Best tank of today

[steben]

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[DocD]

M1A2. Has won numerous wargames awards and battle tested....or at least the closes thing one could call battle tested. 'nough said!

[Nuclear]

The Leopard 2A6 EX. Got to love those German Tanks.

[RuHurt]

Abrams all the way. As far as I can tell, that tank can kick the carburetors of every other tank on the field :D.

[pagan]

anyone selecting the deutsche leopards have never used them before. What I find funny is that if i ask my german armor buddies they will all tell me right away that they hate thier leopards and really like the M1s !!

The best tank is, from my personal experience with MANY different tanks, the Abrahms.

[steben]

The Leopard 2A6 EX. Got to love those German Tanks.

Well, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Italy and Austria sure do! I wonder why...
I mean, IF the EURO-Panzer wasn't that good?
Most of those countries don't even need tanks, so why spending their tax payers' money on Germany?

I live in Belgium. Our army flies in up-"tech"ed (american) F16's. Why? Up to recently they were decent machines.
But we still drive around in Leopard 1's !!! The most recent and wise decision Belgian defense ever made was to get rid of the tank divisions. They won't replace them. If they would have done it, it would have been Leopard 2's, i'm sure.

[pagan]

I do believe that thr USA doesn't sell a great many things.

perhaps someone is much better versed on this:

Israel is the only country that we will sell directly with many 'new-tech' items.

I think that however exlcudes these things:
--Naval Vessels
--Aircraft (new non-obsolete)
--Abrahms (i beleive we used to sell out m60a4s to israel)
--missiles (air to air, land to air , except to israel)
--NBC gear
--...and many other things lie radios , radar/sonar tech....)

[AAGeneral]

Got to be M1A2. I involved a small part of its design back in 1989. :)

[OctavianNT]

Isreal has got some tough tanks (according to my history teacher)

[Lt M Cotten]

M1A2. Has won numerous wargames awards and battle tested....or at least the closes thing one could call battle tested. 'nough said!

USA! USA! USA!

[sking500]

Aren't the M1A2 and Leopard cut from the same cloth (and Challenger as well - CHOBAM armor, 120mm cannon, etc.)? Both look very similar to me, and from what I recall, have very similar speed, and armor characteristics. Since I am a Yank, I voted for the home team, but I like both.

I also did not see mention of the Israeli Merkava. I think, it actually puts the engine in front of the crew, using it as extra armor for (theoretical) improved survivability. Not sure where the gas tank is!

[steben]

yes, the merkava was the main issue when i placed "others" as an option on the poll.

However, when i think of an engine as extra defense... mmm i don't know...
not only the gas tank is vulnerable, is it?

anyone selecting the deutsche leopards have never used them before. What I find funny is that if i ask my german armor buddies they will all tell me right away that they hate thier leopards and really like the M1s !!

Armor buddies? what do you mean? Actual crew?
In my opinion, as sking500 allready tells, western tanks are very compareable indeed (but the Leopard 2A6 EX is the latest). The M1A2 is even armed with the German Rheinmetall 120/L55 Gun as the Leopard 2A6. Germans are making money on US defense. Since the fifties, Germany and USA have always worked in coherence and complementary arms.
And if a M1 can take on another M1, a Leopard can too.

The main differences between the latest Leopard and latest M1 is
firstly the size/comfort (small but tight, comfort but big) and secondly the possible infamous use of DU shells by the US, whereas Germany sticks to tungsten core.

[sking500]

yes, the merkava was the main issue when i placed "others" as an option on the poll.

However, when i think of an engine as extra defense... mmm i don't know...
not only the gas tank is vulnerable, is it?

My understanding is that the Merkava was designed primarily for the urban combat the Israeli army figured they'd find themselves in over the next dozen or so years. IMHO, any additional features to improve crew survivability, even at the expense of the equipment, is a wise decision...I'd rather have experienced crews live another day to fight. I haven't read up on the details of the engine, but I would imagine if it's a diesel it wouldn't catch fire as easily as gasoline, thus improving survivability.

[TomJag3]

The Merkava is an interesting design, able to carry infantry. It's slow compared to the Abrams, but it was designed for different circumstances. It does have a diesel engine, so fire is not as much of a problem.

The Abrams rules the wide open spaces. I would prefer the Merkava in urban areas because it is designed to integrate with infantry, from being able to haul a 4 man squad to having a communications capability with those immediately outside its hull.

[newaxis]

Pagan, you shouldn't say "we" when talking about selling tanks. The Moon does not produce tanks. Don't even start on how the moon has secret production facilities. Change you location to the US and then you can say "we" when talking about the US.

[2nd_Panzer]

During WW2 American engineers were raving how great the US tanks were supposed to be (and so did the patriots). They claimed that they were supposed to have best tanks in the world, and they were supposed to be the safest too! Then it did not take very long for them to be nicknamed Flaming Coffins. Why should we trust what they say today? I think the Panzers and Tigers have proved their dominance. The Leopard seems to be made by the same group, so I know where I'd put my money.

[Italian_Power]

The boasting of the Sherman tanks lasted until only two seconds in the very first battle they engaged in. These tanks were brought into Africa and supposed to help the British’ raid on Rommel. While experience among the crew was a joke, their moral was high as they had a lot of trust about the armour on their vehicle.

Even Rommel had intelligence sent to him much earlier than this battle regarding the new tanks and their specialized dome structure. No one quite knew how things would go. The first recorded hit on a Sherman did in fact hit the dome and then bounced off without piercing. Things looked indeed that perhaps this new tank was the super tank the Americans were claiming.

Two seconds later (2n’d AT shell to ever hit a Sherman), hit a neighboring tank and this one did in fact penetrate to the inside and knocked it out. As the allies got nearer the AT guns had shorter ranges to cross and thus guaranteeing almost every hit knocked them out. The battle was short lasted with what was left of the scrap tanks running back as fast as their treads could take them.

[admiral_yamoto]

i said US because the US has the best technology (i know nothing about tanks)

[sherminator1]

yeah the abrahms is awesome it can take an indirect hit from a twenty kiloton nuclear blast and the occupants will survive, sweeet

[steben]

yeah the abrahms is awesome it can take an indirect hit from a twenty kiloton nuclear blast and the occupants will survive, sweeet

Ok, but what about it?
Even if this is true, is it really making it the best tank? I guess the crew will have to stay in it for another 10000 years :D

[Beast1313131]

Leopard is the best. Then the M1. The T-90 has the lowest shape in the world but is definately not the winning tank. Quantity over quality is the Soviet Doctrine. The Challenger is better than the Leclerq.

[The Swedish Are Coming!!!]

Probably the Abrams, but then again I'm not a tank expert.
But in this day and age of Patriotic Fever we MUST support our #1 vehicle of mechanized death.
Plus it does look like it's doing a fine job.

[R-man]

I voted the M1A2 because I think it is the best tank in a one for one comparison. However it is also vastly more expensive then any of the other tanks on this list. As far as I know the T90 costs about a third what a M1A2 costs and two T90's are a fair fight for a M1A2, which makes the T90 a better deal.

Any more concrete info, mine is based on a recollection of something I read about 5 years ago?