Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:...I said it had greater armour protection on the top and excellent crew protection.

And yes, no-one designs a tank to patrol through cities but any army that thinks equipment will only be used to perform the job it is first and foremost designed is a stupid army. It is a reality that tanks will be tasked with patrolling cities, and it is a reality that there simply isn't the resources available to task some other specialised unit with performing that job and that job alone. So in the case of the Merkava some specialisation was surrendered in exchange for the ability to better perform roles into which it will inevitably be sent.

The specifics of top armour are irrelevant and unprovable since the armour of the Abrams and Merkava are top secret. More Merkarvas have been penetrated (not just disabled) in urban combat than Abrams. There are a lot of factors involved there but the Merkava 'performing better' cannot be supported. Both tanks have been modified to urban combat though neither were designed for that purpose.

sebster wrote:And yes, the Merkava is a generation older than the Abrams, I said as much when I pointed out that it was showing it's age, yet despite that it would likely perform better in an urban environment, a role Abrams were being sent into in Iraq despite the fact that 'no-one builds tanks to patrol cities'.

On further checking I discovered there are is less than a decade between design inception and less than two years between service entry. They're not actually a generation apart.

I would say not the Abrams. As effective a platform it is in terms of straight up firepower and defensive ability, there are a lot of aspects to its design that make it undesirable (too heavy, costs much more than many foreign tanks, etc.)

Yeah seb has it about right, not bad for a civvie.

Being a soldier in one of the worlds most professional regiments, we spent many many an hour learning AFV recognition, I had a mate who was so good at it he could tell pretty much anything by the sound its engine made. He was a spotter who would sit in his room watching AFV videos made by the Intel guys, and he could tell a T55 from a T60 at about a kilometer. I didn't have half as much interest, but what I can say is that all modern tanks can do the job, and are slightly different.

As seb said, it depends on the job. I think the M1 is the moat heavily armoured, but thats not the only thing to worry about!

Melissia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's safe to assume DakkaDakka has more than its fair share of TreadHeads. What do you think is the best real life Tank in the world right now?

Define "best tank".

No.

Define "best".

Define "tank".

THEN define "best tank".

uhh, Tank: "tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities"

Best: "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing".

do you have some other definitions that are causing confusion?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Melissia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's safe to assume DakkaDakka has more than its fair share of TreadHeads. What do you think is the best real life Tank in the world right now?

Define "best tank".

No.

Define "best".

Define "tank".

THEN define "best tank".

uhh, Tank: "tracked, armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities"

Best: "of the highest quality, excellence, or standing".

do you have some other definitions that are causing confusion?

What defines quality? Is it the most expensive tank with all the proper features and highest technology... or the most generally useful tank even to countries with lower incomes? Because an Abrams isn't the best tank for a developing country which can't actually afford to maintain, repair, and rearm it.

best FOR WHAT???

Well then I guess for "Versus Deathmatch!"

but its not like best "for today's modern battlefield" is off-topic.

But if you can afford to pit three T55s against one Abrams (not talking about a tank dual in specific but also general usefulness, and just pulling numbers here, dunno what each one costs to buy and maintain), the cost-effectiveness of one might be better and therefor more useful for a fund-limited country.

Melissia wrote:But if you can afford to pit three T55s against one Abrams (not talking about a tank dual in specific but also general usefulness, and just pulling numbers here, dunno what each one costs to buy and maintain), the cost-effectiveness of one might be better and therefor more useful for a fund-limited country.

Exactly. Or weight considerations or ability to move through heavy terrain.

Melissia wrote:But if you can afford to pit three T55s against one Abrams (not talking about a tank dual in specific but also general usefulness, and just pulling numbers here, dunno what each one costs to buy and maintain), the cost-effectiveness of one might be better and therefor more useful for a fund-limited country.

Yes, that's a valid point. Some historians think that if Germany had focused on making more earlier marks of panzers than less of the shinier, new ones that were harder to complete they would have done better in the war but I guess I do mean best individually. Best overall.

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. armor, gun, and speed are all nice but what about:
Adaptability? Dependability? Fuel consumption? Tactical Flexability? Ease of repair?

Most modern tanks are fuel heavy, require modifications for different arenas (sometimes Heavy mods), cannot be repaired "in the field", and most are about 30 feet long, 12 feet wide and 50+ tons, making them unsuited for cities or crossing some bridges.

There is, however a tank that was designed to be adaptable, flexable, easy to fix "in the field", and dependable regardless of the arena......

The M4 Sherman.


Sure, it didn't have the biggest gun, nor was it the fastest..... but it was the most widely deployed tank of WWII. Shermans saw service from 1940 through 1970... Thats 3+ wars..... Lets see your Abrams last 30+ years of constant use.

The Sherman was a total pos that was rushed into production much like escort carriers and liberty ships. It's only real advantages were that they were cheap, easy to manufacture, and after the Germans would blow them to hell it wasn't too hard to scrape the remains of the crew out of the tank and put it back into service. Sherman tanks were cheap and very expendable, and on a strategic level none of the German WW2 tanks had those assets.

Post war Sherman tanks were nowhere near as bad as WW2 Sherman tank, but that's a low bar to jump.

You do have to note that sometimes those advantages are enough to make it better than a similar tanks that was tougher, faster and better armed, but slower and more heavy maintenance. I would however speculate that the best WW2 would have been either ther T-34/85, or the Panther. Let's not forget that the T-34 descendants like the T-55 were and remain some of the most widely produced tanks in the world.

Also note, the Gulf War is not a valid comparison of Soviet/Russian made tanks versus American tanks. The SOviets had a tendency to strip the export versions of their vehicles down to the bare necessities, and the Iraqi made their own (extremely crappy) tank shells. A real Soviet or Russian tank of the same model would be a much bigger threat than the export versions we see around the world.

As for the Merkava, we must note that the Merkava has been in combat situations alot longer than the Abrams, thanks to being a part of the Israeli arsenal.

The image is ginormous. It's bigger than my monitor. Isn't ther some sort of cap on image sizes? Anyways, question was what's the best tank in the world right now? Pretty sure its not the Sherman. (wasn't even close to being the best in its day).

Obviously the Leopard 2... its got smoke launchers, reactive armour and a big gun, and 2 big machine guns... nuff said. If da orks like it, its good.

The argument over best can be illustrated by this point.

The Challenger 2 has a lower power engine than the Abrams, so it has a lower top speed.

The Abrams has only 42 rounds for its main gun, compared to 52 in the Challenger 2.

It's quite likely that there are times when you want speed, and other times when you want more ammo on board.

My grandfather was a tank driver in WW2. His crew used to pile as much extra ammo into the tank as they could fit.

Other crews used to take the governors off the engine, to achieve higher speed.

So people have put forth:
M1A2 Abrams
FV4034 Challenger 2
Merkava
Leopard 2

and uh, Mellissia like the T-55 for cost-effectiveness in today's tough econmoic climate...we'll call that a dark horse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the commie tanks? T-84, T-90 and Type 99? No Good?

Russian built tanks like the T-90 have a very different design in mind then Western built tanks. They tend to be less heavily armored, and a bit smaller. They are offensive tanks, pure and simple, built to be on the attack. They don't really care too much about surivablity, and usually have smaller crews than Western tanks. (Russian tanks use an autoloader, which reduces the rate of fire, but lets them build the tanks even smaller). On a one on one basis, in an open field, a T-90 could probably take on a Western tank and have an equal probability of winning.

However, the question comes down to the crew. A Western crew is going to be better trained, and more comfortable in their vehicles, (the Russians just can't afford live in vehicle training, and rely on simulators). However, Western tankers--especially American ones--have gotten a mild sense of arrogance and complacity after running the Iraqis over without a problem two times in a row. Against a decently trained and equipped army in similar equipment, they'd likely take casualties before they fell back on their training.

Now, I'm not sure about the modern ones, but older Soviet tanks had a problem with when they were destroyed, they tended to Jack in the box (the turret flies off). Modern Western tanks are designed to be very survivable...they can be rendered completely combat ineffective, but the crew will survive, and the tank can likely be repaired.

This:

M551 Sheridan Light Tank - I can be deployed by Air Drop, via a sled and a drag chute.

How cool is that.

"Hey we need some fire support! We are pinned down!"

"No Problem.... TANK!"

Coolio!

I've never before seen a tank made of hay.

1hadhq wrote:This:

Spoiler:

Leopard 2 A 6. A Leo 2 would be just the basic first version of it.

HEHEHEH we have few of these.... hired believe me, i was 4 years in the army (with a bit of luck, i can return^^) and never i liked those tracked cans... you choose, die with a clear shoot, or become instactly incinerated by a HEAT round... or even worse. And a single rifleman as i was, can handle something to knock out a beast like that ones....


anyway, my vote goes for the Leopard... the only problem i see is the fact that it haven't seen as many action that the Abrams or the Merkava

Frazzled wrote:
Although Dogs Rule Cats Drool, I like what you've done here.

Proof that Frazzled is training an army of Canine Shock Troopers to help him conquer the State of Texas and some of the more Americanized areas of Mexico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gander_(dog)

KamikazeCanuck wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gander_(dog)

Link didn't work

Gander was a Newfoundland dog posthumously awarded the Dickin Medal, the "animals' VC", in 2000 for his deeds in World War II,[1] the first such award in over 50 years.[2]

Gander, initially a family pet named Pal, accidentally scratched a child's face with his paw. Worried that he would be forced to have Pal put down, the original owner gave the large dog to the Royal Rifles, a regiment of the Canadian Army stationed at Gander International Airport, Newfoundland and Labrador. The soldiers quickly renamed him Gander and "promoted" him to sergeant. When the unit was shipped to Hong Kong in the fall of 1941, Gander went along.

The Battle of Hong Kong began on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Gander helped fight the Japanese invaders on three occasions. The last time, Gander picked up a thrown Japanese hand grenade and rushed with it toward the enemy, dying in the ensuing explosion, but saving the lives of several wounded Canadian soldiers.[3]

After efforts by the Canadian War Museum, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals awarded Gander the Dickin Medal on October 27, 2000, the first such award since 1949. The citation reads:

For saving the lives of Canadian infantrymen during the Battle of Lye Mun on Hong Kong Island in December 1941. On three documented occasions, Gander, the Newfoundland mascot of the Royal Rifles of Canada, engaged the enemy as his regiment joined the Winnipeg Grenadiers, members of Battalion Headquarters "C" Force and other Commonwealth troops in their courageous defence of the island. Twice Gander's attacks halted the enemy's advance and protected groups of wounded soldiers. In a final act of bravery, the war dog was killed in action gathering a grenade. Without Gander's intervention, many more lives would have been lost in the assault.[1]

At the insistence of survivors of the battle, his name was listed with those of 1975 men and two women on the Hong Kong Veterans Memorial Wall in Ottawa, Canada.[3]




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian War Hero and Victoria Cross recipient. All cats do is crap in your house.

Maybe not the best but one to watch I feel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)

George Spiggott wrote:Maybe not the best but one to watch I feel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)

You know they'll have good tech support for it!

alarmingrick wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:Maybe not the best but one to watch I feel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)

You know they'll have good tech support for it!

...I don't know about "good".

They will have plenty of it though!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:Maybe not the best but one to watch I feel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)

You know they'll have tech support for it on weekends!

...I don't know about "good".

okay, i fixed it!