Best Modern Tank

Than still I don't think its correct, my Cavalry instructor says it costs about 8 million euro's, thats just the tank, and than we are not talking about the newer versions with the add-on armor, new engine etc.

 

Total package will include training - which could easily run to more than the "price" of the tank itself. Possibly included would be a number of simulators etc. That is the price as charged (and PAID AFAIK) to Greece.

 

it depends what weapons the enemy are using...

if they are using RPG-7's i'd go with the T-90 because even without ERA, an RPG-7 cannot penetrate its armor, whereas it has been shown in iraq that RPG-7 pose some minor threat to M1A1's...

if they are using the deadly RPG-29 then i would not choose the T-90 even with ERA... i'd choose the merkava 4 because its of crew survivability in the highly probable event of RPG-29 penetration

in tank on tank warfare i'd again choose an ERA equipped T-90 or even a T-80U because of its high resitance to ATGM's, low profile and long range... shell penetration is so serect these days i'm not even going to bother

in Summary
WW2 Tank on Tank Warfare = T-90 or T-80U
Urban and guerillla warfare = Merkava mk 4 or M1 Abrams

 

Abrams in my mind without a doubt I havent seen the Leopard in combat depends on the tank crew .Tank a inexperienced tank crew with a modern tank and a experienced tank crew with a older tank say M-26 Pershing .The experienced crew will win .

 

LOL, well, the electronics of modern tanks help a inexperienced crew a bit, so the M26 doesn't stand a change.


Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:24 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it depends what weapons the enemy are using...

if they are using RPG-7's i'd go with the T-90 because even without ERA, an RPG-7 cannot penetrate its armor, whereas it has been shown in iraq that RPG-7 pose some minor threat to M1A1's...

if they are using the deadly RPG-29 then i would not choose the T-90 even with ERA... i'd choose the merkava 4 because its of crew survivability in the highly probable event of RPG-29 penetration

in tank on tank warfare i'd again choose an ERA equipped T-90 or even a T-80U because of its high resitance to ATGM's, low profile and long range... shell penetration is so serect these days i'm not even going to bother

A T-90 without its ERA is kinda vulnerable I guess, I wonder how you can say it can withstand an RPG hit even without its ERA, it all depends on where it is hit, at what angle and at what range. You also have to understand that all tanks are quite vulnerable in urban terrain, a hit with an RPG to the back of a T80, T-90, Leopard2, M1, Challenger, Leclerc or whatever tank (exept from the Merkava because it has more armor at the back because engine is in front) will probably cause serious damage, same with the turret roof, its just to weak to withstand an RPG (even an old one). Also one of the most important aspects of having a good tank is how well it is maintained, you can have one of the best tanks in the world, but with low/bad maintenance you are nowhere.

We (Holland) use the Leopard2a6, known as one of the best tanks in the world, but because my squadron trained so much they didn't had any time for good/long/big maintenance..., soon the tanks where going downwards, engines break down, tracks are not tight enough so they roll off, electronics stop working. So if you have good equipment, good crew and have good maintenance...You have a good tank

 

You said it Castelot!

 

RE: Best Modern Tank?

I'd say the M1A2 Abrams will win because it has a 120mm gun, compared with the 105mm gun on a lot of other tanks, like the Leopard that 10 people have voted for. I'd just love to hear the reasons why the heck they did that.

 

Re: RE: Best Modern Tank?

???

Since when Leopard 2A6 had 105mm gun?
As far as I know, M1A2 Abrams has Rheinmetall 120mm L44, same gun as early Leopard 2, whereas modern Leopard 2A6 has Rheinmetall 120mm L55 gun, 11cal longer than Abrams. Hence, Abrams has actually a bit inferior gun than Leopard.

 

Re: RE: Best Modern Tank?

The M1A2 has the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44, while the Leopard 2A6 has the newer L/55. :roll: None of the tanks listed have 105 millimeter guns. It's a pity nobody voted for the Merkava

 

To Notmi and Panzerman

WHAT!!!??? The M1A2's gun is only 44 tiny calibers long!!!@@@#$?? Heck, the M26 had a better gun than that, and it was a WW2 tank and a dissappointment when it first saw action. Why in the universe did the US Army tank guys build the Abrams with such a wimpy, low-powered peashooting excuse for a main gun???

 

Man, the US Army should demand their money back from Rhienmetall for providing them a cruddy main gun. While the Leopard 2A6 is blasting stuff to pieces with it's powerful gun with a muzzle velocity of 1,750m/s, the US are stuck with a laughable, hugely inferior 1,676m/s. They should get their money back, and then use it to lengthen the existing gun to put it on par with the Leopard 2A6. Otherwise, they aren't gonna' defeat anybody.

 

Uhm, Blaster, are you being sarcastic or serious there?

 

Oh, I'm being VERY serious indeed.

 

You seriously claim the Pershings gun to be superior the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44?

 

OK, the Pershing's gun is INFERIOR to the L/44. But it was longer (at 53 calibers). What I actually wanna' say is that the Abrams has the suckiest, wimpiest, most harmless little peashooter of all the MBTs in service today!
The Rhienmetall guys probably drank too much beer for lunch, so when they got back to work, they gave the Abrams a low-velocity excuse for a gun. I mean, the Leopard 2A6 has got a muzzle velocity of 1,750m/s. The Abrams? A laughable, HUGELY inferior 1,676m/s.
PS This time I'm REALLY serious about everything I said.

 

I can't help but feel that you are overstating the case just a little.

a difference of 74 m/s does not qualify for "laughable, HUGELY inferior"

as for "the suckiest, wimpiest, most harmless little peashooter of all the MBTs in service today"

You cannot claim that by comparing it to one other gun. What muzzle velocity does the British L/30 have? or the 120mm guns on the Merverka, the T-90, the various Chinese tanks, etc etc.


Another important point is the ammunition used. American ammo is very good, and potentially coud cancel out the slight degradation in performance caused by the small difference in muzzle velocity.

And, bottom line, the gun on the M1A2 can AFAIK still kill any other MBT, which is what matters.

 

I guess. On www.fprado.com it said that the performance of the L/44 firing depleted uranium penetrators was superior to that of the L/55 firing tungsten penetrators. I guess that's what matters. And the M1A2's gun can still destroy every other MBT in service? How many hits are required?

 

Depends on where you're hittting, and other factors that are impossible for us to determine. It might take one - it might take more. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

No, you are wrong.

The Pershings gun was 90*53 = 4770 mm long
The Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 is 120*44 = 5280 mm long

The Abrams has a longer barrel