Which is the best tank?

**Bill** · 28 Jan 04,, 23:09

A good example of how to develop and maintain momentum is the attack of the US VII corps in ODS.

Gen Franks clustered 4 divisions on a front that would normally be occupied by only two divisions.

His focused combat power was able to smash everything in it's path and maintain the momentum of the attack until he ceased the corps advance to realign his forces for the final attack on the (now retreating) RGFC forces.

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Jan 04,, 05:44

M21,

The RGFC didn't retreat in 91. Saddam offerred them up as the sacrafice to save the rest of his army (Medina Ridge and 73 Eastings).

As for momentum, this would have to become a classic but Gen Tommy Franks plan to drive to Baghdad while leaving significant hostiles in rear areas (ie the Iraqi 51st Infantry Division in Basra). The bold (and somewhat idiotic) moves by 3-7Cav. And the 187BCT in northern Iraq.

It would be studied and frankly, too bold for my nerves.

**smilingassassin** · 30 Jan 04,, 23:42

Getting back to the original posts idea lets look at the competetors and those mentioned in addition to them on paper.

M1A1 Abrams
Weight: 54,269 kg/119,392 lb
Range: 450km/280 miles
Armament: 1x105mm, 2x7.62mm,1x12.7mm MG
Powerplant: Avco Lycoming AGT-1500 Gas turbine, 1500 hp
Performance: Road speed 72.5km/45mph, fording 1.219m/4ft, vertical obstacle 1.244m/4ft 1", trench 2.743m/9ft

Challenger 2
Weight: 62,500 kg/137,500 lb
Range: 400km/250 miles
Armament: 1x120mm, 2x7.62mm
Powerplant: liquid cooled diesel engine, 1200 hp
Performance: Road speed 57km/35.6mph, fording 1m/3ft 4", vertical obstacle 0.9m/2ft 10", trench 2.8m/9ft 2"

T-80
Weight: 48,363 kg/106,400 lb
Range: 450km/281 miles
Armament: 1x125mm, 1x7.62mm,1x12.7mm MG
Powerplant: multi fuel Gas turbine, 1000 hp
Performance: Road speed 70km/43.75mph, fording 5m/16ft 5", vertical obstacle 1m/3ft 4", trench 2.85m/9ft 4"

Merkava (no stats onlater marks)
Weight: 55,898 kg/122,976 lb
Range: 500km/310 miles
Armament: 1x105mm, 1x7.62mm
Powerplant: Teledyne Continental V-12 diesel 900 hp
Performance: Road speed 46km/28.6mph, vertical obstacle 1m/3ft 3.3", trench 3m/9ft 10"

Leopard 2
Weight: 54,981 kg/120,960 lb
Range: 550km/342 miles
Armament: 1x120mm, 2x7.62mm
Powerplant: MTU 12 cylinder multi fuel, 1500 hp
Performance: Road speed 72km/45mph, fording 1m/3ft 3", vertical obstacle 1.1m/3ft 7.25", trench 3m/9ft 10"

Leclerc
Weight: 53,500 kg/117,700 lb
Range: 550km/345 miles
Armament: 1x120mm, 1x7.62mm,1x12.7mm
Powerplant: SAEM 8 cylinder diesel, 1500 hp
Performance: Road speed 73km/45.6mph, fording 1m/3ft 3", vertical obstacle 1.25m/4ft 1", trench 3m/9ft 10"

Now what do you want the tank for? If your israel the merkava is perfect for your needs...your not going to be charging accross the desert or feilds so speed and range is a luxury. Armor is your freind and a really big gun can demolish any house filled with baddies. You can carry your own infantry support to boot.
If your a cold warrior you have plenty of tanks to pick, want armor? Pick a western tank. Care to swim?, pick the
T-80. If I were to pick a tank for true tank vs. tank warfare I'd pick the Leopard 2 for capability's or the M1A1 Abrams, with favortism going towards the Leopard 2. The German tank has good armor, a big gun (which everyone likes) and a longer range than an Abrams with an engine of similar horsepower and a similar speed.

**Praxus** · 30 Jan 04,, 23:48

The Abrams have 120mm gun, they havn't had 105mm for a long time.

**Bill** · 31 Jan 04,, 01:05

"The RGFC didn't retreat in 91. Saddam offerred them up as the sacrafice to save the rest of his army (Medina Ridge and 73 Eastings)."

Only the Medina, and a portion of the Twalkana divisions laid back and screened the retreating army of the Iraqis.

All the other RGFC divisions escaped back into Iraq.

The medina was smashed into oblivion as was much of the twalkana. The rest got away more or less intact.

**smilingassassin** · 31 Jan 04,, 22:16

"The Abrams have 120mm gun, they havn't had 105mm for a long time."

My specs are somewhat outdated now.....oops!:ar15 :taynk :RW

**tomas** · 02 Feb 04,, 10:33

assassin

still some very nice info there i would ask
what about armour how think is it but i know it is classified by the military still would like to know though.

ps who voted for the T-80?

**SOLDIER 81** · 06 Feb 04,, 02:47

I don't want to insult anyone, but the M1A2 has to be finest tank ever built. If a tank is invulnerable to the gunfire of its sister tanks, and therefore invulnerable to gunfire from all other tanks, I don't see how the other tanks listed could be better.

**Ray** · 06 Feb 04,, 04:55

Big Ross,

I have seen the Arab armies. I dont rate them high. Rather laid back but a whole lot of rhetorics and brauhaha [spelling!].

One chap didnt want to climb a small hill, because he didnt have hills in this country! Thats just an example of what I experienced with them.

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 04,, 05:03

Sir,

Mayhaps this would interest you.

Why Arabs Lose Wars

**Smoke286** · 27 Feb 04,, 00:36

Originally posted by Ironman
I would go with what has been proven in battle.

Where has the Abrams been battle tested that the Challenger hasnt? also the Merkava was designed after years of battle experience from the iDF

**Smoke286** · 27 Feb 04,, 00:45

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers

Also, none of their battles would stand up in comparison to the meat grinders of WWII. While not discounting their worth, they do not have the experience of fighting a truly competent and effective enemy like the Wehrmacht in Oratona or Berlin.
This is reflective of their MOUT doctrine of bringing tanks without inf support into the cities. I really doubt the IsDF would survive an Oratona.

I would suggest you do some reading on the 73 war there were some pretty fierce battles involved there, and not to nitpick, but the canadian 1st Inf Div fought the German 1st Falshrimjager Div in Ortona, not the Wehrmacht

**Smoke286** · 27 Feb 04,, 00:52

Originally posted by bigross86
What about 1973? That was all tanks. And Avigdor Kahalani holding back the whole Syrian Army with three tanks, scoring almost 200 kills?

Hey Bigroos, i have his book, its all the more amazing when you realize the syrians had scads of brand new T-62's with night vision equipment and the Israeli's had none. I believe by the end of the battle his bat=talion had 2 working tanks left.

**Smoke286** · 27 Feb 04,, 00:59

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
I believe you answered your own question.. The Israelis never fought an adaptive enemy. It is not a fair comparison to those armies that had.

In the case of the Wehrmacht, they took the lessons the enemy inflicted upon them and then outmaster the master. Chuikov was given the title of the father of MOUT (Military Operations in an Urban Terrain) development. However, he was surely outclassed by Kesselring.

To give you an example, the Wehrmacht would hold a building, force the enemy to take the building, then blow up the building, hopefully to land on the road or better yet, a road with alot of troops and tanks, and then come again to take over the building ruins, forcing the enemy to retake it, using foot infantry because no tank was going to get by the rubble.

The allied answer was simply to blow up the building in the first place, hopefully away from the road and then slug it out with superior numbers and fire.

Where in all of the IsDF history did they face that kind of enemy?

Hmmm, the specter of Ortona was brought up earlier where the Canadians proved much more adoptive in Urban warfare settings then the germans. When it proved too costly to capture buildings in the city by assaulting them from the street Canadians developed the process of "mouseholing by which they would attack an enemy held house form an adjacent one and breech the wall either by blowing it with explosives or failing that by using Piats, then rush in and capture the building, then move on to the next.
As far as fighting an adaptive army, just who were you refering to, Iraq?

**Smoke286** · 27 Feb 04,, 01:02

Originally posted by SOLDIER 81
I don't want to insult anyone, but the M1A2 has to be finest tank ever built. If a tank is invulnerable to the gunfire of its sister tanks, and therefore invulnerable to gunfire from all other tanks, I don't see how the other tanks listed could be better.

Why? What makes it invulrable, Soldier you sound like your reading from an army manual