What country has the best tank? I could ask this on /k/ but Sup Forums is normally more fun for this kind of thing

What country has the best tank? I could ask this on /k/ but Sup Forums is normally more fun for this kind of thing.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ivP1qYG_tLw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt#Battle
youtube.com/watch?v=S3DlQq-iq2k
youtube.com/watch?v=_90Hx7g5_5c
youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw
below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

murica

/k/ here, bongistan and if you say otherwise fuck you youre wrong

M1 Abrams, never been destroyed. Centerpiece of the most powerful military force in the history of man.

It was in Irak

one to one it's prob either the challenger 2 or Abrams

but for an all out prolonged major war probabbly T-90/some cheaper MBT that does not cocsume gas so varaciously

I thought Britain actually had the worst tank? They're the only country still using rifled cannon. Which is bad for APFSDS ammunition.

UNDEDABLE ABRAHAMS

On a serious note, it doesn't matter. Tanks are for crossing open areas to engage with enemy fortifications and for infantry support in urban areas, not for fighting other tanks. If a tank fights a tank someone somewhere has fucked up.

I personally like Russian tanks because they're faster and lighter, which I think more closely approaches the role of tanks.

>acting like tanks aren't only useful fighting poverty tier countries like Iraq

lmao if wargame is anything to go by T-80 is the strongest

Wrong question. Differences between ability in modern MBTs are relatively minor.

A better question would be: "What country has the best tank crews?"
Because that's decide the winner.

I can tell you in about a year when im done with basic and AIT for 91-A

>never destroyed

but that's wrong you fucking retard

Anyone who claims that one fourth generation MBT is definitively and objectively better than all of its competitors is a bullshit artist.

M1A3 will be the best, it will have iron curtain all around it, which shoots a missile downwards just before it is hit on the side, and destroys the missile. Also will use ceramic and depleted uranium armour.

Right now the M1A2, can be destroyed by ragheads with an RPG-29.

It was destroyed by Rpgs in Iraq by ISIS this year and By Iranian ATGMs in Yemen by The Houthis

What about electronics? Perks and abilities are not important anymore when rolling a tank

Depends on where you shall use it, a tank good in the desert may be crap in a marshy forest.

Those are American export tanks that are intentionally nerfed.

If by electronics you mean the electronics of everything but the tank, you could also reform it as "Which country can support its tanks best", but then it turns into a general military power question.

If you mean the tank's electronics, nah. Relatively minor.

Relevant video:
youtube.com/watch?v=ivP1qYG_tLw

Thats real retarded sir

>German music on shitty American tanks
Everyone knows THE BEST tanks in WW2 were German.

At this point a dozens nations. Its like the assault rifles, they reached a point where differences aren't so big and old models are actually better that the new ones. You can see high tech getting in, but in reality its not feasible to use it in a battle.

>Russians
>Americans (they get their crews radiated tho)
>Germans
>South Koreans
>Israel

>Everyone knows THE BEST tanks in WW2 were German

But that's wrong, and by a lot.

bitch please

M1 Abrams killed the most towel heads. That's what those things are for.

Chinese tanks are shit.

Nigga you realize they lost the war, right? This was the king right here.

Tiger 1. Only towards the end could very few modified British and American tanks penetrate it, and that was rare.

Romania

I mean basically autoaiming, even when moving. Back in WWII the gunner had to be excellent at it. Now you have a computer doing it

those are the basic package models, the ones with the spinning rims and countermeasures dont get destroyed

They may have lost, but they had the best army, navy and airforce machinery. They were merely outnumbered by an inferior force that clogged up their meat grinder.

That doesn't mean you can afford a shit crew now. Electronics help, sure, but crew skill still means being able to effectively use them.
German tanks were either underpowered or overengineered, exceptions are rare.

The Tiger 1 would have been an excellent tank if it had been able to show up for the war on time.

>posting pics of Abrams tanks destroyed by Americans

When they break down during an invasion they are destroyed as they are abandoned. That's the case for half of those pics.

implying the 152mm cannon a russian anti-tank vehicle cant liquefy the crew

lol no the kill ratio of a sherman vs German tanks was 10:1

T-80UV is strongest!

I understand that this is Sup Forums but that doesn't make wehrabooing okay.

>those are the basic package models

Soldiers getting rekt by capitalism, nice. They need to paid more for the full equipped version doesnt it? Holy kek

>German tanks were either underpowered or overengineered, exceptions are rare.
They were overengineered, in that they couldn't get easy replacements for components. But when they were going they fucking shone, easy 5 kills per loss in Kursk for example.

Tiger 1, was very active at over 1300 built and deployed. The fuck are you on.

Nope.

Basically any.

Because a tank is only as good as its infantry backup.

Any tank in the world can be destroyed by being shot in the ass with a 1970s vintage RPG-7.

You can have all the applique armor in the world, and if you have no infantry support and/or are caught off guard, man portable weapons will still KO the tank.

So "best tank" is basically irrelevant.

On the modern battlefield a pickup truck with a TOW launcher will probably have a bigger impact than an unescorted Abrams, Challenger, or T-90.

That said, I still like tanks, and I think they still have their uses.

I think the ultimate "modern tank" would be something like the Abrams, with a smaller more fuel efficient engine, a short barreled gun firing massive HE or cannister (shotgun) rounds, and absolutely ridiculous protection, approximating glacis armor 360 degrees.

Bring back the "infantry tank" concept. Something impenetrable to all known enemy weapons, slow as shit, unstoppable.

But being a wehraboo is acceptable, since they flogged allied tanks.

kekz

Poland OP, Poland has a stealth tank that you can not see coming - it is true it is amazing. Polish stealth tank

French

Well memed my leaf friend.

In reality the Sherman was the most effective tank of the second world war.

Don't mind me, just posting in a tank thread.

SU-152 introduced in 1943 could obliterate a tiger regardless of distance from HE shell alone. Tanks weren't even the Tiger's biggest enemy. Terrible build quality from slave labor and inept crews took out a lot of german heavy tanks and tank destroyers.

>They were overengineered, in that they couldn't get easy replacements for components
No, in that they needed them in the first place. They just weren't reliable enough. Particulary Tiger I spent more time being broken than working.

Further, in that they were too expensive for their impact.

Tiger I is a meme tank anyways. Panther whoops his ass any day.

Am I unnamed yet? Pls

America btw

Italian

Took 5 Shermans to kill a Panther.

*unbanned

Sweet

>tanks are used to support infantry in urban environments
You know how i know you're retarded?

yes you stupid fucking faggot

learn to fucking read

lol how fucking pathetic

1 SuperPershing could btfo a panther in Köln

The M1 Abrams tank remains the only major tank to see combat other than the Soviet t-72 in the last decades.

The t-72 got rekt in Gulf War one with shitty Iraqi crews.

In terms of total kills the T-34 Soviet tank probably had the most during WWII against the German Mark IV

Now i'm sure you're trolling

Then why they no win war?

That's cause was Sherman was always operated in groups of five no matter what. All you had to do to kill a panther was swarm it and hit the side armor.

Yeah because your tommy cookers were so much better.

I dunno about the actual kill ratio vs the Panther but the fact that the Sherman couldnt penetrate the front armour of the Panther no matter what it did was a proven fact.

Who cares about the frontal armor when you smash into the sides?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt#Battle

Eat your heart out

Because they couldnt into mass production

76 Sherman could frontally pen the upper glacis of a panther though. And they were standardized after Normandy

Well they won the war so yeah. It's hard to argue with victory.

>Not mentioning the T90

Well no, it's not a "Proven Fact".

Shermans came with a lot of different guns, with a lot of different ammo, and the Panther has frontal thicknesses that vary greatly depending on location.

You are correct that a Sherman with the 75mm was pretty much hopeless fighting the Panther's Glacis.

But a 76mm with HVAP would have no trouble penetrating the Panther LFP or Turret face frontally past 1km, and 500m for the glacis or mantlet.

tanks are way overrated anyways...

Imagine if the Germans had built 50,000 Tigers

Leopard all the way

America, because America is #1

Russia won the war because hittles split his forces, you just hopped in through the back.

obvious answer.

Leopard are the root of excellence .. after that you have others..

Tanks are used to support infantry in urban environments, faggot. They're incredibly valuable, which is why everyone keeps doing it.

>but the tanks take heaps of fire and get killed a lot
Yeah. It's war. People die. It's dangerous for the tanks, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

The Leopard never actually did anything besides Afghanistan.

...

Hey leaf, I hope you realize the Leo 2 doesn't have safe ammo storage. It's non-bolt-on armor is also rather disappointing.

They are competent, but purely competent.

All Russia did was have a rape-festival on German civilians after the war was pretty much already done.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=S3DlQq-iq2k

r8 this m8

>muh monkey model

>a tank built around a fucking howitzer

this thing could know out any current Main battle tank, and its 80 years old

That fucking label :^]

The Tiger I didn't have sloped armour - German manuals for Tigers explicitly said to stay at range as even the T-34/85 could penetrate it at closer range in the front.

German tanks were better only for better doctrinal use and better guns allowing engagements at longer range. In close range not so much better.

Sherman Tanks are ICONS!

It would not take out any modern MBT at all. It was spectacularly effective for its time, but tanks have changed.

The Russian T-90 the mighty beast !

>this thing could know out any current Main battle tank

What the fuck?

Cuckpard 3 soon

t90 for the win !
youtube.com/watch?v=_90Hx7g5_5c

They were developing a 140 mm gun. Why scale down to 130 mm? It's so disappointing.

>best army, navy and airforce machinery
>navy

I'm glad you're an aussie, I almost took you seriously.

On the other hand, the Syria mess has given us precious footage of a direct hit by a TOW against a T-90 forcing the crew to bail, but failing to destroy the tank itself.

youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw

>new caliber (130mm)
>implying this is a good idea.
>implying we ever really needed to go beyond 105mm for tanks.

130mm means you'll get less room to store shells and a lower fire rate if you miss (since you'll have to handle heavier shells)

There were also plans for a ETC gun

T-90 is decent for what it was designed for, however that design was not heavyweight slugouts. Armor outside of the ERA leaves a lot to be desired, guns and electronics are outdated.

below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html