World Tank Ranking

[Alexin_Cobra]

Listen

The Leopard "Cat Shoot" is probably the best tank in the world for few reason :
- The Leopard is a german made and during world war two germany changing the face of the tank.
- The Leopard 1/2 use the world best main gun in the world called "L44/L55" inspired from the Panzer and King Tiger II during World War Two who was called by "Magic Stick".
- The Leopard 1 was create 28 years ago and the only one version who saw action is the canadian variant called " Leopard C2 " (Is a 1A5 ultra modified in 2000s).


Picture of Canadian Leopard C2 (1A5) only 66 still remaning in canadian forces and will be obsolete in 2015 and sold to Afghanistan Army

Canadian Leopard C2 (1A5) in Afghanistan escort a LAV-III and Leopard Bergepanzer ,Armoured recovery vehicle.

The lethal firepower of the Leopard C2 (1A5) during a hard target against a ex-canadian Leopard C2


Picture of Leopard 2A6M CAN (canadian version, the only 2A6 to see action) the best tank in the world.

I know you biasly like german technology but I've seen american, russian and brittish equipment work in actual war. I am a Iraq War veteran and currently in the US Army, not some bystander who doesn't know any real fundamentals of battle. Name a campaign the Canada was ever involved in. I'm in an Armor Battalion and have worked with Tanks and Bradleys for 10 years.:biggun::tank:

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

A story on TV related an incident with a Challenger 2 in Iraq. The Challenger 2 lost a track and became stranded. The terrs hit the tank with an anti tank missile and a crap load of RPG's taking out all the viewing slots. The crew were rescued and the tank recovered. Despite being hit so many times the crew were unhurt and the tank had very little damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[8]

The Challenger 2 has given a pretty good account of itself. I dont know if its the best tanks in the world, but its got to be one of the best without a doubt.

Do you know that RPG 7's which is the most common anti-tank weapon in Iraq is very ineffective against the modern tanks? They even bounce of Bradleys. The real test of armor is how well your tank survives an EFP attack. Also its sucks that the brittish just sat there and took the punishment without killing the enemy. A mobility kill does not stop M1 Abrams from killing its targets. March 2007, one of our Braqdleys came under attack by 18 RPG gunners and and we still laid waste to everyone of those idiots. Getting hit many times with the crew still cowering inside is not a good battle comparison for a tank.

 

[BritinBritain]

Do you know that RPG 7's which is the most common anti-tank weapon in Iraq is very ineffective against the modern tanks? They even bounce of Bradleys. The real test of armor is how well your tank survives an EFP attack.

From what I understand, EFP's will take out anything, Challenger 2, Abrams, Merkava or Leopards. If the bang is big enough, it'll take out anything.

Tank on tank, the Challenger 2 gives nothing away.

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

We have addapted our armor on the tanks to cool off the hot liquid punch to a hard slug that does not penetrate the armor. That also goes for our new wheeled vehicles such as strykers and MRAPs

 

[BritinBritain]

Also its sucks that the brittish just sat there and took the punishment without killing the enemy. A mobility kill does not stop M1 Abrams from killing its targets. March 2007, one of our Braqdleys came under attack by 18 RPG gunners and and we still laid waste to everyone of those idiots. Getting hit many times with the crew still cowering inside is not a good battle comparison for a tank.

The Challenger crew were blind, all the optics were taken out. The crews might be good, but even they arent issued with xray vision. What would you suggest, stick your bonce out the turret and direct your gunner?

As for cowering mate, you've got the wrong blokes.

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

That just prove the Challenger 2 doesn't have enough optics. And if they were laying supressive fire the enemy would not have the chance to take out 100% of the optics. So the fact still remains the same. I came under similar situations but the outcome came with more of them dying than my tank getting damaged.

 

[BritinBritain]

That just prove the Challenger 2 doesn't have enough optics. And if they were laying supressive fire the enemy would not have the chance to take out 100% of the optics. So the fact still remains the same. I came under similar situations but the outcome came with more of them dying than my tank getting damaged.

How does that prove the Challenger doesnt have enough optics? IF you had 200 optics and they were all taken out, you'd still be blind. How do you know they werent using surpressive fire? You were in similar situations? You werent there to compare mate.

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

How does that prove the Challenger doesnt have enough optics? IF you had 200 optics and they were all taken out, you'd still be blind. You were in similar situations? You werent there to compare mate.

It impossible that they were taken out similtaineously . Amercan tanks and Bradleys have many back up sites.

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

according to the story on Wkipedia, the sites were not taken out at the same time. the drivers sites taken out first and the driver backed up the and threw track, the n the other sites got taken out. As soon as they got hit the gunner should have been firing. I have been looking at how many optics sites it has and it only 3 is mentioned. No back up sites mentioned.

 

[HokieMSG]

Are you sure it was Germany that changed the face of the tank during WW2, I think it could be argued that the Russian T34 was the tank that set the standard after 1941 so much so that it was Germanised in the form of the Panther.

In terms of current vehicles I would certainly rate the Leopard 2 amongst the best but without the combat combat experience of both the US and British tanks it would be hard to rate it as better.

The Russians did a lot for tank development but not nearly as much as the Germans. The Russians had 2 things going for them that the Germans did not, 1. Manpower. 2. Resources. The Russians had plenty of both and used them to overwhelm the Germans.

Most of the German development was based on Guderians wirtings on the Blitzkrieg. Basically Guderian did a study of why British and American tanks were so successful against the Germans in WWI. Guderian developed tactics to counter the mass assaults preferred by the Allies. Tank development was based on tank specifications outlined by Guderian in Actung Panzer. Once tank specifications were set, Guderian pushed to have the other supporting arms mechanized (in the case of artillery) and motorized (in the case of the infantry). To be able to exploit the break throughs envisioned by Guderian. The whole time he was developing this, he was fighting the General Staff to allow armored formations to operate independant of the infantry. The GS wanted to use the British model and use the tank as an infantry support weapon. Basically Guderian developed the first combined arms tactics manual and used it in Poland, France and Russia. In Poland and France to great effect. Even though Hitler was sticking his nose where it didn't belong as early as France (Dunkirk) then even more during the Russian Campaign.

 

[Cdt Matteo]

I've seen out their armoured vehicles with the botton shaped like a V . That way when a mine/IED goes off under the belly of the vehicle, it deflects the explosive force into two different directions away from the vehicle. Anyone know the vehicle with that sort of belly protection? Is it effective (in theory it is, however when put up to the test it may not be)?

 

[BritinBritain]

according to the story on Wkipedia, the sites were not taken out at the same time. the drivers sites taken out first and the driver backed up the and threw track, the n the other sites got taken out. As soon as they got hit the gunner should have been firing. I have been looking at how many optics sites it has and it only 3 is mentioned. No back up sites mentioned.

Don't you mean sights?

One thing you need to realise, terrs are not idiots, they know the weak spots on any tank including sighting optics and engine compartments. I wasnt at the incident nor was I in the tank, so I dont know if the gunner opened fire, neither do you. Just how many optics do you need? Challenger optics are sufficient for the job. A valuble lesson, never underestimate anyone, you'll come a cropper in the end if you do.

BTW check out who makes the optics for the Bradley, it might surprise you old chap.

As for RPG's being ineffective against Abrams and Bradleys, I suggest you do a proper search and chat to other "tankers" on this forum. I also seem to remember an Abrams knocked out by an RPG fired from a bridge entoute to Baghdad.

http://www.mco.com/iraq/1717992.html
As the sky darkened rapidly and rain began to fall, a column of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles from B, or “Bonecrusher,” Troop, of 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), was pushing forward toward a bridge they were supposed to seize.
The column was still two miles from the bridge, and bunched up more tightly than doctrine would usually call for, when incoming tracer rounds heralded the start of another in a series of ambushes the unit had endured. The troopers shrugged it off — they were getting used to being fired at.
But then something happened that none of them had experienced — something, in fact, that no American soldier had ever experienced. And it happened twice in the space of a few seconds.
A projectile, now thought to be a rocket-propelled grenade, hurtled with the force of a freight train into the back of the tank commanded by Sgt. 1st Class Curtis Anderson, 38, of Sacramento, Calif
Almost simultaneously, a similar jolt rocked Small’s tank, 35 yards behind Anderson’s.
“It felt like the tank bounced,” said tank driver Small, 19, of Greensboro, N.C.
The force of the blast knocked out the tank’s loader, Spc. Brian French, 23, of Billings, Mont., who was climbing down into his seat from his turret hatch at the moment of impact.

Thank God the crew survived.

I'm not saying the Challenger is better then the Abrams, what I AM saying, the Challenger is a tank to be reckoned with and gives nothing away to any other tank in the world

 

[SHERMAN]

RPG 7 and surely RPG 29 are effective against any tank. You need to be lucky and smart but you can hurt any tank with them. Also consider you now have RPG 7 rockets with 700 mm of RHS penetration...That is alot!

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

thats some false crap. and read the damn storey on Wikipedia. So if the story is false, then you better come up with a more reliable source of information.

 

[BritinBritain]

thats some false crap. and read the damn storey on Wikipedia. So if the story is false, then you better come up with a more reliable source of information.

LOL Its false crap? Which part is false old chap? BTW it is spelled S T O R Y.

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

the RPG 7 is not affective to many of our bradleys and tanks]
my brigade has come under RPG attacks all the time in 2007 and we have not lost any Bradleys or tanks to an RPG 7. The RPG 29 was not used in the IRaq war. But since you were not there and didn't do anything ,you just speaking off the top of your head. I had to research the RPG 29 and brief my platoon prior to entering Iraq just in case we came in contact with it there. That weapon was only used in war between Hesbula and Israel. It was fire at weak spot on the side of a Merkarva Tank

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

i'm asking you, you the one arguing with the posted story.

 

[BritinBritain]

the RPG 7 is not affective to many of our bradleys and tanks]
my brigade has come under RPG attacks all the time in 2007 and we have not lost any Bradleys or tanks to an RPG 7. The RPG 29 was not used in the IRaq war. But since you were not there and didn't do anything ,you just speaking off the top of your head. I had to research the RPG 29 and brief my platoon prior to entering Iraq just in case we came in contact with it there. That weapon was only used in war between Hesbula and Israel. It was fire at weak spot on the side of a Merkarva Tank

Tsk Tsk Your getting all het up old chap. Take deep breaths and calm down to a mild panic.:smil:l

Of course I wasnt there, neither were you there when the Challenger lost its track.

Now your saying and I quote "the RPG wasn't effective to many of our Bradleys and tanks" unquote. Does that mean they were effective to some of them? It seems your getting confuggled quite a bit.

As Sherman stated "Also consider you now have RPG 7 rockets with 700 mm of RHS penetration...That is alot!" It seems he shot your argument down in flames.

As I said before, never underestimate anyone, you'll come a cropper in the end.

Your asking me? I'm not arguing anything, your the one who's arguing old chap.

 

[Alexin_Cobra]

Tsk Tsk Your getting all het up old chap. Take deep breaths and calm down to a mild panic.:smil:l

Of course I wasnt there, neither were you there when the Challenger lost its track.

Now your saying and I quote "the RPG wasn't effective to many of our Bradleys and tanks" unquote. Does that mean they were effective to some of them? It seems your getting confuggled quite a bit.

As Sherman stated "Also consider you now have RPG 7 rockets with 700 mm of RHS penetration...That is alot!" It seems he shot your argument down in flames.

As I said before, never underestimate anyone, you'll come a cropper in the end.

Your asking me? I'm not arguing anything, your the one who's arguing old chap.

the RPG statment was for Sherman not you. And he did not shoot my statment down because I researched and I was involved with alot of the attacks in Bahgdad and north of it. He stated half truths. The RPG 29 was not tested against american tanks. Also I witnessed the RPG 7 hit our Bradleys and none penetrated the main armor. It just punched through the reactive armor which is easily replaced by hand.

 

[BritinBritain]

the RPG statment was for Sherman not you. He stated half truths.

LOL, now your saying Sherman is a liar?
How to win friends in influence people lol

And he did not shoot my statment down because I researched and I was involved with alot of the attacks in Bahgdad and north of it. The RPG 29 was not tested against american tanks. Also I witnessed the RPG 7 hit our Bradleys and none penetrated the main armor. It just punched through the reactive armor which is easily replaced by hand.

Quite frankly, he did shoot your argument down in flames regarding the RPG7.