Best Tank

[Zardnaar]

T-14 has ~50 production models in existence with the rest of the line being cancelled, I'm not sure it's even valid to compare

Firepower doesn't really matter because tanks don't fight other tanks and haven't since the 80s (Iran-Iraq). Hence why armor is the most important. Mobility is great to have, too, but you're not going to be outrunning a TOW or worse, a fire-and-forget missile system. Armor or other survivability countermeasures have to be #1 consideration for the modern tank.

I lean this way but would need to read up a bit more on the Challenger.

Even if Abrams gets penetrated to still have a reasonable chance of no dying horribly.

It's a bit harder to compare Challenger 2 as it hasn't been used as much or had actual tank battles which did happen GW1.

It's not so much crappy T-72's couldn't see let alone penetrate the Abrams more how fast they took them out while driving 50kmh.

And that was almost 30 years ago.

Armata was likely to expensive, didn't work or work well enough outside test conditions to justify the cost.

 

[cardgame]

RU doesn't even have money for the T-90, only like 300? units of those, then the T-14 is at least double, probably closer to triple that cost.

 

[Zardnaar]

RU doesn't even have money for the T-90, only like 300? units of those, then the T-14 is at least double, probably closer to triple that cost.

Yeah there are thousands of Abrams. The average Russian tank is T-72 of various models some if which are basically 1989 models.

New ones are B3 variants. They're ok vs older Soviet type tanks but can still be penetrated by Abrams/Challenger/Leopard.

Kontact and stuff they strap to it does reduce penetration but the basic armor is still thin.

 

[Ajidica]

The best tank is the one that's there when you need it.

War is won by he who gets there first-est with the most-est.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The germans got rid of nearly all Leopards. Which was a smart move. They want influence but at least they dropped the military path, two wars did made them learn something!
The MBT is as obsolete as the battleship. Good for colonial duty. Excuse me, ant-insurrection duty. Good for repressing rebels at home too. Good perhaps for fights between tinpot dictators. Not good for any war between major powers with an air force and missiles, except in a mop-up stage after winning. Which, when it comes to nuclear-armed countries, does not happen - everyone loses.

They could be especially since most nations have stopped developing them, even the Germans with their unmanned Turret Leopard 3 tank which was suppose to be the next generation of tanks.
The current tanks still have a place in armed forces since everyone is more or less holding onto them as part of conventional armed forces
Who knows what the next war winning weapon will be, maybe drones will dominate the next war.

 

[red_elk]

TOW attack against Syrian T-90

The Shtora active countermeasures were turned off for some reason, Kontakt-5 ERA withstood the damage. It's old non-upgraded version of tank supplied to the Syrians.

 

[Zardnaar]

The best tank is the one that's there when you need it.

War is won by he who gets there first-est with the most-est.

WW2 didn't have guided AT rockets or

TOW attack against Syrian T-90

The Shtora active countermeasures were turned off for some reason, Kontakt-5 ERA withstood the damage. It's old non-upgraded version of tank supplied to the Syrians.

Yeah it's designed to stop that type of missile.

It won't stop an Abrams shooting it and the hull armor on a T-90 won't stop it and and Abrams can probably penetrate the turret.

Abrams have soaked side shots from Russian RPGs in Iraq.

The Russian designs have identified such things as a greater threat than Abrams because they're not going to be fighting America anytime soon.

I think one T-90 soaked 6 shots to the turret and the crew bailed out but the tank didn't explode or get penetrated.

Between Syria and Yemen though everything has got penetrated, T-90, Leopard, Abrams.

Saudis in Yemen sent in Abrams without infantry support. Oops.

 

[tamyrlin]

Spectre is best tank. Dispersion is dope.

 

[AdamCrock]

Since when has the gun been the most important part of a tank, though? Korea?

It all depends on the way the tank is to be deployed, before the age of MBT's there were "light" and "heavy" tanks. Light like PzKmpf II and III series had smaller guns (like 50mm IIRC) and were mostly used for infantry support or recon in force , while series IV Ausf B,C etc were still considered medium were later upgraded with larger guns. Finally Heavy tanks like V (Panther) armed with 7,5 cm long barrel and VI (Tiger) , armed with Flak 36 cal. 88 mm were used for tank vs tank combat and breaktrough.

So yeah in those days destroying enemy tanks were more important than human life so guns were pretty much important. Nowadays Idk. All is important - armor, gun, speed, mobility, crew safety. I can't pin down what is the most importand factor now.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Warriors are the best tanks for endgame raids but I have a soft spot for paladins because of golden flashy hands and they are good for AOE dungeon runs.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've always been fascinated with the Tiger and King Tiger tanks from WWII. I know they had lots of problems and were yuugely expensive but I think they're cool.

 

[Ferocitus]

The Bob Semple Tank has frightened invaders away from New Zealand since 1941.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Semple_tank

I wish Australia had a few during our disastrous Great Emu War!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

 

[Zardnaar]

I've always been fascinated with the Tiger and King Tiger tanks from WWII. I know they had lots of problems and were yuugely expensive but I think they're cool.

Abrams weighs something close to the King Tiger might be heavier.

And it's gun is almost as big as the Jagdtiger and has something like 5 times the penetration as the King Tiger.

There's a video on YouTube about can a king tiger kill an Abrams. Well how many King Tigers can kill an Abrams.

The only place they can reliably penetrate it is from the rear. I think there's a few spots in the sides at very close range.

The Abrams us as fast as a ww2 light tank and can fire on the move out to a range of 4km. Anywhere it hits the Tiger 2 on the front it penetrates short of a fluke bounce due to angles.

It can almost run away from the Tigers in reverse.

The Abrams will eventually run out if ammo through with something like a 90% plus kill rate and could get knocked out from the rear if it turned and ran.

So short of an ambush you would need to throw a division of tiger IIs at it.

In Gulf War 1 there was a big tank battle where they stumbled into dug in T-72s.

At 50kmh one knocked out 3 tanks in 10 seconds. They were dug in so they shot the T-72s through the turrets. The Iraqi tanks couldnt even see them.

They weren't good T-72s but yeah.
They wiped out 60 of them iirc.

Gulf War II I think 11were disabled, 10 were repaired only 1 was "knocked out".

Somehow the Iraqis had a few Russian RPGs that could penetrate the sides. Complete mystery where they got late model Russian RPGs from with arms embargos.

 

[AdamCrock]

Of course during WW2 T-34 and T-34-85 : hands down best and cost-effective tanks there were !

 

[Hrothbern]

Not knowing that much about recent tanks...

Somehow I just don't believe that tanks survive the modern development of smart small anti-tank weapons, where the cost to take out a tank can be so low compared to the cost of a tank.
Clever drones ?
Do you really need to penetrate the armor to bring the tank to a standstill ?
How vulnerable is the surface of the inside of a barrel ?
How vulnerable are communication devices that somehow must protrude outside the armor ?

 

[red_elk]

How vulnerable is the surface of the inside of a barrel ?

Hmm, saboteur-squirrels... Interesting idea!

 

[Hrothbern]

Hmm, saboteur-squirrels... Interesting idea!

Well... what I know is that cleaning your barrel after shooting was important for the 8 inch motorised howitzer I served upon during my conscription duty.
I also once talked with a plasma-nitriding expert, who told me that the inner surface of the 88 mm barrel of the Tiger tank (the same barrel for anti-aircraft gun) was nitrided (I can't remember whether that was gas or plasma nitrided).
Some precision rifles also use nitriding for their barrels with saltbath nitriding of the barrel.

These very thin thermochemical layers have a high effect on friction (speed of the shell) and on wear resistance, especially when the barrel gets hotter.
I cannot find anything back on internet on tank barrel surface treatments, but I guess that is all trade secrets.
The features of the surface of these layers are easily destroyed with acids.
Spinning from that... why not partially melt that surface... or melt essential parts of the tracks.
Drones can I guess perform precision attacks.

I guess that designers of tanks know perfectly well where the critical spots are.

 

[Arwon]

You'd have to say the 76ers tank was very thorough and seems to be paying off now that they have Simmons and Embiid

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course during WW2 T-34 and T-34-85 : hands down best and cost-effective tanks there were !

Sherman was similar in price and got. 2-1 kill ratio in Korea.

Panzer IV was also cheap. T-34 was really only good in 1941.

By wars end it had really thin armor relative to what was being fired at it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not knowing that much about recent tanks...

Somehow I just don't believe that tanks survive the modern development of smart small anti-tank weapons, where the cost to take out a tank can be so low compared to the cost of a tank.
Clever drones ?
Do you really need to penetrate the armor to bring the tank to a standstill ?
How vulnerable is the surface of the inside of a barrel ?
How vulnerable are communication devices that somehow must protrude outside the armor ?

There's a lot if evidence tanks can shrug off modern RPGs. It's not guaranteed but it's been that way since WW2.

If you immobilise the tank it's a mobility kill. Blowing the tracks off or damaging the engine.

A tactical kill would be disabling the gun.

Both scenarios happen IRL.

Barrels need replaced if they get used alot.

Some missiles aren't that much cheaper than the tank they get fired at. Modern tanks are devoting a lot of effort to countering missiles. They cant counter getting hit with another cannon as easily short of thicker armor and/or special materials.

Such armored design reduces the effectiveness of modern cannons it doesn't negate it so if you have a great cannon it's hard to counter that.

Explosive reactive armor can counter man portable RPGs. The explosion when hit reduces the other explosion. Spaced armor causing the missile to detonate early also works.

Then there's a variety of active countermeasures that may or may not work. Electronic jammers, particles to block laser guided missiles things like that.

If penetrated where the ammo is stored and how matters.

Old tanks have RHA armor which is just thick steel. New armor is layered with various materials or has weaved material through it like reinforced concrete.

It gives protection equivalent to a metre or so of ye old RHA. Then they can strap kontact 5 or the equivalent on top of that.

The countries with the best tanks tend to have to the best counters. Hence the USAF and why they always go for air supremacy.