The Buckeye State
Posted by Panther 44 on Saturday, August 2, 2003 8:25 PM
Captain Caveman,
I feel that most are pretty close as well, but when it comes to looks (I know ,it doesn't affect perfomance) I think the Challenger is the meanest looking in the whole group. Just looks like it could rip to pieces anything that gets in it's way.
Joe
Just remember, ignorance is no excuse for the law. - Moe
  • Member since
    June 2003
Posted by M1abramsRules on Saturday, August 2, 2003 10:23 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Captain Caveman

the challenger hasnt lost a crew to any hostile action

not hostile anyway. was it 2 men they lost when 1 tank fired on another?

note: I am not ribbing you, I do not consider our (I consider myself more an american than a canadian) ally's causalties humorous.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 3, 2003 8:41 AM
But the Challenger looks almost the same as an Abrams. Challenger didn't go as deep as the Abrams did in Iraq.
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.