Which is the best armored MBT in Present times??

[truthseeker2010]

its not the machine, but the men behind the machine that makes it best.............

 

[Penguin]

In battle of Yemen , M1 tank has a very disappointing record. Yemen rebels easily take out Abram tank with some typical ATGM. The so called blow off panel to protect crew did not work and the whole tank still cook like T-72. Abram tank are over rated. Extreme heavy and extreme fuel consuming.

The weapons used in Yemen appear to be Iranian produced versions of the AT-5 Spandrel/9m113 Konkurs. It uses a SACLOS system to guide the missile to the target and carries a 6lb anti-tank HEAT warhead. It's estimated penetration value is rated at around 600mm RHAe.

From the OP:
The American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2A5, A6 and A7 follow a roughly similar design philosophy: excellent armor on the frontal arc, at the cost of weaker rear, side and top armor. Both tanks are designed to survive a 125mm APFSDS hit to the turret front, a 115mm APFSDS hit to the hull front and an RPG-7, Sagger ATGM or 100mm AP hit to the turret sides. Armor resistance to the hull sides and the tank’s rear is bare-bones however.

Somewhat surprisingly, the armor design philosophy of the Israeli Merkava MkIV and the French Leclerc are actually quite similar: forego some frontal protection at the benefit of better side and rear armor, especially against HEAT warheads. For instance, while the Leclerc’s and the Merkava’s frontal armor don’t quite compare with the frontal protection of a Leopard 2 or an Abrams, the Leclerc boasts ~500mm of RHAe against HEAT on the hull sides, while the Merk 4 boasts an impressive ~700mm of RHAe against HEAT on its hull sides (the most heavily armored tank from the sides, as far as I know). In addition, the Merkava MkIV also boasts the thickest roof armor of any MBT in the world.

Conclusion: How surprising. Yes, you can likely kill an Abrams with a side or read shot with an older ATGW. Provided you are not dealing with an Abrams version fitted with Tank Urban Survival Kit (or TUSK) modification (addresses vulnerabilities in urban combat, including measures such as reactive armor on the sides of the tank and slat armor on the rear to protect against rocket-propelled grenades and other shaped charge warheads). Anyone who understands tanks understands that no tank is ever invulnerable from all aspects.

Likewise:

For urban combat, the Leopard 2 can be fitted with different packages of modular armour. The Leopard 2A4M CAN, Leopard 2 PSO (Peace Support Operations) and the Leopard 2A7 can mount thick modules of composite armour along the flanks of turret and hull, while slat armour can be adapted at the vehicle rear. The armour modules provide protection against the RPG-7, which depending on the warhead can penetrate between 280 millimetres (11 in) and 600 millimetres (24 in) of steel armour. The Leopard 2A6M CAN increases protection against rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) by including additional slat armour.

Additional armour packages have been developed by a number of different companies. IBD Deisenroth has developed upgrades with MEXAS and AMAP composite armour, the latter is being used on Singaporean and Indonesian Leopard 2 tanks. RUAG has developed an armour upgrade utilizing their SidePRO-ATR composite armour. This upgrade was first presented on the IAV 2013. The Leopard 2A4M and 2A6M add an additional mine protection plate for the belly, which increases protection against mines and improvised explosive devices

 

[Beast]

Probably Some Remote Instance Nevertheless M1 abrams which you mentioned are not Belong to US Army Or USMC.
Overrated I just Mentioned various wars it Outclass Competition it faced .Probably Try your type-98/99 in real Battle zone See how Propaganda is different from reality

Propangada? Seems like you are the one doing hard selling? You apply the rules on Gulf war I , claiming how easy T-72 got destroyed but comes to Yemen war you will claim the M1 not the same as USMC. So can I say the Iraq T-72 is not even the same as Russia used. You can't used double standard to fit yr agenda.

By the way, Type 98/99
Tank is different from Russia T-72. It's armour is more superior. The weight and engine HP shall tell you something. 54tons and 1500HP which not even T-90 can compare. Don't spew rubbish when you know nothing. The engine to weight ratio of Chinese Type98/99 is superior to both leopard 2 and M1A2 tank.

 

[NKVD]

By the way, Type 98/99
Tank is different from Russia T-72. It's armour is more superior. The weight and engine HP shall tell you something. 54tons and 1500HP which not even T-90 can compare. Don't spew rubbish when you know nothing. The engine to weight ratio of Chinese Type98/99 is superior to both leopard 2 and M1A2 tank.

How Its Chinese tank Superior Did they faced in Battle Sell few Type 98/99 to Middle east countries And See Its true Capabilities When its Face Real-time war Scenario Until them its only on Paper


Even T-90s Proven Its Worth Against ISIS in Syrian War against ATGMs and RPGs
War Is Judge of Weapons Capabilities

 

[Beast]

How Its Chinese tank Superior Did they faced in Battle Sell few Type 98/99 to Middle east countries And See Its true Capabilities When its Face Real-time war Scenario Until them its only on Paper


Even T-90s Proven Its Worth Against ISIS in Syrian War against ATGMs and RPGs
War Is Judge of Weapons Capabilities

You don't need real war to know how thick and hard the armour is. Extensive trial test can proved it. RTA and Iraq army are no idiot to buy blindly.

http://www.janes.com/article/60340/thailand-to-procure-mbt-3000-tanks-from-china


http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2267&start=30

 

[MULUBJA]

There is no single “best armored MBT” in the world anymore. Armor design isn’t nearly as simple as it was during WW2...

Nowadays, main battle tanks tend to specialize in one particular aspect of armor design. Some designs emphasize frontal protection at the cost of side and rear armor (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2), other designs rely heavily on ERA to defeat HEAT warheads (most Russian MBTs), other tanks contend with weaker frontal armor for better all-round protection (Leclerc, Merkava MkIV), etc.

Therefore, if we consider the latest MBT designs, each of them usually has one or more advantages over its competitors in one area, while being disadvantaged in other areas. I’ll try to summarize the pros and cons of each major design as succinctly as possible (otherwise this answer would take forever).

Pt 1: This question specifically asked about “the best armored MBT”. Active protection systems (like decoys, smoke grenades, hard-kill and soft-kill systems) are countermeasures, not armor modules. Therefore, they do not come into consideration in this answer. We are only considering the “physical” armor of main battle tanks here.

Pt 2: All armor values listed below are tentative estimations based on the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR or CIFAR). They are not to be taken as absolute truths, but I generally consider these estimations to be the most objective and reliable.

M1A2 Abrams / Leopard 2A6:

The American M1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2A5, A6 and A7 follow a roughly similar design philosophy: excellent armor on the frontal arc, at the cost of weaker rear, side and top armor. Both tanks are designed to survive a 125mm APFSDS hit to the turret front, a 115mm APFSDS hit to the hull front and an RPG-7, Sagger ATGM or 100mm AP hit to the turret sides. Armor resistance to the hull sides and the tank’s rear is bare-bones however.

Specifically, both tanks have ~1000mm of RHAe (Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalent, the armor’s protective capability) on the turret front and ~600–700mm of RHAe on the hull front against APFSDS projectiles. Against HEAT warheads, the Leopard 2A6 has ~1600mm of RHAe on the turret front and ~900mm on the hull front. Thanks to heavier and more advanced composite armor package (based on several layers of depleted uranium, plexiglass, steel and ceramics) the M1A2 SEP can reach ~1700mm of RHAe on the turret front and ~1200mm of RHAe on the hull front.

As a result, the M1A2 SEP Abrams and the Leopard 2A6 have without a doubt the heaviest overall frontal armor against KEP (Kinetic Energy Penetrators) and some of the heaviest armor against HEAT warheads of any MBT currently in use worldwide.

Finally, it is worth noting that future upgrades of the M1 Abrams (the M1A2 SEPv3) will feature an extensive armor overhaul. It is already known that the Abrams’ DU armor package will extend to cover more of the tank’s side turret armor. The SEPv3 will also introduce a double layer of heavy ERA to its turret and hull sides.

M1A2 TUSK II with M32 ERA - the M1A2 SEPv3 will use a similar ERA layout

Finally, the tank’s already extensive frontal turret armor will be heavily upgraded. The picture below shows an early prototype of the SEPv3:


The big square blocks attached to the tank’s turret are called weight simulators. They are used to test how the weight of an upcoming armor upgrade will affect the tank’s functions. Judging from the massive size of those weight simulators, it appears that the Abrams’ frontal protection is about to be heavily reinforced. With all of these armor upgrades I wouldn’t be surprised if the M1A2 SEPv3 actually manages to become the single most armored MBT in the world, but that’s another debate.

T-90A:

The Russian T-90A is an interesting case. Technically speaking, the vehicle’s passive armor design is quite old. The T-90 first started as an upgrade of the T-72 called the T-72BM, or T-72BU. Therefore, the tank’s composite armor design is somewhat dated and vulnerable, especially against APFSDS projectiles.

However, the Russians counteract this flaw by relying on heavy layers of extremely advanced ERA on the frontal arc of their tanks. As a result, with Kontakt-5 ERA fitted (which covers ~75% of the tank’s frontal arc), the T-90A achieves ~790mm of RHAe on its turret front and ~750mm of RHAe on its hull front against APFSDS (which is a bit mediocre), and an estimated 1900mm of RHAe on the turret front and 1100mm of RHAe on the hull front (which is exceptionally good). Therefore, while the T-90A is quite vulnerable to APFSDS projectiles, it boasts an exceptional resistance to HEAT warheads on its frontal arc. However, keep in mind that ~25% of the tank’s frontal arc is not covered by ERA. Keep also in mind that tandem HEAT warheads can largely negate the effect of ERA. Combat experience in Syria has therefore shown that the T-90A’s performance against ATGMs is… unpredictable.

T-90A from the front, offering a good view of its Kontakt-5 ERA

The latest version of the T-90 is the T-90AM. The T-90AM doesn’t have any upgrade to the tank’s passive armor but replaces its Kontakt-5 ERA with the new Relikt ERA. We don’t exactly know how effective Relikt ERA is (the Russians claim it is twice as effective as Kontakt-5, but they always claim all sorts of crazy things ). In any case, the T-90AM boasts a massive overhaul to an already impressive protection against HEAT warheads with a new generation of ERA with an even better coverage (85% of the vehicle’s frontal arc + 60% of the vehicle’s sides).

T-90AM, boasting an even heavier ERA coverage

Merkava MkIV / Leclerc:

Somewhat surprisingly, the armor design philosophy of the Israeli Merkava MkIV and the French Leclerc are actually quite similar: forego some frontal protection at the benefit of better side and rear armor, especially against HEAT warheads. For instance, while the Leclerc’s and the Merkava’s frontal armor don’t quite compare with the frontal protection of a Leopard 2 or an Abrams, the Leclerc boasts ~500mm of RHAe against HEAT on the hull sides, while the Merk 4 boasts an impressive ~700mm of RHAe against HEAT on its hull sides (the most heavily armored tank from the sides, as far as I know). In addition, the Merkava MkIV also boasts the thickest roof armor of any MBT in the world.

Notice how the Merkava’s crew hatches are exceptionally thick.

Where both tanks start to differ is the architecture of their armor. The French Leclerc puts a premium on mobility, meaning that it relies heavily on highly resistant and lightweight materials for its armor like tungsten, titanium and a classified crystallized diamond material. As a result, the Leclerc combines low weight, good overall armor (barring some weak spots on the frontal arc) and an absolutely horrendous price tag (the most expensive MBT in the world, by a wide margin).

The Israelis are a bit more reasonable than the French with their defense budget, and put an emphasis on cost effectiveness for their armor design. As a result, the Merkava MkIV’s composite armor layers rely on steel and tungsten carbide ceramics (a low cost and yet very resistant alternative) and a lighter adapted special armor design.

Adapted special armor Vs integrated special armor - in an adapted special armor design, the armor’s ceramic layers are directly exposed to enemy fire, lowering armor integrity against repeated hits.

The drawback of adapted special armor designs is that they are more fragile than integrated armor designs: they take more damage for every direct hit. As a result, while the Merkava MkIV’s armor is very good at stopping the first hit, each subsequent hit can severely degrade the tank’s integrity. In that regard, the Merkava’s armor functions a bit like ERA actually.

Merkava MkIV turret following an ATGM impact. As you can see, despite stopping the warhead, the armor suffered extensive damage.

The unknown factor: T-14 Armata

The reason why I’m not including the T-14 Armata in this list is because no one really knows what this new vehicle is made of. What we know for certain is that this MBT presents a radical shift in the design philosophy of Russian tanks, with its unmanned turret and the crew inside the hull’s safety capsule. Most defense experts seem to think that the T-14 places most of its armor on its frontal arc, relying on its ERA and APS to protect its sides from HEAT warheads. There is also a growing suspicion that the T-14’s unmanned turret is only rated to resist 40mm autocanon fire, freeing up extra armor for the crew capsule. Keep in mind that all of this is purely conjecture at this point.

Armata is undoubtedly the best.

 

[NKVD]

You don't need real war to know how thick and hard the armour is. Extensive trial test can proved it. RTA and Iraq army are no idiot to buy blindly.

http://www.janes.com/article/60340/thailand-to-procure-mbt-3000-tanks-from-china


http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2267&start=30

Even Tiger was considered Unbeatable in ww2 Until Its faced Real War
I again tell you war is Ultimate Test for weapons Not Tabloids and Brochures

 

[Beast]

Even Tiger was considered Unbeatable in ww2 Until Its faced Real War
I again tell you war is Ultimate Test for weapons Not Tabloids and Brochures

I do not disagree but you not need to have a real war to know how much the armour can withstand in trial test. Unless you believe no real different type of ATGM is fired at the armour or real tank. As I say, trial test is set by procuring customer. Unless they want to sabotage their own test. There is no way, they rig the test to just impress anything.

That is assuming Thai and Iraq has no brain to know how to do a proper procurement procedure.

 

[Penguin]

RTA and Iraq army are no idiot to buy blindly.

In the absence of the label 'combat proven' (which still doesn't necessarily mean 'faced another contemporary tank' ...), tests and trials are the best that can be had. No one buys multimillion dollar equipment blind.

Armata is undoubtedly the best.

You need to quote an entire article, just to add a nonsense reply? Based on what?

Note what was said in OP:
The reason why I’m not including the T-14 Armata in this list is because no one really knows what this new vehicle is made of. What we know for certain is that this MBT presents a radical shift in the design philosophy of Russian tanks, with its unmanned turret and the crew inside the hull’s safety capsule. Most defense experts seem to think that the T-14 places most of its armor on its frontal arc, relying on its ERA and APS to protect its sides from HEAT warheads. There is also a growing suspicion that the T-14’s unmanned turret is only rated to resist 40mm autocanon fire, freeing up extra armor for the crew capsule. Keep in mind that all of this is purely conjecture at this point.

 

[DavidSling]

The title of the article is misleading, since there's no such thing as "best tank".
Every tank will face problems in different environments.
Also, APS is integral part of any modern tank, while the article tries to diminish it's role.

Armata is undoubtedly the best.

lol, gotta luv how russian propaganda is moving people.
Just by watching Armata video in youtube I can see it's pure propaganda.
Basically the video is the following:
Armor = x500 better than western counterparts
Design = x500 better than western counterparts
APS = x500 better than western counterparts

 

[MULUBJA]

The title of the article is misleading, since there's no such thing as "best tank".
Every tank will face problems in different environments.
Also, APS is integral part of any modern tank, while the article tries to diminish it's role.

lol, gotta luv how russian propaganda is moving people.
Just by watching Armata video in youtube I can see it's pure propaganda.
Basically the video is the following:
Armor = x500 better than western counterparts
Design = x500 better than western counterparts
APS = x500 better than western counterparts

Ok .

You are any insight other than informed layman like me, I can believe you. When T 90 is such fantastic tank, Armata can not be an ordinary tank.

 

[DavidSling]

Ok .

You are any insight other than informed layman like me, I can believe you. When T 90 is such fantastic tank, Armata can not be an ordinary tank.

"T 90 is such a fantastic tank"
T 90 can be compared to most tanks around the world, and there's nothing ground breaking around it.
Basically, armata is a little bit better tank with APS, which is already being used in the Israeli Defense Forces and has seen combat ( Intercepted multiple high end russian missiles )

 

[Signalian]

Type-99 should have been assessed too.