The nonsense of best tank in world

What is the best tank in the world?

Ask 10 people and you get 15 different answers … and all are thoroughly polluted with propaganda BS!

Ask an American and he will tell that it is the M1A2 … ask a British and he tell the Challenger, ask a German and he tells it is the Leopard 2, ask a Russian and it is the T-14, ask a French and he says it is the Leclerc, ask an Israeli and he says the Merkava … and so on!

But what is the correct answer to this so often asked question? The answer is simply “a best tank of the world is not existing!”

The fact is that all the tanks mentioned again and again, really have their strengths and weaknesses. At one point or another, Tank A is better than the others, but in other respects it is worse or weaker. All tanks have been developed and built explicitly to the requirements of their country and already this fact alone causes positive and negative differences to other tanks in the world. In addition, there are still varieties of almost all models, which either include specific changes to the purchasing country of such a tank or cause deviations from the original model for other reasons.

To mention here only one of many examples for last point: The so special layer armor of the American M1 do not have all the M1 which are used in other countries!
This in turn leads to idiotic assertions of others ... such as how weak and easy to kill an M1 because the Iraqi army lost some M1A1. So the American M1 is just garbage. Nonsense!
The Iraqi version does NOT have the American uranium armor and this is of course hidden at this BS blabbering or worse, some idiots then try to tell that this difference does not matter!

Or latest example: 3 Turkish Leopard 2A4 were killed by a Russian build RPG / AT weapon in ME… woops! Telling was suddenly how superior these Russian weapons are and what sort of rubbish the Leopard 2 is. But fact is in reality:

a) The A4 version used by Turkey is outdated and even the difference to the A5 version is huge … not to say about difference to current A6 and A7 version of this tank!
b) That the Turkish tanks in general are not up to date is since 2 years well-known and this includes the Leopard 2 of them. Even in 2014 it was clear that Turkish losses of tanks and AFV’s in the Syrian conflict will be high!
c) The Turkish Army uses the Leopard as stationary fortress in a hole with sand wall around. This is making any tank to a sitting duck for AT armed infantry with some skill!
d) the tank was hit in his back and here all tanks are weak at least … particularly if being used as stationary fortress.

Were these facts mentioned too when blabbering this BS about Leopard losses? No, of course not, because this will deliver a total other picture of reality and so not useful for propaganda BS blabbering!

Here the visual difference to normal A4 version right to the planned new A4 Turkish version which is like common A5 version in the left:





But what are the current top models of tanks in the world? Following models … The order is however no placement and ranking!

1. M1 tank series … different versions of A1 and A2
Used by USA (Army and Marines), Egypt, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Greece

Note: M1A1 and A2 are using the German gun of Leopard 2 as used until A5 version.

M1A2 of US Army




2. Leopard 2 … used version A4, A5, A6 and A7
Used by Germany, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Canada, Qatar, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Singapore, Spain, Turkey.
Also in ongoing political discussion is Saudi Arabia, who wants to extent and replace M1A1 fleet with 270 – 300 Leopard 2A7 version tanks

Note: Since A6 version a longer 120mm gin barrel is in use which improves the fire power too!

Leopard 2A7 of Canadian Army



3. T-14 Armata …
Russia’s new “super tank” as it is called. It has indeed many new features and changes in construction and development, but how “super” it really is … a good question which can’t be answered seriously. The Armata system itself will be the new base for a complete series of new models for AFV’s, self-propelled howitzer, recovery tank and so on. Until now not much more as prototypes build … even Russian propaganda tries to tell otherwise.



4. T-72, T-80, T-90 ….
Even there quite note able differences between these 3 tanks and ieven inside them again many important differences, they are one family based on the T-64 as “father”.

Users are …
T-72 is aside Russia used in 42 countries … too much to name them all. Even the USA has 28 tanks in inventory for test and exercise use!
T-80 is aside Russia used in Armenia, Egypt, Yemen, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, South Korea, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Cyprus.
T-90 is used aside Russia in Algeria, Azerbaijan, India, North Korea, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uganda

T-90 tank of Indian Army



5. Challenger 2 …(/u]
Used by Great Britain and Oman
British Challenger 2 in Iraq 2003 with extra armor



6. Leclerc …
Used by France and the United Arab Emirates




There are of course further tanks which can be listed too … for example the Chinese Type 99 tank. But if someone looks closer on them, they all are more or less based on one of these 6 tanks above or are mix of them put into 1 tank. The T99 is for example much like a Russian tank of the T-90 or so … see below and rate by your own.

 

The best tank in the world is the one that best performs it's mission.

WWII is a great example. In many ways, Germany had what is probably the best tanks for most of the war. But they were produced in small numbers, and were prone to breakdowns and had to be meticulously maintained.

On the opposite end, the US had one of the worst tanks, but was able to produce them in such overwhelming numbers and to keep them running with rubber bands and bailing wire, so were able to actually be where they were needed, in overwhelming numbers.

6 of one, a half dozen of another.

 

Something tells me tanks are increasingly obsolete sparing asymmetric fights where the enemy has no jets. My vote is that the US tanks would be better set up to succeed than many of the other countries are willing or able to do on the behalf of their tanks in application. Lemme guess Russians don't put many miles on their nice tanks.

 

Do not confuse the issue. Air superiority has little to do with the use of tanks.

Just look to Iraq in 1991 and 2003 for proof of that. In fact, it can actually be argued in a situation where the enemy has lost air power, their tanks are even more important. That then becomes their major weapon for prosecuting the conflict.

And look at the use of Technicals in the last 20 years. These are generally nothing more then improvised tanks, and are often used as such on the battlefield.

And the main reason the US Tanks do so well is that they are used as part of a well research and tested doctrine. Look anywhere the US uses it's tanks, and you will not find just tanks. They will be part of a well thought out combined arms organization where the tanks are a critical, but not the only part.

You gotta look at the M2s, the TOW and AVENGER platforms that will be going with the tanks, and much much more.

 

Can it be argued that tank warfare without air defenses is also more suicidal?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/07/48/88/074888ce2a8067b85b9a1da252596871.jpg

 

Not at all.

Ever hear of the Battle of 73 Easting? Over 8 armored Divisions in the largest tank battle since WWII.

Yes, the battle was a decisive victory for the coalition forces. But air power played almost no role at all in that battle, because bad weather kept them grounded.

Your photo of the "highway of death" largely means nothing, because that was an attack upon a routed enemy. Iraqi forces were fleeing from the counter-invasion, there was no real "battle" there. Just a slaughter in an attempt to prevent them from returning to Iraq with their equipment and loot.

 

Tanks are effective weapons when the nation using them has established air supremacy. But, in modern warfare, if the air is swarming with enemy helicopters and jets, they are just sitting ducks.

 

I've heard of the 73 Easting battle. The meaning that I was trying to convey with the highway of death picture is that tanks are sitting ducks vs air power. No real battle is my point. These platforms have no answer to an air-augmented force, worse yet if there's an extent of air superiority that allows aerial artillery like AC130 or A1011.

I say tanks make a comeback when they're unmanned and cheap.

 

And that's great when your enemy doesn't have Tunguskas or Tor M-1's.

 

But you miss the point, that the "highway of death" was not really involving tanks. Yes, there were some in there - but most of the vehicles caught were trucks, busses, and cars. And they were in no way prepared to be attacked, nor could they have done anything anyways.

Basically put, the USAF bombed the front and back of the massive vehicle exodus, then chewed up everything trapped in the middle.

Even trying to compare that to any kind of battle at all is simply lying.

And trust me, I know all about the limits of air power. Feel free to look back in the archive about the many discussions I have had about the limits of air power and the need for Battleships.

I can only guess you are a neophyte when it comes to the military, but things like air power can be handled. The easiest way to do this is to simply hunker down until bad weather hits. The air power of your enemy is grounded, so go wild.

Another is by pre-staging feint attacks prior to the real one. Old tactic, but still applicable. Imagine an attack coming in on Los Angeles, first stage attacks at San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, then San Clemente and Pismo Beach.

Not only is the air power going to be stretched painfully thin by that point, they will have absolutely no way to know which is the serious attack and which is not.

And these are really basic tactics, as well as ones that were used very effectively against the US in the Vietnam War. As well as what Iraq tried in the Gulf War but failed.

And yes, actually they do have an answer to air forces. The BSFV (Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle), as well as the AVENGER an MANPAD STINGER missiles.

You are new here, so let me inject this into the mix. Yes, I am in the Army. And I spent over 5 years serving in Air Defense, specifically as the operator of a PATRIOT missile launcher. I probably forgot more about how the various air defense systems work (and work together) than you can ever imagine.

But just because a bunch of Iraqi vehicles got slaughtered on some remote highway in a pell-mell rush, do not think that better trained and equipped Russian - UK - US - Chinese forces would make those same mistakes.

Iraq's military was huge, but nobody ever really took them seriously. They had the better and larger quantity of equipment, and invaded a country in the midst of a civil war and under embargo by many nations. And they still got their butts kicked in a decade long war.

So throwing the future of tanks on Iraq? Get serious will you?

 

The problem in the tank battles was not as much the tanks themselves as it was the tactics used.

One thing that became obvious to most who considered tactics in the last 50 years was the almost absolute failure of "Warsaw Pact" tactics.

Yes, they worked great in WWII Eastern Europe, where the Soviets were able to flood almost uncounted forces against Germany. When you outnumber your enemy 5 to 1, Warsaw Pact tactics were awesome.

Of course, at those numbers almost any tactics are awesome, even the basic Human Wave tactic.

But when used against a more sophisticated opponent when numerical superiority was 2 to 1 or less, they were an absolute disaster.

Just look at the various engagements of Israel, or the Iran-Iraq War. In the Israeli battles, we saw Warsaw Pact against an enemy with air superiority and roughly a 3 to 1 advantage, and they got slaughtered.

In Iran-Iraq they attacked with roughly 2 to 1 advantage, and got slaughtered and led to a 10 year long stalemate.

Remember, at the start of Iran-Iraq, Iran had better equipment, but the military leadership had largely been destroyed prior to the engagement. Iraq had superior numbers however, and ground equipment only slightly inferior to what Iran had (but the Iranian Air Forces were superior to those of Iraq).

The mainstay of the Iraqi Tank forces were the T-55 and T-62 tank. The T-55 dated to just after WWII (and was 75% of their tanks), while the T-62 was little but an upgunned T-55 (with the same Christie suspension). The Iranians on the other hand was about evenly mixed between the late 1960s era Chieftain and M-60A1 Patton tanks.

Iran took heavier losses than Iraq, but they also started that war at a 3 to 1 disadvantage in the number of working tanks. But they were still able offset the tank superiority of Iraq by maneuver and air support.

But the problem so many here keep ignoring is that you simply can not rely on air superiority. If you do not have it, the air forces are going to be so busy fighting each other that they will have no time or resources to spend going "tank busting".

And in bad weather, you are not going to have it at all, like at 73 Easting.

At 73E there was no air power at all, it all came down to the tanks, their support elements, and the men and tactics used.

Iraq had tanks that were pretty close to the M1 in the T-72. As well as large numbers of T-62 and T-55. But the opponent they ran across had almost exclusively (though inferior numbers of) Challenger and M1 tanks.

And there you saw the differences, along with tactics.

In the Iraqi (and WP) tactics, tanks are the main thrust weapon, APCs are used to fill gaps and mop up. In NATO doctrine, you reverse it and use APCs and lighter forces (HMMWVs, man portable) with anti-tank weapons to scout, make contact, and steer the enemy to the tanks where you want to meet them at.

This is why American Bradleys were damaging and destroying tanks before you had tank on tank fights. And ultimately you had an American Battalion taking on and destroying 2 Iraqi Brigades.

All without air support.

And auto-loaders are not all that some people seem to think they are. Yes, with an auto-loader you can keep up a high rate of fire for longer than a manual loader. But for short duration fights, the manual loading system is actually faster.

Plus there is the simple danger that because of how an auto-loader works, you end up with a live shell inside of the passenger compartment, waiting to be fed into the gun next.

This is why when you see a destroyed Iraqi tank, the damage is normally catastrophic, with the turret blown dozens of yards away. A similarly hit M1, about all you can see is the hole where the round penetrated, no such catastrophic damage.

So unless we for some reason go back to using tanks as artillery (as we did in Korea), I can not see any reason to use autoloaders in US tanks. The engagements do not last long enough to justify them.

 

Wild weasel is a tactic against fixed air defense positions, not a force made of mobile systems (like STINGER).

Of course it is, that is why we had Desert Shield prior to Desert Storm. To destroy the Iraqi air forces, and gain unquestioned air superiority prior to starting the ground war.

But all the air superiority in the world does you no good when adverse weather prevents your fighters from taking to the skies. So you still have to be prepared to do things the old fashioned way, with no air support at all.

As a grunt, I trained to work with tanks, aircraft, helicopters, as well as artillery and naval gunfire. But ultimately, we trained as if all we had to rely upon were our own capabilities (Infantry, and 60-81mm mortars).

Use them if we have them, but do not become so dependent that you can not operate without them.

 

I'm struggling with your logic here. I think tanks debuted with significant battlefield advantages. Infantry had little answer for them like how ironside and broadside ships were when ironsides debuted. Since that time, I think one of the most significant adversaries to tanks are air forces. Without defenses against the air threats, specifically, something like the highway of death is really likely. What I struggle with here is that if those trucks were engaged in a battle - I see this situation being even worse.

Now when I say "Something tells me tanks are increasingly obsolete sparing asymmetric fights where the enemy has no jets" and you provide waiting for a storm as the adventitious operational window in this asymm scenario, I've got to say, the dominant position tanks had on the battlefield 100 years ago has been compromised.

I am a neophyte. I didn't know that stingers could take on targets as high or fast as jets. I would suggest that there be even stronger air defenses than stingers to overcome the advantages of a complete force of land/air/sea/space forces.

I haven't been in the Army, but I think that I can follow the way that our Army can tell the vulnerabilities of our hardware. I don't think we'll operate tanks without air superiority due to the same observation that I made.

 

I've put in over a thousand hours on the King of the Hill Armed Assault multiplayer servers which simulate modern warfare, and have to say that tanks have a harder time on today's battlefields than they've ever had in the past for one reason- anti-tank missiles!

For example a single cheap AT missile fired either by an infantryman (below) or a helicopter or aircraft etc has the potential to knock out or disable any multi-million dollar tank today.
Below- screenshots from Armed Assault 3-
There's a tank down there somewhere-



Switching to the launchers zoomed infra-red sights like this makes it stand out like a sitting duck-
(99 times out of a hundred the missileman will spot the tank and let fly before it spots him..

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K22_Tunguska
10 seconds readiness
Missile range 18 km
Can fire on the move, designed to accompany tank columns.

Later version
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1
Capable of taking out guided and free fall bombs
Designed as a protection for S300, but no problem accompanying ground columns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
In 1993 Tor, in the interference conditions, was able to shoot down small-sized rocket (similar to the complexes Iron Dome 1 target) at a 100% rate.[22] In comparison, Tor-M2E achieved a 100% rate in 2009,[23] Tor-M2 a 100% rate at 2013 (10 km),[24] and Tor-M2 km a 100% rate at 2014 [25] (Heavy ECM environments. Small-sized and high-speed targets. Simultaneously four).

US enjoys an advantage in the air. US was not really paying enough attention to short range AA. Russia, Europe, China, they did.
And do not forget about the S300 or Patriot no fly umbrella. Do not expect serious air superiority in their reach radius…

 

USSR was the only country in the world that could afford to support 9 of their infantryman with a tank, when they have a task to check a nearby village for vodka. (What we see on your screenshot)
The rest of the world has to use tanks as they are supposed to be used. A large, numerous, highly mobile force that thrusts forward to achieve a strategic goal. Yep, some portion of your AT missile crews will slip through enemy recon, yep, you will burn 1, 5, 10 tanks, but the other 50, will reach the target and take Bagdad, Important bridge, your HQ, whatever.
Tanks are ment to be lost, they are expendable, its just metal. And when they draw your fire and resources from the unprotected infantry, they are fulfilling their role.

 

Wow hey

Differential armor
Smoothbore gun
Additional guided missile system (Malutka)
Torsion bar suspension not Christy, T55 also torsion
Laser rangefinder and fire control
Gun stabilization
Worlds first active anti missile system

T62 was top of the line, waaay top

 

Hmm, a lot depends on the quality of the attackers and defenders, but mathematically tanks will have a very tough time on todays battlefield because for every 100 tanks, the enemy will have a thousand or more longrange AT missiles that will whittle away the tank force as they advance mile after mile.
Even in WW2 the Germans lost about 10,000 tanks/assault guns per year on the Eastern Front, and the Russians had no longrange missiles..

 

AT missiles fired by what?

Infantry? They can be attrited by artillery.

Aircraft? SAMs and AAA.

Vehicles? They aren't superior to tank guns and can be attrited by artillery.

AT missiles aren't unbeatable weapons.

 

It's not the tank. It's the ability of the tank's crew.

Regards,

Jason Bourne

 

Wow, you really do need some instruction here.

Tanks are horribly vulnerable to Infantry. This has always been the case, and why the main factor in "Combined Arms" is the ability of tanks to bring Infantry with them.

And tanks debuted with almost no advantages. In fact, they were largely ineffective in WWI, and it took decades for the tactics to really use them properly to catch up with them.

Wrong. Their main adversary has always been other tanks, and infantry.

And believe it or not, until the late 20th century, the main use of a tank was not going after other tanks. They were anti-Infantry weapons. The correct term for the tanks that went after other tanks was "Tank Destroyer".

Everybody knows about the M4 Sherman. But the real "tank" for going after other tanks was the M10 or the M36. These had seriously beefed up guns, able to actually penetrate the hulls of enemy tanks.

And in WWII, the main enemies as I said were Infantry (and artillery). The Boys Rifle, mines, the Panzershrek, and various direct and indirect fire artillery is what destroyed most of the tanks in WWII, not aircraft.

The best way that aircraft can eliminate tanks is to destroy their logistics. Taking out their fuel will leave a division of tanks stranded and unable to do anything.

No, actually they were not. They were fleeing the battle. In military terms, that is known as a "route".

There were no defenses in place, there was absolutely no tactics involved, no shots were fired in return. It was basically like shooting up a freeway during rush hour.

What height do you think our aircraft would engage tanks?

The answer is, as low as possible. This is why our primary anti-tank aircraft are the A-10, the AH-1, and the AH-64. All are platforms designed to operate at minimum altitudes, and low speeds.

A MACH 2 fighter is almost worthless at attacking tanks. Other then using a BUFF to carpet bomb them, high altitude attacks are worthless.

That is why I am trying to educate you.

First of all, you are assuming that the US would have the initiative. That has been the case for the conflicts in the last 20 years, but you can not rely on that.

Let me give you an example of what was expected if "WWIII" between the Warsaw Pact and NATO ever happened.

It was expected in that conflict that the WP would stream through the Fulda Gap into West Germany, and that NATO would be on the defense. The air powers of both sides were pretty equal, so neither side would have air superiority.

And tanks would have been a major combatant. The aircraft would all be to busy going after each other than giving any kind of CAS. So the tanks on both sides would largely be left up to themselves, as well as their Infantry, Artillery, and rocket forces.

In modern conflicts, Infantry is damned good at killing tanks. The US has several man portable anti-tank missiles that can take out tanks. We also have both conventional artillery (the top armor is fairly weak), as well as specialty rounds (like the Copperhead, a LASER guided anti-tank artillery round). Then there is MLRS, mines, and barriers. All of which can funnel or deny tanks key areas of the battlefield.

But Infantry can not really operate in the offense without tanks. Tanks are their only means to gain breakthroughs and exploit them. Consider the speed at which the landings at Normandy broke out into the countryside, when compared to say Okinawa. Okinawa was almost exclusively an Infantry battle for the Allies, and the high casualty rates show it.

In France however tanks were quickly landed, and made the invasion into a breakthrough fairly quickly.

 

That is why for example the US armored units have the M2 Bradley and other tracked and wheeled Personnel Carriers riding along with them.

In a modern Tank Battalion, there is going to be 1 M2 Bradley for every 2 M1 tanks. And for each Bradley (depending on configuration) there will be from 5-9 Infantrymen.

The Bradley's are the scouts. They go out in front, trying to find those anti-tank gunners and eliminating them before the tanks get there. And sometimes (like 73 Easting) they are going to be fighting the tanks themselves.

Either to destroy them, or to pull them off and into an ambush by their own tanks.

Assuming you know they are there of course. As a general rule of thumb, military units do not go around firing artillery at every bush and low spot in the terrain. Especially since armored units can very easily move faster than the Artillery can.

And yes, there are a great many ways that missiles can be defeated. From the high tech (reactive armor), to the ultimate in low tech (a simply layer of fence around the body of the tank).

The main advantage of missiles is that they are cheap, and they and their crews are "disposable". And they can be left behind with a very small logistical footprint. Leave an Anti-tank squad with 10 men and 5 missile launchers for a week, and all that requires is a few gallons of water and rations. And if they are hidden well they can cause a serious disruption in an armored column (especially if they place their ambush at a critical point like a bridge or mountain pass).

 

And that is the entire reason reconnaissance exists.