Originally Posted by SHERMAN

lol....so if discovery the "tank experts" say so who are we to argue.

Well you'll just have to cope with the fact that our tanks kicked your asses from the beginning on , and if it wasn't for german engeneering the Sherman wouldn't exist the way it does... sry to tell you that m8
edit: sry for being so rude, i'm just alergic to irony on my costs

I don't really care which is the best but i think the leo is one of them and I'm always happy to have one of them around- so no hard feelings...

The K1A1 is the South Korean version of the M1A1 Abrams MBT and it's been performing the way it's supposed to be.

The next one that will be deployed to units is the K2 MBT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-wx6DLhdBo
Obviously we'll never know how good it actually is until it sees service but I doubt they'll pour in a lot of money for something worse than the K1A1. Also, the turret is designed so that the 120mm smoothbore gun can be replaced with a 140mm gun if such a weapon is ever developed and delivered. 140mm guns have been in experimental stages but have not been completed primarily due to the lack of need. The 120mm is more than enough to take out anything that rolls on the ground at the present time.

Well you'll just have to cope with the fact that our tanks kicked your asses from the beginning on , and if it wasn't for german engeneering the Sherman wouldn't exist the way it does... sry to tell you that m8

IM not american

My point was that these "infotainment" shows while very nice to watch are not exactly scientific reports after field trials...

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

My point was that these "infotainment" shows while very nice to watch are not exactly scientific reports after field trials...

I know that, my post wasn't meant to be objective
And I know you're not American ^^

i think t-95 tank with its supposed capabilities is definitely the best one.

The usual pattern: The American hardware performs better than advertised/expected. Russian hardware performs far worse than advertised/expected.

german tanks are notoriousely OVER designed and tempermental, plus very expensive. sometimes the best engineered tank is not the best. That show is bogus because the lepeard has never faced an equal enemy, if it has ever even been used in war. While the T-34 beat your german tanks all day long, even the german generals like it better, most said it is either the T-34 or the IS-2 that were the best tanks of the war. and they served on both fronts!

Leo 2A6.

T-95 has reverse speed issues persistent in all T-64 and 72 derivatives and only the tower is protected on par with the western 1st gen tank.

Challenger has inferior protection and slower turret traverse, the sloped tower nets it some more protection but the Leo 2A6 got additional armour so its still superior.

Merkava is all around inferior than the top dogs, not as fast off-road ( though nominally its comparable but after some vids of tanks in Lebanon its clear that its off road capability sucks as far as 1st gen not to mention the troop compartment is a major weakness ).

Leclerc is your run of the mill battle tank but while the top dogs get depleted uranion AND composite layers he's just with the composites.

I'd say that its either Abrams or 2A6, T-95 should not even be here as its worse than all other competitors and not really a 1st gen tank rather than a particulary succesfull modernisation project.

Merkava is all around inferior than the top dogs, not as fast off-road ( though nominally its comparable but after some vids of tanks in Lebanon its clear that its off road capability sucks as far as 1st gen not to mention the troop compartment is a major weakness ).

Huh? Bad off road? what makes you say that? Troop compartment is a weaknes? do you mean the "back door"?