MBTs Today

The OT discussion of MBT's in the Operation Unthinkable Thread is a distraction. I propose we continue the MBT discussion here.

1. What are your views on the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, Merkava, Sabra, T90, etc?


2. Which is a "better" approach to tank cannon's the rifled 105mm style or the 120mm smoothbore style?


3. What does RHA mean?

I like the 120mm smoothbore cannon, A German development. The variety of delivery payloads it can use is a big plus. I question the wisdom of a chrome "plated" barrell liner. I think a satin finish Stainless Steel alloy might be  more resilient.

smoothbore is the standard now i believe? rifled is old technology

A Smoothbore will always have better penetration than a Rifled since rifling slows projectiles down. Rifling is better for accuracy, but accuracy doesn't exactly factor in since MBT's Advance Fire Control systems means smoothbore guns are still as accurate as rifled guns at long ranges. Rifled guns can fire High Explosive Squash Head rounds which is a small plus when dealing with buildings, but i'm pretty sure Smoothbore cannons can can also fire missiles so the choice and mix of ammunition for smoothbore is much greater.

Imo, Leopard II is the best contemporary MBT out there. Challenger II is decent but lacks that essential smoothbore gun. Nothing special about the Abrams apart from maybe it's engine, M1A2 a melting pot of other nations tank parts glued to a bucket.

Talking to tanks crews a few weeks ago that came back from Afghanistan definitely enlightened me on the barrels. The Leopard C2 (modified Leopard 1's) was originally used by the CF in the beginning but were gradually replaced by Leopard 2's when different battle groups arrived in Kandahar. They immediately told me how much of an impact the smooth bore gun had in comparison the C2's rifled had on the battlefield.

It's definitely hard to designate which MBT is better then others, something we should try to avoid. Only the M1 Abrams has any real and consistent battlefield experience against other tanks. The Challenger 2 was only really used during the Siege of Basra, and the T-90 only faced older T-72's in the South Ossetian War. Like Burro has said, most tanks are mix mash of other parts from other countries, but the German's are definitely ahead of the curve in most areas.

Most of these tanks will be in service for the foreseeable future, but their are others that haven't been tested in combat or are still in prototype stage. Like I said in the Unthinkable thread, the Chinese, South Korean, and Japanese MBT's should be considered amongst these other giants. 

What are your guys thoughts on the M1A3 Abrams, Leopard 2A7, or the T-95? It seems that tank design now, is covering a wider spectrum in regards to being created to fight in both high and low intensity conflicts. Situational awareness for the tanks crews is a bigger priority now, and the usage of kinetic energy rounds in the future should be factored in.

Leclerc is my nr1 becouse they finnaly fited a western tank with an autoloader.
Challanger is 2nd becouse of the armor. Who needs fin stabilized sabot rounds (can be fired only from smoothbore guns) when you have a world record beating gun on it.

My understanding on the smoothbore is that it was introduced to give a longer effective range, ??? apparently 2.5 miles isn't long enough, and to allow a wider array of ammunition to be used. TOW and other missile type ammo really doesn't work out well on a rifled barrel.
+1 on the autoloader.
The big advantage of the Abrams power plant is its all fuel capabilites.
In Afghanistan I understand JP is used because logistically it is easier to bring in country. I wouldn't be surprised if the Abrams could be operated on Army coffee.
At the Moment I lean towards the Merkava as my favorite MBT the combination of battle tank and APC  is a definite plus in Urban Combat.

but Merkava would suck in forests or hills. It's designed to work in Middle-East specific conditions.

That is a good point cephalos...I'd imagine it work just as well as any tank in field/plain conditions, but forest's? I don't know. Israeli terrain is definitely unique.

cephalos wrote:
but Merkava would suck in forests or hills. It's designed to work in Middle-East specific conditions.

Tanks in general are designed to work in open plains. I know that the either the Fins or the Swedes once designed a TD specifically to fight in forests, but other then that, most tanks don't like forests just as much as they don't like cities.

well, yes, but Merkava has systems responisble for cleaning and cooling air, has this specific engine location, in front of tank ( to grant crew extra safety). Also it's developed as rolling bunker, because in Israeli there are mostly huge open plains, so tanks don't need to be fast, but have superior firepower and thick armour. Merkava is the last tank I would use to blitz enemies. It's just too slow. Like Tiger I.

Very true, so I guess we come back to something mentioned earlier (I think) in this discussion: which tank you want differs depending on what you want to do with it and how you want to use it.

Speed for flat lands, small silhouette's for forests, and better protection from RPG's and IED's/mines for urban combat.  Merkava fits the last point.

I've been looking for my Jane's tank pocket book for hours, but no luck. Which tank is the fastest and still capable of hitting targets on the move? I know all MBT's now can hit on the move, but speed is what I'm interested in.

I think the Merkava was designed with Urban Combat in mind. I thhink the Sabra is intended for more traditional tank battlefields.

Regarding speed. Look at road speed and cross country speed. Anything much over 45 kph is a cruel ride cross country. Cross country performance is best viewed in terms of ground pressure. THe lower the better. The Leopard series has always impressed me as the best of both worlds.

I vote for abrahms because of its speed and turbine engine. my dad was in the 3rd armored division during the 1990's and they had a track where they would test tanks and other armored vehicles on. they removed the governers from the abrahms, and reached a speed of 90 mph  :o before they stopped because the torsion bars could only handle so much

I don't think voting about tanks is so important. They might be powerful, but new technology will soon make them outdated and unuseful. The true power of new armies lies in airforce. What can make Abrams against MI-24, or Su-24 with AT rockets? Damn, even one trooper can destroy tank with AT Grenade Launcher like RPG or AT-4. And the cost of this rocket laucher is about 90.000-100.000 $, while tanks cost about 20 times more. Helicopters have also advantage of awesome mobility, and they can also carry very different equipment. Helis, not tanks are future of warfare. Tanks are getting obsolete.

Voting about tanks indeed has little significance save that it makes you think about the situation. Wars are typically fought with the last wars technology and thinking. The resources France spent upon the Maginot Line and the concentration on infantry support tanks, (French armor technology was equal to Soviet tech IMO), didn't result in the defense of France or increase the time it took to overthrow the government at all. The costs quoted for modern armor are low. They should be increased 3 to 5 times over what was cited. The cited costs are more in line with Helicopter costs and helicopters can be neutralized just as easily as tanks for the same or similar costs. The role of technology in military operations is to project force further and faster. In this regard tanks and helicopters and aircraft carriers and drones all have a role. When it comes to securing and holding the gains these technologies have made the ultimate answer is flesh and blood.