[Thunderhawk]

Reposted, just in case the old site is lost.

I'm surprised by the number of positive mentions for the Merkeva, given their less than stellar performance in 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wadi_Saluki
It seems to me the 'toughest' tank is just as vulnerable to the current generation of AT missiles as any other. It doesn't seem the crews did too well out of it either.

Quote:
A maximum of 12 RPG rounds into the side of a tank with reactive armor will take it out of the fight. 12 RPG rounds are alot cheaper then a single tank.

How on earth are you going to get 12 RPGs pointed at a tank without somebody noticing and firing at them? The Chechens had some success with such tactics (although I think even they were working with less than 12 RPGs), but they had certain advantages
1. Urban environment (not uncommon admittedly)
2. Deficiency in Soviet/Russian tanks, which limit their ability to fire at targets that are too high or too low

Simple things like RPG cages are proving to be quite effective against older generation AT weapons. The newer ones(more like AT missiles than grenades) that strike the top of the tank are still quite effective.
Many of the top tanks are comparable. The advantages the M1 and some of the more battle proved tanks have is that they have been refined and many of their deficiencies have been discovered.

Yes - older generations of the Merkava, most notably, Mk. II and the non-improved Mk.III. The new Mk.IV and improved Mk.III performed well, very well in-fact.

They are being fitted with active defences, now. Crew\personnel protection and survivability is a prime concern in the Israeli military doctrine.

Every current/future tank generation is outfitted with active protection system, but to be honest it is a really tricky system in the field for usual tank tactics. However the RPG cages are really good, cheap and effective.

IMHO there is not "the" best MBT it clearly depends from the demands you have.

[Typhoon]

In the Lebannon 18 Mk.IV's were hit, of those eight were still servicable after being hit while two were complete write off's (one by IED) which is comparable to write offs by other Merkava: two Mk.II (one by IED) and one MK.III. Problem is other than photography we dont really know what hit them or where they got hit, though we have now got some fantastic shots of the Mk.IV's front armour package as a result...perhaps the only plus of the conflict

[killim]

And why? 'Cause it's French?

[Typhoon]

And why? 'Cause it's French?

White flag fitted as standard...

[Oxymoron]

The French Tank has 7 gears 1 to go forward and 6 back tatata tum

[killim]

No because it is the fastest tank in the world and it's lighter than the leopard2 or Abrams and a longer operating range. The Leclerc has a unique autoloading system which was specifically designed for it, and reduces the crew to three by eliminating the human loader.

It's armour and firepower is similar to the M1, Leopard or challenger but wins on the basis of the above.

The Leclerc is lighter, but his bearing area is smaller which leads to a higher pressure onto the ground. He is still to heavy for a proper transportation system except for systems like C17 which don't have problems with other tanks too. The Leclerc needs twice the gas a Leo2 needs and the Leo2 is only 3km/h slower. Only with the new MTU engines this disadvantage was compensated slightly with reduced speed and increased weight. Have some fun looking from behind on the Leclerc and think about the 2 big gallons that were plugged onto the tank and think about it in a combat situation.
A crew reduction per se is not positive. It would be positive if the space would be used for something else, but instead they only shortened it. Far more important in case of jamming you need an extra person and in case of other defects like the chain drive, have some fun with only 3 guys.
Theoretically the Leclerc is able to fire the same rounds like M1 or Leo2, but they don't do it. Ask them why
Additionally i don't know of any active protection system of the Leclerc.

The Leclerc has its positive sides but as i said before this isn't only black and white it depends on the situation.

[killim]

That anthem didn't even help Le Bleus in SA

[Invictus_88]

It always surprises me that people try to make this discussion objective.

Simply, and necessarily, it depends on what you're wanting the tank to do. It's always a trade-off between mobility, armour, and firepower, and the ideal ratio of these things varies with the combat scenario.

In cases, an inability to fire HESH might be disastrous, in others a low profile might be essential, in others the weight might be important, or fuel efficiency.

[killim]

IMHO there is not "the" best MBT it clearly depends from the demands you have.

As if i wouldn't agree with you.
Besides that my 120mm is longer

[El Gilroy]

So, you tank-o-philes, tell me this: Which is the fastest, lightest, most manoeuvrable vehicle that still qualifies as a tank true and proper?

[killim]

Maybe you have a wrong understanding of "tank". There is a reason why we are talking here about Main-Battle-Tanks (short MBT). For your criteria it would be most likely the TAM.

[MB.]

tank-o-philes

Treadheads.

And this thread is for MBT reviews, not amphibious nuclear powered robotic light armored tracked vehicle reviews.

[El Gilroy]

I don't even know what a TAM is.

All I want is to know is which armed and armoured vehicle is best suited for my fantasies of rampaging across the highway

[killim]

This is a TAM, it is smaller, lighter and faster than the Leclerc, because of the potential terraind characteristics. There is a sucessor prototype, but i don't know the exact stats. However most tanks have a peacetime throttling and iirc the max speed can be higher if this is overridden. In this case the ground characteristics and the weight gains importance for max speed.

[Typhoon]

The Leopard is just getting too much love in this commentary, so im going to direct everyone to a critical review of the tank by Andrei Tarasenko at his very well informed armour site, its in Russian so you may need to translate.

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/80u_vs_leo2.htm

[MB.]

Russia, I cant read Russian...

[Typhoon]

Google Translate, its got a word limit but you can just cut and paste the last bit.

[MB.]

Iraq Army receives M1A1s

Iraq receives a shipment of M1A1 tanks, designed to improve and modernise its outdated ground fleet. The $653m investment also includes training for a new armour division in south east Baghdad

[Monthu]

Abrams, wins competition for engine. Hands down. Also pretty quiet (sexy sounding too). See that torque curve comparison on page 2? Low end is pretty
important when you're moving something 70 tons from a dead stop.


Complain if you like about the horrible fuel economy, yes it does suck gas, but range (279 miles) is fairly close to the T90 (340 miles),
the Leopard 2 (340 miles again), Merkava (310 miles), and Challenger 2 (320 miles). But the Leclerc gets the award, 400 miles.


Protection? I give a tie to the M1 and Merkava. M1 ~1150mm RHA* , Leopard 2A6 ~1250mm , Leclerc ~1150mm, Merkava ~1200mm, ~T90 1250mm. Why a tie?
The blowout panels on the M1, a unique feature protecting all of the ready ammunition, greatly enhancing survivability. And the Merkava for the unique (genius) front
mounted engine. Yes the M1 lacks an active-protection system, but it's coming (rumored on the M1A3).
And, of the the T90, ERA is very susceptible to small arms fire, meaning grunts/coax can leave it naked to AT missiles/guns, relying solely on that i think is stupid.


Armament? Again, all 120mm, all smoothbore, and again with the exception of the T90, 125mm, and ATGM capable.
Merkava also has an ATGM system. Missile system a big deal you say? Seems like the US would rather go with guided
tank rounds instead (maybe stigma from the horrible failure of the Shillelagh system). Probably eventually giving the M1 an edge, though it will almost
certainly show up on the Leopard, Merkava, Leclerc, K1A1, Type 90...

M1, has coax and loader's M240, CROWS commander's M2, and the TUSK has a second M2 on an over-bore mount.
Leclerc, only commander's 240 and coax 50 cal.
Leopard 2, only 2x7.62 MGs.
T90, 12.7 (bigger than our BMG) and a 7.62 coax.
Merkava, 2x7.62 MGs, and a 50 (also a mortar, though i don't think it's relevant here)
Challenger 2, only 2x7.62

The M1 is a very proven system, period.

True, combat proven against the latest weapons . RPG-29 hit to the side killed no crew (the most important parts of any tank). Gulf war, took friendly fire from 120mm APFSDS, no crew lost.

So, I guess my list would be...

1. M1A2/Merkava IV
2. Leopard 2A6
3. T90
4. Challenger 2
5. Leclerc

Because? Both the Merkava and M1 have seen extensive combat, and their unique features (M1's protected ammunition, and the Merkava's
front engine and ability to carry infantry) give them an edge (i think).

*Rolled Homogeneous Armor (steel) all data for frontal armor against CE rounds.

[Typhoon]

And, of the the T90, ERA is very susceptible to small arms fire, meaning grunts/coax can leave it naked to AT missiles/guns, relying solely on that i think is stupid.

Just to note that Russian ERA is actually very insensitive to small arms fire and sympathetic detonation, if the explosive they used was too sensitive then one hit could wipe out the whole package.



Kontakt-5 is I believe rated up to 12.7 mm arour piercing, in addition to artillery fragments though one Nii Stali article refers to high sensitivity explosives making their ERA vulnerable to 30 mm ammunition (as does the former website) so protection against detonation on newer designs could be higher though seemingly at the lost of armour performance.
They also dont rely entirely on reactive armour which is just the top layer but also composites, laminates, fillers and spacing improve armour protection.