[BrotherBryon]

I served at the time that the army was swapping out the M1A1 for the new M1A2 and I got to say the thermal imaging combined with the tank commander's independent optics make it deceivingly more lethal than it's older variant. The independent optics allow the tank commander to find the next target while the gunner is engaging the first one. Once the first target is destroyed the commander flicks a switch and the turret swivels to the position the commander's viewer was and places the gunner directly on target to engage the next enemy unit, while the commander is free to scan for the next target. I can't say for certain whether or not any of the other tanks have a similar system but judging by the pics posted I'm guessing all their optics are fixed in place.

[Aardwolf]

We need a picture of Snuffy

[NeonShivan]

We need a picture of Snuffy

The Snuffy Dreadnought, equipt with a cannon that is OVER 9000! (mm)

[redsniper]

That's almost more than nine meters!

[Hades]

The Abrams combat record is unmatched.  There is, quite simply put, not a tank in the world that has a better operational record than it does.  Ever.

The fact that it's also been used a hell of a lot more in many more combat situations than the other options might have a hand in that.

[watsisname]

That's almost more than nine meters!

In fact it IS more! =O

[redsniper]

Mein Gott!

[NGTM-1R]

The Leopard 2 and the M1 are very close to being the same vehicle, they're both products of the MBT-70 program and they both use more or less the same gun. Both they and the Challenger 2 use the same armor.

The M1 has the best electronics, and it also comes with the widest variety of extra refit options. The Tank Urban Survival Kit in particular is worthy of note and a lot of that is going to go into the M1A3 when it's finalized.

The Leopard 2 has pretty much everything the M1 does, but the Germans don't have the funding the US does so everything isn't quite as nice or up-to-date. They did probably keep the best 120mm guns for themselves, though.

The Challenger 2 is unable to fire NATO standard rounds because its 120mm gun is rifled. This gives it a longer range but denies it access to the kinetic-kill penetrators the Abrams and Leopard use. Given the outbreak of ceramic or reactive armor a rack of HEAT ammo isn't as threatening as it used to be. (There have also been concerns about the reliability of the ammunition in the UK's stores in recent times.)

The T-90A is essentially an unknown factor, but it comes from a design lineage that has not stood up well in practice. The T-72 has been consistently defeated by Western vehicles. (I also notice whoever designed the turret hadn't heard of shot traps.) The multi-layered protection system of composite and reactive armor is interesting but hasn't ever seen a real test. It's essentially a stopgag vehicle until the T-99 comes into service in any case.

The Merkava IV's only combat outings have not been of great success, though this reflects the operators rather than the vehicle. The ability to carry a squad of infantry is much-touted, but it comes at the cost of not carrying ammunition, which means it would be of minimal use in most situations. The Israeli composite armor isn't quite as good as that on the other western vehicles, and at least one Merkava IV was penetrated by a missile that didn't actually explode. There have been noises since 2006 about terminating the line and designing a new tank, but the Israelis have staked a lot on their active protection systems to keep the Merkava competitive.

I would personally prefer Leopard 2 or M1 over the others, but in a sense I'd rather defer until 2015 and see what the M1A3 and its contemporaries look like.

[deathfun]

Oh shoot, I completely forgot
What about that tank which can hide/disguise it's thermal signature? The M1 has nothing on that in Night situations

[Colonol Dekker]

Chally 2




You mean a Mirage tank from Red Alert 2

[headdie]

Oh shoot, I completely forgot
What about that tank which can hide/disguise it's thermal signature? The M1 has nothing on that in Night situations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14788009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlLqdFsMnCE
is a technology demonstrator atm.

and going back to the debate that surrounded I noticed this a moment ago

Adaptiv is based around hexagonal panels made of a thermo-electric material. 

so they are powered by the heat the absorb which would reduce the heat issues we were on about.

[Grizzly]

The Leopard 2 and the M1 are very close to being the same vehicle, they're both products of the MBT-70 program and they both use more or less the same gun. Both they and the Challenger 2 use the same armor.

The M1 has the best electronics, and it also comes with the widest variety of extra refit options. The Tank Urban Survival Kit in particular is worthy of note and a lot of that is going to go into the M1A3 when it's finalized.

The Leopard 2 has pretty much everything the M1 does, but the Germans don't have the funding the US does so everything isn't quite as nice or up-to-date. They did probably keep the best 120mm guns for themselves, though.

The Challenger 2 is unable to fire NATO standard rounds because its 120mm gun is rifled. This gives it a longer range but denies it access to the kinetic-kill penetrators the Abrams and Leopard use. Given the outbreak of ceramic or reactive armor a rack of HEAT ammo isn't as threatening as it used to be. (There have also been concerns about the reliability of the ammunition in the UK's stores in recent times.)

The T-90A is essentially an unknown factor, but it comes from a design lineage that has not stood up well in practice. The T-72 has been consistently defeated by Western vehicles. (I also notice whoever designed the turret hadn't heard of shot traps.) The multi-layered protection system of composite and reactive armor is interesting but hasn't ever seen a real test. It's essentially a stopgag vehicle until the T-99 comes into service in any case.

The Merkava IV's only combat outings have not been of great success, though this reflects the operators rather than the vehicle. The ability to carry a squad of infantry is much-touted, but it comes at the cost of not carrying ammunition, which means it would be of minimal use in most situations. The Israeli composite armor isn't quite as good as that on the other western vehicles, and at least one Merkava IV was penetrated by a missile that didn't actually explode. There have been noises since 2006 about terminating the line and designing a new tank, but the Israelis have staked a lot on their active protection systems to keep the Merkava competitive.

I would personally prefer Leopard 2 or M1 over the others, but in a sense I'd rather defer until 2015 and see what the M1A3 and its contemporaries look like.

How about the engines? I am geussing the Leopard's engine is slightly better (Porsche ).

[The E]

It's more a question of fuel consumption. The Abrams' turbine consumes a bit more fuel, making its operational range a little shorter. In terms of attainable speeds, the two designs are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

[Actium]

The M1 is problaly the Tank with the most Combats over all, so it showed often thats its a good tank.
The Leopard2 is pretty much the same, but with bigger range and a few minor differences.
I dont know a lot about the Challenger, but it seems like its close to the M1
The merkava ... well, i dont know anything about those
The T90 is a damn robust Tank, that didnt see to much action so far. But in the action, it saw, one of those was hit by 7(!!!) RPGs and still remained in action. But besides that, there is not to much known about it. But considering that its Russias showoff-tank we can expect it to be on the same level as the M1.

if i would need to take one, i would take the T90 ... i love suprises

[BritishShivans]

I love the Leopard 2.

But there will always be a place in my heart for the Merkava MKIV. It's so... futurey-looking. Seriously, DAT sloped armor. It's one of the nicest looking tanks I've ever seen.

[crizza]

Leopard 2.
And, the gun of your pretty Abrams is produced where? Right, Germany.
There was a mission in Afghanistan, where a Leopard 2 hit a landmine and was able to return to base, the only injury was a broken hip of the driver.
The tank commander stated, that no other tank could've survived something like this.

[BengalTiger]

The M1 tanks use depleted uranium penetrators, as do the Russians.

DU is a bit different than the tungsten rounds used by the rest of NATO. Tungsten will melt when drilling a hole through the enemy tank's armor, as will the DU round.

Once on the other side the DU round, or what's left of it, will spontaneously ignite as soon as it makes contact with air, causing great balls of fire just about everywhere. Tungsten won't.

[Herra Tohtori]

Snuffleupagus, for sure.




Unsurpassed mobility, and a high calibre smoothbore cannon that doubles as a melee weapon. Ingenious.

[NeonShivan]

Snuffleupagus, for sure.




Unsurpassed mobility, and a high calibre smoothbore cannon that doubles as a melee weapon. Ingenious.

But does it have any armor? No, it won't survive on the battlefield against guided missiles D:

[GT-Keravnos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

Then there's also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther