Best tanks (revised)

Which is the best? (Please at least partially read the links)

  • K2 (South Korean)

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • M1 Abrams (US)

    Votes: 10 47.6%

  • Type 99 (China)

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Y-90 (Russia)

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Merkava IV (Israel)

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • C-1 Ariete (Italy)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Arjun (India)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Leclerc (France)

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Challenger 2 (UK)

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Leopard 2 (Germany)

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • Total voters
    21
Korean Seaboy

Korean Seaboy

Active member
 
Personally, it's a match between M1 Abram, Challenger and Leopard 2. Both amazing tanks and the best in the world. All better in different ways. Many results have different views but I personally voted Challenger. Slightly because I'm British but mainly because after WW2 the British were near or more advanced as the American's on tank design. Also I believe the Challenger has had more exports than the M1 but I may be wrong. Sorry if I am.
 
Please look

Look, I know that some of these tanks are unknown or may be judged as irrelevant, but look at the sites. I think you should consider the K2 and the C-1 Ariete too. Just because they're unknown doesn't mean they're bad.
 
the merkava is the most capable mbt in moderne combat, in urban area or in wide area.
and is the most secure for its crew
 
tamerlan said:
the merkava is the most capable mbt in moderne combat, in urban area or in wide area.
and is the most secure for its crew
Click to expand...

I disagree. Like the Swedish S-103, The Merkeva is a Great Tank but its best suitable for use within its home country. The reason for that is because of Isreal's low population (7.5 Million) which means that Crew survivability is crucial as well as the fact thats its designed to run it the hot Middle-Eastern Enviroment.

But say compared to a say a medium sized European country say France, Germany, or the UK. These countries have moderate size populations 65-70 Million where crew survivability is less important (Im talking as a design feature, not trying to be casual with other people's lives). The design sacrifices needed to make the Merkeva survivable start to hurt it more. For example, its inferior firepower compared to Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. Furthermore, take into account that the Merkeva wasn't really designed to run in very cold environments and I think it will be vastly inferior to some of the others on that list. In short Merkeva was designed to protect Israel, and that's exactly what its best at.

Challenger 2 gets my vote, followed very closely by Abrams, Leopard 2 and Leclerc.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
The reason for that is because of Isreal's low population (7.5 Million) which means that Crew survivability is crucial as well as the fact thats its designed to run it the hot Middle-Eastern Enviroment.
Click to expand...

This makes alot of sense to me. But not only the population but the economy as well. Unless I am mistaken, Israel is an LEDC. To be able to run an army would be extortionate and the need to protect your army will be much higher so as to reduce training costs ect.
 
Another point, and this is true for most of the Tanks on the List is that they have really only faced obsolete Soviet-era tanks on the battlefield. Not to sound too arrogant, but the Russians haven't built a halfway-decent tank since the T-62 (almost 50 years ago). Everything after that has been crap, and I say this based on the discussions I had with a former Russian tank Commander (a business client) who emigrated to the USA. He served in T-62 and T-72s, in the 70's and 80's. He loved the former, and the the T-72 was a deathtrap.

But the point I am making is that none of these tanks have ever faced each other, and to me that's the real test. A modern MBT battle with both sides equipped equally, not the one sided affairs most recent tank battles have been.
 
mmarsh said:
But the point I am making is that none of these tanks have ever faced each other, and to me that's the real test. A modern MBT battle with both sides equipped equally, not the one sided affairs most recent tank battles have been.
Click to expand...

This is only half true. They have never actually fought each other on the battlefield but they have competed against each other in international competitions. However, this is more of a test for the tank crews rather than the tank itself so it's not exactly a reliable source.

I guess what you can learn is that if tanks never actually engage each other in combat it can become very difficult to make a 'good' combat based on learning from experience, because there is very little to learn from.
 
I'm wondering when these bullsh*t threads will stop, i came here because i thought it was a serious forum and all i see is kids spamming "Wut tank iz bezt?".

Use f*cking google or something, stop remaking ridiculous threads over and over, if you dont have even basic knowledge in the subject limit yourself to reading instead of posting rubbish.

Ariete and Ajrun are 3gen tanks in name only, Ariete has composite armor thats similar to Leo2A3 which means any relatively modern 120mm ammo is going to gut the thing, it has good optics, good gun and Italians use pretty modern ammo but its protection is substandard to a point it doesnt deserve a place here.

Arjun is pretty much the same, these are weird machines in that they're build to 3gen standards but dont come even remotely close to M1A2~ Leo2A4 and up, Merk IV, Challenger 2 or Leclerc.

T-90 is not a true 3gen tank for a variety of reasons already recounted quite often, you could compare it with Arjun, Type-99 or Ariete but not with the best MBTs the world has to offer.

The argument about Merkava suited specifically for Israel is complete utter bull, its dimentions are not that different then Leo2A6, it would work just as well in Europe.

As for which tank is best? Right now i'd go with M1A2SEP for best armor, optics and ammunition but the topic is rather ridiculous as the differences between the latest tanks arent big enough to affect actual operations.
 
My boss is a 19k who was a tank commander during the initial invasion when armor was engaging armor. He is also a Master Gunner so you could say he knows a thing or 2 about putting 120mm down range. He worships the m1 like a god. I asked him straight up the other day which was better, the abrams or the leopard. He said the leopard.

For you that don't know Master Gunner school is like the Ranger school of armor.
 
Last edited:
Big_Z said:
My boss is a 19k who was a tank commander during the initial invasion when armor was engaging armor. He is also a Master Gunner so you could say he knows a thing or 2 about putting 120mm down range. He worships the m1 like a god. I asked him straight up the other day which was better, the abrams or the leopard. He said the leopard.

For you that don't know Master Gunner school is like the Ranger school of armor.
Click to expand...
What kind of professional experience with the Leo does your tank commander have to make such claim? I mean he bases his opinion on his experience with M1 so i take it he had some experience with Leopards?

Also which variant of M1 is he driving and which variant of Leo did he mean? Could it be possible that you saw a cow fart and mistaken it for your commander?
 
Big_Z said:
My boss is a 19k who was a tank commander during the initial invasion when armor was engaging armor. He is also a Master Gunner so you could say he knows a thing or 2 about putting 120mm down range. He worships the m1 like a god. I asked him straight up the other day which was better, the abrams or the leopard. He said the leopard.

For you that don't know Master Gunner school is like the Ranger school of armor.
Click to expand...


Once again, personal preference I know three Master Gunners, and each has a varying thought on the M1 and Leopard.

My very own father was a Master Gunner having had experience with the M48A5 LP, M60A1 RISE, M60A3 TTS, M1, M1A1HA, and M1A2 SEP V1, and to quote him and sum this up as we have every other thread like this one.

A tank is only as good as it's crew. Untrained, unkempt, unfamiliar crew? The tank doesn't matter, even if your piloting the Death Star, your going down faster than a lead brick in the Atlantic.

Another thing is the depth and length of training, I'd take a US/UK/Israeli crew over German/French/Russia ect... not because of nationalist pride, but because I know how all these crews are trained, and I know the US/UK/Israel have some damn good training, long, hard and chest hair growing.

Sure being able to smack a VW Bug size target at 3000 meters in match, non-combat conditions on a nice range made to facilitate armor is some achievement, but lets see it happen when Murphy's Law is in effect during dust storm conditions, with sand in everything, while under heavy small arms and RPG fire, at a horrible angle, on the move. That's when you can start comparing tanks.
 
Last edited:
Panzercracker said:
I'm wondering when these bullsh*t threads will stop, i came here because i thought it was a serious forum and all i see is kids spamming "Wut tank iz bezt?".

Use f*cking google or something, stop remaking ridiculous threads over and over, if you dont have even basic knowledge in the subject limit yourself to reading instead of posting rubbish.

The argument about Merkava suited specifically for Israel is complete utter bull, its dimentions are not that different then Leo2A6, it would work just as well in Europe.
Click to expand...

And I am wondering why arrogant members who think their opinion is superior to everyone else's feel they have the right to be rude because they happen to disagree. And I while I agree that comparing real-life tanks to ones that only exist on paper is an impossible comparison, it is possible for you to simply disagree, and state why without acting like a jerk. Feel free to try it next time, before you comment.

As for my thread being "BULL". First of all you didnt read what I said: I said that the Merkeva was best at Defending Isreal, I never said it was impossible to it to be deployed elsewhere. My understanding is that the Merkeva can be adapted for cold weather via Winter kits that can be installed seperately (although I very well could be mistaken on this), someone in the IDF would be better suited to say so than I. The reason I didnt mention it before hand was because I thought we were referring to out-of-the-box tanks w/o any upgrades.

And finally here are a few quotes from Sherman (our resident Isreali Tanker), who, very oddly, seems to agree with what I said. And I will readily admit he knows aheck of alot more about Isreali Tanks than I (or you) do:

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/these-tanks-can-perform-best-page11-t68560.html

"At any rate speed is not much of a measure in tanks, the real question is what types of terrain it can handle. The Merkava was built mainly for the Golan Heights, a rocky and muddy terrain on which it exells. It dose not have the common torsion bar system because it dosent need it, it is a tank made for a specific country".

and here:

"I always said that the Merkava is the best tank for Israel, not for any situation in the world. No tank can handle the terrain we have in the Golan Heights like the Merkava Mk4, simply because it was built with only 2 terrain types in mind".

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/merkava-mk-4-vs-leopard-page10-t65499.html


FO Seaman

I agree, as Chuck Yeagar famously said: "Its the Man, not the Machine".


Yin

Testing helps for sure, but I always feel that actual experiance in the real thing is better than any simulation.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Yin

Testing helps for sure, but I always feel that actual experiance in the real thing is better than any simulation.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you which is why I say in modern times it is hard to make a perfect decision.
 
@FO.

Germans have a very high training standard, their problem is they abuse sims as opposed to live training which reflects in the end effect, Russian tankers can be mentioned only on the same level as "french courage" :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top