26 replies to this topic

[Zakatak]

This is an armor forum after all, at least of the walking variety.

Of the more well-known modern Main Battle Tanks, which is the winner, assuming a battle has an equal number of tanks? Whatever enviroment you want, although tanks aren't really for urban combat. I'm aware modern tanks are modular to some extent, feel free to factor that in too.

The Leopard 2 is both the heaviest and the most agile of the listed tanks, as well as having a better gun then the Abrams (not in bore, but the shells are longer). I'm definetly going with that!

EDIT: the L55 gun is limited to the Leopard 2A6, the 2A4 retains the Abrams gun, sorry.

Edited by Zakatak, 30 September 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Burned_Follower]

Another thing that makes the Leopard 2 Tank better than the M1A2 Abrams is it's power source.

The Abrams uses a 1500 horse power turbine engine. Although this power source does it's job perfectly, it is VERY EXPENSIVE to maintain! Every blade inside the engine has to be REPLACED BY HAND back in the united states sooner or later due to the extreme wear and tear of sucking in dirt and sand. Jet turbine engines are meant to be in the air where there is less dirt and sand to tear up the many blades that are in the turbine engine.

Another problem with the Abrams tank is that it runs off of Jet Fuel. The gas mileage is so terrible that you have the refuel the tank in combat just as often as you do a helicopter, which is every four hours at the average.

However, the Leopard 2 tank made by Germany has the SAME AMOUNT OF HORSE POWER, but the Leopard 2 tank's power source is a 1500 horse power turbo diesel engine. And because the Leopard tank runs on a diesel engine(an engine meant to be used on the ground) there is a LOT LESS wear and tear.

And when it comes to gas mileage, it runs on diesel fuel instead of jet fuel which means that in combat it probably only needs to be refueled every twenty four hours. This alone makes it superior for two reasons:
1. Diesel fuel is more available, especially in urban combat environments, where if the enemy takes out the logistics supply of gas, the tank crew has the luxury of "improvising" by either taking diesel fuel out of the nearest gas station, or out of the nearest vehicle that runs off of diesel fuel.

2. Diesel fuel is no where near as expensive as jet fuel. It is also no where near as EXPLOSIVE as jet fuel. Diesel fuel burns a lot slower than jet fuel and therefore is less likely to cause an explosion if barrels of diesel fuel were to be shot at in combat thus possibly saving some lives and not so mention some very unpleasant injuries. I would rather be shot to death than burn to death in my opinion.

[Lord Trollingham]

XxDRxDEATHxX, on 28 September 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

1. Diesel fuel is more available, especially in urban combat environments, where if the enemy takes out the logistics supply of gas, the tank crew has the luxury of "improvising" by either taking diesel fuel out of the nearest gas station, or out of the nearest vehicle that runs off of diesel fuel.

2. Diesel fuel is no where near as expensive as jet fuel. It is also no where near as EXPLOSIVE as jet fuel. Diesel fuel burns a lot slower than jet fuel and therefore is less likely to cause an explosion if barrels of diesel fuel were to be shot at in combat thus possibly saving some lives and not so mention some very unpleasant injuries. I would rather be shot to death than burn to death in my opinion.

Chemistry disagrees with you. Next time you post something about how EXPLOSIVE something is you better make sure to go beyond "Oh, a JET runs on it? This has to be EXPLOSIVE!". Jet Fuel and Diesel are extremely closely related and you can even interchange them. They have slightly different lubricating characteristics, which is why it's not recommended to actually interchange them without the use of special additives. Jet Fuel and Diesel have almost the same ignition temperatures and burn very similarly. Jet fuel is often even less flammable due to various additives.

However, once a significant amount of heat or a significant enough amount of aerosol has been reached due to various reasons it's entirely irrelevant if it's diesel or jet fuel burning... mainly because such a hit/penetration would have to come from something large (or a HEAT round).

Of course this doesn't mean that I think that the Abrams would be any better, I didn't even vote on the poll as I find modern tanks entirely uninteresting. WW2 stuff is so much cooler.

Edited by Kaiser Prussotroll, 28 September 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[KingRadical]

I chose the Merkava Mark III simply because it is Israeli. Everything Israeli is hardcore and badass, no questions asked.

[Exilyth]

Judged by results from the Canadian Army Trophy, I'd say Leopard.

Edit: T90 would be my second choice.

Edited by Exilyth, 30 September 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[dal10]

actually you guys forgot a statistic, the abrams armor is actually far superior to a leopard. in fact, we have never had a abrams be destroyed, despite an occasion where 2 of them faced off on each other by accident. several shots later, both were undamaged, despite every round being a hit. Leopards, while good tanks, don't have quite as tough of armor as the abrams.

edit: while there has never been a destroyed abrams before, there are cases of weapons penetrating weaker sections of the armor and killing the crew. and one case of a crew driving one off a bridge and drowning in iraq.

Edited by dal10, 30 September 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

I'd say the Challenger II. Thicker armor, the only rifled bore cannon of the entire batch here, with longer range and higher penetration. The crew is better protected as well as the ammo given the frontal armor and front mounted engine.

The armor is also superior to the Abrams, whereas the Abrams uses standard Chobham armor, the Challenger II uses Chobham armor type II, which is meant to be an improvement to it. It is / should be superior to the steel-tungsten-ceramic armor of the Leapord II as well.

Lastly comes to range of lethality the Challenger II with it's rifled cannon has a longer range of lethality than any other main battle tank, and as such with modern surveillance, a group of Challenger II's would have an advantage in that they could destroy the opposition at a longer range and increase surviveability once more. There are also more rounds for the main canon so it can be more sustainable in battle.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 30 September 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[machinech]

XxDRxDEATHxX, on 28 September 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Another problem with the Abrams tank is that it runs off of Jet Fuel. The gas mileage is so terrible that you have the refuel the tank in combat just as often as you do a helicopter, which is every four hours at the average.

However, the Leopard 2 tank made by Germany has the SAME AMOUNT OF HORSE POWER, but the Leopard 2 tank's power source is a 1500 horse power turbo diesel engine. And because the Leopard tank runs on a diesel engine(an engine meant to be used on the ground) there is a LOT LESS wear and tear.

And when it comes to gas mileage, it runs on diesel fuel instead of jet fuel which means that in combat it probably only needs to be refueled every twenty four hours. This alone makes it superior for two reasons:
1. Diesel fuel is more available, especially in urban combat environments, where if the enemy takes out the logistics supply of gas, the tank crew has the luxury of "improvising" by either taking diesel fuel out of the nearest gas station, or out of the nearest vehicle that runs off of diesel fuel.

2. Diesel fuel is no where near as expensive as jet fuel. It is also no where near as EXPLOSIVE as jet fuel. Diesel fuel burns a lot slower than jet fuel and therefore is less likely to cause an explosion if barrels of diesel fuel were to be shot at in combat thus possibly saving some lives and not so mention some very unpleasant injuries. I would rather be shot to death than burn to death in my opinion.

Just a minor but necessary correction to a serious inaccuracy. The M1 series tanks are MULTI fuel burning turbines. They do NOT fuel them with jet fuel unless that's all that is available, or more readily available at the time. The darn things can burn just about any combustible liquid fuel. They also do NOT require refueling every 4hrs. I'm not sure where the poster got that piece of info, but it's horribly inaccurate.

For info sake, former TC (tank commander) of the 1/12 Armored Cav, out of Ft. Knox, 90 to 94. Carry on folks, enjoying the debate.

[KHETTI]

Challenger II hands down, its outperformed all other MBTs on the battlefield, taken more RPG strikes than any other tank and still been operational, has the longest tank kill in history, has chobham II armor (which is further being upgraded), so it pretty safe to say, if you were going to be in a tank with other tanks shooting at you, the wise mans choice would be the Challenger II.

[dal10]

Vulpesveritas, on 30 September 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

I'd say the Challenger II. Thicker armor, the only rifled bore cannon of the entire batch here, with longer range and higher penetration. The crew is better protected as well as the ammo given the frontal armor and front mounted engine.

The armor is also superior to the Abrams, whereas the Abrams uses standard Chobham armor, the Challenger II uses Chobham armor type II, which is meant to be an improvement to it. It is / should be superior to the steel-tungsten-ceramic armor of the Leapord II as well.

Lastly comes to range of lethality the Challenger II with it's rifled cannon has a longer range of lethality than any other main battle tank, and as such with modern surveillance, a group of Challenger II's would have an advantage in that they could destroy the opposition at a longer range and increase surviveability once more. There are also more rounds for the main canon so it can be more sustainable in battle.

the rifling also reduces the speed of the round fired. The smoothbore's standard accuracy problems were solved through the use of sabot rounds that break off and a projectile that has stabilizing fins to spin it.

[William Knight]

dal10, on 30 September 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

actually you guys forgot a statistic, the abrams armor is actually far superior to a leopard. in fact, we have never had a abrams be destroyed, despite an occasion where 2 of them faced off on each other by accident. several shots later, both were undamaged, despite every round being a hit. Leopards, while good tanks, don't have quite as tough of armor as the abrams.

edit: while there has never been a destroyed abrams before, there are cases of weapons penetrating weaker sections of the armor and killing the crew. and one case of a crew driving one off a bridge and drowning in iraq.

The armour on an Abrams is out of date, still good but there is better stuff out there (such as the armour on the Challenger II)

Vulpesveritas, on 30 September 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Lastly comes to range of lethality, the Challenger II with it's rifled cannon has a longer range of lethality than any other main battle tank, and as such with modern surveillance, a group of Challenger II's would have an advantage in that they could destroy the opposition at a longer range and increase surviveability once more. There are also more rounds for the main canon so it can be more sustainable in battle.

Modern smooth bore guns are better than rifled (higher muzzle velocity, longer effective range and better more versatile ammo),which is why British army is up gunning the Challenger II to the same gun as the Leopard 2A4.

Edited by William Knight, 30 September 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

dal10, on 30 September 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

the rifling also reduces the speed of the round fired. The smoothbore's standard accuracy problems were solved through the use of sabot rounds that break off and a projectile that has stabilizing fins to spin it.

Yet the rifled barrel still has a longer range shell given it's higher inertia in comparison, and has more destructive capability at long range given the round's higher mass.

William Knight, on 30 September 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Modern smooth bore guns are better than rifled (higher muzzle velocity, longer effective range and better more versatile ammo),which is why British army is up gunning the Challenger II to the same gun as the Leopard 2A4.

That smooth bore guns are so much better than that rifled gun and have longer range is clearly why the Challenger II's rifled gun has the longest range tank kill of any tank cannon.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 30 September 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Kurayami]

i'd say last incarnation of t72 with multi layered armor, added dynamic armor, modern electronic systems and shtora 2 anti shell system. but then again they do named it t90 =_= marketing eh...

t90 is cheaper. have better mobility, lower profile, superior antitank weaponry and armoring (dont even start on t72 in iraq - those were degraded export variants)it also require less crew members to operate and easer to use (but sitting inside one is hell - ergonomics is unknown word to our weapon manufacturer apparently) that is not to mention top grade at missiles, antishell system shtora 2 and top of the line electronics and detection systems. and even with all those included it is still cheaper than other participants - combination of aforementioned make it better mbt choice despite other participant excelling better in some fields (ie protection of merkava, electronics and modular armor of leopard which is easier to maintain) and it is also battle hardened design - all detected flaws of previous models were fixed and after that tank received major overhaul.

[Zakatak]

Vulpesveritas, on 30 September 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

That smooth bore guns are so much better than that rifled gun and have longer range is clearly why the Challenger II's rifled gun has the longest range tank kill of any tank cannon.

I'm sure any entry could have made the shot. Right place and the right time.

Let's not forget that the reason the rifled barrels aren't used in favor of smoothbore is maintenance. It costs less to purchase saboted rounds then it does to maintain a rifled barrel, because the intense heat can cause the rifling to warp and decay. Sort of like a railgun.

Does anybody have some statistics regarding armor? Chobham vs. Chobham II vs. Ceramic Composite vs. etc etc etc? I know that the Canadian Forces have bolt-on armor kits for the Leopard 2A4/6M that drastically reduces RPG damage and IED's.

Edited by Zakatak, 30 September 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Lightdragon]

its not just hte maintenance that makes the smooth bore more popular... its the ability to use a wider variety of ammo types in the smoothbore

[Vulpesveritas]

Zakatak, on 30 September 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

I'm sure any entry could have made the shot. Right place and the right time.

None of the others have made a shot at that distance though. As such it is merely assumption.

Zakatak, on 30 September 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Let's not forget that the reason the rifled barrels aren't used in favor of smoothbore is maintenance. It costs less to purchase saboted rounds then it does to maintain a rifled barrel, because the intense heat can cause the rifling to warp and decay. Sort of like a railgun.

I thought this was a discussion about which tank would fare best in a battle, not about which was easiest to maintain / makes the most sense all-around.

Zakatak, on 30 September 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Does anybody have some statistics regarding armor? Chobham vs. Chobham II vs. Ceramic Composite vs. etc etc etc? I know that the Canadian Forces have bolt-on armor kits for the Leopard 2A4/6M that drastically reduces RPG damage and IED's.

Given Chobham and Chobham II are both classified armors, there are only the rough estimations given to the public, Chobham being said to be ~1.5x stronger than steel of the same thickness and Chobham being 2-3x stronger for the thickness. No actual details are really available on the armors.

Lightdragon, on 30 September 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

its not just hte maintenance that makes the smooth bore more popular... its the ability to use a wider variety of ammo types in the smoothbore

In general, the only two rounds important in a tank battle, are APKE (armor piercing kinetic energy rounds) and HEAT (high explosive anti-tank), of which both rounds are available to and generally loaded in a Challenger II tank.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 30 September 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[Lightdragon]

but then you lose out on (the advantages) of sabot rounds (fin stabilized rounds that serve the same purpose as a rifled barrel)
then theres STAFF rounds, you set a range to em and then they fire over the top of an enemy tank seperating and firing a high penetration warhead straight down into the top of the target
then theres TERM munitions that are extended range projectiles that can be fired directly or fired indirectly like an artillery piece at something a scout designates for it,
theres also its ability to fire specially designed rockets from it that have a built in guidance system for seeking out their target and blowing the motherloving crap out of them
and those are the ammo types you can use on top of standard AP rounds and HEAT which it also is able to use

Edited by Lightdragon, 01 October 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Lord Trollingham]

Oh wow.

To clear up a couple of misconceptions that arose here.

Contrary to the entirely misinformed belief of dal1, there are many examples of completely destroyed (that is, not repairable, completely burnt out or with significant hull damage) M1's and their various models.

The difference between a rifled cannon and a smooth-bore cannon is velocity. Smoothbores offer far superior penetration capabilities, can handle higher pressures and have a longer barrel life. However, this comes at a significant cost in accuracy beyond 2000m or so (Can't remember what the exact range was, could be anything between 2k and 4k). APFSDS does NOT solve this problem. Still, most armies consider the limited extreme-range capabilities as a managable tradeoff as such extreme-range engagements are considered very rare. In addition, a smoothbore can usually fire a greater range of munitions.

Contrary to what the poster above me believes APFSDS and similar SABOT rounds are not restricted to smoothbore barrels, it does make them less effective though. In fact, APDS and its successors were developed for rifled guns and came into wide-spread use with the British 17 pounder during WW2.

In short:

-No destroyed M1's = Bull
-Rifled gun surperior = Bull
-Smoothbore gun more accurate/higher effective range = Bull
-APFSDS restricted to smoothbore guns = Bull
etc.

Seriously guys, check your facts before you post.

Edited by Kaiser Prussotroll, 01 October 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[Krondor]

Kaiser Prussotroll, on 01 October 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Oh wow.

To clear up a couple of misconceptions that arose here.

Contrary to the entirely misinformed belief of dal1, there are many examples of completely destroyed (that is, not repairable, completely burnt out or with significant hull damage) M1's and their various models.

The difference between a rifled cannon and a smooth-bore cannon is velocity. Smoothbores offer far superior penetration capabilities, can handle higher pressures and have a longer barrel life. However, this comes at a significant cost in accuracy beyond 2000m or so (Can't remember what the exact range was, could be anything between 2k and 4k). APFSDS does NOT solve this problem. Still, most armies consider the limited extreme-range capabilities as a managable tradeoff as such extreme-range engagements are considered very rare. In addition, a smoothbore can usually fire a greater range of munitions.

Contrary to what the poster above me believes APFSDS and similar SABOT rounds are not restricted to smoothbore barrels, it does make them less effective though. In fact, APDS and its successors were developed for rifled guns and came into wide-spread use with the British 17 pounder during WW2.

In short:

-No destroyed M1's = Bull
-Rifled gun surperior = Bull
-Smoothbore gun more accurate/higher effective range = Bull
-APFSDS restricted to smoothbore guns = Bull
etc.

Seriously guys, check your facts before you post.

Thanks, was afraid I'd have to post that.

[Lightdragon]

i wasnt saying you couldnt use sabot rounds i was saying you lose out on their advantages at lower muzzle velocities in a rifled gun