Power Zone: Top 10 Tanks
-
Leopard A6,the most favour tank in europe. If challenger is that good,it shall be the europe tank. If M1A1 is so good,it shall be the europe tank too since it is part of NATO...but it did not!Originally posted by spawnoflight:Then which tank you thing should be the best ??
Trust a German Tank and it will not went wrong.
Trust a German sub and u will be save....
-
Trust a German man and you get THE most destructive conflict in the 20th centuryOriginally posted by zenden9:Leopard A6,the most favour tank in europe. If challenger is that good,it shall be the europe tank. If M1A1 is so good,it shall be the europe tank too since it is part of NATO...but it did not!
Trust a German Tank and it will not went wrong.
Trust a German sub and u will be save.... 
-
You can't judge a tank just because it is not in service with europe.How would you explain both were send to the frontlines against iraq?Originally posted by zenden9:Leopard A6,the most favour tank in europe. If challenger is that good,it shall be the europe tank. If M1A1 is so good,it shall be the europe tank too since it is part of NATO...but it did not!
Trust a German Tank and it will not went wrong.
Trust a German sub and u will be save.... -
You're wrong.Originally posted by spawnoflight:You can't judge a tank just because it is not in service with europe.How would you explain both were send to the frontlines against iraq?
Yes, one the reason is due to cheap surplus tank from Germany but another part especially the newly built one is becos the Germany Leo 2 beat the other Nato tanks like M1 amd Chally etc to win the selection for example Netherlands, Switzerland,Sweden,Spain and Greece has newly built Leo 2.
These nations have chosen Leo 2 instead of other tanks becos they believe Leo 2 is the best tank for them. -
Another factor is that the tanks probably won't last so long in combat anyway...Originally posted by fudgester:Yeah... I remember reading that during the siege of Stalingrad, they literally drove the tanks off the factory line into the battlefield. They didn't bother painting it or putting in gunsights.
The logic was that at such close quarters combat in Stalingrad, you didn't really need a lot of skill to aim. So they saved on a lot of production time and cost by not putting in sights.
many of them might even be destroyed before firing a shot....
During WW2, "optics" as part of a gunsight is very valuable. -
got various shows of top ten tanks, got one saying leo 2 is the best oso.
-
the British prefer to use HESH rounds(see below). As HESh round has a better anti-material quality then APFSDS and can knock a bigger hole in walls and bunkers etc.... for HESH rounds, rifling is required. and if i am not wrong Chal-2's gun has better accuracy then the M1.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Can somebody share...what's the use of Challenger using Rifled 120mm while M1 uses Smoothbore 120mm? Isn't rifled better for accuracy?
you can still fire a APFSDS with a riflled gun, but its effectiveness is not as good when fired from a smoothbore gun.
Although for "accuracy" there are other factors, eg "optics" esp when firing at extreme range and also the range gauging capability (laser??)
and also training of the gun crew esp shooting under combat condition or at moving targets...
It is not a "straight" comparision between smooth-bore and rifled gun when comparing M1 and Chal-2 because ohter then the "gun" there are other factors involved. -
It depends on what you are using the tank for, different tanks provide different things.
After much debate, when it comes to the top five- Abrams, Chally, Leopard, LeClerk and Merkava it's pretty much a crapshoot and depends on what you are going to use the tank for. Some armies will find a certain design the best for them and others are going to find another design better.
If you don't have a ton of fuel to burn like the yanks and find the issues of using and keeping a DU armour package not really your cup of tea... then the M1 is probably not for you. If you want a tank that really slugs it out in FIBUA and can carry it's own infantry support to boot, Merky is a good idea. It's really hard to say which tank is the best for this or that, but in the end the top five are pretty much there.
I think why we are getting the Leo2A4 has a lot to do with it's cost to run, general quality of design (which is really great for the price), and the fact that we can get it quite quickly from the Jerries.
And yes, the Abrams does not normally run on gasoline. -
Er, actually this show, if you notice, are based on tanks that have seen battles
Hence also the Fear Factor
Shown for umpteen times in Discovery
Its more like a list of battle proven tanks -
Both the Challenger 2 and the M1A2 uses Chobham. The M1A1HAs and A2s have an additional layer of DU in their armor. It increases protection rating and weight as well.
Rifled vs Smoothbore.
Mainly a difference in doctrine. The British prefers to use their HESH rounds as anti-armor and anti-fortification round. Hence they retain the rifled gun for superior accuracy when using the HESH.
The rifled gun loses effectiveness with other rounds such as the APFSDS and HEAT. Spin imparted on the long rod penetrator reduces the accuracy and penetration ability to the APFSDS I think. As for the HEAT, a spin on the HEAT round would cause the explosive stream to break up, losing penetration ability critically. Hence, when firing these rounds from the rifled gun, the rounds themselves are encased in another casing that spins while the actual round within does not. That spells, higher manufacturing costs for the rounds. Rifled guns themselves require more maintenance.
As for the Smoothbore, they handle the APFSDS and HEAT as they are with great accuracy as well. However, most armies using smoothbore guns for their tanks do not use HESH rounds as primary anti armor rounds.
PS: Notice no french tanks were mentioned in the Top 10. -
That is why we have an overall score for the best tank.. Just like T-34 is regarded as best tank in WWII althought it did not possess the best gun ,best amrour and best mobilities..Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:It depends on what you are using the tank for, different tanks provide different things.
After much debate, when it comes to the top five- Abrams, Chally, Leopard, LeClerk and Merkava it's pretty much a crapshoot and depends on what you are going to use the tank for. Some armies will find a certain design the best for them and others are going to find another design better.
If you don't have a ton of fuel to burn like the yanks and find the issues of using and keeping a DU armour package not really your cup of tea... then the M1 is probably not for you. If you want a tank that really slugs it out in FIBUA and can carry it's own infantry support to boot, Merky is a good idea. It's really hard to say which tank is the best for this or that, but in the end the top five are pretty much there.
I think why we are getting the Leo2A4 has a lot to do with it's cost to run, general quality of design (which is really great for the price), and the fact that we can get it quite quickly from the Jerries.
And yes, the Abrams does not normally run on gasoline.
But in terms of overall performances like armour,speed and firepower plus mainatenance,Finally usage in all consider terrain and situation. LeopardA6 can be regarded as best tank presently.... -
I wonder why this is the case.Originally posted by Shotgun:PS: Notice no french tanks were mentioned in the Top 10.
How does the LeClerc fare against other modern tanks? -
got ppl mention me at the first page ar??? the missile shooting tank...
-
actually, i believe total number of tigers produced during the entire war was about 1300..?Originally posted by spawnoflight:M1A1 abrams is best tank in the past and now.They are the key to why the US won the first gulf war against iraq and the recent capturing of saddam.If you read the news analysis of the war carefully you would see M1 abrams always at the frontline.After all ,all the iraqis could do is to send their T-72s/T-62s for a battering by a far superior foreign tank that could enage them a few hundred metres furthur.Even if they do manage to fire first most likely the abrams would sustain little damage which explain why only 4 out of 2000 abrams were disabled during the gulf war.
Second best tank is the British army's Challenger 2.The tak possess incredibly strong armour called Chobham armour.Its composition remains a secret allthough rumors has it that it was made by special ceramics joined together.It role in the gulf war was vital as it ripped iraq's republican guard on less tha 100 hours.Armed with a 120mms turret it could destroy any known russian built tank.
Third best tank the german built tiger ?? Heard it was so had so heavy an armour it moved quite slowly but other then that had superior fire power and could destroy ANYTHING.However it was too costly that germany could only afford to make 100 plus (I think).
-
Leo2 has the highest speed amongst all the other MBTs currently available in the market right? But really curious, why didn't SAF pick the Merkava, given that the Merkava's high emphasis on crew safety? And the fact that they could mount a motar within the tank,making it a pretty well all rounded tank.
-
Merkava is a No No politically. Anyway , I dont think it is for sale.
My take on best three tanks overall are : - M1A1/2 , Leopard 2 A5/6 and Merkava IV not in any order. Depending on the combat scenario,
any one of the three cud be better than the rest in a specific situation.
Also I will rate the top three as follows : -
Best in Protection - Merkava IV
Best in Speed - M1A1/2
Best Overall - Leopard 2 A5/6
Firepower - Equal for all three -
The most outrageous tank ever if completed
http://www.panzerbaer.de/workshop/wdieb_mod_87-a.htm
Though the webby's in german but i know this monster weighs in at 1800 tons at full combat load and has a planned armament fit of 2 280mm guns similar to those of the Gneisenau class, 1 128mm gun, 8 20mm Flaks and several 15mm MG 151 machine guns.
The engines required to move this behemoth were actually marine engines!! There were 2 powerplant options, one with a set of 8 Daimler Benz cylinder marine diesel engines delivering 16000hp, the other with a pair of MAN cylinder marine diesel engines delivering 17000hp. Speed was estimated at best to be 40km/h on ideal road conditions.
The minimum armour thickness is already 150mm thick with a max of 360mm. Only naval guns have the punch to hurt her. Enemy armor posed almost no conceivable threat to the Ratte. They might have destroyed things like the AA guns on the turret or damaged radio antennae or weapon optics, but beyond minor damage enemy tanks were toys next to this mammoth vehicle. -
Monster Nazi Panzer!
Maus is the name of the largest tank design ever built. Designed in 1942 by Ferdinand Porsche under direct order from Adolf Hitler. The Maus would have had a crew of either 5 or 6. The tank's hull was 10.1 meters long, 3.67 meters wide and 3.66 meters tall. Weighing 188 tons, the Maus was armed with a 128mm cannon and a coaxial 75mm gun, and covered with 180-240mm of armor. Only two were produced. One was destroyed by the Germans at Kummersdorf to prevent its capture by the Soviets, and the sole surviving Maus tank is currently in the Kubinka Tank Museum in Russia. Nine others were in various stages of completion when the war ended. None ever saw combat.
Pics
http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/maus/maus_01.jpg
http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/maus/maus_010.jpg
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/maus_77.jpg
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/maus_1.jpg
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/cmaus.jpg
http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/artykuly/maus/maus_09.jpg
Source: http://www.panzer.punkt.pl/strony_www/maus.htm
This is a Porsche monster tank which did get into production but not used in combat.
-
Well, why not? I mean since it gives the utmost crew survivability as compared to the others? Besides...its not the first of our Jewish equipment procurements right? Who is to say we can't want the best for our soldiers?Originally posted by glock:Merkava is a No No politically. Anyway , I dont think it is for sale. -
I'm just speculating about this but remember our Centurions haven't been officially recognized yet. Perhapes our army wants a tank that it can show the world and boost citizen morale? Personally, I wouldn't want to buy a tank and keep it under wraps for 20 years either.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well, why not? I mean since it gives the utmost crew survivability as compared to the others? Besides...its not the first of our Jewish equipment procurements right? Who is to say we can't want the best for our soldiers? -
I think the Leo 2A6 is best firepower so far due to the longer L55 gun that induce higher muzzle velocity, i.e. higher penetration for the same rd.Originally posted by glock:Merkava is a No No politically. Anyway , I dont think it is for sale.
My take on best three tanks overall are : - M1A1/2 , Leopard 2 A5/6 and Merkava IV not in any order. Depending on the combat scenario,
any one of the three cud be better than the rest in a specific situation.
Also I will rate the top three as follows : -
Best in Protection - Merkava IV
Best in Speed - M1A1/2
Best Overall - Leopard 2 A5/6
Firepower - Equal for all three -
Wow so big !!! This is sick Lucky the nazis did'tn use them in the WWII .It probably take a dozen of leopards abrams chally merkava to take it out.Originally posted by Halide:The most outrageous tank ever if completed
http://www.panzerbaer.de/workshop/wdieb_mod_87-a.htm
Though the webby's in german but i know this monster weighs in at 1800 tons at full combat load and has a planned armament fit of 2 280mm guns similar to those of the Gneisenau class, 1 128mm gun, 8 20mm Flaks and several 15mm MG 151 machine guns.
The engines required to move this behemoth were actually marine engines!! There were 2 powerplant options, one with a set of 8 Daimler Benz cylinder marine diesel engines delivering 16000hp, the other with a pair of MAN cylinder marine diesel engines delivering 17000hp. Speed was estimated at best to be 40km/h on ideal road conditions.
The minimum armour thickness is already 150mm thick with a max of 360mm. Only naval guns have the punch to hurt her. Enemy armor posed almost no conceivable threat to the Ratte. They might have destroyed things like the AA guns on the turret or damaged radio antennae or weapon optics, but beyond minor damage enemy tanks were toys next to this mammoth vehicle. -
Oh so btw is the US or Britain also using Leo 2 as well ? Just curious thanksOriginally posted by gary1910:You're wrong.
Yes, one the reason is due to cheap surplus tank from Germany but another part especially the newly built one is becos the Germany Leo 2 beat the other Nato tanks like M1 amd Chally etc to win the selection for example Netherlands, Switzerland,Sweden,Spain and Greece has newly built Leo 2.
These nations have chosen Leo 2 instead of other tanks becos they believe Leo 2 is the best tank for them. -
I wish the Nazis DID use build and use them. You don't need a tank to kill a tank. A tank that big a walking target for aerial assault man. Can you imagine, all that resources blown to crap by American CAS.Originally posted by spawnoflight:Wow so big !!! This is sick Lucky the nazis did'tn use them in the WWII .It probably take a dozen of leopards abrams chally merkava to take it out. -
I had a toy that looked exactly like that once... Just a little meaner. The top was a single barrel turret tho...
