The Best Modern Tanks.

Discussion in 'Modern' started by 102first_hussars, Nov 3, 2005.

?

Which is the best Modern Tank.

  1. Leapord 2(Germany)

    40.4%
  2. Challenger 2(Britain)

    19.1%
  3. Abrams M1A2(USA

    25.5%
  4. Type 90 (Japan)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Leclerc (France)

    2.1%
  6. C1 Ariate (Italy)

    6.4%
  7. Type 88 (south korea)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. T-72 (Russia)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. T-90 (Russia)

    6.4%
  10. Arjun Mk 1 (India)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. 102first_hussars

    102first_hussars Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Service Truck Driver For Fountain Tire's Farm And Fleet Service
    Location:
    Edmonton,Alberta
    Which is the best?
     
  2. trackend

    trackend Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired tech support railway engineer
    Location:
    Ipswich, Suffolk
    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.
     
  3. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    39,800
    Likes Received:
    406
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Almost a Doctor
    Location:
    Royal Deeside/Swansea, UK
    Home Page:
    I agree Lee, but I am going to go with the Challenger.
     
  4. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,097
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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
     
  5. trackend

    trackend Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired tech support railway engineer
    Location:
    Ipswich, Suffolk
    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.
     
  6. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    Challenger 2, fuck yeah! 8)
     
  7. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.......
     
  8. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    287
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    M1 Abrams. More of them in use gives us a better idea of how it handles itself in a variety of scenarios
     
  9. trackend

    trackend Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired tech support railway engineer
    Location:
    Ipswich, Suffolk
    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)
     

    Attached Files:

  10. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    hey i never said i thought it was the best :lol: 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...........
     
  11. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    It does look nice though 8)
     
  12. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    39,800
    Likes Received:
    406
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Almost a Doctor
    Location:
    Royal Deeside/Swansea, UK
    Home Page:
    You can give it that CC.
     
  13. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,097
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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.
     
  14. 102first_hussars

    102first_hussars Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Service Truck Driver For Fountain Tire's Farm And Fleet Service
    Location:
    Edmonton,Alberta
  15. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    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.
     
  16. 102first_hussars

    102first_hussars Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Service Truck Driver For Fountain Tire's Farm And Fleet Service
    Location:
    Edmonton,Alberta
    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..
     
  17. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,097
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    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.
     
  18. 102first_hussars

    102first_hussars Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Service Truck Driver For Fountain Tire's Farm And Fleet Service
    Location:
    Edmonton,Alberta
    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.
     
  19. trackend

    trackend Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Retired tech support railway engineer
    Location:
    Ipswich, Suffolk
    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
     
  20. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page