http://www.pakistanidefence.com/PakA...ldMBT2000.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n/mbt-2000.htm

Guys, check the link above, i don't know much about tanks to be honest so i can't really compare...what you think of that tank? Peace out

Originally Posted by str8 thug

http://www.pakistanidefence.com/PakArmy/AlKhaildMBT2000.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n/mbt-2000.htm

Guys, check the link above, i don't know much about tanks to be honest so i can't really compare...what you think of that tank? Peace out

It's good for pakistan. With good ammo it could be a pretty lethal tank, although it's still not as well armored and survivable as other tanks

The reason why the Abrams was ranked above all other modern western tanks is because it's seen much more fighting especially when you consider large scale fighting. The Abrams was instrumental to the defeat of the 4th largest army in the world during the first Gulf War, while non United States armies were left primarily in a supporting role.

As for the T-34, not putting it at the top of the list would have been a travesty. The T-34 was feared by german soldiers and played a hugely important role in the major tank battles of the Eastern front such as Kursk.

The Tiger I, while a very tough tank in its day. Simply doesn't have the same place in history as the T-34.

The Sherman is the most numerous tank in history and if it had been around in 1941 and 1942 it would have been more then a match for the Panzer III and Panzer IV. It also played a very important role in the western theatre. Not to mention some 4,000 Shermans that were given to the Soviet Union through lend/lease.

Edit: To better express my thoughts on the Sherman. If it had been around in significant quantities throughout France and properly used instead of dispersed amongst infantry.

Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU

The reason why the Abrams was ranked above all other modern western tanks is because it's seen much more fighting especially when you consider large scale fighting. The Abrams was instrumental to the defeat of the 4th largest army in the world during the first Gulf War, while non United States armies were left primarily in a supporting role.

As for the T-34, not putting it at the top of the list would have been a travesty. The T-34 was feared by german soldiers and played a hugely important role in the major tank battles of the Eastern front such as Kursk.

The Tiger I, while a very tough tank in its day. Simply doesn't have the same place in history as the T-34.

The Sherman is the most numerous tank in history and if it had been around in 1941 and 1942 it would have been more then a match for the Panzer III and Panzer IV. It also played a very important role in the western theatre. Not to mention some 4,000 Shermans that were given to the Soviet Union through lend/lease.

The Abrams is the premier tank. The T-80U was built at the same time and the M1 can shred it, same with the T-90.

But I do agree with you stance on the T-34.






LOL.

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.

I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.

How do you judge whether one country has better crews than another? IMO combat experience is the only real decider amongst western tank crews.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.

What is "tech" refering to, technology in the tanks? Better crews, as countries tankers has never met with eachother I bet we will never know that, unless theres a staged a big compatition. Like the Leopard 2 war games that is between all Leopard 2 countrys (not sure if all are in but i think so, atleast germany is), where Sweden has won several times.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

I disagee. The Leo is close but not the best. The M1 has the same main gun, but the M1 has more tech and better crews.

I wouldn't say that

The Leopard FCS is actually easier to use.

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

Except that Germany also has an extremely well trained air force and air defense artillery corps.

Well trained? Probably. Well equipped (which is pretty important too)? To a much lesser extent than the USAF. Germany still relies heavily on the F-4 Phantom II, which were completely phased out in the early 90s in America, the Tornado and the MiG-29, which are getting old too.

Originally Posted by AlexKall

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.

When did Danish forces battle enemies in the Balkans? Do you know what the most powerful tank was that their Leo 1s faced?