[Vassili Zaitsev]

Okay, so which do you think is the best tank in the world for endurance, mobility, armor, firepower, speed, gas mileage, etc. Personally, I think the Russian T-90 has to be one of the best, however the M1A2 is a not so shabby tank also.

[The Apostate]

The M1-A2 probably has the best combination of firepower, mobility, reliability and survivability of any tank in the world. The real problem remains fuel consumption, though this is offset somewhat by the much greater reliability and durability of its powerpack in comparison to other vehicles. The superiority of US tank ammunition is also fairly well documented.

The T-90 is a good tank, but it's size (and the track record of the design's history) makes me question its survivability, nor am I convinced of the quality of Russian tank guns and fire control systems.

The French LeClerc seems like a great tank on paper, but it's seen no actual combat, and the record of French military engineering is less than stellar. It is also not as heavily armored as the Abrams, the Challenger or the latest models of the German Leopard II series.

The British Challenger II is the only MBT that compares favorably to the Abrams in terms of survivability, but like most British tanks, is lacking in mobility, and the main gun is just not as good as the German designed tube used by the rest of Nato.

[Necro99]

M1A2 and T-90.
The latest in tank development, with a little place with the Type-98.

[A_Technocrat]

Personally, I think the Russian T-90 has to be one of the best,

Does it have the goodies like depleted uranium rounds and ceramic armor?

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

T-90 does not use DU rounds...Russians just don't use such rounds. Its main round is the BM-42M 125mm tungsten APFSDS which can penetrate 680mm at 2km. Its not the best there is...but the Russians probably are already developing (or building) someting better (this round is already about a decade old) It does however have At-11b ATGM...which will ensure first shot hit at 5km range.

T-90 also does not use ceramic armor. Ceramic armor is good against HEAT rounds...but Russians use ERA for that. Their armor is more concerned with defeating KE rounds...so it primarely uses high strength steels or titanium in spaced layers. Its armor plus K-5 ERA should equal about 800+mm in KE protection and 1350+mm in HEAT protection (meaning about the same as M1A2)

The T-90 is better I think because of its smaller profile...and primarely because of its much better mobility.

M1 as far as mobility is concerned...is REALLY weak. In trials done in snowy terrain against Leo 2A5 and T-80U...M1 broke down 3 times...and in fact had to be towed by the T-80U twice and by the Leo once. The Leo and T-80U never broke down.

Besides...as Iraq showed...it doesn't matter what tank you use...some farmer with an RPG can always take it out...

[Gothmog]

-And what about the Merkava III?

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Merkava III is the most survivable of all...but it probably will suffer a lot of mobility kills. Its enigne is in the front...in order to provide more protection for the crew...but that also means that any penetrating round will destroy the engine. The Israelis had this problem with the Merkava I in 1982...when Syrian T-72s took out more than 20 Merkavas by imobilizing them with front hits into the engine.

In my opinion...thats just a stupid idea to put the engine in the front. The engine and fuel tanks offer protection against HEAT projectiles of ATGMs..but against APFSDS projectiles they offer very little resistance...so whats the point of it??

That is Merkava's biggest problem. The turret with its addon armor is very resistant.

I don't know what kind of ammo the 120mm Israeli gun uses...so I can't say how effective it would be against a T-80U or such.

[Vassili Zaitsev]

Spetsnaz, where do you get this cool tank info? The M1 had to be toad by a Soviet/Russian T-80U? Oh the irony.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Spetsnaz, where do you get this cool tank info?

Hanging out with the wrong crowd...

[Khenlein]

The Abrahms.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

There are many versions of the Abrams...starting from the first M1 of 1980...which was a total piece of crap...to the M1A1 of 1985 which was better...but still too weak to face Soviet tanks of the same generation...followed by the M1A1HA of 1987which put it equal to most Soviet tanks of its generation...followed by the M1A2 of mid 90s which surpased most Soviet tanks in its generation...followed by M1A2SEP of late 90s early 2000s.

They are as different as night and day...so which version??

[Khenlein]

Had I felt the need to specify, I would of.

^ see two posts up for answer.