quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

nah, the mighty wiesel [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/3899/Nl291235333.jpg[/image]

quote:

Personally I would say, Leopard 2A6 would be a winner. Exellent armour, good mobility etc. Now what makes it a winner compared to M1A2 is that it has a new main gun. AS LEO 2A5 has the same main gun as M1A2, the A6 - model has the new longer barrel 120mm gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JTGEN
[...] I think it is being in use in Germany and Netherland and ordered by Spain and Greece atleast. With the previous models gaining much export success, which speaks greatly in favor of it. Most of these tanks are use in their home countries but LEO2 has won lots of export contracts when competing against the others. So it seems most of these countries consider it to be the best. Allthough some like us Finns have bought used older models.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Makoto

The isssue I have with this argument is that it hasn't seen combat against other tanks. The Abrams and the Merkava have both been utilized in combat in the last decade or so.

quote:

Who's Got the Best Tank?
by James Dunnigan
January 8, 2004
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.

But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.

The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.

Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.

Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.

Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.

Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.

Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.

Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.

Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98.

Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield.

quote:

There´s non better then the Leopard 2A6 currently, period.

quote:

I´m curious, which countries import the Challenger and the M1a2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

M1A2 hands down IMO. Plus turbine engine is best if you have the logistics capability to keep it in fuel. Dang thing will run on just about any fuel you put in it. In desert conditions, just remember to blow the air filters out regularly. Must have lots of air.

quote:

The most common type of composite armour today is Chobham armour, first developed by the British in the 1970s for their new Challenger tank. Chobham sandwiches a layer of ceramic between two plates of steel armor, which was shown to dramatically increase the resistance to high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds. HEAT had seriously challenged the ability of armor to survive since its introduction in WWII, and Chobham was such an improvement that it was soon copied on the new US M1 Abrams main battle tank as well (although there it is referred to as Special Armor). It is the fabrication of the ceramic in large tiles that gives the Challenger and Abrams their "slab sided" look.

Chobham's precise mechanism for defeating HEAT was something of a mystery until the 1980s. High speed photography showed that the ceramic material shatters as the HEAT round penetrates, blowing up to a huge volume which then expands back out the hole and pushes the metal jet of the HEAT with it. The effectiveness of the system was amply demonstrated in Desert Storm, where a handful of Challengers destroyed 300 Iraqi tanks without loss, one at over five miles range.

Newer versions of Chobham include open spaces, depleted uranium and other layers in addition to the original steel/ceramic layering. The uranium layers are included primarily to increase the total mass of metal while not being larger physically. The Soviet Union has not deployed composite armor on a large scale, deciding instead to focus their efforts on reactive armor. False!

T-64:
First ever production MBT to carry combinational armor. It carried Combination K, which appariently is composed of glass fiber suspended within a plastic resin. Through a mechanism called thixotropy, the resin changes to a fluid under constant pressure, allowing the armor to be molded into curved shapes.

DOI: 1966 RHA verus APFSDS: 410 mm RHA verus HEAT: 500 mm

T-80B:
Along with the T-64B and T-72A, this vehicle substituted a Boron Carbide filled resin aggregate in 2nd generation Combination K, similar to the above mentioned GRP, but was more compact and provided better protection for the same weight.

DOI: 1978 RHA verus APFSDS: 500 mm RHA verus HEAT: 580 mm

T-80BV:
The introduction of ERA on Russian vehicles led to a massive emergancy program on the behalf of NATO to requip their ATGMs with tandem warheads. The first T0W-2A appeared after the T-80U was introduced.

DOI: 1983 RHA verus APFSDS: 500 mm RHA verus HEAT: 1 000 mm

T-80U:
The first vehicle to carry Kontakt-5 EDZ, effective both against HEAT warheads and APFSDS. It also carried an applique armor pack which is composed of a frontal steel plate about 60 mm thick backed by an insert of three layers of inert interlayer reactive armor, composed of steel plates and penapolyurethane filler. Tests by a unified Germany in 1995 found this material to have an Em of about 5.0. Also had significant increases to vehicle survivablity in other areas, mostly the armoring and cellurization of ammunition storage and the incorporation of composite steel/GRP armor on the vehicle's flanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

According to a Norwegian tank commander, his leopard could not withstand a hit of a simple M72 (the handheld rocketlauncher). That had to be a earlier Leopard, but still... Is M1A2 impenetrable for an ie CarlGustav?

JT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

According to a Norwegian tank commander, his leopard could not withstand a hit of a simple M72 (the handheld rocketlauncher). That had to be a earlier Leopard, but still... Is M1A2 impenetrable for an ie CarlGustav?

JT

Was that a Leopard 1 ?

Btw, are you norwegian? I just came back from Oslo. Noticed that the "Vakt" (? correct ?) soldiers at your royals residence and the Akershus Fortress parade/guard with a german G3 , is that still a standard weapon in the norwegian Army, or just a "ceremonial" / guard weapon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

According to a Norwegian tank commander, his leopard could not withstand a hit of a simple M72 (the handheld rocketlauncher). That had to be a earlier Leopard, but still... Is M1A2 impenetrable for an ie CarlGustav?

JT

Was that a Leopard 1 ?

Btw, are you norwegian? I just came back from Oslo. Noticed that the "Vakt" (? correct ?) soldiers at your royals residence and the Akershus Fortress parade/guard with a german G3 , is that still a standard weapon in the norwegian Army, or just a "ceremonial" / guard weapon?