Jump to content
[]_--__[]KITT

Personal opinion, which is the most cost effective tank to you in SB Pro PE

Most cost effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE world  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Most cost effective tank in Steel Beasts Pro PE world

    • Leopard 1AS
      0
    • Leopard 1A5
      1
    • T-72M1
      2
    • T-80
      2
    • Leopard 2A4
      7
    • Leopard 2A5
      1
    • Leopard 2E
      2
    • Strv 122
      2
    • M1A1(HA)
      4
    • Challenger 2
      4


Recommended Posts

In your opinion, which is the most cost effective tank in SB Pro PE world.

By cost effective I mean the tank which in your opinion would be able to cost the enemy the most with the minimum cost to its losses. So it's kind of the ratio of the cost dealt to your enemy to the cost incurred by you in the war.

Poll will be closed after 90 days. Afterwards(or after the decisive winners are obvious) there's probably going to be another poll on the mixing percentage between the most effective tank and the most cost effective tank given certain amount of fund knowing the cost of each tank type(the winner of each poll), ranging from just using either type of tank to a mix of both. Hehe just for fun.

Edited by []_--__[]KITT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Repeat post from other poll thread.)

Hmm, tough one. Though I prefer to drive in the Leopard 2E and Strv 122 since they are the most up to date tanks in the sim (I like my CITV/TIM) I feel I have survived much more punishment in the M1A1(HA)

I think the main reason for the higher losses for the Leopards vs the M1A1(HA) is the reserve ammo storage location. So long as you have hull down in the Leopard you're okei, but if it gets hit in the hull just right where the ammo is stored, adios. Or adiablo depending on your nature. There have been several times the Abrams has just survived an onslaught of punishment where I have lost Leopards on the same scenarios. (I have gone back and replaced M1A1(HA)s with Strv 122s or Leopard 2Es for missions where the option was not available.)

One reason I'd like to have the M1A2(SEP) is to compare it with the Leopard2E and Strv 122. One main complaint I have with the 2A5 and newer Leopards is the commander periscope positioning. The commander's copula and loaders gun, especially in hull down on a slope, really interfere with searching for targets.

I see the 2A4 has gotten quite a lot of votes, and I can see why if you account for monetary cost per unit. That and the periscope positioning is a major plus. But there again, I personally have had a much better survival rate in the 2A5 and newer Leopard tanks.

Haven't tried the Challenger 2 much yet, I'm spoiled with 3D interiors, so unfortunately I am biased against the Challenger 2 in that aspect, only because I have not really played it. So I do not feel my vote really counts in this instance.

First generation Leopards just do not seem to have the survivability of the newer equipment for me. It and the playable soviet tanks just do not seem to hold up to the newer generation tanks. All the leopards are fun to play though.

The interesting thing is, I have not noticed much difference between the Strv 122 (Leo 2S) and the Leo 2E. If I remember correctly the 2E is slightly better armored, that and it has the longer main cannon, but it seems just as effective as the 2S. The 2E seems to have poor acceleration and speed maintenance due to the heavier armor compared to the 2S, but I've noticed no discernible increase in survivability nor effectiveness against enemy armor. So between these two tanks, I feel I like the Leo 2S over the 2E.

Anyway, that is my humble, and hopefully unbiased (except for the Challenger 2 as explained earlier) view.

So here's to hoping we get a 3D interior to the Challenger 2 and a playable with 3D interior of the M1A2(SEP). Cheers!

Edited by Azure Lion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azure Lion that's very well thought of.

As for biased and unbiased opinion meh I say let biased opinion comes forward, to be honest I don't think we as a human being can judge without the slightest bias at all. Sure we can be objective [enough] but on certain circumstances where the conditions are tight or very tight I don't think we can judge without bias.

Hehe I picked the Leopard 2A4 in this poll because I think the Leopard 2A4 can still withstand one or two hits while being able to neutralize all or most tanks with one or two hits with good or very good accuracy for a very economical price tag.

Sure it's more 'tactical' than say the Leopard 2E but in war sometimes(or a lot of times) what you need is more guns firing than fewer or much fewer stronger tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to agree in that it is probably better to have more guns than fewer better guns... except for the case of moral when you are taking losses. Now, take that modular armor from the 2A5 series newer, and set it up to mount on the 2A4... moo haha~!

I still hate to have too much of a biased view though, too many people have that. I'll have to see about playing the Challenger 2 now. Though the Challenger 2 is a great tank, if sales of tanks around the world show anything I suspect the Challenger 2 will not hold up to the Leopard series of tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as most cost effective tank of the third generation tanks considering price per unit, operational and maintenance costs and such, I'd have to say the Soviet tanks.

However, if I were to pick from among the the tanks with highest survivability, I would have to agree with the world market and say the Leopards have it. Prolly the gas hog M1Ax series next and then the Challenger 2. Not entirely sure about M1A2 vs Challenger 2 here; however, sales of the M1Ax outside of the US are higher than that of the Challenger 2 by a good margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to agree in that it is probably better to have more guns than fewer better guns... except for the case of moral when you are taking losses. Now, take that modular armor from the 2A5 series newer, and set it up to mount on the 2A4... moo haha~!

I still hate to have too much of a biased view though, too many people have that. I'll have to see about playing the Challenger 2 now. Though the Challenger 2 is a great tank, if sales of tanks around the world show anything I suspect the Challenger 2 will not hold up to the Leopard series of tanks.

There is no consideration of morality if you lose the war :biggrin:(or win it). If you lose the war you're going to be blamed for it anyway. If you win no one is going to blame you for winning the war.

Against overwhelming enemy numbers more tanks may win the war than fewer of them.

Besides it's not like sending men to fight in T-55s against new T-90 and T-80U tanks. Leopard 2A4 is a decent tank still even today.

Challenger 2 is a great tank. The gun system is very accurate, protection is (supposed to be) great. These guys invented the chobham multi layer armor and they improved on it on the Challenger 2. Aside from depleted uranium armor theirs probably offer the next best protection. and to think depleted uranium armor in M1A1(HA) are used only in limited spots it is safe then to assume that Challenger 2 is a better protected tank overall than the M1A1(HA) or maybe not :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, I'd rather be in a Leopard 2A4 than a T-80 or T-90.

And you do have a point, just not sure the ratio of 2A4s you'd need per later generation Leopards to warrant similar effectiveness. And would it be more cost effective to buy a bunch of 2A4s or 2A5s with a given amount of money.

For me, if there is no reason to upgrade from 2A4 tanks why bother purchasing and phasing out the 2A4? My guess would be in the long run the cost effectiveness of it. Not only in keeping up with technology, but saving money on training new crew and more crew. For the US alone, it costs an average of $1.2 million per soldier.

(ref: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/federal-budget/cost-soldier-deployed-afghanistan)

(ref: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/)

Of course, the US likes to throw in a lot of unneeded funds at everything, but still, that would be a staggering, ongoing $4.6 million for a crew of four every year, which will of course increases with time. It will be different, and most likely cheaper, for other countries, but it is still something to keep under consideration when you want to throw a lot of tanks out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you do have a point, just not sure the ratio of 2A4s you'd need per later generation Leopards to warrant similar effectiveness. And would it be more cost effective to buy a bunch of 2A4s or 2A5s with a given amount of money.

That's going to be answered by the next poll once the winner of each current poll is obvious. :biggrin:

Poll is best considering many may not want to explain or able to explain why he chooses certain combination and this forum members are pretty hardcore tank enthusiasts themselves or even military members or operators. Should be interesting to see which combination is chosen the most between the most effective tank and the most cost effective tank. The poll will detail each option's combination in real number of each tank type and the total would be number.:biggrin:

It also depends on the assumed territory to cover(to defend and to assault) and the enemy's defenses and capabilities(just assume only land).

US in a way has already been doing this with their M1A1(SA) or just M1A1 and M1A1(HA) variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone voted T-80. That T-80 I mean T-80U sorry for missing the U.

T-80U is actually not a cheap tank. One unit would cost over 2.0 million dollars(US$) but cheapness is relative as the M1A1 would cost 5.0 million per unit. Leopard 2A4 in comparison costs about US$ 1.0 million per unit(today's cost). Leopard 2A4 then back in 2001 cost almost 3.0 million per unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='

T-80U is actually not a cheap tank. One unit would cost over 2.0 million dollars(US$). Leopard 2A4 in comparison costs about US$ 1.0 million per unit(today's cost). Leopard 2A4 then back in 2001 cost almost 3.0 million per unit.

True, but still a steal at less than 2/5 the cost of a 2A6 and 1/3 the cost of an M1A2. Hmm, when I become that multi-billionaire like in my dreams, I'll have to pick up some old Leopard 2A4s. :) Too bad the cannon won't be functional.

Actually, I'd probably go for a CV90 hull. With turret would be better, but not necessary. Even without missiles, I prefer it over the Bradleys. (Just too tall and top heavy.) I'm almost surprised that's not part of the simulation, sideways on too steep a slope, and tumble, tumble. Now a CV90 though, that would be a fun vehicle to have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but still a steal at less than 2/5 the cost of a 2A6 and 1/3 the cost of an M1A2. Hmm, when I become that multi-billionaire like in my dreams, I'll have to pick up some old Leopard 2A4s. :) Too bad the cannon won't be functional.

Actually, I'd probably go for a CV90 hull. With turret would be better, but not necessary. Even without missiles, I prefer it over the Bradleys. (Just too tall and top heavy.) I'm almost surprised that's not part of the simulation, sideways on too steep a slope, and tumble, tumble. Now a CV90 though, that would be a fun vehicle to have!

Hehe tanks are fun to play with on the PC. Physical tanks, owning them is cumbersome....:biggrin:. Would rather use the money to buy a boat/yacht but I guess used tanks aren't as expensive as boats but still would rather buy a better boats/yacht than buying tanks personally :biggrin:. It's just more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laf, yeah, if I were a multi-billionaire, I do believe I would already have the yacht, personal jet, etc before purchasing a tank for leisure. ;P Would rather buy that than an exotic sports car in all honesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laf, yeah, if I were a multi-billionaire, I do believe I would already have the yacht, personal jet, etc before purchasing a tank for leisure. ;P

yeah if only we had the money ...I mean for the yacht and the jet :biggrin:...maybe next life :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have voted for t72:) (for fun, mostly). Anyway, its the most cheap tank among all in the poll:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have voted for t72:) (for fun, mostly). Anyway, its the most cheap tank among all in the poll:)

Hehehe the gun on the T-72 is not to be underestimated, just the protection and the firing control system that are rather sucky :biggrin:. The muzzle velocity of an armor piercing round from that T-72 gun is greater than that fired by the Challenger 2 though the big fins on the round reduce its effectiveness at longer ranges(it's smoothbore, so the accuracy needed some help from the round's fins though a new design of more effective round could help too).

It's a gunnery tank it requires skills :)..aside from the autoloader in the T72- M1 should carry more armor piercing rounds imo but you know it's the export version of the T-72....meant for client states for their small proxy war somewhere in little known country.(Edit it seems the autoloader can hold just as many AP rounds...my mistake)

The Iraqi T-72s were not equipped with the best rounds then too. But overall the reputation of the T-72 suffers greatly as a result nevertheless. The T-90 is to be the new T-72 hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, yeah, I remember back in the early '90s when there were all kinds of speculations on what the T-90 was to be. The one I heard that I remember most was it was to be a low profile, non-turreted tank with a huge gun, like the old WWII Tank Destroyers. Then, only to find out it was nothing more than an upgraded T-72, ah well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, yeah, I remember back in the early '90s when there were all kinds of speculations on what the T-90 was to be. The one I heard that I remember most was it was to be a low profile, non-turreted tank with a huge gun,.

that was the T-95.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_--__[]KITT;217533']...Challenger 2 is a great tank. The gun system is very accurate' date=' protection is (supposed to be) great...[/quote']

If the SB model is anywhere near accurate, I can vouch for the protection. I've run through the entire ammo stores of my Leo 2A4 firing mid range at a Chally in a BP. Most of them hit and that bugger is still alive! :decu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the SB model is anywhere near accurate, I can vouch for the protection. I've run through the entire ammo stores of my Leo 2A4 firing mid range at a Chally in a BP. Most of them hit and that bugger is still alive! :decu:

Hehehe yeah many people attribute Challenger 2 as the best protected tank in the world thanks to 2nd generation cobham armor which is better than what the US has/had(first generation cobham)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...