Originally Posted by gladius

Both these tanks were designed for different purposes in mind.

The Challenger 2 was designed for fighting in open terrain in Europe. Made for covering long distances (supensionwise not fuel consumption) and long range fighting.

The Merkava was design by Israel for fighting on their terrain specificly. More heavily armored for closed-in and urban areas.

Possibly the terrain would be a factor too.

Both are designed to be main battle tanks. You could take the Merkava and put it in Europe and it would do as well (if not better) then the Challenger while you could take the Challenger and put it in Israel and it would do as well too.

The Merkava has an extremely advanced suspension. It probably has the best cross country performence in the world

Why wasn't the Challenger IIE, the latest version of the Challenger, used for this poll? Especially since the Challenger II seems to be getting a lot of criticism from people for its supposed lack of mobility (the IIE has a 1500hp diesel engine as opposed to the old 1200hp one).

There are other differences between the Challenger II and IIE.

From http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/:
"Challenger 2E has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580 day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The powerpack has been replaced with a new 1500 hp Europack with transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The smaller but more powerful engine allows more space for fuel storage, increasing the vehicle’s range to 550km"

Note the hp is the same as the Abrams, despite being a diesel IC engine, not a turbine.

Originally Posted by Doug97

Why wasn't the Challenger IIE, the latest version of the Challenger, used for this poll? Especially since the Challenger II seems to be getting a lot of criticism from people for its supposed lack of mobility (the IIE has a 1500hp diesel engine as opposed to the old 1200hp one).

There are other differences between the Challenger II and IIE.

From http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/:
"Challenger 2E has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580 day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The powerpack has been replaced with a new 1500 hp Europack with transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The smaller but more powerful engine allows more space for fuel storage, increasing the vehicle’s range to 550km"

Note the hp is the same as the Abrams, despite being a diesel IC engine, not a turbine.

The Challenger 2E isnt in use with the British army

Originally Posted by Koz

The Challenger 2E isnt in use with the British army

I know, your point being ... ?

The original contest involved "a list of the six best tanks currently in production " ... well the II isn't in production, the IIE is, and the IIE is the best.

I voted for Challenger 2

It has much more powerful engine than the Chieftain and equipped with excellent Chobham Armor. Challenger took part in Operation Desert Storm (1991) where the Iraqi forces failed to take a single vehicle out of combat while Challenger destroyed roughly 300 Iraqi tanks.
Standard equipment includes thermal sights, gun stabilization NBC system as well as mounting points for external fuel tanks at the rear and Combat Dozer Blade at the front.

• Armament: 1 - 120mm long L11A5 gun, 2 - 7.62mm MG, 2 x 5 barrel smoke dischargers
• Power Train: Perkins Engines (Shrewsbury) Condor V-12, 12 cyl diesel, coupled to David Brown Vehicle Transmission TN37.
• Speed: 34.8 mph
• Range: 279 miles
• Crew: 3
• Weight: 68 tons

I am for Challenger 2, because of his survivability and gunpower.

Originally Posted by Doug97

I know, your point being ... ?

The original contest involved "a list of the six best tanks currently in production " ... well the II isn't in production, the IIE is, and the IIE is the best.

I don't think any other countries have ordered the 2E. What's the point of talking about what's best In Greek trials it got less of a score then the abrams and leo. What's the point of talking about what's best if it isnt in service.

Originally Posted by seth

I am for Challenger 2, because of his survivability and gunpower.

The Leo, Leclerc, and Abrams can all shoot ammo that gets equal to or better penetration then what the Challenger can fire

Originally Posted by Doug97

I know, your point being ... ?

The original contest involved "a list of the six best tanks currently in production " ... well the II isn't in production, the IIE is, and the IIE is the best.

Dude, don't get hung up on the details. There is a reason I just said "Challenger 2" "Abrams" and "Leopard 2". It is easier. I was sticking to generalities because it is easier for people like me who do not put too much thought into armored warfare because quite frankly I still think of tanks as rolling death traps, same as destroyers in the Navy.

Originally Posted by gladius

Both these tanks were designed for different purposes in mind.

The Challenger 2 was designed for fighting in open terrain in Europe. Made for covering long distances (supensionwise not fuel consumption) and long range fighting.

The Merkava was design by Israel for fighting on their terrain specificly. More heavily armored for closed-in and urban areas.

Possibly the terrain would be a factor too.

It is not difficult to adapt a tank design to different terrain needs. Additionally, the the fact that the Merkava is better designed for Urban/up-close roles and the Challenger is designed with open terrain in mind: Consider that it is very easy for a tank to do well on open, simple terrain and almost any tank can do it. The Merkava possibly even has a bit of an edge over the Challenger II there. It's faster and extremely versatile over rough or level terrain. Adapting the Merkava for cold weather would not be difficult. And it is extremely impressive to me to have any tank that puts up an outstanding performance in Urban fighting. That is very rare and very hard to do.

I'm not sure which can reliably hit and kill at the greatest distance, but the Challenger is somewhat unique these days in the fact that it still has a rifled barrel. The rest of the world has moved to smoothbore main guns for their MBT, but the Brits feel that the rifled barrel grants them something extra. I don't know whether its a good idea or bad idea on the whole, but it definitely creates a tradeoff.

On the Challenger II's side, there is no other tank in the world that is harder to kill. Its a pseudo heavy: Slower and more heavily armored.

Israel doesn't have massive production capabilities, yet they do export and sell Merkavas to other nations. Challenger's are also exported and sold abroad.

challenger 2 for sure!! its one of the most heavily armoured tanks in the world and it looks good too--merkava looks like green poop!