Guest RET.LT.Angry_M0b=US= Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 What do you think is the Best MBT (Main Battle Tank)? These are 3 of the top competitors, that are most commonly voted for. Leopard 2 (Germany) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2[/url] M1A2 Abrams (US) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams[/url] Challenger 2 (UK) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2[/url] the country name is the producer, and the user, although other countries use these tanks as well. Im going on the theory of 1V1 as otherwise the M1A2 would win pretty easily due to numbers, so I'm talking about quality really here. Have a look at the links for information about them. I know almost all of you will think M1A2 as its your tank, but just have a look through the stats, they all ahve better and worse points about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SFC.No1sadvocate=US= Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 CHALLENGER FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Murph Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Youve forgotten the French Leclerc and the Russian T-90 both of which are comparable to the other 3 listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1ggy Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Honestly, I think it's the M1, since it's the only one that's been in combat with other tanks as far as I can remember, and it did pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.LT.Angry_M0b=US= Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 The Challenger 2 has been in a peackeeping role in Afghanistan and Iraq where it has come under fire, The Challenger 1, its predecesor was involved in the First Irqi war and claimed 300 kills on enemy armoured vehicles, with no looses, as well as the longest ever tank to tank kill in history which was 5.1km As the sucessor of the Challanger 1 i think it is well up for the job, althgh not yet testeted in a Tank vs Tank role yet. As you can see on the wiki for the challenger 2 it took 8 RPG hits and 1 Milan AT missile at close range, (yes that is a british AT missile, what a bright spark the guy fiering it must have been) and it was on combat operations 6 hours later. Another Challanger 2 had recieved 70PRG hits in one engagement and still survived, both incidents thanks to its Dorchester Armour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Undefined Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm just gonna have to go with the Leopard here. It's a classic, and a really amazing tank. I wouldn't take anything over a Leopard personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suls Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 I personally like the look and feel (in PR atleast) of the Challenger, but after reading all those articles, they all look great. I'll stick with the C2 though. ^^; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BG.Darmine Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Ummm there all about the same spec wise, except the challenger has less horses. But the Abram has been in service way longer then the other 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.MAJ.Pugs Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The M1A1 has a better service lifespan but in combat you cant beat the C2s armor. Its the best armor in the world. Take the M1s targeting system and put it in a C2 and it would be godly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.SCPO.Mystical=US= Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Leopard 2, nothing can beat that. Both the Americans and British are interested in adopting this tank into their Armed Forces. Atleast, that's what discovery channel told me ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1ggy Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Was it that ex-navy seal guy? Cuz I'm pretty sure he's full of crap most of the time. And he sounds like an idiot when he's talking, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ellenberg Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yeah, that guy is talking ****. Oh, the Challenger II has a rifled barrel... M1A2 has a smooth bore barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 3lmo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 if you go by numbers russian t-90 or t-72 will win :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 3lmo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 if it weren't for our german leopard you americans wouldn't even have you abrams the way you have it now.. since the system that keeps the gun leveled is a german invetion... and besides.. its german... it has to pwn :P but i guess they are almost all rqual though the leopard and challenger are more modern... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1ggy Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yeah, the germans are amazing engineers. I mean, there's a reason most luxury car brands are german. And yeah, the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are both newer. The worst problem with the M1 is it has horrible fuel efficiency. IIRC, it takes 40 liters just to start the turbines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Murph Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Gotta love using a jet turbine engine to go zoom zoom zoom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Saito Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 yah, they may be more modern but abrams gets upgraded constantly like the other 2 tanks. only way we'd know whose better is if we had them face off. But the tank also depends on the crew. if leopard is better than an american crew inside the leopard 2 would be devastating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greyst. Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 The challenger no doubt... On the battlefield a challenger tank rolled within 20 feet of an enemy tank thought to be dead already... The enemy tank turned its turret and fired on the challenger... Barely even scratched it so the challenger turned its turret and comletely pulverized the enemy tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zarth Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 meh. i voted other. I want to nominate the South Korean K2 Black Panther. This tank is the only tank in the world with full submersion capabilities without the help of a extensive snorkel kit. This tank is also a heavily modified version of the US M1A2 Abrams. It is the only tank (that ive seen so far) to still use the In-Arm Suspension Unit for suspension as opposed to a Torsion Bar or Pneumatic suspension. This tank is all around well built with the same reactive armor as the M1 and holds more rounds for the Main 120mm gun (48 compared to the M1s 40) and and significantly more for the M. Guns ( 3,500 [12.7mm] and 12,000 [7.62mm]). This tank also fires a more diverse set of rounds then the M1 with more on the way. I would also like to nominate the T-90 cuz its sexy. =D K2 Black Panther- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther[/url] Comparison chart to other tanks (scroll down a bit)- [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%27okpoong-Ho[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1ggy Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 Yeah, but the k2 is meant to fight against north korea, aka the human wave, so they need lots of mg rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 3lmo Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 teh american crews are better since they have wayyy more practice... but the leopard gets upgraded too just not at the mom as it is top notch...i mean including the urban kit on it :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.SCPO.Mystical=US= Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 The Dutch army uses the leopard 2 tank too. I went to a demonstration last week, but those leopard 2 tanks are awesome. Fantastic piece of German engineering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 3lmo Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 jup they sure are roomy... :P and sturdy like a BMW and way better gas milage :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RET.CPT.MacCullock=US= Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I thought it odd that no one has mentioned the Merkava IV [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava[/URL] Not only is it far more battle tested than some of the others, it has a rear door which has got to be a wonderful crew survival measure in addition to the front engine and the fuel stored within the spaced armor. It also has Coaxial .50 MG, so the crew don't have to expose themselves snipers or AK-47's to defeat a technical with a suicide bomb on it, or strafe the hell out of a building with an AT hiding in it. If I had to live in an MBT, that might well be my best choice. I thought the best might be the Challenger II, but now I see as pointed out here that it will be upgraded to use the M1A1 gun for its flexible ammunition. The C2 does have a very excellent combat record indeed. Of course, the C2 has one exclusive secret weapon. Its really the reason the Brits love it so much. It has a built in boiler for tea. The Leopard 2 sure does look good, but it doesn't have the battle record of the Merkava nor the M1A1. One kind of ammo the M1A1 has I don't see anywhere else on that chart. That is canister. That is one whopping big shotgun round for destroying infantry and trucks NOW. No magic technology required. I do agree with the observation here that the M1A1 is seriously compromised by it's fuel consumption. By the way, nobody here seriously means the M1 Abrams. That had a 105mm gun regarded as very obsolescent against modern armor. The most flexible, powerful gun is the Rheinmetall 120mm in all the other NATO MBT's including the Merkava. It's possible the C2 rifled gun is more accurate, but that German smoothbore is a very flexible and probably easier to maintain. Having defeated a Challenger II in PR with a Chinese type 98 (Qinling 64 map), I have to agree the C2 may be the best in-game tank available. See [URL='http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/barracks/showthread.php?t=6416&page=2']General - Project Reality Action page 2 [/URL]for 06/02. We were waiting in ambush on the C2, and he kept doing the expected, including badly exposing a crewman near his obvious location. It took us four direct hits on his turret to knock him out. Folks who were at the practice Thursday 06/05 might be interested in my account. See [URL='http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/barracks/showthread.php?t=6416&page=3']General - Project Reality Action page 3[/URL] for that date. I called it Mac's Follies #1 - the Ammo Bag. I did some rather silly things while trying to impress with my PR experience, attempting to help our clan XO, COL.RealGrunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Devil-Dog Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 In my opinion the Russian T series have always been weak tanks. I don't know much about tanks, but i do know a few things. The 5MM Cannon on the Abram tanks come from Germany...Germany Leopards use this same cannon I believe...I'm not sure but i believe they do. The armor is very comparable in the Abrams, Leopards, and Challengers. All 3 tanks are excellent on the battlefield, but there is one thing the Abrams have that no other tank has. Experienced crews. You can talk tank specifications all day, but the true argument is how talented the crew is. I'm not saying the Americans are better then any other crew, but we do have more experience in war then any other country...Abrams came out during the late 80's so we used them during the Gulf War and now Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can have the world's best tank, but if you don't have a kick ass crew running her...it means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.