Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Marko

Is there such a thing as the Best MBT in the world

I say no.

IMO there is very little difference between modern western tank designs.

(This is a follow on from a different thread

did not want to derail that thread)

 

  3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I see a fair bit of difference in crew protection, comparing the Leo 2 with the M1 - to name an example.

I was referring to the three basic design concepts of your modern MBT firepower, mobility and survivability.

The M1 may have the edge in Armour but IMO the leo-2 has an excellent/better engine.

If what i have read is true even the US army had trouble keeping there M1-HA tanks fueled in operation desert storm due to its very high  consumption even for a tank)

In a protracted conflict the leo would have the edge in mobility. the CR-2 armour also has a good reputation for being able to withstand multiple RPG hits and even a milan hit i Believe but its mobility in inferior to both the Leo and M1 its riffled gun is out of date. in fairness there is in some cases a decade between some of the designs.

Also as an example two of the best modelled tanks in SB are the M1 and leo-2 yet on the virtual battlefield the leo can more then hold its own against the M1.

And that's not even using the A6 or the STRV 122. due to the advanced ammo types. i would go as far as saying i cant even say which is the best tank in game 

M1A2 SEP. is a superb machine but so is the 2E. if the CR-2 had a smoothbore cannon and could use nato 120 ammo that would be my choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I will happily abstain from any vote for a "top ten" list of tanks, I do see significant differences. The Armata is an entirely different concept. It's practical combat value still needs to be evaluated, but I think it has merits (and vulnerabilities; it seems to be more dependent on sensors and automation than most other MBTs; a mission kill may be easier, an actual crew kill appears to be much harder). The M1, for a conventional design, seems to offer the best crew survivability chances (except, maybe, the Merkava III and IV). The Challenger 2 is "good" but far from perfect, not the least because of the lower hull, driver's hatch, and the storage of main gun propellant in the crew compartment. The Leo 2 is a well-balanced compromise, but ammo stowage in the hull is a weak point. Leclerc, I'm not familiar enough with it to comment, same for the latest Chinese designs.

 

Ultimately my vote rests with the tank that has the most experienced and best trained crew. But crew training carries only so far. We're talking about technology, and above all, combined arms. The best chances are with the tank that is part of the best combined arms team (including logistics). Which tanks turns out best depends on the theater, and the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

39 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

While I will happily abstain from any vote for a "top ten" list of tanks, I do see significant differences. The Armata is an entirely different concept. It's practical combat value still needs to be evaluated, but I think it has merits (and vulnerabilities; it seems to be more dependent on sensors and automation than most other MBTs; a mission kill may be easier, an actual crew kill appears to be much harder). The M1, for a conventional design, seems to offer the best crew survivability chances (except, maybe, the Merkava III and IV). The Challenger 2 is "good" but far from perfect, not the least because of the lower hull, driver's hatch, and the storage of main gun propellant in the crew compartment. The Leo 2 is a well-balanced compromise, but ammo stowage in the hull is a weak point. Leclerc, I'm not familiar enough with it to comment, same for the latest Chinese designs.

 

Ultimately my vote rests with the tank that has the most experienced and best trained crew. But crew training carries only so far. We're talking about technology, and above all, combined arms. The best chances are with the tank that is part of the best combined arms team (including logistics). Which tanks turns out best depends on the theater, and the circumstances.

No poll vote on this subject it would be to emotive

I deliberately did not mention the  T-14, type 98/99 the new turkish altay K2 black panther to many unknowns.

I totally agree with you in relation to crew training even though technology is closing that gap when all you have to do in lase a target and you have a very high percentage chance at a first round hit

The whole top ten thing make me laugh i think it was the history channel had a series they rated military hardware in the version shown in europe the The leo-2 won. in the version shown in america the M1 won.

 

 
Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The most obvious protection/survivability issues with the Leclerc are the lower front hull with the ammunition carousel and the turret mantlet. The Chinese vehicles seem to mainly follow the Russian design philosophy.

 

On a similar note, the most massively protected turrets seem to be of the Leopard 2A5/6/7 series with a construction depth of up to 1,60 meters.

Edited by lavictoireestlavie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is such a thing as the best MBT in the world.

 

Anyone who claims to know which MBT is the best is full of $%^! because there are too many very competitive vehicles in order to pick a clear winner, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it depends on the criterias. if cost is not a factor the "best" will differ from when it is a factor. 

the real question would be what is the best tank for your country

 

if your army has a country where most engagement distances don't exceed 1000-2000m, and a ton of forests having a tank with high magnification optics,  L55 barrel and FLIR thermals might just be unneccesary added cost, and even hinder the tank. 

for example, the swedes went for the shorter L44 because the L55 was at an increased risk of strikes from trees in wooded areas. 

having a more expensive tank also means you have less tanks, and numbers can be an advantage if the terrain benefits lower-tech systems.  

you might also want to sacrifice frontal protection for allround protection. 

if however your country has lots of wide open flat plains, you'd want a tank with the best optics, long barrel, and as much front protection as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Posted (edited)

Thats easy:

 

The tank that survives contact with the enemies of its tankers nation.

AS opposed to the opposition.

 

Hence actual factual figures from actual combat are the only really valid argument. And only really accurate when going up against similar weapons systems manned by people of similar skills and led with generally similar tactics.

 

There are far too many armchair generals debating what is the best weapon.

For me personally a weapon is just a tool. I dont really care what colour or brand it is as long as it can hit the nail every time I need it, and do it without breaking. 

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 5/11/2017 at 5:34 PM, Nike-Ajax said:

Thats easy:

 

The tank that survives contact with the enemies of its tankers nation.

AS opposed to the opposition.

 

Hence actual factual figures from actual combat are the only really valid argument. And only really accurate when going up against similar weapons systems manned by people of similar skills and led with generally similar tactics.

 

There are far too many armchair generals debating what is the best weapon.

For me personally a weapon is just a tool. I dont really care what colour or brand it is as long as it can hit the nail every time I need it, and do it without breaking. 

Agreed,

There are many factors even down to production the Panther and tiger were superior then the T-34 but were far more complex and costly to produce

The tiger and king tiger were thirsty beasts as well adding to logistics issues.

If the cold war had of went hot and stayed conventional the soviets had the ability to mass produce T tanks and could replace there losses quickly

Also i think there werer four other Walsall block countries that could produce T-55/72 as well.

The leo/M1 tanks was superior in every way but could the then west germany produce enough of them to replace there and there allies losses.

All hypothetical i know but just throwing it out there the best tank is not always the one with the biggest gun or best armour.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has mentioned South Korean K2 or Japanese Type 10  on this thread which strikes me as surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No experience with them to form an opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

6 hours ago, TSe419E said:

No experience with them to form an opinion.

 

I try to stick to that rule too (most of the time): If you ain't got a clue...s.t.f.u. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2017 at 10:54 PM, Marko said:

if the CR-2 had a smoothbore cannon and could use nato 120 ammo that would be my choice.

 Did you know that the CR1 with his outdated shitty riffled gun has the tank to tank kill distance record? 5100m or 3 miles...  not so bad...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

 Did you know that the CR1 with his outdated shitty riffled gun has the tank to tank kill distance record? 5100m or 3 miles...  not so bad...

 

 

yes, it was a HESH round which killed a T-55...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I have in mind that it  was an L23 APFSDST on a T62

The CR1 was part of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 11B (that was also my callsign when i was Sgt)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

I have in mind that it  was an L23 APFSDST on a T62

The CR1 was part of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 11B (that was also my callsign when i was Sgt)

 

T-62 and T-55 have the same level of armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

If it was a HESH round as most sources that I know claim, the first-round hit was luck, as even with a correct firing solution the natural dispersion of the round could not possibly offer a higher hit chance than 40% at that range. Gun rifling or not is of secondary importance if the shot dispersion exceeds the size of the target, which at long enough ranges will invariably occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2017 at 11:44 AM, Fuchs_Leo1_TC said:

I have in mind that it  was an L23 APFSDST on a T62

The CR1 was part of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 11B (that was also my callsign when i was Sgt)

The Cannon may be very accurate but unfortunately the ammunition used by the CR-2 has not kep up with smoothbore ammunition development.

The current AP round may have trouble with the frontal armour of the newer T types and would certainly have trouble penetrating modern western designs 

The UK MOD are idiots they very penny wise and very pound stupid. had they fitted a smooth bore in the first place the CR-2 would have been a far more effective platform.

And could have stayed in service far longer.

They could have bought or shared the development costs for German and US 120mm  ammo designs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, some of that is of course 20/20 hindsight. The British were first in developing a tank gun 120mm caliber. They expected this design to catch on like the 105mm L7 gun did. Also, it was an understandable choice considering the value of the existing stock of war ammo that had already been purchased for the Conqueror. So, at least for the Challenger 1 I can understand why things went the way they did. For the Chally 2, well, I think they hoped for major export successes, and when those didn't materialize there wasn't enough money left to develop an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, Marko said:

The Cannon may be very accurate but unfortunately the ammunition used by the CR-2 has not kep up with smoothbore ammunition development.

The current AP round may have trouble with the frontal armour of the newer T types and would certainly have trouble penetrating modern western designs 

The UK MOD are idiots they very penny wise and very pound stupid. had they fitted a smooth bore in the first place the CR-2 would have been a far more effective platform.

And could have stayed in service far longer.

They could have bought or shared the development costs for German and US 120mm  ammo designs.  

 

i dunno if calling them pennywise is appropriate. the gun on the challenger 2 is a new one, with higher chamber pressure. 

challenger 1 has the L11A5, challenger 2 has the L30. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

the point on shared ammunition and gun development costs though is extremely valid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now