Originally Posted by prolific

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!

Wow, did you make your selection based on the color of the paint used on the tank you had been looking at at the time? Please for the love of god tell me that is not why or how you chose the Chellenger 2.

Originally Posted by prolific

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!

The Merkava is equally armored or more. It has taken Saggers to the side and not been penetrated.

Originally Posted by Koz

The Merkava is equally armored or more. It has taken Saggers to the side and not been penetrated.

Hey Koz, I was under the impression that the Challenger was the Free World's heaviest armored modern MBT and it is for this reason that its a slower mover. The Merkava, relatively speaking, has very good mobility. Now weight ain't everything, but am I completely out of my mind or have I got the right info here??

As already stated, I'll take slightly better mobility over slightly better armor, given the tradeoff.

GoT, remember that higher weight does not necessarily equal better armour protection. Chobham armour is far better than the rolled homogenous armour that it replaced in spite of the fact that it weighs less. All of the tank manufacturers keep the armour thickness and protection as a closely guarded secret, so when someone says that this or that tank is better protected, it is really an educated guess.
OTOH, the Brits do know how to make good armour, their tank does weigh a lot more, so chances are it really is better protected... from certain angles, anyway.

Dean.

All true, but at the same time, same generation tanks are usually going to run relatively close for lbs/protection if the designers have any clue what they're doing of course. The Challenger II is trying to be the pseudo-heavy, moving slow but hopefully harder to kill. Regardless, I think that the armor sloping on the Merkava is better designed. Very very few angles to get a clean shot off at the thing and it has a very low profile for a MBT. So "from certain angles" is about exactly right.

I vote for Challanger 2! It is a good and sturdy tank!

Originally Posted by zander_0633

I vote for Challanger 2! It is a good and sturdy tank!

LOL, so is the Merkava.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Hey Koz, I was under the impression that the Challenger was the Free World's heaviest armored modern MBT and it is for this reason that its a slower mover. The Merkava, relatively speaking, has very good mobility. Now weight ain't everything, but am I completely out of my mind or have I got the right info here??

As already stated, I'll take slightly better mobility over slightly better armor, given the tradeoff.

No one can say which tank is more heavily armored. I'm just saying that statements like "the challenger is the world's most heavily armored MBT" cannot be verified and are usually patriotic sackriding. The Leo and Leclerc could be just as armored as the Challenger. All I know is that Merkavas have taken ATGMs to the side and continued fighting, Challengers cannot make this claim.

When did Merkavas take Saggers and ATGMs?

Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike

When did Merkavas take Saggers and ATGMs?

1982 Lebanon war