A few years ago, the Hellenic Army organized a contest to test all modern MBTs in order to purchase the best one of them. The tanks were put into action under very demanding conditions in a large area near Litohoro, Macedonia and the tests included (among many others) movement, maneuvering, obstacle passing, trench crossing and of course, firinig ability.

The ranking was as follows: 1. Leopard 2 A6 (Germany), 2. M1 A2 Abrams (USA), 3. Leclerc (France), 4. Challenger 2 (UK), 5. T-84 (Ukraine) and 6. T-80 U (Russia).

In a few years, the Greek black berets will be proud to use the latest version of the best main battle tank in the world, the Leopard 2 A6 HEL!

Of the older generation. Most experts I've read rate the Merkava the best followed by the Leopard II. With the Challegger II and Abrahams about equal 3rd.

Of the newer tanks. The LeClerk Works along a different principle of mobile warfare. It's fast, light and has the best gun. It can fire and move at no loss of accuracy. The T-90 Black Eagle if it's turns out to be as good as it's supposed to be on paper is a class above all western tanks.

Here's the initial press report on the tests:

Leopard wins Greek tank shoot-out (of course now we know that after all the Leopards were selected and ordered-I believe that they're already being delivered)

 The winner of the Greek Main Battle Tank (MBT) competition is expected to be announced in August this year but results of competition trials obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly have placed the German-made Leopard 2A5 in pole position.

The first batch of MBTs will be for 250 vehicles plus variants. Six MBTs carried out extensive firepower and mobility trials in Greece manned by Greek Army crews. These were the French Giat Industries Leclerc; German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5 in latest Swedish Strv 122 configuration; Russian Omsk Machine Construction Plant T-80U; Ukrainian Malyshev Plant T-84; UK Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2E; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.

Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19%

The Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during hunter/killer target engagements.

The German 1,500hp MTU EuroPowerPack was fitted in both the Leclerc and the Challenger 2E and these two vehicles had the best cruising range and lower fuel consumption.

According to JDW sources, the recommendation of the Greek Armour Directorate to the Council for Defence Planning and Programme was that the choice be limited to just two vehicles: the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.

In addition to the results of the operational and technical trials a number of other factors were taken into account, such as the total number of vehicles built, number of users, NATO interoperability and experience of the Greek Army with current German and US MBTs.

While these operational and technical trials will play an important part in the Greek decision-making process, other crucial factors include: the offset arrangements; Greek added value; and politics. Of the above four MBTs, three are currently taking part in the Turkish Land Forces Command MBT trials. These are the Leopard 2A6; Leclerc; and M1A2. Vickers Defence Systems decided to concentrate on just one market, Greece.

The first batch of 250 MBTs and 12 armoured recovery vehicles will be followed by a second batch of 400, with most of these expected to be manufactured in Greece.

PS

From what I read Leopard is still the best tank, plus (Paul) I've read that Merkava is a pile of junk, the Palestinians already blew 2 of them to smithereens.

I've heard the I and II called junk but never anything but respect for the IV. It's got the best front armour of any tank, and the distribution is unique (Israel being the country in the world with the most experience of tank combat). As for the tanks destroyed, not sure they were 4's but all tanks in the world are vulnerable to mines, it's nothing special.

Merkava Mk-4 Detailed

Well, I'm not convinced that it's that good (then again I'm no tank expert, so don't count on my opinion)but it's impressing how a small country can produce such high-tech products.

Is it exported to other countries?

M1A1 / M1A2 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK, USA

The M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tank is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the M1A1 in 1985 and the M1A2 in 1986. 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 555 co-produced with Egypt. Egypt has ordered a further 200 M1A1 tanks with production to continue to 2005. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for the US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait. For the M1A2 Upgrade Program, over 600 M1 Abrams tanks are being upgraded to M1A2 configuration. Deliveries began in 1998.

In March 2004, the Australian Army announced the purchase of 59 US Army M1A1 tanks to enter service from 2007.

M1A2 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE (SEP)

In February 2001, GDLS were contracted to supply 240 M1A2 tanks with a system enhancement package (SEP) by 2004. The M1A2 SEP contains an embedded version of the US Army's Force XXI command and control architecture; new Raytheon Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) with second generation thermal imager; commander's display for digital colour terrain maps; DRS Techologies second generation GEN II TIS thermal imaging gunner’s sight with increased range; driver's integrated display and thermal management system. The US Army planned to procure a total of 1150 M1A2 SEP tanks but the US Army has decided to cancel future production of the M1A2 SEP from FY2004.

Under the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP), DRS Techologies has also been awarded a contract for the GEN II TIS to upgrade US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks. GEN II TIS is based on the 480 x 4 SADA (Standard Advanced Dewar Assembly) detector. The FEP also includes an eyesafe laser rangefinder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new Far Target Locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (Circular Error of Probability) of less than 35m.

FBCB2

In June 2004, DRS Technologies was awarded a contract to provide systems including rugged appliqué computers for the M1A2 Abrams tanks (and M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles) as part of the US Army's Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2) program. FBCB2 is a digital battle command information system which provides enhanced interoperability and situation awareness from brigade to individual soldier that will be used in conjunction with the Army's Tactical Internet.

M1 ABRAMS ARMAMENT

The main armament is the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. The 120mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.

The commander has a 12.7mm Browning M2 machine gun and the loader has a 7.62mm M240 machine gun. A 7.62mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially on the right hand side of the main armament.

DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR

The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

One L8A1 six-barrelled smoke grenade discharger is fitted on each side of the turret. A smoke screen can also be laid by an engine operated system.

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The commander's station is equipped with six periscopes, providing 360 degree view. The Raytheon Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides the commander with independent stabilised day and night vision with a 360 degree view, automatic sector scanning, automatic target cueing of the gunner's sight and back-up fire control.

The M1A2 Abrams tank has a two-axis Raytheon Gunner's Primary Sight- Line of Sight (GPS-LOS) which increases the first round hit probability by providing faster target acquisition and improved gun pointing. The Thermal Imaging System (TIS) has magnification x10 narrow field of view and x3 wide field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the gunner's sight together with the range measurement from a laser rangefinder. The Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) Laser Systems Eyesafe Laser Rangefinder (ELRF) has a range accuracy to within 10m and target discrimination of 20m. The gunner also has a Kollmorgen Model 939 auxiliary sight with magnification x8 and field of view 8 degrees.

The digital fire control computer is supplied by General Dynamics - Canada (formerly Computing Devices Canada). The fire control computer automatically calculates the fire control solution based on: lead angle measurement; bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system; velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret; data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the centre of the turret roof. The operator manually inputs data on ammunition type, temperature, and barometric pressure.

The driver has either three observation periscopes or two periscopes on either side and a central image intensifying periscope for night vision. The periscopes provide 120 degrees field of view. The DRS Technologies Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE), AN/VSS-5, is based on a 328 x 245 element uncooled infrared detector array, operating in the 7.5 to 13 micron waveband. A Raytheon Driver's Thermal Viewer, AN/VAS-3, is installed on the M1A2 Abrams tanks for Kuwait.

PROPULSION

The M1 is equipped with a Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. The Allison X-1100-3B transmission provides four forward and two reverse gears. The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust.

There's a similar post on this forum, only these guys have forgotten more about tanks than we'll ever know.

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1505 - http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1505

LOL @ the M1 the greatest, at least from what I've heard.  That thing has had more maintenance issues than Liz Taylor.

wait a few years.. Korean XK2 will kick some ass

current K1A1 should be in the top 10 but not in the top 5..

XK2 will fight for the very top spot..

Well many countries all over the world needs tanks, somtimes hundrieds of tanks but Leopards, Leclerc's or Abrams are a bit expensive. Even for France Leclerc isnt its main tank and the French have tanks which were designed 40 years ago.

Poland choosed to upgrade and modernise old soviet constructions and to sell them to the poorer countries which cant buy the most expensive models. If i remember well last year Malesia decided to buy military equipment, including tanks from Poland for about 370 millions dollars.Im not sure but i think Malesia choosed "PT 91" tank while to India and Vietnam Poland is exporting T72 M1. They are affcourse worse than the tanks of newest generation but are upgraded so much that well used may be dangerous even for them.

The company which is producing those tanks will sell in next 3 years military equipment for about billion dollars (including malesian contract) so looks like there is a lot of customers all over the world interested not only in those most expensive contructions but also in those older but modernised and cheaper.

Here are some picks:

PT 91:

PT-91 and its version T-72M1Z MBTs were derived from T-72 MBT through modernization, replacing and upgrading of its systems. They were designed to be a highly reliable systems having superior firepower, improved crew protection and impressive mobility.
They still keep outstanding, optimally small silhouette to minimize the ballistic surface.
The design concept creates very wide modernization field, as it can be done with everyone T-72 family MBT pratcically, almost without major changes in its shell.
MOBILITY

The T-72M1 tank is a crawler combat vehicle having a strong armament, good armour, high manoeuvrability and reliability.
The T-72M1 is provided with 125 mm smooth barrel main gun stabilized in two planes of laying the gun, 7.62 mm machine gun coaxial with main gun as well as anti-aircraft machine gun 12.7 mm fitted on the commander's cupola.
The T-72M1 tank has the laying and sight means with a high accuracy enabling high hit probability by the first shell. Usability of three types of shells ensures the blows efficiency of all targets on the battle field.
The T-72M1 tank is provided with special equipment designed for protection of crew members and inner devices against a shock wave action and radioactive radiation. It has good anti-ballistic guard, which was achieved by using a low silhouette, optimal shapes and multi-layer armour.
The T-72M1 tank has also the deep fording equipment, smoke screen thermal generating unit, launchers system to generate the smoke screens, fire fighting system to extinguish the fire inside the tank, sending-receiving radio set, interphone and moreover is equipped with attachments for self-entrenching and for making the ways on minefields.

The T-72M! tank has high manoeuvrability in all climatic and terrain conditions.

PT 91

Just personal opinion, decline inveigh with thanks.

1 Leopard2A6  Germany

2 M1A2SEP  USA 

3 Merkava Mk-4  Israel

4 Type 90  Japan

5 Leclerc Mk-2  France

6 Challenger2  UK

7 Type 98G  China

8 K1A1  Korea

9 T-90  Russia

10 T-84  Ukraine 

It's the rifled barrel that gives Challanger II versatile weaponary not reduce it. The Smoothbore guns of the US and Germany are excellent armour destroying weapons (except at extreme ranges) but they are totally useless for anything else!!  The main function of a tank is the destruction of enemy armour, but it is not it's only function, unless it is armed with a smoothbore gun, then it becomes a very expensive A/T gun.

The drivers become more important than the machine for many of these tanks, since they how very similar capibilities.

Im not sure which is the best. But i like to remark that the most important thing in a battlefield is the terrain. This superb weapons look perfect to fight in a hard plain battlefield, but can make 50meters in a field like Malvinas/Falkand. The permafrost its a trikky terrain, in THAT battlefield the most important think is the weight / cm2 relation. Gunpower, Armor, Crossterrain Speed come later.

Another example. My country (Argentina) lack of bridges capable to hold over 20 tons, so the argetinian tank can be heavy tank so in 1980 they design the TAM. TAM is a Thin between a light tank and a main battle tank. Is very bad  but any another thing can be deployed. But any armored army that invade argentina will have to  chosse betwenn only a few roads able to sostein moder tanks

The challenger II rifled gun was not an innovation it was on the Chietain too.

It's main advantage, the ability to fire HESH is increasingly becoming a obsolete.

Firing HESH it is easily the best tank around at shooting old Soviet tanks with steel armour, but HESH doesn't work against the laminated armour of modern tanks and as Dux say it's not so good at shooting DU ammo.

Challeger has the best armoured around, but the Merkava has it's engine in front, so more resistant to a direct hit on the front that penetrates than a challenger, so even safer for the crew.

I am actually leaning towards the Challenger II but I can't say that yet because the Abrams has shown itself as the most battle worthy tank. Give the Challenger some experience in the field so that we can see its true ability and it might be the best.

Abrams.

Well this is a very difficult question. I mean different tanks is basically designed to have different advantages. Some tanks have heavier armor. Some tanks have better firepower. Some tanks have better mobility. A tank which have a balance of all of those does not mean it's the best because overall will be weaker than other tanks. Also some tanks ar being used more than others. Furthermore the success of tanks depends on the commanders and the oppoent. So our judgement might be influence by their fame rather than its real abilty. Btw no offensive to those tank experts.

Anyway I favour Leopard 2 as the best tank

Not sure what experience the Abram has had that the challenger hasn't. both have only really fought waves of obsolete soviet vehicles as far as I know.

For me for the abrams to show it's worth in combat it would have to fight an enemy with some air power and demonstrate how the legions of fuel trucks are going to reach it and keep it in supply.

Leopard 2 has never fired a shot in anger. All three tanks are fom countries with no tank experience since wwii. Merkava comes from a nation who knows more about modern tank warfare than the rest of the world combined.

Jets come from the UK (1930). Russian tanks were way ahead of German and Kalashnokovs still the no1 weapon in the world.

Oh yes I nearly forgot that famous tank battle on the Falklands, thanks for reminding me.

Britain did have jet planes in wwii,

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jet_engine.htm - http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/jet_engine.htm

German tanks casualties became the higher of the two at the end of the war when it was the Russians that were attacking and the Germans defending. Whoever has an overwhelming advantage tends to kill more of the enemy.

The ISIII was better than any Infantry tank the Germans ever produced and the Centurion better than any German Cavalry Tank. The Germans had poor tanks at the outset of war, The French and to some extent Russians started better. The Germans undoubtedly built easily the best mid war tanks tigers, Panthers ect, but lost the advantage to Britain and Russia at the end. The designs for Pz VII and VIII are pretty dreadful.

AFV's played a very small role in the Falklands. It was mostly serious stupidity (bravery) and maneuvering by British special forces and poor Argentinians officers that won it. Argentinian conscripts were well dug in an fought ok by  poorly trained conscripts standards. It was never a Turkey shoot.

Panther could have destroyed a Centurion so could a Tiger, then again it was a medium tank, that's what you would expect. But a Centurion firing APDS ammo could kill both at a greater range and kill a King Tiger too, nothing else could do that. It was also just about the simplest, most reliable across any terrain and most cannibalisable tank ever. The Israelis used to repair the engines with tractor parts.

A tank is more than just it's firepower. That's which is why the T-34 was better than anything the Germans had. And German tanks not so good. Petrol engines and complex parts.

ISIII is a greatly misunderstood tank, it was an Infantry tank. It was never designed to engage cavalry tanks, that was cavalry tanks, tank breaker and anti-tank artillery's job. It's low velocity 128mm was designed to fire HE at enemy fortifications, artillery and infantry and act as mobile support of infantry attacks.

But they were mid war tanks and being replaced by the mighty Maus. Now there's maneuverability sacriced for armour. Pillboxes are cheaper to build. (and they don't break down)

If the war had gone on the the newer generation of allied tanks would have outclassed the mid war German tanks and the Germans nothing to compare. Then Germany would be remebered as the c\ountry that had bad tanks and the allies as the countries that had good ones. It was just that the war ended when it did German tanks have such a good reputation.

P.S. nice to see someone so knowledgable about tanks on this forum.

Have Panthers II engaged in battle? I actually thought that Panther II was just a design, never contructed. In the same sense I didn't know that Centurions participated in WWII.

The Tiger II was a very good tank in general, not only because of its heavy armament. It was quite fast and maneuvreable. But because it was being constucted in a hurry, and because as all new tanks it had its initial problems, it suffered from reliability. If the war went on the Tiger II would become a very good tank. The 88mm gun of the Tiger II was better than the 90mm of the later allied tanks (M26, M46,M47,M48), and it was also planned to be replaced with a bigger (128mm?) gun.

Also, I doubt that the Germans distinguished Cavalry from infantry tanks. Also, in your logic pretty much all Russian tanks were infantry tanks.

And the tankbreakers (I assume that's the same with a tankdestroyer, sorry but english is not my strentgh) as a logic were obsolete. The German tankdestroyers were heavy in firepower and armour, but they lacked turret, something very very basic.

As far as I know the Panther II never got built. The Centurion was deployed a couple of months before VE day but never saw combat.

Personally I'm not sure the Tiger II was a good design, it took ages to build, was resourse heavy, complex and drank petrol. Germany had little petrol and little capacity to move petrol under allied air blanket, how many Tigers became pillboxes? What Germany needed at that stage was a T-34/85 or 100. Cheap, quick to build, simple and could build 5 or 6 for every Tiger.

Germany had an infantry and cavalry tank concept to begin with, The III was originally planned as a cavalry tank and IV an infantry. It never worked out because the III quickly got outclassed so was abandoned. The Russians kept the concept to the end of the war, the KV and t-35 were both cavalry. The British had it too, Matilda, sherman and Churchill infantry, Comet, firefly and Crusader cavalry. Only country that didn't have cavalry and infantry tanks was US. Shermans were infantry tanks, US had doctrine of infantry tanks only. M-26 was quickly sidelined by Patton and Eisenhower who both disliked cavalry tanks.

Not having a turret has advantages, weakest part gone must now hit front hull to kill, weight gone so heavier better gun and armour, can still move gun a bit, low profile so difficult to see.  disadvatages must turn whole tank instead of turret..... Advantages outway disadvantages and great for defence.

The KV was a Cav tank? All KV tanks were heavy with big guns, what is characteristical for Inf tanks.

Well the British are thinking about changing their barrels to smoothbore.  Rifled barrels have horrible accuracy when it comes to launching APFSDS rounds, which are the primary weapons of most tanks these days.  Other than that, a smoothbore isn't that bad when lobbing HE shells, and has a longer life span without replacing the rifling of the barrel.
[/QUOTE]

We are no longer thinking about it, it's going to happen, the decision has been made. By "politicians". Scumbag Blair and his equally scumbag government are allowing the closure of the UK's ammunition factories so we are being forced to adopt "smoothbore" tank guns to ensure we can import ammunition for our tanks.

The "sliding band" APFSDS round adopted by the British (which by the way took out an iraqi tank at a range in excess of 4000M) is highly accurate  not horribly accurate, and the smoothbore gun is"totally useless" when it comes to non anti armour ammunition.

It is true that the smoothbore gun is longer lasting than it's rifled barrel cousin.

The HESH round is now useless against modern armour, I dont argue that fact but do you remember the TV pictures in the last gulf war of a CR2 destroying an Iraqi TV mast using HESH?  An M1 would have been there till doomsday trying to do that!!.

I am a former British army tank commander and so I have "some" knowledge about tanks. The British tank crews do not want to lose their precious rifled barrels.

The British tank "bible" says that tanks have 3 roles

1. To destroy enemy armour (note armour is spelt correctly, not armor ughh!!)

2. to support the infantry

3. To exploit shock action

With smoothbore guns only no1 can be really achieved, ok if you have abundant Artillary, mortar, helicopter and close air support,  but in battle the only guarantee is that your plan will not survive the first shot fired.

The USA depends on technology and overpowering might to destroy the enemy, It failed in Vietnam and one day when all this support is missing it's smoothbore gun tanks will fail again

Long  live HESH

Vietnam was used as an example by me to show that technology does not guarantee success.

the TV mast example is an example that the smoothbore gun is not a jack of all trades, it is in fact totally useless against non armour targets.

The longest range 1st round hit by APFSDS was credited to a Challenger 1 during the first gulf war using a rifled barrel.

And air supremacy....

And attack helicopters to cripple(destroy) the enemy armoured forces ....

And no enemy infantry with LAW's around ...

So, the best tank job could be done by a bunch of BMP's? Really ....why are we still buiding tanks?

because you could pierce the armour of a BMP with a snowball!!

What  kind of snowball?

During the selection exercises the Malaysia Army gave all the tanks a good bashing in atypical tropical physical and weather conditions. Surprising PT-91 survived and the rest packed their crate and go home. First delivery shall be 1st Quarter 2006.

The Aussies is using the Leopards and we regularly conduct training with them locally,however, they never bring any of those crate. Probably they must have bad experience in the tropical jungle. Tanks regularly get stuck in the soft swamp

Malaysia has a specific reason for acquiring MBT which I have no liberty to discuss it in public domain. However, during the evaluation certain specification has to be met. Firepower will be excellent in an open tank battle but endurance and survivability are also important criterion. The various  tanks were put into very severe test not on a specific artificial environment but the tanks have to be driven to a considerable distant before it can be accepted. Malaysian environment can be considered as closed terrain which usually rugged, covered with dense, multiple canopied trees and impenetrable undergrowth and criss-crossed by numerous rivers and streams. In such environment visibility is inevitably limited and movement is near impossible even for the infantry. The tanks are vulnerable to the ever present ambush by a handful of infantry with RPG and Carl Gustv.

>

One of the design criteria of The Scorpion light AFV was that it must be able to pass between the tree's in a Malayan rubber plantation, so it makes sense that the MBT needs of countries like Malaysia are going to be different than the USA or UK.

Malaysian is currently using Stomers and Scorpions. Pictures showing Stomers and Scorpions during the US-Malaysian Joint exercise at the South China Sea.

The best tank in the world actually is the Abrams M1A1/A2 battle tank USA

"And soon to be... the M1A3"  huh M1-A3?

YES, SOME ONE!!!! Yes the US M1-A1 and M1-A2 are the best tanks in the world!!!!!

Have these studies included how M1 tanks are so easily disabled by RPG fire while Challenger II just shrugs off RPG's ? 

with all due respect!! numerous M1's have been disabled by RPG attack especially around the engine. Challanger has shrugged off similar attacks.

This question of the best tank is impossible to answer as different situations favour different vehicles. 

perhaps we should take a leaf out of Leonidas book and admit each tank was dsigned with different values in mind.

The Leapard has the best gun, the M1 is the most maneuverable, the Challenger is the best protected, the LeClerk has the finest electronics, the Merkava the safest crew and the T-95 the hardest to hit.......... T-55 wins hands down for value for money. $5000 each and no more parking problems at the supermaket.

Well..that is an imature statement. No one gives a damn how military vehicles do during trials and games. That bull. All that matters is how they act and perform in combat. In that sense the Leopard can kiss my Royal American ASS! The Challengers 2 and the M1-A2 Abrams are the best tanks in the world.

So the stats on moder MBT's are in and they are close on paper. But if we called a war tommorow and everyone showed up how would it fair?

The M1 series of tank is the MBT with the most combat time, and agenst some other tanks, they have none. The isralies have the urban experience, but the us in gaining on them. In open warfare, the us has learned how to exploit the MBT in actual combat.

I think that in an all out war, the M1 series would be the last one standing.

Another contender.............

.......................

Best tank in the world.......

for public transport.....

Most fuel efficient tank in the world.....

Oil isn't going to last forever.............

Undoubtably.

it would have run out of fuel and all the others driven off.

weakest part of a tank is it's refuel trucks, if you need twice as many you're twice as weak. M1 has had a lot of combat experience but only with air supremacy and none against an opponent with an actve  airforce.

QUOTE 

"The Challengers 2 and the M1-A2 Abrams are the best tanks in the world."
Tanks as far as i know get measured on three basic criteria. Fire Power, mobility and armour. They both dont win hands down in all three category's.

The challenger2 fails in fire power with that rifled gun, Nor is it very quick. it loses in two categories.Talking about fire power, neither have the L55 canon yet, which means they both dont have the fire power of a leopardA6 at this point in time.  QUOTE

This is where we can argue all day, challenger II is I think everone agrees the best protected tank in the world, It's armour Chobham & Dorchester is simply the best. Yes it's not quite as mobile as either the M1 or Leopard 2 but is still a nimble beast as far as tanks go. As for firepower? my god I am guilty of treason!!  will somebody  kill Tony Bair and his entire scumbag Government.

We are planning to do away with the rifled barrel and opt for a smooth bore gun simply because Blair's scumbag government are allowing the closing down of the UK's ammo factories( due smaller ammo orders) and we will be dependent on imported ammo for our tanks. So we are having to go with the majority!!

I dont care if i am outnumbered by a thousand to 1, I tell everyone of you this simple fact, Smoothbore tank Guns are a mistake!!.  They are good against armour but despite improvements are "mediocre" against all other targets.  The rifled barrel  tank gun can destroy even the most modern tank and still be effective against soft and infantry targets, why get rid of it? it beggars belief.

Originally posted by Richard XIII I just saw on Discovery channel a list: 1 Leopard - Germany now 2 Abrams - USA now 3 T 34 - USSR WW2 4 Israel tank now 5 Swedish tank now 6. T 72 - USSR cold war 7. Panther - Germany (WW2) 8,9,10 and the names of Israel and Swedish tanks I don't remember

"5 Swedish tank now"

That was the Swedish tank in 1960, number one is Swedish, STRV 122

http://alexkall.shackspace.com/files/strv122.wmv - http://alexkall.shackspace.com/files/strv122.wmv

Im presuming thats what you saw as number one

of course leopard a6 best

and south korea k2 is very good

its turkish tank in the future

yes its model

a soviet dog anti-tank mine.

Our latest design. All your base are belong to us.