How can a tank be judged best...

rocco

Active member
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 ( :roll: )... 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 :D

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"
 
Well, team training is all-important in war, but irrelevant in the hardware section.... :D 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.
 
SHERMAN said:
Well, team training is all-important in war, but irrelevant in the hardware section.... :D 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.
 
Well, that maybe true. But the only countrys that had major tank use in the last 20 years are the USA, UK, and ISrael
 
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.
 
Why is a tank the best ? Hard question each country has different ideas of what's best.

Germany and USA have both gone for a good gun and an a fast tank at a good price. But both have had to increase their armour as they both went for the first kill and move out against masses of USSR tanks. Adding armour to the outside of a tank is never as good as having it there at the first place.

Israel and Uk have both gone for good gun and best armour. With modern fire control systems moving at 40 mph against 30 mph is very little difference so both nation have gone for tanks that can survive a hit. In the present gulf war USA tanks have been destroyed by one rpg hit, against one case of a UK tank throwing a track the taking 47 rpg hits before friendly tanks came to help. The UK studying WW2 action found that the main differences between their shermans and Germany Tanks was the fire control and how many full hits (through the armour) would be needed to kill the tank. The sherman would cook off usual on the first round where a german panther would take about 4 hits.

Another point is reliability of the tank as germany found having a monster tank that didn't work was just one big piece of metal.

In judging tanks I would look at this points.

1. The fire Control , percentage first hit and how fast to 2nd target.
2. The Gun and Round.
3. Armour.
4. Mobility.
5. Reliability.
6. Intergration of tank in to the on going battle.
7. Cost ( how many can you have.)
8. Time to repair. ( is the engine easy to change.)
 
As far as equipment goes, the M1A2 Abrams is not the top tank in use. The reason this tank is so hard to beat is due to several factors. Training is probably the top reason for its superiority in combat. Followed quickly by support from well trained Bradley, howitzer, and rocket artillery support.Most militaries don't go looking for the best 1v1 tank, they look for the tank that best fits the grand sceme of how they operate. All modern tracks are fairly easy to maintain once you get comfortable with the size of everything. Trust me it took me a while to get used to changing a nearly 130 lb. alternator but now in retrospect the fact that its so big does simplify many things, such as never needing anything smaller than a 9/16in or 14mm wrench.
 
I'm the son of a M1A1 Abrams tank commander, I've vollenteered at the Zussman Urban Cobat Training Center, I've riden in a M1A1 Abrams-D, and I've been to the Perry Tank range here at Knox, I've done these things numorous times.


Its not the M1A2 it the M1A2 SEP:

The Abrams tank closes with and destroys enemy forces on the integrated battlefield using mobility, firepower, and shock effect. There are three variants in service: M1, M1A1 and M1A2. The 120mm main gun on the M1A1 and M1A2, combined with the powerful 1,500 hp turbine engine and special armor, make the Abrams tank particularly suitable for attacking or defending against large concentrations of heavy armor forces on a highly lethal battlefield.

Features of the M1A1 modernization program include increased armor protection; suspension improvements; and a nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection system that increases survivability in a contaminated environment. The M1A1D modification consists of an M1A1 with integrated appliqué computer and a far-target-designation capability.

The M1A2 modernization program includes a commander's independent thermal viewer, an improved commander's weapon station, position navigation equipment, a distributed data and power architecture, an embedded diagnostic system and improved fire control systems.

The M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) adds second-generation thermal sensors and a thermal management system. The SEP includes upgrades to processors/memory that enable the M1A2 to use The Army's common command and control software, enabling the rapid transfer of digital situational data and overlays.
 
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.

Not only that the Abrams is the only tank to use Uranium-depleted shells the Sabot, HEAT, MPAT, and STAFF.
 
Amn. Adam Seaman said:
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.

Not only that the Abrams is the only tank to use Uranium-depleted shells the Sabot, HEAT, MPAT, and STAFF.

Actually the British, French, Israelis, Chinese, Pakistani and Russian military all use DU. The US just has the best DU penetrator, the M289A3 with 960mm of penetration.
 
Back
Top