[headdie]

Snuffleupagus, for sure.




Unsurpassed mobility, and a high calibre smoothbore cannon that doubles as a melee weapon. Ingenious.

But does it have any armor? No, it won't survive on the battlefield against guided missiles D:

It has a thick layer of fur that masks its thermal signature and a low radar profile, not to mention said missile has to compensate with the afore mentioned agility

[Herra Tohtori]

But does it have any armor? No, it won't survive on the battlefield against guided missiles D:

Well, you see, Snuffleupagus MBT's come with giants that act as infantry support for them. You can see one right there in the image, on the right. They typically carry big clubs and are capable of hitting you so hard that you bounce from the ground and fly several hundreds of metres up in the air. I have seen this happen. The giants are usually effective enough at identifying threats and neutralizing them without them having a chance to hit the Snuffy with missiles or fireballs or other fancy stuff.

But even so, single hits from such attacks won't bring the Snuffy down immediately. Their fur is a potent armour by itself and, like headdie mentioned, masks the unit quite well in thermal spectrum.

If you really need more protection, the fur can be reinforced by armour plating attached to a harness of sorts. Additionally, the Snuffy can use its main weapon to catch or deflect the incoming missiles.

[GT-Keravnos]

Leopard 2.
And, the gun of your pretty Abrams is produced where? Right, Germany.
There was a mission in Afghanistan, where a Leopard 2 hit a landmine and was able to return to base, the only injury was a broken hip of the driver.
The tank commander stated, that no other tank could've survived something like this.

While I highly respect Leopard 2's technical achievements, it's nice to remember once in a while that there are more countries in the world. Some of them have created and are currently operating tanks that are better than at least two of the tanks mentioned in your Poll. They ought to be there as well.

[The E]

Examples would be a nice thing to have.

[Mars]

I. . . I think we have the majority of the world's military power covered; the Chinese use the T99 as well, the Aussies use the M1A2. India has 170 of their own tanks, but the rest are old Russian gear, there's Italy's MB, which is pretty ugly TBH, and has engine troubles. . .

I can't figure out where you're talking about?

[StarSlayer]

It's pretty obvious the most effective tank is a PzKpfw V chassis mounted with a Death Ray that silently judges the enemy's tastes until he simply dies of shame.


Oh, trust me.

He's dying... on the
inside.

[Mars]

Leopard 2.
And, the gun of your pretty Abrams is produced where? Right, Germany.
There was a mission in Afghanistan, where a Leopard 2 hit a landmine and was able to return to base, the only injury was a broken hip of the driver.
The tank commander stated, that no other tank could've survived something like this.

While I highly respect Leopard 2's technical achievements, it's nice to remember once in a while that there are more countries in the world. Some of them have created and are currently operating tanks that are better than at least two of the tanks mentioned in your Poll. They ought to be there as well.

Maybe you're talking about a lighter armored vehicle?

[NGTM-1R]

How about the engines? I am geussing the Leopard's engine is slightly better (Porsche ).

The two vehicles have nearly the same operational characteristics when it comes to engine performance. The Abrams is a little bit more of a gas hog but has superior acceleration.

The real difference of interest in engine terms is that the operating temperature of the Abram's gas turbine is so high that it's actually dangerous to stand on the rear deck or behind the tank while it's running. (Which disallows infantry using the vehicle cover among other things.) It's also effectively immune to Molotov Cocktails because they burn at significantly lower temperature than the engine operates normally.

[bigchunk1]

Pretty nice coverage of the MBT's respective performance NGTM-1R. A military show on television rated the ChallengerII as the best tank and the M1 series was near the bottom, but the show was measuring hardware performance features such as fuel efficiency, armor, top speed and main gun range/power. However, It has also been mentioned that the Abrams is the most combat tested of all these tanks. You can see this video, which shows how effective  higher quality tanks and crew training can be. Overall, I would have to give it to the Abrams. To be fair, the Challenger also participated in the battle of 73 Easting.

[Actium]

i dont think there is a best MBT, since every country that has a good one, claims, that there mbt is the best.

[deathfun]

You guys forgot about the African Main Battle Tank

[Flaser]

My vote goes for the T-72/T-90 family. Quantity has a quality all of its own and while individual tanks may perform worse than the "better" NATO models or "worse" than advertised, in the end it won't matter if the commander can achieve a 3-to-1 advantage for a similar budget.

You might scoff at this, but remember there's a reason why Russian miltech is so rough: it's built for war.  As far as Russians are concerned things get blown up in war, so any cent kopeck spent on polish is wasted... and if world war 3 ever rolled around, I have a feeling the Ruskies would've had a point.

When on "even terms" (i.e. your *overall* tech is not hopelessly antique and you have sufficient number of units) Russian tech tends to do a lot better then what most people give it credit for. Actually most "real wars" of the late 20th century (with maneuvers and clash of armies, instead a curb stomp battles/police action of the 500 kg gorlla called USA) were fought with Russian tech on both sides. On these battlefields the Russian tech has more than proved its doctrine in my opinion. Often operated by badly trained crews, with spurious maintenance, the tech all in all did what it was designed to do so. Let's add atrocious supply & maintenance levels to the mix and the Russian tech has another area where it's well ahead NATO tech.

Which doctrine is "better", very much depends on what the security needs of your country are - and how much money you have to spare. So in the end there's no such thing as "best" MBT (or best weapon system/platform, period).

For most of the folks actually fighting protracted wars, the choice will inevitably be Russian most of the time.
Ironically, since the US/NATO has been engaged in what are actually COIN operations for the last 10 years, the very same qualities - cheapness, ease of maintenance, low training requirements - have come to be in demand...

...but the US could never do COIN well. All it ever learns is that it can't do COIN.
(The only moral learnt in Vietnam, was not to fight in Vietnam... and seems like similar conclusions will be drawn after Iraq too).

[BrotherBryon]

Not necessarily, The US once produced one the most "COIN" tanks in history. The Sherman tank of WW2 was considered by many to be one the most inferior tanks on the battlefield at the time but the problem the Germans ran into was that there was a whole lot of them. Sure they haven't produced any thing as easy to manufactur since then but that has more to due with military strategy than capability. The problem with the Russian tank lines in the last couple of decades has been that though they are practical rugged designs they can not stand toe to toe with Western tanks simply because of range. A fact that the Iraqi's learned the hard way in both Gulf wars. If an enemy can see you and engage you at nearly twice the distance as it takes for you to engage them they will own you every time no matter how much numbers might be on your side.

[MR_T3D]

If I were fighting tanks, roll with the T-90, assuming the modern countermeasures suite is as claimed.

If fighting urban, then M1A2 with TUSK, but it has to have that TUSK.


Supposedly, ( http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html wouldn't take it as gospel truth, but doesn't seem like propaganda) The base T-90 has fantastic armour systems at least as good as or better than contemporary tanks, and recent upgrades would only improve this

[Thaeris]

The other problem that nations face (which operate large quantities of older AFVs) is that they often do not have sufficient counters for air power, be it their own air forces or anti-aircraft batteries. A-10s and AV-8Bs did horrible, horrible things to Iraqi tanks, fighting vehicles, artillery, and troops during the wars in the Gulf, simply because the Iraqis could not counter air power. That, and those particular aircraft sport quite nasty 30 and 25mm guns, not to mention the external ordnance...

As far as the choices go, I've always liked the Merkava. Many modern tanks just seem to have so many shot traps, while it's quite hard to find an opening on the Israeli tank. It was designed to be survivable, and it does that better than any other tank today.

[Scotty]

My vote goes for the T-72/T-90 family. Quantity has a quality all of its own and while individual tanks may perform worse than the "better" NATO models or "worse" than advertised, in the end it won't matter if the commander can achieve a 3-to-1 advantage for a similar budget.

I feel the need to direct you to records of the Persian Gulf War where Abrams tanks, hugely outnumbered, completely obliterated most of the tanks in the Iraqi army, and suffered exactly zero tanks destroyed to enemy fire.

Or, for a non-tank example, Roarke's Drift in the Boer Wars.  Quantity is not an insurmountable, or even a particularly effective advantage unless the capabilities of the tanks in question are much closer to equal than they actually are.

[Sololop]

Chally 2




You mean a Mirage tank from Red Alert 2

Why does that link to a page on how to get a mullet?

[BengalTiger]

I'd personally prefer to sit inside an Abrams instead of a T-90.

The Russian tank still uses an autoloader and still has its ammo sitting on the floor of the hull, right beneath the turret.

The Abrams has its ammo in the turret rear, separated from the crew by a titanium bulkhead, and the turret roof above the ammo rack is designed to burst at a far lower overpressure than the bulkhead, working as a safety valve.
There were ammo explosions in Desert Storm, all crew members survived so this design works.

The T-90's safety valve is its turret. When there's an ammo fire, the turret pops off, allowing the pressurized gases to leave.

Here's how it works on a T-72:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco

The Merkava also stores ammo in the hull (sure it's in an armored box, but the armor is to resist spalling and open flames, but not a direct hit by some kinetic penetrator or HEAT jet)...

[Dragon]

I'd go with the Merkava. Good all-round tank, can serve as APC in a pinch and IIRC, is quite cheap compared to other designs.

[WeatherOp]

My MBT will whip all these easy.



Sorry, couldn't resist.