Superior Tankin'

What is the best tank in the world?

I say probably M1A2 because it has computer aided stuff and kicks ass, but Garen can spin, so Garen is the best.

Cho'gath

Your move

M1A2 wins by actually existing in this universe.

I would argue that the Leopard 2 is superior to the M1A2, but both the US military and the German military keep the exact specs secret, so scrutinizing the two is difficult.

I raise you a Soviet T-34 then

Check out the pic at the bottom of this article

I just did a google images search for "future tank"

BBJynne wrote:What is the best tank in the world?

I say probably M1A2 because it has computer aided stuff and kicks ass, but Garen can spin, so Garen is the best.

Israeli Merkava.
Wins because it has specs on par with the M1A1, yet it has room for a group of soldiers to hitch a ride. Like a Russian Hind.

And which episode of Suziyama Haruhi is your sig from?

Scorpion Tank.
That thing is OP as fuck on Hemo-rage

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:And which episode of Suziyama Haruhi is your sig from?

the one where they have a gaming contest with the computer club

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Israeli Merkava.
Wins because it has specs on par with the M1A1, yet it has room for a group of soldiers to hitch a ride. Like a Russian Hind.

It looks about the same size as the Abrams. Where do these soldiers hitch a ride that they couldn't on a tank like the Abrams or Leopard?

Anyway, this whole topic isn't exactly new.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Well, let's compare.

Main Weapon
All three tanks have 120mm cannons, though the Challenger deviates, using rifling, whereas the Abrams and Leopard prefer smoothbore. Generally a tie, though I think it is noteworthy that the Leopard carries exactly forty-two rounds for its weapon.

Secondary Weapons
The Abrams has one 12.7mm and two 7.62mm machine guns. The Leopard has two 7.62mm machine guns. The Challenger also has two 7.62mm machine guns. However, unlike the other two, the Leopard's machine guns are of German design (much like the tank), giving it an edge as far as secondary weapons go.

Armor
All three tanks use composite armor. The Abrams uses Chobham (composite ceramic), but also employs steel plating and optional depleted uranium mesh plating, though this optional plating seriously reduces its effective range and speed. The Leopard uses composite steel and tungsten on a ceramic base, similar to Chobham. The Challenger uses Dorchester (Chobham Generation 2), which is also a composite ceramic type of armor. The Challenger 2 is probably the better protected of these three.

Speed and Effective Range
The Abrams employs a new turbine-gas engine which gives it 1500 horse power, a max speed of around 42 miles per hour, but an effective range of only 290 miles. The Leopard employs a 12-cylinder diesel engine which gives it 1500 horse power, a max speed of around 45 miles per hour, and an effective range of around 340 miles. The Challenger also employs a 12-cylinder diesel engine, but only gets 1200 horse power, has a max speed of only 37 miles per hour, and an effective range of around 280 miles. Overall, the Leopard does significantly well, having the highest max speed and effective range. The Abrams cylinder-gas engine is a bit more delicate, and guzzles gas worse than regular engines.

Overall, I chose the Leopard. It had several things going for it, like German design. It's weapons are about as powerful (if not more so) and its armor not quite as thick, but it can outmaneuver either of its competitors.

That's from the last thread concerning the best tank, and my opinion hasn't changed.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Israeli Merkava.
Wins because it has specs on par with the M1A1, yet it has room for a group of soldiers to hitch a ride. Like a Russian Hind.

It looks about the same size as the Abrams. Where do these soldiers hitch a ride that they couldn't on a tank like the Abrams or Leopard?

It's turret is located in the back, and it has an emergency exit on the back which lets people get in and out of the tank quickly and safely.

Also, they all have a 60mm mortar.

No matter which tank you may like the best, the M1A2 was constructed with an important ingredient absent from all others: BURRNING AMERICAN FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!

fail. the Abrams doesn't use gas, it uses JP-8 which is jet fuel. All vehicles used by the military pretty much use JP-8. And its max speed of 42 mph is caused by a limiter, not the actual power of the engine. The tank commander also has a M2 .50 cal.

the Abrams also carries exactly 42 rounds.

The Abrams also has 5+ different round types for different scenarios including HEAT shaped charges and a 'shotgun' style anti-infantry/anti-air round.

And the Abrams effective attack range is 12km.

wow rot. you REALLY dropped the ball on that tank thing. you just leave out information and who the fuck would ever think 50 cal + 7.62 + 7.62 < 7.62 + 7.62.

KristallNacht wrote:fail. the Abrams doesn't use gas, it uses JP-8 which is jet fuel. All vehicles used by the military pretty much use JP-8.

The Abrams uses the Honeywell AGT1500C, which is, and I quote, "a turboshaft gas turbine." It is notable as being able to use many kinds of fuels, such as a diesel, kerosene, any grade of motor gasoline, JP-4, and JP-8. The fact that the military chooses to use JP-8 does not change the fact that it is a gas turbine.

KristallNacht wrote:And its max speed of 42 mph is caused by a limiter, not the actual power of the engine.

A limiter put in place because the fuel flow of the Abrams is so ridiculously high that to go any faster would be to run out of fuel immediately. With both traveling at optimal long range speed, the Leopard 2 can travel 56 miles further on 57% less fuel than the Abrams.

KristallNacht wrote:The tank commander also has a M2 .50 cal.

A fair point. In retrospect, I am surprised I gave the secondary armament to the Leopard 2. I probably wrote it all out, then looked back to decide which was better, and missed the 12.7mm gun.

KristallNacht wrote:the Abrams also carries exactly 42 rounds.

That was actually just a joke.

KristallNacht wrote:The Abrams also has 5+ different round types for different scenarios including HEAT shaped charges and a 'shotgun' style anti-infantry/anti-air round.

As is most any modern tank, I would imagine. In fact, the Leopard 2 can even be outfitted to fire a laser guided missile from its main gun. I don't see your point.

KristallNacht wrote:And the Abrams effective attack range is 12km.

Fun Fact: The M256 that was an upgrade to the old M68 for the Abrams is an export of the German L44 used in older variants of the Leopard 2, which was later replaced by the L55. That is to say, America replaced the Abrams old main weapon with the Leopard 2's old main weapon. So you're not really going to get anywhere arguing that the M256 is better than the L55. I imagine, being an export, that it is hard pressed to perform on par with the L44!

Anyway, I'll redo my post to take into account the Merkava.

Main Weapon
All four tanks have 120mm cannons, though the Challenger deviates, using rifling, whereas the Abrams, Leopard, and Merkava prefer smoothbore. However, the Leopard uses the Rheinmetall L55, while the Abrams uses an exported version of the Rheinmetall L44 (which the L55 replaced) and the Merkava uses an IMI gun based heavily on an export of the L44. Meanwhile, the Challenger is considering replacing its current weapon with the L55. So, main armament goes to Leopard for being ahead of the curve.

Secondary Weapons
The Abrams has one 12.7mm and two 7.62mm machine guns. The Leopard has two 7.62mm machine guns. The Challenger also has two 7.62mm machine guns. The Merkava raises them all by having a 12.7mm, two 7.62mm, and a 60mm mortar standard. Secondary armament goes to the Merkava.

Armor
All three tanks use composite armor. The Abrams uses Chobham (composite ceramic), but also employs steel plating and optional depleted uranium mesh plating, though this optional plating seriously reduces its effective range and speed. The Leopard uses composite steel and tungsten on a ceramic base, similar to Chobham. The Challenger uses Dorchester (Chobham Generation 2), which is also a composite ceramic type of armor. The Merkava uses composite steel and nickel on a ceramic base, also similar to Chobham. I'm giving this one to the Challenger 2 because everyone else is working with Chobham or a cheap ripoff thereof, which I understand to be a British invention of sorts, while the Challenger uses Chobham 2.

Speed and Effective Range
The Abrams employs a new gas turbine engine which gives it 1500 horse power, a max speed of around 42 miles per hour, but an effective range of only 290 miles. Just to start the engine is to burn 10 gallons of JP-8. It burns 12 gallons an hour while idle, averages 1 mile per gallon, with its best mile per gallon being 2 miles per gallon. The Abrams cylinder-gas engine is a bit more delicate, and guzzles gas worse than regular engines. The Leopard employs a 12-cylinder diesel engine which gives it 1500 horse power, a max speed of around 45 miles per hour, and an effective range of around 340 miles. The Leopard's miles per gallon while moving is consistently at least twice the Abrams. The Leopard travels 56 miles further on 57% less fuel. The Challenger also employs a 12-cylinder diesel engine, but only gets 1200 horse power, has a max speed of only 37 miles per hour, an effective range of around 280 miles, and similarly outperforms the fuel efficiency of the Abrams (though not quite as well as the Leopard). The Merkava, like the Leopard and Challenger, employs a 12-cylinder diesel engine, giving it 1500 horse power, a max speed of 40 miles per hour, and an effective range of 311 miles. Overall, the Leopard does significantly well, having the highest max speed and effective range. As with the Leopard and Challenger, the Merkava grossly outperforms the Abrams in fuel economy. I'm giving speed and mobility to the Leopard because it has the best fuel economy, max speed, and effective range.

Overall, I still feel the Leopard takes the day. It's main weapon is more powerful and it is faster and has better endurance than its competitors. I'm hard pressed as to whether the Merkava or the Challenger takes second. The Challenger has better armor than all three competitors, but the Merkava takes secondary armaments and is also faster than the Challenger, as well as being able to travel further on one tank of gas, so I'm giving the Merkava second and the Challenger third.

Overall, the Abrams is really not that impressive. Aside from having the worst main weapon of the four tanks, the Abrams fuel economy is staggering. Accompanied with its unique turbine engine are issues like the fact that the engine cannot be serviced except with factory tools, soldiers can't safely walk in its wake due to the massive heat exhaust, and the engine is a lot less durable than a regular diesel engine, and you have the recipe for a tank that just isn't on par with the competition. It has all of the technical issues that the Tigers had, except that the Tiger's main weapon at least made it a BAMF.

I'd like to add the Abrams has the kick ass TUSK system which can be installed anywhere. It's hot exhust blast actually makes it hard for infantry to shadow it, but the engine is very very quiet. The Abrams can, in fact, support a single squad carrying only their battle gear on the rear section. More can be added with the turret stablization device off.

The US is actually looking at replacing the engine with engines used in the Challenger 2, Leopard 2, and Merkava. In regards to armor: In the chance that the Abrams does suffer damage resulting in a fire in the crew compartment, the tank is equipped with a halon fire-suppression system that automatically engages and extinguishes fires in seconds. Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blowout panels to protect the crew from the risk of the tank's own ammunition cooking off if the tank is damaged. Depleted Uranium is not optional, and is incorporated into the actual armor on all Abrams. The added protection from the depleted uranium armor is believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA, which stands for Rolled homogeneous armour.

The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2.

M829A1 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents.

The Merkava can actually employ a Laser Homing Anti-Tank missile as well. The Leopard 2 is not the only one.

Tbh, I don't really care for modern MBT's. I just felt I should add some things for the tanks in general, but the Abrams in particular.

So all in all, my vote goes to either the amazing M4 Sherman or awesome T-34.

i say the M60 patton got my take on this

how exactly are you determining that the abrams has the worst main weapon?

Even on wikipedia (i know you love wikipedia) the armament of the Abrams is VASTLY superior to the others. The armor of the challenger is entirely classified aside from designation so by default it can't win. And the Abrams, in its 30 years of service has never had a tank lost to the enemy.

and its not limited at 42 for fuel reasons. It's limited because the engine puts out so much power it would tear the drivetrain right off the tank.

and of all those mentioned, the Abrams is quite possibly the only one with concealment in mind.

Ruski wrote:I'd like to add the Abrams has the kick ass TUSK system which can be installed anywhere. It's hot exhust blast actually makes it hard for infantry to shadow it, but the engine is very very quiet. The Abrams can, in fact, support a single squad carrying only their battle gear on the rear section. More can be added with the turret stablization device off.

That isn't much the point. The question here is not whether or not the Abrams is a good tank, but whether it is better than what other modern militaries have to offer.

Ruski wrote:The US is actually looking at replacing the engine with engines used in the Challenger 2, Leopard 2, and Merkava.

They should be looking to replace the tank entirely. The Abrams was built around that gas turbine engine.

Ruski wrote:In regards to armor: In the chance that the Abrams does suffer damage resulting in a fire in the crew compartment, the tank is equipped with a halon fire-suppression system that automatically engages and extinguishes fires in seconds. Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blowout panels to protect the crew from the risk of the tank's own ammunition cooking off if the tank is damaged. Depleted Uranium is not optional, and is incorporated into the actual armor on all Abrams. The added protection from the depleted uranium armor is believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA, which stands for Rolled homogeneous armour.

I know that blowout panels are practically standard in modern tanks, and I imagine fire suppression systems are as well. And while depleted uranium armor is a plus, it isn't like the United States is the only nation with access to it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chobham Generation 2 armor that Britain is using also utilizes it.

Ruski wrote:The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2.

Which has always been the problem with this whole topic. No one is giving out the exact specifications. All four tanks in question are very similar, and all four perform generally well. Discerning which is better, then, is about the details. Details that we often don't have access to.

Ruski wrote:M829A1 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents.

I imagine that this holds true for all modern MBTs.

Ruski wrote:The Merkava can actually employ a Laser Homing Anti-Tank missile as well. The Leopard 2 is not the only one.

I know. The Israeli's invented the LAHAT, to my knowledge. The point was, the Abrams is not unique in having multiple types of shells.

Ruski wrote:Tbh, I don't really care for modern MBT's. I just felt I should add some things for the tanks in general, but the Abrams in particular.

So all in all, my vote goes to either the amazing M4 Sherman or awesome T-34.

Well, if we're taking into account historical settings (since we all know modern tanks would destroy the older tanks), I'm actually not sure what I would call the best tank. I loathe the Sherman, though. The tank, on its own, is an extremely mobile death trap. There was a reason soldiers nicknamed it the Ronson. But beyond that, I really don't know whether to go with the Tiger, which is a personal favorite, or some other German or Russian tank.

KristallNacht wrote:how exactly are you determining that the abrams has the worst main weapon?

I said how I was determining it. Let me spell it out for you.

L44 < L55

That said, the Abrams uses an export of the L44 (exports being notorious for being slightly worse than the originals). The Merkava is using a modified L44. The Leopard is using the L55. I'm not too familiar with the L30A1, but as a rifled gun, it would inherently have a bit more range and accuracy than a smoothbore weapon, so I figured it probably fares better than the L44.

KristallNacht wrote:Even on wikipedia (i know you love wikipedia)

Do you object from the gathering of data from Wikipedia? I work in the aircraft industry and I can't even get Eurocopter to give me fucking technical data for some of their civilian models. How do you expect me to get information on these tanks other than the Internet? And if I am to use the Internet, would a random site really be more trustworthy than Wikipedia?

KristallNacht wrote:the armament of the Abrams is VASTLY superior to the others.

I'm not sure I follow. Wikipedia supports my claim that the M256 is an export of the L44, and that the L55 replaced the L44. As for secondary armament, the Merkava has everything the Abrams has, plus a 60mm mortar.

KristallNacht wrote:The armor of the challenger is entirely classified aside from designation so by default it can't win.

You don't replace something with something that is inferior.

KristallNacht wrote:And the Abrams, in its 30 years of service has never had a tank lost to the enemy.

Huh. Really? I think this claim actually goes to the Challenger 2, though I'm not certain.

KristallNacht wrote:and its not limited at 42 for fuel reasons. It's limited because the engine puts out so much power it would tear the drivetrain right off the tank.

Then what was your point to begin with? "Well, it could go faster, except it can't, but if the engine was hooked up to something that could, it could." And consider this: the Abrams gets like one mile to the gallon at best. What would the fuel economy look like if the rest of the tank could handle going faster?

KristallNacht wrote:and of all those mentioned, the Abrams is quite possibly the only one with concealment in mind.

I'm having trouble believing that a tank with an external APU is any quieter than other tanks. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what aspect of the Abrams makes it more "concealable" as compared to other tanks? Does it have solar mats to reduce its infrared signature? Because other tanks do too. Is it painted to blend in with its environment? Because other tanks are too.

meh T90, maybe the black eagle prototype tank that the Russians were meant to be making i heard the company went bankrupt tho so....
also on another note you forgot the nickname "Tommy cooker" and a few other nicknames for the Sherman tho the Sherman firefly did have a better gun then their American counterpart but it was a stopgap tank...

Rotaretilbo wrote:
I'm having trouble believing that a tank with an external APU is any quieter than other tanks. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what aspect of the Abrams makes it more "concealable" as compared to other tanks? Does it have solar mats to reduce its infrared signature? Because other tanks do too. Is it painted to blend in with its environment? Because other tanks are too.

quiet engine to the point where how quiet it is practically defines it, and the smoke grenades that the challenger 2 doesn't have.

and in that article you linked, it simply says that the abrams has a ridiculously slow crew loss rate, despite it being a focus point. It didn't mention any actually lost tanks, simply damaged.

KristallNacht wrote:quiet engine to the point where how quiet it is practically defines it, and the smoke grenades that the challenger 2 doesn't have.

I'll concede the point as I don't know how loud any of the tanks actually are.

KristallNacht wrote:and in that article you linked, it simply says that the abrams has a ridiculously slow crew loss rate, despite it being a focus point. It didn't mention any actually lost tanks, simply damaged.

Does this count, then?

Not that the boast by any nation that they have not lost a tank yet is really worth much when the only military forces anyone has really gone up against are using outdated Russian shit.

The tank appears to have had the tracks disabled by insurgents, then the crew scuttled it. Still, it was essentially "knocked-out."

But I could be wrong.