The best tank or panzer today

[stormbind]

The fact is that no other tank of its kind has the results that the M1A1+ series has and therefor there is no way to judge performance.

Challenger II MBT have been deployed beside M1A1 on many occations, and always outperformed the M1A1 in the ways it has been expected to.

Challenger were more resistant to mines, and extremely hard hitting. The only Challenger II lost in Iraq was friendly fire from another Challenger II

 

[JohnRM]

Challenger II MBT have been deployed beside M1A1 on many occations, and always outperformed the M1A1 in the ways it has been expected to.

Challenger were more resistant to mines, and extremely hard hitting. The only Challenger II lost in Iraq was friendly fire from another Challenger II

Yeah, okay, I'll give you that. The Challenger II is one hell of a kick ass tank.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

What we need are some computer games where we can pit squads of M1A1's, T-90's, Leopards, Challengers and other international diplomacy-via-smackdown machines against each other! RTS games based on actual real-world physics seem rather rare, however.

This would be awesome. Too bad we all can't afford the simulators used by the US military that can simulate the effects of movement on you body.

I've looked at a few of these tanks and can't provide a legitimate answer. The US does so well in combat due to its command and control systems and trained crews. Also, many trade off factors that make it hard to compare 'best'. 'Best' in what scenario. Some things are obviously better or worse such as range, targeting, armor. Others are not so obvious as they sometimes matter and sometimes don't, such as fuel consumption, transportability, maintenance problems.

For example, if I need tanks there now and there is no airstip to land anything more than a C-130 equivalent, any tank (all those listed above) with more weight would be useless. I'd need something smaller.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well, this is bad comparison IMHO. T-72s were no match for Abrams. It's like sending lifeboat against battleship

Before the T-72 actually faced the Abrams it wasn't considered to be such a push over.

 

[BasketCase]

For example, if I need tanks there now and there is no airstip to land anything more than a C-130 equivalent, any tank (all those listed above) with more weight would be useless. I'd need something smaller.

Or hovertanks with maglev suspension systems instead of treads.

 

[kronic]

What on Earth is Germany going to do with it's 2500 Leopard tanks? Expensive and useless!

Simple answer. The current government wants to reduce the number to 800. The rest will be sold to countries like Turkey so that they can finally crush the Kurds.

 

[allhailIndia]

Sometimes climate also makes a huge impact on a tanks performance.

Even deserts are not all the same.....fighting in the Iraqi desert is not the same as combat on the Thar desert, and it is not just the heat which can cause problems for a tank. I remember seeing on the BBC that the Challenger faced several breakdowns while testing in Kuwait (or Oman I'm not very sure), because the tanks were not designed to keep off the extremely fine grained dust which kept getting into the engine.

The other example I quoted, of the Patton tanks getting bogged down in the soft mud of the Punjab region shows how a important it is for a tank to be able to adjust to the terrain and conditions it is fighting in.

Oh yes, and air superiority is also very very important. However, I think some of the attack helicopters are a bit over rated. If I remember correctly, the US airborne troops were not very satisfied with the performance of the Apache in the recent Iraq war either. Was wondering if anybody had details on that??

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

There is a problem with people rating the performance of the T72 depending on the Iraq war ,it's a bad scenario for that because in the Iraq wars the USA had total air supperiority over the skies ,meaning that the could send AWAC's in ,thus meaning that these AWAC's coul identify tank collum's from very far and assign these target's to Abram's formations long before the T72 withought air cover could pick up an abrams on their radar.

In Iraq ,the USA simply had armored supperiority due to being able to fire on the enemy tanks long before the enemy could know where the American's were.However in a scenario where each ide have equal air cover and crew training the T72's performance against a Abrams wouldn't be that bad by far ,and if used in a mass in numbers VS quality it would win to.

And Btw ,i repeat ,the T90 is not a better tank than the T80 ,the T90 is an upgraded T72 ,just because T90 is higher number than T80 doesn't make it better. The T90 however is a very cost effeciant tank ,being based on the succesfull T72 model ,a tank with maybe the best mobilety in the world ,combined with good firepower and now modernized electronic's.

A Rpg can hit a hole in a M1A2

Depends on what type of RPG ,and more importantly ,what type of ammo you stick in it.Their are several type's of HE and HEAT rounds and depending on technoligy mostly the newer versions penetrate better.
Their are also various typs's of launcher's ,most commonly used is the rpg7 of different models ,where the Rpg7V has the best penetration. (trough svelocity)
Though Rpg's are better used at relative short distance's ,it's better to use static AT missile system's against large tank formation's ,Rpg's are more for guerilla warfare.
Another thing to note that virtually every AT weapon will be effective against the low armor top of a tank ,even pile up charges or molotov coctails can still be deadly when thrown on the top of a tank.

What we need are some computer games where we can pit squads of M1A1's, T-90's, Leopards, Challengers and other international diplomacy-via-smackdown machines against each other! RTS games based on actual real-world physics seem rather rare, however.

i have the Challenger to somewhere in a addon list ,but couldn't find it directly.

(from left to right; Leopard2 ,T12UM black Eagle ,T72 (or t90) ,M1a2 Abrams)
(and i got a few dozen's different armor models i can put in that screeny ,this game rock's btw )

 

[Adler17]

Well I think it is the Leopard 2. Why? There are only 4 other competitors. Leclerq, T 80, Abrams and Challenger 2. The Merkava is also good but IMO does not arrive the level of the mentioned ones.
The T 80 is an outstanding tank but its armour is not so good as well as the gun. The guns on Abrams and Leopard are equivalent and as good as the Leclerq. The armour of Leo 2, Abrams and Challenger 2 are also equal. The Challenger has to my infos a worse gun. It is not rifled and to my infos it is not so accurate and pernetrable. I spoke a few years ago with a German tank commander and he said that as wll as several books. The Leclerq has two real lacks: first the low number and secondly the armour is not so good as the other 3. I think it makes together with the Challenger 2 the third rank.
Now what is the best tank? Only two tanks were also exported in numerous times, and the Leo 2 is leading. Both tanks have the same armour and gun. But the Abrams has a gas engine which has to be refulled very often and is not so reliable than a Diesel one like the Leo. The Leo can drive over 80 km and is a bit faster than the Abrams AFAIK. However it can drive 450 km without refuelling. At least the doubled range than the M1.
So all in all the Leo 2 is the best. Then the M 1. On the third place the Challenger 2, slightly before the Leclerq. Then the T 80 and the Merkava.

Adler

 

[Hitro]

Simple answer. The current government wants to reduce the number to 800. The rest will be sold to countries like Turkey so that they can finally crush the Kurds.

You surely meant to say to support freedom and Democracy in a soon-to-be EU member.

 

[Longasc]

OK, we support freedom and democracy by helping our turkish friends to crush terrorists in the anatolian mountains!

 

[Jawz II]

Well I think it is the Leopard 2. Why? There are only 4 other competitors. Leclerq, T 80, Abrams and Challenger 2. The Merkava is also good but IMO does not arrive the level of the mentioned ones.
The T 80 is an outstanding tank but its armour is not so good as well as the gun. The guns on Abrams and Leopard are equivalent and as good as the Leclerq. The armour of Leo 2, Abrams and Challenger 2 are also equal. The Challenger has to my infos a worse gun. It is not rifled and to my infos it is not so accurate and pernetrable.

id have to say leopard2 the new version,i think its called A2 with all the extra armour

as far as guns go, im pretty sure you got it backwards, the challenger has a rifled gun, which is good, the leo and abrams have smoothbore rheinmetall guns that makes them more versatile

i think the race is a close one between abrams (the latest version) and leo2
leo wins because of its heavier armour

abrams is very similar but has a thirst for fuel and the turbine generates huge heat signatures, althought it is a tad more mobile than the leo 2

merkava is made for fighting militias inside cities, that it dose well

but it lacks mobility to be a good tank for conventional cavalery role
also back of the turret is a huge shot trap, hence the added ball and chain armour you usually see on them
someone told me they have room for infantry inside!
if its true, its a really bad idea!

 

[Adler17]

Jawz, you´re right. I read about the Merkava having place for a small infantry squad inside.

Adler

 

[Jawz II]

Well, the Challenger II can engage 8 targets simultanously and has longer weapons range. In a flawless operation for both sides, it would thus take 9 T-72s for each Challenger II.

Btw, given weapons range and probability of penetration, I don't think 15 Shermans could take out 1 M1A1 - unless it broke down or something. I think you might need 1 Sherman for every spare shell carried by the M1A1

when they say the challenger can engage 8 targets simultanously they dont mean it can destroy them all at once, the main gun isnt fully automatic

they are talking about the fire control
t-72s with a decent upgrade package, specially modern fire controls can be more than a match for any tank

in iraq 1 single t-72 took out 2 abrams (out of a totall of 11 abrams lost),at point blank range, the commander understood how the IR sights work and so they shut the engine off and aimed the gun with the emergency hand crank, after 2 shots however the barrel got hot and they were destroyed

the reason the iraqis got their asses kicked isnt because theyre equipment was bad, theyre stuff wasnt as good, sure
but airplane vs tank can only end in one way

as someone mentioned, the iraqis didnt have DU amunition, the americans did, you have to have DU rounds if you wanna fight tank that have DU armour(the super secret chobham armour is made outta that stuff and some weird ceramic/metal mix)

shermans have a 75mm gun, theres really no point in comparing them to modern tanks

ps. i think DU(depleted uranium) should be illegal, heres why:
warning:strong images ahead
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

 

[Hotpoint]

The armour of Leo 2, Abrams and Challenger 2 are also equal.

The Challenger has to my infos a worse gun. It is not rifled and to my infos it is not so accurate and pernetrable.

The Challenger 2 has better armour than either of the other two tanks. If you think otherwise you don't have the right information sources

The world record for the longest range tank kill in history is held by the Challenger 1 using the rifled L11A5 120mm by the way, which is superior in accuracy to the Rheinmetal Smoothbore. The L30 on the Challenger 2 is even more accurate especially given the improved fire-control systems which is actually an upgraded version of the unit used in the Abrams.

Better gun, better fire control, thicker armour... Challenger 2 all the way folks

 

[Longasc]

Hehe, it is too funny. Germans vote for the Leopard 2, the British praise their Challengers, Americans often say there is not that much of a difference at all...

Face it. The best tank is probably this Brazilian Tank. We just do not have enough Brazilians posting here!

 

[Jawz II]

The Challenger 2 has better armour than either of the other two tanks. If you think otherwise you don't have the right information sources

The world record for the longest range tank kill in history is held by the Challenger 1 using the rifled L11A5 120mm by the way, which is superior in accuracy to the Rheinmetal Smoothbore. The L30 on the Challenger 2 is even more accurate especially given the improved fire-control systems which is actually an upgraded version of the unit used in the Abrams.

Better gun, better fire control, thicker armour... Challenger 2 all the way folks

the rifled gun is very good, but there are some kinds of munitions you cant fire trough it, the challenger is a great tank, and it dose have the thickest top armour, but leo is all around better

why do you think the only country (as far as i know) operating it is the UK?

leo has been sold to many countries, and its not only cheap second hand ones im talking about

 

[Hotpoint]

why do you think the only country (as far as i know) operating it is the UK?

Because it's the most expensive MBT in the world to buy. The Leopard 2 is better value for money hence better sales.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

If I remember correctly, the US airborne troops were not very satisfied with the performance of the Apache in the recent Iraq war either. Was wondering if anybody had details on that??

No idea what the Airborne situation is with there support, I know we get along find with the AH-1W Super Cobras and CH-46 Sea Kinghts we have had to use for years. From what I have Seen the Apache is an awesome bird, with some damn fine army pilots. It's pretty much the same bird with some differances from the Super Cobra, and then you have the regular Apache and the Longbow.

 

[Mikoyan]

why do you think the only country (as far as i know) operating it is the UK?

I think Oman operates Challenger 2, and Jordan operates Challenger 1.