Originally Posted by Big_Z

My boss is a 19k who was a tank commander during the initial invasion when armor was engaging armor. He is also a Master Gunner so you could say he knows a thing or 2 about putting 120mm down range. He worships the m1 like a god. I asked him straight up the other day which was better, the abrams or the leopard. He said the leopard.

For you that don't know Master Gunner school is like the Ranger school of armor.

What kind of professional experience with the Leo does your tank commander have to make such claim? I mean he bases his opinion on his experience with M1 so i take it he had some experience with Leopards?

Also which variant of M1 is he driving and which variant of Leo did he mean? Could it be possible that you saw a cow fart and mistaken it for your commander?

Originally Posted by Big_Z

My boss is a 19k who was a tank commander during the initial invasion when armor was engaging armor. He is also a Master Gunner so you could say he knows a thing or 2 about putting 120mm down range. He worships the m1 like a god. I asked him straight up the other day which was better, the abrams or the leopard. He said the leopard.

For you that don't know Master Gunner school is like the Ranger school of armor.

Once again, personal preference I know three Master Gunners, and each has a varying thought on the M1 and Leopard.

My very own father was a Master Gunner having had experience with the M48A5 LP, M60A1 RISE, M60A3 TTS, M1, M1A1HA, and M1A2 SEP V1, and to quote him and sum this up as we have every other thread like this one.

A tank is only as good as it's crew. Untrained, unkempt, unfamiliar crew? The tank doesn't matter, even if your piloting the Death Star, your going down faster than a lead brick in the Atlantic.

Another thing is the depth and length of training, I'd take a US/UK/Israeli crew over German/French/Russia ect... not because of nationalist pride, but because I know how all these crews are trained, and I know the US/UK/Israel have some damn good training, long, hard and chest hair growing.

Sure being able to smack a VW Bug size target at 3000 meters in match, non-combat conditions on a nice range made to facilitate armor is some achievement, but lets see it happen when Murphy's Law is in effect during dust storm conditions, with sand in everything, while under heavy small arms and RPG fire, at a horrible angle, on the move. That's when you can start comparing tanks.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

I'm wondering when these bullsh*t threads will stop, i came here because i thought it was a serious forum and all i see is kids spamming "Wut tank iz bezt?".

Use f*cking google or something, stop remaking ridiculous threads over and over, if you dont have even basic knowledge in the subject limit yourself to reading instead of posting rubbish.

The argument about Merkava suited specifically for Israel is complete utter bull, its dimentions are not that different then Leo2A6, it would work just as well in Europe.

And I am wondering why arrogant members who think their opinion is superior to everyone else's feel they have the right to be rude because they happen to disagree. And I while I agree that comparing real-life tanks to ones that only exist on paper is an impossible comparison, it is possible for you to simply disagree, and state why without acting like a jerk. Feel free to try it next time, before you comment.

As for my thread being "BULL". First of all you didnt read what I said: I said that the Merkeva was best at Defending Isreal, I never said it was impossible to it to be deployed elsewhere. My understanding is that the Merkeva can be adapted for cold weather via Winter kits that can be installed seperately (although I very well could be mistaken on this), someone in the IDF would be better suited to say so than I. The reason I didnt mention it before hand was because I thought we were referring to out-of-the-box tanks w/o any upgrades.

And finally here are a few quotes from Sherman (our resident Isreali Tanker), who, very oddly, seems to agree with what I said. And I will readily admit he knows aheck of alot more about Isreali Tanks than I (or you) do:

Which of these tanks can perform the best?

"At any rate speed is not much of a measure in tanks, the real question is what types of terrain it can handle. The Merkava was built mainly for the Golan Heights, a rocky and muddy terrain on which it exells. It dose not have the common torsion bar system because it dosent need it, it is a tank made for a specific country".

and here:

"I always said that the Merkava is the best tank for Israel, not for any situation in the world. No tank can handle the terrain we have in the Golan Heights like the Merkava Mk4, simply because it was built with only 2 terrain types in mind".

Merkava Mk 4 -VS- Leopard 2A6


FO Seaman

I agree, as Chuck Yeagar famously said: "Its the Man, not the Machine".


Yin

Testing helps for sure, but I always feel that actual experiance in the real thing is better than any simulation.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Yin

Testing helps for sure, but I always feel that actual experiance in the real thing is better than any simulation.

I totally agree with you which is why I say in modern times it is hard to make a perfect decision.

@FO.

Germans have a very high training standard, their problem is they abuse sims as opposed to live training which reflects in the end effect, Russian tankers can be mentioned only on the same level as "french courage"