World's Best MBT?

[LancerMc]

What is the worlds best main battle tank? I have had a few arguements with friends on this topic. Personally I consider the Challenger 2 or the Leopard
2A6 the best in the world currently. Though the M1A2 is the most combat proven MBT in the world, plus don't forget the T-90 & modern T-84's.

Also what about Israel's IAI new tank protection system they claim will destroy any ATGM, RGP, rockets, and even tank rounds? Does any one know if these claims hold true?

 

[PAF923]

I believe T-90 will become a standard warfare tank in the future, currently right now ABRAMS and LEOPARDS are a very good challengers.

 

[aaaditya]

1 would consider the israeli merkava to be the best,it is formidable can carry 8 troops and besides the main gun there is also 60mm cannon on it and it can also fire the lahat missiles to a range of 7.5kms.

 

[john907442001]

1 would consider the israeli merkava to be the best,it is formidable can carry 8 troops and besides the main gun there is also 60mm cannon on it and it can also fire the lahat missiles to a range of 7.5kms.

The merkava 3 and 4 have a120mm main gun and a 60mm breach loaded mortar, not a 60mm co-ax gun as you may infer.

 

[Asmodeane]

Merkava's a bit too slow, though, isn't it? It wasn't designed for long marches or invasions. It's a very good defensive tank, though... And offers better protection to its crew members than any other tank in the world.
As for the best all-round MBT, well, I'd have to say M1A2 holds sway there, hands down. Although, as a Russian x-pat, I must say T-90 looks mighty good!

 

[Shaheen]

Is pakistani Al-khalid tank not in the competetion???
it is a wonderful machine and is a pakistani Copy of Chinese t-90 with european equioments!!!its a wonder machine..
http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.pakistan.al-khalid.intended-development-phases.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khalid_MBT

 

[turin]

@Al Khalid:
Its the first attempt of Pakistan at indigenously building an MBT, meaning the country has no history or experience in building tanks.
Second, its obviously a design heavily influenced by foreign concepts of MBT development fielding key systems which are basically a copy of a copy, so right now Pakistan has no real grasp on the issue itself.

So, no: I dont think, it can play in the same league as say, an Abrams, Leopard II or Leclerc, which after all is free of initial problems now and ranks high in the opinion of german tankers I know who had the opportunity to test it. By the way, the same holds true for the Merkava IV but I would agree on the thesis that this is a special tank for a special combat environment.

BTW: the Wikipedia-entry is rubbish. The Al-Khalid is not the second tank in the world to possess automatic tracking. Various MBT are able to do that and its no new or exotic feature at all.

I cant name an MBT as ranking first. This is due to my lack of insight in the issue since I am not into such R&D or a tanker myself. However I got the impression that there is no substantial gap between say Leopard II, Abrams, Challenger and (purely my opinion based on what I heard, see above) Leclerc. Dont know about the russian or chinese systems. Most people preferring the Abrams or Challenger cite its combat history, while the ones going for Leopard II may rely on this MBT having decided pretty much every contest where it was a contender.

PS: Wasnt there a thread on this forum dealing with this question already...

 

[KGB]

Isn't the CHOBHAM armor plating used in the M1 and the Challengers supposed to be a significant leap over armor technology in other tanks?

 

[LancerMc]

As far as I know the most recent version used in Challenger 2 is the most advance armor used in the MBT in the world.

It designed to work against all known ATM, projectiles, and RPG's. In the invasion of Irag, a Challenger 2 was disabled by the tracks by anti-tank missles and RPG's. The crew lost all visual equipment and was unable to effectively fire any of its weapon. The tank was then hit by all types of fire including small airms, large machine guns, RPG's, and a point blank hit by an ATGM. The crew did hear the RPG hit the tank, and the ATGM did cause some sparks to fly in the cabin, but in all they were completely protected, and were fine until rescued.

The CHOBAM has shown weakness to Soviet tank fire, but mostly at the rear, sides, and at very close range.

It sophiscated uses of steel rods, kevlar, and ceramics allows for almost perfect protection in nearly all combat conditions.

 

[chinawhite]

its called Dorchester Armour. thats the improved version

CHOBAM is not revolutionary is is just compostie armour with a code name. the T64 was the first tank to use the armour but the Challenger made is famous. Nobody knows what is in chobam but we know it has to do with ceramic and silicon


I must say that not one tank is the best because one tank will exceed in a certain area and it is difficult to compare capabilities.

- Leclerc has the best FCS. If you have seen pictures of th FCS and read reports about it you would understand

- Challenger has the best armour. Dorchester Armour has been agreed by most people to have the largest RHA

- T-98 best use of new technologies. Well from the laser techonolgy nothing patriotic

- T-90 most use of self defense technology. The russians have always experimented with new technologies and have been know for inovation

- M1 is the most battle tested. That says it all

- merkava is the most versatile. 60mm mortar and the 8 man transport capability says it all

- Leopard II is a good tank but has no fetures that stand out except german engineering

 

[Patzek]

Merkava is indeed a Tank for Israel needs, and designed thats way.

Merkava can shot down helicopters who fly at low altitude,
he can take 8 soldiers with all the equipment.
all soliders inside the Merkava are protected from any kind of gas or chemicals that were spreaded in the air outside

and its a great tank after all :>, that's why we got it.
safety is our nmb1.

 

[jjsvipers]

challenger 2 is the best tank, then m1a2, then merkavas all are combat proven,but against what t-55 rebuilds and t-72's and i dont know if the merkavas have seen any tank to tank combat. maybe in the near future we will find out how these stand up against newer soviet technology or other western designed tanks. leclerc and the newest leopard 2 nice looking and all but not combat proven but if i had a choice between the two i would take the newest leopard, but the challenger 2 is the best.iseen a show on the mil channel or his channel where the challenger 2 outshot all of its rival western mbts at a gunnery contest. the chinese and other tanks i think would not stand the test of time in battle due to reliability issues and the armour and fire control systems are not as advanced compared to western mbts. and to get right to it all the newer t series of tanks are really only upgrades of the t-72.

 

[LancerMc]

I agree with the last thread, you can talk about all about technology but a design isn't proven valid until it has been in combat. I don't doubt that certain tanks are on par with with Challenger and M1A2 but those modern Leopard 2A6, Leclerc, T-90, and Merkava enter in a tanker fight, or heavy combat I won't say their better then Challenger and M1A2.

Also don't forget British and American tankers have the most combat experience which besides the fact of them having great tanks gives them another advantage.

 

[KGB]

- T-90 most use of self defense technology. The russians have always experimented with new technologies and have been know for inovation

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90.htm

Lots of people say that the T-90's pretty advanced, especially in protection; the site above calls it one of the best protected tank currently available; I have some doubts though

1. The T-90 is un upgraded/updated version of the t-72. Now the t-72 has been shown to be rather vulnerable, lots of them being lost in chechnya and in iraq. Now even if the armor got upgraded, how big an improvement would that be? The M1 adn Challenger have armor so good that they forgo ERA and sloping. The T-90 uses sloped armor and also needs ERA. One might argue that the Russians have surpassed the US in armor technology being able to add sloping shapes to their armor while the US and UK are still stuck with flat plates, but this seems unlikely considering Russia's economy.

2. The Shtora and Arena countermeasure systems are new and still unproven.

3. The presence of the multiple defence technologies (arena, shtora, and ERA) might suggest vulnerability rather than strength, a tacit admission that the designers weren't so impressed with the armor itself. Furthermore, all these contermeasures and ERA don't protect against the DU rounds the US uses.
​

Someone should put up a reality TV show that pits these tanks against one another. That should end the need for speculation

 

[turin]

- Leopard II is a good tank but has no fetures that stand out except german engineering

You are forgetting the gun, which apparently is standing out, otherwise the Abrams most likely wouldnt use it. The newest of the series with its L/55-calibre length using conventional rounds achieves results supposedly similar to that of DU rounds used with the Abrams.
You are forgetting the engine technology as well, which in the form of the Euro Power Pack is a considerable export success on its own, besides being used in the various Euro-Leos around.
Therefore the fact that single features of the Leo 2 are not so much discussed, different than with the russian MBT's, is actually proof of the system itself being outstanding as a package. German engineering isnt an isolated feature, it means, that every single aspect, protection, attack and propulsion are all elements that should be taken into consideration when judging the tank.
The only points of critic are therefore the system not having been in combat (which seems to be some kind of killer argument, omitting the various trials between MBTs in procurement decisions completely) and, more problematic, at least from the perspective of german tankers, the weight issue, since over its evolution the Leo 2 rose considerably in that respect. But the same holds true for other MBTs, most importantly the Abrams and Merkava.


I agree with KGB on the T-90-issue. All these active and semi-active (ERA) defence systems may suggest a weakness in Russia on the part of composite armor plates technology. Of course another explanation would be that its simply a different approach on order to keep the combat weight of the MBT down, which grows to be a critical issue with current western designs.
This showed up quite uncomfortable when in Kosovo german Leo 2s had a hard time operating in an environment where various streets and esp. bridges where off limits.

 

[aaaditya]

You are forgetting the gun, which apparently is standing out, otherwise the Abrams most likely wouldnt use it. The newest of the series with its L/55-calibre length using conventional rounds achieves results supposedly similar to that of DU rounds used with the Abrams.
You are forgetting the engine technology as well, which in the form of the Euro Power Pack is a considerable export success on its own, besides being used in the various Euro-Leos around.
Therefore the fact that single features of the Leo 2 are not so much discussed, different than with the russian MBT's, is actually proof of the system itself being outstanding as a package. German engineering isnt an isolated feature, it means, that every single aspect, protection, attack and propulsion are all elements that should be taken into consideration when judging the tank.
The only points of critic are therefore the system not having been in combat (which seems to be some kind of killer argument, omitting the various trials between MBTs in procurement decisions completely) and, more problematic, at least from the perspective of german tankers, the weight issue, since over its evolution the Leo 2 rose considerably in that respect. But the same holds true for other MBTs, most importantly the Abrams and Merkava.


I agree with KGB on the T-90-issue. All these active and semi-active (ERA) defence systems may suggest a weakness in Russia on the part of composite armor plates technology. Of course another explanation would be that its simply a different approach on order to keep the combat weight of the MBT down, which grows to be a critical issue with current western designs.
This showed up quite uncomfortable when in Kosovo german Leo 2s had a hard time operating in an environment where various streets and esp. bridges where off limits.

well you must not forget that israel has developed an active self defence system called as the trophy for the merkava-4,this clearly means that active self defence is a new means for survival in combat and not that the tank armour has any weakness.

 

[chinawhite]

The T-90 is un upgraded/updated version of the t-72. Now the t-72 has been shown to be rather vulnerable, lots of them being lost in chechnya and in iraq. Now even if the armor got upgraded, how big an improvement would that be? The M1 adn Challenger have armor so good that they forgo ERA and sloping.

Did you hear about the testing of the T-72 armour after the cold war in east germany. It withstood every US armour round on its frontal arc. M829A1(?)

The M1 and Challenger have lots of armour not nessaryly better armour. If we compare the weight of the M1A2 to the T-90. both in their latest editions its a figure of 70tons to about 50~55 tons. Both offering roughly the same RHA with the T-90 having a slight edge. The T-90 has a cast turrnet(dependgin on version) which has blocks of armour instead of layers of armour. eg. put the blocks in and ast in steel. or some type of process

With armour peneration you need a very heavy layer of matieral to break the tip of the AP round and this will significantly reduce the penertating power of the round. eg. the M1 uses DU and the Challenger uses a mix of everything silcon kelvar and such i dont know. But the aim of this is to break the tip of the projectile or make it use engery in the breakthrough to stop the penertation.

What Kontakt-5 is, is a very hard surface mixed with a explosive charge. From articles and reports it is able to take 30% of the engery away from the projectile

2. The Shtora and Arena countermeasure systems are new and still unproven.

But you would imagine they were tested under the most extreme combat conditions or wouldn't be put in service

3. The presence of the multiple defence technologies (arena, shtora, and ERA) might suggest vulnerability rather than strength, a tacit admission that the designers weren't so impressed with the armor itself. Furthermore, all these contermeasures and ERA don't protect against the DU rounds the US uses.

I think it actually shows innovation.

In soviet times the artillery was the tank killer while the tank makes breakthroughs and goes for command centres and disrupts them behind their front lines.

Make the tank lighter and more compact. more tactical flexibility. Since with the difference in weight a possible 20tons and a similar RHA i would say the russians have chosen the better appoch. But in surviability then they have lost it


-=-=-=-

Anyway i wasn't arguing who has the suerior armour but which areas the tanks stand out in. But i would like to continue this

 

[chinawhite]

You are forgetting the gun, which apparently is standing out, otherwise the Abrams most likely wouldnt use it.

Thats the whole point. Its features are on other tanks which have better attributes.

I know the leopard II is a good tank but not out standing in a feild except the german quailty

 

[hesh]

The best MBT's in the world?

Challenger 2.
British tanks have always been of superior quality:
Centurion (still in service)
Chieftan
Matilda (ok, really slow, and needed to be really close to the enemy)
British tanks are designed to fit the Army battlefield doctrine of protection, firepower and mobility, due to the lessons learnt in WWII, when the Germans regurlarly turned our tanks into Swiss cheese. Which have resulted in extremely powerful & capable MBT's.

Leopard 2
Hard to ignore the German pedigree, but I feel that the tank would be limited outside a European theatre.
(notice the high axle on the Leopard 2, maybe they won't get bogged down on the Steppes again!)

Merkava 3
Needs to make it's mind up what it wants to be. An MBT or an APC. One of the world's best tanks, but an Israeli solution to an Israeli problem. Like the Leopard 2, I think the Merkava's designers were focused on creating a tank that was suited perfectly to warfare on a Middle Eastern battlefield.

M1A2
What were the Americans thinking?
A modern MBT that can be knocked out using an RPG?? Usually they bounce off modern tanks.
An extremely useful tank against Soviet antiques in the deserts of Iraq, but how would it fare against a more modern, organised armoured force?
Maybe the Americans should trade all of their M1's for Volvo's? I've heard they are pretty robust.

T-80UM2
Fast, well armoured, low profile, and a potent 125mm smoothbore main armament.

LeClerc
An outstanding tank, which was pipped by the Challanger to become the British Army's choice of tank.

 

[Patzek]

The best MBT's in the world?

Challenger 2.
British tanks have always been of superior quality:
Centurion (still in service)
Chieftan
Matilda (ok, really slow, and needed to be really close to the enemy)
British tanks are designed to fit the Army battlefield doctrine of protection, firepower and mobility, due to the lessons learnt in WWII, when the Germans regurlarly turned our tanks into Swiss cheese. Which have resulted in extremely powerful & capable MBT's.

Leopard 2
Hard to ignore the German pedigree, but I feel that the tank would be limited outside a European theatre.
(notice the high axle on the Leopard 2, maybe they won't get bogged down on the Steppes again!)

Merkava 3
Needs to make it's mind up what it wants to be. An MBT or an APC. One of the world's best tanks, but an Israeli solution to an Israeli problem. Like the Leopard 2, I think the Merkava's designers were focused on creating a tank that was suited perfectly to warfare on a Middle Eastern battlefield.

M1A2
What were the Americans thinking?
A modern MBT that can be knocked out using an RPG?? Usually they bounce off modern tanks.
An extremely useful tank against Soviet antiques in the deserts of Iraq, but how would it fare against a more modern, organised armoured force?
Maybe the Americans should trade all of their M1's for Volvo's? I've heard they are pretty robust.

T-80UM2
Fast, well armoured, low profile, and a potent 125mm smoothbore main armament.

LeClerc
An outstanding tank, which was pipped by the Challanger to become the British Army's choice of tank.

Merkava MK3 is an old tank, his newer version, Mk4, its the comparable.
same about T-80 ( T-90 )