PDA

View Full Version : Best MBT



Buck
13th August 2009, 19:02
Now, this dosent apply to the Irish Defence Forces but I've always been curious regards MBT's and which is considered the best. The M1A1 Abrams is possiblyone of the more famous but its smooth bore gun lets it down, the British Challenger II is similar but it has the rifled barrel and the German Leopard II incorporates the best features of both.

Personally, I would rate the Leopard but others I know say the Challenger is best and then others prefer the Abrams!

What are all your thoughts?

(then of course there is the Leclerc of France, the T-80 of Russia, the Type-99 of China etc etc)

DeV
13th August 2009, 19:44
Armoured vehicles (including MBTs) are a compromise between 3 major elements - generally no vehicle is excellent in all of these - it is a trade-off:

Protection - Mobility - Firepower

futurepilot
13th August 2009, 19:59
Now, this dosent apply to the Irish Defence Forces but I've always been curious regards MBT's and which is considered the best. The M1A1 Abrams is possiblyone of the more famous but its smooth bore gun lets it down, the British Challenger II is similar but it has the rifled barrel and the German Leopard II incorporates the best features of both.

Personally, I would rate the Leopard but others I know say the Challenger is best and then others prefer the Abrams!

What are all your thoughts?

(then of course there is the Leclerc of France, the T-80 of Russia, the Type-99 of China etc etc)

Are you the same guy who just started an exact same thread on militaryphotos.net today and is currently getting abused for it?!?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=163016

paul g
13th August 2009, 20:23
Are you the same guy who just started an exact same thread on militaryphotos.net today and is currently getting abused for it?!?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=163016

it is a good way however, of finding out national origins on a board like MP, as people tend to think theirs is best.

Buck
13th August 2009, 20:34
Are you the same guy who just started an exact same thread on militaryphotos.net today and is currently getting abused for it?!?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=163016

i am indeed, bloody hell, those guys take things abit seriously!! :eek:

Buck
13th August 2009, 20:34
it is a good way however, of finding out national origins on a board like MP, as people tend to think theirs is best.

yeah, its huge alright! didnt think everyone would go mental though

futurepilot
13th August 2009, 21:30
i am indeed, bloody hell, those guys take things abit seriously!! :eek:

Nah, just taking the piss really.
As someone on that thread said, there have been loads of those type of polls that just descend into madness pretty quickly and get locked.

Aidan
13th August 2009, 21:49
Leo2A6.

There. That was easy.

Buck
13th August 2009, 21:55
Nah, just taking the piss really.
As someone on that thread said, there have been loads of those type of polls that just descend into madness pretty quickly and get locked.

yeah, reading on from it, everyone seems to just be p!ss taking alright! everyone seems satisfied with my baptism of fire though:biggrin:

paul g
13th August 2009, 22:10
Leo2A6.

There. That was easy.

On paper, then again never been in combat.

Challenger 2 has been in combat, its rifled gun lets you fire HESH rounds, but has never made an export sale to anybody, apart from Oman, a british client.

Abrams again lots of combat experience but burns fuel.

These types of threads are pointless.

Goldie fish
13th August 2009, 22:19
It all depends what you want it for.

easyrider
13th August 2009, 22:42
Best MBT?

http://www.namsa.nato.int/gallery/systems/ah64-apache.jpg

Tanks are dinosaurs.

ZULU
13th August 2009, 22:45
Haha - Owned!

California Tanker
21st August 2009, 18:34
No mention in the poll of Merkava IV, M1A2, Type 10, K2...


On paper, then again never been in combat.

Afghanistan with the Canadians?


Tanks are dinosaurs.

They keep saying that...

NTM

Come-quickly
21st August 2009, 19:20
Leo2 is in Afghan with at least three contingents.

The Apache is a well regarded platform - but the flying tank myth has gone the way of Rumsfeld

RoyalGreenJacket
22nd August 2009, 00:19
Leo2 is in Afghan with at least three contingents.

yeah - but it's not a war for tanks. they don't see much action in Afghan.

paul g
22nd August 2009, 05:30
No mention in the poll of Merkava IV, M1A2, Type 10, K2...



Afghanistan with the Canadians?

NTM

Mea culpa, still only a handful there.

California Tanker
22nd August 2009, 08:35
yeah - but it's not a war for tanks. they don't see much action in Afghan

The Canadians and Danes beg to differ. The Canadians are telling everyone who will listen that if you're in a part of the countryside which can support a tank (i.e. not the Mountainous North-East), they're well woth it. I'm inclined to agree. Just because a tank doesn't get involved in much fighting doesn't mean the tank isn't working: In my experience the reason tanks don't get to shoot much is that the opposition aren't usually stupid enough to tangle with them, so where the tanks go, the situation is quiet.

It is to be pointed out that in the recent Helmland op, British troops were supported by Danish Leo 2s.

NTM

RoyalGreenJacket
22nd August 2009, 13:00
True - they are awesome bits of kit and I guess there is a time and a place for everything.

I believe there were 4 x Leopard 2's involved - small in numbers but massive in fire-power and the physiological effect!

Jungle
22nd August 2009, 13:52
Mea culpa, still only a handful there.

We have a Sqn worth of LEO II (A6) in theater, plus a few (handful ?) older LEO C2.

Paul G, how much time have you spent in Southern Afghanistan ?

WES
24th August 2009, 00:22
Merkava 4. If they were for export.

paul g
27th August 2009, 14:36
We have a Sqn worth of LEO II (A6) in theater, plus a few (handful ?) older LEO C2.

Paul G, how much time have you spent in Southern Afghanistan ?

None, in fact I'd say thay very few people on this board have been to Afghanistan. then again, how much time did you spent operating in Angola.


So ISAF deploys thousands of vehicles but less than 30 tanks, 5 danish and about twenty from Canada.

California Tanker
27th August 2009, 14:44
Doesn't mean to say they're not incredibly useful when they show up.

NTM

paul g
27th August 2009, 15:36
Doesn't mean to say they're not incredibly useful when they show up.

NTM

Nope, just as SADF Oliphant's were decisive in Angola against Cuban forces, although they were very difficult to deploy.

Nor would i deny that in coin operations like Afghanistan infantry units need Direct fire support.

However is a MBT, designed to fight other tanks in conventional operations in the 1970's necessarily the best way to provide direct fire support to infantry units in a COIN campaign in the 21st century, or is the mobile gun system the way to go? Will there be a tank battle in the future, with western airpower curtailing the ability of OPFOR to manouver, are MBT retained because they're paid for and cheaper to retain then fund a lighter vehicle, or because they're the best solution, or because of the armour mafia in many armies. Have armies like canada bought MBT because its cheaper to buy them second hand than pay for the development of new AFV more suited to today's battlefield.

Geting back on thread, every tank, just like every weapons system has strenght and weaknesses..

Jungle
28th August 2009, 00:54
None, in fact I'd say thay very few people on this board have been to Afghanistan. then again, how much time did you spent operating in Angola.
Actually, Africa is the only continent I have not set foot on for "work" related matters... so no, I have never operated in Angola.
But what do you mean by "operate"; did you conduct combat OPs there, take offensive actions, or were you there on one of those blue-helmet war-tourism gigs ?
'Cause I'll tell you, I was on both ends of the spectrum, and there is a world of difference.

ZULU
28th August 2009, 00:56
If ye want to have a sword fight over your internet credentials I suggest taking it to PM

mcdid
28th August 2009, 03:02
Merkava 4. Israel has fought the biggest tank battle since Kursk and many more besides not so long ago plus many more small scale high intensity conflicts with the Merkava. All that experience married with all the western systems and technology they have access to plus their pre-occupation with crew safety does it for me!!

California Tanker
28th August 2009, 06:00
However is a MBT, designed to fight other tanks in conventional operations in the 1970's necessarily the best way to provide direct fire support to infantry units in a COIN campaign in the 21st century, or is the mobile gun system the way to go?

The thing an MGS can't do that an MBT can is intimidate. You can kill an MGS like CV90 or a Pirhana 105 a hell of a lot more easily than you can a tank. When the tank shows up, in effect, it's "OK. I'm here. Now, what are you going to do about it?" With an MGS, the opposition may choose to still make a fight out of it, as there's a greater chance that at the short range most of these fights are at, they'll be able to kill it.

NTM

easyrider
28th August 2009, 11:29
But what does it take for an MBT to 'show up' anywhere? Massive costs, training, transport, logistics... Is it cost-effective? Are there more efficient ways of achieving a similar effect? And MBTs are vulnerable too, not just to other tanks and aircraft and helicopters, but plain old infantry - regular or irregular - with ATGMs.

paul g
28th August 2009, 13:26
The thing an MGS can't do that an MBT can is intimidate. You can kill an MGS like CV90 or a Pirhana 105 a hell of a lot more easily than you can a tank. When the tank shows up, in effect, it's "OK. I'm here. Now, what are you going to do about it?" With an MGS, the opposition may choose to still make a fight out of it, as there's a greater chance that at the short range most of these fights are at, they'll be able to kill it.

NTM

Then again, everybody knows what a tank is, it screams of increased militarism, tanks on the street i.e. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968 Beijing 1989, are a sign that the government is not in fully in control .

In a coin operation, where the mission is to support the legitmate government, tanks may intimidate not only terrorists but innocent civilians, whom the military is there to secure. In Afghanistan for example, the Soviets used lots of tanks, while NATO deploys less than 30. As such, the message, probably at the beginning, was that NATo was different from the Red Army.