Answer to crna_zvezda... My personal opinion is, that T90 is not outdated at all. But responses towards that attitude have been seen mainly because of two reasons (I think); First, at-performance is seen by far the most important aspect. Can't be critisized in all occasions and with all tactics. Anyway, even here, I think T-series has suffered a bad inflation because of elder Iraqi tanks failure and the whole series is seen much inferior to western tanks. Without a single good reason. Secondly, partly related to the first one, it's not necessarily fully taken into account that T90 is built for woefully different specifications than say M1A2. However, it is being judged among the specifications of a western tank, which it fits argually not so well.

your idear of ranking by points, isnt so bad, but the problem, is that all the mentioned tanks have specificatec edge in each categori .. SO we would need to be more precise. I will comment your post, then say me when im wrong: " I.At-performance. Important role of MBT is fighting other armour. This contest takes into account tanks ability to fight others of it's kind - protection, armament, fire control etc. 1.Challenger 2.Leclerc 3.M1A2 / Leopard : 3,5pt each 5.Merkava 6.T90 " About AT performances, have you counted the ability to shoot at hight speed on very bad ground, the fire rate...?? For your ranking i will contest the supremacy that you give to the challenger. The rifled gun isnt superior to the smoooth bore, i say it, i repeat it, and i confirm it, all the comment i have seen about the UK choice were that they prefered to use kinetic ammo, that are more performant with the Challenger, but the smoothbore will get the same in a few time ( sorry but dont remember the name ), and the heat work better with the smooth bore. ( dont ask me why , i have readen it coming from experts ). Then about the ability to engage a fast-far target at hight speed on bad ground, the Leclerc has an edge on this point. "II.General combat performance. Includes ability to engage infantry, other than "hard" targets, sustain damage from at-weapons and atgm's and other weapons etc. 1.T90 2.Merkava 3.Challenger 4.Leopard / M1 / Leclerc : 2pt each " You are saying that the T-90 outpass the western tanks ?? .. !!! plz justify it. And the best to engage infantry is the Leclerc.. If you want i will give you exmples about his A-infantry system. " III.Tactical maneuverability. Tanks ability to move itself in different terrain, in different conditions (i.e. soft ground, low temperatures and snow, desert etc.) and general performance on tactical and operational maneuverability. 1.T90 2.M1 / Leclerc / Leopard : 4pt each 5.Challenger 6.Merkava " How do you do this ranking ?? .. plz explain, the fact that you place the LEo 2 the leclerc and the M1A2 to the same rank seems pretty strange, .. And again, placing the T-90 the first would need some comments. " IV.Stratecic maneuverability, ease of use, supply/maintenance needed. In other words, how big a burden it's to move specific tank over long distances. 1.T90 2.Leclerc / Leopard / Challenger : 4pt each 5.M1 / Merkava : 1,5pt each " Can you say me what is the range of the T90 plz, to compare .. Know that the Leclerc, the Challenger 2 and the Leo 2 have a range near to the 550 Km. but about suplying, you are maybe right for the T 90 first place. So plz justify your "specials" Ranking that i dont understand.

The point is that if germany was engaged on a war against russia it could run out of fuel supply in a matter of months. Then the mighty panzers could turn on stupid pillboxes. Russia does posses more than 275 t90s and it's T 95 Program has been suspended once more in order to keep the t 90 on production. Although the business isn't as good as in old days but still keeps running. Russia is actually the second arms vendor in the planet and it's finances are going better. Assumed that the russian production cost is about ten times lower than the western standarts man they got an enormous advantage on you. Russia's got the biggest raw material ressources when compared to NATO. Its strategic allies/clients are on a strong economical growth and will remain so for more than a decade, so i see a new sunshine for the russki arms export. Compared to shorting budgets of the european states and to tense relationship between the old europe and the USA, i doubt that you are going to keep up the economical pace. At least there is one odd thing about capitalism on this case, seeing communist products being more attractive than high-tech free world brands. Lenin must be wanting to be burned in order to avoid this vision! hahhahahaha.

range of t 90's as usual: 650 km paved road/550 unpaved but must also add the external tanks and you can go up to 800. Range on Chally 2 450 km paved 250 cross country. Range on chally 2E 550 km paved maybe 300 CC. Range on Leclerc more than 500 km always on paved i got no info on CC. Range on M1A2 265 miles= 425 km paved Range on leo 500 km. Range on merkava4 500 km paved. Now you can make up your mind. A last thing cost per Unit for a new M1A2 5 million US $. For a T90s (without bribes)1 200 000 $. Price of the T 90 sold to india 1 800 000/ 2million $.

True it was not designed to carry troop. But IDF had use it as armor personel carrier in combat. During operation Peace for Galilee they use Merkava tank to ram a building and then insert infantry into that building. It was quite remarkable. But you're right it wasn't design to carry troop. However, if you notice it has a telephone box in the rear for infantry to communicate with the tank (quite interesting design)

" range of t 90's as usual: 650 km paved road/550 unpaved but must also add the external tanks and you can go up to 800. " SO it seems that the T-90 has a great advantage about range..And about the Leclerc, i saw it was 550 with external tanks. dont remember if it was on paved roads or not..

I have to say, I tend to agree with previous posters who state that success with a Modern MBT is more dependent on Crew, Training & Coordination with other forces than simply "who has the longest, steadiest barrel", so to speak. I'm Scottish, so I'm bound to "talk up" the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards' exploits in the most recent hostilities with their Challenger II's, but as I say, any recent MBT has the capability to own the Battlefield if handled properly. It's a bit like comparing the Eurofighter Typhoon to the Lockheed F-22, sure, the Raptor is superior on paper, but would the idea of going up against a RAF Squadron of Typhoons make you more certain of collecting your Pension-or less? ;)

You forgot the German Leopard 2 A5/A6 EX....

I try to answer in more detail why I made my decisions´. I. "About AT performances, have you counted the ability to shoot at hight speed on very bad ground, the fire rate...?? For your ranking i will contest the supremacy that you give to the challenger. The rifled gun isnt superior to the smoooth bore, i say it, i repeat it, and i confirm it, all the comment i have seen about the UK choice were that they prefered to use kinetic ammo, that are more performant with the Challenger, but the smoothbore will get the same in a few time ( sorry but dont remember the name ), and the heat work better with the smooth bore. ( dont ask me why , i have readen it coming from experts ). Then about the ability to engage a fast-far target at hight speed on bad ground, the Leclerc has an edge on this point." Being purely objective, no tank has a great edge on this cathegory as of gun armament. Slight differences are there, and included, but as they all would be roughly capable of similiar kind of penetrations against each other, gun power is not the biggest point here so I won't go commenting this issue nor your post about it further. Challenger II has the best protection against at-engagements, again, not by a great margin, but still. Yes, I know, you don't agree with this and it's ok, but we can't go on presuming everything like we want. My statement is based on a average of tens of publications I've read this subject on and general opinion of the people I've discussed this with, and who are much much more experts in armour technology than I'll ever be. It IS possible, that Leclerc could survive different kinds of tank vs. tank engagements better. According to above, again, it's anyway not prorable. (In pure mathematical terms, partly based also on testing, T90 can achieve greater protection than any of other tanks in certain points, for that matter.) One of the major points to consider is of course tanks ability to engage it's foe in different circumstances, like you mentioned. Yes, Leclerc might have an slight edge on one specific, yet not very common situation. Do you think it's worth winning this cathegory? I thought it's not. And however, also other small advantages related to this are extremely easy to be quoted for almost every tank, and again much is also based on opinion which you like the best (see, some prefer to shoot with AK and others with M16 and neither can be blaimed for that. Both can achieve good results, maybe technologically and on paper in slightly different circumstances). II "You are saying that the T-90 outpass the western tanks ?? .. !!! plz justify it. And the best to engage infantry is the Leclerc.. If you want i will give you exmples about his A-infantry system." The criteria I wrote was "engage targets and sustain damage etc". T90 has by today, and by far, a best protection against modern infantry ATGMs. Especially TA missiles are spreading at such a high rate, I'd think they are a heavy point to consider in this criteria. Against these, Leclerc among others is in considerable disadvantage and highly vulnerable. To engage infantry targets, russian range of specialized top-attack and splinter rounds gives them a considerable advantage over the tanks carrying only HEAT or equivalent as standard. If we could make a test - single MBT against single ATGM squad - T90 would have reasonable chances of surviving attack and KO'ing infantry. For leclerc, the propability for this is marginal. III. "How do you do this ranking ?? .. plz explain, the fact that you place the LEo 2 the leclerc and the M1A2 to the same rank seems pretty strange, .. And again, placing the T-90 the first would need some comments." I do this ranking according to brief description given above it! But, to say it again, and explain my choises a bit. I took into account as much as possible different circumstances : extreme heat and cold, very soft or otherwise bad, rough or steep, ground or snow season (can the tank go in places the contestors can't at the first place) and after that how well the tank can maneuver in the places it's capable of doing. Ground pressure and things related are a big factor here. T90 can achieve better mobility than western tanks in certain conditions, and might be able in fact maneuver some areas and obstacles western tanks can't. When the circumstances are good for western tanks, their battlefield mobility can reach even better results than T90. But in light of the beginning that's simply not enough. With this criteria at hand, why it seems to you strange that I'd put M1, Leclerc and LeoII in a same lot? For me, it's nothing but justified.

The reason I put resell value forward, is because there are a lot of second hand tanks out there, but I will give in so far, that production cost should be put forward as well. My point in doing so, is that there are perfectly fine Leo1 for sale and some Leo2's. what would you rather have: a squadron of Leo1 or 1-2 Leo2? As MikkoLn so excellently points out: We are really discussing tactics. If you plan to run your tanks into dug-in, well armed infantry - you are possibly better of with a T-90, and so on. The real measure of tank quality is: How stupid, careless and inept can a tank commader be without being demoted, wounded or plainly killed with a given tank? This question has to asked and answered on several command levels simultaneously! F.i. a Leo brigadeer might get away with neglecting his fuel supply, if they operate in a country with lots of petrol station, where you can comandeer whats there.