How can a tank be judged best...




 
--
 
October 28th, 2004  
rocco
 

Topic: How can a tank be judged best...


ive lurked a few military websites, and ive seen tons of tank vs tank threads, but in the end those threads end up just simply nationalistic threads... i believe there are a wide variety of things that should be considered for tank v tank...

1) the crew, id say this is very important thing which never gets discussed... people might say, the lecrec is better than the leo... but in reality it might not be the case... examples of this are in the mid east conflict, where arab armies had a large amount of much stronger T-62's vs a small amount of older centurions, and even shermans ( )... but it didnt affect the outcome of the war... so which tanks gain from this? personally i think the leclerc wouldnt last against an abrams if we consider who is operating the tank

2) first shot first kill. this is important, some tanks can hit helicopters in mid air, some fire rockets and some can fight from miles away... this is a hard one, because im sure no one could predict this one...

3) synergy, maybe a leo can beat a abrams 1v1... but thats never gonna happen, because an abrams rides with bradles and the USAF, whereas a leo rides with stuff like the luchs and mardar... this could affect the battlefield if the 2 tanks would ever meet

4) conditions... russian tanks and leclerc have low profiles... this can benefit them in flat terrain, but what about on hilly terrain where american and israeli tanks can hold hull down positions and can shoot at lower angles. weather aswell... some tanks are better in snow, some in desert some in tropical, some in jungle etc...

5) protection... many say an abrams can kick other tanks ass in battle... but an abrams has been knocked out by RPG... as could other top tanks... a merkava can take a shot better than other tanks perhaps... however this culd also affect (2) what if a russian tanks gets the first shot off at the abrams frontal armor and does nothing, but then the abrams hits the russian tank in the turret and knocks it out?

6) speed. could be an important factor, however i doubt a tank could outrun a shell

ahh crap, i will try to think of more i gotta run to meet a friend... what do you guys think of my list? what can be added to it?
October 28th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The most important reason that figuring out what is the best tank in the world is simple: If I'm in the market, what should I buy? Frankly, the vast majority of nations interested in build strong militaries are not equipped to make their own, top of the line Main Battle Tank.

The Crew While this is truly crucial to battlefield victory, if I'm looking to buy 1000 tanks but I haven't decided who to buy them from, the crews are going to remain the same regardless of my decision.

First Shot, First Kill -- All of that leads back to my greatest dilema -- who has the best FCS on a MBT? Whoever can score a kiling shotl first wins. Which tank that would be is very difficult to determine because we're talking some serious top secret stuff if we're discussing the latest and greatest FCS for any given nation.

Synergy The overall combination of a country's weapons is huge. Those nations that lack their own verion of the Bradley are seeing the need more and more for something like it.

Protection The point about being knocked out by an RPG may be a bit silly truthfully. A lucky hit with an RPG could take out any of the top tanks in the world. "The best armored tank in the world" has to factor in new technologies or the lack of them. Depleted uranium is pretty huge. In overall design, the Merkava is the best IMHO. Better sloping of surfaces and BY FAR the most battlefield tested tank in the world. The Leopard and Challenger are also both very well protected. The Abrams is one of the few that has depleted unranium implemented in its armor.

Speed This comes back to the very reason for tanks -- a highly mobile weapons platform. In a 1v1 scenario, outmaneuvering is one of the most important assurances to gaining the first lethal shot. If someone could conceive of an relatively fuel effient tank that had comparable armor to the best tanks currently deployed, but could get the thing to move at 140 mph ... well, every major world power would be in a mad panic to get something in the field to match it. Consider that if I have a massive speed advantage over an opponent with a better FCS than mine, there is a good chance I can keep out of his range until a time of my choosing.

Well, that's all I can think of for now.
October 28th, 2004  
rocco
 
using those seperate 6 category's who do you think comes top in every single category, feel free to have more than one winner of every list... and then can tally up for who has the best.

1) US, israel, brits

2) US, israel, germany, france, brits

3) us

4) all even since they have benefits in different climates/environments

5) israel, britain

6) france

is that right? im not an expert, but from the bits and pieces i have read those would be my choices... so id give the top spot to abrams.
--
October 28th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, we had a series of 1v1 cagematch polls and it was damn close between the Leopard and the Abrams for first place, but ultimately the M1 took top honors. Resulting top 3:

1.) M1 Abrams
2.) Leopard II
3.) Merkava

Those 3 most definitely are some very hard MBT's to beat. If you look through this section, you can find those matches.
October 28th, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
If you really want to look at it right, ask "US Armored Company vs. German Armored Company" or "Russian Armored Battalion vs. French Armor Battalion"
October 28th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Well, team training is all-important in war, but irrelevant in the hardware section.... You will note a well-trained crew in a M60 can defeat a poorly trained one in a M1A2...This makes the hardware discussion irrelavant...Also, its preetey much safe to say all major western armys train their tank crews equaly well, with probably the USA, Britain and Israel having more experience with actuall fighting.
October 28th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
Well, team training is all-important in war, but irrelevant in the hardware section.... You will note a well-trained crew in a M60 can defeat a poorly trained one in a M1A2...This makes the hardware discussion irrelavant...Also, its preetey much safe to say all major western armys train their tank crews equaly well, with probably the USA, Britain and Israel having more experience with actuall fighting.
I think this is true. Also, don't discount the Bundeswehr Panzer/Panzergrenadier Divisions and therefore the training of their tank crews. During the last years of the cold war it was these 12 divisions, not American, not British, that were entrusted to hold the vital Fulda Gap in the event of a Soviet invasion. They were given this job not just because they were defending their own country but because they were regarded as being the best NATO had.
October 28th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Well, that maybe true. But the only countrys that had major tank use in the last 20 years are the USA, UK, and ISrael
November 1st, 2004  
Animal Mother
 
Iran and Iraq had some pretty big ones during their little clash during the 80's as well.
November 1st, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
One thing the US has on it's side is the massive NTC training ground. Most guys in the Gulf war will tell you they were so prepared for it because they trained in an uber realistic enviroment.