The Best Modern Tanks.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

Anyway these tests are quite well known,

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

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.

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

I dont know, you fool me then sometimes.

 

[Soren]

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]

Well your not in the Swedish military are you ?

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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]

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]

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

Absolutely, and it is.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.