The Best Modern Tanks.

Glider · 12-03-2005, 06:15 PM

I totally agree. If my opponents were equipped with lighter armour I would be tempted to get my Centurions out of storage, add reactive armour to protect me against missiles and guns with similar warheads.
The 105 is more than good enough to take on lighter armour.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-04-2005, 03:29 AM

but remember the role of these light tanks is primarily recon/policing duties, if they're jumped on a recon their fist aim is to get out of their, fast, as they know they stand little chance against anything with a big gun, they're not designed of open combat, and in the policing duties they're not likely to come up against a tank, if they do then someone in an armoured brigade hasn't done their job properly

plan_D · 12-04-2005, 07:45 AM

True, but that's exactly why the tank can never be replaced by just light vehicles. Tanks will still enter all areas except those completely impassable to them.

Soren · 12-04-2005, 11:46 AM

All I can say is that the Leopard 2A5-6 has been found to be the best tank in the world today by nearly every country who's tested it against others. Thats also namely the reason why Sweeden picked the Leo 2A5, as it proved superior both in efficiency and cost to the M1A2 Abrams and French Leclerc.

Also according to Armor Magazine the top tank in the world today is the Leopard 2A6.

If you ask me, its either the Challenger 2 or the Leopard 2A6. (they're very close)

Glider · 12-04-2005, 12:19 PM

I would agree with you Soren.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 01:02 PM

I would disagree with you. The Abrams is still the best tank on the battlefield by far. Even better than the Leopard 2 and the Challenger. The latter 2 coming in a close second in my opinion, but no tank is better than Abrams and been better proven in the best way possible as in COMBAT than the Abrams.

Soren · 12-04-2005, 01:25 PM

Well it can't be the best Adler, and thats mainly because its been turned down by nearly every country which has been offered picking it as their MBT, in favor of having the Leo 2A5-6 instead.

And also since the M1A2 Abrams has been losing every single trial between itself and the Leo 2A5-6, in everything from firepower to armor protection to overall battlefield efficiency, the Abrams just can't be crowned the THE best MBT in the world today.

I'd bet all my money on either the Challenger 2 or the Leopard 2A6 in a fight with the M1A2 Abrams, or any other tank for that matter.

Now I'm not saying the M1A2 Abrams is a crappy tank or anything like that, as it sure proved itself very differently in both Gulf Wars. But the Abrams is however marginally behind the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 in the running for being crowned the best MBT in the world.

And this is not just a personal opinion, this is what most experts on armor would agree with...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 02:00 PM

Can you please show some proof of these tests. I dont of anyone who has put into studies against the tanks you meantion. I dont think they are turning it down because of its abilites but rather because of the price tag on it. I am not saying that the Leopards and the Challenger are bad tanks. As a matter of fact I rank them up there with the Abrams however unless I see proof I can not believe what you are saying. Is this maybe because the Abrams is a US built tank that you come to these conclusions?

Soren · 12-04-2005, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Can you please show some proof of these tests. I dont of anyone who has put into studies against the tanks you meantion. I dont think they are turning it down because of its abilites but rather because of the price tag on it. I am not saying that the Leopards and the Challenger are bad tanks. As a matter of fact I rank them up there with the Abrams however unless I see proof I can not believe what you are saying.

Proof ? Well you can read it in the Armor Magazine (Forgot which one), and on some sites about armor. Anyway these tests are quite well known, so I'd be surprised if there inst someone on this site with a little knowledge on modern armor to verify this for you. Thats if you don't trust me of-cause

(I sense you don't

)

Its a fact that the Sweedish armed forces tested the M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard 2A5 against each other, and found the Leopard 2 to be superior to both.

Quote:

Is this maybe because the Abrams is a US built tank that you come to these conclusions?

Absolutely not ! Only a fool lets bias determine his conclusions.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Proof ? Well you can read it in the Armor Magazine (Forgot which one)

Magazines say a lot of **** that is not true either, they are quite biased depending on where they are produced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

and on some sites about armor.

What did you say to me about websites in the Torpedo thread? I believe the same goes for websites here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Anyway these tests are quite well known,

Obviously not, especially since being in the Military I have not heard about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Its a fact that the Sweedish armed forces tested the M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc and Leopard 2A5 against each other, and found the Leopard 2 to be superior to both.

And that does not tell me much. Ill bet that it had to do with cost, rather than ability since the M1 and the Leop have the same abilities as one another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Absolutely not ! Only a fool lets bias determine his conclusions.

I dont know, you fool me then sometimes.

Soren · 12-04-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Magazines say a lot of sh*t that is not true either, they are quite biased depending on where they are produced.

IIRC Armor Magazine is a U.S. magazine

Quote:

What did you say to me about websites in the Torpedo thread? I believe the same goes for websites here.

Of-cause it does, I was just merely pointing out where you could find info on this, but of-cause websites are notoriously unreliable as sources, so a bad piece of advice on my part, sorry.

Quote:

Obviously not, especially since being in the Military I have not heard about them.

Well your not in the Swedish military are you ?

Quote:

And that does not tell me much. Ill bet that it had to do with cost, rather than ability since the M1 and the Leop have the same abilities as one another.

Of-cause cost had something to do with it, but the Leopard 2A5 was also considered better armored and is faster and less vulnerable to heat seeking missiles than the Abrams. (Yes that turbine engine creates alot of heat)

Quote:

I dont know, you fool me then sometimes.

I hope not

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Well your not in the Swedish military are you ?

So being from the Swedish military would make it very well known as you said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Of-cause cost had something to do with it, but the Leopard 2A5 was also considered better armored and is faster and less vulnerable to heat seeking missiles than the Abrams. (Yes that turbine engine creates alot of heat)

Yes I know that Turbines creat alot of heat. The Abrams uses the same turbine just modified that my helicopter uses. The little bit that the Leopard would be less vunerable would not make a difference against modern heat seeking weapons.

Basically what I am getting at here Soren is the fact that if you are going to go out and discredit things as you do, you need to give more reasons other than because I said so, which you are notorious for.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-04-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

I dont think they are turning it down because of its abilites but rather because of the price tag on it

i don't wanna get that involved in this argument, however isn't that an important factor when designing anything? if you ask a soldier which is the best tank he'll say the best combination of firepower, armour and manouverability, ask an accountant they'll say it's the best value for money, now one's going to buy it if it's too expensive for what it is, they'll go for something that's better value for money..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-04-2005, 04:28 PM

You are correct in the fact, but the cost of somethign does not make how well it is on the battlefield and that is what the argument is.

Nonskimmer · 12-04-2005, 04:30 PM

I'm just a bit curious about one thing concerning the Abrams. Why did they give it a gas engine? As I understand it, it was designed to have a larger magazine, but then it was decided to stick a gas turbine in it instead of a diesel, which necessitated larger fuel tanks. This all but negated the extra room for ammo.