My quick and dirty top tanks for each "need"...Please note ahead of time that my placing of the Leopard in the celebrity category will enrage all its supporters. Sorry, but yes, the Canadians used it in Afghanistan but it never got a chance to see the full time combat in their sector. We still don't know how it stands up to the rigors of deployment and the brunt of enemy fire. Until we do, it remains a question. Is it as tough as we're all told or is it a paper tiger that will shred once the first anti-tank round hit it? I don't know and neither do you.
Expeditionary. You have to move halfway around the world and need firepower to bring with you because airpower is spotty and you might not have enough cannons available.
CV-90120.
Defensive. You're surrounded by enemies that want to slice your throat in the dark and you need a tank that can soak up punishment while dishing it out.
Tie. Merkava IV and Challenger 2.
Offensive. You need a tank that can go fast, hit hard and protect its crews at the same time.
M1A2 Abrams.
Cutting edge. The future of warfare. We don't know where armored vehicle development is going but these look good.
Tie. Altay, K2 and Type 10.
Celebrity. You're loved, we don't quite know why but everyone worships the ground you walk on.
Leopard 2.
Expeditionary. You have to move halfway around the world and need firepower to bring with you because airpower is spotty and you might not have enough cannons available.
CV-90120.
Defensive. You're surrounded by enemies that want to slice your throat in the dark and you need a tank that can soak up punishment while dishing it out.
Tie. Merkava IV and Challenger 2.
Offensive. You need a tank that can go fast, hit hard and protect its crews at the same time.
M1A2 Abrams.
Cutting edge. The future of warfare. We don't know where armored vehicle development is going but these look good.
Tie. Altay, K2 and Type 10.
Celebrity. You're loved, we don't quite know why but everyone worships the ground you walk on.
Leopard 2.
I would say a Leopard 2 is a good all around tank. The M1A2 Abrams would be a heavy Armour, Shock & Awe Tank & the CV-90120 would be a good Infantry support tank. The Merkava IV, would be a good urban ops tank.
ReplyDeletebut quantify it. what makes the Leopard 2 the best all around tank? i can't figure it out. we don't know if it can take a punch. we don't know how it does against even primitive enemies. so why do we rank it so highly?
DeleteI would say the Leopard 2 is good for countries who don't want the budget for M1A2 Abrams but want an all round tank. The don't want the M1A2 Abrams price tag and budget, but want the features of the M1A2 Abrams. Which i see the Leopard 2 as an all round tank.
DeleteThen you have the current line of Leopard 2 tanks such as the Leopard 2A7+ and the Current one, the Leopard 2A6. Here's more of the Leopard 2 tank
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
Here's the company that makes the Leopard 2 tank http://www.kmweg.com/
The M1A2 may have a high top speed, but a ludicrously high fuel consumption and high rate of engine breakdown mean it has a slower average rate of advance than most contemporary MBT's.
ReplyDeletei've seen the M1 doing its thing and let me tell ya. MTVRs and the rest of the column have trouble keeping up with them. serious trouble keeping up with them. additionally from what i've read of US Army ops they were grey hounds. no mechanical issues kept them from advancing and they were at the vanguard of the march on Baghdad.
Deletetheoretically you might be right but practice and actual use points in a different direction. additionally you talk about fuel consumption but you're not going to get a fuel efficient 70 ton vehicle until you start using hybrid engines.
The Leopard 2 has beat the Abrams in some competitions...
ReplyDeleteAs for direct evaluation of bouth tanks this video is amusing:
http://youtu.be/arUhbzKP4KY
In the first Gulf war a British Challenger was stuck in a position and received a lot of direct Rpgs with out problens untill it was rescued. The crew was safe. Also a Challenger still keeping the longest kill shot in combat, I think it was 5km. For me that's a winner.
ReplyDeleteIts true we do not know but buyers probably do a bit better as they do get acces to clasiffied info and tanks to test some are also users of other tanks so can compare(Saudis)and Leo is top of every ones shoping list.So its fair to assume tank to be well rounded.From what we know it has the best gun ,powerpack and FCS ,(on Greek army trials M1A2 fire control couldn't cut it against LeosA6E Fire control so even with the same gun we can assume more fire power in the Leo.)so only legit question is armor but from what we can find on the net there is nothing to indicate that it could not cut it in armor department.If you look at the turret size M1 is larger than Leos same thickness of armor will weigh more.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with 'defensive' tank is that none bar maybe Mekava fit the bill tanks by design have thick armor only over frontal arc of 60° or so by definition should always be facing the threat head on.Side armor on many tanks is quite thin and none can take a tank round outside frontal arc. Armor vs missile game is moving into active protection area as we are at the stage that no more weight can be carried while rockets can punch trough more and more.And we are seeing emergence of rockets and missiles that are designed to penetrate frontal arc of modern tanks.
you just hit everyone with a bunch of stuff that really doesn't apply.
Delete1. the Leo is on everyone's shopping list because European countries are getting out of tanks and giving them away at cut rate prices.
2. fire control? firepower? are you serious! the US used depleted uranium that can slice ANY tank open with one hit. the Leopard uses a longer barrel to try and duplicate that with a conventional round.
3. powerpack? many nations don't have the techs to service a turbine powered tank. quite honestly its easier to train to fix a diesel engine than a turbine.
so no. i still don't buy that the Leopard is the best all around tank. its being sold fast because of circumstances not ability and as far as its armor protection is concerned i have serious doubts.
you dn't make an EVO variant unless you don't think it can stand up to the latest threats.
1 Leo 2 sold to 14 countries, M1 sold to how many dont count the ones where its given as part of militar aid. Leo2 was never part of aid + would have sold to at least couple more countries if German goverment wouldnt stop it
Delete2. yes very serious, 55 tops 44 any day of the week and can shot the same DU with even higher velocity if you want, FCS with higher engagment range and hit probability also counts as added fire power.
3. half the consumption on the move and 3 times less when idling is a big deal .Couple less HMMT tankers needed each day.
As for the circumstance Leo 2 is being bulit and sold by just about the most pacifist nation now days ,they sell quality not kickbacks . European manufactrers are used to private venture development and constantly develop new stuff. US contractors only work when they are paid for by uncle Sam that is why you can expect more european tech migrating into M1 in the future as US hasnt built anything new and worthwhile in 40 years. 55 gun ,diesel engine and leo2 track and suspension upgrades will almost certanly find their way into M1,oh yea and brits gave M1 the armor in return they were knocked out of the tank bussines due to 'restrictions' in exporting tanks with cobham
check your figures again. and look at the contracts of the nations buying those tanks. most are from surplus. they're getting them at bargain rates. yeah, the US sells them through FMS sales but guess what. that's just the way we do it. the European have slightly different but very similar ways of doing business.
Deleteadditionally everything that you're talking about started with the US Army wanting to improve the M1 Abrams and Rhienmetall matching their desires on the market.
i'm repeating myself but the 2a7 is just the Leopard version of the Tusk2 that the Army put out. the M1A2 has individual optics for the gunner and commander and it was started long before the german improvements.
chobham? big fucking deal. the US has the brits piggybacking on our nuclear work and they've been sucking at the teat of the US for a long time now.
if you want to take this discussion nationalistic i can do that with the best of them. but quite honestly you're doing nothing but raising the european is good, everyone else sucks dick flag.
nothing of substance, no new info. nothing.
Umm "yea and brits gave M1 the armor in return they were knocked out of the tank business due to 'restrictions' in exporting tanks with cobham"
DeleteActually the Brits have to approve exports of Cobham. That is why Egyptian Abrams have steel armor not Cobham.
good catch Harlan. one other thing though. i tire of brits blaming the US for the demise of their defense industry. BAE continues a strong armor business and General Dynamics has a UK branch. but back on issue. the blame lies with the Brits allowing for the purchase and consolidation of their firms. the same thing happened to their armor businesses that has happened to our aviation industry. they were gobbled up by bigger companies.
Deletethat is an economic problem that spans both sides of the atlantic.
and the brits have no one to blame but themselves. that and several government white papers that are never right.
Sol, why isn't the Russian T-90MS on here?
ReplyDeletemaybe its bias but i see the high point in Russian tank design to have occured with the T-34/85 and the IS-2/3. what does the T-90 do that strikes you as world class? armor protection? nope. firepower? nope. mobility? its good but not great, no tank head in the world is going to be hoping sand berms cause he knows that means another 8 hours broken down.
Deleteso what does the T-90 do that makes it better in any of my categories than the above?
I wouldn't say you're biased. In this case misinformed by propaganda. The high point in Russian tank design continued well into the 80's the amount of "firsts" they had in tank design whatever put in production or just one of prototypes overshadows every other country combined.
DeleteT-64 was the first true MBT and was leaps and bounce ahead of anything NATO fielded by a decade. Heck NATO only caught up and surpassed in the mid 80's. Though a Soviet response was already in the works. Though due to the fall of SU never to be put into service..
Tanknet is a good source. If you have the time it's a good forum to visit field with actual tankers and other people in the know how from both sides
the T-64 wasn't considered a success. what have the Soviets done that was so unique and special when it comes to tank design?
Deleteautoloaders? the French were all over that before the Russians caught on. i can't think of one thing the Russians did that led the field. quite honestly up until the new batch of tanks came online everything has been evolutionary. for the Russians everything can easily be traced back to the T-34 and IS-3. for the Germans the Leopard was their first design and everything comes from that relatively modern tank, but if you want to go back further I'd say that the WW2 Panther is the grandad of that design.
for the US, the M4 begat the Patton, the Patton evolved and evolved until the MBT-70 and the MBT-70 is the grandaddy of the M1.
nothing at all has been revolutionary.
but you didn't answer my question. what is it that makes the Russian designs world class. what do you point to?
In what way wasn't The T-64 not a succes ? If you mean it's engine that was problematic. It was due to unfamiliarity among the mechanics and was actaully a lot more reliable then the T-72 in the end. Actually SU already had tank( IS-7 ) with a "autoloader" before the French and their "autoloaders" As far as led ? post 50's? , First to came up with ERA( though Israel was the first country to deploy ERA bricks.on their tank) first to come up and field an APS. First to have production tanks with composite, etc. As far as the T-90MS nothing about it is head and shoulders above any of the tanks you mentioned. But lets be honest others besides Abrams.have nothing over on the T-90MS either. And why the Abrams you may ask ? Simply because of Abrams.blow-out compartment. No other tank whatever eastern or western has that despite populare believe add the thick side armour (well compared to other tanks ) I would rate above others, heck most would unless fanboys.
DeleteThe T-90 has active defensive systems against anti-tank missiles that the M1 lacks.
DeleteThe Abrams is a lousy tank. It has very high fuel consumption, the turbine needs an extremly high amount maintenance, an very large heat signature (thanks to the turbine), which also prevents the grunts from using the tank as cover, and the track has a very short service live compared to the track of the Leopard 2.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is that the Abrams could kill almost any tank, but it is very lacking against buildings and soft targets. The APDS-FS-T is useless in this role, and the MPAT is weak against buildings and area targets. The Leopard 2 has an HE ammunition fitted with variable point detonation/delay/airburst fuse, which is effective against buildings, fortifications, area targets and low flying aerial vehicles. Although it is possible to refit the Abrams with the necessary equipment to use the HE ammo.
you're reaching and you know it. high fuel consumption? what is economical when you're talking about a tank? the US Army brought all this on when they started the initiative of switching to diesel engines with the Abrams. yeah they wanted better mileage but more importantly they wanted cheaper across the board. as far as infantry operating with M1s it happens all the time in the USMC, and without problem. last i checked they have talk boxes on these tanks so the supported infantry can talk to the tank crew.
Deletethe issue with ammo is irrelevant. the US Army focused on using a tank to kill a tank. concept of operations have never been to level buildings and if it was about doing so then we'd see howitzer mounted on tanks in the old CEV role.
once again marketing is getting in the way of facts.
Rheinmetall is trying to sell its Leopard 2A7+ and they've designated it an urban model and were simply following the lead of the US Army M1A2 Tusk II.
Besides fuel economy ? And I would think new gen of gas turbines would help with that. What other advantages do diesel engines actually offer ? A gas turbine is more compact, smoother power delivery and while gas turbines emite higher frequency noises which are pain/irateness on your ears up close, a gas turbine far off is actually more quieter then a diesel engine. What about maintenance ? Any idea on that ?
DeleteLeopard II was sold to at least 14 countries ,no taker for M1 just the ones that get it as millitary aid ,Leopard never came in aid packages. Turbine vs diesel is an big issue of logistic footprint unless you are running a short blitzkrieg ,turbine consumes 2x times more when one the move and 3-4 times more when idling(which is most of the time ) thats why M1 needs 500gal vs Leo2 300gal tank.Leo2 tracks last 3+x longer, again logstics and running costs.Consider the cost of fuel in Afganistan and all the HEMMT fuel trucks that thave to follow tanks.
DeleteIn terms of firepower Leo tops anything out there ,55 canon gives way more velocity and energy down the barrel ,it can also shoot the same DU round with more velocity if they wanted but Germans do not believe in using ammo that might just as well kill(or at least make them sick) the own crew that is why they avoid DU both in ammo and armor. As for fire control he Leopard 2 has advantages over the Abrams in the commander's independently stabilized and slewable sighting system, the gunner's binocular sight .
No takers for the M1 Abrams? Well apart from the United States there's always Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Australia...
DeleteNot one of those countries received the M1 as "military aid". They ALL purchased it, most in direct competition with Leopard II and Challenger 2 variants, most notably Australia. The Abrams was controversial in Australia because it was bought at a time when we were particularly close to the USA and it was seen in some quarters as "doing a favour" to the US, as if a $500m acquisition is something that truly impacts on the USA and their $600 Billion defence budget... However all the myths were completely harpooned by the ANAO analysis on the acquisition, found here:
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Uploads/Documents/2007%2008_audit_report_1.pdf
good points but in particular the Australian decision to go with the Abrams always struck me as odd. i really thought they would be another Leopard country. but most things the Australians have done has been confusing to me. the pick of the NH-90 over the Blackhawk, the pick of the navantia design instead of the french....i seriously wonder how they come up with their selections. i thought it might be price but in alot cases they go with the higher priced but lower performing option. don't even get me started on the attack helicopter purchase.
DeleteOk Egypt just about the biggest military aid taker in the region,Iraq a non functioning state i highly doubt there was a proper competition held. Kuwait and Sudis couldn't get the Leo2 due to Germany pollicy(many of the arabs states are on germanys bad guy list due to blatant human rights violations ). And as you mentioned Australia is somewhat of an outlier.
Delete''According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S.-Egyptian co-production of the M1A1 Abrams tank, which began in 1988, is "one of the cornerstones of U.S. military assistance to Egypt."
We evaluated the individual tanks, sent teams to check them out and then made our decision. You're quite right Sol, most expected the Leopard II to be a shoe-in for the Australian Army with our previous positive experience with the Leopard 1 and in the end it came down to the choice of the M1A1 AIM SA or the Swiss variant of the Leopard II I mentioned earlier, with Challenger being eliminated. We chose M1A1 as the risk free option and one seen as the better protected and more mobile option with equivalent lethality.
DeleteIf that's not a competition I don't know what is.
As to the others, well again we evaluated NH-90 against UH-60M. I think the better domestic assembly and support package, plus the NH-90 being seen as better suited to maritime ops saw it get over the line against UH-60M.
Tiger is another matter. That was chosen on the basis of incompetent analysis of it's level of remaining development, lies on behalf of the manufacturer as to it's support costs and promises made that repeatedly failed to eventuate as to it's in-service date and a bunch of "hooey" that eventually cost Eurocopter our $3b maritime helicopter contract, won by MH-60R.
We wanted to standardise our helicopter fleet. Unfortunately we believed manufacturer's lies.
I should think you would find that topic interesting Sol. The manufacturer that lied to us, wasn't Lockheed Martin...
It was EADS. The umbrella corporation for Eurocopter.
It really is hard to differentiate all these tanks because you would need to run them in all the same testing conditions and have access to classified info. Kind of like the way you did it SOL, by specific category/use/role rather than a top 10 which I find really lame and nationalistic, always hate when I see it done by the History channel or Military channel, super lame....
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that the French Leclerc with the Russian/Ukraine/China designs weren't mentioned.
You could almost put both German/Russian tanks in the category of "celebrity/WW2 heritage", both countries have lots of tank history/tradition but German tanks haven't fired a war shot in anger in decades and Russian tanks have been used too much as target practice by Western forces with incompetent crews manning them to really give us a good idea of their worth.
its kinda hard for me to take Russian tank designs seriously when USMC M-60 crews were slicing them open like nothing at all. then when you talk to US Army Bradley drivers that talk about getting critical hits with the 25mm chain gun when they could get the TOW system up and making them back away. i just don't know. add to it the common talk that its all about lousy Iraqi tank drivers and that the gear is solid and it clashes with what i saw with my own eyes.
DeleteRussian tanks burn. they get smashed. they can't hit and the design is so cramped that the crews can't help but be worn out just driving to the battle area much less accomplishing (or attempting ) to accomplish their mission.
i left the LeClerc off because its an outlier to me. i don't know how to properly categorize it. if pushed i'd say its an expeditionary tank since it weighs in at around 56 tons but even at that role it appears to be too heavy to move quickly and then too light to win against the heavier opponents so even in that role it fails that test.
what i was expecting but never got asked is why the Chinese Type 99 isn't on the list.
simple. we don't know enough about it. when the Chinese turn their attention to armor we're going to get a real good idea of what they think is needed to win in the Pacific. right now it looks like they're leaning toward extreme mobility. both tactically and strategically and they're going mobile gun systems on wheels. i think they'll switch back to tracks soon and that's when it'll be a fun watch.
WOW, don't know if this true story or just made up....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.duffelblog.com/2013/11/outgoing-company-commander-hate/#ixzz2m5Ajrxyz
The main problem with German military equipment are the strings attached. The very minute you go against German Foreign Policy, they will announce a military embargo. This means if you need spare parts, you're stuffed.
ReplyDeleteAfter evaluating many "needs" MBT have been born.
ReplyDeleteWhile japanese MBT maybe have some distinct features, turkey tank is just laughing stock.
Main features of modern MBT:
1. High quality thermal optics (Only USA and to some degree some other NATO countries can produce this and Turkey not the case).
2. Active anti-missile defense systems(Deployed on some ex USSR tanks, and some modern Russia tanks. Under development in Israel and NATO countries. Turkey don't have this technology.).
3. Advanced composite armor (USA and GB. Russian composite armor qualities is unknown, never been in combat vs western weaponry. Turkey can make Chobham? Really?).
Of course its quite an achievement for Turkey to build MBT from scratch, but its can't compete with modern Abrams, Leopard 2, or T-72(add the number). Turkish tank looks like a good deal to replace aging downgraded T-72's in third world countries but nothing more.
If i would choose the best modern tank i would pick Merkava. While its combat capabilities is quite similar to Abrams and Leopard 2 it have unique capabilities:
1. Space for additional people on board which can be used as: rotating crew(dayshift crew/nightshift crew), medevac, command vehicle(not distinguishable from other tanks), small infantry squad on board, etc.
2. Integrated mortar. Proven to be invaluable urban combat during late WWII soviet assaults on german cities, where regular mortars have been installed on some tanks.
Every of those tanks has flaws and weakened zones, chally and abrams have driver exposed to any kind of AT shells (apfsds heat), Leo2 have 3 crew members behind weakened zone. Merkava 4th have armour level of T-72A. It is only about armor, the main weapon of the tank is a crew and advanced FCS and C4i from above.
ReplyDeleteCV-120 is not even a tank it would be shred to pieces by enemy AT, all previous tanks have a chance to survive direct hit of some thing monstruos like hellfire, kornet, hrisantema, tow2, and CV-120 would be torn apart it is a coffin.
It is not only about armor, gun, engine, they are critical for a tank as for the combat system. But only motivated crew, advanced FCS and C4i would make tank the best.
That's why I think the Leopard 2A6 is the M1A2 alternative for countries who don't want the price tag of the M1A2. Some countries who can't get the M1A2, the Leopard 2A6 would be the preferred alternative
ReplyDeleteIts mosty other way around as US has no problems supplying arms to anyone in the middle east , Germany on the other hand stopped great many deals due to its foreign policy. Past has shown Leo 2 to be the first choice M1 only if they can not get Leo.
DeleteMaybe you should learn more about turkish defence firms, espacially, Aselsan, FNSS, Roketsan, Nurol, Tübitak...They produce all the thinks that you mention for a modern Tank.
ReplyDeleteAout Merkava, it is a good tank as we saw in Libianon war.