Need help with argument! Best tank?

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here:

Need help with argument! Best tank?

  • Total voters


FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 17, 2006
Best tank IMHO
Chally 2 I know thats no surprise to those who know me. Allow me to present the case for the defence m'lud.
1 Its a combat proved evolution of a combat proved tank.
2 Its Dorchester armour is itself an improvement on the already legendary Chobham armour.
3 Its hunter/killer sighting system allows multiple target threats to be assessed and dealt with quickly.
4 Its sighting systems are accurate enough that you don't need a separate GW device to cope with long range shots (a la T90) and how much does one of those GW weapons cost????????
5 Its CV12 Diesel engine producing 3000 lb/ft of torque and 1200 Hp is incredibly reliable, very frugal with fuel (unlike Abrams turbine engine) and combined with its TN54 transmission (the old TN37 one was a dog!) and Hydrogas suspension give the old girl the ability to boogie despite her weight. OK she's not a lightweight but she can still move.
6 It has an APU, a proper one, not an afterthought.It resides in an armoured engine bay and is not easily knocked out.
7 Its gun is 120mm and despite being an 'old fashioned' rifled barrel can destroy anything it hits. It STILL holds the record for longest range tank to tank kill...just thought I'd mention it.:D
8 But the clinching argument is that its crewed by the best tankies in the world.

I won't take a swipe at any other tank or country. I won't denigrate their men, whatever army they're in. All squaddies do their best for their country whatever country that may be. All are to be respected for that. They are the first to pay the highest coin in war. In case of disaster, they will be there helping dig out survivors, in case of strike they'll often be called on to fill in for strikers. I just sincerely beleive that ours are the best. :)


FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
Tunguska effective radar range = 18km

AGM-65 Maverick missle on board an A-10 effective range = 27km

(not to mention laser guided bombs from even further away)

Please come again! :D

Be my guest if you can get a kill of Tunguska from 27 with any version of Maverick, let it be D or K. You can't even see a small target like Tunguska from that range. Your best bet is like 10-15 Km's, and you already have missile on 12 :) Not to mention you have to be very high and you need someone to designate for you to use laser bombs on A-10 ;)

Anyway, this thread is turning into a rock/scissor/paper one :D


FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 12, 2006
NCC 1701-D Neutral Zone
Anti Radiation Missile would still kill Tunguska, and any of them that wanted a chance to survive would have to turn their radars off most of the time. The HARM missile will remember where it last saw the target, and proceed, this combined with high speed makes it likely to hit a target that turns its radar off.

Besides, B2 would take out most of those SAMs first with sensor-fused bombs .

r0ck $mashe$ PaiporZ. :D


FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 14, 2006
My vote goes to the Challenger 2 tank as well, and I am an American.

The Abrams is an awesome piece of armour, but it has too many drawbacks for me to consider it "teh bestest". For one, although compact, quiet, and amazingly powerful (3800 ft/lb torque, 1500hp), the turbine motor in the Abrams guzzles way too much fuel for practical use. Yes, the military pretty much has unlimited budgets when it comes to all-out warfare, but wow, that's a lot of fuel! Mechically, while it's easy to maintain and quick to switch out, British and German diesel engine designs are just as practical in the field.

Secondly, the armor itself is better on the Challenger 2 than any other tank in the world. Americans and Germans get their armor designs based off the British, so that means, despite excellent protection, the Challenger 2 will always be one step ahead. I've read reports of Challenger 2's getting hit with multiple RPG's and 125mm tank rounds and still living to see the sunrise again. It's a tremendously heavy tank, but its crew protection is second to no one in the world.

The gun is the only drawback to the Chally, I think. It's not that the gun itself is weak (it's not), but in concordance with other NATO powers, the British are on their own when it comes to ammunition supply. The Abrams and Leopards both use the Rheinmetall smoothbore, while the French use a GIAT smoothbore (both of which can use the same ammunition, but the French still supply their own). If I'm not mistaken, the Rheinmetall 120mm is the best tank gun in the world, but I'm sure the Chally's rifled gun has no problems punching holes in Russian armour.

The other part of me is just jaded. Approximately 50% of the US Army's yearly funds go torwards maintaining our fleet of ~8000 Abrams battletanks, and I'm sure a HUGE chunk of that is just gas costs. The turbine motors themselves are old, and with age comes higher maintainence costs. We can't just put diesel motors in there either because the engine bay isn't big enough.

Other than that, the Chally2 gets my vote. :)

Fu. Svedberg

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
Well as I see it it's not the cost of the all the fuel that the M1 consumes that is the big issue (IMO) is that if you ever get in a situation where refuling is an issue you would want your tanks to go as far as possible per liter fuel and in that case a turbine will never reach the same efficiency as a diesel engine.

EDIT:// It should say "a turbine of that size will never have the same efficiency as a diesel engine" sorry my bad :)


FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 28, 2006
Playa del Rey

Here is what I've got to say to your silly little tanks!



Big bambehs!

2lb milk bottle sized, 30mm armor piercing shells at 3900 rounds per minute!

more pics here

I have seen an A-10 do a ground attack in real life at an airshow. It was awsome. It fired its "Burp Gun" and then dropped ordinance...but it was really planed explosions under the craft because its to dangerous to drop real ordinance. Yes this plane owns tanks.


FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 11, 2006
The most good tank.
1. Seldom breaks.
2. Has well trained crew.
3. It is supported by highly skilled staff officers. Which has full volume of the prospecting information.
4. The crew of the tank is included in a wide and reliable network of information interchange.
5. It should have the big numerous, qualified auxiliary services.
6. In fight this tank should base on support of infantry, aircraft, artyllery.

A little that depends on iron.


FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 16, 2006
Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta

SEAD warfare is constant battle between jamming and counterjamming. Sometimes everything can be jammed, sometimes a/cs are blow out from the skies with impunity. In 1973 war israeli fighterbombers were blasted from the sky by Shilkas and Kubs (israeli RWR didn't even register Kub's radar lock) until they reprog'ed their RWRs.

ANY decent fighterbomber/ground-attack aircraft will make short work of tanks. See, you can read reports about arab Su-22s striking israeli formations and vice versa.
Last edited:


FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 2, 2006
In the steppes of Crimea
Wolfstuka, it's not a real tank there, it's a model. Not only this, it had huge pack of TNT inside of it, which was detonated remotely. US Army admit it, I saw this info with some links to their official forum a month ago.