Which of these tanks can perform the best?

Leopard 2 is fast, advanced, and powerful. Best by far. It's mine protection system is invaluable on thew modern battlefield.
Abrahms - slow, but powerful
Merkava - slow, hard to take out
Others - junk
 
DEisenhower said:
Leopard 2 is fast, advanced, and powerful. Best by far. It's mine protection system is invaluable on thew modern battlefield.
Abrahms - slow, but powerful
Merkava - slow, hard to take out
Others - junk
Click to expand...


I apologize. The others are not quite junk, but lack the backing of the world's best engineers.
 
i would put any Merkava of any Mark and it's crew against any tank and any crew in the Entire world.

a tank dosen have to ride at 100KM right?
it is enought to get a good position-driver
and good loading rate-loader and pricite cannon and shooting-gunner
and a good commnader who know how to work on the tank,it can be slow and yet deadly.
The man in the tank will previle
 
i would put any Merkava of any Mark and it's crew against any tank and any crew in the Entire world.

a tank dosen have to ride at 100KM right?
it is enought to get a good position-driver
and good loading rate-loader and pricite cannon and shooting-gunner
and a good commnader who know how to work on the tank,it can be slow and yet deadly.
The man in the tank will previle
Click to expand...

Iagree, but we are not talking about training levels and crew abilety, we are talking about hardware.

Merkava - slow, hard to take out
Click to expand...

I really dont get this repeating nonsens about the Merkav lacking mobilety. The Mk IV has a 1500 hp GERMAN MTU diesel and I can sassure you it is far from slow. The Mk III was a bit sluggish with its 1200hp diesel, but could still manage 60-65 kmh dashes. The only really problematic members of the family were the MK I and Mk II with their 900 and later 1000 hp engines which could only get them going at 45-55 kmh.

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.
 
DEisenhower said:
Leopard 2 is fast, advanced, and powerful. Best by far. It's mine protection system is invaluable on thew modern battlefield.
Abrahms - slow, but powerful
Merkava - slow, hard to take out
Others - junk
Click to expand...

- Abrahms - slow, but powerful : I don't know Abrahms.
- Merkava - slow, hard to take out : Some 20 Merkavas (including Mark 4) were disabled in Lebanon, especially by RPG-29 'Vampir' tandem-warhead.
- Others - junk : Le Clerc, Challenger 2, Ariete, Type-10 Japan are junk ?
 
Some 20 Merkavas (including Mark 4) were disabled in Lebanon, especially by RPG-29 'Vampir' tandem-warhead.
Click to expand...

No Merkava 4 was disabled by RPG-29 as far as I remember(and I saw the specifics of every single tank hit). Even if there were some its not surprisng considering hte massive penetration of the RPG-29 which can penetrate any tank from the side and rear.

Most of the total loss Merkavas were attacked with 200-500kg IEDs. The rest were mostly hit by Kornet, Metis, and Milan ATGMs. Actuall losses to RPG-29 and RPG-7 were minimal.
 
The Metis-M is a friggin expensive weapon where the missile is even more expensive. How the heck did they manage to afford that?
 
brillix said:
- Abrahms - slow, but powerful : I don't know Abrahms.
- Merkava - slow, hard to take out : Some 20 Merkavas (including Mark 4) were disabled in Lebanon, especially by RPG-29 'Vampir' tandem-warhead.
- Others - junk : Le Clerc, Challenger 2, Ariete, Type-10 Japan are junk ?
Click to expand...

K2 MBT isn't a bad tank either.
 
...

The Russian tank is not T-90 or T-95. It's the (now legendary) Object 640 'Black Eagle'. A tank I had a dream to drive on day but never did. God, they said none were produced, but, judging from this photo, they lied...

As for T-95, they are currently being tested. They will start to mass produce them by 2010.

As for which is the best, being Russian and having served in the tank forces there, I would say the Black Eagle, which is actually in itself the prototype for the T-90 and T-95. But I've been to Israel and seen the Merkava in action, so, I have to say... I'm torn between those two.
 
Disagree. Why only Mi helicopters? What of Kamov (KA-50 aka Black Shark, and KA-52 aka Alligator) choppers? Those are great too.
 
Yeah actually, the Kamovs aren't bad either. No, not a big fan of any of their dedicated attack helicopters like you said such as the Black Shark and Alligator. But I'm a bit of a fan when it comes to Russian utility helicopters.
 
Seriy said:
As for which is the best, being Russian and having served in the tank forces there, I would say the Black Eagle, which is actually in itself the prototype for the T-90 and T-95. But I've been to Israel and seen the Merkava in action, so, I have to say... I'm torn between those two.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, there's no prototype of the "Black Eagle" theres not one bolt or screw built and its unlikely it will be built in the next 10-15 years.

T-90 used T-72 as basis.

T-95 just like Black Eagle is vaporware, it either does not exist or its a glorified T-90 with a few modifications, sorry to burst your bubble but concrete evidence (lack of any evidence that is) implies that Russia is not developing any new tank anytime soon.
 
It's just like that now with the Russian stuff.
They're the same thing with new names.

The new line of Sukhoi jets are simply Su-27s undergone upgrades. In other countries that aren't crazy, they'd just name it Su-27E or something like that.
Same with those tanks. The T-90 like you said, is a heavily upgraded T-72. But it is still a T-72.

It would be like calling the M1 MBT the M1, the M1A1 as the M2 MBT, the M1A2 the M3 and the M1A2SEP the M4.
It's ridiculous.

Like the Su-34, the bomber version of the Su-27 had this one single airframe that went on display under "Su-34" "Su-34FN" "Su-34MF." For the same aircraft!
 
the_13th_redneck said:
\
Same with those tanks. The T-90 like you said, is a heavily upgraded T-72. But it is still a T-72.
Click to expand...
Its not a T-72, its a new tank that used T-72 as a basis but its so heavily improved it can stand on relatively equal footing with most modern western designs, there's a much bigger difference between T-72/T-90 and respective Abrams variants.
 
Well, you're the tank authority it seems so I'll take your word for it. But again as with Russian stuff, I gotta see it to believe it.
I believe the Metis-M did well against Merkavas in Lebanon, so I believe that one.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
It's just like that now with the Russian stuff.
They're the same thing with new names.

The new line of Sukhoi jets are simply Su-27s undergone upgrades. In other countries that aren't crazy, they'd just name it Su-27E or something like that.
Same with those tanks. The T-90 like you said, is a heavily upgraded T-72. But it is still a T-72.

It would be like calling the M1 MBT the M1, the M1A1 as the M2 MBT, the M1A2 the M3 and the M1A2SEP the M4.
It's ridiculous.

Like the Su-34, the bomber version of the Su-27 had this one single airframe that went on display under "Su-34" "Su-34FN" "Su-34MF." For the same aircraft!
Click to expand...

From what I see, when Russians call their Aircraft stuff like Su-30MKI or MiG-29OVT it means its a modernised/export version of it. Thats why they call the others Su-33/34 and MiG-35 etc etc [Though NATO labels them stuff like Fulcrum-E and similar]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top