How would you rate.......

djmodels,
Wasn't trying to start a heated argument. Seems many people on here are very knowledgable and was just curious as to what folks thought.
Obviously the Sherman wasn't the best in WW2 (sorry, shermanfreak) but it did help to win the war.
I apologize to you and any one else who may have been offended. This was not my intention.
Regards,
Joe

I Totaly agree with you DJ. We should also not forget then men who use these machines. You can have the best tank in the world but if you got a bad crew on board look out.

This is becoming a rather heated, if a bit pointless discussion, guys, no??!?

The M1 is obviously a formidable machine, maybe, the best. Nationalistic pride apart, let's remember that the M1, the T-80, the T-90, the Merkava, the Challenger and the Leclerc have never faced 'contemporary' opposition and that comparative judging must be difficult, at best. There are many other MBTs, present or past, that have had the same 'blood anf guts-less' history and that did not mean they were bad designs...

Who could say that the Saab Draken and Saab Viggen were bad aircrafts..?? It is widely thought that they were amongst the best aircraft of their times, if not the best. Yet they were never used in anger, and their crew never went to war. But the Swedes were ready for it.

Also consider how some of those machines have been sold to many countries while others have not. The Leopard, in its various guises, is still used throughout the world, and knowing German products' reputation, must have been and must still be a decent machine.

I'm glad most of those machines were never used in anger, I wish it will stay that way.

Domi

M1 Abrams is the only good tank the Americans have ever built. Aspecial since WW2. I agree with Panther 44 there in the 50's and 60's Soviat Armour ruled, probably why it is still widly used today. Cheap and reliable (hard it believe anything Russian to be reliable).

The Merkava's emphasis is on armor and crew survivability. Just as an example, it is quite a bit smaller than the abrams but it is about 2 tons heavier, my opinion is that its all armor with a few holes for crew and an engine

benjaminrc,
I thought (from what I've read) that NATO and the US in particular ( in the 50's and 60's) were striving to catch up to the
Soviets in armor developement. Hence the MBT 70 and eventually the Abrams.
Regards,
Joe

I would say its a toss up between The Merkava MkIII and the Abrams A2. I have a source who tells me the Merkava MKIV is going to surpass the Abrams. I have had American tankers tell me their worst nightmare would be going head to head with a Merkava and its crew. The Challenger 2 is also a top drawer tank. The (relatively) new German 2A5 is a good one as well.

There hasn't been a decent Russian tank since the T-34.

Other modern MBTs like the Leclerc and Arjun are 2nd rate at best.

I would have to say the M1

QUOTE: Originally posted by M1abramsRules QUOTE: Originally posted by Captain Caveman the challenger hasnt lost a crew to any hostile action not hostile anyway. was it 2 men they lost when 1 tank fired on another?

they lost two men to freindly fire from another Challenger 2 not to any enemy action, i could get the photos if you like that sort of thing M1abramsRules

QUOTE: [i]Challenger didn't go as deep as the Abrams did in Iraq.

they went into battle on the front lines as did the Abrams crews fighting against the same army with the same equipment to make the world safe.
the Abrams and Challenger 2 should be in the top 3 the only way to improve anything is to get experience using it for what its designed for. (for tanks that meens combat)

I'm a Platoon Sgt. in a NY Guard tank company. Currently we have M1-IPs,many of these tanks were built in the early 80's. As far as reliability, we have more weapon system failures than with the turbine power pack. Even being close to 20 years old, our crews still score high during gunnery..though a fire command sounds like...Gunner sabot tank.....@##$%$%$ laser, battle sight 1800, fire! For me M-1 anytime.. Just would love a M-1A1

But the Challenger looks almost the same as an Abrams. Challenger didn't go as deep as the Abrams did in Iraq.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Captain Caveman the challenger hasnt lost a crew to any hostile action

not hostile anyway. was it 2 men they lost when 1 tank fired on another?

note: I am not ribbing you, I do not consider our (I consider myself more an american than a canadian) ally's causalties humorous.

Captain Caveman,
I feel that most are pretty close as well, but when it comes to looks (I know ,it doesn't affect perfomance) I think the Challenger is the meanest looking in the whole group. Just looks like it could rip to pieces anything that gets in it's way.
Joe

But they do combat-experienced crews too, I forgot. with that I'll give them all a three-way tie

well they all have 120mm guns and probably about the same armor(they should declassify that info). but here is the clincher: the challenger is bigger(and heavier), so it doesn't go near as fast or near as far. its engine isn't as powerful either(1200hp compared to 1500hp for the leclerc and leopard.) I think the challenger is a great tank, but its underpowered.

QUOTE: Originally posted by M1abramsRules C1 ariete is the I talian MBT that was built in 1982 to replace their m47 pattons. 2nd I'd say is the Leclerc with the Leopard 2 a close 3rd.

WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT a french tank 2nd a German tank 3rd ?????????
where is the Challenger 2 or Challenger 1 two tanks with combat action, all the photos ive put up on this thread have been taken in hostile land (and no its not france)
the challenger hasnt lost a crew to any hostile action

a thing about the Abrams http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=abrams2.htm&source=abrams_lessons_learned
its a shame the French didnt back the war instead of trying to stop it

M1,
Thanks for the clarification on the C1Ariete. I was guessing that it may have been Italian but just didn't know.
Regards,
Joe

C1 ariete is the I talian MBT that was built in 1982 to replace their m47 pattons. 2nd I'd say is the Leclerc with the Leopard 2 a close 3rd.

O.K. guys, the general consensus is the Abrams ( I think I detect a little prejudice), still as an American I'm very proud of the fact that we
have it. Maybe it's the best because we have taken armour from the British and the gun from West Germany. So we have accumulated the best of
all worlds. But, which do you think rank 2nd and 3rd? How great is the difference? Abrams a 9.2, Challenger a 9.0, or maybe the Leopard or
Merkava.
While I'm at it, soccia, what is a C1 Ariete? I'm not making fun, I'm just not that knowledgable about armor and have never heard of it.
So, now that we see which was voted #1, where do the other two place and what's the margin of victory?
Regards,
Joe

<< Image what would happen if the Germans decided to go to war with someone for no reason these days?>>


The Germans have already done enough of going to war with someone for no reason to last them for decades to come. The last time that happened, they had better tanks than us going in, but we still beat them in droves. The real stregnth of American armies is adaptability and the ability and freedom to improvise new and better solutions to a problem. That can overcome any mechanical advantage.
Fwiw, I have to go with the M1 also though :)

madda

I've seen Leopards and M1's train. As an M1 cmdr, I sure would have hated to have to fight the Germans in their Leopards. But, I would still pick the M-1

Sean,
Or deaf on the battlefield. Not that the Abrams is much quieter...

I have to agree with most that you can't argue with crew survivability but overall in personal opinion i think the Leopard 2A5 would be better mostly due to it's diesel engine. That gas turbine is nice but you can't beat the rumble of the diesel to make you feel secure in your hole.

I agree, it does look cool. low turret on relatively flat hull, woops just looking at it I realize it is faster than the Leclerc and Abrams(50mph-45.6-45), but thats because it doesn't have as much armor. (it,s 85,000 lbs compared to the Abrams119,000)(leclerc is 117,000)

Ok i agree the T-72 has been knocked out, but i still think it looks cool....lol

hmmmmm.... let's start on the T-72. Its gun calibre may be big, but it is not as powerful as most other MBTs these days, It has been knocked out in droves by Mekavas and M1s. The merkavas, although they have the best crew survivability in the world, its gun isn't the most powerful in the world, and its slow as molasses in january. but panzerIV is right, the Leclerc and the leopard 2 and C1 Ariete, etc. would probably have as good a combat record as the M1 and Challenger, but I say whats the use of having a MBT if you don't fight

for mine see top-left corner. only the Leclerc is faster, I'd say its gun is at the very top, and armor I would say the Merkava has got it pushed into 2nd place. besides it has combat-experienced crews (which can be a deciding factor)

Leopard 2A5 and M1A1 or A2

M1 only one proven in combate (other then Challenger, but thats English so we wont count that LOL). Helps if you keep starting wars with people. Image what would happen if the Germans decided to go to war with someone for no reason these days? Remarkable record for the M1 in 2 wars Dwight? Not like they were up against much was it. Not doughting it's abilities but lets face it Iraq didn't have much to offer. The fact that you lost a couple is a bit of a shock (I was allmost in tears).

All of these new MBT's look good on paper and I believe that they actually are.

However, only the M1 (M1A1 & M1A2) has had a very remarkable combat record in the two major wars so far. So...I think it is no.1.

1- Mobility (maneuverability, speed, fuel efficiency): Leopard 2
2 - Fire Power ( destructive force of gun, accuracy): C1 Ariete
3 - Armor ( survivability of crew as well as that of the vehichle to remain in action after being hit): M1 Abrams
Overall I'd say the Leopard 2 and the Abrams