I think the M1A2 would win because of their SABOUT rounds or HEAT rounds. SABOUT rounds are a kinetic energy round made out of depleted uranium that travels about 44,000 MPH. And HEAT rounds are designed to burn through armor and kill(cook?) the people inside. I guess what matters is the training of the tank crews.

but the shermans did take on the "revolutionary russian T-72" and won, i have a tanks buyer's buide, gotta love 'em

Yes you gotta to love em. And the M51 Sherman did not take on T72s, it took on T62s and Centurions. This is during the 1973 Yom
Kippur war, when the T72 wasent in service with the arabs.

I dont think so. Iraq was the most powerful arab country in the world it had the 4th largest army and i highly doubt iran or syria have more advanced tanks then them. Plus Israel doesent fight large scale wars they fight small little battles. Your not going to see israel have 1000+ tanks in action at once. And your not going to see them destroy a country like we did Iraq they simply defend themselfs, so no i doubt they have more experience then us. In small scale conflicts they have far more experience but when it comes to destroying a countries entire military they have none. You gotta remember in those small conflicts only a tiny percent of their tankers are getting experience. So they probally have some incredible tankers and some just good ones. But in Major conflict most of our tankers are seeing battle.

Hmm, not true. 1973 saw the largest scale tank battles since WWII, with thousends of tanks on both sides. Israel completely destroyed arab armies 3 times(56,67,73).

I've come up with this pathetic rating system right off the top of my head...so bear with me.5 different catergories, each with 5 points for a total of 25 points.

1. Firepower
Includes weapons, ammo, optics, fire control, ease of use
2. Protection
Self explanatory
3. Mobility
speed, range, agility
4. Command Control and Communications
5. Training

Firepower
The M1A2SEP and Challenger 2E are pretty much equal in firepower. The Abrams has the best ammo, the Chally the best gun. The fire control is equal, but the Abrams beats it out on the optics with it's x50 FLIR. The T-90 is beat with it's inferior gun, ammo, and fire control
Abrams: 5 points
Challenger: 5 Points
T-90: 3 points
Protection
Both the Challenger and Abrams have equal frontal protection, but the Challenger has better protection all around. The T-90 is inferior to both, but I'll give it a point for it's anti-missile system
Abrams: 4 Points
Chally: 5 points
T-90: 3 points
Mobility
The Abrams is the fastest and most agile of the 3. The Challenger doesn't that much of a greater range to give it points over the Abrams. The T-90 has good mobility, but not great.
Abrams: 5 points
Challenger: 4 points
T-90: 4 Points
C3
The Abrams beats out all others easily. IVIS gives a tank platoon and company a nice edge.
Abrams: 5 points
Challenger: 3 points
T-90: 2 points
Training
US tankers are probably the best trained in the world, British tankers are just behind. The sorry state of Russian command and training lacks it up
Abrams: 5
Chally: 4
T-90: 2

Total
Abrams: 24
Chally: 21
T-90: 14

This is just for fun...so dont take it seriously.

Like I said, training belonges in military discussins, not hardware.

My first-hand experience is dated. I qualified on a straight M1, the one with the 105mm Sheffield Rifle, not the M1A1 with the 120mm Rheinmetall Smoothbore. At the time (almost 20 years ago), nothing came close to the M1. The annual CAT Shoot was pretty much a contest between Bundeswehr Leopard IIs and US Army M1s.

That being said, there are three basic requirements for a good tank design: Lethality, Mobility and Survivability (in that order -- killing efficiency is highest priority).

Nothing beats the M1A2 in Lethality with its 120mm smoothbore, APFSDS round, and fire control system. Maybe a draw with the Leopard II, since they use a similar gun and similar FCS.

Nothing beats the M1A2 in Mobility -- power to weight ratio is about the same as the Leopard II thanks to its gas-turbine engine (the Leopard II gets to the same number with less armor, so less weight).

Nothing beats the M1A2 in Survivability. I think this is probably a draw with the Challenger (same armor).

Finally, the M1A2 is a COMBAT PROVEN design -- something none of the other contestants can claim. I would put my money on M1A2s and -- MOST IMPORTANT -- their combat-hardened crews.

I would pretty much agree with you. THe M1A2SEP is the most lethal tank in the world.

But on the survivability side, I'd put the Merkava and Challenger above the SEP, mainly because they have better flank armor. I don't have any info on the Leo's flank armor.

But you're forgetting the Merkava's combat experience, it's crews ruined T-72s with their 105mm guns. It also managed to take about 5 Saggers before going down.

Your point on Merkava crews is well taken. A good crew in an average tank will beat an average crew in a good tank.

However, the Merkava is in a different class from the other MBTs, so it is not a fair comparison. It would almost be like taking a knife to a gunfight (not saying that a skilled knife-fighter couldn't take out an average gunman).

To paraphrase "Oddball" from "Kelly's Heroes", the only way a Merkava would keep an Abrams occupied is by letting the Abrams shoot holes in it.

The Merkava was designed by Israel for their specific needs -- fighting poorly armed insurgents in desert conditions where the threat is RPG-7s, not fighting European MBTs firing depleted uranium sabot rounds at 3000 meters per second.

Saggers, HEAT rounds, and RPGs are shaped charges that can be defeated by lightweight reactive armor. A depleted uranium dart is through the armor before the reaction takes place.

The Challenger is in the Abrams class. It is a full-up MBT that could duke-it-out with an Abrams. The Challenger is after my time, so I'm sure you are correct that it has improved armor over the Abrams. That would be a match of equals -- and a true test of the crew's skills. Let the best crew win!

5CAV, I respect your experience with tanks, which Im sure is more than mine(as I have non). However, you seem to be mistaken about a few things(related to the Merkava), so let me try and explain them:


1- 5CAV wrote:

The Merkava was designed by Israel for their specific needs -- fighting poorly armed insurgents in desert conditions where the threat is RPG-7s, not fighting European MBTs firing depleted uranium sabot rounds at 3000 meters per second.

Hmm, Im not sure what you mean by that. The Merkava was not created as a COIN vheicle, it was desighned to replace the M60 in Israeli service. The Merkava was put into service(1979) long before the first serious uprising(1989). The Merkava Mk 1 was built with a 105mm gun because that was the standart at the time, with the other western MBTs. The Mk 3 and Mk 4 carry a Israeli-made 120mm smoth bore that dose not fall short of its western counterparts in range, ammo veraiety or muzzle valocity. The Merkava was built to fight other tanks at long ranges as part of the lessons from the 1967 and 1973 conflicts. The Mk 1 proved capable of taking out the T72s, than the newest tank used by the USSR and its allies/clients. Further more, the Mk 3 and Mk 4 have fire control that is considered as good as any western one. The fact is, tohugh Israel could buy the Abrams, it chooses to build the Merkava. AS to the armor its not mainly reactive, actually it is ceramic and other, with additions of armor in some tanks, but not as standart.

While I agree with you 5Cav, that the Merkava is designed for Israel. It would have no problem duking it out with the Abrams at all. It's fire control and gun aren't inferior to the Abrams at all, the ammo doesn't match the M829A3 though. Neither is it's frontal armor, the Merk 3 was rated at about 800mm RHA, the Merkava should be even higher.

THe M1A2SEP

I quote from

http://www.channel4.com/history/micr...d.html#top#top

"The most modern versions of the Abrams – those earmarked for deployment through Turkey with the 4th Infantry Division, the first US division to have a complete digital battle management system – arrived in Iraq too late to have any impact on the war.
Under the rolling Abrams Systems Enhancement Programme (SEP), about 1,000 M1s have been upgraded to conform with the M1A2 configuration. The US Army's modernisation strategy aims to sustain its tank fleet over the next 25 years while new weapons systems and a new engine are introduced.

At least 2 to 14 Abrams were officially reported by Janes defense weekly as disabled/destroyed by traditional or advanced RPGs

(note from Eric: actually some theories state that the M1 used were old pre-pos (itioned) one without all the upgrades provided to the 4th and that they might have limited the losses with new equipment)
Question: is the Abrams M1A2 SEP battlefield tested or is the concept battlefield tested?

Stars and stripes reported Tuesday, November 18, 2003

" (...) But the Fedayeen has had success against U.S. armor. At least two M1A1 Abrams tanks and a Bradley fighting vehicle — both heavily armored — have been destroyed by a truck-mounted missile system new to the Iraqis. The wire-guided Kornet missile system, manufactured by the Russians and apparently sold to the Syrians, has a 3,500-meter range and carries enough punch to destroy a tank. Before the war, U.S. intelligence officials did not know the Iraqis possessed the system.
On Thursday, American military commanders briefed their troops on the new threat and how it can be countered by quickly maneuvering and firing in the direction of the missile, causing the person guiding the missile to move and change its course."

Talking about how vulnerable or not a tank is is talking about the eternal battle between the armor and the bullet. The bullet always win!
Again, I agree, the experience of the crew makes the tank lethal or not.