Best MBT of the world 2005 (According to SPMBT)

[pdoktar]

The game doesn�t model top armor or pen figures for such weapons correctly. However in real life aircraft and helicopter-launched atgm / missiles often arch down on targets, not much of a chance for stopping a hellfire hitting the merkavas roof, is there?

As speaking of game terms, I personally don�t like the way reactive armor is modeled in russian MBTs. Advanced ERA very seldom stops kinetic penetrators in the game. And calculating Adv-ERA directly to kinetic armor values isn�t realistic, as the number of era shots, (say 4) is decreased if hit by HEAT weapons. (not maybe kinetic penetrators in real life so much?)

However, when ERA is gone, kinetic protection remains as if it would be passive armor.

Also I figure, that the russian MBTs have double-protection versus HEAT, as seems to me that the HEAT armor figures have been calculated WITH ERA. So the missile first has to defeat ERA and tank front of more than 100 HEAT armor. (Maybe a bit too much).

[Mustang]

Why did you use the T-90 for the Russian test tank? The Chiormy Oriol has better fire control (50) than any other Russian tank (40 at most). You find it under the "Export Tanks" section of the Russian purchase screen.

[Paderborn]

I enjoyed reading your test of the world's main battle tanks. I've conducted a similar test in that I've placed equal numbers of opposing tanks on a "clean" battlefield with absolutely flat ground with no trees or obstructions and with all other factors as equal as possible. Computer control for both sides. In my results the M1A2 SEP Abrams edged out the Challenger 2 second with the Leopard 2A6-EX next and finally the LeClerc. I did not set up any contests between Western and non-western MBTs though I plan on doing so. One other thing. Obviously my tests included armor protection, gun power, FC, mobility and so on as variables. I conducted this test a while back and plan on repeating it but with some more recent models such as the Leopard 2A7+ and it's contemporaries. Anyway. Thanks for the test results, podktar. Good stuff!

[Firestorm]

For future reference, absolutely everything I say is sarcasm unless indicated otherwise.

From my understanding, one big disadvantage of the Abrams is that its exhaust system belches so much heat that support troops can't adequately, um, support it lest they be cooked alive (ERA-equipped tanks have a similar problem, being dangerous to friendly crunchies).

One big advantage of the Merkava is that you can pack your own ATGM crew inside it.

Originally Posted by danstudentvcc

There is no doubt.
The trained crews and tanks of the Israeli forces are among the best.
Their need for such is quite great as well.
No doubt they are among the best motivated as well.

Naturally this would extend to their Air Force; National Security Forces; Intelligence gathering; and across the board, their soldiers as well.

Gus
danstudentvcc

Well... their navy is unremarkable. But then again,
1. It ain't quite Abdullah ibn Saad whom they'll potentially be facing at sea
2. When you don't plan on fighting on other landmasses, and when you already have an air force like theirs, a navy is almost ceremonial.