best tanks in the world
chickenpie65
11 Aug 2010
leofwine, on 07 August 2010 - 04:02 PM, said:
The Challenger 2 has its great points though, such as being able to hit a moving target the size of a football out to 2 miles distant. That is incredible, and the latest armour seems to be doing its job.
Well, now you're just talking about old and outdated cliches yes yes we all know this old story. But haven't you just read the post above yours? 2 Challengers were practically almost "lost" to enemy fire.
In 2006 a Challenger 2 (with ERA protection) was frontally penetrated by an RPG-29 (one of the most powerful close distance anti tank weapon used today). The driver lost his foot, but fortunately all crewmembers survived the attack.
here's the picture of what happened. (which has already been posted in this thread!) http://img202.images...challenger2.jpg
And I'm not even amazed about the old stories of 2003, where the Challenger 2 survived multiple hits by RPG-7 in Iraq, OF COURSE this early series of RPGs couldn't penetrate the modern composite armour (which was also used on the Leo 2A4 & M1 Abrams), that's just what the chobham armour was designed for. The only purpose of this type of layered composite armour is to stop incoming treats to prevent penetration. That still doesn't make the Challenger 2 any better than other western MBTs, since most of them have got the same armour and ability to take on a lot of punishment by outdated weapons like RPG-7 which can barely penetrate only 300mm RHA armour...
Also, another Chr2 was badly hit by an penetrative IED, the driver was serioiusly injuried and blabla read it yourself.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/6583607.stm
And I may remember you that also a Canadian Leopard 2A6m has been hit by the same kind of IED in 2007, and it didn't penetrated, none of the cremembers were seriously injured.
Let the facts speak for themselves...
ALSO, do you seriously believe that only the british Chr 2 has got modern laser computer fire control systems that enable to hit ball sized targets on the move? Well, actually every modern MBT can do this today, I mean, it's nothing special today. It's just a part of many typical features all main battle tanks have. Nothing special on that.
@Firenze
14 Aug 2010
2Pac, on 14 August 2010 - 01:56 AM, said:
Maus is the best 
And also the Maus can be killed in a single hit from any modren tank. It's outdated and only has steel armour. A good Sabot shot could rip off the turret.
And the Challenger 2 isn't invincible, no tank is. Have you ever thought that hitting a tank in just the right place can wreck it? Maybe it happened to the IEDed Challenger. Just because the Leopard survived one, doesn't mean it is incrediblely better. All modern armour can withstand a punishing amount of fire, but don't just judge it on a few instances. The Leopard hasn't seen as much combat as the Challenger or Abrams, so things like these haven't been popping up nowhere near as frequently.
(I am playing a little Devils advocate here. Dont flame against me
)
@captaintrek
16 Aug 2010
I don't know enough about performance figures and such to say which modern tank is the best in terms of it making a good tank, but in terms of appearence, I just love the Leclerc's quirky, almost StuG-like asthetic. It's by no means the prettiest modern tank, but I love its boxy, workman-like shape, I love the funny "lighthouse" above the main gun and I love how the turret itself almost looks as those it's made out of Lego. I think it's a great look... Also, the Merkava IV and its distinctive turret definitely runs a very close second... 
killakanz
27 Aug 2010
chickenpie65, on 11 August 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:
Also, another Chr2 was badly hit by an penetrative IED, the driver was serioiusly injuried and blabla read it yourself.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/6583607.stm
And I may remember you that also a Canadian Leopard 2A6m has been hit by the same kind of IED in 2007, and it didn't penetrated, none of the cremembers were seriously injured.
Let the facts speak for themselves...
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/6583607.stm
And I may remember you that also a Canadian Leopard 2A6m has been hit by the same kind of IED in 2007, and it didn't penetrated, none of the cremembers were seriously injured.
Let the facts speak for themselves...
I was there when the IED on the challenger, I saw it. It was a huge explosion.
The thing is though about IEDs is that they are 'improvised'. No two IEDs are ever identical, strike situations are always different, so saying that the leopard was hit by the same kind of IED as the challenger and survived really says nothing to me other than the leopard was lucky.
chickenpie65, on 11 August 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:
ALSO, do you seriously believe that only the british Chr 2 has got modern laser computer fire control systems that enable to hit ball sized targets on the move? Well, actually every modern MBT can do this today, I mean, it's nothing special today. It's just a part of many typical features all main battle tanks have. Nothing special on that.
The Challenger 1 holds the record for the longest range tank to tank kill in history at 5.1 km during Desert Storm. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq a Challenger 2 scored a kill at 5.0km.
The leopard 2 theoretically has a maximum range of 5km, but it has never claimed a hit anywhere near that.
nxze
27 Aug 2010
M95 Degman
I have to admit that the Croats made an excellent tank
but he had a weaknes approach him at 200meters he can not shoot you:)
unles ur driving another tank
I have to admit that the Croats made an excellent tank
but he had a weaknes approach him at 200meters he can not shoot you:)
unles ur driving another tank
nxze
27 Aug 2010
nxze, on 27 August 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:
M95 Degman
I have to admit that the croatia made an excellent tank
but he had a weaknes approach him at 200meters he can not shoot you:)
unles ur driving another tank
I have to admit that the croatia made an excellent tank
but he had a weaknes approach him at 200meters he can not shoot you:)
unles ur driving another tank
ksaplostra
27 Aug 2010
I'd say the merkava but it is for the desert only.
Everything else is faaaar behind the israily tank.
You should check the droid defensive/fusion/fire direction,etc merkava system.
http://www.supervide...torCastLead.jpg
Everything else is faaaar behind the israily tank.
You should check the droid defensive/fusion/fire direction,etc merkava system.
http://www.supervide...torCastLead.jpg
nxze
27 Aug 2010
yeah i agree with u merkava is great tank first at all Israel has small populations so that their security troops in the first place
The shape of the arow make him hard to hit
and unlike other tanks have engine forward(duble security for crew if u can penetrate u will hit the engine no crew) and has a rear exit for the crew
The shape of the arow make him hard to hit
and unlike other tanks have engine forward(duble security for crew if u can penetrate u will hit the engine no crew) and has a rear exit for the crew
@yarickzan
28 Aug 2010
Now I want to point a few things out to those of you who are comparing the merits of the question of the best tank.
First off there is only so much you can do with the same design. In other words you can only upgrade something so far, before technology has passed it by and it becomes impractical to upgrade. It's best shown in the evolution of the tank from the prewar period, to post World War 2. In the beginning there was the leichtetraktor, and the German army said "Balls to that I want something better." After that came the Panzer 2, then the Panzer 3, and then the Panzer 4, then the Panther, next to the Tiger, and finally we reach the Tiger II (mainly because the Maus was produced in too few numbers to be justifiably added to the list). In less than 10 years we went from 37mm guns being the biggest weapons a tank could mount, to 128mm guns.
Simply put, there is one factor all of you are not taking into consideration. Age. The Leclerc, the Challenger 2, and the T-95 all have the advantage of being designed after the Abrams and Leopard 2. For example, the Abrams and Leopard 2 were both prototyped and tested against each other before 1976. On the other hand the Leclerc, and Challenger 2 began development 10 years later in 1986. The T-90 was even later at about 1992. Essentially the T-90 has had 16 years of technology happen compared to the Abrams and Leopard 2, and 6 years on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc. Think about how much of a difference that makes. 16 years ago Windows 95 hadn't even come out yet.
It's almost like comparing a neanderthal to Einstein. Actually in my opinion no comparison should even be made since these tanks are more likely than ever to not meet in combat with the way air technology as well as other weapons development has gone so the whole point is moot anyways.
First off there is only so much you can do with the same design. In other words you can only upgrade something so far, before technology has passed it by and it becomes impractical to upgrade. It's best shown in the evolution of the tank from the prewar period, to post World War 2. In the beginning there was the leichtetraktor, and the German army said "Balls to that I want something better." After that came the Panzer 2, then the Panzer 3, and then the Panzer 4, then the Panther, next to the Tiger, and finally we reach the Tiger II (mainly because the Maus was produced in too few numbers to be justifiably added to the list). In less than 10 years we went from 37mm guns being the biggest weapons a tank could mount, to 128mm guns.
Simply put, there is one factor all of you are not taking into consideration. Age. The Leclerc, the Challenger 2, and the T-95 all have the advantage of being designed after the Abrams and Leopard 2. For example, the Abrams and Leopard 2 were both prototyped and tested against each other before 1976. On the other hand the Leclerc, and Challenger 2 began development 10 years later in 1986. The T-90 was even later at about 1992. Essentially the T-90 has had 16 years of technology happen compared to the Abrams and Leopard 2, and 6 years on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc. Think about how much of a difference that makes. 16 years ago Windows 95 hadn't even come out yet.
It's almost like comparing a neanderthal to Einstein. Actually in my opinion no comparison should even be made since these tanks are more likely than ever to not meet in combat with the way air technology as well as other weapons development has gone so the whole point is moot anyways.
killakanz
28 Aug 2010
YarickZan, on 28 August 2010 - 08:00 AM, said:
Now I want to point a few things out to those of you who are comparing the merits of the question of the best tank.
First off there is only so much you can do with the same design. In other words you can only upgrade something so far, before technology has passed it by and it becomes impractical to upgrade. It's best shown in the evolution of the tank from the prewar period, to post World War 2. In the beginning there was the leichtetraktor, and the German army said "Balls to that I want something better." After that came the Panzer 2, then the Panzer 3, and then the Panzer 4, then the Panther, next to the Tiger, and finally we reach the Tiger II (mainly because the Maus was produced in too few numbers to be justifiably added to the list). In less than 10 years we went from 37mm guns being the biggest weapons a tank could mount, to 128mm guns.
Simply put, there is one factor all of you are not taking into consideration. Age. The Leclerc, the Challenger 2, and the T-95 all have the advantage of being designed after the Abrams and Leopard 2. For example, the Abrams and Leopard 2 were both prototyped and tested against each other before 1976. On the other hand the Leclerc, and Challenger 2 began development 10 years later in 1986. The T-90 was even later at about 1992. Essentially the T-90 has had 16 years of technology happen compared to the Abrams and Leopard 2, and 6 years on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc. Think about how much of a difference that makes. 16 years ago Windows 95 hadn't even come out yet.
It's almost like comparing a neanderthal to Einstein. Actually in my opinion no comparison should even be made since these tanks are more likely than ever to not meet in combat with the way air technology as well as other weapons development has gone so the whole point is moot anyways.
First off there is only so much you can do with the same design. In other words you can only upgrade something so far, before technology has passed it by and it becomes impractical to upgrade. It's best shown in the evolution of the tank from the prewar period, to post World War 2. In the beginning there was the leichtetraktor, and the German army said "Balls to that I want something better." After that came the Panzer 2, then the Panzer 3, and then the Panzer 4, then the Panther, next to the Tiger, and finally we reach the Tiger II (mainly because the Maus was produced in too few numbers to be justifiably added to the list). In less than 10 years we went from 37mm guns being the biggest weapons a tank could mount, to 128mm guns.
Simply put, there is one factor all of you are not taking into consideration. Age. The Leclerc, the Challenger 2, and the T-95 all have the advantage of being designed after the Abrams and Leopard 2. For example, the Abrams and Leopard 2 were both prototyped and tested against each other before 1976. On the other hand the Leclerc, and Challenger 2 began development 10 years later in 1986. The T-90 was even later at about 1992. Essentially the T-90 has had 16 years of technology happen compared to the Abrams and Leopard 2, and 6 years on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc. Think about how much of a difference that makes. 16 years ago Windows 95 hadn't even come out yet.
It's almost like comparing a neanderthal to Einstein. Actually in my opinion no comparison should even be made since these tanks are more likely than ever to not meet in combat with the way air technology as well as other weapons development has gone so the whole point is moot anyways.
Do you seriously think the Abrams has the same technology in it now that it had 30 odd years ago? That today's Challenger 2 matches exactly the Challenger 2 from 20 years ago? It may look the same from the outside...
tihi
28 Aug 2010
Medic Degman is not a Croatian tank,it is modernisation of Yugoslavian M-84 MBT,with new electronics,fire controll,added reactive armors,and such,but it is basicly same tank,what is based again on T-72 Soviet MBT ,sharing many flaws the old T-72 has,and it is still in prototype phase, r to be precise only 2 units was ever build.
Word about Leo,Chalenger ,Merkava and similar tanks. Notice the weight on those tanks. Where such a tanks can be effectevly used? What bridges it need to cross rivers? U can make best tank on the world,but it worth u nothing if u cant deploy it on battlefield. WW2 era,most tank engadgments in Europe was on distances 300-600m. It is not coz guns was weak,r optics,it was coz terain in Europe is mostly like that. One thing is flat Iraq desert ,completly new one is hilly,river crossed area of Europe.
Word about Leo,Chalenger ,Merkava and similar tanks. Notice the weight on those tanks. Where such a tanks can be effectevly used? What bridges it need to cross rivers? U can make best tank on the world,but it worth u nothing if u cant deploy it on battlefield. WW2 era,most tank engadgments in Europe was on distances 300-600m. It is not coz guns was weak,r optics,it was coz terain in Europe is mostly like that. One thing is flat Iraq desert ,completly new one is hilly,river crossed area of Europe.
@yarickzan
28 Aug 2010
killakanz, on 28 August 2010 - 11:44 AM, said:
Do you seriously think the Abrams has the same technology in it now that it had 30 odd years ago? That today's Challenger 2 matches exactly the Challenger 2 from 20 years ago? It may look the same from the outside...
Nope not at all. But there is only so much you can upgrade something. Each component only has a certain amount of space it can fit inside. Sure you can put in a bigger gun, but how much room is that going to leave the men in the turrret? Sure you can put in a new FCS but how much space is it going to take up? There is a lot more room in a tank that is on the drawing board than a tank that spends 20 years getting upgraded.
Vidster
28 Aug 2010
From my very limited knowledge i would say the Leo2 is slightly better than the Challenger2. However the Merkava might be better than both. Especially with those rounds it fires. If they managed to up it's speed from 35km/h it would be very nice indeed.
ksaplostra
28 Aug 2010
YarickZan, on 28 August 2010 - 08:00 AM, said:
Now I want to point a few things out to those of you who are comparing the merits of the question of the best tank.
First off there is only so much you can do with the same design. In other words you can only upgrade something so far, before technology has passed it by and it becomes impractical to upgrade. It's best shown in the evolution of the tank from the prewar period, to post World War 2. In the beginning there was the leichtetraktor, and the German army said "Balls to that I want something better." After that came the Panzer 2, then the Panzer 3, and then the Panzer 4, then the Panther, next to the Tiger, and finally we reach the Tiger II (mainly because the Maus was produced in too few numbers to be justifiably added to the list). In less than 10 years we went from 37mm guns being the biggest weapons a tank could mount, to 128mm guns.
Simply put, there is one factor all of you are not taking into consideration. Age. The Leclerc, the Challenger 2, and the T-95 all have the advantage of being designed after the Abrams and Leopard 2. For example, the Abrams and Leopard 2 were both prototyped and tested against each other before 1976. On the other hand the Leclerc, and Challenger 2 began development 10 years later in 1986. The T-90 was even later at about 1992. Essentially the T-90 has had 16 years of technology happen compared to the Abrams and Leopard 2, and 6 years on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc. Think about how much of a difference that makes. 16 years ago Windows 95 hadn't even come out yet.
It's almost like comparing a neanderthal to Einstein. Actually in my opinion no comparison should even be made since these tanks are more likely than ever to not meet in combat with the way air technology as well as other weapons development has gone so the whole point is moot anyways.
First off there is only so much you can do with the same design. In other words you can only upgrade something so far, before technology has passed it by and it becomes impractical to upgrade. It's best shown in the evolution of the tank from the prewar period, to post World War 2. In the beginning there was the leichtetraktor, and the German army said "Balls to that I want something better." After that came the Panzer 2, then the Panzer 3, and then the Panzer 4, then the Panther, next to the Tiger, and finally we reach the Tiger II (mainly because the Maus was produced in too few numbers to be justifiably added to the list). In less than 10 years we went from 37mm guns being the biggest weapons a tank could mount, to 128mm guns.
Simply put, there is one factor all of you are not taking into consideration. Age. The Leclerc, the Challenger 2, and the T-95 all have the advantage of being designed after the Abrams and Leopard 2. For example, the Abrams and Leopard 2 were both prototyped and tested against each other before 1976. On the other hand the Leclerc, and Challenger 2 began development 10 years later in 1986. The T-90 was even later at about 1992. Essentially the T-90 has had 16 years of technology happen compared to the Abrams and Leopard 2, and 6 years on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc. Think about how much of a difference that makes. 16 years ago Windows 95 hadn't even come out yet.
It's almost like comparing a neanderthal to Einstein. Actually in my opinion no comparison should even be made since these tanks are more likely than ever to not meet in combat with the way air technology as well as other weapons development has gone so the whole point is moot anyways.
The T90 is a modernized t72 and the t80 a modernized t62,which was a modernized t55
we should also not forget that the Merkava acts also as an AIFV.
Xenogears
28 Aug 2010
Vidster, on 28 August 2010 - 06:30 PM, said:
From my very limited knowledge i would say the Leo2 is slightly better than the Challenger2. However the Merkava might be better than both. Especially with those rounds it fires. If they managed to up it's speed from 35km/h it would be very nice indeed.
Unfortunately the Merkava is really not effective for anything other than what Israel uses it for. It's very lightly armored in the rear, too heavy for logistical ease, too slow.... Merkava puts the most emphasis on protection.
It is a nice tank, but I'd rather see leo2's in the latest trim for most situations.
theta0123
28 Aug 2010
2Pac, on 14 August 2010 - 01:56 AM, said:
Maus is the best
THATS the leichtraktor!
chickenpie65
28 Aug 2010
killakanz, on 27 August 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:
The Challenger 1 holds the record for the longest range tank to tank kill in history at 5.1 km during Desert Storm. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq a Challenger 2 scored a kill at 5.0km.
The leopard 2 theoretically has a maximum range of 5km, but it has never claimed a hit anywhere near that.
The leopard 2 theoretically has a maximum range of 5km, but it has never claimed a hit anywhere near that.
Well, yeah smartie, or mr Genius super genie. Guess why, The Challenger is one of the very few MBTs in the world that had the hornor to see modern combat. Most other MBTs today like T90, leopard 2, leclerc, Merkava etc. have not fought against other MBTs or any armoured vehicles in real combat yet.
The leopard 2 CAN NOT destroy an enemy tank at ANY range if there aren't even targets to fight against it.
The CHr2 just had luck to fight against some outdated cold war tanks which had no way chance to even damage the Chr2.
Also, the Leopard 2A6m can hit targets at 8km range with the LAHAT missile. The Challenegr can not fire such missiles with its rifled gun, too bad.
