Other Tanks

[db_zero]

We talk about the M1, Russian and German Leopards as being the best, but what about tanks produced by other nations?

I would say the Challenger is held in very high regard and the French Leclerc is pretty well regarded too. What about the South Korean K2 or Japanese Type 90?

China has the Type 99, India the Arjun-hopefully it’s not a disaster like INSAS assault rifle!

Does South America or other countries produce a main battle tank?

Sweden once made and used the S-tank which was interesting in many ways. Considering the success of the German and Soviets in WW2 using assault guns, it’s kind of surprising how it was just a short lived concept.

As a kid I and my friends though the AMX-13 with its SS-11 missiles mounted on it was really cool looking, but I guess the Israelis who received it thought otherwise.

Then there is the Merkava which has a very unusual layout. You can have infantry ride along in the back compartment. How has that worked out in actual practice? I also think it has a mortar mounted on it. I would think that a mortar or auto grenade launcher would be very useful, especially in urban combat. Imagine if that were mounted on a Abhrams

[MOS:96B2P]

<snip>

Then there is the Merkava which has a very unusual layout. You can have infantry ride along in the back compartment. How has that worked out in actual practice? I also think it has a mortar mounted on it. I would think that a mortar or auto grenade launcher would be very useful, especially in urban combat. Imagine if that were mounted on a Abhrams

 

It would be fun to work out tactical problems with the Merkava's unique abilities.  Tank riders inside the tank!  Maybe CMSF-2 module IDF?  

Nice to dream ....................

[db_zero]

It would be fun to work out tactical problems with the Merkava's unique abilities.  Tank riders inside the tank!  Maybe CMSF-2 module IDF?  

Nice to dream ....................

That would be interesting to work out and the mortar mounted on it would also be interesting to see in action. The front mounted engine is suppoed to give additional protection to the crew, but would a non penetrating hit to the front possibly cause loss of mobility due to the engine or some drive component being damaged?

 

Then there is the issue of a catastrophic hit not only destroying a tank and its crew, but also the mounted infantry. I guess it would be no different than losing a IFV, but being a tank you would probably use it more aggressively? idk...on the other hand if there was good cooperation and coordination the infantry could act as additional pairs of eyes for spotting, but I don't think it would be too pleasant for dismounted inantry to the near the tank when the main gun gets fired. I guess behind the tank may not be so bad.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Italy produces its own tank, the Ariete C1, from Iveco-OtoMelara consortium.

 

Which comes also with upgraded armor on turret and hull sides:

 

It's a modern MBT with 120mm gun, laser rangefinder, laser warning, Thermal, commander citv, TURMS fcs (already seen on CMSF T-72 in the T configuration), but the original concept and project goes down to the '80s and the vehicle is not a platform intended for decades (like the US M1). The worst part in my opinion is the armor protection, not at the level of modern times, the best one is the fire control/observation system, as the Italian Galileo is one of the best firms in the world for that.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Do we factor in the production numbers? Because most of them exist in low hundreds (and for some not even that many), and can be considered local curiosities. If we set the bar for noteworthiness at ~1000 vehicles, then only Type-96/99, K1 and Merkava (if we count all versions as the same model family) make the cut. If we lower it somewhat, then Leclerc and Challenger-1/2 (again, if counted as the same model family) can be considered also.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[womble]

There was a thread not so long ago with two "top ten MBTs" pieces linked in it.

[db_zero]

I didn't intend to start a top 10 list. I knew some if the tanks have low production levels. Just because a tank has low production levels doesn't always mean its a curiousity. The Challenger iirc doesn't have a huge production run, but some think its as good if not better than the Abhrams.

Just because a tank hasn't seen combat doesn't mean it was useless. Deterrence requires something to back it up.

The K2 may not be around in large numbers, but if it came down to it how many North Korean T-62s and T-55s would 1 be capable of destroying?

I'M just interested in the technology as well as any input on how well the crews of other nations stack up in term of training and operational performance.

I didn't know Italy produced its own main battle tank. I assumed it bought Leopards. I have to say it sorta has the same lines as a Ferrari.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well the Ferrari comparison is something we could discuss a lot...

 

Anyway, Italy used Leopard 1 and even managed to locally build weapons, turrets and similar assets to make a local Leo1 (export). When it came to substitute the Leo1 the Army (and governments) had two choices: try something locally made (thanks to the exports Italian weapon and heavy industry was capable of making tanks - yet quite unexperienced on complete systems) or buy Leo2 from Germany (as most Leo1 users did). Italy decided to make its own tank (and IFV/APC). A bad decision in my opinion as the development of the MBT Ariete (for example) took 20 years and I don't even want to know how much public money went on it (plus the related corruption).

 

In my opinion the best road would have been to keep making tanks under license, maybe part of them, such as the Leopard 2, which was a great platform back in the '90s and even as kids we knew it would have been a backbone tank for decades, eventually evolve the Leo2 using local technology and Army necessities, in any case we would have a better vehicle right now, and for the next future too.

 

panzersaurkraft is a former tank commander playing this game and responding on these forum, and he stated in another thread that has knowledge of the korean K.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Krasnoarmeyets]

I didn't intend to start a top 10 list.

...

I'M just interested in the technology as well as any input on how well the crews of other nations stack up in term of training and operational performance.

Ah, I see. I saw that the initial reference was to "the best", so I thought it would be about qualitative comparisons (of which produceability and fleet maintainability are large factors IMHO).

Edited March 18, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[VasFURY]

Best tank in the world - T-34/85. Gimme that against a leo2 or an m1 any day!

[agusto]

Pah, a T34/85...much too modern and outfitted with completely totally uneccessary gimmicks such as a cannon, optics, engines, etc. Give me a Xiphos, a spartan shortsword, and a Hoplon, a spartan shield, that should be enough to defeat any modern Main Battle Tank. First i will charge the tank frontally, protecting myself from its fire with my Hoplon, and then i will jump on the turret, rip the hatch open and unlesh hell on the crew using the Xiphos. That is how you kill a tank.

[db_zero]

Pah, a T34/85...much too modern and outfitted with completely totally uneccessary gimmicks such as a cannon, optics, engines, etc. Give me a Xiphos, a spartan shortsword, and a Hoplon, a spartan shield, that should be enough to defeat any modern Main Battle Tank. First i will charge the tank frontally, protecting myself from its fire with my Hoplon, and then i will jump on the turret, rip the hatch open and unlesh hell on the crew using the Xiphos. That is how you kill a tank.

Ha...that reminds me of the Civ1 and 2 days when a spearman would kill a tank unit or battleship. You would sit there and say to yourself wtf...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

panzersaurkraft is a former tank commander playing this game and responding on these forum, and he stated in another thread that has knowledge of the korean K.

 

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.

 

Re: K1A1

 

It's a pretty good tank.  The thing that takes getting used to is while the M1 was scaled to fit a 6'1 American type person without discomfort, the K1 was built around a 5'7 Korean tanker as the average crewman, so it looks, and feels tiny if you're a yankee imperialist like myself. It's still big when you're out and walking around it because it's a tank after all, but once you get up close, or even on top of the tank and around the hatches you realize you're dealing with a compact.

 

In terms of performance it's by easiest and most direct comparisons, about on par with a late 90's early 00's M1A1HC.  It does suffer from a lower ammo count due to smaller vehicle size, although the suspension will let you do some cool tricks (like letting the tank lean backwards to shoot higher up, or drop to get behind lower cover).  Optics and weapons package are again around that vintage, it lacks the crazy-heavy armor of the Abrams but has more than enough protection to ward off the 115/100 MM guns that represent the primary weapons of the DPRK's armor branch.  Nice tank, appears popular with the crews.

 

K2 is a bit more squirrely.  It offers some amazing capabilities on paper, but when I was active in Korea they were still having major issues with the drive train, both in reliability and longevity that kept it out of mainline service.  I used to ask our ROK counterparts if they were going to see a K2 in their battalion soon, and they'd just laugh.  It could also be their BN was the literal bottom of the upgrade order though.

 

Re: Type 99

 

I'd like to have a chance to operate one, and then hit it with various weapons systems.  Chinese claims and internet dwellers seem to think it's the mightiest tank on the planet, but what is known smells fishy (claims of 1000 RHA against KE, the ERA panels are HUGE for real ERA, there's a mysterious "magnum" ammo they claim is in operation that somehow still uses the same basic weapon and autoloader from a T-72).  If I was giving an educated guess I'd put in on par with late model pre-B3 T-72s, but from what I've heard/seen of Chinese hardware (one of our exchange officers from Ghana back at Career Course refered to the APCs he'd used from China as "utter garbage" and other choice words, from what I've seen it looked really good, but usually concealed some crippling QA/QC faults) I'm not unconvinced it won't fall apart if it leaves the motorpool.

 

Re:Arjun

 

Everything I've seen indicates it's "INSAS Rifle: The tank!" which is why the Indians are heavily invested in T-90s.

 

Re: Challenger

 

Not often seen due to budget cuts, but one of my soldiers got to mess with one during the pre-2003 Iraq invasion build up.  He described it as...like to summarize it's like getting into an opposite to your normal drive sided car.  Everything is 100% in the wrong spot, or in a way that is somehow painful or awkward if your heart doesn't flutter a bit when someone says "bangers and mash"

 

Combat record is good though so I imagine it's fine so long as you're properly English

 

Re: Leclerc

 

I was part of an exercise with the French.  It was a command post exercise so no actual vehicles, but being the tanknerd I am, I picked people's brains for information about AFVs.  Any positive comment I made about the Leclerc agreed to with "if she runs" or "when she works" following.  I get the impression it needs more love than normal.

 

Re: Merkava

 

The troop bay isn't really a troop bay, it's where something like 75% of the main gun rounds live.  The ammo racks can be removed to make room for troops.  All accounts are it's amazingly cramped even at just 3-4 soldiers.  The frontal engine is interesting too.  It does place some pretty major constraints on frontal armor though (as it liimts the amount of "dead space" you can include, and the practical weight of the portion covering the engine).  Good for crew survival.  

 

It's really a tank designed for Israel, top to bottom.  I can't think of anyone else who'd get much mileage out of her at this point.  

 

Re: T-34

 

It amuses me that despite being effectively just as "good" as the Sherman that it gets remembered as some sort of wondertank while the Sherman is panned as a rolling deathtrap.  Losses of both vehicles in Soviet use are entirely comparable, and the T-34/85 vs M4A3E8 fights in Korea all indicate the advantage is with the better crew rather than one of those tank being better. 

[Nidan1]

 

"It amuses me that despite being effectively just as "good" as the Sherman that it gets remembered as some sort of wondertank while the Sherman is panned as a rolling deathtrap.  Losses of both vehicles in Soviet use are entirely comparable, and the T-34/85 vs M4A3E8 fights in Korea all indicate the advantage is with the better crew rather than one of those tank being better." 

 

I think in a nutshell, your last sentence probably says it all about which tank of all the ones discussed here would do the best in combat. Of course any crew would need a decent machine to work with, but if you look at what the Israelis did to the Syrians on the Golan Heights with Super Shermans and Centurians in 1973, and what the US did to the Iraqi Republican Guard in Gulf War 1 with early M1 tanks, the tanks with better crews and in most cases better tactics and training inflicted heavy losses even when outnumbered.

[Djiaux]

You can't measure the cuality of a tank if you put the crew training in. The T-34 was a much better tank than the Sherman (IMHO) because it was so good when it came out, it was fairly superior to most if not all german tanks with a great combination of firepower, defense and mobility; crew training, optics, radio comunications and tactical doctrine were another thing and it was ineffective in the early stages of WW2, but it had great quality.

 

The Sherman? The Sherman wasn't any bad, it was great if you compare it with most british tanks, but it had less firepower and less protection, it was ok for mobility and maintenance and it had also a great quality for a tank, a good cost-efectiveness ratio.

 

In a phrase, the Sherman surprised and amazed no one, it was good, maybe great, but the T-34 was a W T F for german tankists.

 

To tell the truth I am amazed of how good the Sherman was, the US was also producing the M3 in 1941 and that was NOT a great tank : ) Soviet and German tanks were reasonable improvements from their predecessors, the Sherman is an order of magnitude better than its predecessor.

 

 

 

Hey, also a thought don't you think that in our day only the three main tank developers in WW2 keep making tanks? That would be the US, Germany and Russia. Many nations produce tanks but all are mostly variations from the old soviet models or from the US models, Germany would be an exception as they can produce an outstanding tank by themselves and everyone will buy it or copy it, just like in the old days.

 

...And like int the old days thet are eager to use it to take Mosc... ok, ok, I shut up.

[db_zero]

I was going to ask about the tanks in Asia being built for smaller statured males, but what got answered. I read in the past in Russia they put the smaller guys in tank units too-at least with the T-55 and T-62's

 

As for training the same holds true for other professions. When the Aggressors used F-5s they would give pilots using F-15's a F-16s a run for their money. I'm sure many of us in our everyday professions can attest to the value of good training and experience, but I can also say that some people, not matter how much you train or mentor are useless. Competence is one of those things you are either possess or don't.

 

Speaking of the Sherman, I don't know if this is fact or commonplace, but during the Normandy campaign crews became so scarce they would put non tankers into Shermans. I can't see that being a viable solution these days with the sophisticated systems on a tank.

 

Another bit of useless information. I've heard that Israeili tank crews, if given a choice would choose Centurion tanks over the Patton seriers of tanks. The main reason was the Centurion used electrical systems, while the Patton series of tanks used hydraulics which could get damaged, spray flammable hydraulics all over the interior and cause horrible burns to crewmen. Apparently they also learned the value of having disinfectants to clean and cover up the smell of human flesh in recovered and repaired tanks.

 

Being a tanker sounds like it can be a gruesome business if you happen to be on the losing side....

Edited March 19, 2015 by db_zero

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Crews

 

Definately the most important factor, but good kit and a good plan will carry you a fair ways.

 

Re: Sherman

 

Not to get too off track, so I'll keep it short

 

 

 

 

In a phrase, the Sherman surprised and amazed no one

 

Actually it caused a bit of a panic with the Germans in North Africa, and left quite a favorable impression with the British crews.  The Sherman more or less endured largely unchanged until 1944 not because the Allies were total dumbys and did not know how to build tanks, but instead because crews and the command were quite happy with its performance vs everything they'd encountered.  The first few hundred 76 MM equipped Shermans were simply left in England on D-Day because there was no perceived need for them.  Once it became apparent the Panther was not a new heavy tank, but instead the new German medium though, things changed a bit and you see the rush to upgun.  

 

If you compare the T-34 and Sherman track to track, they're effectively identical.  What killed a Sherman would kill a T-34.  What would shrug off T-34 fire is the same sort of tank that feared not the Sherman.  Ultimately the big differences were:

 

1. The T-34 had much lower ground pressure than the Sherman.

2. Sherman was much more reliable than the T-34

3. The Sherman was much easier on crewmen in terms of working space.

4. The late model Sherman's HVAP was superior by a decent margin to the later 85 MM type AT rounds.  

 

That's really about it.  If it'd been Americans with M34s, and Soviets with T4A1s the ultimate result would have been largely the same (kind of.  The attrition rates for T-34s on road marches makes the breakout from Normandy a less likely proposition if done with T-34s)

 

 

 

Speaking of the Sherman, I don't know if this is fact or commonplace, but during the Normandy campaign crews became so scarce they would put non tankers into Shermans. I can't see that being a viable solution these days with the sophisticated systems on a tank.

 

It was post Normandy mostly.  In a nutshell the Army numbermasters who calculated loss rates and required replacements did a very bad job at figuring out just how fast war would burn through infantrymen and tankers especially.  As the war went on folks were replaced mostly one for one with non-tankers (although sometimes tanks might have been manned entirely by non-tankers, the disastrous results from those crews generally meant this was avoided in all but last ditch moments).  Also at the same time there was a large number of "extra" soldiers from branches that had largely been sidelined or out of action.  Plenty of towed AT gun battalion, anti-aircraft gunners, and similar folks found themselves suddenly infantry or armor crewmen in the winter of 44'.

 

Re: Asian crewmen

 

Prior to the K1 the standard ROK tank was the M48, and one of the biggest complaints about it from the Koreans was it was just too big, things were too spaced out, and on a whole it cut into crew performance because things were just designed to fit a much bigger soldier.  When it came time to select another tank, the M1 was something the Koreans liked, but it was still too big, and they liked some of the Leo 2 features too (mostly the diesel engine), and thus opted to license the various pieces of the M1 and Leo 2 and then assemble them into a tank that was designed around your average Korean tanker of 1980.

 

Of course with improved nutrition and larger Koreans these days I have to wonder if it's not going to be too cramped in a few decades.

 

 

 

Being a tanker sounds like it can be a gruesome business if you happen to be on the losing side....

 

This is true with most military jobs.  All the same tanks can do some pretty terrible mojo when they're brewing up.  

[Michael Emrys]

The T-34 was a much better tank than the Sherman (IMHO) because it was so good when it came out, it was fairly superior to most if not all german tanks with a great combination of firepower, defense and mobility...The Sherman? ....In a phrase, the Sherman surprised and amazed no one, it was good, maybe great, but the T-34 was a W T F for german tankists.

 

Aside from not being entirely accurate, that statement is also based on an apples vs. oranges comparison. When the Germans encountered the T-34 their MBT was the Panzer III with the 50mmL/42 gun. Hell, a number of their divisions were still using the Czech design with a 37mm gun. When the Sherman appeared over a year later, the Germans were re-equiping with Panzer IIIs with the L/60 gun and the much more powerful Panzer IV with the 75mm L/48 gun. And the Sherman could still beat those.

 

The T-34 was the right tank at the right time and place, but so was the Sherman in a different time and place.

 

Michael

Edited March 19, 2015 by Michael Emrys

[womble]

The T-34 was a much better tank than the Sherman (IMHO) because it was so good when it came out, it was fairly superior to most if not all german tanks with a great combination of firepower, defense and mobility...

 

Similar things can be said about the Sherman. It was better protected than the PzIV. Panthers and Tigers were rare. It hit service later than the T-34 so the superiority wasn't as marked. But the T-34 had a two man turret, which was a serious deficiency corrected in later models. They're more equivalent than you think, with the Americans having had the chance to learn from some of the Russians' mistakes.

[VasFURY]

Would you agree/disagree, that on todays modern battlefield, armour is mostly derelict and more of a liability than a bonus, taking into account the vast amount of cheap anti-tank systems available that can take any armoured behemoth out with relative ease?

Edited March 19, 2015 by VasFURY

[Michael Emrys]

Would you agree/disagree, that on todays modern battlefield, armour is mostly derelict and more of a liability than a bonus, taking into account the vast amount of cheap anti-tank systems available that can take any armoured behemoth out with relative ease?

 

I'd disagree. Having a powerful mobile cannon under armor is still incredibly useful on the battlefield. But you have to be careful how you use them or they do end up as extremely expensive scrap. But that's been true at least since affordable and effective man-portable systems became available to the infantry, say around the end of 1942. And they were vulnerable long before that. It wasn't long after the British introduced the tank in WW I that the Germans were fielding anti-tank guns. So the idea that they were some kind of invulnerable all-conquering juggernauts was never a whole lot more than myth. Nevertheless, they were obviously adding a new dimension to land warfare. Even the myth was useful as their mere presence on the battlefield could cow the infantry like nothing else. And today's tanks can hand out instant death on a massive scale. But the key as always is careful and intelligent use.

 

Michael

[Thewood1]

Infantry didn't become obsolete with the invention of the rifle, nor with the advent of artillery.  Its use just changed.

[VasFURY]

It just pains me to see all the burned out wrecks of tanks and armoured vehicles from the various recent conflicts ongoing in the world - as Michael correctly said: expensive pieces of scrap, because of simple and inexpensive counter-tank weapons and tactics deployed by infantry. Donbass has shown us that even untrained miners can take care of BTR's and the like.

[Thewood1]

What you aren't seeing is the rest of the destruction.  You see AFVs because they burn nicely and are not easily removed.  BTRs can be very effective if used properly.  But I wonder how many soldiers not in AFVs get killed that no one pays attention to because they tend to get removed.  There is still no better counter to artillery than something with armor.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Would you agree/disagree, that on todays modern battlefield, armour is mostly derelict and more of a liability than a bonus, taking into account the vast amount of cheap anti-tank systems available that can take any armoured behemoth out with relative ease?

 

I'd disagree very strongly.  

 

 

 

It just pains me to see all the burned out wrecks of tanks and armoured vehicles from the various recent conflicts ongoing in the world - as Michael correctly said: expensive pieces of scrap, because of simple and inexpensive counter-tank weapons and tactics deployed by infantry. Donbass has shown us that even untrained miners can take care of BTR's and the like. 

 

World War One did not render infantry obsolete because we saw millions of dead infantrymen, it just changed the way war was fought because we had to find ways to avoid getting millions of infantrymen killed.

 

Killing a tank is a dicey proposition.  I could go on and on about different weapons systems, but generally what we have is an evolutionary (vs revolutionary) arms race between tank and anti-tank.  RPGs seem ultra cool and dangerous, except for realistically they're about as dangerous as panzerfausts were to tanks from the 40's as modern tanks are to RPGs (perhaps even less so).  ATGMs are dangerous too, but again, increase protection against chemical warheads, ERA. investment in APS type systems, all show that the ability for a tank to kill, or be killed is pretty much locked in a very narrow seesawing.  Sometimes the tank is more powerful (I would argue that to be the case now, outside of the Javelin most infantry AT weapons are a bit behind the times), sometimes the AT system is more powerful (see when HEAT was king in the 60's and the very early ATGM period).  

 

But saying the tank is obsolete at this rate is nearly equally likely to having a tank that renders all anti-tank obsolete.