StarDestroyer.Net BBS

An every-man-for-himself style tank battle.

The battleground is a 20 mile x 20 mile (32 km x 32km) square of countryside somewhere in France. It is mostly gently rolling country, grassy fields interspersed with small patches of forest. There are no large water features, though a few small shallow streams and a small lake or two may be expected. There are two villages, each of which are of the size that would have a population of 4,000-5,000 people. (However these villages are now deserted).

Any tank which strays outside the designated battleground (which is well marked out) while there are yet other tanks active on the battleground, will be immediately subject to being strafed to molten metal by a waiting A-10.

To "Win" a tank should leave all other tanks wrecked, but should itself still able to move under its own power, and with its crew alive.

The combatants are:

Abrams M1A2 (USA):



Challenger 2 (UK):



Merkava Mk.IV (Israel):



Leopard 2 (Germany):



K1A1 (ROK):



T-90 (RF):

i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

Col. Crackpot wrote:i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

I suppose the Leopard would be called a "panzer"

Gah! The poll was meant to say M1A2. I slipped up. corrected

And I can't fix it either; the ability to edit poll options has been removed.

It's absolutely anybody's.
I mean, they've all got good fire control systems, a powerful gun, up-to-date defenses and decent mobility. Some have excellent mobility at the expense of some protection (like the T-90), some have heavier armour but slightly less mobility (like the Chally and Merkava) and the others are fine all rounders. But really, we're talking luck and individual crew skill here, surely.
I would hazard a guess that, even with the funky reactive armour and electronic systems, the T-90 might be slightly outclassed here - it's still, underneath it all, a fairly lightly armoured but nimble T-72 variant, going up against four 65/70-tonne Chobham-covered monsters, a tank specifically designed to survive everything the Arab armies could throw at it (including the T-72), and a cool outsider which almost certainly has Chobham or some other advanced armour composite. But then again, if everybody's firing at everybody else, the T-90 has as good a chance as the others. So... yeah.
Anyway, I went with the Leopard.

Leopard cus it has the best pic of all the tanks in the poll

Col. Crackpot wrote:i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

The T-90 was not even in service in 1991, Iraq had some monkey model T-72's but mostly T-55's and T-62's along with Chinese clones. The Wermacht has not existed since 1945.

The K1A1 is fucked, its 105mm and armor are meant to face T-62's. It has little chance in this battle. The 90-ton Merkava is also fucked, it's extremely slow. The rest are too close to call really, in a scenario like this is going to be more luck and crew skill then the abilities of there vehicles.

jegs2 wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote:i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

I suppose the Leopard would be called a "panzer"

MBTs are called "Panzer" in German, not just ours
Anyway, I went with the Leo, just because it's German. And we build good things

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote:i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

The T-90 was not even in service in 1991, Iraq had some monkey model T-72's but mostly T-55's and T-62's along with Chinese clones. The Wermacht has not existed since 1945.

the iraqi republican guard has modified t-72's with night vision capability. i wrongly assumed that there were T-90's. my bad. Also, i used the term Wermacht as a generic one for the german army.

The K1A1 has a Rheinmetall 120mm in place of the K1's 105mm, plus a independent thermal viewer for the commander which I'm not sure the K1 had. There doesn't seem to be much info on the scale of its armour; the fact that it was deliberately designed lighter and smaller than the M-1 so it can be more easily handled in more mountainous terrain maybe suggests that it has less armour than the Abrams; but I don't know for sure.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote:i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

The T-90 was not even in service in 1991, Iraq had some monkey model T-72's but mostly T-55's and T-62's along with Chinese clones. The Wermacht has not existed since 1945.

the iraqi republican guard has modified t-72's with night vision capability. i wrongly assumed that there were T-90's. my bad. Also, i used the term Wermacht as a generic one for the german army.

Wehrmacht is a No-No. Today it's called Bundeswehr.

The Leopard II out ranked the Abrams in the last Trials show I read, but not by much

IIRC the K1A1 mounts the same gun as the M1A1/A2

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote:i noticed that your poll says M1A1 and your Photos idenify an M1A2.
that aside my money is on the M1A2, with the Merkava mk IV a close second.

i have no confidence whatsoever in the Russian designs after the sheer asskicking handed to the Iraqi's in t-72's and t-90's by the Abrams and Challengers in the first gulf war. (GW1....the results of GW2 will be more of the same) i don;t know enough about the Leopard to pass judgement on it, but it is after all German.... and the Wermacht does like its tanks.

The T-90 was not even in service in 1991, Iraq had some monkey model T-72's but mostly T-55's and T-62's along with Chinese clones. The Wermacht has not existed since 1945.

the iraqi republican guard has modified t-72's with night vision capability. i wrongly assumed that there were T-90's. my bad. Also, i used the term Wermacht as a generic one for the german army.

All T-72's have night vision.

DO NOT USE Wermacht as a generic term. It specifically refers to Hitler's army. If you want a damn generic term that wont insult a damn lot of people with good reason, just say German Army.

RadiO wrote:The K1A1 has a Rheinmetall 120mm in place of the K1's 105mm, plus a independent thermal viewer for the commander which I'm not sure the K1 had. There doesn't seem to be much info on the scale of its armour; the fact that it was deliberately designed lighter and smaller than the M-1 so it can be more easily handled in more mountainous terrain maybe suggests that it has less armour than the Abrams; but I don't know for sure.

Damn, I'd forgotten that. The armor has been stated to be meant to deal with the threat weapons systems. There facing Staggers and 115mm, so I doubt they have much more protection then the original M1. Indeed since the two tanks where design by the same company I'd bet it’s the same package.

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:IIRC the K1A1 mounts the same gun as the M1A1/A2

It is much less armored than the M1. In Korea, we called them aluminum M1's...

IIRC the Abrams uses the same main gun as the Leopard. At least it's manufactured by Rheinmetall...

Dahak wrote:IIRC the Abrams uses the same main gun as the Leopard. At least it's manufactured by Rheinmetall...

Not really. Lots of differences between the M256 and the rheinmetall one

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is how the things go in Germany:

30's
Wehrmacht - Defence Forces ("defence power")
Heer - Army
Luftwaffe - Air Force ("air weapon")
Kriegsmarine - Navy ("war navy")
SS was an entirely seperate organisation, a private army

Modern times
Bundeswehr - Defence Forces ("federal defence")
Heer - Army
Luftwaffe - Air Force
Marine - Navy


I voted for Leopard 2 (BTW, what variant are we talking about here?), though it would be probably be a close call between it and M1A2. Leo 2 has proven to be extremely easy to modify and variants exist in various configurations across Europe. Compared to Swedish Strv-122 variant or Leo 2A6, M1A2 SEP has better command & control equipment, but they would be no use in this scenario. On the other hand, Leo 2A6 has the new Rheinmetall cannon...

Since K1A1 was designed by General Motors, how much does it have in common with Abrams? It seems like no one really knows about its capabilities.


*sigh* I envy those conscripts who get to train with our "new" Leopard 2A4s when they arrive in 2004...


Edit: Germans use the term "Kampfpanzer" (battle tank") for their Leopards.

Leopard 2A6. It's main gun is the best of the lot, and it's armor is thicker than that of the M1A2, believe it or not.

The Merkava is too slow for this kind of battle, though its crew is probably the most likely to survive (the Merk is probably the most survivable MBT in existence, which partially explains its low speed...extra crew protection).

The T-90 has a top speed of roughly 60 km/h, faster than the Challenger or Merkava, but slower than the Leopard and Abrams. However, it is smaller than the other competitors (almost 9 tons on the Leopard, 11 on the Abrams, and 16 on the Challenger 2), and has a larger gun with a higher rate of fire, as well as being able to utilize the AT-11 Sniper missile. In the daytime, it would be a surprisingly good contender. Still a dark horse in most people's opinions, but it would probably finish higher than most people here would think. At night, the gunner's station no longer has horizontally stabilized fire control, decreasing accuracy slightly. It's actually superior to many of the other tanks in many aspects.

The Challenger 2 surrenders 15.5 km/h to the Leopard and Abrams. It's also larger and heavier, thus surrendering speed, maneuverability, and low target profile to the other two.

The Abrams is probably the favorite among the non-Europeans, given its reputation for power and capability, eliminating many T-72s in GW1 with no Abrams destroyed by enemy fire. Fuel economy will be a large problem, however, with its fuel-thirsty turbine engine (1.8-2x as much fuel consumption as a diesel). It's also relatively heavy, and technologically is only about equal to the smaller, heavier armed T-90.

The Leopard 2 is a fast tank, like the Abrams. Both are capable of 72 km/h. The Leopard has slightly superior range and heavier armor. The combustible cartridge cases are an interesting way of increasing fire rate, though it's still not as good as the T-90s 8-10 rounds per minute.

The K1A1 I don't know much about, but given comments I have heard, I would rate it as a slightly inferior Abrams.

Based on all this, my vote actually goes to the T-90S.

If the russian tanks are using the hydraulic fluid that the crew can drink as alcohol, then you can rule them out right quick.

The M1A2 with a good crew is pretty tough to beat. If the crew is fresh of a tour in Iraq, I'm goin' with the ol' abrams.

But if it's a greener US crew, I might be inclined to pick the Israelis.

The Dark wrote:The Merkava is too slow for this kind of battle, though its crew is probably the most likely to survive (the Merk is probably the most survivable MBT in existence, which partially explains its low speed...extra crew protection).

IIRC that is true if the Merk took a hit to the front armor and losing the engine. I don't know if the Merk is any better than the other tanks in taking a hit to the sides or the rear of the tank.

Col. Crackpot wrote:
the iraqi republican guard has modified t-72's with night vision capability. i wrongly assumed that there were T-90's.

All Russian tanks since the T-54/55 have had 'night vision' capability- up until late build T-80Us and T-90s they were IR searchlights. Now they're thermal imagers. Did you mean thermal imagers? If the Iraqis have updated their T-72s with such- I'd be interested to know where they got them.

eliminating many T-72s in GW1 with no Abrams destroyed by enemy fire.

An exaggeration of M1 superiority- Iraqi tanks were using crap indigenous manufactured ammo, had worse fire control systems (including no thermal imagers which basically made them useless at night against the thermal imaging equipped Abrams), thinner armor etc. We're talking export models of the very first T-72s here. Hardly a good match up.