Hong-Xing - why would you rate the t90 above the M1 series? They've been absolutely pasted in Grozny, have been pasted in Iraq and are basically a rebadged T72-BU - with all of that models faults. Tank on Tank where has any other MBT knocked out an M1aX? There are none. The M1aX series outrange the T-90's (and all prev) completely. Its like comparing a Lada or Graz to a Range Rover

Yes, it's pretty well said that you'd not necessarily need to have the best equipment, but one that is not too bad. I personally think that, provided that the equipment is suitable for it's given job in organization, a well trained organization with good cohesion and discipline can well take on a formidable foe, even better equipped. For Iraq case, take it as example, I honestly believe that US troops could have made it well even with M60's (i.e. or not significantly better equipment than Iraqis), only due to incompetence of enemy in operational and tactical level compared with clearly very competant 91 coalition.

There's certainly less than 10 of those who've served in armoured troops here, and only a few who've ever seen combat. I like this board the way it is, with different kinds of persons. As long as quotes can be made with proper facts or sensible thinking, I think there's nothing wrong with (differing) opinions, no matter who are showing them. They only serve good discussion. I even have some good friends I once served with who, looking it now, have no real picture of the (armoured) warfare or technology as such - they just learned the required basics to work their mission in the battlefield (luckily that's seemingly not at all the case here). Nothing can beat experience but that's not all of it. If you'd like to have purely professional wiews and discussion try attending to some of the closed mailing boards/lines.

MikkoLn, I have said for a long time the US coalition in 1991 would have defeated Iraq even if the Iraqi's had M1's and Bradleys and the coalition had T-72's and BMP's. Why? Because of the quality of soldier on both sides. US and British tactics would have changed to accomodate the defincies of T-72 and BMP compared to M1 and Bradley, there would have been more reliance on artillery and manuever and less on gunnery, for example. But the outcome would have been the same, although undoubtedly the coalition would have suffered higher casualties. Bottom line, a well trained and motivated military can defeat a better equipped military. France 1940 is a clear example of that.

The argument that a battle tested platform is superior in terms of performance to a system that hasn't been tested doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you were to test a Leo2A6 and not the Abrams, would that means the Abrams should be viewed as inferior material, just because it's exact battle capabilities are still unknown? This just doesn't make sense to me as a viable argument over superior material. Remember also that the war that the Abrams fought was a specific type of conflict; a desert conflict where certain advantages weigh heavily. Longer range capabilities and fire on the go make a tank in a wide open desert much superior to a shorter range, stationary firing model that cannot kill the enemy at a range that they would most likely be engaged. The Iraqis made no tactical modifications to engage the enemy with a higher probability of killing, so only an aspect of the overall capacity that a tank can fill was truly tested. Wars with a greater chance of losing and far less air support are a better example. Even then, if the Abrams has changed little then what relevance does it have to it's superiority over other vehicles? Also remember, it was the A-10 warthog, not the tank forces, that really devastated the Iraqi armor :). Also, it was the capacity to smash armor and vehicles that was important in the desert, not wipe out scores of crawling troops on food. Fighting through tree lines and tunnels/trenches I don't see why tenacious infantry could not tear Abrams apart in different terrain. Even with just RPG-7 or LAW72 they could render an Abrams totally unusable, and after that (if it isn't well protected by other forces) they could open the tank up with explosives if they wanted to and kill the crew; but that would be hardly neccessary. In such a conflict the poor little T90s would fair far better. I wouldn't heap the Chally2 and the M1A2 together as duplicates of another, the Chall2 has stronger armor and better top-attack protection, and though It may not have full strategic abilities of a space-based-com M1A2, It would be the better platform that the Abrams. I would rate it third, but by no means a distant 3rd! My list would be as so: 1-Challenger2 2-LeopardA6 3-M1A2Abrams 4-Leclerc 5-T90s 6-T98 (Chinese) ...and thats all I can think of. Also, according to the math provided to me by , I averaged out the Arjun's armor vs. HEAT at 770 on the turret, according to the site it's supposed to even be vulnerableto the Chinese red arrow. Can some one confirm or deny this? I would definatley put it below current Leo2A4 units anyway.

Well the argument of battle tested weapon is at some extent true, for many designs, especially if they're complicated fighting systems, incorporate a lot of pretty big flaws at the start of their career (this can be safely regarded nearly as a rule). However, extensive field testing and trials may diminish many problems early on to a fairly good extent. That's why a wouldn't regard now a long lived, well proven tanks like Leopard II inferior only because there's no battle experience with it. If battle testing is wanted to be included as a major factor, then all the other designs should be excluded from these comparisions. Otherwise it can lead to a fairly wrong kind of suggestions, see; -the best tank in summer 1939; T26. It's battle tested. Or try the same for 1990. Is it any of the most recent generation tanks? No, it's one of the old warhorses, they're the only ones battle tested by then.

This is very true, I was just arguing that the Abrams didn't change much since then (I guess it didn't have to), although big changes are coming in the FCS and gun. Soviet armor seems to be evolving along a different course. The way I see it, the U.S. is following a vehicle based fighting doctrine with most all weapons being fielded from some vehicle or another. Maybe due to chechnya, or due to lower costs, the Russians are becoming more infantry reliant. To me that makes sense as being the deeper reasons than say, inferior technology or innovation (even though that plays a role). The American war strategy thus depends greatly on deployment; if an enemy more tenaciously strikes at building US forces in the future, we could see an invasion failing before it even begins. This is the prime reason why lighter combat units are being introduced. This largely follows alot with a mechanized/vehicle based doctrine. I also would like to ask (I forgot who said this): why should we consider the conflicts in Angola between Cuba and South Africa a "minor war" or minor wars? They were pretty large in scope considering the capabilities of the nations involved, and showed the T-34 and T-55 well used and deployed by the Cuban army. The bay of pigs too, had T-34 holding their own against M41 in a combat far after WW2. If theres anything that should point out the longevity and effectiveness of this design it should be how long after WW2 it remained effective against many 90mm gunned mbt. I'm not a big soviet armor fan or anything; thats just my two cents.

MikkoLn. yes well thats very true. I'm only critical of the "my tank is better than your tank" responses that are "pavlov responses". I'm always happy to look and learn, and yes I do subscribe to some of the other "closed" forums. I general I have learnt to try and avoid the "10 best XXX" threads. Every now and then I just can't help myself though.. :)

Merkeva is just a cheap turret on top of a APC.

i think it would be this t-90 (rus) m1a2 (usa) t-98 (chi) m1a1 (usa) Challenger 2 (bri) t-95 black hawk (rus) al khalid (chi) merkeva (bra) arjun (ind) t-90||| (chi Hong Xing, did you leave out the LECLERC by accident or by design ? I am surprise you take time and effort to include some really bad tanks made in some 3rd world countries like china in your post but you absolutely failed to mention the LECLERC . Very interesting