Best Cold War Tank

[GrauGeist]

M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.

The M60 was also a medium battle tank.

Even the illustrious T-72 was known to burn like a candle on a birthday cake...

 

[N4521U]

?

 

[GrauGeist]

Well...that certainly qualifies as a "cold war" tank

 

[Lucky13]

Stridsvagn S?

 

[swampyankee]

I read somewhere the T-64 autoloader sometimes snagged the gunners arm and loaded it ILO a shell.

Probably no truth to the rumor but I'm not volunteering to serve as a T-64 gunner.

I've read exactly the same thing. In general, Soviet tanks have been described as ergonomic disasters. Since bad ergonomics is going to reduce operational efficiency, Western tankers will probably be more functional after, oh, four or five hours in the vehicle. Even if the autoloader doesn't amputate the gunner's arm.

 

[swampyankee]

About the time the US was upgunning the M1 to 120 mm, NATO was doing some studies for the next generation of tank guns, concluding, iirc, that 140 mm would be the next step.

I do think it's vaguely interesting that the US lagged both Germany and the UK in going to 120 mm. Even more interesting is that the main tank guns of the US Army for many years have been foreign designs.

Since I don't think it's worth a new thread, does anybody here think that the MBT-70 could actually have entered service with any kind of success?

 

[Shortround6]

Since the main armament system was used in the M-555 Sheridan and the M60A-2 (MBT-70 used a longer barrel) and was found wanting the likelihood of the MBT-70 being a success is rather doubtful on that score alone.

Throw in the driver being in the turret enclosed in his own counter rotating cupola so he was supposed to face forward regardless of what the tank turret did, the hydro-pneumatic suspension ( it is not good to be the first or 2nd even if later vehicles eventually use a system) and the engine that supposed to be able to vary it's compression while running and there was just too much that could go wrong with it at any given time.

 

[Airframes]

Bit of a strange list, as the Chieftain isn't shown, but Scorpion is.
Chieftain, at the time, was considered the most advanced tank around, and Scorpion was a recce vehicle, not a battle tank, with the PT-76 being used in a similar role.

 

[sgtleehead]

That's why the next upgrad of the Challenger2 will get a MTU engine and from all I haver heard the Rheinmetall 120-mm-Glattrohrkanone.

Also how many countries are equiped with the challenger2 compare to the Leopard 2?

That's absolutely why the Leopard2 is this poorly armored and had no fighting power?!

Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.

The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.

 

[sgtleehead]

About the time the US was upgunning the M1 to 120 mm, NATO was doing some studies for the next generation of tank guns, concluding, iirc, that 140 mm would be the next step.

I do think it's vaguely interesting that the US lagged both Germany and the UK in going to 120 mm. Even more interesting is that the main tank guns of the US Army for many years have been foreign designs.

Since I don't think it's worth a new thread, does anybody here think that the MBT-70 could actually have entered service with any kind of success?

Very interesting point. The Israels for some time were looking at 130mm or 140mm. They put a lot of thought and time into into it. There are very big' issues with caliber increase - other then the obvious ergonomics (IS2 crews loading the 122mm!). The big issue is the current performance of the 120mm against the expected reasonable thickness of armour or types of armour composition that can be fitted without making a 70 plus tonne tank - which you don't want - and whether somebody can stick enough Armour on a tank to ensure it defeats the current gen of gun. Which at the moment it cannot. Gun wins at the moment or tank simply becomes too heavy etc.

The future is modular and perhaps different concepts in lifting technology or perhaps even liquid metal electro magnetic track propulsion.

 

[DonL]

Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.

The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.

I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.

Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
Perhaps you should bring some proves and not just claim something.

All the tests around the world speaks clearly for the Leopard 2.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Without being rude and with respect - you've walked right into 'its our so its the best' argument. The British Government and defense industry have squandered the brilliance of the Challenger with very poor decisions which cannot be said for the makers of the Leopard 2. Brilliant seller. However. There is no better test than tested in combat - battle tested. The Leopard 2 in this instance falls right on its arse. It would be very interesting to see though how one fared in a combat zone being attacked from all angles.

The replacement of the gun is a commonality and cost issue - its a great gun - so why not upgrade. The engine is also fantastic - so again why not upgrade. Those two components though do not make the tank. They are just a part of it. One of the reasons the the Leopard 2 was rejected was because of Armour protection, and not just protection but design construction as well - this is a fact.

I am not a tank expert, and therefore do not know either way, but would you care to post some sources that prove that?

I only ask because I am interested.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.

Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
Perhaps you should bring some proves and not just claim something.

All the tests around the world speaks clearly for the Leopard 2.

A good friend of mine who was in the Canadian Military (and then later the US military) had nothing but good things to say about he Leopard 2.

 

[parsifal]

I think the leopard 2 is about as good as it gets when it comes to MBT. Just my opinion

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Like I said, I don't know either way, and am open minded on the subject.

I however have not seen or read anything that states its armour, armament and powerplant are terrible. Same with the M-1...

 

[sgtleehead]

Like I said, I don't know either way, and am open minded on the subject.

I however have not seen or read anything that states its armour, armament and powerplant are terrible. Same with the M-1...

Prove what? What have you actually asked here?. At no stage have I said in any post what you have just said. At no point in any post have I said that the Challenger is a better tank. Please read my posts again and I'll reply.

 

[sgtleehead]

I have heard these combat tested arguments the last 20 years near a thousand times. Perhaps you should talk with some Canadian soldiers, they have a fundamental different opinion then your claims.
Also all the countries which bought the Leopard 2, had all done tests, suspicious that the Leopard 2 won most of them against the M1 and Challenger 2.

Compare to you I don't claim that the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me Challenger 2, M1 and Leopard 2 are on the same level, but what I clearly deny is, that the Leopard 2 is poorly armoured or the Challenger 2 better armoured.
Perhaps you should bring some proves and not just claim something.

All the tests around the world speaks clearly for the Leopard 2.

Read my post again. You've just done the same thing again. 'Ours is better we made it'. This is a forum for discussion not patriotism. You have misread a post based on a defensive patriotic view and posture and polarized a topic and turned it into an argument. Not very positive. Also your language is accusatory and confrontational. You should try harder to encourage positive discussion were you might learn something constructive instead of being objectionable because you personally like something.

 

[DonL]

M60 - Israel Nickname - Ronson. Hydraulic fluid for turret traverse burned too easily. Too tall, Poor internal sub-division, Mediocre armour. Mediocre tank.

Leopard 1 - Virtually made of tissue paper. Armour protection only to lesser rounds. Easily destroyed by anything with a gun above 30mm so even a technical, a datsun! with a big enough gun could see one off. Some 23mm would penetrate the side armour.

Leopard 2 - sold fantastically - Never tested properly tested in war with the exception of limited conflicts!. Rejected by the British as poorly armored and too light a construction in the chassis.

Abrams - Oh dear. Can of worms this one. Great tank in a lot of respects. Really great. However - Pity about the amour. Bit of a Panther. Watch the (numerous) videos for the Gulf conflicts of burning Abrams taken out by handheld and just about anything else around the side and arse. Propensity to burn on the rear made worse by a turbine with a steamingly hot engine deck I wonder. Great up front but armour protection is much more than that. The Israels understood with the Merkava. Very poor loss level vs Challenger.

Perhaps english is not my first language but I understand this post.

You are qualifying both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams as inferior compare to the Challenger and the Merkava.

This are claims, because till now you have not post a single prove or any argumentation based on documents or other sources, only claims.

Both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams won country tests all around the world, the Leopard 2 has won the most. I have asked you, why he could win all this tests, if he is this poor armoured?
Also I have mentioned the Canadion Army experience with the Leopard 2 at Afghanistan, you can add the Danish Army too. Perhaps their mentioned experiences are wrong?

I have mentioned two weak points of the Challenger2, the gun and the engine, because from your post above you are rating the Challenger 2 higher. It is planed to upgrade the challenger 2 with both named systems of the Leopard 2. Is this wrong or right?
Also I have heard the Challenger 2 has a clear weak point at the lower front plate, which is thin compare to the other tanks.

And again I haven't claimed the Leopard 2 is the best tank, to me, Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2 with their newest upgrades are on the same level. Correction till the Challenger 2 didn't get the MTU engine and the 120mm smooth bore gun I would rate him inferior.

The Merkava is a defensive tank with the highest weight and the worst power to weight ratio and far away to have the mobility of the other three tanks, so it is a very good tank for the Israelis, but to my opinion not a good allround tank.

And that's for me the clear advantages of the Leopard 2 and Abrams, they offer the best mobility, good protection and the best firepower in a good mix. The challenger 2 is in need for the MTU engine and the 120mm gun to offer equal mobility and firepower.
The Abrams has the problem of the high fuel consumption of it's engine, where I rate the Leopard 2 a little higher (more cost effective and less signature) through the MTU engine.

Anyway all three are good tanks.

But from your post you clearly claim that both Leopard 2 and Abrams are inferior, so provide sources or proves.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Prove what? What have you actually asked here?. At no stage have I said in any post what you have just said. At no point in any post have I said that the Challenger is a better tank. Please read my posts again and I'll reply.

Chill out man, I did not say you said the Challenger was better. Go back and read my post.

You did say the Leopard 2 armour was poor, and that the quality of construction was poor though. Please post sources that prove this.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Read my post again. You've just done the same thing again. 'Ours is better we made it'. This is a forum for discussion not patriotism. You have misread a post based on a defensive patriotic view and posture and polarized a topic and turned it into an argument. Not very positive. Also your language is accusatory and confrontational. You should try harder to encourage positive discussion were you might learn something constructive instead of being objectionable because you personally like something.

Both of you should chill out.

You seem to be the only one bringing up "patriotism" to the discussion.