Which of these tanks can perform the best?

That's funny, the last time I checked, despite the fact that it was pretty much an air only war for NATO and that each target had to be approved by every member state before being blown up (no doubt leading to delays and therefore missed opportunities), Milosevic capitulated and allowed KFOR, a NATO force to enter Kosovo (which was what the conflict was really about).
The Serbian military was badly pinned down that it couldn't take part in any real military operations. It seems most NATO "kills" were decoys, but it went to show that anything that popped out of its well camouflaged hardened bunkers was toast. If your hardware is so badly pinned down that it can't be used, it's about as good as being knocked out.
There were heavy civilian casualties (comparative to military casualties) unfortunately but if your country takes part in genocide in Europe, don't be surprised if your people die from retaliatory strikes by foreign powers.

Some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Zastava, you basically laid it out like this or that for Yugoslavia.
If it was a West or Russia choice.
Could have gone either way but with a very good chance of actually siding with the West. Again, that's just what I think. Nothing cut in stone here.
Click to expand...

And there is also a very high chance that Tito's Yugoslavia would have sided with the USSR and Warsaw Pact, or just remained unaligned. You have to remember that afterall, Tito's Yugoslavia was Communist, wanting the Communist goal etc etc that kind of crap that they like.

Brave enough to enter Yugoslavia? More like ordered to enter Yugoslavia. That's a lot of chest beating considering how badly Serbia got smashed against NATO forces in the 90's
Click to expand...

Dude, you do realise that ever since hmm I dont know 1985 the Yugoslav military was getting bum smacked? Of course NATO smashed Yugoslavia in 1999, Yugoslavia just had a war for 5 years against Croatia, Slovenia [Kinda], Bosnia and the UN. If America attacked Yugoslavia in the 1960/70's time without the use of NBC weapons, of course America would have won, but what you would have heard on BBC or whichever news channel they had at the time is:

"2 Million US soldiers have been killed during war with Communist Yugoslavia...Logistical equipment have been destroyed...several nuclear submarines have been sunk...USAF suffered heavy losses..."

That kind of stuff.
That's funny, the last time I checked, despite the fact that it was pretty much an air only war for NATO and that each target had to be approved by every member state before being blown up (no doubt leading to delays and therefore missed opportunities), Milosevic capitulated and allowed KFOR, a NATO force to enter Kosovo (which was what the conflict was really about).
Click to expand...

Of course it was an air only war, any idiot would decide to combat 1999 Yugoslavia like that. What would the USAF be up against? Perhaps about 16 unmaintained, no-radar, faulty-avionics MiG-29's? Must have been a great challenge.

The Serbian military was badly pinned down that it couldn't take part in any real military operations. It seems most NATO "kills" were decoys, but it went to show that anything that popped out of its well camouflaged hardened bunkers was toast. If your hardware is so badly pinned down that it can't be used, it's about as good as being knocked out.
Click to expand...

A lot of Yugoslav army equipment was able to move around freely across Yugoslavia... My brother was in the Army during the period. Lots of stuff was moved to this area near Uzice, its like a top-secret facility built into a mountain that USAF tried to bomb but failed miserably.
 
Panzercracker said:
This is a pure guesstimate but i reckon they've got around 5000-6000 tanks operational in all, in case of war that might go up to 8000 maybe more.

By comparison Poland has 700~ tanks and Germany 800~
Click to expand...

Actually these numbers are wrong.

Currently Germany operates 408 Leopard 2 tank (various types) and Poland operates 946 tanks (Leopard 2A4, PT-91 and T-72).
 
Venom PL said:
Actually these numbers are wrong.

Currently Germany operates 408 Leopard 2 tank (various types) and Poland operates 946 tanks (Leopard 2A4, PT-91 and T-72).
Click to expand...
These are wiki numbers, we (Poland) do not have more than 700-800 tanks operational and Germans still have quite a few unsold Leos in reserve.

In effect in case of a war Germany will be able to field significantly more tanks than it has in line and Poland significantly less.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The usual pattern: The American hardware performs better than advertised/expected. Russian hardware performs far worse than advertised/expected.
Click to expand...

That's been the case so far. I'd assume the T90/T95 closes the gap but is the quality control and the tech going to match up?
 
redwood said:
I'd assume the T90/T95 closes the gap but is the quality control and the tech going to match up?
Click to expand...

If the T-90 wasnt actually as good as they make it, I doubt India would have bought it. It also helps that India doesnt care what country it comes from, as long as its good.

I cant remember exactly, but they already have about 350-550 T-90's and have ordered MORE from Russia.
 
Keep in mind that the russian stuff is cheaper and the Indians couldent get as many western tanks for the same prices.
 
Zastava-Arms said:
It also helps that India doesnt care what country it comes from, as long as its good.
Click to expand...


actually, i wouldn't quite agree with that... sadly political/diplomatic factors make a huge difference in most of the larger indian military procurements. and the T-90's were definitely bought as much due to the price tag and the long-standing military trade relations with the russians, as to the performance of the tanks themselves.

when they were first bought, they were bought as a hurried quick-fix, and were better than anything Pakistan had. also, indian relations with the west weren't as great as they are now.

pakistan now has the al-khalid, which many jingoists would have you believe is one of the best tanks ever made and superior to the T-90.
 
DEisenhower said:
Leopard 2 is fast, advanced, and powerful. Best by far. It's mine protection system is invaluable on thew modern battlefield.
Abrahms - slow, but powerful
Merkava - slow, hard to take out
Others - junk
Click to expand...


The Leo goes 45mph and the M1 goes 42.... and you make a point of saying how slow it is? Really? And Sherman said something to the effect of the US being able to throw 100 tanks at an enemy in Europe... we only have 1 tank battallion left in Germany. In case you aren't up to speed, the US has closed most of it's facilities in Germany lately, and the only real force we have there anymore in the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in Vilseck. This useless banter over the pros and cons of Russian armor and how Russian rockets can take out Merkavas is just ridiculous. How many armored divisions did Russia employ in Afghanistan? They fought for 10 straight years at the absolute height of their power and lost 140+ tanks along with 13,000+ men. How can anyone claim Russian dominance and armor superiority with results like that? Or would people have us beleive that since their economy collapsed, they have gotten dramatically better? Face reality. What's that you say? Russian armor got better in the 90s? We have Kontakt 5 ERA? Then can anyone explain why in the heck in 1994 the Russian Army sustained 62 tank losses in one month of fighting in Chechnya? Oh wait, that's because 61 of them were disabled by hits to areas not covered by ERA (source: N.N. Novichkov, V.Ya. Snegovskiy, A.G. Sokolov and V.Yu. Shvarev, Rossiyskie vooruzhennye sily v chechenskom konflikte: Analiz, Itogi, Vyvody [Russian armed force in the chechen conflict: Analysis, outcomes and conclusions] ). Modern Russian armor is made to be cheap and effective. It is not impenetrable, nor is any tank. People keep talking about how great Shtora and Arena are... what good does it do against tank main gun rounds? Nothing at all, so who cares! I'm an Abrams tanker and I feel good about my tank, but best in the world? I'll come right out and say it: Leopard 2A6. It's low profile, agile, better on fuel economy than an M1 and MOST importantly, it's the only tank in the WHOLE WORLD that can prove itself more accurate than an M1 in direct gunnery competition. As long as the Russians hide their tank programs behind smoke and mirrors like the non-existant Black Eagle, how can anyone just assume they are better than tanks that have been widely demonstrated to work in front of enemy forces and the international community? I was stationed in Germany from 2001-2003 in 1/4 CAV, Schweinfurt Germany, and I must say that the German armored force is quite impressive. I'd run my Abrams to the gates of hell and back, but when the Leo can sit side by side and outshoot an M1, that's a huge statement. Until another tank does that, I will never call it the equal of the Leo or the M1. Stop googling some article about a T-90 and then trying to pass it off as fact. Go join the army, and get on a tank crew and then come talk to me.
 
Last edited:
Merkava Mk4 is 4.5 to 5 million dolars for its only client, which is the Israeli Gov. Which also happens to own the plant... I wouldent know how much they would cost to a real customer. As far as selling the T-90 for 7 million dollars, well, thats screwed up.
 
SHERMAN said:
Merkava Mk4 is 4.5 to 5 million dolars for its only client, which is the Israeli Gov. Which also happens to own the plant... I wouldent know how much they would cost to a real customer. As far as selling the T-90 for 7 million dollars, well, thats screwed up.
Click to expand...


Well then, thats the price for each Merk4 the Israeli's buy.

And its 5-7 million, not just 7 million. I think the price depends on what the customer wants on it [You know, them dayum Russkie's take almost everything off the tank then sell them to the country]
 
You guys are tough to stay on subject. The best tank...... The selction dealt with all modern MBT and one maybe; the T95. On the modern battlefield the T34 would be target practice for a Bradley, the WW II German tanks would last about the same length of time, against a Bradley. Tan-on-tank with any of the choices any WW II tank would be target practice and in some cases the modern tanks might be able to get two kills for one round. Russian armor formations rely on numbers, their MBT are OK, given the money, I would buy our employ a T anything from the 34 through the maybe 95. Ask yourself a question why do the Russian rely on such large caliber main guns? Powder! If it ever happens, the Leopard and the Abrams will dominate the modern battlefield, woodland, or desert.
 
aafter oparating a Merkava i can say that this is(!) the besst tank in the world...period.
well not really the best but its abselutly awsome and in the same level of the Loe and the M1
 
EladBell said:
aafter oparating a Merkava i can say that this is(!) the besst tank in the world...period.
well not really the best but its abselutly awsome and in the same level of the Loe and the M1
Click to expand...


after operating something you can only say you THINK it's the best. Unless you've operated something else or seen other vehicles in action, what is your frame of reference? I don't think a Merkava has the armor to compete with a Leo or an M1, but since it has the ability to house some dismounts, it seems like they cared less about a world beating MBT and more about making something to be more useful in urban environments. The Merkava is a great vehicle for what it's used for, but I don't think I would compare it to vehicles that it wasn't designed to compete with in the first place.
 
What are the criteria to judge the Best Tank? I can think of a few off the top of my head:

main gun effectiveness (a factor of size and ammunition quality)
fire control system
Night Sight systems
Ammo loading system
Armor
Maneuverability
crew survivability
maintenance reliability
fuel consumption
tactical displays and navigation

So how do you quantify each area and assign a weight? Each of the main contenders for Best Tank have advantages and limitations,, often built upon the battlefield experiences unique to that country.

I favor the M1, but my view is rather biased.

They use to hold an annual NATO tank gunnery competition at Grafenwoehr, Germany. Granted, some one was declared the winner, but the difference in scores were extremely close. That would be a way to quantify fire control and night sight systems but would be heavily influenced by the quality of the crew. It generally came done to a M-1 vs a Leo.
 
after operating something you can only say you THINK it's the best. Unless you've operated something else or seen other vehicles in action, what is your frame of reference? I don't think a Merkava has the armor to compete with a Leo or an M1, but since it has the ability to house some dismounts, it seems like they cared less about a world beating MBT and more about making something to be more useful in urban environments. The Merkava is a great vehicle for what it's used for, but I don't think I would compare it to vehicles that it wasn't designed to compete with in the first place
Click to expand...

I think our dear friend Elad is just exited as he is a new recruit to the IDF and just started operating tanks. On the other hand, your understanding of the Merkava is extremely poor, as is your understanding of IDF operational theory, based on what you wrote.
Merkava was never built as a MOUT vehicle, it is built as a world class MBT. The "dismount carrying" feature is not really a major issue in the Merkavas design, and is simply a bonus to having a front mounted engine. The Merkava was built with the same enemies in mind as any other western tank, the russian T series. If you doubt this please ask away about features on the M1 or Leopard and their existance on the Merkava, I will be happy to reply as long as I dont have to break the law to do so.

They use to hold an annual NATO tank gunnery competition at Grafenwoehr, Germany. Granted, some one was declared the winner, but the difference in scores were extremely close. That would be a way to quantify fire control and night sight systems but would be heavily influenced by the quality of the crew. It generally came done to a M-1 vs a Leo.
Click to expand...

But the diffrence between the best western fire control system and main gun to the worst is far smaller than the diffrence between the worse and best gunner I have worked with in my service...An Israeli gunner is not the same as an American or German. The only way to really say which tank has the best fire control would be to take the results of say 100 rounds fired by the same 10 gunners on each tank on the same range in the same conditions and compare those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top