Poll: What Is The Worlds Greatest Tank? (Currently)

[curlycrouton]

Challenger 2 because it's British, and everything British is Best.

Damn I feel so patriotic. It's like a warm glow inside.

Very, very, very much agreed.

I'd say the Challenger 2, because it's main gun has an 8km range and because of this:

Like every British tank since the Centurion, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or "bivvie" for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat "boil-in-the-bag" meals contained in ration packs.

That's right, you'd can be safely tucked up inside your Challenger tank, engaging the enemy from 8km away whilst sipping tea and eating Pot-Noodles.

A tank battle in a Challenger needn't be any more stressful than a weekend's camping.

Mainly because of this. That's just typically British, and typically awesome.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

The challenger 2 is by far the better tank. But the M1A2 is by far the most bang for your buck. You can't completely destroy it and it is very versatile with its upgrades.

For reference the U.S has over 8,000 M1A2 and the ability to repair even more verses the 400-500 C2's.


The challenger 2 is better. But the abrams easily outnumber it because of its costs. Plus. There are so many that friendly fire is more of an issue then other tanks.

Okay, this is tough because the Abrams, Challenger and T-90 main battle tanks are all pretty much worthy of commendation, so here's how it goes, in order...

Joint first place...
1 M1A2 Abrams (United States)
1 Challanger 2 (United Kingdom)
1 T-90 (Russia)

2 Merkava (Israel)
3 Leopard 2 (Germany)
4 Leclerc (France)

My personal favourite is the T-90. I have this believe that Russia has always produced the most reliable, most widely used and therefore, the 'best' military technology in the world.

From the AK-47 Assault Rifle, to the MiG Fighter Jet, RPG's, Dragunov Snipers and 'T' type tanks...You name it, Russia made it and the world's armies used it.

Russia may not of produced the most technologically advance weaponry, but technological advancement by no means constitutes how good a weapon is. After all... the more advance a weapon, the more things can go wrong.

The best? Are you high? They produce weapons of war that can be mass-produced for their armies. The individual quality of each item is well.. Shit.

 

[Lexodus]

Other, I.E the 'Shovel-headed Kill Machine'.

[/THREAD]

 

[sallene]

I was in the USAF and this was our tank

Id take it over any gropo vehicle.

 

[Xifel]

Russia may not of produced the most technologically advance weaponry, but technological advancement by no means constitutes how good a weapon is. After all... the more advance a weapon, the more things can go wrong.

I just have too agree on that point. Technology always break down. And technology breaks down even more if it's in the army. Even assult rifles jam. I even had problem zipping my pants sometimes!

So I'm going to put a good quote from my Lt. during basic training:

"Always remember: A pionted stick with poo on is also a weapon"

(Sorry if I went alittle off-topic)

 

[irishstormtrooper]

The Chinese Overlord tank is amazing. It can run over other tanks.

http://www.cncden.com/gen_zoomin/Generals-China-OverLordTankVariants.jpg

 

[Sergeant M. Fudgey]

I'm stuck between the Challenger 2 and the M1A2 Abrams... I would like some noodles, though...

 

[arc101]

the french have tanks? they have an army? wow

 

[APPCRASH]

Actually the intention of the law is that a weapon that is indiscriminate and not designed to put one man down with one round isn't humanitarian and Geneva convention blah blah oh and while your numbers and metallurgical willy waving sounds good. A 9mm ball round fired from a shotgun and made of depleted uranium/kryponite/cheesedoodles is still a shotgun submunition.

It is more than likely you survive several 9 mm hits especially as a shotguns pellets losses muzzle velocity very rapidly (Thats why cannister shot wasnt used exclusivley on the Napoleonic battlefield). The latest interpretation of the round was used in Vietnam in the M48's 105mm because the XM-124 (I think of the top of my head) Beehive rounds were totally against the Genevea Convention.

You can make small allowances and stretch the terms and useage but you cant 'rip the hole out of it'. 1060 9mm BB's at point blank from a high velocity gun are indeed deadly (Durrhey)but at longer ranges (600m sounds unlikely unless the deflection patterns really really small).

At a reasonable range from the tank a single penetration of a non deforming (lead causes hydrosatic shock not rigid materials) 9mm ball that doesnt hit a bone will whup right through. (It will not suck anything out via a shockwave it will not do anything hypersonic neother will a .50 cal round)

Itd hurt like a beeotch, itd require immediate care but it wouldnt be lethal unless it hit a vital organ. If it does hit bone the limbs gone, density of shot means its more likely to hit the bone. To all intents and purposes youve shot to maim.

Its a ridicolous rule that one must kill politley but there you go. The cannister rounds dubious at best straddling a thin line. Exactly the same as the BB claymore allowed to exist only because its a mine and as such is excluded due to it being a passive system.

I agree, it's one of those toys that can be debated around the camp until rapture, but bottom line for me, and anyone else who has the joy of being on its good side, that it's a big gun that makes lots of noise and has the potential to kill/totally fuck up more enemies than a standard round.

You take away everyones 9mm hand guns and any kind of shrapnel based device and I'll give up my tank mounted shotgun.

 

[Obliterato]

Challenger 2 because I'm british, oh and we invented Chobham armour used on the Leopard 2 and Abrams, making them all but equal in that department.

Aside from my patriotic bias the big 3 for me are the leopard 2 (germans make a crap tank, never) the Abrams, because like us the Americans never wanted to be outclassed tank wise again and the Challenger for aforementioned reasons. Challenger has better range, but the Leopard 2 and Abrams both have 120mm Smoothbores meaning they can fire a wider array of ammunitions, but with a trade off of range and some accuracy, though thats not normally and issuse since the Sabot round thats most used against armour is just a massive tungsten dart.

 

[lolmynamewastaken]

considering that the abrams isn't even rifled and has sweet FA on the challeger otherwise, im goign with that...

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Sorry to burst all the Abrams lovers' bubbles, but there are just too many things that its rocket engine screws up. It's 10,000 degree F exhaust makes it the perfect target for any sort of heat seeking device a fighter jet wants to send up its bum, makes it impossible for infantry to follow it into combat, and gives it have an infrared signature 4x that of a diesel engine. Also, it burns through fuel like...well, a jet.

this is why the Abrams sux for a tank, it's not really practical to be used in combat UNLESS it's on it's own and then that leaves it open to other attacks.

as for me i say the Leopard 2 for a few reasons

1 ease of use, it drives like a video game
2 superior tech, yes it does have that
3 it doesn't have a jet engine in it
4 you can have ground support along with it making it not as vulnerable to attack

seriously from several friends who have actually been able to DRIVE the tanks, they all say hands down the Leopard is the coolest thing you'll ever see. they've said the Abrams is kinda neat but that's about it, the draw backs coming from the jet engine on the back are way too much to make it the best tank

 

[Agent Larkin]

I would say the tsar tank but then id be making a mockery of this thread. soooo I pick the Challenger 2 because it is British and my cousin has driven it.

 

[phwbt]

...

...

Thank god you quoted me. It made me re-read my post which brought to my attention some errors with my English. I can't believe I made such stupid mistakes. Fixed them and all is well with the universe again.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

It's got to be the Challenger 2. Reliable, and basically indestructible. The only Tank to yet destroy one was an unfortunate incident where another Challenger 2 shot one through an open hatch.

Only two other Challengers have ever been breached. One where an RPG deflected off the road into the under side, and one from an IED. Since then, the under side armour has been significantly improved.

Yeah, this is all on the wiki page, but it's scary because i actually remember most of the stats! One was hit by 8 rpgs and an anti tank missile, was recovered and repaired in 6 hours... another drove off after taking 70 rpg hits. That isn't a typo.

I think to be honest, if i had to be anywhere in a War, it'd be in a Challenger 2.

Are you seriosouly expecting cold-war mass-produced tech to hold a candle-light to new IE tech?

Also random note: The challenger 2 costs nearly 2x as much as a m1 Abrams. While it might be the greatest tank, I doubt it could take 2 m1a2's on at the same time.

Random note 2: The m1 has a missle counter-measure system to stop most conventional AT measures and thermal/infared guide missles. Which negates most of the cold-war military tech. But then if we are seriously talking about IE tech then tanks might aswell stop trying. 'Cause the u.s has a clusterbomb that can stop 40 tanks in the tracks. Future weapons can be quite sexy.