# The Best Modern Tanks.



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

Which is the best?


----------



## trackend (Nov 3, 2005)

Very close between Challenger 2/2E the M1A1 Abrams both are superb tanks, the targeting system on the Abrams is rated as the best 
The Challenger has a rifled gun as opposed to nearly all other main battle tanks which sport smooth bores this give the Challenger the ability to use HESH which is believed by the British to be an advantage, during the gulf war (1) 300 Iraqi tanks where destroyed by Challenger 1's nearly all using HESH rounds, with 2 tanks only suffering from mechanical break downs out of 176 deployed. 
To date no Challenger tanks have been destroyed by enemy action. both tanks use second generation Chobham armour with the Abrams using DU armour as well.
The Abrams record is also very impressive with the use of high speed kinetic rounds proving very effective against the Iraqi armour. 
The gun is a German Rhienmetall 120mm smooth bore that was upgraded from the earlier British designed 105mm. 
The M1's power plant is a very impressive multi fueled Textron Lycoming gas turbine which gives a very good power to weight ratio hitting 41mph flat out (a full 6mph faster than the Challenger) There has been some debate over the heat signature given of by the Gas turbine and amount of flash from the main weapon but this has been reduced greatly due to on going development. so personally I am going to sit on the fence and say each tank as advantages but either is more than a match for any other tank currently deployed.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 3, 2005)

I agree Lee, but I am going to go with the Challenger.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2005)

I would also go with the Challanger. 
A small number of M!'s were knocked out in the aftermath of the Gulf war by of all things petrol bombs. The Gas Turbine sucked in the flames and totalled the engine. After that they had to be abandoned and burnt themselves out. I also think that a couple were knocked out by a T62 that found itself behind them at close range, but that would have destroyed any tank and was just bad luck.
The only tank that has knocked out a Challanger was another Challanger in a friendly fire incident. Which makes me believe that whatever the argument about which is the better gun, Rifled or smoothbore, they both do the job and thats what counts.
The arguments between rifled/smoothbore are complex but traditionally they are summed up as follows
Smoothbore tend to be less accurate at long range as the shell doesn't spin and they are sometimes fitted with fins to give stability. This is turn slows the shell a little reducing accuracy as it is affected by windage.
On the plus side smoothbore shells are better when using certain types of chemical warhead such as HEAT which is less effective if the shell is spinning. 
It should be noted that the differences are small and with modern aiming devices as I said earlier, they can both do the job.
The French got around this with the AMX30 buy designing the shell so that the outside case is on ballbearings. As a result the shell casing spins giving the accuracy but the warhead doesn't. 
The


----------



## trackend (Nov 3, 2005)

Young PD should be able to give some better info on these tanks as he's amoured anorak and it will be intresting to here from our mates across the pond and else where on their views.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 3, 2005)

Challenger 2, fuck yeah! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 3, 2005)

yeah i'm with the challenger, although i'm curious as to why the Sweedish S-tank isn't in the poll, i really like it, a very novel idea.......


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 3, 2005)

M1 Abrams. More of them in use gives us a better idea of how it handles itself in a variety of scenarios


----------



## trackend (Nov 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah i'm with the challenger, although i'm curious as to why the Sweedish S-tank isn't in the poll, i really like it, a very novel idea.......


Because its a lump of junk Lanc. 
It can't fire on the move as it has to use its hydraulic suspension to aim the gun so it becomes a static target every time it wants to shoot, instant dead meat against a mobile opponant hence it being phased out and replaced by the Leopard 2(S)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 3, 2005)

hey i never said i thought it was the best  but sweeden would only ever be likely to fight a defensive war and so it wouldn't have to fire on the move as much as it's low profile makes it ideal for ambushes, also she has a rear facing radio operator who also can look out for enemies from behind, pretty handy...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 3, 2005)

It does look nice though 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> It does look nice though 8)


You can give it that CC.


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2005)

To be fair to the Swedish S tank the ones that it is up against time wise would be the M48, M60, T62, Leopard 1a1, AMX30, Late Centurions and early Chieftains.
Against each of those it has advantages and disadvantages but it was ideal for what the Swedish Army wanted. A fast defensive tank that had first class protection and a good gun capable of crossing frozen lakes. 
For what its worth, I liked it.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

ummm


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 3, 2005)

I've gone with the Challenger 2, simply the best MBT that a NATO member has ever produced. As has already been said, it would seem that the only thing that kill kill a Challenger is another Challenger... which suggests we've got something right! 8)

The Abrams seems to be vulnerable in the urban role and is a prodigious gas-guzzler,both of which count heavily against it IMHO. Although it's brute power and performance are impressive, it seems to have trouble applying that power in combat.

In any case, I think the MBTs we are seeing now are the last of the breed. The tank has become too vulnerable to remain a part of the battlefields of the future.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

Mind you guys the leapord2 beats both the Abe and the challenger in speed, Range,firepower(the Challenger and the Abe uses the 120mm rnd and the Leapord uses the 125mm.)

they all have the same Depleted Uranium armour armour, except the leapord2 has reactive armour so has more protection.

Like the other tanks, it has a gun stablizer, NBC protection, Thermol and infrared imaging also it has a Laser Range Finder. 

It has some amphibious capability unlike the others..


----------



## Glider (Nov 3, 2005)

I think you will find that the 125mm is a Russian gun. I thought that the Leopard 2 used a 120 althought there was a prototype with a 140mm which is starting to get silly.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 3, 2005)

Thats not the first time the 140 has been tested on a tank, The KV was originally tested with a 140 then scaled down to 75mm.


----------



## trackend (Nov 4, 2005)

The Leopard 2A5 carries the same gun as the Abram's the Rhienmetall 120mm L44. it is 4mph faster than the Abram at 45mph but lacks Chobham or DU armour


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

I can't go into a long winded discussion at the moment because I have work in five minutes, but I would like to add that the M1A2 Abrams is capable of being fitted with reactive armour plating also. It is often done by the field engineers as the armour is designed to be field fitted.


----------



## trackend (Nov 4, 2005)

Have fun D I've got another week off.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 4, 2005)

The Leopard hasnt been tested in battle, so we cant say it measures up to either the Abrams or Challanger.

And even if the Abrams is vulnerable in urban combat, so is every tank ever produced. Funny how the lessons of WW2 combat are still being relearned.


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2005)

There is one tank that hasn't been mentioned and I believe deserves one is the Isreali Merkava. It has a number of interesting features.
Engine in the front to help protect the crew.
Ability to carry a small number of passengers who can cover the tank when in an urban environment
A fire control system designed to take on helicopters (with the main gun)
A mortar as a secondary weapon
Modular Armour

And no one can say it hasn't been used in combat


----------



## trackend (Nov 4, 2005)

A good tank Glider, but the Merkava is a bit slow at 29mph and it is only recently they upgraded the gun to a smooth bore 120mm from the rifled 105mm gun which was made under licence in Israel and was infact an out of date British designed L7 also the suspension is based on the old Centurion's. A new MBT is on the drawing board for Israel apparently with a 140mm gun.


----------



## Glider (Nov 4, 2005)

Be fair. They upgraded from the 105 about 12 years ago, which is roughtly when the Americans upgraded the M1 from a 105 to a 120. People tend to forget that the M1 started out with a 105.
Speed isn't everything its cracked up to be. What is important is how fast you can move around the battlefield in combat and the Merkava is fast enough.
The Centurian was never a fast tank but in a lot of peoples eyes, it was the tank of choice from around 1950 to the mid 70's which is quite an achievement.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2005)

I honestly do not think that you can rank any of the top 5 above each other these days. They all have the ability to destroy one another at combat ranges and are more than capable of projecting a presence of power on any battlefield. In tank on tank combat, it's the crew of the armour greats and the tactics as opposed to the actual combat ability of the tank. 

These days a tank has to defend itself more against it's main opponent, the aircraft. The new Russian 'Black Eagle' is being kept quite tightly under-wraps but apparently has extremely sophisticated AA defence. 

The Abrams is suffering under urban conditions, which would be true for all tanks. However, the lessons are learnt from sixty years ago. But it's the only option, the tank provides a basic close fire support for the infantry and projects a presence of power. They will always be required on the battlefield in any new form that they take. Armour is still a key component of warfare. 

The Merkava is an impressive tank, due mainly to the combat experience Israel has had against guerilla warfare. It is has many minor improvements which are often missed out on quick reviews. One such improvement is the ball and chains hanging from the rear of the turret that, apparently, throws off shells and missiles aiming at the point between turrent and super-structure (one of the weakest parts)...if it does actually work, it's quite ingenius.

For the current kind of combat I would probably take the Merkava for the anti-insurgent kind of warfare, but for open tank on tank combat the Challenger 2.


----------



## Glider (Nov 5, 2005)

Cannot disagree with that.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2005)

I forgot about the Merkava.

It sure does deserve to be in the list.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 5, 2005)

Leopold 2 as it reminds me of the King Tiger of Germany, an ultra good tank of its day.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 7, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I forgot about the Merkava.
> 
> It sure does deserve to be in the list.




I was actually going to put the merk up their, it had qualities learned from Yom Kippur War, it proved invaluable in the Six-Day war, Its Low Profile Structure, The interior arrangement of where the crew is put increased their survival rating, its range is superior to both the Abe and the Challenger, except for the Leapord 2 its range is 342miles whereas the Merk is 310  however the Merks Power:Weight ratio is somewhat unbalanced(The German Tiger which is well known for its poor P:W could actually outrun the Merk) It still comes standard with the 105mm gun which will be insufficient in power in the future, It was specifacly designed for war in the desert in which has not been tested in any other enviroment. 

I decided not to post it mainly because of its enviroment restrictions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

My vote is for the Abrams and a close second is the Leopard A2. I have ridden in both (which in no way proves they are the best, but was fun none the less).


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

http://www.armyimages.forces.gc.ca/cls_images/hires/2004-03-16/lf2003-0391.jpg


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

Nice pic.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

Thank that was a Canadian C2 Leopard MBT which is actually the Leopard1, Its been heavily upgraded so its not as obsolete as you think, right now it still uses the 105mm, but were going to refitt them with 120's


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 8, 2005)

As far as I know, there are plans to get rid of them. Know anything about that?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

Ive heard that too, but that would probably be a Liberal plan and there days are numbered.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2005)

Too bad they should just upgrade to leopard 2's. They are a really good tank.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

More than likely we would go for the Abrams, most of our army and Airforce equiptment we buy from the States.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2005)

Untill the Leopards are tested under actuall battle conditions, they must take a distant 4th seat behind the Abrams, Challanger and Merkava.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> As far as I know, there are plans to get rid of them. Know anything about that?


i understand there to be replaced with some sort of us afv called the stryker


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 10, 2005)

Yeah, that's what I've read. The Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System). Basically an APC with a tank gun mounted on top. Knowing us, we'll think of it as a main battle tank and end up getting a lot of our own boys killed with it. 
I would hope not.

If the Army _were_ to replace the tanks with actual tanks, I'm thinking they'd upgrade to Leopard 2's. A lot of our current Army equipment is of European design, not only American by any means.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 10, 2005)

true, but the americans charge i little bit less for their stuff, If I were the defence minister I would have our own built though, the current C2 and the Abrams ect are way to big and that is a problem when ever your taking a city, I mean imagine the Allies trying to take Arnhem with the Abrams, they would have a hell of a time trying to get through those narrow alleys and road.


----------



## trackend (Nov 10, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Yeah, that's what I've read. The Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System). Basically an APC with a tank gun mounted on top. Knowing us, we'll think of it as a main battle tank and end up getting a lot of our own boys killed with it.
> I would hope not.



I hope your wrong on that point as well Skimm you must have one of the most eclectic armed forces in the world I know everyone buys in from other country's but the Canadian government seems to go at it with gusto.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Untill the Leopards are tested under actuall battle conditions, they must take a distant 4th seat behind the Abrams, Challanger and Merkava.



And you great expertise of tanks confirms that.


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2005)

102 there are a number of tanks and other armoured viehicles out there which would fit your criteria. I would agree that the purchase of a licence to build your own would be worthwhile to save the development cost which would be significant.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

That might be why Canada does so to begin with.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 11, 2005)

No were not, this is just another tree hugging liberal attemp to pussify our military , we do have tanks, not enough of them, they are obsolete, however mechanically they work just fine,They are updated with modern technology so we can use them efficiently, but the Liberals think that Canada should do away with our army and leave our National Security responsibilitys to the Americans, which is not fair to me and NS and the canadian people, or the Americans, and to do away with our force of MBT's is very symbolic, Now the Mobile gun systems NS is right we will probably call them our MBT's, it will be a death trap for the crew as we will be fitting an overweight gun (without any stableizer) to the top of a Stryker APC, which we have had maintence problems with already.

NS The Conservatives have to win or we are SCREWED!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 11, 2005)

Here, here. But the years of Liberal government have already taken a heavy toll on DND. It would take years to undo all of the damage they've caused us already, and a Conservative government would need to be hard-line and willing and able to sway the views of the Canadian people back in favour of a military. I mean a _real_ military, not this...this...farce that we've become. 
In order for that to work, they'd need to be in office for quite a long time. Unfortunately, I can't foresee that being the case. We're just too damn fickle.

I'd love to see us at least become effective again. I really would.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Untill the Leopards are tested under actuall battle conditions, they must take a distant 4th seat behind the Abrams, Challanger and Merkava.
> ...



Name me one battle that the Leopard fought in.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Never said that it has not fought in one. That does not make it a bad tank. It is a very good tank as a matter of fact and ranks up there with the Abrams. The Abrams still is the best tank in the world though.


----------



## Glider (Nov 11, 2005)

2 x Dutch Leopard 1's were besieged in Bosnia / Serbia in the height of the fighting and destroyed I think it was 6 T55/T62. May not sound much but was good going considering that they were surrounded and under UN rules had to let the Serbs shoot first. I understand that the person in charge sucked them into firing at anoher target which gave him the chance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

I dont believe that Leopard 2s have seen combat but they are on the same par as the Abrams.


----------



## Glider (Nov 12, 2005)

I totally agree with you.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 12, 2005)

Certainly, the only tank that may gain an edge is the 'Black Eagle' but that's not even out yet. It's something to look forward to in the future. The Leopard II, Challenger 2, M1A2 Abrams and Merkava are all fighting on an equal footing, all have advantages and disadvantages over the others. Unfortunately for the Leopard II it doesn't have combat experience - maybe Germany should send some to Iraq for testing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

It would be interesting to see how they would handel but then again there would be no tanks for it there to fight.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 13, 2005)

True - Iran then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Yes Iran would be nice!


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2005)

Iran had a lot of Chieftains. A generation earlier but I suggest no pushover for any tank.
That said I doubt if they have many or indeed if they have any left after the Iran / Iraq war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

I saw a lot of captured Iranian Chieftains in Iraq. They put them in the boneyards and were using them to reequip the new Iraqi Army.


----------



## Glider (Nov 13, 2005)

I wish them luck. The chieftain wasn't the most reliable tank in the world and after been captured, left in a boneyard for a few years survived a few sandstorms along the way. I pity anyone trying to make them runners again.
Old British Army of the 70's joke was that the Chieftain had the best armour, the biggest gun, most modern fire control system and was the best tank in the world to go to war in. 
It would break down before you got there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)




----------



## Gnomey (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 21, 2005)

Ive heard that too, about the field fitting of reactive armor, which is really very uselful, makes the tank lighter for transport when the reactive armor isnt fitted. I vited for the M1A2. I love that tank, it looks menacing in itself, modern looking too. I like the smoothbore gun, and the kinetic rounds. It has good protection and imaging, can fire on the move. With the 120mm gun it has plenty of firepower and range. Though recently ive heard much about how the battletanks days are very limited due to aircraft missile advancements, and that the armoured car will soon be the only thing left, more for recon and urban patrols. While i dont think this, any time soon to be feasible, what are everyone elses thoughts?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

You are correct. Some of the Heavy Divisions have allready started converting to the Light Divisions and using vehicles like the Stryker.


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2005)

Whilst that could be the way I have doubts. Reactive armour doesn't help much against kinetic shells. Using a lighter Stryker type vehicle makes you more vulnerable to the tank and its large cannon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Also agreed.


----------



## marconi (Dec 2, 2005)

What do you think of this monster?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2005)

what the hell is it??

and tanks are starting to loose their position as the most dangerous thing on the battlefeild to aircraft, and whilst i think they will keep many tanks for cirtain roles, but the lighter recon vehicles like the Scimitar will play an ever more important role, yes they're not as well armoured but remember they're deep penitration recon vehicles, they're not supposed to be spotted in the first place, and if they are their first tactic is to drive outta there, fast! they're not designed to go up against a heavy tank...........


----------



## trackend (Dec 3, 2005)

You may well be right there Lanc.
I think mobility is important in the modern theater but heavy Armour is becoming obsolete as man pack and helicopter weapons have become more capable of eliminating it. The lack of vision is starting to out weigh the protection afforded. The Helicopter , Satellite and Drones are beginning to take over the roles of recon and support and I think the day of the pilot less or self-guiding delivery system is not far off. The drone that can attack various targets with intelligent weapons is already on test. Using a copper disk that can be deformed into different shapes depending on the intended target from shrapnel for soft/personnel targets to hypersonic projectile to penetrate heavy Armour vertically.
It may not come to fruition for some time but a more remote initial contact with the ground troops advancing behind this screen of technology I think is not that far away.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2005)

Thats pretty cool looking! I wouldnt mind driving that around!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2005)

I think they probably lost their position as most dangerous thing on the battlefield to aircraft a long time ago in my opinion...


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 3, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think they probably lost their position as most dangerous thing on the battlefield to aircraft a long time ago in my opinion...


Agreed CC, nowdays aircraft dominant the battlefield. It is a case of he who has aircraft will generally win.


----------



## Glider (Dec 3, 2005)

The main problem with drones, helicopters and planes is that they cannot take or hold ground. At the end of the day the PBI have to go in and they need support of armoured veihicles.
I think that what everyone has said makes a lot of sense but a balance has to be found and I don't think that we are there yet. 
One example is the tendency to reduce the number of infantry and increase their firepower. However when you get into a house to house situation those extra numbers count. Twenty men with AK47's have at least as good a chance as a western eight man squad with the latest equipment.
With Armour its the same. The tank on the ground can help the men on the ground take that ground. I doubt that tanks will get any bigger but the age old search for the balance between protection, firepower and agility will continue.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 3, 2005)

Against modern ground equipment the fast, but lightly armoured, vehicles are easy meat for the tank. British exercises show it time and time again. I saw one recently on TV in Canada where they had two opposing British armoured brigades, one sent it's lightly armoured vehicles in a charge and the Challenger 2s of the other team just blasted them with little problem to themselves...but they weren't really Challenger 2s in the simulation - the HQ had brought them down to the power of T-72s!


----------



## Glider (Dec 3, 2005)

I totally agree. If my opponents were equipped with lighter armour I would be tempted to get my Centurions out of storage, add reactive armour to protect me against missiles and guns with similar warheads.
The 105 is more than good enough to take on lighter armour.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2005)

but remember the role of these light tanks is primarily recon/policing duties, if they're jumped on a recon their fist aim is to get out of their, fast, as they know they stand little chance against anything with a big gun, they're not designed of open combat, and in the policing duties they're not likely to come up against a tank, if they do then someone in an armoured brigade hasn't done their job properly


----------



## plan_D (Dec 4, 2005)

True, but that's exactly why the tank can never be replaced by just light vehicles. Tanks will still enter all areas except those completely impassable to them.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

All I can say is that the Leopard 2A5-6 has been found to be the best tank in the world today by nearly every country who's tested it against others. Thats also namely the reason why Sweeden picked the Leo 2A5, as it proved superior both in efficiency and cost to the M1A2 Abrams and French Leclerc. 

Also according to Armor Magazine the top tank in the world today is the Leopard 2A6. 

If you ask me, its either the Challenger 2 or the Leopard 2A6. (they're very close)


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2005)

I would agree with you Soren.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

I would disagree with you. The Abrams is still the best tank on the battlefield by far. Even better than the Leopard 2 and the Challenger. The latter 2 coming in a close second in my opinion, but no tank is better than Abrams and been better proven in the best way possible as in COMBAT than the Abrams.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

Well it can't be the best Adler, and thats mainly because its been turned down by nearly every country which has been offered picking it as their MBT, in favor of having the Leo 2A5-6 instead. 

And also since the M1A2 Abrams has been losing every single trial between itself and the Leo 2A5-6, in everything from firepower to armor protection to overall battlefield efficiency, the Abrams just can't be crowned the THE best MBT in the world today. 

I'd bet all my money on either the Challenger 2 or the Leopard 2A6 in a fight with the M1A2 Abrams, or any other tank for that matter.

Now I'm not saying the M1A2 Abrams is a crappy tank or anything like that, as it sure proved itself very differently in both Gulf Wars. But the Abrams is however marginally behind the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 in the running for being crowned the best MBT in the world. 

And this is not just a personal opinion, this is what most experts on armor would agree with...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Can you please show some proof of these tests. I dont of anyone who has put into studies against the tanks you meantion. I dont think they are turning it down because of its abilites but rather because of the price tag on it. I am not saying that the Leopards and the Challenger are bad tanks. As a matter of fact I rank them up there with the Abrams however unless I see proof I can not believe what you are saying. Is this maybe because the Abrams is a US built tank that you come to these conclusions?


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Can you please show some proof of these tests. I dont of anyone who has put into studies against the tanks you meantion. I dont think they are turning it down because of its abilites but rather because of the price tag on it. I am not saying that the Leopards and the Challenger are bad tanks. As a matter of fact I rank them up there with the Abrams however unless I see proof I can not believe what you are saying.



Proof ? Well you can read it in the Armor Magazine (Forgot which one), and on some sites about armor. Anyway these tests are quite well known, so I'd be surprised if there inst someone on this site with a little knowledge on modern armor to verify this for you. Thats if you don't trust me of-cause  (I sense you don't  )

Its a fact that the Sweedish armed forces tested the M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard 2A5 against each other, and found the Leopard 2 to be superior to both.



> Is this maybe because the Abrams is a US built tank that you come to these conclusions?



Absolutely not ! Only a fool lets bias determine his conclusions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Soren said:


> Proof ? Well you can read it in the Armor Magazine (Forgot which one)



Magazines say a lot of shit that is not true either, they are quite biased depending on where they are produced.




Soren said:


> and on some sites about armor.



What did you say to me about websites in the Torpedo thread? I believe the same goes for websites here.



Soren said:


> Anyway these tests are quite well known,



Obviously not, especially since being in the Military I have not heard about them.



Soren said:


> Its a fact that the Sweedish armed forces tested the M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard 2A5 against each other, and found the Leopard 2 to be superior to both.



And that does not tell me much. Ill bet that it had to do with cost, rather than ability since the M1 and the Leop have the same abilities as one another. 



Soren said:


> Absolutely not ! Only a fool lets bias determine his conclusions.



I dont know, you fool me then sometimes.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

> Magazines say a lot of sh*t that is not true either, they are quite biased depending on where they are produced.



IIRC Armor Magazine is a U.S. magazine  



> What did you say to me about websites in the Torpedo thread? I believe the same goes for websites here.



Of-cause it does, I was just merely pointing out where you could find info on this, but of-cause websites are notoriously unreliable as sources, so a bad piece of advice on my part, sorry. 



> Obviously not, especially since being in the Military I have not heard about them.



Well your not in the Swedish military are you ?  



> And that does not tell me much. Ill bet that it had to do with cost, rather than ability since the M1 and the Leop have the same abilities as one another.



Of-cause cost had something to do with it, but the Leopard 2A5 was also considered better armored and is faster and less vulnerable to heat seeking missiles than the Abrams. (Yes that turbine engine creates alot of heat)



> I dont know, you fool me then sometimes.



I hope not


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Soren said:


> Well your not in the Swedish military are you ?



So being from the Swedish military would make it very well known as you said.



Soren said:


> Of-cause cost had something to do with it, but the Leopard 2A5 was also considered better armored and is faster and less vulnerable to heat seeking missiles than the Abrams. (Yes that turbine engine creates alot of heat)



Yes I know that Turbines creat alot of heat. The Abrams uses the same turbine just modified that my helicopter uses. The little bit that the Leopard would be less vunerable would not make a difference against modern heat seeking weapons.

_Basically what I am getting at here Soren is the fact that if you are going to go out and discredit things as you do, you need to give more reasons other than because I said so, which you are notorious for._


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2005)

> I dont think they are turning it down because of its abilites but rather because of the price tag on it



i don't wanna get that involved in this argument, however isn't that an important factor when designing anything? if you ask a soldier which is the best tank he'll say the best combination of firepower, armour and manouverability, ask an accountant they'll say it's the best value for money, now one's going to buy it if it's too expensive for what it is, they'll go for something that's better value for money..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

You are correct in the fact, but the cost of somethign does not make how well it is on the battlefield and that is what the argument is.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 4, 2005)

I'm just a bit curious about one thing concerning the Abrams. Why did they give it a gas engine? As I understand it, it was designed to have a larger magazine, but then it was decided to stick a gas turbine in it instead of a diesel, which necessitated larger fuel tanks. This all but negated the extra room for ammo.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2005)

this's simply about the best tank, surely value for money should be considdered?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> I'm just a bit curious about one thing concerning the Abrams. Why did they give it a gas engine? As I understand it, it was designed to have a larger magazine, but then it was decided to stick a gas turbine in it instead of a diesel, which necessitated larger fuel tanks. This all but negated the extra room for ammo.



Your guess is as good as mine on this one.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this's simply about the best tank, surely value for money should be considdered?



You are correct as I said however in me and Sorens argument it weighs no value due to the fact that the tanks are not shooting dollar bills at each other, it has no merit on the battlefield if a Abrams and a Leopard were squaring off.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

> So being from the Swedish military would make it very well known as you said.



Never said it was *Very* well known, but yes there would probably be a greater chance of you knowing about it then.



> Yes I know that Turbines creat alot of heat. The Abrams uses the same turbine just modified that my helicopter uses. The little bit that the Leopard would be less vunerable would not make a difference against modern heat seeking weapons.



That is what is said though, but I don't really have alot of knowledge on heat seeking missiles.



> _Basically what I am getting at here Soren is the fact that if you are going to go out and discredit things as you do, you need to give more reasons other than because I said so, which you are notorious for._



Well Im sorry if I come across like that, cause thats not at all how I'm like, just sharing what I know thats all. 

I don't think I've discredited anything though... Oh well...


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> this's simply about the best tank, *surely value for money should be considdered?*



Absolutely, and it is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Soren said:


> Never said it was *Very* well known, but yes there would probably be a greater chance of you knowing about it then.



Are you sure you did not say that, here is what you said: 

Anyway these tests are quite well known, so I'd be surprised if there inst someone on this site with a little knowledge on modern armor to verify this for you.



Soren said:


> Well Im sorry if I come across like that, cause thats not at all how I'm like, just sharing what I know thats all.
> 
> I don't think I've discredited anything though... Oh well...



No worries, it is just the way you come across sometimes. Please dont stop sharing your thoughts and what you know.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

> Are you sure you did not say that, here is what you said:
> 
> Anyway these tests are quite well known, so I'd be surprised if there inst someone on this site with a little knowledge on modern armor to verify this for you.



Yes Im sure I didn't say it was *Very* well known, hence why I highlighted that, I did however say it was "quite" well known. (It is to those who regularly read about modern armor atleast  )

There are even pictures of the trials, I'll try digging some up for you.



> No worries, it is just the way you come across sometimes. Please dont stop sharing your thoughts and what you know.



Hey, no sweat, its already forgotten


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2005)

I did agree with Soren so its only fair that I should put why I agreed with the view that the Leopard and the Challenger are slightly ahead of the M1.

Firepower is more or less equal in all three. The Challenger is slightly more accurate but the difference is small and none of us would want to be in the sights of any of these three tanks.

The Challenger is slightly less agile of the three but its enough to get around the battlefield and that's what really counts. The same argument as used against the Centurion which was the best tank from 1946 to early 70's. So I tend to discount the speed is protection argument as long as you have enough.

For my money the difference is the engine. First the plus's. 
The Gas Turbine was chosen as its power to weight ratio is much better and its physically a lot smaller. This is of course a significant plus. This gave it more space inside the tank to be used for whatever the designers wanted and one intention was to carry more ammo. 
At this point it should be remembered that the M1 was designed and first built for the 105mm not the 120. I cannot be sure as I don't know but logic tells me that if you up-gun the tank to a 120, the shells are a lot bigger that is likely to be why you lose most of the spare space available. Just a thought but it makes sense to me

The downside of the Gas turbine are two fold. We all know that they generate more heat which means that you are more likely to be seen. Its the being seen bit that makes it more vulnerable. 
Also its more difficult to hide in ambush with a Gas Turbine on, as the signature will give you away and it uses a lot of juice compared to a diesel. Obviously there isn't much point hiding in ambush if you cannot do much with the gun.
As for Sweden, again I don't know but its an area that is very cold most of the year and any extra heat that is produced is something that they would want to avoid. It isn't that the Swedes were against the the Gas Turbine. The Swedish S tank has a Gas Turbine but it also had a diesel for the hydraulics which were used to point the tank and gun.
The Gas turbine is also more vulnerable to things like petrol bombs as the flames are drawn into the engine and I know that a small number in Iraq have been lost in this manner.

I cannot guarantee that I am right as I am no tanker but it the basis of my estimation and as I said its only fair that I share these with you.

PS the Challenger wasn't part of the Swedish trials as the government would release one to take part. Dumb logic or what.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Thankyou Glider that was a good post. I agree with you on a lot of the parts of your post.

I think that we are all going to agree to disagree. 

I personally think that the 3 tanks mentioned in this argument are the best tanks in the world. The main reason why I believe that the Abrams is better is mostly due to its track record. It has fought more battles and lost more battles.

I too have argued many points for the Leopard. Some people stated that the Leopard can not be even thought of because it has not really seen combat. I disagree and think the Leopard is a marvelous tank. I just however feel that is slightly, maybe half a point behind the Abrams.


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2005)

With you on that. Between these three tanks its almost certainly down to the better trained crew and tactical position. Against any of these you are almost certain to only get one chance, and any mistake would be your last.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Glider said:


> With you on that. Between these three tanks its almost certainly down to the better trained crew and tactical position. Against any of these you are almost certain to only get one chance, and any mistake would be your last.



Now that I can 100 percent agree with.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

I can definitely also agree with that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Cool


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 4, 2005)

One thing I am curious about, the Abrams tank uses depleted Uranium armour, isnt the DU just plain lead? if not how the hell are the makers able to make the stuff non radioactive?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Here you go:

Q. What is depleted uranium?

A. Depleted uranium is what is left over when most of the highly radioactive types (isotopes) of uranium are removed for use as nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons. The depleted uranium used in armor-piercing munitions and in enhanced armor protection for some Abrams tanks is also used in civilian industry, primarily for stabilizers in airplanes and boats.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm



Natural uranium contains nominally 0.7110% U-235 (+/- 0.1% variation) and 99.28305% U-238 (and 0.0054% U-234), while depleted uranium contains only 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent U-235. The U-235 is concentrated into enriched uranium through the process of isotope separation for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.

The enrichment process does not create U-235 but merely separates the different isotopes of uranium. Therefore the process leaves large amounts of depleted uranium as a waste product. For example producing 1 kg of 5% enriched uranium requires 11.8 kg of natural uranium, leaving about 10.8 kg of depleted uranium with 0.3% U-235.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

Glider said:


> PS the Challenger wasn't part of the Swedish trials as the government would release one to take part. Dumb logic or what.



Yes, thats right. And yeah, a good opportunity was lost there for Vickers Defence Systems.

However Greece had trials with all three tanks in May 2000. And in March 2002, Greece decided to procure the Leopard 2A6 (to be designated the Leopard 2A6 GR), selecting the German tank over five competitors from the United States and Europe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Just another thing to note, is that Germany is selling the Leopards to other European nations at record low prices. I am going to have to dig up this artical but I remember Poland being one of the buyers. It angered many Germans over here because of the fact that they were not even being sold at half the price that they could have been sold for. It was all over the German news on TV and in the papers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

I believe I found an artical on it. The Germans sold them 128 old Leopard 2A4 tanks and is going to upgrade them for free.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just another thing to note, is that Germany is selling the Leopards to other European nations at record low prices. I am going to have to dig up this artical but I remember Poland being one of the buyers. It angered many Germans over here because of the fact that they were not even being sold at half the price that they could have been sold for. It was all over the German news on TV and in the papers.



I remember something about that myself, it was in January 2002. 

------------------------------------------

Hussars,

The reason the U.S. deploy DU projectiles instead of KE projectiles is rather simple, since Uranium is 2.5 times denser than steel the DU projectiles can achieve the same penetration performance in the L/44 gun as a KE projectiles can in the L/55 gun.

And since the U.S. is now considering to adopt the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55 gun, the Abrams will probably soon have the deadliest punch in the world for a MBT.


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2005)

Cannot blame the Poles for taking an offer like that up, be mad not to.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 5, 2005)

German tanks are back in Poland? Oh no, last time that happened World War II started.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2005)

Tsk Tsk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> German tanks are back in Poland? Oh no, last time that happened World War II started.



LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 5, 2005)

LOL pD!


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> German tanks are back in Poland? Oh no, last time that happened World War II started.



Even worse yet, Germany is led by a woman this time.... Soon all men will be exterminated in a new Holocaust !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

I cant stand Merkle. She is a dumb bitch!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 5, 2005)

Soren said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > German tanks are back in Poland? Oh no, last time that happened World War II started.
> ...



Note to self: "Wait for Germany to get a new Chancelor before going there..."


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> German tanks are back in Poland? Oh no, last time that happened World War II started.





Oh great, alright just let me get my desert camo and my Ross Rifle


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

desert cammo??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

I think he was making a joke about how he would be equipped wrong.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 6, 2005)

He wouldn't want a Ross either. 
A decent enough rifle for militia purposes, but often tended to fail under the rigours of rapid, continuous firing. It seized up after a while. Not the best for the front.

Go with the Lee Enfield.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Id go to Poland with an old flint lock!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 6, 2005)

I would go to Belgium and get myself a decent weapon and get the hell out of there as fast as I can before the Belgians do.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

HUH, what does that have to do with Poland. The Belgians were never in Poland.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 6, 2005)

If youre going to Poland then Im going to your second stop (If you know what I meen).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

LOL


----------



## hartmann (Dec 9, 2005)

Well, I am not an expert in tanks, and of course the two MBT used in combat (I mean the "Challenger" and the "M1A Abrams") have proven his value a lot of times hehehe, but I would take probably as the best tank to the new model Leopard 2A6, with his new gun Rheinmetall 120mm/55 calibres made after testing the Ex Russian MBT of the old Democratic Germany Republic which passed to the reuniffied Germany. I hope Spain will upgrade our Leopards with this gun If it is not included too from the begining, the resorces are a little bit confussing).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 19, 2009)

Went for the _Eurotank_, A6 flavour.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2009)

What is the Eurotank? Do you mean the Leopard 2A6?

By the way, where in Croatia are you from? I have been to Croatia several times (both business and pleasure), it is a wonderful country. I love the food and you have some amazing beaches.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 19, 2009)

Does the M1 Abrams have any of the same problems as the Sherman Tank in WWII?


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Jan 19, 2009)

Leopard 2A6.... that is one awesome tank.

Cheers


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 19, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Does the M1 Abrams have any of the same problems as the Sherman Tank in WWII?



Need some specifics, SW. What are you thinking about? Sherman tank problems like, thin skinned, under-gunned, too tall?


----------



## Amsel (Jan 19, 2009)

The Abrams is top of the line and battle tested. One shortcoming is the way it sucks up fuel, severly limiting it's range.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 19, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Abrams is top of the line and battle tested. One shortcoming is the way it sucks up fuel, severly limiting it's range.



Yes, but it'll burn just about anything: JP-4, diesel, kerosene, avgas, etc.


----------



## tango35 (Jan 20, 2009)

The Leopard 2 A6 and the Abrams are equal and so the best in the western states, the only minus of the Abrams is the high fuel consumption.

And i think if it would come to a battle that these tanks had a chance of 5 killed to 1 own loss against commie tanks.

T.


----------



## hartmann (Jan 20, 2009)

I would go for the "Leopardo", the Spanish built "Leopard" 2A6, upamored to 70 tonnes, new Rheinmetall gun (120 mm/55 calibres), and firecontrol of General Dynamics-Santa Barbara. It´s a true beauty.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is the Eurotank? Do you mean the Leopard 2A6?
> 
> By the way, where in Croatia are you from? I have been to Croatia several times (both business and pleasure), it is a wonderful country. I love the food and you have some amazing beaches.



Yep, Eurotank is the Leo2.

I live in Dalmatia, Trogir region. Glad you like the country


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 21, 2009)

i voted for Leo 2, i think need keep out T-72 from list it isn't a modern tank, can replaced with T-80 if you want keep a soviet time tank, italian tank name is "Ariete" not ariate


----------



## Iron Hunter (May 10, 2012)

Here's a wierd request
I've been trying to make a model game for 1:72 models of modern tanks, ive done ALOT of research but all i have turned up is max speed and type of cannon they use (plus armaments)
Im useing Flames of war mechanics for game play but armour thickness is classified and theres no official data on how new armour types (synthetic, reactive, other) react or resist to HEAT rounds or the savo or whatever its called (the round that has a spike of depleated uranium), this seems to be the best place to look so any help would be greatly apreciated.
I need to know:
-what armour resists better out of all the other tanks listed in the survey as those are what im useing in my game
-what countries gun is the best
-are all the rounds used by tankers the same (as in is one heat round different from the other of the same cal)

Its like warhammer 40K, flames of war if anyones played any of those, i hope to incorperate aircraft soon i just need the hard data.

thanks in advance.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 11, 2012)

Hi, IHunter,
What would be the survey you are talking about?


----------



## Procrastintor (Jul 14, 2012)

First, the Abrams is best, second, this is a WW2 Plane forum, this is a poll about modern tanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2012)

Yeah it should be moved to the midern section. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## yulzari (Jul 17, 2012)

I'm coming late to this thread but I have had a look around past posts. 

My vote went for the Challenger 2. Mostly as it can use HESH. There is no limit to the type of target HESH will take out and range is no bar. A HESH round arriving at extreme range is just as effective as one from 200m (if not as easy to get onto the target). HEAT is too easily defeated by modern armour and KE weapons loose energy with range. 

The versatility of 12cm HESH rounds is vital for the proper use of a tank. Tanks don't exist to kill other tanks. They have to be able to that so that they can carry on their proper task which is to support infantry.

I vaguely recall a comment, from someone in a position to know, that reactive armour is a handy addition as it adds to the bang when a HESH round arrives.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 18, 2012)

I voted Leo II ....


----------



## vinnye (Aug 5, 2012)

Very difficult to choose between the three obvious M1 Abrams, Challenger2 and Leopard.
They all have good armour and firepower, so it comes down to other factors. The weakness in my opinion of the Abrams is its fuel consumption.
So for than reason my vote is Challenger 2.


----------

