Best tank of all time ?

cruasder777

In my opinion it has to be the T34, cheap easy to produce, made from scrap metal, it had also had deflective armour.

It was the tank that won WW2.

Main article: German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks
In June 1941, Germans had great difficulty with destroying T-34 in combat, as their standard anti-tank weaponry proved ineffective. Contrary to popular belief, Soviets had already deployed quite a significant number of T-34 tanks,[28] concentrating them into five[29] of their twenty-nine mechanized corps. The same pertains to the KV heavy tanks.


In terms of firepower, the T-34's 76 mm (3 in) gun with anti-tank ammunition could penetrate any 1941 German tank with ease. This gun also fired an adequate high explosive round. In 1943, the 76 mm could not penetrate the Panther's front armour and was out-ranged by the Panther's long 75 mm and the Tiger's 88 mm. The introduction of the Soviet 85 mm gun in 1944 did not make the T-34-85 equal in firepower, but the 85 mm could penetrate the armour of both Panthers and Tigers at reasonable ranges (100–500 meters).[33][34]
In terms of mobility, the T-34's wide track, good suspension and powerful engine in the last years of war gave it unparalleled cross-country performance. First-generation German tanks could not keep up

Manic Moran

Centurion
[/Thread]

Chuck Stone

Leopard 2.

Captain Chaos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Leopard 2.

Best all round modern tank, yeah the L2 A5/A6 would be there alright but not of all time.

banie01

Manic Moran wrote: »

Centurion
[/Thread]

+1 on the Centurion, especially with the L7 gun!
This is a tank introduced to service in 1945 and still in fairly widespread service today.
It totally outperformed its contempories and its cold war opponents when fitted with the L7 gun.
Its performance from Korea during the battle of the Imjin river made a legend of this tank 50yrs ago!

General John O'Daniel, commanding the US 1st Corps, stated: "...In their Centurions, the 8th Hussars have evolved a new type of tank warfare. They taught us that anywhere a tank can go is tank country: even the tops of mountains."

See the article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River

In the Yom Kippur war its performance on the Golan heights saved israel from being overrun in the north.
See this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Valley_of_Tears
Its levels of survivability set the baseline modern tanks are measured by, indeed many of its components formed the basis for the Israeli Merkava.
Any Tank that is still in service with a 'modern army'(albeit in the main heavily modified as engineering vehicles or APCs) is a sign of its designs inherent rightness.

Leonidas BL

Should set up a poll

Chuck Stone

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Best all round modern tank, yeah the L2 A5/A6 would be there alright but not of all time.

of all time has a long way to go yet

krissovo

I would add Centurion too........

If it was not for the crap gearbox and clutch
The petrol engine and fuel that when It goes it really goes up
If the brakes would stop you going down a hill

Actually I love them to bits, I was a gunner in a 165 AVRE in the first Gulf War. They were soon taken out of service and replaced with poorly converted chieftains.

This was two of our fully bombed up Cent's going up in the Saudi Desert.

Leonidas BL

Some sore ear drums there id say

D1stant

Fish.

iceage

The one with the biggest boom stick.

the_syco

iceage wrote: »

The one with the biggest boom stick.

Even if it went everywhere on railway lines?

iceage

Ok, fair one. Chally II.

Technically that would be an Artillery gun though.

goldie fish

iceage wrote: »

Ok, fair one. Chally II.

Technically that would be an Artillery gun though.

Oh nononono you didna....

An artillery gun is an artillery gun
a tank gun is a tank gun...

Maybe_Memories

krissovo wrote: »

I would add Centurion too........

If it was not for the crap gearbox and clutch
The petrol engine and fuel that when It goes it really goes up
If the brakes would stop you going down a hill

Actually I love them to bits, I was a gunner in a 165 AVRE in the first Gulf War. They were soon taken out of service and replaced with poorly converted chieftains.

This was two of our fully bombed up Cent's going up in the Saudi Desert.

Everyone cowering at the noise/sight of the giant explosion and yer man in the bottom left as cool as a breeze possibly walking away in slow motion. :pac:

Border-Rat

T-34.

krissovo

iceage wrote: »

The one with the biggest boom stick.

I think the biggest boom stick ever was the Centurion 165 They were nicknamed the dustbin chuckers.

krissovo

My entrant to this topic is the Israeli Merkava. Some really innovative ideas went into this tank and it has grown from real combat experience.

Cork boy 55

cruasder777 wrote: »

In my opinion it has to be the T34, cheap easy to produce, made from scrap metal, it had also had deflective armour.

It was the tank that won WW2.

.........
.....

There where some reports of t-34s in action during libya civil war

Fighting continues in Libya as rebel forces make advances on several fronts after pushing forward into key towns that surround the capital Tripoli. Libyan rebel fighters are now in control of Garyan.
The city is located about 80 km south of Tripoli, on the main highway connecting the south of the country to the capital. According to local reports, the rebel flag was seen flying in the central town square. On the square, the rebels have positioned a T-34 tank and anti-aircraft gun.

http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20110818/117682.shtml

Border-Rat

krissovo wrote: »

My entrant to this topic is the Israeli Merkava. Some really innovative ideas went into this tank and it has grown from real combat experience.

Evidently this experience didn't involve kornet ATGM's. I wouldn't have been in one of those things in Israels last war if you paid me 20 grand.

alanmcqueen

Border-Rat wrote: »

Evidently this experience didn't involve kornet ATGM's. I wouldn't have been in one of those things in Israels last war if you paid me 20 grand.

I presume you mean 2006 Lebanon?

I would not fancy my chances in any tank with a hit from a kornet but if I had to be in one then you would go a long way to find a better designed tank particularly for crew protection.

http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm

IMHO Merkava is best tank based on combination of protection, capability, unique design features and firepower.

iceage

goldie fish wrote: »

Oh nononono you didna....

An artillery gun is an artillery gun
a tank gun is a tank gun...

Go on then. I thought I'd stated the obvious. Sure what would I know?

krissovo

Border-Rat wrote: »

Evidently this experience didn't involve kornet ATGM's. I wouldn't have been in one of those things in Israels last war if you paid me 20 grand.

Its a tough learning curve, the Israeli's blame tactics for the casualties. Most of the hits were in softer areas and would probably take out a M1A1 based on RPG 29 experience and even a M1A1 is(/was, have they upgrade these areas?) vulnerable to RPG 7 in certain areas. Reports do exist of At14's bouncing of Merkava frontal armour and lets face it the Israelis didnt think there were any weapons that could take out a Merkava.

Since 2006 there have been hits but no casualties plus the new Trophy system has already taken out a missile fired against a Merkava. With Trophy I would say the Merkava is the best protected tank on the planet, even more than the chally 2.

BlaasForRafa

krissovo wrote: »

Its a tough learning curve, the Israeli's blame tactics for the casualties. Most of the hits were in softer areas and would probably take out a M1A1 based on RPG 29 experience and even a M1A1 is(/was, have they upgrade these areas?) vulnerable to RPG 7 in certain areas. Reports do exist of At14's bouncing of Merkava frontal armour and lets face it the Israelis didnt think there were any weapons that could take out a Merkava.

Wrong. Israel has never said that the Merkava was invincible, thats just a myth usually propogated by Israels enemies like Hezbollah so it can look good because they destroyed a mighty Merkava. It was designed to be the most survivable tank that the Israelis could produce and in that it proved to be very successful. The israeli ethos is that the crewman is the more important asset.

http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=3749

The IDF employed several hundred tanks in combat. According to official reports, about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated. In overall assessment, the potential risk to crewmen would have been much higher, if the tank would be of a conventional design. A colonel commanding an armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle, mentioned in an interview that during the war that hundreds of antitank missiles were fired on his unit and in total only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges.

Theres a good after-action report by the commander of a Merkava unit that had hundreds of missiles and rockets fired at it by Hezbollah waiting in ambush

Two rather remarkable incidents happened in the heat of battle and are worth recounting: one Mk 4 tank was hit by a tandem missile which penetrated into the rear compartment, hitting a stored HEAT round setting it on fire, which activated the automatic fire suppression system, but wounding two of the turret crew, who were evacuated and replaced by a reserve crew - the tank then continued to fight. Another tank had its main armament 120mm barrel blown off by a "lucky" shot, but the crew managed to drive it back to the border, where a field ordnance repair team exchanged the barrel and sent the tank back into battle within hours.

Very few Merkavas were damaged beyond repair and few crewmen were killed per hit sustained so that indicates its survivability. As you continued in your post, the Trophy system has been installed on the merkava 4 and passed its first combat test last year when it destroyed a kornet missle fired at it by a Hamas terrorist.

Also the IDF was hamstrung by the over-reliance on air assets by Dan Halutz and the lack of training given to tank crews in the preceding years, thats something that has been taken care of in the years since with several large excercises carried out in northern israel to prepare for the next war with hezbollah.

snafuk35

The Abrams.

krissovo

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Abrams.

The engine lets them down IMO, fuel consumption/range and significantly harder to maintain than diesels. Saying that it can run off multiple fuels and is the GTI of MBT's.

The fire control system from a Challenger and the standard protection is superior.

mbiking123

Centurion - Yom Kippur War
The Israeli version of the Centurion earned its legendary status during the Battle of "The Valley of Tears" on the Golan Heights in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Less than 100 Centurion tanks of the 7th Armor Brigade defeated the advance of some 500 Syrian T-55s and T-62s.
If it was not for this tank, IDF would have been defeated. This battle showed how good it was 5 to 1 and won and they had to fight all the way up the mountain range

cruasder777

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Abrams.

Three things against it.

A massive heat signature.

Vulnerable to RPGs when the turret is turning.

And uses massive amounts of fuel.


Leopard 2 is the best modern tank IMO. Its superior armour and speed gives it the
edge over the Abrams.

Its also so maintenance friendly its engine can be lifted out and changed in the field in 15 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVXZS6oEhg

krissovo

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Wrong. Israel has never said that the Merkava was invincible,.

Nice post, I should have expanded "Israelis didnt think there were any weapons that could take out a Merkava." to Israelis didnt think there were any weapons that Hezbollah possessed that could take out a Merkava.

goldie fish

iceage wrote: »

Go on then. I thought I'd stated the obvious. Sure what would I know?

An artillery gun is an indirect fire weapon.
A tank gun is direct fire.
A tracked vehicle with an artillery gun mounted on it is known as an SPA or "self propelled artillery". Often mistaken for tanks.


Not a tank.


A tank

snafuk35

cruasder777 wrote: »

Three things against it.

A massive heat signature.

Vulnerable to RPGs when the turret is turning.

And uses massive amounts of fuel.


Leopard 2 is the best modern tank IMO. Its superior armour and speed gives it the
edge over the Abrams.

Its also so maintenance friendly its engine can be lifted out and changed in the field in 15 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVXZS6oEhg

Has the Leopard 2 actually been used in combat? Is it ever likely to be?

goldie fish

snafuk35 wrote: »

Has the Leopard 2 actually been used in combat? Is it ever likely to be?

Yes.
With the German Army in Kosovo, and with the Danes and Canadians in afghanistan.

snafuk35

goldie fish wrote: »

Yes.
With the German Army in Kosovo, and with the Danes and Canadians in afghanistan.

Did the German Army actually do any fighting in Kosovo? Didn't they just roll over the border after the Serbs pulled out? There was no actual shooting.

And from what I have read about the Afghanistan war, it seems to be a lot of the fighting is done by troops being helicoptered around the country and being supported by jets and artillery and stuff. I can't imagine that the Leopard 2 has been driving up into the hills to bang away at Taliban fighters.

So my guess is that it has never actually had to be used? As in it has been sent to these places but hasn't actually been used in combat on the front lines?

I'm all ears if it has.

cruasder777

snafuk35 wrote: »

Did the German Army actually do any fighting in Kosovo? Didn't they just roll over the border after the Serbs pulled out? There was no actual shooting.

And from what I have read about the Afghanistan war, it seems to be a lot of the fighting is done by troops being helicoptered around the country and being supported by jets and artillery and stuff. I can't imagine that the Leopard 2 has been driving up into the hills to bang away at Taliban fighters.

So my guess is that it has never actually had to be used? As in it has been sent to these places but hasn't actually been used in combat on the front lines?

I'm all ears if it has.

There you go. Its had numerous engagements in Afghanistan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqbndKL0Nv8&feature=related

Captain Chaos

The Dane's have backed up British forces a few times with fire support from their tanks. They were badly needed too. The British commanders on the ground praised their accuracy and speed of getting into firing positions and getting rounds on target. You sound awfully cynical of the L2's use in actual combat snafuk35.

mbiking123

The Leopard 2 is, undoubtedly, one of the most sucessfull projects of the last generation of main battle tanks, with over 3,200 units produced. The Leopard 2 is in service with the armies of Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain. The Finnish Army is buying 124 and the Polish Army 128 used Leopard 2A4 tanks from Germany. Used in Afghanistan

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

Captain Chaos

mbiking123 wrote: »

The Leopard 2 is, undoubtedly, one of the most sucessfull projects of the last generation of main battle tanks, with over 3,200 units produced. The Leopard 2 is in service with the armies of Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain. The Finnish Army is buying 124 and the Polish Army 128 used Leopard 2A4 tanks from Germany. Used in Afghanistan

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

The Saudis have 200 A7 versions on order to add to that list. They could buy any tank in the world with their money and look what they selected for the region they are in.

Manic Moran

and significantly harder to maintain than diesels.

It has one moving part. How much harder to maintain than a diesel do you think it can be?

The Saudis have 200 A7 versions on order to add to that list. They could buy any tank in the world with their money and look what they selected for the region they are in

You mean next to their M1A2s? The Saudis have traditionally been one of those countries which doesn't like to keep to only one supplier. That's also why you see brand new F-15s on order next to Eurofighters also on order.

And uses massive amounts of fuel.

In fairness, that's just because Congress is too damned cheap to put in a proper under-armour APU, and tankers kept removing the external one to make more cargo space. Some countries have purchased the UAAPU on their Abrams, and the US fix is the extended bustle rack to reduce the inclination of crews to remove the external APU.

NTM

Captain Chaos

Manic Moran wrote: »

You mean next to their M1A2s? The Saudis have traditionally been one of those countries which doesn't like to keep to only one supplier. That's also why you see brand new F-15s on order next to Eurofighters also on order.

NTM

Very true, it was a point I was going to move on to but didn't.

They had their F-15s and got Tornado ADVs to go with them, why, I don't know. (actually I think there was a BAe thing in the news a while back saying that the Tornados and Typhoons were pushed on the Saudis to buy?)

Then F-15S to go along with their Tornado IDS but the Strike Eagle is a class above.

They seem to go with what is best and second best that they can buy. Hence no F-22 order because the line is closed and the US would not export them anyway. Like the F-15E at the time so the Saudis got an F-15E lite, the F-15S with less internal fuel and less capable ground targeting radar and targeting pods with lower resolution so as to be of a lesser threat to Israel who got full spec F-15Is with additional Israeli weapons and ECM gear.

Very off topic.

krissovo

goldie fish wrote: »

Yes.
With the German Army in Kosovo, and with the Danes and Canadians in afghanistan.

If I recall The Germans used the tank in Albania and not Kossovo;)

krissovo

Manic Moran wrote: »

It has one moving part. How much harder to maintain than a diesel do you think it can be?

Could a guy who has been maintaining bus/tractor/lorry engines maintain a Abraham's? Would he lift the deck and think feck me this is easy or would he think feck me what the feck is this?

krissovo

snafuk35 wrote: »

Did the German Army actually do any fighting in Kosovo? Didn't they just roll over the border after the Serbs pulled out? There was no actual shooting.

The German Leopards did plenty of shooting, but not in Kossovo ..... in Albania. They did not enter the border but had plenty of action on the border, incidentally the first time German's were in combat since WW2

Manic Moran

krissovo wrote: »

Could a guy who has been maintaining bus/tractor/lorry engines maintain a Abraham's? Would he lift the deck and think feck me this is easy or would he think feck me what the feck is this?

I think they probably cover 'basic part identification' as a syllabus in training. I've not met an American tank mechanic yet who hasn't known how the engine works, and it's not as if they'd have had much prior experience by repairing big rigs by the side of the freeway. I presume that even for diesel engines, most reputable militaries would still send their mechanics to a mechanics course.

Abrams, by the way, not Abrahams.

NTM

mbiking123

Abrams have a gas turbine engine or basically a helicopter engine, Challenger II has a diesel engine. Challanger uses hi tech secret ceramics hence why it is lighter and can use a diesel engine and yet be fastest tank cross country

For its time I still reckon Centurion must be seriously considered

snafuk35

krissovo wrote: »

The German Leopards did plenty of shooting, but not in Kossovo ..... in Albania. They did not enter the border but had plenty of action on the border, incidentally the first time German's were in combat since WW2

Against what? Were they shooting at gypsies or something?

What I am getting at is the Abrams has proven itself in combat against enemy armor - what it was actually designed to do it did well.

The Leopard 2 has not had its real test - prolonged ground operations against an enemy force with main battle tanks.

Is it likely to ever happen? Will wars ever be fought again like that? Is the tank becoming obsolete?

Manic Moran

mbiking123 wrote: »

Abrams have a gas turbine engine or basically a helicopter engine, Challenger II has a diesel engine. Challanger uses hi tech secret ceramics hence why it is lighter and can use a diesel engine and yet be fastest tank cross country

Think about that for a second...

If it was purely a matter of engine and transmission, Chally would be faster on the road. It's the suspension (and a couple of ergonomic things) which gives it the advantage cross-country in terms of top speed. (But Abrams supposedly has better acceleration)

NTM

iceage

goldie fish wrote: »

An artillery gun is an indirect fire weapon.
A tank gun is direct fire.
A tracked vehicle with an artillery gun mounted on it is known as an SPA or "self propelled artillery". Often mistaken for tanks.

Thanks for that clarification Goldie.

mbiking123

in WWII the germans took the 88 anti aircraft gun and used it as artillery gun

They then put it in the Tiger,so it had what was originally designed as an anti aircraft weapon. By the way the Tiger was better than the Russian equivalent the problem was production took longer.

The 25 pounder artillery which was probably the best of WWII could fire direct and also like a howitzer.

alanmcqueen

The definitions of guns & howitzers has been clouded since WW2. Much of what are referred to as 'guns' today are actually 'gun-howitzers'. The tank usually carries a gun; the self propelled gun (SPG) usually carries a gun-howitzer.

In general, the tank is armed with a Gun that is optimised for (relatively) short range flat trajectory direct fire - to engage other tanks primarily - but it can be utilised in an indirect fire role e.g. on a reverse slope, indiscriminate fire into an area target or fired at high elevations from a prepared position. In general, SPGs - along with many other differences with tanks; lighter armour, more crew, less crew protection, different targeting systems etc - have gun-howitzers that are optimised for long range high trajectory indirect fire. That is not to say they cannot fire directly if required e.g. the Abbot SPG could utilise HESH ammunition for use against other AFVs.

Maybe we need a best SPG of all time thread too;)

goldie fish

alanmcqueen wrote: »

The definitions of guns & howitzers has been clouded since WW2. Much of what are referred to as 'guns' today are actually 'gun-howitzers'. The tank usually carries a gun; the self propelled gun (SPG) usually carries a gun-howitzer.

In general, the tank is armed with a Gun that is optimised for (relatively) short range flat trajectory direct fire - to engage other tanks primarily - but it can be utilised in an indirect fire role e.g. on a reverse slope, indiscriminate fire into an area target or fired at high elevations from a prepared position. In general, SPGs - along with many other differences with tanks; lighter armour, more crew, less crew protection, different targeting systems etc - have gun-howitzers that are optimised for long range high trajectory indirect fire. That is not to say they cannot fire directly if required e.g. the Abbot SPG could utilise HESH ammunition for use against other AFVs.

Maybe we need a best SPG of all time thread too;)

What about tracked APCs too?:rolleyes:

mbiking123

What about tracked APCs too?

Ya but they carry troops, but I see your point