Summary and Key Points: Italy’s C1 Ariete main battle tank, introduced in the 1990s, has been criticized as NATO’s weakest armored vehicle.
-Designed to replace aging Cold War-era tanks, the Ariete features advanced fire-control systems, thermal imaging, and decent mobility.
-However, its relatively thin armor and lack of significant modernization have left it vulnerable compared to other NATO tanks like Germany’s Leopard 2, France’s Leclerc, and Britain’s Challenger 2.
-With only 200 units produced and limited upgrades, the Ariete struggles to remain relevant on today’s battlefield. Unless significantly upgraded, Italy’s Ariete risks becoming a liability in any high-intensity conflict involving NATO forces.
Italy’s Ariete Tank: Why NATO Calls It the Worst Tank
The C1 Ariete, Italy’s main battle tank (MBT), has been a significant part of the Italian Army since its introduction in the mid-1990s.
Developed by the consortium Consorzio Iveco Oto Melara (CIO), the Ariete was designed to replace the aging fleet of American M60A1s and German Leopard 1s.
The Ariete is often described by many as the worst tank in NATO.
Today I would like to take a closer look at the tank and see if it is really deserving of this title.
C1 Ariete: Introducing Italy’s Main Battle Tank
The Ariete tank features a conventional layout similar to other Western MBTs, with a driver at the front, the fighting compartment in the middle, and the engine at the rear. Iveco produced the tank’s hull and engine, while OTO Melara supplied the turret and fire-control system.
The tank measures 9.52 meters in length, 3.61 meters in width, and 2.45 meters in height, weighing 54 tons. It is operated by a crew of four: a commander, gunner, loader, and driver.
The Ariete’s armor combines steel and composite materials, providing protection against various threats.
However, its armor is considered thinner compared to other contemporary MBTs like the Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams, which has been a point of criticism.
The main armament of the Ariete is a 120 mm OTO Breda L/44 smoothbore gun, capable of firing most NATO-standard rounds. The tank carries 42 rounds, with 15 ready rounds stored in the turret basket and the remaining 27 in the hull rack. The gun is fully stabilized in both azimuth and elevation, allowing for accurate firing on the move.
Secondary armament includes two 7.62 mm MG 42/59 machine guns, one coaxial with the main gun and the other mounted on the turret for anti-aircraft purposes.
Decent, but Lacking
The Ariete is equipped with an advanced fire-control system, the OG14L3 TURMS, developed by Galileo Avionica. This system includes day and night panoramic capability, a thermal gunner’s sight, a laser rangefinder, and a digital fire-control computer. These features enable the tank to engage targets accurately under various conditions.
In terms of mobility, the Ariete is powered by a Fiat MTCA 12V diesel engine, producing 1,270 horsepower. This engine allows the tank to reach a top speed of 65 km/h (40 mph) and provides a power-to-weight ratio of 23.5 hp/t. The tank’s operational range is approximately 600 km (370 miles), making it suitable for extended operations without frequent refueling. The suspension system consists of torsion bars, providing a stable platform for firing and maneuvering over rough terrain. The tank can ford water obstacles up to 1.25 meters deep without preparation and up to 4 meters with preparation.
While the Ariete was considered advanced at the time of its introduction, its reputation has declined over the years. Compared to other NATO MBTs like the Challenger 2, Abrams, Leopard 2, and Leclerc, the Ariete has not received the same level of upgrades and modernization. This has led to criticisms regarding its suitability for modern combat.
Assessing the Ariete
The Ariete’s strengths include its fire-control system and mobility. The OG14L3 TURMS fire-control system is one of the tank’s most notable features, providing accurate target acquisition and engagement capabilities. The Ariete’s powerful engine and torsion bar suspension system offer good mobility and stability, essential for modern battlefield conditions.
The tank also possess modern thermal imaging which enables it to fight in all conditions, making it a useful asset on the battlefield.
However, the tank’s armor is considered thinner than desired, which compromises its protection compared to other contemporary MBTs. Additionally, the lack of significant upgrades over the years has left the Ariete lagging behind its peers in terms of technology and combat effectiveness. Additionally, production on the Ariete is slow, with only 200 currently in service in the Italian Army. With relatively few tanks in service, its battlefield impact will likely be minimal in the event of a large-scale war.
Is the Ariete the “Worst Tank in NATO?”
Overall, I’d say the Ariete is a decent tank.
Its fire control systems and thermal imaging give the tank everything it needs to be a threat on the modern battlefield. Where the tank lags behind is in the fields of protection and producibility. Even with upgraded armor packs on later variants, the Ariete’s armor is still exceptionally thin compared to other contemporary MBTs.
Its small-scale production also limits the Ariete’s overall battlefield impact substantially. So is the tank deserving of the title “worst tank in NATO?”
In all honesty, probably yes.
Not because it’s a bad tank on its own, but because compared to tanks like the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and Challenger 2, the Ariete offers little that these others don’t already offer but slightly better.
The C1 Ariete has played a crucial role in the Italian Army’s armored forces since its introduction. Its advanced fire-control system and good mobility make it a capable MBT. However, the tank’s thinner armor and lack of modernization have raised concerns about its effectiveness in contemporary warfare.
As Italy looks to the future, it will be essential to address these shortcomings to ensure that the Ariete remains a viable component of its armored forces.
About the Author: Isaac Seitz
Isaac Seitz, a 19FortyFive Defense Columnist, graduated from Patrick Henry College’s Strategic Intelligence and National Security program. He has also studied Russian at Middlebury Language Schools and has worked as an intelligence Analyst in the private sector.
