I would say that newer T-80s are superior to the Al-Khalid and China's T-90

the late series t-80 is superior to both the t90 and to any chinese MBT. the t-90 may have slightly better armour protection, but it's not enough to ensure survivability against first-rate MBTs. the t-80um, on the other hand, has very much better mobility due to the gas turbine engine (this is also smokeless and silent/vibration free) while the FCS and the maingun is identical. the mobility is definately an aid to survivability. as for the chinese tank, i think we can all agree that the FCS and main gun ammunition aren't quite the equal to that of the t-80/90 (unless the chinese got their hands on some BM-42M DU ammunition) and it lacks Kontakt-5. the passive armour also isn't in the same class.

I'm new here, but I think I got the right answer. Hopefully, and genuinely hoping never, never to have that actually tested on the real battlefield: (Please feel free to fill in according to your national/regional preferences.) 1. The best tank is our own latest, currently fielding marvel. 2. The previous version of our latest MBT. 3. Our closest ally's latest MBT. 4. A new enemy MBT that we hope is too expensive to ever be fielded. 5. Another ally's MBT with the same main gun as #1 and #3. 6. Yet another ally's tank with the same FCS as #3 that's very similar to #2, but with a main gun that's markedly different from the one on #5. 7. Our closest ally's former MBT, an much-upgraded 105 mm. contraption also fielded in large numbers by our own reserves. 8. A new, very expensive, very hi-tech tank made by a far-away manufacturer and therefore not likely to ever appear in our area. 9. The T72M, T90, Ajeya etc. There just can't be that many of them around if they're all bad! 10. The T55 and the M60, same reason as above.

The Russians said their Sniper missiles for their T-90s performed poorly during trials in the desert and most gun launched ATGMs tend to suck anyway. Plus, the missiles are in short supply, with every company getting 6 or so.

The Iraqi's did not use the through gun missile capability. I don't think the export T-72's were equipped with it, although I could be wrong. I am not a fan of this technology anyhow. Would I rather fire a round at you at 4000 meters and have it hit in 2.33 seconds or at 4000 meters and have it hit in 15 seconds? And since the M1 and Chally both can achieve first round hits on tank frontal aspects at 4000 meters why bother with the missile? I don't know what the long range kill record for an M1 is. I do know that in an M1A1B my gunner engaged and destroyed a T62 at (I went and checked my old notebooks from DS) 3475 meters. During a rotation to the National Training Center with the same gunner we had a first round hit with training ammunition at 3620 meters. It amazed the hell out of me, training ammunition is supposed to lose ballistic stability beyond 3000 meters or so. In fact, the target panel didn't drop after the first hit, so my gunner re-engaged and hit it again. It looked like the panel had two eyes when he finished. The controllers dropped the target manually because the lifters had malfunctioned.

Fact is, very scant actual use of main gun-launched ATGM's has ever been documented, even for the US Shillelagh of the 70-80's. This weapon was not very successful, and I would very much appreciate if some of you USMC guys could tell us more about it. The modern gun-launched ATGM is a lofted-trajectory, laser-guided affair, and as far as I understand tactics are still being developed for it, to the effect that the launcher is not necessarily the aimer. With the introduction of micro-UAV's at the batallion level, these munitions could well enable an accurate over-the-hill capability. Moreover, such a missile could be useful against a manoeuvering helo, and quite immune to it's IR countermeasures.

1: Leopard 2A6 2: M1A2SEP 3: Challenger 2E 4: Merkava Mk 4 5: Leclerc 6: T-80UM1 7: T-90S: 8: T-98 9: Al-Khalid 10: T-72 ...I guess

1-M1A2SEP 2-challengerII And i putt all the others tanks at the same level because they are not proven their value in the battelfield. the russian T80or t90 did not prove anything in chechnia beacause chechns fighters had not tanks

T90 did not go to any battle you can only compare tanks who went to battle and that is all

The Merkava has definitly proven it's value in combat. The Merkava Mk 1 and 2 kicked Syrian T-72 asses in much the same way the M1A1 and Challenger did in the Gulf War with a 105mm gun. Since those two tanks have been vastly improved I'd put them next to the M1A2SEP and Challenger 2E as the beasts of the battlefield