I don't know why you bother arguing with these ar*e holes half of them have only seen a Tank on a video or the news. Do they know what a mantlet is or a fume extractor or glacious plate.....errr no. Why don't you all shut up and listen to people who have been in armoured regiments and worked in these uncomfortable noisy things. Stats mean fu*k all, tests don't equate to combat. M1 and Challenger are the top 2 they've proved it. Leapard next then take your pick from the rest. Any tank with an auto loader is inferior to a 4 man crew.Russian auto loaders have never been reliable.

Crazy Serb wrote: "Do you say that my conclusion is wrong?" I say that you don't understand what happened with that M1 in Iraq. Basically, with the current generation Abrams and Challenger a weapon like the RPG series (whether 7, 14, 29 doesn't matter so much) has a very low chance of penetrating their flank armor, but a chance never the less. Given ideal conditions and hitting the right spot on the tank they can penetrate. I know that very well. I was a Master Gunner, it was my job to know that. So, you fire enough RPG's at enough Abrams and sooner or later the guys shooting the RPG's are going to get lucky. It's a really bad trade though. In the course of 1991 and 2003 there were probably, all told, about 1000 RPG hits on Abrams and Challenger. Of those 1000 hits, 1 actually penetrated. 95% of the guys who had the guts to stand up and pull the trigger on that RPG didn't go home to mama, instead their reward for firing that RPG was to watch it explode harmlessly and then have the tank send a return gift of about 50 rounds of 7.62 mm rounds back to them. No tank is invulnerable. The theory behind armor design is to ensure that in normal tactical scenarios the armor is very difficult to penetrate. And if it is penetrated to set things up inside so that the chemical energy of the shaped charge warhead is redirected to not cause damage to equipment and crew. Crazy Serb wrote: "Sorry but this is not an argument.This means that God looked at you in that time.I had a very good friend who was a driver in M-84 mbt (Yugoslav verison of T-72) and killed 1995.His tank was hit form a side whit AT rocket (probably Malyutka (at-3 sagger))." Okay guy, you are comparing lots of apples to lots of oranges. First off, The AT-3 sagger has a significantly bigger warhead and longer range than an RPG does. Second, the Yugo M-84 has nowhere near the protection of Abrams or Challenger on any aspect of the tank. Your friend was misguided or misinformed. This would be like me saying "well gee, I know a guy who's M60A3 was penetrated by a TOW-1 missile, so your T-80 with Kontakt-5 sucks". Think about it. Crazy Serb wrote: "I am afraid that only thnig that save you is a fact that your tank was not hit whit the weapon form the article." I'm afraid you are wrong. The weapon in that article was likely an RPG-14. My tank was hit either by an RPG-14 or an RPG-7. What saved me and my tank was the fact that the RPG gunner didn't get lucky. He had perhaps a 1 in 100 chance on the flank aspect of penetrating my tank with that RPG and the odds didn't play out in his favor. That's how combat works. Tank armor is designed to minimize the chances that the bad guys can penetrate the armor, not to be invulnerable. An invulnerable (i.e. against any weapon out there, including air to ground like Hellfire) tank would weigh over 100 tons, would be barely able to move and so forth. My point in letting you know about the hit my tank took was to point out that not every hit by a shaped charge weapon is going to do what happened to the Abrams in the article you shared. In fact, ask the infantry types how happy they would be about trying to take on a tank with just handheld anti-tank weapons like the RPG (even the RPG-29) or the American AT-4. Doing that generally guaruntees that you will scratch the paint on the Abrams and that your mother will get your life insurance paid to her. Clarkey188 wrote: "I don't know why you bother arguing with these ar*e holes half of them have only seen a Tank on a video or the news." Well, some of it is because it is fun. And some of it is to hopefully educate the folks who have a genuine interest and want to hear reality. Crazy Serb is likely going to be a martyr someday and be really surprised when he is because he was sure that his RPG-29 was going to penetrate the flank armor of that M1A2 he's facing.

''M1 and Challenger are the top 2 they've proved it.'' They've proved it against crappy t-55 and t-72 tanks,not mutch of an opponent,maybe the iraqi's had some good RPG systems but lack of experience. Again,tests have proven that the Leopard2A6 comes in 1st place(maybe M1 has rather better armor),and we are not talking about 1st place in combat experience,i thin this doesn't count.

I am interested what the tests were. Who ran them, did all of the tanks in question go throught the exact same test, etc.? And speaking as a grunt, if you want to kill ANY modern MBT with a shoulder fired AT rocket (not an ATGM) then you better volley fire several rockets into the engine grill and hope for a mobility kill and the fire extinguisher chases the crew out of the tank. Cause if you don't, 99% of the time you WILL see that turret crank around towards you. Then its VA time for the wife & kids back home!

Jeffrey, I love the Leo 2A6, but, until it has been tested in rigors of war, how good it is will remain subjective. The only modern western MBTs that have seen action and been tested are the enerable Abrams and the Challenger. Your comment about facing only T55/72s is not particularly valid, as it is combat nonetheless, which is far more than the Leo2, Leclerc and other western contemporaries can say for themselves. Until tested in combat, the Leo2 will be considered after the Abrams and Challenger. Pucka

Every tank is tested in; ''how good it will be in real combat'' A tankdesigner must know what the weaker and stronger places on a tank are. I think the Abrams and challenger have had no big opponens in iraq,most of the people here say challenger,abrams are the best because they have real combat experience,most of them have never seen an abrams in action or from the inside or know what there weak places are,but you guys must agree that the iraqi t-55 and t-72 is not even comming near the modern MBT's

No peace time test equates to combat.Not even exercises,You just cannot tell what is going to happen. You can try and factor in certain things when testing but there is no substitute for the real thing.Look at the flaws GW1 highlighted with the SA80 rifle don't you think that was tested to see if it was squaddie proof and wouldn't jam in extreme conditions. I don't think anyone has said that the others are bad tanks far from it leapard and LeClerk are in there but untried. They all have there good points,Challenger has most probably got the best Armour but that was designed to shoot in a hull down position at Russian amour while taking a beating from Ruskie arty at long ranges. I would say the rate of fire would be slightly slower than an Abrahms as we use a bag charge.Then you have the rifled V Smoothbore argument,Do you condsider Russian tanks as MBT's they are smaller and lighter. Is the T72 a Crappy tank as some have said it was used by some of the coalition forces in GW1. I've always thought the T64 quite a good tank for it's time.Because a tank is old doesn't make it crappy, A Stillbrew Chieftain wich was the last mark of Chieftain could give most modern MBT's pause for thought.

You all seem to rave about RPG and it being able to penetrate modern armour. If it has it's a lucky shot,Taking out the final drive or track would be the favourites, but aiming these things is pretty hard. I finished my days in the Army on Sriker AFV's as a guided weapons controller, for those of you that don't know what they are it's got 5 launch tubes wich house the swingfire Anti tank guided missile (Wire guided) these things are at least 7 times the size of an RPG rocket and have a considerably bigger HEAT warhead they struggle on modern armour and have been fitted with bigger warheads so how can something a fraction the size be penetrating modern MBT's. The only luxury you have is you can engage target upto 4km instead of 100-200yrds max and they are alot more accurate when they don't start barrel rolling as they often do.

The Iraqi tanks weren't much chop, but they were tanks nonetheless, and shot and sometimes hit Challys and Abrams. Combat is combat whether its between and M1A2SEP and a T90 or an M1A2SEP and a T55. The bottom line is, only the Abrams and Chally have seen combat, albiet not against an technologically equivalent foe, but they met them and slaughtered them. Until the Leo2 and Leclerc are in similar or more intense situations, the M1 and C2 remain the top western tanks, tried and tested. Combat is Combat, and you'll have a very hard time convincing armour vets from GW1 and Iraqi Freedom that their experience with their mounts isn't really valid, because they weren't up against the latest. The Leo2 is an excellent tank, but it has yet to prove itself. Pucka

In different tests we have seen that the Leopard2A6 is the best,aldo the abrams and chally are proven in real combat the only 2 things that are ''really'' tested in combat are the crew and the armor,its proven that the Leopard2A6 FCS is better than the M1A2(not SEP)and its mobility is better too,the only thing that hasn't seen ''action'' is its armor.