| First off I readily admit that this is a somewhat childish if not inane question to ask in that it doesn't take into account such things as doctrine, crew training, and other such intangibles. That said I've always been rather interested in the tanks that were fielded during the 60s in that it appears designers had to make tradeoffs in regards to the traditional measurables of mobility, armor and firepower that tanks are usually judged by and that designs such as the T-34 & Panther of WWII possessed or MBT third generation designs such as the Abrams & Leo II. They all seemed to be lacking in some way, the Chieftain had great firepower and good armor but apparently had a unreliable engine & wasn't the most mobile platform, the Leo 1 had great mobility and good firepower but it's armor was minimal in comparison to other designs, the M60 probably meshed all three traits together as well as could be expected given the constraints of the day but apparently had a high silhouette and may have had some flammability issues vis a vis it's hydraulically powered turret. As for criteria you can use the traditional measurables of mobility, armor, and firepower or some other standard such as fire control. |
