Which of these tanks can perform the best?

UnitedSomalia

UnitedSomalia

Banned
T-95-Russian
t95dh2.jpg


M1A2-American
abram1.jpg


Leopard 2A6-German
bw_kpz_leopard_2_a6-048i.jpg


Merkava Mk 4-Israeli
merkava001.jpg


Leclerc-French
leclerc.jpg


Challenger 2-British
Challenger_2_UK_Bhana_2002_01.jpg


Zulfiqar 3-Iranian
The most advanced of these, the Zulfiqar-3, is based on earlier American tanks, primarily M-48/M60 models acquired under the pre-revolution era. The Zulfiqar-3 also features considerable upgrades to the fire control system, chassis, engine and main gun, with a 125mm autoloader.
force8.jpg


Comparison
M1_Abram_Vs_Zulfiqar_3.JPG


Questions:
Which of these tanks can dominate the battlefield or would have an edge if they were each operated by a well trained crew? And what terrain or scenario were each of these tanks built for to perform in?
 
if they all had crews of indentical skill, probaly the T-90, thats not a T-95, plus its lighter, with better mobility, and a powerful gun. Its is cheaper and easily mass produced in the event of a large scale war.

:tank:
 
The Abrams is the king of the sand... while the T-95 would fare best on a Western European Terrain, even with the technicologically superior Leopard.

1-Abrams (overall it's arguably the best tank ever made)
2-Leopard (everything the Abrams has except someone to fight)
3-T-95 (the world's first disposable heavy tank)
 
yes and the abrams is 70 tons, incrediably expensive, and guzzles 6 gallons of jet fuel per mile.
and the T-34 was the best tank of all time by far, no comparision
 
Bacara said:
and the T-34 was the best tank of all time by far, no comparision
Click to expand...
The Tigers and Panzers were technologically superior to the T-34, however because of the intense bombings on Nazi Germany they could not be produced nearly as quickly as the T-34, which was additionally much cheaper to make and maintain.
 
When I was in the Marines years ago like in the 1980s maintenance was a nighmare, a tank to be effective has to be easy to maintain in the field.

and the T-34 is not question the best tank ever.
 
This is a lost cause we canwt even tell between 2 tanks(see numerous posts abot this), certinly not between all of them. I do have a few remarks.
1) T-95 is not an operational tank and I think the picture is a T-90.
2) The picture of the Merkava is the Mk 3, not an Mk 4.
3) The Zulfiqar dosent belong on this list. Its a "pimp my tank" Iranian T-72 and M60 combo. That means it is mae of componnent from 2 tanks over 35 years old. There is no way Iran can produce a 1st class tank, espcially when they are "cross-breeding" museum pieces.
 
The Other Guy said:
The Tigers and Panzers were technologically superior to the T-34, however because of the intense bombings on Nazi Germany they could not be produced nearly as quickly as the T-34, which was additionally much cheaper to make and maintain.
Click to expand...

even german generals said either the T-34 or the IS-2 was the best tank in the world. Germans tanks were very tampermental, hard to maintain, expensive, and could claim no technological superiority over the T-34
 
Hmmm... best tank in the world?

A-10 Thunderbolt II

a-10.jpg


AC-130H Spectre

ac130a.jpg


B-52 Stratofortress

b52.jpg


I've seen modern armor. I've worked along side modern armor. I respect modern armor. But I sure as hell love air support. ;)

Oh yeah... modern armor is great until a GI on the back of a jeep/hmmv armed with a Javelin or a AT4 hiding behind the bend of a roadway or a bush is also a great equalizer. That is the killer of modern armor. That GI might die but in terms of numbers it's a win. Tank (Millions of dollars plus crew) vs jeep/hmmv (couple of thousand dollars plus two. Driver and gunner or if they're really gutsy. Driver/gunner.)

The world hasn't seen two modern day armies bump heads yet. When that day comes, and it will. The great tank on tank battles will be a thing of the past.
 
^^^I'm with this guy^^^

Good reliable tank busters are much more affordable than their targets, crews are also smaller, more flexible, cheaper and far easier to train. The tank is well on it's way to being a "non event" on the battlefield in the event of a major war, their day has passed them by.

They will go the same way as the battleship.
 
Last edited:
I doubt either of this platforms is more afordable than an MBT. The is a thread called Will the battle tank become obselete, which is the place for this posts.
 
Doesn't the Zulfiqar 3 look a lot similar to the M1A1? Here is a comparison
pic: The top part of the pic is the M1A1 and the bottom one is the Zulfiqar, I see a lot of similarities in the design.
M1_Abram_Vs_Zulfiqar_3.JPG


The original Zulfiqar 1 body design was similar to the M-60/48
The Zulfiqar 2 looked a lot like heavily upgraded t-72/m-60
The Zulfiqar 3 seems like the Iranians based it on the M1A1.

But if I had to give it to the best tank I would say the Leopard 2A6 and the T-95 which is suppose to go into mass production in 2009 as stated by Putin. These 2 tanks seem to be the best when it comes to overall advantage in armor, mobility, tech, range, and fuel. What lets the M1A2 down is the fact that it needs a huge fuel and maintenance convoy to continuously operate them, and if a nation does not have the huge supply capability to operate the M1A2 in huge numbers the tanks fails to make an impact on the battlefield.
 
that A-10, can be killed more easily than a tank, just a SAM, and they cost 40 million dollars plus all the weapons abroad. Also you can add reactive or active armor to make the javelin not work, plus those are also almost a million dollars a missle.
 
Bacara said:
that A-10, can be killed more easily than a tank, just a SAM, and they cost 40 million dollars plus all the weapons abroad. Also you can add reactive or active armor to make the javelin not work, plus those are also almost a million dollars a missle.
Click to expand...


Way back when I was in the Marines the first time I saw an A-10 we were on a road caught out in the open it was ugly if that was a real situation I would have been dead as hell.

I have to say the A-C130 is about useless if the enemy has any air defense at all.
 
OK back on toppic.
Doesn't the Zulfiqar 3 look a lot similar to the M1A1? Here is a comparison
pic: The top part of the pic is the M1A1 and the bottom one is the Zulfiqar, I see a lot of similarities in the design
Click to expand...
.

Yes they look similar but it means nothin. I donwt know what engine, protection, or fire controll system the Zulfiqar uses. Good looks count for exactly zero points in tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top