The Gun Counter

Here's the list. Fire Away!

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/top ... _tanks.htm

Korean tank listed at #2 should be listed as an honorable mention vs. being on the list, as while it is a 'production vehicle', the fact that they had to close the paragraph with "So it should enter service with the South Korean Army soon." means it isn't really fielded.

Really, most of the list falls under this exception. Production tanks on order get trumped by STRYKERs, Bradleys... MRAPS... pretty much anything that's actually fielded. Just sayin.

g-man wrote:Korean tank listed at #2 should be listed as an honorable mention vs. being on the list, as while it is a 'production vehicle', the fact that they had to close the paragraph with "So it should enter service with the South Korean Army soon." means it isn't really fielded.

Really, most of the list falls under this exception. Production tanks on order get trumped by STRYKERs, Bradleys... MRAPS... pretty much anything that's actually fielded. Just sayin.

I agree, and even then, its till not quite as good as the abrams.

Was he challenger on the list? If not it should be.

I doo think the new leopard is arguably the the best MBT in the world right now, at least until the a3 abrams comes out..

Honestly this generation of tanks is pretty boring, comparison-wise. The prototypes are, well, prototypes.

All Merkava series tanks have a rear compartment which can be used to carry troops and cargo under armor. It can carry up to 10 troops when ammunition is unloaded.

All ammunition unloaded. I don't think people realize just how little room the Merkava has for this, and as a result it has a reputation as an APC with an MBT gun.

It's not.

Honestly, of all the tanks on this that're actually in service proper, the Merkava has least business being on it.

They sure like Russian tanks. The T-90 is basically an updated T-72, and the Armata doesn't seem to run right.

Sheesh, looking down the list, my feeling is that the number 1 tank should be the Abrams. It's the only tank that's actually been in combat. Did you notice also that tanks are beginning to be like automobiles, every one looks nearly the same. Of course that's because of experimentation and design. Certain things just work better.

Rod wrote:Sheesh, looking down the list, my feeling is that the number 1 tank should be the Abrams. It's the only tank that's actually been in combat.

No, the a7 is better, due to newerLeopard fcs, a longer main gun, and much bettter armor in top surfaces, something the A2 Abrams is notoriously short on., and is especially worrying due to proliferation of top attack, man portable ATGW, especially from Russia. Dont worry, the A3 Abrams is in the development cycle right now.

The M1 obviously has a lot more, but the leopard 2 have seen combat in Afghanistan and the Turks have used them against ISIS, possibly including some tank to tank ops for the Turks.

Also need to look at number produced. 100 Korean tanks make those about as common as Bugatti Veyron roadsters. Even if you are an active duty cavalryman, you have a better chance of seeing a Veyron in the parking lot at a shopping mall than meeting a Korean K2 Black Panther tank on the battlefield.

My top 5 list would be:
Leopard 2 Mk 7
Abrams M1A2/A3
Whatever the Russians are using for their latest MBT
Whatever the Chinese are using for their latest MBT
LeClerc (not really enough production volume to make the list, but it's a pretty good tank on paper)

The Challenger is too heavy for it's powerplant (typical British design) so whatever the production numbers (even less than the LeClerc), it fails.

After that, I don't care. I'm not sure why the Koreans and Japanese bother with building their own tanks. Their numbers are so small, it's like the 1960's Swiss tanks (about 200 beautifully produced, overpriced tanks). After that disaster, the Swiss got smart and bought Leopard 2s.

Asian Pride. That's why.