Main battle tanks of today.....

[Lucky13]

Which is best, all things considered, on the battlefield today?

Is the Leopard 2

Challenger 2

M1 Abrams

Leclerc

Type 99

T-90

Arjun

Merkava

Missed anyone...?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Battle Proven: M1 Abrams

Potentially the best: Lepoard II

 

[Lucky13]

Isn't the Challenger II battle proven too as you say Adler? How does the Challenger II and M1 Abrams compare to each other?

My "vote" goes to Lepoard II....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To be honest I am not that sure. I am far from an expert on Tanks. That is why my post contained so little in it.

 

[Lucky13]

But, you know MORE than me about modern stuff though....

 

[DBII]

I don't have the latest information in my head but at one time the German's tank had an edge. I don't know if that is the case with the current block. I will see what info the Armor Assoc has.

DBII

 

[Sgt.Rosey]

As an ex Canadian armoured corps Sgt. I go for the Leo2

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

From my understanding the new Leopard 2A-6 from my undestanding has the edge based on technology, armour, and capability.

It is however not battle proven.

EDIT: The Leopard 2 has been in combat (just not tank to tank combat). The Canadians are using the A6 in Afghanistan.

Some Leopard 2's armament are to be replaced with a 140mm cannon.

Interesting tidbit is that the M1 uses the same cannon as the Leopard 2.

Some tidbits on the the Leopard 2.

All models feature digital fire control systems with laser range-finders, fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machinegun and night vision equipment (first vehicles used a Low-Light Level TV system or LLLTV, thermal imaging was introduced later on). The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain. It can drive through water 4 meters deep using a snorkel or 1.2 meters without any preparation and climb vertical obstacles over 1 meter high. The tank is powered with a turbo-charged multi-fuel V12 diesel engine that produces 1,500 horsepower.

All models feature digital fire control systems with laser range-finders, fully stabilized main gun and coaxial machinegun and night vision equipment (first vehicles used a Low-Light Level TV system or LLLTV, thermal imaging was introduced later on). The tank has the ability to engage moving targets while moving over rough terrain. It can drive through water 4 meters deep using a snorkel or 1.2 meters without any preparation and climb vertical obstacles over 1 meter high. The tank is powered with a turbo-charged multi-fuel V12 diesel engine that produces 1,500 horsepower.

Leopard 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparantly tests have shown that the Leopard 2 has slightly better armour protection, a more reliable engine that produces less heat but more noise and the armament is the same for both tanks.

 

[DBII]

D%# I am getting old, 140mm. That is a big sabot. I have some catching up to do.


DBII

 

[DBII]

You scared me for a minute. I did a little web searching. The Germans have replaced their L44 120 mm with the new L55 smooth bore 120mm cannon. The barrel is longer and it has a higher velocity than the L44. The M1A2 is using the smooth bore M256 120mm (this came out after my time). The US makes use a DU penetrator that flies at 1700 m/s. The L55 is using a politicaly correct penetrator made of tungsten that travels at 1800 m/s. Because of tungsten has less density, the L55 has less penetration power than the M256.

Tanks are rated on three factors: mobility, protection, and firepower. From what I read, the M1A2 SEP has better armour protection and better overall killing power. The A6 has a newer powerplant that uses less fuel and over all cost is 2/3 of the M1A2. It looks like the optics are better on the A6 but the thermals are better on the M1. With the latest bolt on armor, the A6 may have a better protection. Which one is better? The A6 would be a better buy, for the cost of three M1A2s one can have four A6s. As a tanker, I would want to be in the Abrams, but I would not complain if I had an A6.

DBII

 

[seesul]

My favourite is Merkava Mk IV.
BTW, the only one Merkava out of Israel is in our country. Displayed in the tank museum in Lesany near Prague. It´s a Mk I version. Israel dedicated to us for our help to them i 1948.

 

[Konigstiger205]

I'll go with the Leopard on this one...it still hasn't had the chance to prove itself but I'm sure it will do great...Germans are not known for making poor quality military equipment.

 

[Kurfürst]

Leopard here too, in the big overall view of things. The combat potential is very similiar with the top 3-4 Western tanks (Leo, Challie, Abrams, Leclerc), but the Leo has the best powerplant of all of them, and the Abrams looses out to it IMHO because of it`s gas turbine. It`s eats through gas like mad, gives a huge heat signiture, very loud and IIRC unlike diesels, you can`t run it idle..

From what I`ve heard, the newest Mark of the Merkava is quite hot, and it fixes the old points of criticism, but somehow, I`ve never liked that tank particularly.

Here`s a pic of a detroyed example - it`s huge armored vehicle :

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Leopard II gives off less heat than the M1 Abrams but the Leopard II is louder than the M1 Abrams.

 

[Thorlifter]

Are tanks really all that safe on the battlefield? With all the TOW rockets, laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, attack planes, etc., how safe is a tank? Do you think it's an outdated weapon?

 

[Kurfürst]

From what armor estimation figures I`ve seen, modern tanks are pretty well protected against HEAT projectiles - from the FRONT, from any other angle they may resist smaller handheld RPGs and 20-30mm autocannons of IFVs.

Of the top of my head, I recall the Leo 2A5 had something like an equivalent of 1600-2000mm (!!!) rolled homegenous steel armor against HEAT projectiles in the front hemisphere. That`s pretty potent, and no wonder why tank vs tank combat it fought almost exlusively today with KE penetrator APFSDS aka sabot rounds. Western tanks reserved and carried HEAT against soft targets and IFVs, and no special HE shell at all, given the Red Armored Horde.

 

[Glider]

I don't know if it counts for anything, but I believe that the UK have only lost two Challanger II's in action. One to a very large roadside bomb, and the other to another Challanger in a friendly fire incident.

Everything else has failed.

 

[seesul]

Are tanks really all that safe on the battlefield? With all the TOW rockets, laser guided bombs, attack helicopters, attack planes, etc., how safe is a tank? Do you think it's an outdated weapon?

Yes, when I was in the army (´92-´93) as a tank driver (archaic T-55AM2) I was told that the calculated tank crew life in combat is 7 minutes...
I was lucky, never been in combat so a great experience as I really like each kind of off road drive...8)

 

[seesul]

...and the pic from those times...8)

 

[Kurfürst]

I don't know if it counts for anything, but I believe that the UK have only lost two Challanger II's in action. One to a very large roadside bomb, and the other to another Challanger in a friendly fire incident.

Everything else has failed.

... wasn`t there a nasty 'blue on blue' incident in the Gulf War of 1991 when a Abrams (or was it another Challie?) platoon shot up a Challanger platoon badly, tanks going off one after the other, with the ones that fired at them cheered ignorantly of what they were doing, only to find out later to their horror...?

Thing to consider though, none of these tanks (thank God!) ever went head on with anything like equal... the Iraqi T-55s and T-72s with decade old, aged Soviet munitions and fire control systems (if any! The 72`s are/were basically cheapo export versions for satellite states.. many models don`t even have a range finder laser, or a FC system..). Hardly an even playing field.