Main Battle Tank Battle

Nothing is better then experience. 90% of whats being said is "on paper" Im an American so ill go with the Abrams because i believe its the best because its proven itself time and time again. Israel would come in a close second with their merkava MK 3 BAZ becaouse these tanks have actualy seen battle and proven themselfs. People think whats newer and more advanced is better, thats not always true. Countries that constantly fight like America know exactly whats needed for a battle and what isnt. Some of these tanks from other nations are damn nice looking and advanced but tell me, what do they really know about war and what works?
 
yeah but on problem with that, the abrams has only fought old soviet tanks nothing new, the merkava and isreal have to deal with all there neighboring countries and there brand new tanks, so compared to isreal the US hasn't fought very much since the end of the Vietnam war, isreal and all that middle eastern countries get into a small war just about every year, and so far nothing has come close to the merkava, i can't wait to see the MK4, but i just think , and i live in Alaska so i am an american, that the Leopard 2 and it's verious models and the Merkava are the badest tanks on the playing field . especialy since they have modular armor which the abrams doesn't have
 
I dont think so. Iraq was the most powerful arab country in the world it had the 4th largest army and i highly doubt iran or syria have more advanced tanks then them. Plus Israel doesent fight large scale wars they fight small little battles. Your not going to see israel have 1000+ tanks in action at once. And your not going to see them destroy a country like we did Iraq they simply defend themselfs, so no i doubt they have more experience then us. In small scale conflicts they have far more experience but when it comes to destroying a countries entire military they have none. You gotta remember in those small conflicts only a tiny percent of their tankers are getting experience. So they probally have some incredible tankers and some just good ones. But in Major conflict most of our tankers are seeing battle.
 
actually they have wiped out entire countries military forces before, Syria in the early 70's is one, we have only , barely, with help, wiped out germany ,japan and italy, and then in Iraq we just killed there military force which was a bunch of old T-72 tanks and some BMP 2's, both of which our bradley could and have killed before, so our infantry fighting can kill their MBT's , yet isreal's tanks have to stand up to countries who tank older tanks for no money at all and then they upgrade them with modern everything, including armor, and make much better tanks then they used to be, so all of the countries neighboring isreal have newer designs for older tanks that make them much for effective, like the M50 Super Sherman, and ontop of that, the Merkava can withstand a salvo of about 7 RPG rockets, our abrams can't, the leopard , i haven't heard naything, but the Merkava can also carry infantry into battle which makes it a very viable, ad powerful tank, especialy with it's modular armor, and with all the small wars that go on, they do use more of there tanks then we do ours, they just use them over time, basicly they keep all their experiance and get more, the US get's into a war every other 10 or so years, which is way to long if you want experiance, plus the t-80's can damage the abrams, not kill it mind you, but at least make our crews evac from the vehicle, the merkava, hasn't had a single tank kill one, the only ones that i heard of that were killed were form mines and mas AT infantry rocket fire, if the US made a tank like the merkava, then we would have the badest tank on the market, but with the way isreal is always getting fought with, they know what a tank needs, and speed isn't always a top factor, but it is one of the three big factors for tanks
 
PS , isreal has the highest concentration of tanks per square mile/kilomter, so it honestly would be the most powerful, all Iraq had was a buncha caviar cans waiting to blow up
 
I have trouble seeing how a modified sherman is gona stand up to a t-72 considering it was probally one of the worst tanks of ww2. And Israel is a small country that ratio dont mean much. They have that many tanks because without those tanks their survival would be in question. The only military in that region besides israel with "advanced" tanks would be Egypt with their abrams and as far as i know Israel and Egypt are on somewhat good terms. And even tho we defeated them in 100 hours, in world terms Iraqs tank force was considered pretty good. If the iraqi tanks were pieces of shit the Abrams wouldnt have the reputation it has now. Dont forget before the war people questioned the Abrams, after the war it was considered the best. And that rpg shit in iraq was just blind luck. Im sure an abrams could take far more then 7 rpg blast as long as you didnt get a extremely luck under turret shot.
 
And we didn't "barely" wipe out germany and japan, we completely crushed them. It took time and many lifes but their is no "barely" about it.
I recommend looking at some ww2 pictures of berlin for an example. Canada probally had a larger military at the end of ww2 then germany.

mod edit: Big Z: please dont make back to back posts. if you have something further to say, you can edit the first post to put it in.
 
i was refering to the fact that we had Russia, France, Britain, Many african countries and just about every other country in the world help us , or do there small part, russia and there defeating the germans for the most crushing blows, the us for outproducing them, britain for killing the airforce, not one single country has been announced as the destroyer of germany, or japan, or italy, at least 3 other countries were involved of the destruction of those three, but not single country defeated them
i know what WWII looks like, both my grandfathers served in WWII , one of them retired as an E-9 about 20 years ago, second highest rank in the airforce, he was army aircorps, he didn't like what he did, but he did it
 
and the T-72, had less amor than most snowblowers, our bradley has killed them with it's main gun, that's a 25 mm autocannon
there is documented proof, if the abrams goes against actual tanks, not tins caviar cans, like the Black Eagle, ,Leclerc, Leopard 2, challenger 2 or Osorio, and yes, shermans did go against T-72's, and won, they were modified, but only in firepower and mobility, they were called Super Shermans or M50 shermans, and they had a reputation for knocking out anyting from Shermans, to Pattons, to Centurions, all the way to T-72's now the T-80 or T-90 might be a question, but the shermans did take on the "revolutionary russian T-72" and won, i have a tanks buyer's buide, gotta love 'em

mod edit: sigh: and please dont make back to back posts either. if you have something further to say, you can edit the first post to put it in.
 
I think the M1A2 would win because of their SABOUT rounds or HEAT rounds. SABOUT rounds are a kinetic energy round made out of depleted uranium that travels about 44,000 MPH. And HEAT rounds are designed to burn through armor and kill(cook?) the people inside. I guess what matters is the training of the tank crews.
 
but the shermans did take on the "revolutionary russian T-72" and won, i have a tanks buyer's buide, gotta love 'em
Click to expand...

Yes you gotta to love em. And the M51 Sherman did not take on T72s, it took on T62s and Centurions. This is during the 1973 Yom
Kippur war, when the T72 wasent in service with the arabs.

I dont think so. Iraq was the most powerful arab country in the world it had the 4th largest army and i highly doubt iran or syria have more advanced tanks then them. Plus Israel doesent fight large scale wars they fight small little battles. Your not going to see israel have 1000+ tanks in action at once. And your not going to see them destroy a country like we did Iraq they simply defend themselfs, so no i doubt they have more experience then us. In small scale conflicts they have far more experience but when it comes to destroying a countries entire military they have none. You gotta remember in those small conflicts only a tiny percent of their tankers are getting experience. So they probally have some incredible tankers and some just good ones. But in Major conflict most of our tankers are seeing battle.
Click to expand...

Hmm, not true. 1973 saw the largest scale tank battles since WWII, with thousends of tanks on both sides. Israel completely destroyed arab armies 3 times(56,67,73).
 
I've come up with this pathetic rating system right off the top of my head...so bear with me.5 different catergories, each with 5 points for a total of 25 points.

1. Firepower
Includes weapons, ammo, optics, fire control, ease of use
2. Protection
Self explanatory
3. Mobility
speed, range, agility
4. Command Control and Communications
5. Training

Firepower
The M1A2SEP and Challenger 2E are pretty much equal in firepower. The Abrams has the best ammo, the Chally the best gun. The fire control is equal, but the Abrams beats it out on the optics with it's x50 FLIR. The T-90 is beat with it's inferior gun, ammo, and fire control
Abrams: 5 points
Challenger: 5 Points
T-90: 3 points
Protection
Both the Challenger and Abrams have equal frontal protection, but the Challenger has better protection all around. The T-90 is inferior to both, but I'll give it a point for it's anti-missile system
Abrams: 4 Points
Chally: 5 points
T-90: 3 points
Mobility
The Abrams is the fastest and most agile of the 3. The Challenger doesn't that much of a greater range to give it points over the Abrams. The T-90 has good mobility, but not great.
Abrams: 5 points
Challenger: 4 points
T-90: 4 Points
C3
The Abrams beats out all others easily. IVIS gives a tank platoon and company a nice edge.
Abrams: 5 points
Challenger: 3 points
T-90: 2 points
Training
US tankers are probably the best trained in the world, British tankers are just behind. The sorry state of Russian command and training lacks it up
Abrams: 5
Chally: 4
T-90: 2

Total
Abrams: 24
Chally: 21
T-90: 14

This is just for fun...so dont take it seriously.
 
My first-hand experience is dated. I qualified on a straight M1, the one with the 105mm Sheffield Rifle, not the M1A1 with the 120mm Rheinmetall Smoothbore. At the time (almost 20 years ago), nothing came close to the M1. The annual CAT Shoot was pretty much a contest between Bundeswehr Leopard IIs and US Army M1s.

That being said, there are three basic requirements for a good tank design: Lethality, Mobility and Survivability (in that order -- killing efficiency is highest priority).

Nothing beats the M1A2 in Lethality with its 120mm smoothbore, APFSDS round, and fire control system. Maybe a draw with the Leopard II, since they use a similar gun and similar FCS.

Nothing beats the M1A2 in Mobility -- power to weight ratio is about the same as the Leopard II thanks to its gas-turbine engine (the Leopard II gets to the same number with less armor, so less weight).

Nothing beats the M1A2 in Survivability. I think this is probably a draw with the Challenger (same armor).

Finally, the M1A2 is a COMBAT PROVEN design -- something none of the other contestants can claim. I would put my money on M1A2s and -- MOST IMPORTANT -- their combat-hardened crews.
 
I would pretty much agree with you. THe M1A2SEP is the most lethal tank in the world.

But on the survivability side, I'd put the Merkava and Challenger above the SEP, mainly because they have better flank armor. I don't have any info on the Leo's flank armor.

But you're forgetting the Merkava's combat experience, it's crews ruined T-72s with their 105mm guns. It also managed to take about 5 Saggers before going down.
 
Your point on Merkava crews is well taken. A good crew in an average tank will beat an average crew in a good tank.

However, the Merkava is in a different class from the other MBTs, so it is not a fair comparison. It would almost be like taking a knife to a gunfight (not saying that a skilled knife-fighter couldn't take out an average gunman).

To paraphrase "Oddball" from "Kelly's Heroes", the only way a Merkava would keep an Abrams occupied is by letting the Abrams shoot holes in it.

The Merkava was designed by Israel for their specific needs -- fighting poorly armed insurgents in desert conditions where the threat is RPG-7s, not fighting European MBTs firing depleted uranium sabot rounds at 3000 meters per second.

Saggers, HEAT rounds, and RPGs are shaped charges that can be defeated by lightweight reactive armor. A depleted uranium dart is through the armor before the reaction takes place.

The Challenger is in the Abrams class. It is a full-up MBT that could duke-it-out with an Abrams. The Challenger is after my time, so I'm sure you are correct that it has improved armor over the Abrams. That would be a match of equals -- and a true test of the crew's skills. Let the best crew win!
 
5CAV, I respect your experience with tanks, which Im sure is more than mine(as I have non). However, you seem to be mistaken about a few things(related to the Merkava), so let me try and explain them:


1- 5CAV wrote:
The Merkava was designed by Israel for their specific needs -- fighting poorly armed insurgents in desert conditions where the threat is RPG-7s, not fighting European MBTs firing depleted uranium sabot rounds at 3000 meters per second.
Click to expand...

Hmm, Im not sure what you mean by that. The Merkava was not created as a COIN vheicle, it was desighned to replace the M60 in Israeli service. The Merkava was put into service(1979) long before the first serious uprising(1989). The Merkava Mk 1 was built with a 105mm gun because that was the standart at the time, with the other western MBTs. The Mk 3 and Mk 4 carry a Israeli-made 120mm smoth bore that dose not fall short of its western counterparts in range, ammo veraiety or muzzle valocity. The Merkava was built to fight other tanks at long ranges as part of the lessons from the 1967 and 1973 conflicts. The Mk 1 proved capable of taking out the T72s, than the newest tank used by the USSR and its allies/clients. Further more, the Mk 3 and Mk 4 have fire control that is considered as good as any western one. The fact is, tohugh Israel could buy the Abrams, it chooses to build the Merkava. AS to the armor its not mainly reactive, actually it is ceramic and other, with additions of armor in some tanks, but not as standart.
 
While I agree with you 5Cav, that the Merkava is designed for Israel. It would have no problem duking it out with the Abrams at all. It's fire control and gun aren't inferior to the Abrams at all, the ammo doesn't match the M829A3 though. Neither is it's frontal armor, the Merk 3 was rated at about 800mm RHA, the Merkava should be even higher.
 
THe M1A2SEP

I quote from

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/battletwo10d.html#top#top

"The most modern versions of the Abrams – those earmarked for deployment through Turkey with the 4th Infantry Division, the first US division to have a complete digital battle management system – arrived in Iraq too late to have any impact on the war.
Under the rolling Abrams Systems Enhancement Programme (SEP), about 1,000 M1s have been upgraded to conform with the M1A2 configuration. The US Army's modernisation strategy aims to sustain its tank fleet over the next 25 years while new weapons systems and a new engine are introduced.

At least 2 to 14 Abrams were officially reported by Janes defense weekly as disabled/destroyed by traditional or advanced RPGs

(note from Eric: actually some theories state that the M1 used were old pre-pos (itioned) one without all the upgrades provided to the 4th and that they might have limited the losses with new equipment)
Question: is the Abrams M1A2 SEP battlefield tested or is the concept battlefield tested?

Stars and stripes reported Tuesday, November 18, 2003

" (...) But the Fedayeen has had success against U.S. armor. At least two M1A1 Abrams tanks and a Bradley fighting vehicle — both heavily armored — have been destroyed by a truck-mounted missile system new to the Iraqis. The wire-guided Kornet missile system, manufactured by the Russians and apparently sold to the Syrians, has a 3,500-meter range and carries enough punch to destroy a tank. Before the war, U.S. intelligence officials did not know the Iraqis possessed the system.
On Thursday, American military commanders briefed their troops on the new threat and how it can be countered by quickly maneuvering and firing in the direction of the missile, causing the person guiding the missile to move and change its course."

Talking about how vulnerable or not a tank is is talking about the eternal battle between the armor and the bullet. The bullet always win!
Again, I agree, the experience of the crew makes the tank lethal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top