Information
M1 Abrams (American)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9/K2_rotem.gif
Arjun tank (Indian)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9/K2_rotem.gif
K2 (South Korean)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther
T-90 (Russian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
C-1 Ariete (Italian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete
Challeneger 2 (Britain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete
Merkava VI (Israel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariete
Leopard 2 (Germany)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
Type 99 (China)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99
Leclerc (France)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclerc

Personally, it's a match between M1 Abram, Challenger and Leopard 2. Both amazing tanks and the best in the world. All better in different ways. Many results have different views but I personally voted Challenger. Slightly because I'm British but mainly because after WW2 the British were near or more advanced as the American's on tank design. Also I believe the Challenger has had more exports than the M1 but I may be wrong. Sorry if I am.

Look, I know that some of these tanks are unknown or may be judged as irrelevant, but look at the sites. I think you should consider the K2 and the C-1 Ariete too. Just because they're unknown doesn't mean they're bad.

the merkava is the most capable mbt in moderne combat, in urban area or in wide area.
and is the most secure for its crew

Originally Posted by tamerlan

the merkava is the most capable mbt in moderne combat, in urban area or in wide area.
and is the most secure for its crew

I disagree. Like the Swedish S-103, The Merkeva is a Great Tank but its best suitable for use within its home country. The reason for that is because of Isreal's low population (7.5 Million) which means that Crew survivability is crucial as well as the fact thats its designed to run it the hot Middle-Eastern Enviroment.

But say compared to a say a medium sized European country say France, Germany, or the UK. These countries have moderate size populations 65-70 Million where crew survivability is less important (Im talking as a design feature, not trying to be casual with other people's lives). The design sacrifices needed to make the Merkeva survivable start to hurt it more. For example, its inferior firepower compared to Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. Furthermore, take into account that the Merkeva wasn't really designed to run in very cold environments and I think it will be vastly inferior to some of the others on that list. In short Merkeva was designed to protect Israel, and that's exactly what its best at.

Challenger 2 gets my vote, followed very closely by Abrams, Leopard 2 and Leclerc.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

The reason for that is because of Isreal's low population (7.5 Million) which means that Crew survivability is crucial as well as the fact thats its designed to run it the hot Middle-Eastern Enviroment.

This makes alot of sense to me. But not only the population but the economy as well. Unless I am mistaken, Israel is an LEDC. To be able to run an army would be extortionate and the need to protect your army will be much higher so as to reduce training costs ect.

Another point, and this is true for most of the Tanks on the List is that they have really only faced obsolete Soviet-era tanks on the battlefield. Not to sound too arrogant, but the Russians haven't built a halfway-decent tank since the T-62 (almost 50 years ago). Everything after that has been crap, and I say this based on the discussions I had with a former Russian tank Commander (a business client) who emigrated to the USA. He served in T-62 and T-72s, in the 70's and 80's. He loved the former, and the the T-72 was a deathtrap.

But the point I am making is that none of these tanks have ever faced each other, and to me that's the real test. A modern MBT battle with both sides equipped equally, not the one sided affairs most recent tank battles have been.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

But the point I am making is that none of these tanks have ever faced each other, and to me that's the real test. A modern MBT battle with both sides equipped equally, not the one sided affairs most recent tank battles have been.

This is only half true. They have never actually fought each other on the battlefield but they have competed against each other in international competitions. However, this is more of a test for the tank crews rather than the tank itself so it's not exactly a reliable source.

I guess what you can learn is that if tanks never actually engage each other in combat it can become very difficult to make a 'good' combat based on learning from experience, because there is very little to learn from.

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.

Ariete and Ajrun are 3gen tanks in name only, Ariete has composite armor thats similar to Leo2A3 which means any relatively modern 120mm ammo is going to gut the thing, it has good optics, good gun and Italians use pretty modern ammo but its protection is substandard to a point it doesnt deserve a place here.

Arjun is pretty much the same, these are weird machines in that they're build to 3gen standards but dont come even remotely close to M1A2~ Leo2A4 and up, Merk IV, Challenger 2 or Leclerc.

T-90 is not a true 3gen tank for a variety of reasons already recounted quite often, you could compare it with Arjun, Type-99 or Ariete but not with the best MBTs the world has to offer.

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.

As for which tank is best? Right now i'd go with M1A2SEP for best armor, optics and ammunition but the topic is rather ridiculous as the differences between the latest tanks arent big enough to affect actual operations.

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.