The 5 Main Battle Tanks with Highest Kill-to-Loss Ratios

The kill-to-loss ratio of main battle tanks is a crucial measure for assessing their efficiency and the strategies employed by nations in times of conflict. In this video, we will explore the top 5 highest kill-to-loss ratios of main battle tanks. It's important to acknowledge that achieving precise measurements for this ratio is often challenging; the figures we present are approximations. We welcome your input in the comments section. Also we will not include tanks of ww2 as we have already published. Here's the link: • The 7 WWII Land Vehicl...
-------------------------------------------------
Credits:-
www.turbosquid.com/pt_br/Full...
www.turbosquid.com/pt_br/Full...
free3d.com/3d-model/m1-abrams...
3dmodels.org/3d-models/m60-pa...
3dmodels.org/360-view/?id=153729
---------------------------------------------------
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email [e-mail].

[@allisokandsweet]

180 Challenger tanks were deployed during the Gulf War and proved their reliability in desert conditions. The Challengers advanced nearly 350 km in 97 hours, destroying a total of 300 Iraqi armoured vehicles (including one tank at a range of 5 km) for no loss.

[@davidswallow5934]

If challenger has been destroyed twice, the ratio suggests it has only ever destroyed 12 to 18 tanks for the ratio to work???? Surely it’s higher than that?

[@tasman006]

I'm amazed you didn't put the Challenger 1 and 2 together like the history channel does, as they only have 3% commonality in parts and are separate. But the older Challenger 1 tank which has the longest direct kill destroyed 300 Iraqi tanks in the 1st Gulf war with no loss.

[@Luis150697]

300 iraqi tanks? Americans love so much to pump their ego

[@phant0m233]

@@Luis150697 ...the Challenger is a British tank.

[@virgilius7036]

The Challenger only saw combat during the Gulf War where it did not have much opportunity to face Saddam Hussein's tanks.

[@Bob10009]

@@virgilius7036it destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@fleetadmiralLordBuddy]

Seriously old 1960 era Russian thanks nothing to brag about!!!former US Army tanks in another country's hands like the Sherman in 1960in Iseral is something to brag about. No technology can kill you NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF TRAINING YOU HAVE!!!!!

[@tasman006]

With the Centurion tank fun fact its first tank kill in the Korean war in 1950 was a captured Cromwell tank that the Chinese got from the Battle of Happy Valley from memory. Australia also used the Centurion in Vietnam to good affect but not agianst enemy armor. And also Jordan used it agianst Isreal in the 1967 war and to good affect agianst Syria, PLO in 1971 Black September war.

[@petervincent4461]

if only one challenger tank has been lost, are we saying that the tank has only killed 9 tanks?

[@davidswallow5934]

Exactly. This is rubbish.

[@herbb8547]

The Challenger hasn't seen very much combat yet. The Abrams saw vastly more.

[@mwrkhan]

@@herbb8547 Not at all. The Challenger was deployed alongside the Abrams in every war where American led coalitions fought. Mainly the two gulf wars,1990-91 and 2003. So the Challenger has seen as much combat as the Abrams if not more (the Ukrainians haven't deployed the Abrams yet).

[@allisokandsweet]

180 Challenger tanks were deployed during the Gulf War and proved their reliability in desert conditions. The Challengers advanced nearly 350 km in 97 hours, destroying a total of 300 Iraqi armoured vehicles (including one tank at a range of 5 km) for no loss.

[@allisokandsweet]

So tell me why is the tank only four in the list?

[@Bob10009]

This channel has another video regarding the longest tank kills. In it, they state that Challenger 1 killed over 300 Iraqi tanks. They suffered zero losses. That’s a 300:0 ratio……yet it isn’t even mentioned here 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[@stevenbreach2561]

300?I think not

[@Lady_hypoxia]

Beautiful video thank you i love it alot ❤❤

[@pompeytid1970]

Not sure how losing a Challenger to 'friendly fire' or the Ukrainian's mishandling their first Challengers are combat losses but hey. Still no lost Challengers Mk1 or 2 to enemy action in the British army.

[@migueld193]

Dubious ratio for the M-60. During Yom Kippur War, the Israelis lost many M-60s during their counteroffensives of the first days on Sinai front.

[@tankmaker9807]

Many of the early tank losses in Sinai were upgraded M48's, with some M60, M60A1's and Centurions. Most of those were lost to the new Soviet missiles, many even before Egyptian tanks started crossing the Suez Canal. At the battle around the place called the Chinese Farm is where the tank battles really started, as IDF reserves started a counterattack, and a number of M48 and M60A1's were lost to tank fire, but the Egyptian tank forces were badly mangled, and the IDF was flanking them. The Egyptians fought well, but once the IDF crossed the Suez Canal they had to fall back. A 10-1 kill ratio for all the IDF tanks deployed is reasonable in Sinai, but since IDF losses are still classified (as far as I know) we might not know the real numbers.

[@PSGE7]

The high loss rate for the M-60 series early on in the Yom Kippur war is accurate, but many, if not most of them, were due to the newly introduced Soviet Sagger ATGM, against which effective countermeasures and tactics had yet to be developed by the Israelis. Once these measures were instituted, the loss rates for M-60's dropped considerably.

[@dirkscott5410]

How do you get a high kill/loss ratio. Answer: only use them against much weaker enemy.

[@barrythatcher9349]

The Australian's RAAC used Centurions in Vietnam War especially at the Battle of Coral.

[@KirkDavis1966]

I was a cmbt Engr with 4th inf div, we Had M60A3s Combt Engr varient with a morter Pitard instead of a main gun..It lobbed 75lb morter shells, they were AWESOME they also had a crane on the turret and a back hoe..

[@michaelcurl9817]

You're correct. I remember those when I was stationed in Germany as a tank commander on the M60A1.

[@imnayanger4877]

Nice video 👍🏻👌🏻

[@TurnipCruncher68]

CR2 (and before it CR1) has a huge kill ratio - none destroyed by enemy fire

[@prinzya.4538]

Was

[@richardholmes1920]

One got blown up in Ukraine dude

[@PersonaJohnGrata]

​@@richardholmes1920one. Just one lost to enemy fire. That's it

[@prinzya.4538]

@@PersonaJohnGrata Still tho, that factually negates his last statement.

[@TurnipCruncher68]

Challenger 1 & 2 have never been destroyed by another tank. But won was hit on a 'Blue on Blue'. The ones that have been destroyed are by IED / Mine / Artillery. @@richardholmes1920

[@varonmullis5255]

Your success depends a great deal on your adversary. Pitting the best tanks against each other with well trained crews would yield significantly different results.

[@Ares-jx4ep]

Well said.

[@Ares-jx4ep]

One of my beefs with this type of list is it really doesn't show anything meaningful. To get credited with a "kill" the tank has to kill another tank, but the "loss" is for any reason. Using the Cent and Abrams as examples in middle east operations. They were competing for kills with air support, air interdiction, Mech infantry with very good anti-tank weaponry, and the best coordinated and accurate arty in the world. I'd be willing to bet the ratio's would have been much higher for those two if most of their potential targets weren't already dead before they ever saw them. In the case of the Merkava, the vast majority of it's battlefield use hasn't involved enemy armor of any type. Kinda difficult to get a credited tank kill when there are no tanks to kill. On the flip side.. it doesn't tell you anything about a tank's real effectiveness at it's job when it's getting blown to oblivion by combined arms before it ever see's any ground enemy. Let's be honest... when your enemy sucks at combined arms, has very poor leadership, substandard training at all levels, and your forces have air supremacy, they could have the best tanks in the world and would still have a negative k/l ratio.

[@molemarden5188]

Challenger as not lost one and holds the longest kill you can’t get better that .

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

I am an American, but I'd be less than honest to say that the Challenger II is the toughest-to-knock-out best-protected tank in the world. The Abrams is superb, but the Challenger has a slight edge. Having said that, military secrets are among the most-fleeting of all, and no technology remains on top forever. Top-attack and UAV weapons are shifting the math in favor of anti-tank weapons again. Wonder what tricks and counters the bright boys have up their sleeves to push back against this? Anti-drone systems, one would think, but what about defense against top attacks? It gets complicated fast. And the next revolution in armored warfare is going to be unmanned tanks, and that will change everything. Much of the expense, difficulty and time in designing and making modern MBTs has to do with the fact that they have crews which need to be protected. But getting back to the subject at hand, any tank can be knocked out. It is just a matter of cracking into it in the proper manner. The Challenger sets the bar but even it can be knocked out.

[@jefffaulkner2875]

The m1 tank is a very, very stripped down version compared to the m1a1 and the m1a2.

[@evilfingers4302]

The destruction of the Challenger 2 in Ukraine was struck by Russian Artillery.

[@markhorton8578]

It hit a mine which took the track off. The crew abandoned it, and then it was later hit by a Russian suicide drone, which completely wrecked it.

[@mamurshed1]

Centurion works since 50 until 90 was the best

[@salmankhaled4593]

Can you do a video on The Saudi army and the army of UAE since they have a big company “EDGE”

[@drbendover7467]

Where's the Russian tank that claims a thousand kills with zero losses:)

[@user-bw6no7hr1l]

Wonder who compiled the ratio of kills all out otorcycles tilt

[@richowens600]

A lot of friendly fire mentioned today. US anti tank missiles top notch. Friend or Foe communications nor so good

[@patriotenfield3276]

Centurion and M60 are really is the best working horse of all time.

[@user-ys1pd2nk1i]

T 72! And T 64!

[@mofleh177]

They are not really is.

[@mep3mep350]

what about T-34?

[@tomhenry897]

Their the targets

[@mep3mep350]

​@@tomhenry897 kekeke. Western tanks were hit by these targets.

[@arkangel7j]

aaand more BS , the M1Abrams has a WAY higher kill ratio , and that comes from the guys that USE them , guys that used them thru both gulf wars

[@MartyInLa]

Surprised the M-60 scored higher than the M1 Abrams!

[@paullakowski2509]

no cause its results

[@Lee-vk1xy]

One of the problems with using this sort of measure at least as presented is it ignores things like odds and crew training.

[@Trupp42]

As well as different kinds of terrain, weather, etc.

[@chrislong3938]

This type of video has to ignore things like that since then they'd have to start including who had better logistics, quality of gas, you name it. The can of worms uncorked would be way too unmanageable! For instance... If the Russians wanted one of their tanks to be at the top, then perhaps they need to train their crews better! Maybe they can't train their troops better because their tanks suck. You just simply can't include things (which aren't even close to a metric) like that

[@Lee-vk1xy]

@@chrislong3938 I disagree at least the general ones could be included but it would probably take a series of videos. In the right framework kill ratios are useful but in an unbounded setting such as the one here they are useless at best and incredibly misleading at worst. An example of that would be that Bradley's have a pretty good kill ratio vs tanks. Doesn't mean one should use them like tanks though.

[@kerrydennison7947]

What about the m26 Persian in the Korean war. Should have took a look at its loss ratio versus kill ratio.

[@philanthropenos1074]

Could it be M26 Pershing?

[@deslow7411]

m26 pershing had 6:1 kill ratio. 38:6 to be more precise.

[@gasparguadalupethecante6377]

excellent comparison data you do a good job girl

[@rickperry5022]

I've always had a soft spot for the M60A3 Patton tank

[@michaelhband]

👍👍👍

[@stateweapon]

I think you should exclude Merkava from this list ,she was destroyed in Gaza in a large scale

[@yuriyshulgin135]

But T-72 throuving turrets highest that rest of tanks. World record:)

[@paulbantick8266]

We can all blather and lather over what is the best tank. But there is really only one. And it's the best ever fielded...The Centurion.

[@Trupp42]

Forgive my naivete but don't they have war games and see who's tank/tanks pass muster ? Or is this biased as well ? Just throwing it out there.

[@paulbantick8266]

@@Trupp42 I believe it's called performance, innovation and in-service history'.

[@paulbantick8266]

@@Trupp42 Wargames are not 'realwars'

[@cptnstylez]

The trash getting talked in the video is only outweighed by the shit getting said in the comments section...

[@georgewashingtonbush679]

2 old versus 3 new ?? What is that ?? And where is T-80 or Armata and Leopard 2 ??

[@Schwarze_Sheep]

This kill to death ratio is irelevant. It realy counts in how many wars they where. Maybe there are tanks there that are more efficient that these 5 it is just no one knows how good they are if they dont go to war. Maybe that is the best tank the one that makes other dont atack you.

[@loganthomas7385]

Hmm common problem is the simple fact that foreign nations don’t have as good armor training and bc of this they don’t promote Russian tanks to their full potential….

[@arthurmondrake4713]

I hate to bust your bubble, In 1991 the usa m1A1 was the main killer of Iraq armorone of the last battles in that war the Iraqi army lost 189 tanks and 127 ifv. As for trying to measure the M1 in iraq army that isn't our M1 when we sale it to foreign countries we don't sale with the special armor😂 We don't want no 12 catch on and take our armor and use it against us. So when you're measuring our armor our main battle tank. You have to measure it in the u. S forces and since we have never lost Is an m1 to enemy battles especially against enemy tanks Like in the first Iraqi war. The united states took out three thousand three hundred and main battle tanks, You understand that number 3300 main battle tanks. And the main killer of those tanks was the m1A1 United States only lost 4 tanks in that war. none were to enemy action.

[@shaunadams2619]

Americans always say "our armour" but they just copied the British Chobham armour on the Challenger.1 ✌

[@andrii6060]

Apparently the creator doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. confuses tanks. tanks destroy artillery? what?

[@Mach-6]

Leopard, the best, always.....😁.

[@keithprinn720]

any facing warthogs and NATO artillery willbe in danger

[@ClipFaceGun]

Challenger 2 at 4? 🤣 One tank loss from friendly fire should not count. The second was lost in Ukraine probably not equiped with its Top secret armour and the British dont want it falling into Russian hands.

[@Percival5]

Why do you like to full yourself😂😂😂

[@ClipFaceGun]

@@Percival5 I do like to full myself up with good food in the evenings

[@Chris-ql9bu]

What is your source for the loss of Challenger 2 due to >friendly fire

[@mig-21interceptor62]

it was a recorded incident , and only the second one destroyed , one being ukranian without british armour packages

[@Chris-ql9bu]

@@mig-21interceptor62 so there where 2 Challengers? I just remember one video where this tank was hit by artillery shelling 🤔 hm strange

[@mig-21interceptor62]

@@Chris-ql9bu well yes and no , the ukrainians bought the chally so it can be considered a ukrainian chally whereas the british army used the challys so those ones are considered british challys, especially since they have the british armour package with alot more armour

[@scpgaming-452]

t-series noob kill abramhs tank pro kill leopard-2 legend but where kill XD xaxaxa ?

[@deslow7411]

Lack of wars for the leo.

[@shikanokonokonokonokoshitantan]

leopard more like a sandbag for atgm

[@MoskusMoskiferus1611]

T-72, legend T-80, the hero T-90, tryhard

[@stevelong7187]

So you are counting BOTH M1a1 and M1 A2S and the Merkava 1 to 4, The M60 all versions plus the Israeli upgrades as the same tank yet you are only counting challenger 2 kills. Your metrics are seriously biased/flawed. Also you have included all the Iraqi M1a1 combat loses either

[@channelcuriousity6467]

1st

[@JeanLucCaptain]

The tanks have also probably never been used in a peer conflict. Because we see what happens in Ukraine when these Wunderwaffen meet a real war.

[@H.A.Bleikamp]

No Wonder. America is #1 in the world of the amount of wars!

[@Bob10009]

Yet a British tank is at the top 🤦🏻‍♂️🤔

[@mep3mep350]

It’s very convenient to win when you choose weak opponents. but this is just a shameful victory.

[@jesusofbullets]

Alright, I'll bite. The centurion was vastly outnumbered during the 6 day war, Israel having 800 and the Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, and Iraqi coalition having a combined 2,504 tanks. The win it secured was well deserved, and that's without mentioning the Yom Kippur war was almost the same except Israel was only outnumbered by 2 times that time (1,700 to 3,600 tanks) and only lost 400 tanks vs the enemy's 2,300 lost tanks. The M-60 was also in the Yom Kippur war, thus further proving my point. The M1 Abrams fought against the latest Soviet imported tech during the Gulf War and then again in 2003. None of these were weak opponents. It's that the equipment and training was that good (mostly the training).

[@mep3mep350]

@@jesusofbullets The M1 Abrams fought against the latest Soviet imported tech during the Gulf War and then again in 2003. - LOL WHUT??

[@IrishAmerican17]

The Israelis didn't "Choose" weak opponents, child. They were attacked by opponents that thought they were stronger, but even though they had numbers, Arabs lacked the training.

[@mep3mep350]

@@IrishAmerican17 child, Merkava is trash compared even to the old T-72. it will pierce right through the tin body of the Merkava. just a huge barn. but Israel’s opponents actually have no tanks after the collapse of the USSR.

[@tomhenry897]

They had modern Soviet tanks

[@gregorioovchinikov898]

Lier

[@mustang1912]

Centurion wins because it was never used for anything.

[@jesusofbullets]

The Six Day War and hundreds of dead T-55's would like to object to that, but they're too dead to speak.

[@mep3mep350]

@@jesusofbullets most likely he meant Challenger.

[@jesusofbullets]

@@mep3mep350 I can't really say much about the Challenger because I'm not knowledgeable about it. Looking online, it says no losses, but there's also not many tanks nor was it deployed in as intense places as the Abrams, so yeah, that statement would pretty much check out.

[@mep3mep350]

@@jesusofbullets what do you know about them? they were used exclusively against slippered Bedouins. as soon as they got to the real fight in 2023 they were immediately knocked out. although the British, of course, will tell you how they hit some kind of tin can from a distance of more than 4 km and this is a record shot among tanks. But as Bruce Lee said, “a tin can can’t fire back.”

[@tankmaker9807]

@@mep3mep350I thought the tin can was a T-72, which does have the range capability, but not the fire control accuracy. At least the Iraqi versions didn't.

[@TricaGamer]

Of course Merkava is there, its hard to have a low K/D when you shoot at children

[@itz_me3171]

😂😂😂😂

[@JohnWilliamNowak]

If the "children" weren't in tanks, they wouldn't appear here. Cope and seethe.

[@BlizzardVRU]

Hey, those kids had rocks, big rocks.

[@TricaGamer]

you literally coped and seethed, Im happy now@@JohnWilliamNowak

[@tomhenry897]

Explain the targeting of Israeli children by the Palestinians

[@Stratigoz]

All these tanks took part in conflicts against 3rd world countries. The list is busted af.

[@frankdrevinpolicesquad2930]

As with every British " historian", the British always have the best of everything and Russia doesn't exist

[@roosterbooster6238]

You really haven’t watched many of their videos. Russia didn’t even exist when the centurion entered into service…

[@tankmaker9807]

@@roosterbooster6238 The Centurion first entered service in 1945. Russia, part of the Soviet Union in 1945, had been around for a lot longer than that, something like 1,000 years more or less.

[@Bob10009]

@@tankmaker9807not even close 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@tankmaker9807]

@@Bob10009Please add context. What is not even close?

[@stevenbreach2561]

You have Frank Drevins encyclopaedic knowledge of tanks as well it seems

[@AstroSardaukar]

Wrong. The Russians now have far better tanks.

[@ikemancil3850]

In your dreams.

[@AstroSardaukar]

@@ikemancil3850, cry me loser.

[@paullakowski2509]

rubbish

[@tubetube155]

Dear “ the Buzz “ ! I don’t know, but I ‘ ve been watching many , many times the “ Battle of 73 Easting “ ( the first Gulf war) in which the American 🇺🇸 M 1 Abrams crushed and destroyed the Russian newest ( at that time) T 72 tanks as fast and as easy like a hot knife cutting through the butter 🧈!!! So , what can I say??? The M 1 Abrams tanks are really the No # h… ucking ONE !!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!! OK 👍?! From Vietnam!