Abrams, T90 or Challenger 2 which performed best on the ditch and bomb crater course? This is the question I have been PM'd now several times and I have not given a straight answer to because I had not finished "re-running" the course several times with each tank to ensure they are being fairly compared and any issues experienced are repeatable or found to be more just flukes. All three tanks tested very well and all three only got stuck once and need a helping hand, this was on one major obstacle and was expected.


At the end of the day so to speak, the choice to which did overall the best ended up being torn between two, the T90 and Challenger 2.

Before I talk about those two let me start with the tank at the bottom of my list the Abrams. The Abrams even though proving to be a burt had a major issue that could not be overlooked and cause it to be more difficult to maneuver vs. it's competitors. It would constantly dig its nose into the ditch walls (see photos) and not be able to proceed forward, needing to be backed out and a different "line" of approach taken to navigate/cross the ditch. Neither the T90 or Challenger 2 had this issue.





The T90 had some minor issues, its extremely long barrel, very low ground clearance, lack of suspension/road wheel up travel and added fuel drums. Though these issues were seen none caused the T90 to come to a stop and need to back out and attempt a new line.

The Challenger 2 had a handicap going into the testing, it was purposely driven with the stock factory plastic tracks which proved to have a lot of slippage on the test course dirt. Even so the Challenger 2 had no issues with navigating the course and did so with ease, largely do to it superb suspension/wheel up travel and only had one small issue, its added fuel drums would drag from time to time.

So my choice for overall best performer on this course is the Challenger 2. It's superb suspension travel coupled with it's excellent ground clearance just made for the most enjoyable tank to drive. Had it been equipped with its normal metal/rubber padded tracks, it would have walked away head and shoulders above the T90 and Abrams with this test phase.

Here are some of the highlight photos from the testing. As aways feel free to add any constructive input.







When all else fails jump the ditch!
E

Climbing out of ditch at extreme angles.



Above ^^^ Fuel drums dragging.




Above^^^^ getting air time.

So far, I own 3 Tiger Is and they’re my pride and joy. I love the old tanks a lil more then the modern ones. But in the future (and I’m sure it’ll be soon haha!) I’ll be eyeing one of them modern tanks, I’ll be sure to keep an eye for those Challenger tanks. Thank you for the taking the time and effort to do this test. I appreciate it greatly. Cheers.

Shark

The "modern designs" (late 80s up) of R/C tanks are a bit different in their performance compared to the majority of the WWII R/C tanks. Largely do to their much longer length, increased wheel travel and rear weight bias as the gear box and motors are in the back vs the front say like on the Tiger series and Sherman. One of the reasons I am doing these fun entertaining test is because there is so little out there really comparing these modern tanks like there is with WWII tanks.

I have found the modern tanks a bit more fun as they lend themselves to tweaking and creative licensing in imagination of "it is plausible future improvements area" since these tanks are still in service and will be for the foreseeable future. WWII tanks are factual history so to me they are kind of locked in a box of what can be done to them. Not to say I do not like WWII tanks I do, but just a bit tired of them right now.

Challenger 2 is a great modern tank to start off with so do give it a hard look when the time comes.

Do all your tanks have metal and rubber tracks or stock plastic?

I understand the idea of testing the approach limits, but no tank driver would attempt that obstical unless they were in development trials. If the abrams was that bad, I would think it would have had more front track exposure for climbing out ability in reality.
I have seen vidoes and photos of the chassis tests without a turret back in the 70s out here in Yuma Provimg Ground. I wouls think if it had that kind of problem it would have been remidied. Similar with the T90, but that tank really does seem quite low to the ground.
your tests are quite revealing. I just recently got something other than a Sherman...ssh. Trying to decide how far to upgrade it and how close to real top speeds i can get it.

No not all my tanks run metal/rubber tracks. At this time only both Abrams, but I do have a set of metal/rubber tracks for the Challenger and a set of Mato all metal T90 tracks. Though on the T90 I have found the metal tracks add nothing to the performance vs plastic track except weight. My T90 currently runs a modified hybrid track consisting of the OEM plastic and added soft silicone pads. This combination provides for light track weight, far superior grip over metal or plastic alone and thus greatly helps with climbing, turning and top end speed.

The testng I am doing is NOT intended to insinuate anything about the real tanks it is to show the limitations of the R/C MODELS ONLY. The real tanks like the Abrams with its 1200 hp turbine engine would just use its noise like a bull dozer and plow its way up and through ditch walls. Unfortunately the r/c models do not have this ability so design elements that would not be an issues for the real tank become one for the r/c model. Likewise the r/c models are capable of feats the real tanks would not and should not attempt.

My simple test are about having FUN and pushing the r/c models, learning their limits and sharing what I find to those wanting something a bit more interesting then the ubiquitous WWII tank build threads. During the tests I found “areas” prime for tweaking (on all) and have been working on simple modification anyone could do to improve their off road performance. Unless head to head testing is done these “areas” would never come to light as they have. In so much as they have, I am currently working on several write ups to come showing these modifications. There is next to nothing on the modern tanks about improving the suspension performance, track issues and achieving modern top end scale speeds while keeping it all cheap, simple and reliable.

My hope is folks find these tests and future write ups entertaining, insightful and maybe a bit of out of the box.