Main page

Many stubborn americans might not admit it, but yeah thats true. Said it before=i spoke to an actual Abrams commander, veteran of the gulf war, and he admitted this himself

there is one tank i love

and thats the ariete of italy

http://www.military-...anks/ariete.jpg

Well, it's Italian. Of course it's got to look like a race car

Not too sure what to think about its real effectiveness though. There are rumours around, like for any tank, i don't know if they should be given too much credit

Hmm... guys, I might have missed it, but what about the Israeli Merkava tanks?

What about it?
An impressive and very specific piece of machinnery, which perfectly fits Israelis' needs, but only theirs...

Most of these are opinions, which is why its best "tanks" in the worl, not the best one. All of these are good tanks. However, some things we cannot really justify on means that there is no best tank, but a selection of the best tanks used today. One reason why is armour. Some tanks armour (Such as the British Challenger II)is classified, with good reason. How can we compare what we do not know?
But all of these tanks have good aspects on them.

And just to put an added note, The Abrams isn't the good thing, but the production teams building it. USA have tended to mass produce their tanks (Look at the Sherman, Tiger was better than it but the Sherman had the numbers)so even if it isn't as good as people believe, it can at least have another to fill in its place.

 Stormscion, on 22 January 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

And Centurian
-Was produced since 1945.
-Chassis used still today in the South African Oliphant MBT and the Isreali Merkava MBT
-Its a 5* hotel compared to the T54 (crew ergonomics is one of the most important things-A happy crew will perform well)
-It actually had armour
-Like all British tanks it could go LITERALLY anywhere
-Housed one of the best Tank guns ever the 105mm L7 whilst the T54 had the D10T
-Very easy to maintain
-Worked everywhere (Deserts of Sinai to the Jungles of Vietnam to the Mountains of Korea and Pakistan)
-It actually had a good combat record
-Liked by its crews a lot
-Very easy to use
-Good lines of vision from within the tank
-Good gun depression
-Isreal produced their own Centurian- Sho't
-It did not taint the tankbuilding quality of a country
-T54 lacked NBC protection (later models fixed this). Centurian 169041 was placed 500 meters away from a Nuclear bomb and survived, plus it served for 23 yrs more including 15 months of combat in vietnam. Apart from major sandblasting to the periscopes the tanks was fine and was driven away as the Engine, Transmission Gearbox or tracks had not been affected at all
-T54 could NOT be upgraded gun-wise. It had the D10 for all its life except on occasions where the Israeli's put a 105mm L7 on captured T54s.


Being Most produced doesnt mean shit. Is the T34 the best tanks of WW2 when 80% of all manufactured T34 in that timeperiod were irrecoverable losses? NO

Lets see Battle of The Valley of Tears where one Isreali Tank Brigade (100 tanks roughly) faced 1 Syrian Infantry division and 1 Armoured Division. According to your argument the T54 should of won as they would of swarmed the Cents and they are "the best" First Gen MBT. However that armoured Brigade halted the Syrians as they lost about 260-300 tanks plus 150-200 other vehicles like APC and trucks, compared to 60 Isreali. There is one engagement where 2 Damaged Centurians led by Zvika Greengold fought 150 Syrian T55/62 for 30 hours destroying 60 Syrian Tanks

While that Armoured Brigade lost 60% of its strength, they basically wiped out 2 Divisions in that battle. So much for overwhelming numbers hey.

 Waroch, on 24 January 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

^This

a very impressive defensive MBT with the best crew survivability of any MBT

obviously someone not happy that Centurion pissed on the T54 ass.

 Stormscion, on 15 January 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

sorry that is the best tank target practice

T55 vs British HESH = Russian tank crew omelet

 theta0123, on 23 January 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

sorry but are you saying an Abrams commander said he thinks the T90 is best tank in the world?

cos how would he know?

has he been in one? or fought against one? if an abrams commander said the Iranian Zulfiqar 3 is the best tank in the world does that mean anything? nope!

T90 is a recycled bit of trash with lots of propaganda behind it and no real combat history.

It's only claim to fame is that it is the only Russian tank which can survive RPG attack

 Kyphe, on 25 January 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

do you have problems to read? The guy before said that Abrams has problems in desert conditions. So yes I suppose an Abrams commander is in the right seat to know that.

 Waroch, on 25 January 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

AHHH

so he is agreeing that the tank had unspecified problems in the desert not that the T90 is the best tank in the world.

that was only a tiny part of the prior post so I was a little taken aback at the general tone of agreement.

 Stormscion, on 22 January 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

So much bullshit in one quote, oh where to start?

i can't say wich is better, only wich one i want on my drive-way,
and that is the T90ms Tagil.
it just looks so god damn nice
i just don't know what my school is going to think if i park it there o_O

There is basicly no world best tank.

The best tank should be:

A: Have a lot of Firepower
B: Good speed and maneuvrebility
C: Cheap and easy to build.


So far, only the T-34 sucsseded to do so. But it's outdated, and now Tank designers focus on make these tanks look badass

 TheDOD, on 29 January 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

- A and B are met by many modern MBTs
- C is not possible if you want A and B (not since WWII anyway)

 theta0123, on 24 January 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

Merkeva crew have been lost in combat on more than one occasion in its combat history.

In contrast, no crew member of a Challenger 2 has been killed as a result of enemy actions.

Two crew members were killed in 2003 when their Challenger 2 was mistakenly engaged by a friendly Challenger 2 using HESH ammunition. The second round fired hit the turret roof, where hot fragments entered the tank through the commander's hatch, which was open at the time. This resulted in the ammunition exploding, destroying the tank. IMO the fact that two of the crew survived in this incident is remarkable, and if anything testament to the protection offered to the crew by the Challenger 2.

 CHARM_3, on 01 February 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Just like to add onto your point. No Challenger 2 has been lost due to enemy fire. The only loss was (as you said) due to friendly fire from another Challenger 2 who mistaken them for an enemy flanking them. There have been 2 damaged from enemy actions. 1 from an IED (Which are the terrors of most soldiers these days) that caused the driver to lose his leg and injured another crew member and the 2nd one was due to an enemy firing an RPG-29, a more, recent launcher which only caused the driver to lose a few toes. Other Challengers have survived plenty more, such as 70+ RPG's. Its like a King Tiger of the modern era.

 TheDOD, on 29 January 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

....lolwut?
If you want "cheap and easy to build" tanks, then you're going to end up just like those shermans did when they faced the tiger, except you're gonna be much worse off nowadays.

Lets say that you can build 30 tanks at the cost of 1 enemy tank.
Now, considering the fact that this tank has superior detection, accurate fire capable of knocking out your tanks on 1 hit, is more reliable, is faster, can outrange you, can see your tanks from ranges where they can't see it...

That 1 modern tank is pretty easily going to knock out those 30 tanks before they even get in firing range of it.
Not to mention that this tank isn't going to go alone.


Just because the winners of WW2 had fast and cheap peasant tanks doesn't mean it's how tanks should be made.
Hell, it was pretty bad plan to begin with considering that if US or USSR tried to invade Germany alone, they would have never succeeded, since their "cheap and easy to build" tanks would not be up to the task.

 Strongback, on 01 February 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Yes, and you still need competent crews.

For example Merkava is built from one objective: Crew is our most valuable asset and so survivability of tank crew is the most important thing.

I kinda doubt that "cheap and easy to build" tanks would be also the best ones....