I would like to know what everyones opinion on the best MBT currently in service is. I personaly like the Leopard 2A6.
This topic comes up quite often and always ends up being pissing contest of national pride for each of their own tanks.
Basically, all the contemporary tanks are pretty much equal to each other with minor differences between them. For example, the Abrams is pretty much equal to the British Chally 2, the Leo 2A6, the LeClerc, the STV 122, Italian Ariet, Israeli Merkava, etc. They all use pretty much the same components and systems.
The real factor that will make or break a tank is its crew. A well trained crew will beat a poorly trained crew in equal tanks any day.
North Korean Army’s T-34 (and yes! it is still being used by them in the active army).
I like the Abrams and the LeClerc myself. Let it be known I have ZERO French blood in my veins, and I have a certain disdain for the French as well. Those are my favorite modern MBT’s though.
Last I checked, the ‘Industry Opinion’ was the Leopard 2A6HEL, but that was about a year ago, and has probably changed since.
NTM
I worked on the M-1 project from about the second year it came into being (1978-1979) till the mid 1990’s, and then off and on till about 2005. I’ve seen the innerds of most of the MBT’s out there (even a T-72), and learned first hand what the bad points were as well as the good points.
from what I can glean I’d say the M-1 and the new Russian tank (if they build it) may be at the top of the heap. But still there’s not all that much difference between the good ones and the second level. The engines are all on the same level, but trust me the gas turbine has it all over the deisels. Their only true draw back is fuel consumption. Try and get an instant light up in a deisel at a minus twenty-five below zero, or that often overlooked fluid power. Actually the turbine is easier on drive train parts than a deisel. The other big advantage of the turbine is shear weight. Every pound you can shave from a non-combat piece you can add in armor & tracks. Even an aluminum deisel is much heavier than a gas turbine. The main disadvantage here is cost.
The Germans are hung up on that Renk transmission, and it’s 1960’s technology. There were a couple tanks put together over there with the transmission out of an M-1, and it was way better than what they had. The Challanger uses the David Brown transmission, and given my choice I’d go with the Renk, before using that one. It’s not the gearbox the Brits wanted, but were stuck with it. But it’s gotten much better than it was at the start. The one in the M-1 is a true hydro steer gear box. No bands or gizmos here. This means that tracks last longer as well as the braking system. I have never seen a dead Renk, but have seen a couple well done Browns.
All of NATO use the a comon track and drive sprocket system; even if they don’t look exactly the same. All use a similar main gun, and there is little need for an upgrade here as a 105mm SABOT will kill virtually any tank on this planet; let alone a 120mm round. So your jello if you get hit with any of them. But the real difference is in the sighting systems. The British and the U.S. have a better system than anybody else. At one time the Merkava had the best due to the way they intergrated the data into the firing solution, but after a trip to the Baka Valley things were changed. Cross country travel is a toss up between the Merkava and the M-1 with the Russians hanging close. They now have added a gyroscopic gunsight, but still its 1980 technology at best. But now they can shoot on the move. The Brits have this as well, but not sure about the Germans and French. Doubt that we’d give that over to France. Try making a 5600 yard one shot kill with a Leopard or the French tank.
The new Russian tank uses a Chobham Armor variant (after all the Brits stole it from them in the first place). The Challanger and the M-1 use this as well, but doubt that the others do. Unless the Brits or USA gave the tooling data to them (it’s not a good thing to work with). There also is a Korean tank that is similar is size and shape to the M-1, but uses regular armor plate. The Russians still have the hight and overall profile to their advantage (remember you can’t be taller than 5’6" to be in one of their tanks.
So why do you see so many T-72’s and Leopards? They’re cheap! And the guy that’s writing the checks ain’t putting his kid in one. The T-72 we see on TV is usually an export model, and quite inferior to the ones in the Russian Army. All M-1’s and Challangers are pretty much the same, but with various upgrades here and there. Still there is a replacement for the M-1 in the works. What it is I don’t know, but I do know the drive train was finished out last year. So the hull must be done as well.
gary
Geez, didn’t the Brown transmission debut in the Churchill?
Very well said!!!
Even at times if they are not equal, a well trained crew can overcome a better tank by knowing the tactics and playing the their strength.
Rounds Complete!!
Pissing contests are always fun though.
Unless it hurts when you pee! [sigh][:-^][(-D]
David Brown is not a new company, and has built many designs thru the years. Just like Renk and Allisons. The only folks that build more tank transmissions than Allison are the Russians. I might add here that Allison can pretty much take a track gearbox off the shelf and fit it whatever need you have (even a Catapillar bulldozer)
gary
I have to concur with what Gino said. I don’t know much about what the Russians are currently up to, but back when I was active I sure had no fear in facing off with one of them in my M60a1 Rise tank (the T-72’s were just showing up, main tank was still the T-62). The training issue. I would have hated to crew against the Bundeswehr guys back then. They all had the fear of the Red Hordes and had a life and death attitude.
Nowdays…Maybe it is nationalism, but I would have to lean more to the current US . I think they now have proven combat experience and the best trained crews around. Though I do think that long barrelled Leopard A6 would be pretty scary.
I’m still waiting for the american goverment to upgrade the M1A2’s gun from 44 calibre to the equivelent of the Leo 2A6–55 calibre after all it offers a 30% increase in performance.
Planning to purchase one? [:D]
[(-D]lol yea my 8 million bucks was burning a hole in my pocket.
Why? It isn’t necessary. The current 120mm x 44 caliber M256 main gun on the Abrams, using a SABOT round, can punch through any current and projected armor out there. The cost far outweighs the negligible benefit that you gain. Maybe in some future version, but I don’t see a need for it anytime on the near horizon.
Probably need to add some qualifiers here to this urinary competition- How has the tank performed in combat? They all look good in peacetime exercises and on paper, but when it comes down to the real deal of crew training plus equipment meets hostile forces, that is where it really counts. This would narrow the field of contenders somewhat.
remember that the more weight you add to a tank in drive trains or main guns the less in armor you can use. That plus the really long barrel can create driveability proplems due to the nose heavy attitude.
The next generation of MBT’s will be much more refined than what we are used to seeing, yet will probably be similar in weight and size. They will concentrate more on crew survivability, and target aquisition than in the past. Also look for the drive train to be even smaller physically and even better ammo. I really think that we’ll be seeing a behive round in the near future, and even more radical angles in the shape of the turret and hull design.
gary