How would you rate modern battle tanks based on the three aspects of armor design?
1Mobility (maneuverability, speed, fuel efficiency)
2 Fire Power ( destructive force of gun, accuracy)
3 Armor ( survivability of crew as well as that of the vehichle to remain in action after being hit)
What would be you top three choices (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being best) and why?
Sorry if this or a similar post has been made. New to the site and would really like hear from all of you.
Regards,
Joe
Joe,
I’m going WAY OUT on a limb here, but I think the overall answer from most, if not all, of the armor guys is going to be the Abrams. However, if I may, my personal favorite is the Israeli Merkava. With the engine in front, instead of the rear, crew survivability is supposed to have been substantially increased, according to some of the literature I read during the build-up of my Academy Merk II. That has been increased with the hatch doors located at the rear of the hull. Accuracy and destructive power, I think, is about equal…the Merk also uses the Rheinmetall barrel.
OK guys, I now have a plastic sheet over my head. You may fling tomatoes when ready…except for Robert (shermanfreak). He’s probably going to tell you that the Sherman is still the best thing going. Trouble is, he may be right… 
Gip Winecoff
Looking at track records, it’s hard to argue against a tank that has never lost a crew member to hostile fire, so my vote goes to the M1 Abrams (all makes, all models)
demono69
i prefer the Challenger 2 [:)]
dont like the Merkava
But this makes a good diorama
Abrams is a good tank
Sweet photos Caveman! I’d also vote for the M1, like gee, almost everyone else. I do like the Challenger though.
Being a formerly active duty Marine, I’m going to have to say the M1 Abrams. Trust me.
Roy
Having commanded Abrams tanks on three continents, I’d say it’s the best. Fire power is comparable to most modern tanks, depleted uranium mesh coupled with Chobam armor make it virtually inpenetrable. The 1500 hp AGT turbine engine will move that 70 ton tank faster than most modern tanks. The thing will stop on a dime, and the A2 variant has a digitized system allows this tank to see other friendly tanks on the battlefield as well as be seen giving armor force commanders an unprecedented view of the battlefield layout.
When all the factors are taken in … speed, firepower, armour protection …
I would have to say the M4A3 Sherman …LOL
Even I would have trouble picking something other than the Abrams. She is a gem.
I have to say M1 all the way
I would have to agree the M1 is amazing but the T-72 is no joke in it’s self. Larger gun, (by 5MM) and a slightly loinger range travel wise…makes it a pretty good contender.
The Abrams certainly has a very decent record, however, and please do not hit me, I’d think that other MBTs such as the Merkava, the Leopard and the Challenger probably have similar, if not better ones, while newer MBTs such as the T-90 and the Leclerc would probably score very well, if not as well, in those 3 categories… The M1’s turbine is still its achille’s heels, no?
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
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.
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).
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)
Ok i agree the T-72 has been knocked out, but i still think it looks cool…lol
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)
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.
Sean,
Or deaf on the battlefield. Not that the Abrams is much quieter…
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