Best Tank

[Commodore]

. Perhaps a better question would be which tank is the most versatile

As far as modern tanks? Abrams. Not just because I'm an American, but that tank really can be geared to fit just about any role you might need it to fill. Hell, there is even a proposed air defense variant in the works.

 

[Lexicus]

Not just because I'm an American, but that tank really can be geared to fit just about any role you might need it to fill. Hell, there is even a proposed air defense variant in the works.

Honest question: do other tanks not work this way? I would think that tanks developed more recently would probably make better use of modular design but I have no real idea. @Phrossack?

 

[Ajidica]

Honest question: do other tanks not work this way? I would think that tanks developed more recently would probably make better use of modular design but I have no real idea. @Phrossack?

At its core, a tank is just an armored tracked box. The British quite famously in WWII used the Churchill has a base for all sorts of other vehicles, including non-combat functions such as various types of engineering tractors. Having heavy vehicles share the same chassis makes maintenance and supply easier. I'm pretty sure the Soviets did some air-defense / anti-helicopter tanks based on T-55 chassis mounting rapid-fire autocannons. I'm pretty sure the Soviets abandoned those because they ran into the problem in that they were just as vulnerable as a normal tank to helicopters and the lethality of helicopters increased massively during the Cold War. In the end, the Soviets realized the best way to protect tanks from helicopters is to ensure the helicopters get nowhere near your tanks by achieving air-superiority.

 

[Phrossack]

I think America has more Abrams than Russia.

And most Russian tanks are T-72s alot of them unupgraded

As far as I can tell from a quick Google, Russia has more T-72s alone than the US has tanks of all kinds, with perhaps 1,000 of them upgraded to T-72B3 or B3M standard. Thousands of these tanks in both countries are in storage and are not combat-ready, but it's tough to tell exactly how many.

Semi trollish but I was just about to post that the best tank isn’t a tank at all, but the AH-64. Ultimately the “best” depends on the situation. Perhaps a better question would be which tank is the most versatile?

serious post to come later

PS: Lethality aside, Apache crewmembers are all a bunch of tossers

Helicopters can't hold ground like tanks can, aren't quite as good at direct fire support as tanks are, and are vulnerable to a different variety of weapons. And with improving APS and ERA technology, ATGMs aren't a sure kill anymore.

As far as modern tanks? Abrams. Not just because I'm an American, but that tank really can be geared to fit just about any role you might need it to fill. Hell, there is even a proposed air defense variant in the works.

Honest question: do other tanks not work this way? I would think that tanks developed more recently would probably make better use of modular design but I have no real idea. @Phrossack?

There are a few Abrams variants -the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle, and two varieties of bridge layers. The anti-aircraft variant, the Abrams AGDS, was proposed but never built, and an armored recovery vehicle variant and a version with an unmanned turret were prototyped but never entered production.

This is nothing peculiar to the Abrams. In fact, the odd thing is how few variants there are. This isn't because the Abrams is any less adaptable than other designs, but because the US military doesn't see the need for a new armored recovery vehicle (ARV), heavy infantry fighting vehicle, self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, or self-propelled gun variant. Most successful tank designs have a few specialist variants made of them. The Leopard 2, for example, has bridge layer, ARV, engineering vehicle, and mine clearer variants. The T-72 has a staggering number of variants, both produced and prototyped. Mine clearers, ARVs, bridge layers, multiple thermobaric rocket artillery, a reloader variant to resupply that one, and more. Other tanks have had anti-aircraft or howitzer turrets installed on them, and in WWII tank chassis were often rebuilt into tank destroyers or self-propelled guns.

As for "modularity," it depends on how you define that. If all the differences between two variants are in the turret, then it might just take a relatively quick replacement of the turret, like with anti-aircraft variants of some tanks. Other variants require a complete rebuild in the factory, like ARVs or APCs. They probably retain a majority of common parts but are visually and functionally very different. Compare this M1150 Assault Breacher:



with one of the MBT variants:

 

[red_elk]

I'm pretty sure the Soviets did some air-defense / anti-helicopter tanks based on T-55 chassis mounting rapid-fire autocannons. I'm pretty sure the Soviets abandoned those because they ran into the problem in that they were just as vulnerable as a normal tank to helicopters and the lethality of helicopters increased massively during the Cold War. In the end, the Soviets realized the best way to protect tanks from helicopters is to ensure the helicopters get nowhere near your tanks by achieving air-superiority.

There was Shilka tracked vehicle with autocannons, but as far as I know it didn't use tank chassis and it wasn't abandoned, just replaced with more effective Tunguska and Tor anti-aircraft systems.
The Tos-1 heavy flamethrower is mounted on T-72 chassis, according to wiki.
Both are still used in armed conflicts. Shilka became obsolete as anti-aircraft weapon, but still effective as fire support vehicle against lightly armored target.

 

[Lexicus]

By 'modular design' I meant the ability to quickly swap components to fulfill different roles.

 

[Broken_Erika]

There was Shilka tracked vehicle with autocannons, but as far as I know it didn't use tank chassis and it wasn't abandoned, just replaced with more effective Tunguska and Tor anti-aircraft systems.

He may have been referring to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-57-2

 

[Phrossack]

By 'modular design' I meant the ability to quickly swap components to fulfill different roles.

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I've never seen anything about modular tanks. Some armor kits are easy to add on, but it appears most modifications require extensive reworking in a factory and aren't really plug and play.

 

[CurtSibling]

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I've never seen anything about modular tanks. Some armor kits are easy to add on, but it appears most modifications require extensive reworking in a factory and aren't really plug and play.

America's M1 Abrams features a modular parts system.

"The tank integrates the line-replaceable module technology to enable easy maintenance of the fleet."

Source:
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams-m1a2-sepv3-main-battle-tank/

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I've never seen anything about modular tanks. Some armor kits are easy to add on, but it appears most modifications require extensive reworking in a factory and aren't really plug and play.

Word, I gotcha

 

[red_elk]

He may have been referring to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-57-2

Modern version:

 

[Phrossack]

America's M1 Abrams features a modular parts system.

"The tank integrates the line-replaceable module technology to enable easy maintenance of the fleet."

Source:
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams-m1a2-sepv3-main-battle-tank/

It's unclear what they mean by that. @Lexicus is using "modular" to mean "having parts that can quickly be swapped out for different missions," like transforming an MBT into a mine clearing vehicle or ARV in a garage by replacing components. AFAIK, all these different variants are purpose-built, or have an existing hull stripped down and rebuilt in a factory. They're not really field modifications that can be added or removed.

Modern version:

That's more of an anti-infantry urban combat and tank escort vehicle and doesn't have the radar or, probably, the FCS for AA work. For that, Russia has the Tunguska SPAAG and the Pantsir turret, which can be added to trucks or tank chassis.

 

[r16]

the problem with an anti-aircraft tank is that it certainly lacked the connectivity stuff required for any successful air defence . The S-60 thing as depicted is a modern Wirbelwind of the WWII fame , it could kill planes if it could ever see them or something . Add the turret is very weakly armoured and yet the tank hull adds too much weight for a vehicle you can't dare putting in the front line makes it unavailable for ground combat . Similarly the entire use of the otherwise very famous Shilka in the 21st Century is ground combat . Low profile , agility and stuff . Also correct that you can invest better in fighter jets and the like . But also true that it's a matter of scale , a properly armoured flak turret would be just deadly , but nobody has the money for that sort of thing these days .

also explains the Abrams thing . Chobham armour doesn't come cheap . That's like why America had Sgt York , which would have the eyes but was put on a M-48 hull , because money . In the Reagan era the most abundant thing Pentagon had was money .

 

[emzie]

As far as modern tanks? Abrams. Not just because I'm an American, but that tank really can be geared to fit just about any role you might need it to fill. Hell, there is even a proposed air defense variant in the works.

I would agree about the Abrams, but it is overly dependent on logistical supply that were it to go up against an enemy that could disrupt supply lines, it would be outclassed by more independent tanks.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would agree about the Abrams, but it is overly dependent on logistical supply that were it to go up against an enemy that could disrupt supply lines, it would be outclassed by more independent tanks.

Abrams is good for the Americans not for most countries.

Americans have had good logistics since WW2 at least. They had something like a 1:2 ratio between Frontline troops and logistics.

Germans had 2:1 and logistics were their weakness.

Carried to absurdities in WW2 Operation Torch they took all these supplies etc with them in a trans Atlantic invasion apparently including 3 bottling plants for coca cola.

That's the Abrams weakness, no other country has that advantage unless they're allied to the Americans or are a puppet.

T-80 tried but engine was "to expensive". Cheap is still the go to for Russia. They're very good at announcing things not so good on the follow through (they're kinda broke).

 

[Commodore]

I would agree about the Abrams, but it is overly dependent on logistical supply that were it to go up against an enemy that could disrupt supply lines, it would be outclassed by more independent tanks.

I think the Abrams would still do fine if supply lines were disrupted, at least as far as fuel is concerned. The Abrams can run on pretty much any combustible liquid, albeit not very efficiently. So as long as tank crews can find some kind of combustible liquid lying around, the Abrams will keep trucking along.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Carried to absurdities in WW2 Operation Torch they took all these supplies etc with them in a trans Atlantic invasion apparently including 3 bottling plants for coca cola.

I hadn't heard abut the coke bottling plants but I did hear that the navy converted a surplus cement mixing/carrying ship into a mobile ice cream plant. Some Japanese admiral allegedly heard about this and realized the war was lost in that moment (probably apocryphal).

I think the Abrams would still do fine if supply lines were disrupted, at least as far as fuel is concerned. The Abrams can run on pretty much any combustible liquid, albeit not very efficiently. So as long as tank crews can find some kind of combustible liquid lying around, the Abrams will keep trucking along.

This sounds like the sort of thing that sounds great in theory but would quickly be found not to be workable in practice.

 

[Phrossack]

Abrams is good for the Americans not for most countries.

Americans have had good logistics since WW2 at least. They had something like a 1:2 ratio between Frontline troops and logistics.

Germans had 2:1 and logistics were their weakness.

Carried to absurdities in WW2 Operation Torch they took all these supplies etc with them in a trans Atlantic invasion apparently including 3 bottling plants for coca cola.

That's the Abrams weakness, no other country has that advantage unless they're allied to the Americans or are a puppet.

T-80 tried but engine was "to expensive". Cheap is still the go to for Russia. They're very good at announcing things not so good on the follow through (they're kinda broke).

The T-80 is still in use in Russia in fairly large numbers and was even recently upgraded as the T-80BVM. It isn't their mainstay, for sure, but over a thousand T-80s remain in active use.

I think the Abrams would still do fine if supply lines were disrupted, at least as far as fuel is concerned. The Abrams can run on pretty much any combustible liquid, albeit not very efficiently. So as long as tank crews can find some kind of combustible liquid lying around, the Abrams will keep trucking along.

That is one advantage of the Abrams, though US logistics are such that I'm not sure whether they've ever needed to use it.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Is Leclerc good?
2. Do you think any conceptual or prototype tanks seen few years ago can outdo Abrams?
3. (Mod material) is there Abrams model or entire asset file for Civ6?
4. How good Merkava is? I'd think Merkava's ability to climb Golan Heighs made this tank something Abrams can't do.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

As far as I can tell from a quick Google, Russia has more T-72s alone than the US has tanks of all kinds, with perhaps 1,000 of them upgraded to T-72B3 or B3M standard. Thousands of these tanks in both countries are in storage and are not combat-ready, but it's tough to tell exactly how many.

Helicopters can't hold ground like tanks can, aren't quite as good at direct fire support as tanks are, and are vulnerable to a different variety of weapons. And with improving APS and ERA technology, ATGMs aren't a sure kill anymore.

Tanks have its rol in modern war no doubt, but if the enemy owns the sky tanks are going to be the first victims after SAM sites. I doubt any armor can have much chance against a Hellfire, not to mention much more powerful missiles launched from fixed-wing aircraft like Maverick and such, or Hi-Tech cluster bombs capable of destroying all tanks in a wide area. Probably a few tanks could survive such situation long enough to face enemy land forces, but it would be anecdotic.