"Aside from FS' normal BS (I see that hasn't changed in the months I've been gone), I have no idea where he gets his facts. The M1 is quite capable of firing, on the move, cross country, to 4000M. I personally have done so with an M1A1B-HA (3750 meters, close enough). " At what speed?Leclerc is able to do it at full speed in its full enveloppe. Having 1 m CEP at 4000 m at full speed on mobile target is better than a 2m CEP at 30 km/h on a fixed one.Leclerc firing on the move ability is a major improvement on all existing tanks but maybe Japanese T90 and STR122. "Further, as Flaming Knives points out, separate crew compartments isn't going to do much to save the crew after being hit by a long rod penetrator. A training round that struck an M60A3 did the most injury to the driver, even though it hit the turret, in a training accident I investigated in 1989. " Well Leclerc indepedant crew celles are armored.It is impossible that a direct impact in front kill gunner and commander. Only Leclerc has this internal ARMORED separate crew cells.I have seen inner arrangement of M1 so don't fool me. And Leclerc thermal are as good as those M1A2 for tank above serial number of 180 and they have also independant thermal stabilized sight for commander. I'm not a tank crew like you mike_gold but I feel confident of our data from our defense forces and commission and my knowledge of defense industry.One of my colleage was responsible for Leclerc system enginnering. And for price we have to use price of same period because inflation exist so 8,3 m€ for Leclerc vs 4 m£ for Chall2 in 99. It is BS, it is true so I counsel you to examine better Leclerc features.

Apart from giving the usual deferrence to Black-7/M_G and the special consideration practical experience commands, I will summerise as follows: The differences in modern tanks should be within the scope of what a reasonbly able tactician can handle, so we (as MG points to) have to consider other points, if we are to avoid the endless nauseating arguments of the Bf-109 and the Spitfire. (That discussion made realise 25 years ago that they were so close that there was generally nothing to choose from). Finally you have to realise that the tanks now in service have been build for a totally different scenario, from the one applicable today. That gives weight to the flexibility parameter. 1. The Leclerc suffers from: a) The reduced endurance of a 3 man crew and vulnerability of a mechanical loading system (might not be important in a slugging-fest where 90% die within 5 min) - goes to flexibility. b) Can you obtain spare parts? (Having been the unhappy owner of a french car this counts.) Are the French trustworthy as suppliers: This has nothing to do with the vehicle itself, but is a very important consideration. 2. Abrams: I once saw that a Leo2 used 75% of the fuel of an Abrams for comparable traffic. Well this means 33% more trucks to keep those tanks running. 3. Challenger: ´The same argument does not quite apply here, as they are slower, so they wont drive as far! (I know stupid remark, but there iis something to it). 4. Merkava: Who will design tanks for street fighting if they don't absolute have to???? Spare is a problem as well. 5. My personal favourite: The Leo: It has an engine that (as far as I've heard) is uncritical of substandard fuel. It uses less fuel. It is easier to maintain underfield condition. Finally: You will stick to what you've got, as you are not liable to get what you would want.

Let's see: From The commander has eight periscopes and an HL-70 stabilised panoramic sight from Safran (formerly SAGEM). HL-70 includes laser rangefinder, day channel, and second generation image intensifier. Recognition range is 4km and identification range is 2.5km. The commander has a display showing the gunner's thermal sight. No CITV. The Commander shares the Gunner's sight, like the Challenger 2. AIUI the Leclerc and the Challenger 2 also use the same panoramic sight. Although I note that the latest one mounts an HL80 panoramic sight that does have a thermal imager. And for price we have to use price of same period because inflation exist so 8,3 m€ for Leclerc vs 4 m£ for Chall2 in 99. Well, £2.3bn for 386 tanks in 2002. That makes it £6m (€8.8m) per tank. Are you seriously trying to tell me that inflation can cause a price to rise 50% in three years? Also, you seem to underestimate the effect of a modern KE round hitting an AFV. If it gets through the armour, it's going to make a horrible mess of anything in the vicinity. Things like the gun, traverse mechanism, sights, autoloader, ammunition. Furthermore, tankies tend to get out of a vehicle that's just been hit like that. On a modern battlefield you would have five seconds or less to recover and respond to the threat. Finally, it's ugly and French :P Back to the positives, so I can enthuse about the Challenger some more: It's actually quite quick. 59 kmph on road, 40 kmph cross-country, and apparently it does well on hills. It has HESH, which beats the snot out of nearly everything else as a secondary round Reasonable range - 450km on road and 250km cross country. Longest tank kill ever recorded by direct gunnery. And that's all the basic service model. The Challenger 2E has all sorts of extras like a hunter-killer sight, improved engine and better range Finally, kitted out in it's war-gear, it looks plain mean.

"4. Merkava: Who will design tanks for street fighting if they don't absolute have to???? Spare is a problem as well." Where did you get the idea that the Merkava was designed for streetighting? It was designed as a MBT killer just like all the other tanks in your list. what kind ofa spare parts problem does it have?

FS, you don't understand how KE rounds work. What do you suppose happens when you release 10 to 15 mJ of energy in .01 seconds on that tank? Practical experience, both my own and others, is that the crew is wounded or killed, whether or not their compartments are separated from where the round hit. It's the actual shock of the round striking. That driver I talked about? He wasn't injured by shrapnel. He was burned by through armor heat flash and had broken bones from the force of the shock wave. And that was a training round, with perhaps 2 mJ of KE. The point is, you are quibbling over things that make no real difference.

I'm currently involved in a discussion on another board about the comparisons between MBTs, and the current consensus is that you wouldn't be desparately disadvantaged if you were to face off with something like a Leopard 2A4 (mid eighties design) against the really modern stuff. Especially if you allowed the 2A4 to add on the latest observation equipment.

I wouldn't be averse, at all, to an M1A1 (not the B or C model) or Leo2A4 against current generation tanks. Even the LeClerc. Actually, in the mid-80's, prior to the M1A1 fielding, I considered the Leo2 to be the best MBT on the battlefield. FS, just one more comment. The French have managed to do something with the LeClerc that most military experts know is a serious mistake. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. The MBT simply needs to be good enough. The Panther was better than the T34, but it was fielded too late and not in large enough numbers. So, which was the better tank? The T34 was good enough.

How much does the front mounted engine on the Merkava increase crew survivability? I was under the impression that this tank was built with the design philosophy of maximum crew survivability, hence the front engine and small number of ready to fire rounds in the crew compartment.

I've often thought about this. Any kind of a hole in armour weakens that armour. That's why engineers prefer to limit the number of periscopes or hatches. The best designed hatch is still weaker than the armour surrounding it. So, you place an engine in front for protection. It will not slow down a kinetic energy round to any great extent, but the air intakes, exhaust, maintenance panels and so on weaken the armour. The Merkave design seems to me to be rather dated, going back to 1960 and 70 design ideas. Personally, I would rather keep the conventional tank design, my personal favourite modern tank is the Leo2A6. It would do better with a RWS mounted 7.62 for the commander, however.......

Merkava: When You are a small nation buying foreign equipment, the need for a reputable dealer is very big. Israel is a small country that is in constant danger, so cynically speaking they may not be there tomorrow. That is one of my stronger motivations for NATO membership: When you need it you can buy the weapons You need - you will pay through the nose; but you can get it. We were hung out to dry in 1940, let's try to avoid that next time. City tank: What I meant with the perfidious remark, was it was designed around Israels requirements. I did not indtend to put it down, but as we don't know our future enemy, we have to stay flexible. The problem is not to buy the best; but to avoid disasters. The Abrams would have been build differently if they had known todays scenario.