Prototype of the new Centauro II will be unveiled at the Eurosatory 2016

[Penguin]

LAV-300 (originally known as the V-300) was a 6x6 wheeled armored vehicle, capable of reaching speeds of 65 mph (105 km/hr) and accelerating from zero to 20 mph (32 km/hr) in less than 10 seconds.
An improved version of the LAV-300, referred to as the LAV-300 Mk II (originally known as the V-300 Mk II) was developed in the late 1980s. This variant featured improved performance and range over the initial model. The Mk II swapped out the original Cummins V6 supercharged diesel engine for an improved aftercooled type, also produced by Cummins. Very early V-300 types had initially been fitted with a larger Cummins V8 engine. The Mk II was fitted with an improved transmission with 6 forward and 2 rear gear ratios as opposed to the Mk Is 4 forward speeds. Improved tires and a larger fuel tank were also fitted.
A variant, called the LAV-300A1, with the same turret developed for the Stingray light tank was also offered. This increased the crew of the vehicle to four and the overall weight to over 20 tons. In 1986, Cadillac Gage renamed this vehicle the LAV-600, despite it sharing all of its basic automotive components with the LAV-300 series.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lav-300.htm

 

[Penguin]

The ACV-S is equipped with a Detroit Diesel 6V-53T turbo-charged diesel engine, rated at 350hp, and an Allison X-200 series automatic transmission system. The vehicle accelerates from 0km/h to 30km/h in 7.5 seconds and the maximum speed on a metalled road is 75km/h.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/acv-s/

MTVL
Weight, max GVW 40,000 lb (18,140 kg)
Crew, basic 10 man with winter gear and full pack
Engine
Detroit Diesel 6V53TIA electronically controlled
Gross horsepower 400 hp @ 2800 rpm
Speed 41 mph (66 km/h)
Acceleration, 0 – 20 mph 7.1 sec; 0 – 30 mph 16.7 sec
Turning radius Pivot to infinite
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1374435/posts?page=56

Steyr-Daimler-Puch Pandur II 8x8
Acceleration: 0 – 30 KPH - 6.5 sec, 0 – 50 KPH - 14 sec
http://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=15806

ROOIKAT 105
Configuration 8 wheeled, tyres with run-flat inserts
Armament 105 millimetre GT7 high pressure rifled gun
two 7.62 millimetre machine guns
Weight 28,000 kilograms
Mobility:
Maximum range 1000 kilometres
Maximum road speed 120 kilometres per hour
Average cross country speed 50 kilometres per hour
Acceleration, 0 to 30 kilometres per hour < 8 seconds (9 sec for the basic Rooikat)
Turning radius 25 metres [!]
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/rooikat-specs.html
http://admin.denel.co.za/uploads/rooikat_76.pdf

[Highly comparable to Centauro]

 

[yugocrosrb95]

Tanks turning on the spot is useful, but flawed compared to whelled that can easily with minor performance loss compared to a tano that would grind to a halt and risk breaking plate thus demobilizing the tank...

A whelled AFV will beat a tank and lose to a tank in vast fields...AFVs accelerate faster since improvements in engines applies to both...

 

[Penguin]

Tanks turning on the spot is useful, but flawed compared to whelled that can easily with minor performance loss compared to a tano that would grind to a halt and risk breaking plate thus demobilizing the tank...

A whelled AFV will beat a tank and lose to a tank in vast fields...AFVs accelerate faster since improvements in engines applies to both...

I think you missed the point that there is no significant difference in acceleration (and I am not seeing you post any data and sources to support you contention that there IS such a difference)

Clearly, both tracked and wheeled vehicles each have advantages over the other in certain situations. Here we are discussing urban combat.

I hope you see the difference with a Rooikat 105 turning radius of 25m and a tank's ability to pivot on the spot.

As for 'braking issues', in an urban setting, vehicle speed during combat will generally be low, with occasional dashes, and high speed transit from one area to another: it is not open country. Here too, you make unstubstantiated claims.

A tank is ideal in all situations. A tank that e.g. looses a track, it is pretty much immobilized, whereas a wheeled 8x8 might still be able to move after having losts 1 or 2 of its wheels. Having said that, in the urban setting outlined, I don't think a Centauri automatically has advantage over e.g. an Ariete. You seem to think it does and always does. I disagree with that and I've explained why.

On stopping power

Tank Pivot

8x8 Turn

 

[yugocrosrb95]

I need to post data/sources? No because that would mean I would do your work you slacker...

If you were so knowledgeable then you wouldt ask for data and sources and as I saod before any.improvements made on tanks applies to AFVs.

 

[Penguin]

I need to post data/sources? No because that would mean I would do your work you slacker...

Name calling is not a good idea. And, yes, if you make claims, it is customary to support your claims with sources. At least on a good forum it is.

If you were so knowledgeable then you wouldt ask for data and sources and as I saod before any.improvements made on tanks applies to AFVs.

This is flawed logic. Essentially, you toss away 'scientific method' because "hey, if scientists were all that smart, they wouldn't be asking each other for verifiable source references and transparancy of work proces". You still have not shown in any way that 8x8 wheeled AFVs fare better in urban combat than tanks do. You're just saying stuff. Anybody can do that. But that doesn't make it so.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/FM3-06_11H.html

Extracted from U.S. Army FM 3-06.11 - COMBINED ARMS OPERATIONS IN URBAN TERRAIN - 28 February 2002
APPENDIX H
LESSONS LEARNED FROM MODERN URBAN COMBAT
H-1. RUSSIA AND THE WAR IN CHECHNYA

b. US Marine Corps Analysis.

(1) Strategic Lessons.

(g) Distinct tactical advantages accrue to the side with less concern for the safety of the civilian population.

(2) Operational Lessons.

(d) Urban combat is extremely manpower intensive and produces significant attrition of men and materiel among the attackers.
(e) Overwhelming firepower can make up for organizational and tactical deficiencies the short-run if one is willing to disregard collateral damage.
(h) The geometry and perspectives of urban combat are very different from combat in the open area. Urban combat is much more vertically oriented.
(n) The nature of cities tends to channel combat operations along narrow lanes of activity.

(3) Tactical Lessons.

(c) Tanks and APCs cannot operate in cities without extensive dismounted Infantry support.

(h) Armored combat engineer vehicles can perform important, specialized urban combat tasks.
(i) Recovering damaged armored vehicles is especially difficult in cities.

(j) Hit-and-run ambush attacks by small groups were the most favored and effective of the Chechen tactics.

(m) Tracked armored vehicles are preferable to wheeled armored vehicles in urban combat.
(n) When operating in urban areas, armored vehicles require more protection and that protection needs to be distributed differently than for combat in the open.

c. US Army Infantry School Analysis. Russian Army Lessons Learned from the Battle of Grozny.

(13) Chechens weren't afraid of tanks or BMPs. They assigned groups of RPG gunners to fire volleys at the lead and trail vehicles. Once these were destroyed, the others were picked off, one-by-one. The Russian forces lost 20 of 26 tanks, 102 of 120 BMPs, and 6 of 6 ZSU-23s in the first three days of fighting. Chechens chose firing positions high enough or low enough to stay out of the fields of fire of the tank and BMP weapons.
(14) Russian conscript infantry sometimes refused to dismount and often died in their BMP without ever firing a shot. Russian elite infantry did much better, but didn't coordinate well with armored vehicles initially.

(17) The Russians were satisfied with the combat performance of most of their infantry weapons. The T-72 tank was unsatisfactory, often called, "dead meat". It was too vulnerable, too awkward, not agile, had poor visibility, and poor weapons coverage at close ranges. The Russians removed them from the battle and replaced them with smaller numbers of older tanks and more self-propelled artillery, more ADA weapons, and more BMPs.

H-2. BEIRUT (1982), MOGADISHU (1993), AND GROZNY (1995)

a. Beirut.

(1) Armor. Tanks were under the command of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Infantry companies. The armor of the Merkava, with an internal troop compartment, proved excellent protection against RPGs, mines, and small arms fire. The IDF felt that tanks were the most useful weapon in Beirut, both in terms of delivering firepower on specific targets and protecting the Infantry. The IDF concluded that the M113 family of armored vehicles was too unreliable, unmaneuverable, and vulnerable.

H-3. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON URBAN WARFARE.


d. Importance of Armor.

• 
  (1) Tanks, as one Operation Just Cause participant has written, "are an infantryman's friend in city fighting." They can go anywhere. They can deliver steel on target and they scare the enemy. Their firepower can be used precisely, thus minimizing collateral damage; they can serve as troop carriers, as the IDF discovered in Beirut; and they can be useful for shocking opposition forces and less-than-friendly noncombatants.
  
  (2) To be effective, however, they must be supported by dismounted infantry. In the absence of such support, tanks are vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades, Molotov cocktails, and other systems and munitions. Once a tank is destroyed, it loses its psychological shock value among combatants and noncombatants alike.
  
  (3) As mentioned above, small units are the norm in urban warfare. Given this reality, it may make sense to assign tanks to smaller units than is the norm:
  
  (4) Tanks habitually operate in section or platoon formations. Tank communications procedures are designed for this. Support of a dismounted unit in a city, however, often involves only single or paired armored vehicles. Tanks might be assigned to units as small as a squad.
  

Here's a nice well balanced evaluation of tracked v wheeled.
http://www.slideshare.net/jhasik/2015-03-wheels-versus-tracks-46294208

 

[yugocrosrb95]

Well yes, I am saying just stuff because you says so and that makes it so for you because of your lack of knowledge or denial.

Do you enyoy being pathetic?

 

[Penguin]

Well yes, I am saying just stuff because you says so and that makes it so for you because of your lack of knowledge or denial.

Do you enyoy being pathetic?

You chose the route of insult, I see. Suite yourself.

Whoever wants to trust your judgement that you're better off taking a Centauro into urban combat than taking a good MBT because the former is superior in all respects (or even just the most important aspects) is free to do so.

The role of Armor in Urban Combat (6pp)
http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/feature-urban-armor.htm
https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...eY3XaT8v9G6zuxWl11wrIQ&bvm=bv.123325700,d.d24
Breaking the mold : tanks in the cities / Kendall D. Gott
www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gott_tanks.pdf

Very well combined arms is what it is all about.

 

[Davos]

G'day Mate

Tracked Based Vehicle (TBV) and Wheel Based Vehicle (WBV) both have their pros and cons when you use them in urban setting. The common ground, however, would be the need to have infantry accompanied both in any urban battle.

TBV excel in armoured protection, firepower and also the psychological effect casted on your enemy. On the other hand TBV is extremely slow, clumsy and the main gun may not be able to perform a 360 traverse within an obstacle-intense urban setting. TBV if not use smartly, it will simply jam up all the traffic behind you, and reversing a tank is not exactly easy nor fun to do in narrow street. Also, it's hull-down position is quite awkward, considering the main turret itself took off nearly half the tank's height.

WBV excel is deployment, it could be quickly deployed to any point of the battlefield you'd like, also WBV is a lot easier to control (In contrast to a TBV), the down-size is that WBV lacking both firepower and armour. It would be an easy target in any urban setting which itself not faring any better than TBV. The low profile main armament means WBV would have a better hull-down profile.

As for which one will win in an urban setting? Assuming we have a capable crew on each side, and no infantry escort, I would be much rather to be in a tank than in a wheeled APC. A combination of blind spot, movement and protection. But if it was to be against infantry operation, I would not want to be in either of them unless I am sure I would have infantry support.

Davos

 

[Penguin]

Thank you, @Davos.

In comparing the relative merits of e.g. the two Italian vehicles above, would you agree it would apply to both that
the main gun may not be able to perform a 360 traverse within an obstacle-intense urban setting?

The 54 ton Ariete C1 has a 120 mm L44 smoothbore gun, 7.62 coax mg and at least 1 pintle mounted 7.62mg. The standard 24 ton Centauro B1 of the Italian army has a Oto Melara 105 mm / 52 caliber main gun, a coaxial 7.62mm mg and at least 1 pintle mounted 7.62mm mg. A later version (ordered and in service with Oman armed forces) has a low recoil 120/45 cannon (unrelated to the Rheinmetall L/44 120mm) and new composite armour that can resist up to 40mm APFSDS rounds on the front and 14.5mm on the rest of the body. (the Oto HITFACT® three-man, power operated turret can be armed with a 120mm, 45 calibre OR 105mm, 52 calibre low-recoil-force gun).http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/hitfact-105-120mm

Would you agree

• these vehicles have comparable firepower?
• Centauro has lesser armor protection than Ariete?

As regards mobility, in your opinion, in a narrow street, which would be easier

• to back up / reverse?
• to turn tight corners?

Which would have better

• acceleration?
• dash speed?
• ability to quickly stop?
• ability to vertically take an obstacle (go over)
• ability to horizontally take an obstacle (go around)

I'm a little puzzled about your point regarding hull down position so perhaps you could clarify.

I can see that a vehicle with a lower profile turret is less tall, unless its hull is relatively tall. As we see in the above pic, the two vehicles are roughly equally tall, but the Centauro has a fatter hull with a flatter turret and the Ariete a fatter turret and lower hull. So, strictly horizontally, more of the vehicle would be exposed if/when behind an obstacle but able to swivel the turret, with gun barrel just over the obstacle, or when dug in (in a vehicle scrape). That seems to be the core of your remark, yes? Like so:

Western tank like Ariete, Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger can move their main gun an coax mg from -10 or -9 to +20 degrees and can rotate their turret 360 degrees in 9 seconds. LeClerc is an exception with 'just' with -8 to +15 degrees. Though this is still better then -6 to +13.5 degrees found on e.g. the Yugoslav M-84, a variant of the Soviet T-72. The depression/elevation data for the Italian Hitfact turret is -6 to +16 degrees. Lesser depression and elevation is said to limit the ability to engage targets in urban or mountain areas, as well as ability to fire from hull-down position. Lesser depression and elevation seems to be coupled to lower profile turret. After all, when you're simply at street level, you can engage targets over a wider vertical arc if your turret allows the gun to be depressed deeper and/or elevated higher.

However, here 'ability to fire from hull down' seems to refer to the following situation, where a vehicle would move forward to sight and shoot a target and back up again:

So how does that work out?

 

[Davos]

Thank you, @Davos.

In comparing the relative merits of e.g. the two Italian vehicles above, would you agree it would apply to both that
the main gun may not be able to perform a 360 traverse within an obstacle-intense urban setting?

The 54 ton Ariete C1 has a 120 mm L44 smoothbore gun, 7.62 coax mg and at least 1 pintle mounted 7.62mg. The standard 24 ton Centauro B1 of the Italian army has a Oto Melara 105 mm / 52 caliber main gun, a coaxial 7.62mm mg and at least 1 pintle mounted 7.62mm mg. A later version (ordered and in service with Oman armed forces) has a low recoil 120/45 cannon (unrelated to the Rheinmetall L/44 120mm) and new composite armour that can resist up to 40mm APFSDS rounds on the front and 14.5mm on the rest of the body. (the Oto HITFACT® three-man, power operated turret can be armed with a 120mm, 45 calibre OR 105mm, 52 calibre low-recoil-force gun).http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/hitfact-105-120mm

Would you agree

• these vehicles have comparable firepower?
• Centauro has lesser armor protection than Ariete?

As regards mobility, in your opinion, in a narrow street, which would be easier

• to back up / reverse?
• to turn tight corners?

Which would have better

• acceleration?
• dash speed?
• ability to quickly stop?
• ability to vertically take an obstacle (go over)
• ability to horizontally take an obstacle (go around)

I'm a little puzzled about your point regarding hull down position so perhaps you could clarify.

I can see that a vehicle with a lower profile turret is less tall, unless its hull is relatively tall. As we see in the above pic, the two vehicles are roughly equally tall, but the Centauro has a fatter hull with a flatter turret and the Ariete a fatter turret and lower hull. So, strictly horizontally, more of the vehicle would be exposed if/when behind an obstacle but able to swivel the turret, with gun barrel just over the obstacle, or when dug in (in a vehicle scrape). That seems to be the core of your remark, yes? Like so:
View attachment 307866

Western tank like Ariete, Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger can move their main gun an coax mg from -10 or -9 to +20 degrees and can rotate their turret 360 degrees in 9 seconds. LeClerc is an exception with 'just' with -8 to +15 degrees. Though this is still better then -6 to +13.5 degrees found on e.g. the Yugoslav M-84, a variant of the Soviet T-72. The depression/elevation data for the Italian Hitfact turret is -6 to +16 degrees. Lesser depression and elevation is said to limit the ability to engage targets in urban or mountain areas, as well as ability to fire from hull-down position. Lesser depression and elevation seems to be coupled to lower profile turret. After all, when you're simply at street level, you can engage targets over a wider vertical arc if your turret allows the gun to be depressed deeper and/or elevated higher.

However, here 'ability to fire from hull down' seems to refer to the following situation, where a vehicle would move forward to sight and shoot a target and back up again:

So how does that work out?

G'day Mate

Depending on the gun type, most likely then not, main armament usually will not be able to perform a 360 without knocking down part of a building or obstacle. Tanker are taught to back ram the article or obstacle before trying to turn the turret at that direction.

However, guns like M242 or 2A28 Grom gun would probably able to perform a 360.

On the main armament.

You don't usually run into armour in urban city, simply because both side would perform an armoured duel outside build up area. So a 105mm gun and a 120mm gun would perform similarly in urban environment. Usually you use them to bring down a building, and machine gun nest and bunker with it.

However, 105mm may not be as effective as 120mm if you try to target another tank. Most likely the IFV would need to mauver to the back of the tank before taking a shot. I used to shoot 105 on a Leopard 1 before transitioning to 120mm on an Abrams, the guns in Leopard 1 would be more stable, but less lethal than the M256 on the Abrams. Although I must say you would still probably need to double tap on a M1 to finish the job, you may need more than 2 shot if you are shooting a 105

Of course Centauro have a lower protection profile than Ariete

On movement in build up area

Urban environment is what we called a "Limited-Movement Environment". Basically what it means is that you won't be able to move your vehicle the way you wish, unless you blown a path out yourself. A tank isn't really that bad compare to an IFV/AFV. It's like a truck and a SUV, so it doesn't really matter much in an urban environment anyway, as you don't drive more than 10 kph most of the time, and you can't see out of your vehicle turned in.

On movement in general

-Acceleration : Looking at the basic stats between Ariete and Centauro, Centauro feature 19.35 bhp/ton power to weight ratio where as Ariete is 29 bhp/ton, without looking at the torque , Ariete would have accelerated faster and quicker than Centauro, with torque considered, Ariete would still probably ahead

-Dash Speed : Not sure what do you mean by dash speed. If you are talking about 0 to 50 to 0 then I would have suggested that Ariete would have a greater dash speed. But if you meant from 0 to maximum speed (as in a drag race) then Centauro would have a greater drag speed as it is ultimately faster.

-Quick stop : Tank wins anyday. Most people don't know tank can come to a suddent stop quicker than many road legal car, because car (and in this case wheeled AFV) used disc/drum brakes, and tank reverse their track and used tension and traction to stop. Which means tanks would always stop quicker, but not as comfortable.

-Over obstacle : Depending on ground/wheeled clearance. I cannot seems to find the associated number, but in case of ASLAV and Abrams, Abrams can go steeper than ASLAV, but then ASLAV only have 480mm wheel clearance.

-Around obstacle : Again, no data for me to say.

Regarding Hull-Down

What I meant was that usually tank have a bigger turret and larger superstructure profile, which means you present a bigger target hull down in a tank than in a wheeled IFV. And in a hull-down position, the main point is to observe and attack, however, considering the turret and superstructure of a tank took up half to more than half of the height of a tank, against only 1/3 on an IFV. IFV would have better concealment in a hull down position. And that is why tanker usually camouflage their tank even in a hull-down position.

Not all tank are like this tho, no IFV can beat an S Tank in a hull down position, simply because the turret itself is buried in the tank's own superstructure, and when an S-tank hide in a hull down position, you can only see it's gun barrel and not much else. Which is what you wanted in a perfect hull down position.

Davos

 

[Penguin]

Great reply @Davos, thank you

The barrel length and turret rotation issue perfectly explains weapons choice on a vehicle such as the Russian UVZ BMPT "Terminator".

I agree that in an urban setting one would mainly bring a vehicle with a large gun suchas 105 or 120mm for (direct) fire support rather than specifically for AT. As for stability, I wonder how a Centauro manages a 120mm ' broadside' compared to Ariete ( I don't doubt it can manage ;-)

On movement in build up area: you see use of engineering vehicles in the ' limited movement environment' (CET, armored dozer) but would wheeled or tracked offer advantage in terms of ability to mount/use e.g dozer blade, (full width) mineplow(s) etc.?

Dash speed: the max speed you can reach given a limited distance (e.g. 20m or 50m dash).

Over obstacle. Abrams has 48cm (M1, M1A1) or 43cm ground clearance (M1A2). I would think climbing ability depends on the angle of track and hull shaped. Abrams can climb vertical obstacles of 1.06 m / 1.2m (depending) . Ariete ground clearance is 440 mm and it can climb 1,1 m vertical obstacles. Ground clearance Centauro is 41.7cm, with axle height being about 65cm. It can take a 50-55cm vertical obstacle, apparently
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/FIAT_IVECO_/_OTO_Melara_B1_Centauro


Urban Hull Down

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/90-10apc.htm

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/US_tank_doctrine.html

 

[Davos]

Great reply @Davos, thank you

The barrel length and turret rotation issue perfectly explains weapons choice on a vehicle such as the Russian UVZ BMPT "Terminator".

I agree that in an urban setting one would mainly bring a vehicle with a large gun suchas 105 or 120mm for (direct) fire support rather than specifically for AT. As for stability, I wonder how a Centauro manages a 120mm ' broadside' compared to Ariete ( I don't doubt it can manage ;-)

On movement in build up area: you see use of engineering vehicles in the ' limited movement environment' (CET, armored dozer) but would wheeled or tracked offer advantage in terms of ability to mount/use e.g dozer blade, (full width) mineplow(s) etc.?

Dash speed: the max speed you can reach given a limited distance (e.g. 20m or 50m dash).

Over obstacle. Abrams has 48cm (M1, M1A1) or 43cm ground clearance (M1A2). I would think climbing ability depends on the angle of track and hull shaped. Abrams can climb vertical obstacles of 1.06 m / 1.2m (depending) . Ariete ground clearance is 440 mm and it can climb 1,1 m vertical obstacles. Ground clearance Centauro is 41.7cm, with axle height being about 65cm. It can take a 50-55cm vertical obstacle, apparently
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/FIAT_IVECO_/_OTO_Melara_B1_Centauro


Urban Hull Down

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/90-10apc.htm

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/US_tank_doctrine.html

G'day Mate

I agree that in an urban setting one would mainly bring a vehicle with a large gun suchas 105 or 120mm for (direct) fire support rather than specifically for AT. As for stability, I wonder how a Centauro manages a 120mm ' broadside' compared to Ariete ( I don't doubt it can manage ;-)

- I do not know or have any experience on any mobile gun platform, so I cannot tell you what I know, because I simply don't know, but I would have imagine unless there are some system designed just to stabilise the gun, mobile gun is not going to be as stable as a main battle tank on any calibre

On movement in build up area: you see use of engineering vehicles in the ' limited movement environment' (CET, armored dozer) but would wheeled or tracked offer advantage in terms of ability to mount/use e.g dozer blade, (full width) mineplow(s) etc.?

- I would say engineering vehicle can have minimum affect on urban environment, unless you are planning to turn the whole city into a construction site, otherwise engineering vehicle like Combat Engineering Tractor or Armoured Bulldozer don't have much use, more likely if you are preparing for a fighting position for general defence. Plus, if you were allowed to damage a building, would it be quicker to bring it down with a few well place main-gun shot??

I would suggest the mine-plough or any demining vehicle would be the only one that effective inside a city, but they more than likely your enemy would place their mine on the wall and not the floor.

Dash speed: the max speed you can reach given a limited distance (e.g. 20m or 50m dash).

-Tank can get to their top speed quicker in asphalt, with asphalt offer maximum resistance to tread traction , so I would have to say tank would probably reach its top speed quicker, however, wheeled vehicle usually have a higher top speed, so they would be able to get there. To put it simply, M1 Abrams have a top speed of 72 km/h with mechanical governor limitor, the fastest I know of can reach 90 km/h with the governor removed. ASLAV on the other hand, have a top speed of 120 km/h.

So, basically depend on the speed you set, if you are talking about 0-70, then Abrams would win, on the other hand, if you are talking about 0-100, I doubt Abrams can even reach that speed to begin with. And I believe the same with Centauro and Ariete

Over obstacle. Abrams has 48cm (M1, M1A1) or 43cm ground clearance (M1A2). I would think climbing ability depends on the angle of track and hull shaped. Abrams can climb vertical obstacles of 1.06 m / 1.2m (depending) . Ariete ground clearance is 440 mm and it can climb 1,1 m vertical obstacles. Ground clearance Centauro is 41.7cm, with axle height being about 65cm. It can take a 50-55cm vertical obstacle, apparently
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/FIAT_IVECO_/_OTO_Melara_B1_Centauro

-Climbing depending on a combination of treads (on tracks and tires), vehicle weight, torque, traction, ground clearance, and horsepower.

In theory, depending on the level of obstacle and the shape of obstacle, as well as how you are going to tackle that obstacle, the clearing of the obstacle is only one part of the equation here, you also need to put into the factors like whether or not you have enough horse power to get over this, or how is the surface, if it is rough and tough, then it will offer you more traction, or even the shape of the obstacle would give a different hull a run for their money.

In short, climbing power favours a platform with high ground clearance, high angle of attack capability, large horse-power or bhp/weight ratio, tracked as track can bend which means more surface area on obstacle, which also means more traction, and vehicle have a higher torque.

Davos