Are all the modern western tanks pretty similar in performance ?

[Hannibal]

As an american I would assume that the M1A1 is the best tank in the World,but since it apears that the west has shared alotof tech. I would assume that all the western tanks are pretty similar when it come to firepower and protection .

[JasonC]

Merkava is arguably better, in pure gun and armor terms (especially the latter, crew survival etc). Leopard II is at least as good (2A6 model and onward has a superior L55 gun, vs. the L44 on the Abrams). Challenger 2 marginally worse, but only marginally (basically as good as an M1A1, not quite the electronics of an M1A2 SEP).

Russian T-90, comparable if the electronics suite is up to best Russian standards, otherwise a modest edge to the M-1 in vision and sensor gear and somewhat better ballistic computer. The ERA is at least as good as M-1 protection, for the first hit on a given plate at least.

M-1 was arguably best in the world when it first appeared, but it is by now quite an old tank. The upgrades since inception have been to firepower (120mm smoothbore, German, taken from the early model Leopard IIs) and to sensors and fire control (SEP package especially).

Since then, the Germans have been improving the guns, the Israelis tank layout for protection, and the Russians explosive reactive armors. The US has concentrated on sensor tech and on board computers.

[Hannibal]

How do the Leclere and Ariete compair ?

[C'Rogers]

JasonC or anyone else on the matter.

But would you say they are all, relatively, similar? Compared to say the tank difference in WWII

[M1A1TC]

M1 Abrams is the best! (I am a little biased)

[Holman]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

JasonC or anyone else on the matter.

But would you say they are all, relatively, similar? Compared to say the tank difference in WWII

From what I know, the field of comparison is much tighter now than it was in WW2. WW2 saw a bewildering variety of armored vehicles, and different nations' main AFVs reflected very different design philosophies. Nowadays, it's kind of like every country has fielded their own best, most faithful copy of a Pershing II.

[civdiv]

A bit off topic but I read somewhere that some country (Iran?) has a Merkava (probably an older model) on display that they claimed to have captured. You can't get anywhere near the tank as supposedly it is made out of plywood.

[Wicky]

Looks fake as you say

Inside the Hizballah Museum

Originally posted by civdiv:

A bit off topic but I read somewhere that some country (Iran?) has a Merkava (probably an older model) on display that they claimed to have captured. You can't get anywhere near the tank as supposedly it is made out of plywood.

[gibsonm]

Yes, from a very quick glance at the magazine photo, the barrel is only about half length for starters.

[FAI]

Why the Abrams don't sport ERA?

[M1A1TC]

Abrams armor is good enough - it doesnt need ERA

[FAI]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Abrams armor is good enough - it doesnt need ERA

What about tandem HEAT warhead?

I know it's probably armor overkill, at least I'm guessing it would be easier to replace ERA tiles than to repair damaged armor.

[Secondbrooks]

Abrams is heavy enough already, i don't know can it take much more weight? Heavy ERA-blocks aren't fairies.

No HEAT should get thru M1A2's (as well as any modern tank's) frontal armor of turret. There might be few warheads which can do this, but you gotta save weight. Even Russians aren't stuffing heavy ERA everywhere, just to most critical parts. aprox 60% in frontal sector.

[Barleyman]

One thing that blows my mind about Abrams is that they never put in a darn periscope. Until the high-tech-doo-dad from A2.

I guess kraut invention just can't make sense? Or there's always more boys from reserves to put their head out of the hatch..

[Jon Hagstad]

Wow, the Merkava looks very impressive, maybe the US should purchase?

[oren_m]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Yes, from a very quick glance at the magazine photo, the barrel is only about half length for starters.

The whole tank is half the size compared to the real one, and the front hull sloping armor is ridiculous.

I dont know about the M1A2, but the Merkava Mk4. has an internal company comm system which works somewhat like the internet and let's the comapny share it's targets and sightings with each other.

oren_m

[Piecekeeper]

I saw a program on Discovery where they thought the swedish version of the Leopard 2 was the best tank in the world. MIA2 is a great tank but i think its gasturbine engine is there weakest point.

[General Jack Ripper]

Does anyone have any info about how effective the Arena active and ****ora-1 passive protection systems are, like on the T-90?

I have info on how it works from the FAS website, but it has no information about how effective something like that would be in the field.

EDIT: Link http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90.htm

[SgtMuhammed]

oren,

That is what the digitization systems do for the M1.

The arguments about what can kill what or which tank is better are pretty pointless. Lab results rarely translate into real results. The most important factor is the training of the crew as long as there isn't a gross inequality in equipment.

[Peter Cairns]

I think it doesn't really matter as over the next few years the next generation of small armed UAV's will be with us.

For 10% of the value of an MBT, armed with two to four Javelin type rounds and the ability to target for long range terminally guided MRL's, tanks will just be battlefield junk.

Peter.

[oren_m]

Not true Peter, every time a new technology is introuduced to the battlefield someone jumps and say that tanks are history.

Maybe the look of the tank will be different in the future, but the concept of a vehicle that would be able to provide heavy fire power will last for several good decades.

You still cant occupy an area without troops and tanks, wars, in general, cannot be won only with air power, look at the 2'nd Lebanon war in 2006.

Oren_m

[Peter Cairns]

Oren,

Infantry hold ground tanks don't. What you need to be able to do is bring firepower to bare accurately on the enemy. In the past artillery couldn't do that without excessive volumes of fire, now it can.

A networked UAV can bring to bare more firepower than a company of tank and it's better protected that a metre of armour because the best protection is not being able to be hit.

At 2,000m it can pick off tanks all day at not one in the world can touch it. It can stay airborne for close to 48 hrs bringing in MRL rounds that can hit a moving target from 60 miles away.

As in the Balkans you can hide tanks, but then they just become pillboxes waiting to be destroyed. What 2006 shows is that you can't win a war with air superiority alone, but without it you can't win at all.

Although you do have my sympathy.....

Aafter nearly five decades of trying to develop the worlds best tank Israel has produced it, in time for it becoming obsolete.

Peter.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by oren_m:

Not true Peter, every time a new technology is introuduced to the battlefield someone jumps and say that tanks are history.

Maybe the look of the tank will be different in the future, but the concept of a vehicle that would be able to provide heavy fire power will last for several good decades.

You still cant occupy an area without troops and tanks, wars, in general, cannot be won only with air power, look at the 2'nd Lebanon war in 2006.

Oren_m

Agreed. Personally, I kinda like the idea of an air portable mech force (i.e. Future Combat Systems), with UAV's and beyond line-of-sight weaponry as a substitute for heavy armour and big guns.

But the trend seem to be back towards heavy vehicles. Apparently, the US Army Stryker/USMC LAV are being overhauled, bringing their weight well beyond the limits of a C-130. And the Abrams/Bradley HBCT are recieving "spiral" spinoff technology from FCS (rather than all budget focus being on the FCS vehicles).

A true air mobile/air portable force (as originally envisaged with FCS) will fore the foreseeable future likely be a specialised rapid reaction force, like the 82nd and 101st divisions with extra (light) armoured vehicles, based on existing designs. Or so my crystal ball tells me...

Peter Cairns,

You're saying that UAV's and precision munitions make the MBT obsolete the way the aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete in WW2? A valid point, but I just don't think we're at that point. Yet.

[ January 28, 2008, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]

[YankeeDog]

Meh. I suspect tanks, in one form or another, are going to be an important part of first-world militaries' OOB and doctrine for the rest of my lifetime at least. Unmanned combat vehicles are clearly an ascendant techology, and will certainly take over more and more of the roles that manned vehicles (and even footsoldiers) currently cover, but I don't think they will completely replace manned vehicles (ground or aircraft) anytime soon.

There is still value to having human decision-making ability at the point of contact. And as long as this is the case, there's going to be an incentive to give that human decision-maker at the point of contact protection, firepower and mobility. Which, of course, is exactly what a tank does. Now, the nature of the firepower and protection will probably change. For example, I think it's likely that active defense will eventually replace thick, heavy passive defense armor. Next generation is likely to be a more lightly armored vehicle that relies on an advanced, active defense suite to eliminate heavier incoming rounds. But that's still basically a tank to me.

As a paralell, I think it's instructive to look at the history of the rifleman, and his place in military doctrine. In modern military history, the rifleman probably reached his apogee in the mid-19th century; in wars like the Amercian Civil war, the foot soldier with his personal firearm was overwhelmingly the dominant weapon on the field. Increases in firearms' rate of fire, range and accuracy had largely relegated cavalry to a supporting role by this time, and artillery was still relatively short-ranged, and reliant on direct observation; while important, it had not yet become the massive killer that it would be by the First World War.

Since that time, new technologies and doctrines, such as the machine gun, indirect fire artillery, the tank and the aircraft, have gradually eroded the rifleman's dominance on the battlefield. But he certainly hasn't gone away; as Peter notes, he's still critical to holding ground. He may not be the dominant unit he was in 1860, but he still has important place in the doctrine that is modern combined arms.

Similarly, I believe that tanks were at their most dominant as a military system from roughly 1940 through maybe 1960 or so, and that their place on the modern battlefield has since been gradually waning. But they're certainly not yet irrelevant, and I don't think they're going become irrelevant anytime soon. Newer tanks will probably break current paradigms, and look to new techologies, like active defense, for protection and firepower. They may also become less numerous in military inventories. But I think most first world militaries will still carry heavy armor on their OOB, and that said heavy armor will have a place in doctrine, for the foreseeable future. Large heavy armor vs. heavy armor engagements like Kursk, Fulda Gap, or The Battle of 73 Easting may become incrasingly unlikely in the future, but I'm pretty sure heavy armor will be in the mix somewhere. . .

Cheers,

YD

[RSColonel_131st]

Peter, your UAV can be shot down, blinded, jammed...tons of methods to deal with them. It just hasn't happened yet since the current wars see little organized Anti-Air Defense on the enemy side, and the threat of armed UAVs is very young.

The Airplane didn't make tanks obsolte, why should UAVs do so?