683 replies to this topic

[@otiepws]

T-90

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YIGdzREW7Pw

http://www.youtube.c...HhnzZv6nmTE  на русском
http://www.youtube.c...-bz3f0qiD5M  на русском
http://www.youtube.c...-bz3f0qiD5M  на русском

cost: $2.23 million.

prodused: 1995 – present

Weight: 46.5 tonnes (45.8 LT; 51.3 ST)

Length: 9.53 m (31 ft 3 in)

Width: 3.78 m (12 ft 5 in)

Height: 2.22 m (7 ft 3 in)

Crew: 3

Armor: Steel-composite-reactive blend vs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm; vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-1,350mm

Primary armament: 125 mm smoothbore gun with ATGM capability; mainly 9M119 Svir

Secondary armament: 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun

Engine Model: 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel V-92 12-cyl. diesel V-96 12-cyl. diesel 840 hp (626 kW) for Model 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel engine 1000hp (736 kW) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine 1,250 hp (919 kW) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine
Power/weight: 18.1 hp/tonne (13.5 kW/tonne) for Model 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel engine 21.5 hp/tonne (15.7 kW/tonne) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine 26.9 hp/tonne (19.8 kW/tonne) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine

Suspension: torsion bar

Operational range: 550 km (340 mi)

Speed: 70 km/h


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

[DavidMF]

hm, i think that one is the best (even if it's more a HQ than a Tank    :

Leclerc

Cost : $8,6 millions

Produced 1990–2008

Weight 54.5 tonnes[1]
Length 9.87 m (6.88 without gun[1])
Width 3.71 m[1]
Height 2.53 m[1]
Crew 3[1] (Commander, gunner, driver)
Armour Steel, titanium, NERA
Primary
armament GIAT CN120-26/52, 120mm tank gun[1]
40 rounds (1 round ready to fire in the chamber, 22 rounds inside the autoloader magazine with additional 18 rounds in the chassis)
Secondary
armament 12.7 mm coaxial M2HB machine gun
1,100 rounds
7.62mm machine gun
3,000 rounds
Engine 8-cylinder diesel Wärtsilä
1,500 hp[1] (1,100 kW)
Power/weight 27.52 hp/tonne[1]
Transmission Automatic SESM ESM500
Suspension hydropneumatic
Operational
range 550 km, 650 km (400 mi) with external fuel[1]
Speed 71 km/h (44 mph)[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclerc

The MERKAVA is nice too.

[@otiepws]

DavidMF, on Jul 27 2010 - 06:17, said:

hm, i think that one is the best (even if it's more a HQ than a Tank    :

Leclerc

Cost : $8,6 millions

Produced 1990–2008

Weight 54.5 tonnes[1]
Length 9.87 m (6.88 without gun[1])
Width 3.71 m[1]
Height 2.53 m[1]
Crew 3[1] (Commander, gunner, driver)
Armour Steel, titanium, NERA
Primary
armament GIAT CN120-26/52, 120mm tank gun[1]
40 rounds (1 round ready to fire in the chamber, 22 rounds inside the autoloader magazine with additional 18 rounds in the chassis)
Secondary
armament 12.7 mm coaxial M2HB machine gun
1,100 rounds
7.62mm machine gun
3,000 rounds
Engine 8-cylinder diesel Wärtsilä
1,500 hp[1] (1,100 kW)
Power/weight 27.52 hp/tonne[1]
Transmission Automatic SESM ESM500
Suspension hydropneumatic
Operational
range 550 km, 650 km (400 mi) with external fuel[1]
Speed 71 km/h (44 mph)[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclerc

The MERKAVA is nice too.

well..Number built: ~862 -thats not best tank in the world coz it costs $8.6 millions.
I would like to knew armor in mm.

Produced  1990–2008.. 2008 -whats that mean?

[Sunleader]

Leopard 2
Nothing above that
Ability has been testet in Afgahnistan and several Countrys keep buying it.
best proof for something to be good is when many people offer much money for it after all



I am just too lazy to post the stuff here
but I guess anyones able to follow the link and look at the statistic himself


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

[DavidMF]

Leclerc is the most "High-Tec" Tank, like i said it's a mini-HQ,

I check a bit everything about tanks months ago, i just remember that an american tank was the most powerfull, israelian the one with the best protection. And the French the fastest and High-tec.

I just know that i don't need armor and my Polo is faster ( best thing to flee D: )

Old video about Leclerc
http://www.youtube.c...layer_embedded#!

[@otiepws]

DavidMF, on Jul 27 2010 - 11:53, said:

Leclerc is the most "High-Tec" Tank, like i said it's a mini-HQ,

I check a bit everything about tanks months ago, i just remember that an american tank was the most powerfull, israelian the one with the best protection. And the French the fastest and High-tec.

I just know that i don't need armor and my Polo is faster ( best thing to flee D: )

Old video about Leclerc
http://www.youtube.c...layer_embedded#!

how did u checking?)high tec...u know it costs $8.5 millions and its like T-90 version 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 for $8.5 millions.who need it?

[@Firenze]

Challenger 2

Type Main battle tank
Place of origin United Kingdom
In service 1998–present
Used by British Army, Oman Army
Wars Iraq War
Manufacturer Alvis Vickers
Unit cost ~£4,217,000~$7,921,000~€5,590,000[1]
Produced 1993–2002
Number built ~446
Weight 62.5 tonnes (61.5 LT; 68.9 ST)
Length 8.3 m (27 ft 3 in)11.50 m (37 ft 9 in) with gun forward
Width 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in)4.2 m (13 ft 9 in) with appliqué armour
Height 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in)
Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader/operator, driver)
Armour Chobham/Dorchester Level 2 (classified)
Primary armament L30A1 120 mm rifled gun with 52 rounds
Secondary armament Coaxial 7.62 mm L94A1 EX-34 (chain gun),7.62 mm L37A2 Commander's cupola machine gun
Engine Perkins CV-12 Diesel 1,200 hp (890 kW)
Power/weight 19.2 hp/t (14.2 kW/t)
Transmission David Brown TN54 epicyclic transmission (6 fwd, 2 rev.)
Suspension Hydropneumatic
Operational range 450 km (280 mi)
Speed 59 km/h (37 mph)40 km/h (25 mph) off road


MAinly because it is an excellent peice of machinery. The cannon's range is exceptional, and is able to hit a moving target the size of a football from 2 miles away. Very quick for something that weighs 60 tonnes (although not as fast as the Leopard 2 I admit). No Challenger 2 tank has been lost to enemy fire, and only one destroyed by friendly fire.

[theta0123]

leopard 2, Ariete, T90, leclerc and type 99

People can hush with their Abrams

[@Firenze]

The Abrams is pretty terible in comparison to other modern tanks. The only real reason it is in contention is because of the mass production it goes through. The US has alot more money than other countries to build it.

[theta0123]

Firenze, on Jul 27 2010 - 18:51, said:

The Abrams is pretty terible in comparison to other modern tanks. The only real reason it is in contention is because of the mass production it goes through. The US has alot more money than other countries to build it.

Ye indeed.

Its not a bad tank in firepower and armor but
I mean, the Abrams consumes twice as much fuel as other tanks. for only a slight increase in performance. The engine itself is prone to damage. And while it is multi-fuel, it uses JP-8 jet fuel standard in the US army. I mean gasoline is flammable, but JP8 is like double that. Then the tank weights like 68 tons? Much more then todays MBT's

[Eide]

theta0123, on Jul 27 2010 - 22:04, said:

Ye indeed.

Its not a bad tank in firepower and armor but
I mean, the Abrams consumes twice as much fuel as other tanks. for only a slight increase in performance. The engine itself is prone to damage. And while it is multi-fuel, it uses JP-8 jet fuel standard in the US army. I mean gasoline is flammable, but JP8 is like double that. Then the tank weights like 68 tons? Much more then todays MBT's

Actually, Abrams performance is less than Leopard 2s in terms of speed. It's only got an edge in acceleration.

I have had the pleasure of working with both Leopard 2A5 and A6 (real)and the Abrams M1 (turret simulator). I gotta say I really do pity the gunners in the Abrams. Peering through their sights with one eye all the time, must be hell.

Anyways, "the best" is highly situational. Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2 were all designed for the German plains to fight the Russians. They all follow NATO specs and are very close in terms of capabilities. Looking at upgrades from the original design, specs and objective comments by tankbuffs the Leopard 2 probably has the edge of these 3 (it outguns, outruns and outarmours the Abrams and is much more maintenance friendly and again faster than Challenger 2 (can't comment on the Challenger gun, don't know it well enough)), but it''l be marginal regardless of the aforementioned things.

Go to an area like Golan and none of these will be a match for the Merkava. And looking at desert warfare all western tanks suffer from being too high tech.

So which is best, I really don't know, and honestly feel you can't make that claim regardlessly.

[CroPanzer]

Merjkava with its built in mortar is a killer

[Fulhund]

Eide, on Jul 27 2010 - 23:03, said:

Actually, Abrams performance is less than Leopard 2s in terms of speed. It's only got an edge in acceleration.

I have had the pleasure of working with both Leopard 2A5 and A6 (real)and the Abrams M1 (turret simulator). I gotta say I really do pity the gunners in the Abrams. Peering through their sights with one eye all the time, must be hell.

Anyways, "the best" is highly situational. Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2 were all designed for the German plains to fight the Russians. They all follow NATO specs and are very close in terms of capabilities. Looking at upgrades from the original design, specs and objective comments by tankbuffs the Leopard 2 probably has the edge of these 3 (it outguns, outruns and outarmours the Abrams and is much more maintenance friendly and again faster than Challenger 2 (can't comment on the Challenger gun, don't know it well enough)), but it''l be marginal regardless of the aforementioned things.

Go to an area like Golan and none of these will be a match for the Merkava. And looking at desert warfare all western tanks suffer from being too high tech.

So which is best, I really don't know, and honestly feel you can't make that claim regardlessly.

You beat me to it! Well said.

[@Jermu]

Well i thought this thread would be like T-90, Leopard, Abrams rage fight but everyone is just laughing to Abrams and thats fine for me!

[@Plutonowy]

abrams

[@Jermu]

Excuse me???

[PzGrenKdr]

this thread will end like all threads about such topics, all ppl will say their national tanks are the best of the world, no one will agree the other and maybe a flamewar will start.


btw the best tank is the tank which is never forced for fighting. Only it´s presence should keep the peace.

[@Jermu]

Thats actualy pretty true.

[PzGrenKdr]

i´am no pacificist but i know the effect of weapons on humans. I´am a weapon "freak" but don´t want to see a war onyl to see what tank is better. This theoretical disscusion is nice but most ppl get their information or wiki or webside which are written by 12 years old nerds and the correctness of information is doubtful. Most ppl have never served in army(i served) so many nationalism and wrong facts are in this thread.

IMO the best tank depends on crew, area, situation(x vs x) and support(arty/air, inf, pios, scouts, supply and workshops). There are to many factors(and unknwon) to put them into a calculation and say: "hey this one is the best tank"

[@Jermu]

But we are humans we can have our own opinions...