Jump to content


best tanks in the world


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
590 replies to this topic

chickenpie65 #41 Posted Aug 11 2010 - 21:06

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    06-19-2010

View Postleofwine, on Aug 07 2010 - 16:02, 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Well, now you're just talking about old and outdated cliches yes yes we all know this old story.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than other western MBTs, since most of them have got the same armour and ability to take on a lot of punishment by outdated weapons like RPG-7 which can barely penetrate only 300mm RHA armour...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.

2Pac #42 Posted Aug 14 2010 - 01:56

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
Maus is the best :Smile-izmena::Smile-izmena:

CaptainTrek #43 Posted Aug 16 2010 - 14:54

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
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 #44 Posted Aug 27 2010 - 12:00

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 579
  • Member since:
    08-17-2010

View Postchickenpie65, on Aug 11 2010 - 21:06, 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...

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.

View Postchickenpie65, on Aug 11 2010 - 21:06, 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 #45 Posted Aug 27 2010 - 13:53

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
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 :)

nxze #46 Posted Aug 27 2010 - 13:54

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View Postnxze, on Aug 27 2010 - 13:53, 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 :)


ksaplostra #47 Posted Aug 27 2010 - 22:17

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
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

nxze #48 Posted Aug 27 2010 - 23:01

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
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

killakanz #49 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 11:44

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 579
  • Member since:
    08-17-2010

View PostYarickZan, on Aug 28 2010 - 08:00, 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.

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 #50 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 13:23

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 190
  • Member since:
    08-20-2010
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.

Vidster #51 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 18:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 67 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
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 #52 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 19:06

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View PostYarickZan, on Aug 28 2010 - 08:00, 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.


The T90 is a modernized t72 and the t80 a modernized t62,which was a modernized t55 :D


we should also not forget that the Merkava acts also as an AIFV.

Xenogears #53 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 21:41

    Sergeant

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 3 battles
  • 142
  • Member since:
    06-18-2010

View PostVidster, on Aug 28 2010 - 18:30, 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 #54 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 22:32

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,971
  • Member since:
    07-08-2010

View Post2Pac, on Aug 14 2010 - 01:56, said:

Maus is the best :Smile-izmena::Smile-izmena:
B¨*******¨F*45!!

THATS the leichtraktor!

CroPanzer #55 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 22:34

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010
E-100

chickenpie65 #56 Posted Aug 28 2010 - 23:09

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    06-19-2010

View Postkillakanz, on Aug 27 2010 - 12:00, 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.

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.

killakanz #57 Posted Aug 29 2010 - 00:23

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 579
  • Member since:
    08-17-2010

View Postchickenpie65, on Aug 28 2010 - 23:09, said:

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.

Not heard of the challenger 2 lethality program have we?
Since 2006, trials have been conducted with a Challenger 2 mounting a 120mm Rheinmetall L55. The same gun as the leopard 2A6, fits like a glove and going successful. If the plans are given the go, while it will lose some of the accuracy at the long ranges it enjoyed before, it will be able to fire LAHATs.
Leopards are running short of advantages. Seems the only one they have left is quantity.

chickenpie65 #58 Posted Aug 29 2010 - 00:56

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 115
  • Member since:
    06-19-2010

View Postkillakanz, on Aug 29 2010 - 00:23, said:

Not heard of the challenger 2 lethality program have we?
Since 2006, trials have been conducted with a Challenger 2 mounting a 120mm Rheinmetall L55. The same gun as the leopard 2A6, fits like a glove and going successful. If the plans are given the go, while it will lose some of the accuracy at the long ranges it enjoyed before, it will be able to fire LAHATs.
Leopards are running short of advantages. Seems the only one they have left is quantity.

Alright, 2006. Which is now 4 years past. You are behind time. The trials are already over: in 2008 the programme was cancelled because it would be too expensive to fit all Challengers in the British Army with the Rheinmetall gun.

Also, Leo2A6m and the Chr2 were both tested in a competition and the L/55 was found to be the more accurate gun. That's why so many countries have chosen the Leo2 instead because it won most competitions with 93% while Challenger and Abrams scored only 86%. fail

Vidster #59 Posted Aug 29 2010 - 01:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 67 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View Postchickenpie65, on Aug 28 2010 - 23:09, said:

  
The CHr2 just had luck to fight against some outdated cold war tanks which had no way chance to even damage the Chr2.


Than how did those same 'outdated' tanks take out 4 M1 Abrams?.

Vidster #60 Posted Aug 29 2010 - 01:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 67 battles
  • 395
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostKingTiger, on Aug 28 2010 - 21:41, said:

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.


I was suspicious about this as well when the documentory i watched pointed out the rear hatch. It had to be a weak point.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users