[MB.]

Which is the best MBT in the world today?

* People's Republic of China
o Type 96/G
o Type 98/G[5]
o Type 99
o VT1A[6]

* People's Republic of China/ Pakistan
o MBT-2000 (Al-Khalid)

* Croatia
o M-95 Degman

* France
o AMX-56 Leclerc[5]

* Germany
o Leopard 2[5]

* Italy Italy
o C1 Ariete[5]

* Iran
o Zulfiqar tank

* Israel
o Merkava Mark III/IV[5]

* India
o Arjun MBT

* Japan
o Type 90[5]

* South Korea
o K1/K1A1

* Serbia
o M-2001

* Poland
o PT-91 Twardy

* Soviet Union/ Russia
o T-80[5]
o T-90[5]

* USA
o M1 Abrams[5]
o M-60 2000

* United States/ Israel
o Sabra

* United Kingdom
o FV4030/4 Challenger 1[5][7] - British service 1983 to mid 1990s
o FV4034 Challenger 2[5] - successor to Challenger 1

* Ukraine
o T-84
2

source

[Cookie Monster]

Your list is missing certain tanks or tank versions:

The Leopard 2 has different versions which are quite different in characteristics and performance.
There are the the 2A0 - 2A6 versions, with further customer specific differences.

The Merkava V and K2 are also missing.


Generally the Leopard 2A6 and the Merkava V are considered to be among the best MBT's in the world.

[Igor Antunov]

They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately it's how well you maintain and use it, rather than how fancy it is on the spec sheet.

[Cookie Monster]

Performance and ability wise, there are clear differences. But the better tank means no guarantee for a win on the battle field. To win the battle, the crew is the most vital part of a tank. A well trained and prepared crew with an older tank can beat the most advanced tank with an average of ill prepared crew.

[killim]

*hust* Leopard A6 PSO and now even Leopard A7

[Cookie Monster]

I cannot keep up with German marketing techniques.

[killim]

I admit the Leo 2A7 is a brand new configuration based on the PSO as a Leo 2A6 developement and this has already been around for some time.



Currently the remaining 150 Leo 2A5 are upgraded to Leo 2A7. This brings 150 MBT for urban warfare (2A7 PSO variante) and Leo 2A6 as industry standard for symmetrical warfare.

BTW rumor says that Leo 2A7 will be combined with this system: http://defense-update.com/products/a/awiss.htm which was already visible on some experimental GTK Boxer demo versions.

[Igor Antunov]

Why are German tanks so boxy on the sides? They just have flat sides instead of angled plating for increased protection, why?

[Wolfman]

It's cheaper and easier and to do. Ultimately though, MBTs aren't that important in the modern battle field, so I don't care about the issue to much.

[MB.]

Ultimately though, MBTs aren't that important in the modern battle field

What leads you to this conclusion?

[Wolfman]

We've had this conversation before MB.

[Igor Antunov]

Armour, airpower and guided missiles are pretty much the defining aspects of modern war. Infantry on their own aren't enough to take territory anymore, and obviously aircraft can't secure territory, I too am perplexed by your stance Wolfman. Tanks are needed by the boots on the ground to help secure and hold onto land objectives.

[Thunderhawk]

In which case it seems like the role of the tank has gone back to that of primarily infantry support.

[Igor Antunov]

Everything supports infantry, but it is the nature of this support that defines the modern battlefield.

[Nikita]

Probably the latest Merkava.

[Typhoon]

They just have flat sides instead of angled plating for increased protection, why?

German designers have chosen to max out the amount of armour for the avaliable space that they have rather than go for trying to get protection from a smaller amount of angled armour at the expense of internal volume or in trying to keep to a weight restriction.

Armour, airpower and guided missiles are pretty much the defining aspects of modern war.

Funny enougth that these are reasons that have been used to announce the death of heavy armour in conventional warfare, tanks are very vulnerable to guided munitions. Thay have gained new life in 'modern' irregular warfare by giving additional fire support to infantry, a role closer to the Soviet model of armoured warfare than the mechanised cavelry the west envisaged. There are much better weapons for this role but its a sign the tank will be with us for a long time yet, albeit in smaller numbers.

Reviews of Popular Main Battle Tanks in less than five words:
Type ##: Knock-offs but keep watching
MBT-2000: Ukraine on a budget
Leclerc: Rafael of the land
Leopard: Five year workmanship garentee
Ariete: Who?
Merkava: Occupation optimised, beware of Fagots
Arjun: Costly local import
K2: Pimp my tank
M1: Performance curtesy of General Atomics
Challenger: Teabags
T-X: Innovative but controversial lightweight

...But one reason why its my favorite:
[youtube]j-jIsjQTTIA[/youtube]

[Wolfman]

Funny enougth that these are reasons that have been used to announce the death of heavy armour in conventional warfare, tanks are very vulnerable to guided munitions. Thay have gained new life in 'modern' irregular warfare by giving additional fire support to infantry, a role closer to the Soviet model of armoured warfare than the mechanised cavelry the west envisaged. There are much better weapons for this role but its a sign the tank will be with us for a long time yet, albeit in smaller numbers.

Quoted for truth.

[killim]

German designers have chosen to max out the amount of armour for the avaliable space that they have rather than go for trying to get protection from a smaller amount of angled armour at the expense of internal volume or in trying to keep to a weight restriction.

Other additional reasons are the modular addons. Namely the RPG-cage for the urban-warfare variante, when AWISS failes or is not activated due to the danger of friendly fire and then the low likelyhood for a horizontal RPG (since no tank fired SABOT can be expecded) in this scenario. Main dangers are driving accidents, the mothers of all IEDs and Vampir/Hashim from above. RPG27 wasn't tested afaik, but i would expect similar damage.

[Igor Antunov]

tanks are very vulnerable to guided munitions.

What isn't very vulnerable to guided munitions? Capital ships are vulnerable to anti-ship missiles/torpedos, helicopter gunships are vulnerable to shoulder-launched AA missiles. Very fast aircraft suffer when presented with a volley of ground to air missiles that can travel 8,000km/h and manuevre 10x better and are 100x cheaper per unit.

Everything is vulnerable if thrown into the thick of battle without complementary support.

[MB.]

Everything is vulnerable if thrown into the thick of battle without complementary support.

In a strange turn of events, I find myself actaully agreeing with Igor Antunovz! What you are describing here is the unequivocal dominance of accurate unsuppressed firepower to the effect that combatants adopt the modern system (Biddle, 2005).

This state of affairs has existed arguably since the French Revolutionary Wars was most obviously demonstrated in the Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, Anglo-Boer War and First World War (the latter denoting the conclusion of the long 19th century during which the modern system was created).

The invention of airplanes, exoatmospheric solid fueled rockets, computers and thermonuclear weapons and the cold war arms race made effectively permanent the cultural notion that so-called 'small war' (third world/nonaligned) would persist over 'big war' (first world vs comintern) after the defeat of the fascist/revisionist powers in WW2.

In modern wars, combatants must maximize and employ superior firepower, mobility, protection, stealth, organization, communication, logistics, as well as information itself to survive and inflict casualties upon one another.