1. M1A2 SEP Abrams (System Enhancement Package) / General Dynamics Land Systems Division / USA
2. Merkava Mark IV / The Israel Ordnance Corps / Israel
3. Type 90 / Mitsubishi Heavy Industries / Japan
4. Leopard 2A6 / Krauss-Maffei Wegmann / Germany
5. Challenger 2 / Vickers Defence Systems Division / United Kingdom
Forecast International Re-evaluates Main Battle Tank Market
Ranks M1A2 SEP Abrams
World£§s Best Combat Tank
PARIS , [June 14, 2004] ¡ª In light of the global war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom , the Forecast International Weapons Group has re-evaluated its annual ranking of the world£§s best main battle tanks. With an unmatched combat record in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present) , the M1A1 Abrams by General Dynamics Land Systems Division has clearly proven itself to be the premier main battle tank in service today. Based on its combat debut with the U.S. 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) during Operation Iraqi Freedom , the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) Abrams now sets the international standard for main battle tank performance.
¡°With the demands of the global war on terror , we no longer have the luxury of evaluating weapons systems solely on their performance in the safe confines of a training environment , ¡± said Dean Lockwood , author of the Forecast International rankings. ¡°For man and machine alike , combat has a way of revealing previously unknown strengths and weaknesses , ¡± Lockwood said.
When viewed through the prism of actual combat performance , the annual main battle tank ranking takes on a radically different character from years past. The Israel Ordnance Corps Merkava Mark IV moves up to second place in the Forecast International ranking. Although generally considered to be outside the mainstream of international tank development , the Merkava series is uniquely suited for the demands of the Israeli security environment. Like the M1A1 Abrams , the Merkava can boast a proven combat record.
Japan£§s Type 90, by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries , maintains its third-place position on the Forecast International list. Drawing heavily on German Leopard 2 technology , the Type 90 is arguably the most technologically advanced main battle tank in service today. However , the Type 90 suffers from being untried in combat. As such , its performance remains essentially theoretical. For the same reason , the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6 falls to fourth place. The oft-praised advanced features of the Leopard 2 and the integration of the Rh 120/55 main armament simply cannot compensate for the fact that the Leopard 2A6 remains untested in the crucible of combat.
Fifth place on the Forecast International ranking belongs to the British Challenger 2 by Vickers Defence Systems Division. Like the Abrams , the Challenger 2 has earned a solid combat record during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In comparison with the other tanks on this list , however , the Challenger 2 suffers from the lack of NATO-standard ordnance. Should the U.K. Ministry of Defence adopt the NATO-standard 120mm Rh 120 ordnance as part of the Challenger Lethality Improvement Program (CLIP) , the Challenger 2 will likely take over second place on this list.
Forecast International , Inc., is a leading provider of Market Intelligence and Analysis in the areas of aerospace , defense , power systems and military electronics. Based in Newtown , CT , USA , Forecast International specializes in long-range industry forecasts and market presentations , including regular 10-year forecasts. Its products are utilized by strategic planners , marketing professionals , military organizations , and governments worldwide. To arrange an interview with Forecast International£§s analysts , please contact Monty Nebinger (203-426-0800, monty.nebinger@forecast1.com)
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
That's the most ridiculous forecasting I've ever seen. They based the performance of a tank simply because they have been on the battlefield. They didn't take into consideration whether, those tanks have never faced any decent opponents, which ironically leads us to the fact these tanks are not really combat proven.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Leopard2A6EX is the monster MBT around. How can they place that so low on the list? I mean a tank that can stop top-attack EEP with standard armor package has got to be getting a better rating.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
>> The oft-praised advanced features of the Leopard 2 and the integration of the Rh 120/55 main armament simply cannot compensate for the fact that the Leopard 2A6 remains untested in the crucible of combat. <<
That isn't a very good arguement.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
i was under the impression the challenger11 battle tank preformed better than the m1a1 tank? none were lost in the entire combat and they preformed excllently? also the leo has got to be higher!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Don't worry, i won't flame you for showing the flag, unless you start claiming U.S Vine to be better than ours.
The rest looks too much like manufacturers brochures to get upset about it.
This message has been edited by sampaix on Jun 21, 2004 1:39 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yeah, great ranking. Leo2A6 beats all tanks in trials and tests, so let's move it down the ranks and put Israeli Merkeva4 on the second place behind the American Abrams.
Let me just ask me right hand who is the best and most sexy man on earth... It's official, it's me.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
After all- I knew the the Leopard 2A6 is better than the Abrams anyway, Abrams is No.2 and the Leclerc is properly not on the Top 5 list.....
take that Frenchies....
I'm gonna wave the flag again anyway!!
I will credit the better tank and be diplomatic and all
Let's take the tour of the 3 other tanks nations that deserve an honorable mention..
Lets not forget our English speaking brothers:
"To secure the peace is to prepare for war." George Washington and later Metallica.
This message has been edited by apexace2000 on Jun 21, 2004 8:51 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the japanese type 90 looks like the german leopard 2a4 or something on that order.
how is it ranked higher than the german leopard 2ex6? what did the japanses put into their tank? do they constantly upgrade it? how is it still the most technologially advanced tank in the world?
anyone have more info on the type 90?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
not even a word on the T-90? Makes no sense in my humble opinion. At least a word or two on why the T-90 sucks would do. But to ignore Russian armor all together is just an insult.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
There's really little known about Russian tanks- at least little known about ones that have'nt been taken out by Hellfire missiles:
Anyway- I finally found a good place for pics, I want to exercise it a bit:
"To secure the peace is to prepare for war." George Washington and later Metallica.
This message has been edited by apexace2000 on Jun 21, 2004 10:14 PM This message has been edited by apexace2000 on Jun 21, 2004 10:14 PM This message has been edited by apexace2000 on Jun 21, 2004 10:04 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Don't be insulting anyone- it badly reflects your intelligence....
I'm certainly no flaming troll.
Anyway, let's focus on the thread title, not on me, I know I generate a crowd, but try to focus.
About the 'Hello Afghanistan' Vietnam reference- Koz4k, have a Brit explain it to you..... cough- dark humor- cough
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree though you can't compare a battle proven tank to one that is'nt, for the very fact that there is'nt as much information available about an unproven tank, whereas there is a mountain of data to consume about one who has been baptised by the fire of combat.
Personal Ranking of Tanks:
1. Leopard 2A6
2. M1A2 Abrams
3. Type 90
4. Challenger 2
5. Leclerc
6. Merkava Mark IV
"To secure the peace is to prepare for war." George Washington and later Metallica.
P.S.: Please keep personal insults to a minimum
This message has been edited by apexace2000 on Jun 22, 2004 1:12 AM This message has been edited by apexace2000 on Jun 22, 2004 12:55 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Type90 is an okay tank, good armor - frontal anyway - good FCS and all. It seems a bit much to be on top 3 though. Many Korean military experts compare Type90 and K1A1 comparable on armor and firepower specs. Type90 has not undergone a significant upgrade since the 90s when they were first produced. Their tech is slightly outdated, and certain not on par with upgraded SEP1 or Leo2A6.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Off topic again, but does anyone have some pics and info on the black eagle. I have found ome credible sites that say the research was resumed in 2002/03, and it might be ready for a prototype by 2008-2010.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Original M1?? It is a little more advanced that that, if you read the link, you would see the number of breakthrough technology on a russian tank. M1A1 would go up against t-80, dont even know if even that, i need to loom at its specs first.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
whatever this is pointless. Eventually an M1 will go head to head with a T-80 or T-90 somewhere and we shall see until then all this is speculation. As it is the US has NEVER even faced top of the line T-72's or T-64's.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
GUYS Every year this group of nominds comes out with their ranking. For years its caused considerable critism cause they always ranked the LEO-2A6 first and M-1A2 second C-2 and LEclerc where in the top 5 [can't remember the placing] and Merk was below and Jap type-90 even lower.
Truth be told there is not a whole lot to choose from between the NATO big 4 [Leclerc/C-2/M-1A2/Leo-2A6] They have different employment strategies which explains the differences....they are all the top tanks.
To have reversed the ranks suddenly suggest the writers 'saw the light' and became reborn or some such rubbish. Basing ratings on lack of combat experience is pathetic criteria...by that standard Pz-III is superior to LEO-2A6 simply cause its been in combat a whole lot more and won many battles
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I find it pretty ridiculous to base such a ranking on actual combat experience. The technical advantage of the Leopard 2 A-6 was, again and again, proven in successfull trials where it beat the Abrahams. As pointed out earlier, the US faced a second class military with obsolete equipment in an environment where the US could play out their superior optics and sensors - against an enemy using technology 20-30 years older ... the most modern tank the US faced in Iraq was the T-72, and the most frequent one the T-55. Just a point and that much for the label "combat tested".
The Abrahams armor is excellent, no doubt but it is excessively heavy and has gas turbine propulsion - requiring a lot of more fuel than the Leo would need and even then it results in a lower operational range. And, oh wonder, the Abrahams experienced problems in fuel supply ... iirc the Leo moves 100km further off road with less fuel. This little aspect of economy was one of the prime killers in trials amnd resulted in the US eventually, some 15 years late, thinking about diesel propulsion for export offers ... more on that at the end.
The high weight of the Abrahams also limits it's cross country mobility and results in a higher ground pressure compared the Leopard - even in versions that were still "lighter". That is, in muddy european terrain the Abrahams would be at a disadvantage.
The whole table is sort of silly.
The Merkava is always something like the odd man because this tank doesn't match european NATO rail transport dimensions - it is too large. The tank sure is very survivable but likely in the motorisation range of the Challenger - that is fairly mobile and agile, but very likely cannot beat the Leopard 2 A-6 there. But as it is designed for a more static role that isn't necessary anyway.
Weighing in at just 50 tons I find it hard to believe that the japanese Type 90 can actually compete with Leopard 2 A-6, Abrahams, Merkava Mk.4, Leclerc or Challenger in terms of protection.
The Challenger 2 has probably even better armor protection than the Leopard and the Abrahams, but it is heavier and underpowered, resulting in high ground pressure and reduced mobility. The key reason for the lack of export success was the british 120mm rifled gun, that, while potent, doesn't use the NATO standard 120mm smoothbore ammo but a seperated (like russian guns) ammo with charge and actual projectile. The Challenger is very very survivable and has a heavy punch.
The Leclerc has a special flat turret, resulting in a lower profile, quite an advantage on the battlefield. Germany as well evaluated such a turret for a possible Leopard 2 upgrade. The low profile comes at the price of ballistic windows on the turret and decreased stability of the turret structure, complicating gun integration - and that was the reason why Germany didn't choose that turret design for a Leopard upgrade.
The Leclerc's GIAT gun though outperforms the 120mm L/44 gun of the earlier Leopard 2 versions.
The Leclerc's hyperbar diesel engine, though very compact, has a hight fuel consupmtion too - the reason why the export leclercs for the UAE have german MTU diesels. It is a very modern and capable tank and it's modular amor is quite effective. Optics are just excellent.
That russian tank designs were left out sheds light on the ... patriotic view on things in this listing. The new russian designs have very respectable combat abilities and the russian T-90 sure is a formidable beast.
"Differences between the Leopard 2 and the U.S. M1A1 Abrams tanks have caused considerable debate over which is the better MBT, although some observers would argue for including the British Challenger tank as well. The Leopard 2 has advantages over the Abrams in the commander's independently stabilized and slewable sighting system, the gunner's binocular sight, and the tank's fuel mileage, particularly when idling. The track is also said to have been much more reliable, once early problems were resolved.
The greatest advantage over the Abrams is in the Leopard 's relative fuel economy. According to manufacturer's figures, the Abrams turbine's fuel consumption at best speed for maximum range is 0.58 miles per gallon (0.25 liters per km); the Leopard 's 1.08 miles per gallon (0.46 liters per km) is nearly twice as good. More practically stated, the Leopard travels 56 mi (90 km) farther on 57 percent less fuel. Fuel consumption while idling is the turbine's weakest point, consumption at idle being perhaps three times as much as the diesel. On the other hand, the German engine weighs more than twice as much as the AGT-1500 turbine and occupies more volume."
That means: Some 2-3 Leopards can live with the logistic train of a single Abrahams, which brings up the question of economy of force. Plus, the Leopards's multifuel engine can run on any sort of fuel if there is at least some 20% (iirc) diesel in it. It is much less demanding than the Abrahams turbine. Another tactical advantage.
***
"Power has a way of undermining judgment, of planting delusions of grandeur in the minds of otherwise sensible people and otherwise sensible nations."
– Senator J. William Fulbright, 1966
This message has been edited by Ragusa on Jun 24, 2004 8:51 PM This message has been edited by Ragusa on Jun 24, 2004 8:44 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The top 5 list should have included the leapord and challenger tanks in the top 2 spots (respectfully), but im not complaining about the leclercs absensce.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Actually, most serious tankers will tell you the Merkava Mk IV is the best tank in the world. The difference between the rest (M1, Leo II, Chally, Leclerc) aren't big enough to really make a difference.
As always though, it is not the tanks that make the difference, but the men in them and the support they receive. The M1 may not be the best tank in the world, but I guarentee that a US tank battalion/regiment/brigade will defeat the same in any other Army in the world, due the overwhelming superiority of the rest of the US military. Equip the US tank regiments with any other tank you like, the result will be the same.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
There are a few interesting commentaries about the Merkava by Marsh Gelbert:
On suspension: - "There is a distinction between speed over good going and battlefield manoeuverability over tangled terrain. The Merkava has a greater range of movement (bump/rebound) for its roadwheels than other modern MBTs coupled to a really good suspension system. It also has the ability to climb slopes of 70 degrees, again somewhat better than its contemporaries. In combination, this gives it better tactical mobility than most competators. The Merkava 3s excellent transmission means that actual power available at the drive sprockets is around 18 hp down on the M1A1 even though on paper the difference in hp is 200 in favour of the Abrams powerpack. When observing the Merkava and Abrams traversing rough terrain, Maj Gen Stan Sheridan was very surprised that he could not discern any difference between the two. (IDF tankers who exercised alongside the Abrams still claim that the machine "couldn't climb like the Merkava"). Sheridan was to rate the Merkava 3, Abrams and Leopard 2 as being on a par as MBTs, followed somwhat behind by Challenger - for the record my favourite tank."
The Merkava's unique design:
"There are very good reasons why a front-engined design is seen as optimum for protection and survivability. Tank designers take into account warhead hit distribution figures using Whittaker's direction probability variation or the elliptical distribution formula. To cut a long story short, traditionally around 44% of warhead hits are within the frontal 60 degree arc of the tank, primarily on the turret. The latest declassifed data goes back to the First Gulf War. This shows a slightly different hit distribution, with turrets taking more hits than in previous wars and a greater number of hits from the side and rear. It is accepted that this data is skewed as most killed Iraqi tanks were static and dug into berms, making them more vulnerable to aggressively handled armour. Tank designers still accept that previous warhead distribution figures reflect the general results of battle.
No tank is invulnerable, even from the front, I am afraid. With the armour, anti-armour cycle being in constant flux, the danger always exists that in optimum conditions, even the best tank can be frontally penetrated. If protection was the only factor to take into account then all tanks would be front engined as is the Merkava. Remember, the frontal armour remains the heaviest on the front engined- tank and is supplemented NOT replaced, by the mass of the powerpack.
To avoid being taken out, ideally a tank should avoid detection. If detected, it avoids being targeted, if targeted it avoids being hit. If hit it trys to avoid being penetrated, if penetrated the tank is designed to avoid destruction. By having the powerpack at the front, designers of the Merkava are able to convert a catastrophic, frontal K-Kill (when the crew dies) to a mobility kill. Damaged tanks can be recovered, the crew are more important. The Merkava takes crew survivability to an extreme, all components from the batteries to the fuel cells are positioned around the crew compartment as an integral suppliment to the armoured shell. They are designed to be sacrificed in order to increase the protection around the crew compartment.
Most designers will aknowledge a front engined tank offers greater crew survivability. So, why aren't all tanks designed with a front positioned engine? Firstly inertia and custom. Secondly, it is more difficult and expensive to build a successful front-engined design. It is difficult to build in enough structural stability over the frontal axis. With frontal drive, the drive sprocket not only has to deal with the impact of crossing rough terrain, it has to deal with poor weight distribution. The bulk of the armour and weight of the powerpack being situated directly over the drive sprockets. In terms of targeting, the plume of hot gasses over the glacis of a front-engined tank makes it more difficult for thermal sensors and optics to aquire targets for the FCS. This can be got around, but is expensive. There are other reasons not to build a front engined tank. However, these are the main ones.
The question is, which is your priority, crew survivability or risking a mobility kill?"
This message has been edited by Yoadm on Jul 26, 2008 1:56 PM This message has been edited by Yoadm on Jul 26, 2008 1:56 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
engines are made out of hallowed out cast iron, they have almost zero effect against stopping a hypervelocity penetrator. An additional 1 inch of hardened steel will impart more protection than 6 inches of cast iron. Putting the engine in front does almost nothing for survivability.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
this poll is a fraud !!!... USA doesnt deserve to be up there i nominate the Arjun Tank made with world class tech. and indian painting skills...
i DEMAND a re match!
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
The engine gives a little better survivability though, firs it can cake up shrapnell on the inside and also makes it possible to have a rear escape door for the crew.
-----------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
don't worry I don't go overboard too much.... I 'm still feeling it though so here's more:
