1.Abrams M1A2 2.Leopard 2A6 3.Merkava Mk.4 4.T90 5.Challenger 2 6.Leclerc Only best of the best(by my opinion) are here.Chose ur pick.I would go for Leopard 2A6.Best mix of maneuverability, fire power and protection. Please motivate your choice!
I would rate the Leopard 2A6 higher than the Abrams. Also, the Merkava is a very specific tank, built for Israels uses. It is quite large and heavy - 10 tons heavier than the 2A6.
Use the search button, there are more topics about this subject out there... But about the Merkava 4, it is made to deal with the terrorists in Palistinian area but fcourse it is also build to defend Israƫl against about all his neighbours. Also the weight is 65tons, this is about the same as the Leopard2a6, M1a2 Abrams and Challenger.
That's correct.It's not exported anywere in the world because of it's unique rolle.BUT,we can still be compare him with oder tanks.
Generally I think all western MBT are very close. So wether you pick the Leopard2A6,the Abrams, the Leclerc or the Challenger 2 depends a lot on your specific(often national preferences). From what I know about them I would not be able to rate one above another, but if there is a best one, it surely is to be found among those 4.
Forgot French one.T90 has rocket firing system,which makes a difference.Also he has lower siluete then rest of the western tank.He is quite lighter. Challenger has great armor if we look at defence against chemical attack if i can say that way.Generally you can take Leopard 2A6ex.It's good for any type of terain.Leclerc MK2 is still to show itself.
I agree with castelot, most modern western battle tanks are so close that not any one tank can be declared better then the other.
I don't know if the others have it, but I like the DU in the armor on the Abrams. I also like its DU pentrator shells. My uncle can atess to the effectivness of those shells against Soviet armor up from th T-55 up to the T-72. PS I ment to look at the votes before I voted, but I was making toast and forgot, so my vote is kinds just stupid. Sorry
Abrams DU Vs T-55? An Abrams could punch bananas throught the armour of a T-55 with it's main gun. I doubt a DU solid penetrator would be any good passing streight through it like a hot knife FNG
I would really like to see the Black Eagle in trials, but I don't think it needs to have a 155mm main gun.
152 was posited (possibly based on the M-69 Taran gun from Ob'ekt 120) but 135 has also been mentioned. The 135 mm looks to be more likely at the moment, although with the Ukrainian Bagira 125 mm with a muzzle velocity of over 2000 metres/ sec it might not be needed
AFAIK the 140 mm has been put on "hold" due to upgardes in ammunition capabilities - it's a trade-off between penetration and stowage capacity. For info on the 140 proposal this is a good start: www.fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Files/tan ... .kruse.pdf
I vote for the Leopard 2, lower cost then the US and british tanks which is an advance when it comes to smaller nations with a smaller defence budget, but its still just as good as the Abrams and the Challenger.... With todays tanks it come down to the training of the crew and the cost, including maintenance and runing, of the tank
If you're going on cost then T-80 (T-90 is basically a T-72 with a new name and a few bits of "chrome"). I have some prices somewhere, I'll see if I can dig them out and post them on Friday.
you look at what you want your tanks force to be able to do and then you look after the tanks that cost less but still is able to do what you want it to, you dont just take the cheapes tank there is, if it dont live up to your demands
Challenger has great armor if we look at defence against chemical attack if i can say that way I don't think you can say it in this way. Most modern tanks have protection against NBC (nucleair, Biological , Chemical) attacks, it as nothing to do with the armor, so I don't really know what you mean with this.