I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.

Originally Posted by Damien435

I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.

Except that Germany also has an extremely well trained air force and air defense artillery corps. I don't see how you are going to initiate contact with an enemy and bring down air support that quickly. It can take upwards of an hour for USAF support to arrive. During that time any competent tank force is going to be rolling over you.

MI1A2SEP may be the most devilish enemy of China's'99

God!

Originally Posted by Damien435

I would go Leopard, Abrams, then Challenger. Even according to Janes who is a quite reliable source, the Leopard is superior to the Abrams, but the Abrams has a vastly superior supporting crew. The US Air Force could achieve Air Superiority in only a matter of weeks, if not days, over any other Air Force in the world, IMO. Tank to tank engagements; while still a necessity of war, are not as common as they once were. Close air support would mean that the Abrams may be used as use a spotter or even bait, meant to bring the enemy out into the open where they will be caught in a turkey shoot.

The only modifier in that for me would be that both the Abrams and Challenger have stood up to the combat test where the Leopard hasnt so while I hear good things about the Leopard and on paper it should be superior until it sees some form of combat (ie doing its job) I personally cant put it in the number one spot.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The only modifier in that for me would be that both the Abrams and Challenger have stood up to the combat test where the Leopard hasnt so while I hear good things about the Leopard and on paper it should be superior until it sees some form of combat (ie doing its job) I personally cant put it in the number one spot.

Older leopards (Leopard 1) has gone against older russian tanks in the balkans (Danish Leo1). Aswell as RPG so it does have basic "experience".

Newer German tanks are part of peacekeeping missions (Leo 2 A5), not that much resitence in form of tanks left but RPG is still often used, atleast has been until some years ago, dont know how the situation is now.

Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?

Originally Posted by Armyjaeger

Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?

No not really.

Part of battle proven is operating in wartime conditions, with a limited supply of spare part and the stress of that enviromen. Despite the NTC being a great training ground, it still isnt combat.

Its not how good the tank is but the people using it. no one tank has a hugly supior advantage over another tank so we fall on the much tryed and true method. The law of murphy, thy who shoots first wins.

Originally Posted by sleepyscout

Its not how good the tank is but the people using it. no one tank has a hugly supior advantage over another tank so we fall on the much tryed and true method. The law of murphy, thy who shoots first wins.

Unless one object can withstand the impact but the other object can't

Originally Posted by Armyjaeger

Just correct me if Im wrong but I've heard that U.S tank crews have said that going into operation desert storm was like going through NTC rotation with the exeption that the Iraqis weren't as good as the opposing force in the NTC.
So what does that battle proven count today?

Yes i have heard about it too.