Best Tank? Lets figure!

[Zeeshan S.]

According to a global defence forum. The voting go by this.

http://www.globaldefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=740

Abrams M1A2 SEP 12 25.00%
T-90S 5 10.42%
T-80UD 2 4.17%
T-84 1 2.08%
Merkava Mk. 4 6 12.50%
Leopard 2A6 16 33.33%
Leclerc 2 4.17%
Type 99 1 2.08%
Challenger 2 3 6.25%

I dont know why the Abrams are always categorized as the best tank, and always top the voting, is it may be because of the large number of American visitors or is it really a truth?

I am pretty sure that 1 Abrams can take out almost 4 of the T-90s, but really isn't overly exaggerated? Different tanks are suitable for different terrains. So which one in your opinion is the best tank out there?

 

[MIG_ACE]

Personally I think putting any of the T-series tanks b4 Merkava,Leopard and CHallenger is foolish.

 

[joey]

Invite zraver he will tell you why the latest Abram is best.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Zraver can also tell us why that above list is stupid.I've read some of his posts in other forums and can tell u one thing for sure none of the T-series tanks come anywhere clost to western tanks like Leopard-2 and Merkava and Abrams.

 

[EagleEyes]

You know how Merkava tanks were knocked out by Soviet era anti-tank missiles?

 

[Keysersoze]

They used a newer design of anti tank missile with a dual charge warhead which could defeat modern armour. In fact the Israelis were up in arms about it (pun not intented lol)
The weapons used were latest generation.....RPG29 and Kornet




http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/09/peretzslamsrussia.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5284938.stm

 

[EagleEyes]

More information on RPG-29 and Kornet would be good. Are they something like Baktar Shikan anti-tank systems? (which we were discussing earlier in the gallery??)

 

[Keysersoze]

here ya go!

http://defense-update.com/products/k/kornet-e.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/kornet_anti_tank_missile.aspx

the second article is interesting as it refers to the kornet being able to defeat a Abrahms tank

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm

http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

 

[niaz]

here ya go!

http://defense-update.com/products/k/kornet-e.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/kornet_anti_tank_missile.aspx

the second article is interesting as it refers to the kornet being able to defeat a Abrahms tank

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm

http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

It is inevitable that new and better armoured tanks will hasten the development of anti tank weapons able to defeat the same.

It is the eternal cavalry verses infantry battle. Earlier, Greek phalanx and Roman legion were considered invincible. Later cavalry stole the show and legions were disbanded. Knights were supreme all through the middle ages. Then it was the turn of the infantry again until towards the end of the first world war when cavalry came to prominence once more with the advent of the tank. Second world war with its blitzkrieg was essentially a tank dominated war.

Now with the armoured infantry and the infantry weapons able to knock out the best armoured vehicles; suppose high tech infantry will be the 'Queen of the battle' once more and tanks and armoured vehicles would become obsolete?

 

[Keysersoze]

Yeah it has been debated as to whether or not the tank has "had it's day" but the thing is that there are always new measure and countermeasures being developed so I think both systems will be around for a while yet. For example there have been developments of blinding lasers and similar anti-infantry devices.

 

[blain2]

I think a better discussion point would be, who is better trained to take advantage of the armour at their disposal?

You and I can sit and talk about all sorts of tanks and wish that our armies of preference had this or that, however in the end, tactics and training matter more in the conduct of armoured warfare. With the newer type of munitions being able to defeat many of the reactive armours etc., its mostly a matter of who knows how to exploit the hardware on hand to the fullest extent against the adversary.....on a side note, at least from a South Asian point of view, I can say without bias that both Pakistani and Indian Armies have thus far proved "how not to fight an armoured war". Both sides have missed plenty of opportunities in the past wars to take advantage of very decent hardware in the possesion of both.

Even the many discussions around whats better from an India/Pakistan perspective, T-90 vs, T-84/AK etc. etc. is something that can only be judged by who operates their tanks better. In terms of relative capabilities, these tanks are close enough where better tactics and training would make the difference.

 

[niaz]

I think a better discussion point would be, who is better trained to take advantage of the armour at their disposal?

You and I can sit and talk about all sorts of tanks and wish that our armies of preference had this or that, however in the end, tactics and training matter more in the conduct of armoured warfare. With the newer type of munitions being able to defeat many of the reactive armours etc., its mostly a matter of who knows how to exploit the hardware on hand to the fullest extent against the adversary.....on a side note, at least from a South Asian point of view, I can say without bias that both Pakistani and Indian Armies have thus far proved "how not to fight an armoured war". Both sides have missed plenty of opportunities in the past wars to take advantage of very decent hardware in the possesion of both.

Even the many discussions around whats better from an India/Pakistan perspective, T-90 vs, T-84/AK etc. etc. is something that can only be judged by who operates their tanks better. In terms of relative capabilities, these tanks are close enough where better tactics and training would make the difference.

Historically this is only partly true. Russian front saw the whole 'tank armies' involved in trying to encircle each other. No one can say that Germans tactics were inferior or they didnot know how to exploit their tanks capabilities.

What made the difference was T-34. A relatively simple tank, not as sophiscated as the Nazi Tigers, but one which was able to operate in extreme weather, was easy to maintain and quite ruggged. In addition, there were sufficient numbers available to replace those that were lost/destroyed.

In a nut shell; quality of tank does matter. But quality should relate to the theatre of operation, also two high quality tanks are better than one high quality tank.

However, in an urban theatre of operation, where the advantages of the tank, which are mainly mobility and punching power and ability to outflank, is nullified. It is reduced to a mobile artillery and there is a big question mark about it usefulness as an offensive weapon against a well trained infantry armed with hig tech anti tank equipment. No different from the scenario where cavalry is trying to capture a town full of well armed infantry and bowman.

 

[sigatoka]

However, in an urban theatre of operation, where the advantages of the tank, which are mainly mobility and punching power and ability to outflank, is nullified. It is reduced to a mobile artillery and there is a big question mark about it usefulness as an offensive weapon against a well trained infantry armed with hig tech anti tank equipment. No different from the scenario where cavalry is trying to capture a town full of well armed infantry and bowman.

I am not so sure, U.S. operations in Fallujah and Ramadi show that the Abraham tank was extremely valuable. Its just such a massive hulk that even in urban environments against committed infantry it doesnt suffer losses as heavy as the Russian's did with their much lighter armoured tanks in the battle of Grozny.

The problem of the Abraham was that it is so expensive to operate on patrols and extremely immobile (moving from one city to another) and the fact that it cant carry infantry.

 

[Keysersoze]

Historically this is only partly true. Russian front saw the whole 'tank armies' involved in trying to encircle each other. No one can say that Germans tactics were inferior or they didnot know how to exploit their tanks capabilities.

What made the difference was T-34. A relatively simple tank, not as sophiscated as the Nazi Tigers, but one which was able to operate in extreme weather, was easy to maintain and quite ruggged. In addition, there were sufficient numbers available to replace those that were lost/destroyed.

In a nut shell; quality of tank does matter. But quality should relate to the theatre of operation, also two high quality tanks are better than one high quality tank.

However, in an urban theatre of operation, where the advantages of the tank, which are mainly mobility and punching power and ability to outflank, is nullified. It is reduced to a mobile artillery and there is a big question mark about it usefulness as an offensive weapon against a well trained infantry armed with hig tech anti tank equipment. No different from the scenario where cavalry is trying to capture a town full of well armed infantry and bowman.

Never a truer word was spoken....these days we only see asymmetrical warfare rather than modern army versus modern army. In the last major tank battles (gulf war two) apart from the tech gulf between the tanks) several other factors played a part in the defeat of Iraqi tank forces. (A good example is the defeat of the superior German tank forces to allied air power)
A heavily armoured tank in an urban environment will last longer than a thinner skinned one but it is still out of place and will be vunerable to attack)At the end of the day you still need infantry otherwise it is just a multi tonned roadblock.

 

[sigatoka]

Never a truer word was spoken....these days we only see asymmetrical warfare rather than modern army versus modern army. In the last major tank battles (gulf war two) apart from the tech gulf between the tanks) several other factors played a part in the defeat of Iraqi tank forces. (A good example is the defeat of the superior German tank forces to allied air power)

The problem with that line of logic is that like the Lucas critique in economics, U.S. acting on the fact that the last decade has seen asymetric fighting and therefore deciding to lighten its vehicles (moving from Abrahams to strykers) will actually increase the chance that future wars U.S. fights will be major tank battles.

This is because opposing major powers will become less hesitant in challenging a U.S. force structure that becomes too "light". The U.S. has become stuck in a trap, combating insurgents in Iraq and A.Q. worldwide requires a much lighter force than would be ideal against major powers like China, Russia and in future nations like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran and so forth.

Maybe that is why Congress is so eager to cut and run from Iraq, becasue it knows the real adversary is China and that if it doesnt disentagle itself from Iraq it will not be in good shape to contain China.