The Best Modern Tanks.

102first_hussars · 11-03-2005, 02:53 AM

Which is the best?

trackend · 11-03-2005, 05:16 AM

Very close between Challenger 2/2E & the M1A1 Abrams both are superb tanks, the targeting system on the Abrams is rated as the best
The Challenger has a rifled gun as opposed to nearly all other main battle tanks which sport smooth bores this give the Challenger the ability to use HESH which is believed by the British to be an advantage, during the gulf war (1) 300 Iraqi tanks where destroyed by Challenger 1's nearly all using HESH rounds, with 2 tanks only suffering from mechanical break downs out of 176 deployed.
To date no Challenger tanks have been destroyed by enemy action. both tanks use second generation Chobham armour with the Abrams using DU armour as well.
The Abrams record is also very impressive with the use of high speed kinetic rounds proving very effective against the Iraqi armour.
The gun is a German Rhienmetall 120mm smooth bore that was upgraded from the earlier British designed 105mm.
The M1's power plant is a very impressive multi fueled Textron Lycoming gas turbine which gives a very good power to weight ratio hitting 41mph flat out (a full 6mph faster than the Challenger) There has been some debate over the heat signature given of by the Gas turbine and amount of flash from the main weapon but this has been reduced greatly due to on going development. so personally I am going to sit on the fence and say each tank as advantages but either is more than a match for any other tank currently deployed.

Gnomey · 11-03-2005, 06:14 AM

I agree Lee, but I am going to go with the Challenger.

Glider · 11-03-2005, 06:56 AM

I would also go with the Challanger.
A small number of M!'s were knocked out in the aftermath of the Gulf war by of all things petrol bombs. The Gas Turbine sucked in the flames and totalled the engine. After that they had to be abandoned and burnt themselves out. I also think that a couple were knocked out by a T62 that found itself behind them at close range, but that would have destroyed any tank and was just bad luck.
The only tank that has knocked out a Challanger was another Challanger in a friendly fire incident. Which makes me believe that whatever the argument about which is the better gun, Rifled or smoothbore, they both do the job and thats what counts.
The arguments between rifled/smoothbore are complex but traditionally they are summed up as follows
Smoothbore tend to be less accurate at long range as the shell doesn't spin and they are sometimes fitted with fins to give stability. This is turn slows the shell a little reducing accuracy as it is affected by windage.
On the plus side smoothbore shells are better when using certain types of chemical warhead such as HEAT which is less effective if the shell is spinning.
It should be noted that the differences are small and with modern aiming devices as I said earlier, they can both do the job.
The French got around this with the AMX30 buy designing the shell so that the outside case is on ballbearings. As a result the shell casing spins giving the accuracy but the warhead doesn't.
The

trackend · 11-03-2005, 07:47 AM

Young PD should be able to give some better info on these tanks as he's amoured anorak and it will be intresting to here from our mates across the pond and else where on their views.

cheddar cheese · 11-03-2005, 10:29 AM

Challenger 2, **** yeah!

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-03-2005, 10:47 AM

yeah i'm with the challenger, although i'm curious as to why the Sweedish S-tank isn't in the poll, i really like it, a very novel idea.......

syscom3 · 11-03-2005, 10:58 AM

M1 Abrams. More of them in use gives us a better idea of how it handles itself in a variety of scenarios

trackend · 11-03-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

yeah i'm with the challenger, although i'm curious as to why the Sweedish S-tank isn't in the poll, i really like it, a very novel idea.......

Because its a lump of junk Lanc.
It can't fire on the move as it has to use its hydraulic suspension to aim the gun so it becomes a static target every time it wants to shoot, instant dead meat against a mobile opponant hence it being phased out and replaced by the Leopard 2(S)

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-03-2005, 11:14 AM

hey i never said i thought it was the best

but sweeden would only ever be likely to fight a defensive war and so it wouldn't have to fire on the move as much as it's low profile makes it ideal for ambushes, also she has a rear facing radio operator who also can look out for enemies from behind, pretty handy...........

cheddar cheese · 11-03-2005, 11:18 AM

It does look nice though

Gnomey · 11-03-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

It does look nice though

You can give it that CC.

Glider · 11-03-2005, 03:16 PM

To be fair to the Swedish S tank the ones that it is up against time wise would be the M48, M60, T62, Leopard 1a1, AMX30, Late Centurions and early Chieftains.
Against each of those it has advantages and disadvantages but it was ideal for what the Swedish Army wanted. A fast defensive tank that had first class protection and a good gun capable of crossing frozen lakes.
For what its worth, I liked it.

102first_hussars · 11-03-2005, 05:52 PM

BombTaxi · 11-03-2005, 05:56 PM

I've gone with the Challenger 2, simply the best MBT that a NATO member has ever produced. As has already been said, it would seem that the only thing that kill kill a Challenger is another Challenger... which suggests we've got something right!

The Abrams seems to be vulnerable in the urban role and is a prodigious gas-guzzler,both of which count heavily against it IMHO. Although it's brute power and performance are impressive, it seems to have trouble applying that power in combat.

In any case, I think the MBTs we are seeing now are the last of the breed. The tank has become too vulnerable to remain a part of the battlefields of the future.