Best MBT in Service

Best MBT service? READ BELOW BEFORE VOTING

  • Merkava IV [Israel]

    Votes: 10 13.3%
  • T-90 [Russian Federation]

    Votes: 7 9.3%
  • Leclerc [France]

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Leopard 2 [Germany]

    Votes: 29 38.7%
  • M1 Abrams [United States]

    Votes: 18 24.0%
  • Challenger 2 [United Kingdom]

    Votes: 8 10.7%
  • Type 99 [PR China]

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • P'okpoong-Ho [North Korea]

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Total voters
    75
i think T-90 is best and most exported tank of this decade. India will have 1000+ tanks and Saudi 350 tanks and some tanks in small numbers to small countries....
if it is not the best why would it have been sucessfull and exported in large no's for foreign countries.
Because its an economic tank, it offers good quality for its price, also its available in numbers that for example Leo2 is not.

There's basically 3 3rd gen tanks on the market today, M1, Leo2 and T-(insert number), M1 and Leo2 are rich mans tanks, countries on a budget prefer the T-90.

The tank market is complicated in that there's political background, economy and price, in case of India for example they needed a tank that was cheap enough to purchase in bulk and good enough to face the Pakistani tanks, they dont need M1s because thats an overpriced overkill and they cant have Leos because today there's about 300 Leos available and India needs more.
 
Last edited:
I would have to go M1 then Merkava. Stats alone are not and should not be final determining factors. These two tanks have been battle tested over time and have passed the test with flying colors. Besides the Challenger, what other tanks on the list can make that claim.

I put the Merkava after the Abrams because it's too specialized, it's great for fighting in the region of its' origin, but can it perform that well in a multitude of evironments? Who knows...The Abrams has and continues to operate in combat in different environments over and over again and consistently comes out on top. Only one or two have been taken out by enemy fire and they were one in a million shots(the crews still survived).
 
I would have to go M1 then Merkava. Stats alone are not and should not be final determining factors. These two tanks have been battle tested over time and have passed the test with flying colors. Besides the Challenger, what other tanks on the list can make that claim. ).
Both tanks have been tested against a technologically inferior enemy, as for what other tanks? LeClerc and Leo2A6 can easily shoulder the challenge.
I put the Merkava after the Abrams because it's too specialized, it's great for fighting in the region of its' origin, but can it perform that well in a multitude of evironments?
Yes it can, no its not specialized.
Who knows...The Abrams has and continues to operate in combat in different environments over and over again and consistently comes out on top.
On top of what?
Only one or two have been taken out by enemy fire and they were one in a million shots(the crews still survived).
Actually well over fifty throught history and no they were not one in a milion shots.
 
I meant since the war on terror began, excuse me for not clarifying that point. I know one for sure because I saw the Abrams myself. It was taken out during one of the Thunder runs into Baghdad, it was hit in the ass end by and RPG that set a fire that couldn't be put out in a timely manner given their circumstances. 1-64 Armor (or possibly 4-64, I can't remember exactly) put several HEAT and Sabot rounds into it to disable it and make it unrecognizable as an American tank, that was unscuccessful, so they had an A-10 put a few Maverick missle into it...still there, so they just let it go and moved toward BIAP. I saw the tank a few days later when my unit went into Baghdad and there it was in all it's glory still there and still good to go with the help of a few parts and a few mechanics. Plus the entire crew survived.

When I said one or two I meant crewman...not actual tanks...once again sorry for the lack of clarification there. Fact is, if you are in an Abrams, you can pretty much take anything the enemy can throw at you and expect to out of it in one piece.

I can tell you that 2nd Brigade 3rd ID engaged the Medina Division south of Baghdad in 2003 and we wiped them out...they hardly got a shot off.(not for lack of trying) Call them what you will, most of the T-series tanks we encountered had guns ranging from 115mm-125mm with crews that were not considered inferior at the time. WE certainly took them very seriously. BUT, they were outgunned, out ranged, and outclassed.

Also, the fact is that they HAVE been to battle, that alone is certainly something to consider when making an assessment like this. Combat is combat, you can die just easily from an "inferior" enemy as you can from super soldiers.

Seriously "on top of what?"...Are you not familiar with the common English phrase of "coming out on top" meaning to win, to successfully accomplish something, to end up better than the enemy/competitor/etc...is that something I really need to explain? Seems awfully petty to me.

Finally, I thought this was an OPINION poll, I'm basing my top tank based off of my experience and from that I take the Abrams.
 
When I said one or two I meant crewman...not actual tanks...once again sorry for the lack of clarification there. Fact is, if you are in an Abrams, you can pretty much take anything the enemy can throw at you and expect to out of it in one piece.
You can't take quite a lot, you can't take the latest gen APFSDS rounds to the sides, MILAN or SPIKE side or rear shots will also make you a wreck, top attack missiles and gunships as well as artillery will also make it a smoking wreck, there's a lot that can destroy an M1 in all variants, it just so happens Iraqis didnt have such weapons.
I can tell you that 2nd Brigade 3rd ID engaged the Medina Division south of Baghdad in 2003 and we wiped them out...they hardly got a shot off.(not for lack of trying) Call them what you will, most of the T-series tanks we encountered had guns ranging from 115mm-125mm with crews that were not considered inferior at the time. WE certainly took them very seriously. BUT, they were outgunned, out ranged, and outclassed.
We're all trained not to piss down on enemy even if he's armed with spears, however the fact is you could drive your tank in the middle of their formation and they'd still be helpless their rounds were 40 years old and their optics non-existent.
Also, the fact is that they HAVE been to battle, that alone is certainly something to consider when making an assessment like this. Combat is combat, you can die just easily from an "inferior" enemy as you can from super soldiers.
No argument there, they're battle tested but that doesnt make them better, it makes them battle tested.
Seriously "on top of what?"...Are you not familiar with the common English phrase of "coming out on top" meaning to win, to successfully accomplish something, to end up better than the enemy/competitor/etc...is that something I really need to explain? Seems awfully petty to me.
]
You misunderstood my point, your tanks came in with massive air support, total comms dominance and full set of logistics, you can't put their performance as a massive success if there was nothing to challenge them, thats what i'm trying to get across.
Finally, I thought this was an OPINION poll, I'm basing my top tank based off of my experience and from that I take the Abrams.
What about fuel consumption and ridiculous price?
 
Quote:
"You can't take quite a lot, you can't take the latest gen APFSDS rounds to the sides, MILAN or SPIKE side or rear shots will also make you a wreck, top attack missiles and gunships as well as artillery will also make it a smoking wreck, there's a lot that can destroy an M1 in all variants, it just so happens Iraqis didnt have such weapons."

This is true, but this is also true for all MBTs throughout the world. Slap some reative armor on the M1 and it will mitigate a lot of these threats. Not to mention if we're going against a country that does have these weapons, than that means we are bringing our full arsenal to bear as well. I would imagine then that most of the air threats would have been mitigated over the battlefield for the Abrams considering the air support that would be provided to them via the US Air Force and the Army Helicopter Attack squadrons.

I think the fact that they're battle tested is more of a psychological factor for the crews. The crews can trust their equipment which is huge in combat. I'm not saying that the M1A2 is impervious, it most certainly is not, but it does an admirable job of protecting its' crews and minimizing the damage if it is hit catastrophically. Combat is the biggest crucible that man can experience, you find out many things about your equipment when you have engaged in combat, some good, some bad, and because of that measures can be taken to mitigate the problems and maximize the success. Think of it this way, would you take a super SF soldier that is not battle tested, or the regular grunt that is? In a pinch, you know that the grunt is going to perform. No matter how well trained a soldier is, until they have experienced combat, their ability to function in that environment is in question.

Quote:
"You misunderstood my point, your tanks came in with massive air support, total comms dominance and full set of logistics, you can't put their performance as a massive success if there was nothing to challenge them, thats what i'm trying to get across."

After the Ambush on the Apache squadron during the invasion, Apache support was limited. Almost every Apache in that squadron was damaged and almost half was damaged to the point of being grounded. It was basically a shock to the system because then you had commanders going "whoa whoa whoa...what just happened" Artillery assets were abundant, but most of the fighting was done in and around cities where the arty support was not used because of possible collateral damage. As for the logistics, by the time we got within 100 miles of Baghdad our supply lines were several hundred miles long, several units were engaged and honestly, there wasn't enough logistics support to go around. This became very apparent when we got into Baghdad and every battalion in the city was at least amber on ammo/fuel and most were red. Hell, in my battalion alone we were black on 25mm DU and HE /.50Cal / 120mm MPAT/ 120mm Heat /, red on 7.62 for the co-ax and 5.56 for our personal weapons. Air support was limited because, once again, in a city. It was only through the efforts of some ballsy transportation guys to run a gauntlet of enemy fire through several miles up highway 8 in soft soft skin vehicles hauling ammo and fuel for the entire BCT that we were able to stay in the city like we did. The idea that the fight was over before it happened is false and had just a few things gone differently it would have been one of the darkest days in recent US military history.

Fuel consumption is a problem and the price is high. Fact is, we can afford them, and in our eyes, it's an acceptable expence if it will keep more guys in the fight and bring more guys home. Once again, OPINION POLL, this all based on opinions. No matter what anyone says, the fact is that I've seen these beasts in action and they are some bad mama jamas!

Hopefully, we will never have to find out who really is the best in the world because to find that out....well, would mean the sh!t has hit the fan throughout the world and there would be much bigger things to be concerned about rather than who has the best MBT

"Good enough will always be trumped by better" A quote a Soviet Admiral had over his desk to remind him of the relative quality between Western and Eastern block countries.
 
Last edited:
I voted for the Leo2 - simply because it is the only one of the MBT's I have seen and experienced supporting us guys on the ground.
 
Not to denigrate the OP, or the contributors to this thread (and bearing in mind I'm an ex-APC Driver turned Cav Scout, not a MBT crewie), but I think as time goes on, questions like this are going to become more and more irrelevant; it'll be less of a case of "Who's got the best tank design?" and more of a case of "Who trains their tank crews the best?"

At the end of the day, we can list those current gen MBTs which have been battle tested and which haven't. But I don't think it matters too much what the match up is anymore. The crew that's the better trained, with a better firing position, who get first round up the tube and a First Hit On Target are going to be the ones still alive to tell warries as they prop up the bar.... :drunkb:

Previous posters' points about supporting arms are also well made and taken :)
 
Not to denigrate the OP, or the contributors to this thread (and bearing in mind I'm an ex-APC Driver turned Cav Scout, not a MBT crewie), but I think as time goes on, questions like this are going to become more and more irrelevant; it'll be less of a case of "Who's got the best tank design?" and more of a case of "Who trains their tank crews the best?"

At the end of the day, we can list those current gen MBTs which have been battle tested and which haven't. But I don't think it matters too much what the match up is anymore. The crew that's the better trained, with a better firing position, who get first round up the tube and a First Hit On Target are going to be the ones still alive to tell warries as they prop up the bar.... :drunkb:

Previous posters' points about supporting arms are also well made and taken :)

Agreed, when it comes down to it, crew training and who gets off the first round accurately determines who comes out on top. We could all argue one over the other until we're blue in the face but the points you made are probably the most valid so far on this thread. Good post!
 
Not to denigrate the OP, or the contributors to this thread (and bearing in mind I'm an ex-APC Driver turned Cav Scout, not a MBT crewie), but I think as time goes on, questions like this are going to become more and more irrelevant; it'll be less of a case of "Who's got the best tank design?" and more of a case of "Who trains their tank crews the best?"

At the end of the day, we can list those current gen MBTs which have been battle tested and which haven't. But I don't think it matters too much what the match up is anymore. The crew that's the better trained, with a better firing position, who get first round up the tube and a First Hit On Target are going to be the ones still alive to tell warries as they prop up the bar.... :drunkb:

Previous posters' points about supporting arms are also well made and taken :)

I agree with you in principal, but the thing is even today such comparisons would be very difficult because we haven't had a real tank battles with both sides are on equal footing since the Yom Kippur War and that was almost 40 years ago. The wars since then have all been very one-sided affairs with one side vastly superior in both training and equipment than the other.
 
Last edited:
" Not to denigrate the OP, or the contributors to this thread (and bearing in mind I'm an ex-APC Driver turned Cav Scout, not a MBT crewie), but I think as time goes on, questions like this are going to become more and more irrelevant; it'll be less of a case of "Who's got the best tank design?" and more of a case of "Who trains their tank crews the best?"

At the end of the day, we can list those current gen MBTs which have been battle tested and which haven't. But I don't think it matters too much what the match up is anymore. The crew that's the better trained, with a better firing position, who get first round up the tube and a First Hit On Target are going to be the ones still alive to tell warries as they prop up the bar...." :drunkb:

No offense or anything but PLEASE!!! O' course training plays a big part, I certainly agree. But technology is more important than ever. You could have the best tank crews in the world in lets say an M1...up against a tank with ATGMs. Kinda evens odds a bit hmmm? :coffee:
 
the problem again is, we cant know becuase these will never go up against each other
and it's also, but the main problem comparison of the tanks consist in that some of them were not baptism of fire. Actually, we can estimate T-90, Merkava IV and Abrams (M1A1, M1A2). But who is the best? it's an incorrect question, because T-90 costs about 3 million $ and Abrams - 12. They were created for performs of the different purposes, the T-90 is a assault tank while the Abrams or Merkava are defensive tanks.
 
I go for the Merkava.
I have a question though, does it really have an internal mortar like i read?
If he has he may be superior in urban enviroment in comparison with the other tanks?
 
Yes this is a necro-thread

It need to be revived for a reason.

The gear employed will never be better than the Soldiers that employ it.

Training, Discipline, and the right kind of Crazy are much harder to defeat than nifty doo-dads. Unless you have the raw numbers to swamp the gomers hard.
 
I go for the Merkava.
I have a question though, does it really have an internal mortar like i read?
If he has he may be superior in urban enviroment in comparison with the other tanks?

I have never read nor heard anything about a mortar inside of a Merkava, but it might be true, however, these comparisons are a strange, it would be better to discuss the doctrines surrounding the use of MBTs and the mechanized warfare. I don't think there is so much difference between the top-tanks in the world. I voted for the Challenger II, I have no experience of it, but from what I have seen, I like it, although, I like the Leo II, The Abrams, the Merkava, and the Leclerc as well. All of them are good MBTs, perhaps the South Korean and the new Japanese tanks are good too. Especially the South Korean, they are in the cross hairs from the guys up north and they put a lot into their military, they share some features with Israel, to defend their country and not to export it
 
Well the M! is definetely battle proven I have heard that the leclerc is pretty awesome. Also heard it has the fastest reverse of any tank out there lol jk just a joke
 
The Challenger........It has fought in all main battles along side the American forces and it has not lost a tank in action regardless what missiles have hit it. The only serious damage it suffered when a Challenger got lost in a sand storm and was shot up by another Challenger. One of the them was recorded to have been hit by some 50 rocket grenades and the crew was not injured. Some 300 of them were deployed in Iraq. Yet it hardly ever gets a mention any where even though no Challenger has been lost on the battlefield
 
Main battle tank T - 90 manufactured in the Russian Federation is characterized by a number of things from my point of view and that's what made ​​me chose
1 - they are light Fosenh about 46 tons
2 - it has a cannon of the caliber of 125 mm
3 - laser-guided missiles that use the property of the laser beam is not wide and half the laser active and is located in the Western tanks in general and the laser is active half the forces to be warning alarms Alliz
4 - low tower in general
6 - the operational range of the large compared with the rest of the tanks
This is my point of view a full
 
Back
Top