Alright, I know this is a huge can of worms that will ruin the party for everyone. Please treat with thread and the comments in it with some courtesy. We will all be picking our favorites with our own reasoning. Just say what you like and why without trash talking someone elses pick. Also, limit the choices to current service models, no prototypes or pilot tanks. I’m thinking of a few that may come up: M1A2/3, Leopard II, Challenger II, Leclurc, T-Whatever, any of this sort is what I’m talking about. Judge your pick based on all combat situations, survivablity, mobility, and reliablity. Don’t limit this to, “M1A2s can kill any of the others.” They all can kill each other.
Personally, I pick the M1 series. It has proven itself quite well in real combat, and I am American.
Threads like this normally devolve into personal attacks and lines get drawn along national boundaries. Arguements start about the quality of crew training, etc.
I agree that the M1A1/A2 series has distinguished itself in combat in greater numbers than any other modern MBT in use today. The Challenger 2 has also distinguished itself well in battle, but not nearly in the same numbers as the Abrams (just more M1s have seen combat than Challengers).
I would not sell the Leopard 2A5 or 2A6 short either. Even though they have not seen the heavy fighting the US or UK tanks have does not mean they are not as good in battle as an Abrams or Challenger.
Rob’s right. Threads like these usually do dissolve into attacks. However, it really does come down to crew training and who know his vehicle better. Top of the line crews in any current MBT will all be equally matched with each other.
Though I am partial to the T-90S since it is about half as expensive as the Abrams, several tons lighter, much smaller and is extrmely well protected, mobile, and packs a huge punch with its 125mm cannon with missile capability.
You fellows are right. I am hoping to avoid that sort of behavior. I would like this to be considered as all things being equal, equal crews, equal conditions. I know that if there is a best it could barely be called that. This is just so I can here the pros that the FSM folk have to support their choices. I’d also like to restate that this is not just a tank to tank comparison. If a tank cannot defend against infantry it is nearly useless, especially in modern warfare.
This question is a little off topic but I am not educated in Modern Armor. What is the best Modern Armor Model Kit? I would lkie to build one and know very little about them.
Sorry for the off topic question and for not devolving into personal attacks. [:D]
The best MBT out there depends on the crew first and foremost! Otherwise its just a big Target! Having said that I would prefer the M1-M1A1. I was a mechanic on these (63E20H8) for 8 yrs. Kinda partial I would also like to say that I also agree with what Col Rob said.
ROTFLMAO. Beaut! My son (myself included) loved Thomas.
I’m only going to say the Abrams and Challenger, because they have the best trained crews and arguably best engingeered vehicles, AND have proved themselves overwhelmingly superior to ancient Russian pieces-of-tin in combat. Bottom line, your tank, plane, ship, is only as good as the men whom operate them! Case in point: WWII inferior aircraft piloted by aces that down superior aircraft flown by aces or greens.
As the question is best MBT not best MBT crew/battalion/mechanics, I am generally of the opinion that newer military equipment is better than old, automation and superior materials in a newly designed machine will always be better than a retrofit. My vote therefore goes to the Giat Leclerc, for those of you in the US, don’t just dismiss this tank becasue it is French, judge it on it’s merits.
Sure, I’d put the Leclerc right up there with the modern Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards. Those four vehicles could all probably tie for title of “best modern MBT.”
The Italian Ariete and Japanese Type 90 are right up there, too. Probably tied for a close second place.
The Russian T-90 and other T-72 derivatives probably come in at a very distant third place…the underlying technology those vehicles are based on is just too old.
And as the guys mentioned earlier, here’s hoping this discussion remains civil![:)]
Ahhhhh, this same topic has got me into trouble before due to my biased opinion. My love for M1 Abram series will never end. Combat proven and constantly being updated. However, I wouldn’t mind being around Challenger II or Germany’s Leopard II’s or K1A2 either.
Evidence ( i.e. war experience) points to the Abrams, although the Leos are cried up to be as good or better in certain respects. I certainly wouldn’t sneer at the Merkavas either, although their speed limitations denies them top honors.
Is this not a case of where used and combat conditions?
The Abram, Leclerc, Challenger and Leopard are all designed for a “Main Battle” role.
The now retired Swedish S-tank, Strv 103B and C, was designed for Swedish conditions. In other words less roads and more woods. Low profile beeing more important then extensive armor.
Lighter and more in the role of Infantry support then supposed to line up in a battle field against enemy MBT’s.
I am not trying to add the S to the list of best MBT’s, because it was not, just thinking that it is down to more variables then bore, armor and HiTec goodies.
I know that everyone is into the new AFV’s especially the M1A1 & A2 Abrams or the Challengers, Merkavas, LeClercs or Leopards tanks. One tank that’s never mentioned, maybe because it never saw alot of action and is already phased out is the British Chieftain tank. The Chieftain incorportated the best qualities that are in todays tanks: low silhoutte with sloped armor, hard hitting large smooth bore gun (120mm), and my favorite the inverted frying pan turret. The Abrams tank right now is the best MBT in the world but always remember the innovators that came before it.
I’m going to stray from the regular lines of the western tank and say that the Merkava IV is definately the best tank around. Sure it’s slower than most tanks, but it has been designed with the crews safety in mind… the engine allows the driver to have more protection by it being in the front, the added roof armour and pneumatic systems to open the hatch adds another touch of protection to the crew from above by RPGs and the like. This tank has been produced to serve the Israelis needs in urban and open field combat. Even the stowage is placed to add aditional armour in areas it may be needed. It’s ability to carry less ammo for the sake of an assault squad makes it’s ability to transform into a small scale APC makes it more versatile than most armour. There is a rear access hatch that allows the crew to escape faster than out of the hatches. This makes it better because the loaders hatch has been removed to add more protection on the top of the tank! Some people may see it as ugly, but many American Abrams crews who had wargames against the IDF were impressed… afterall in the desert terrain and rocky hilly areas, the Merkava performed much better than the Abrams!
Based on actual battle results, the top contenders will be the Abrams, Challengers, and Merkava series of current MBTs. The other tanks listed here are also fine machines, but have not been put to the final test of actual force on force combat. Remember the T-72 was quite the boogeyman of western armies until actually faced in battle first by the Israelis in Lebanon, and later coalition forces in Iraq/Kuwait. Crew training was certainly an additional edge in these combats, but reputations are often deceiving once the machines go to war and doctrine, design intent, and reality dont match up so well.
Yes the Chieftain was certainly one of the best tanks of it’s generation. Battle use that I am aware of was by the Iranians during their war with Iraq, and by the Kuwaitis against Iraq. The former war was lots of action for the Chieftans, and the latter was far quicker due to the numbers and brevity of action.