Overview:
As many participants wanted me to review their designs, I have decided to compare all of them at once.

The M6A3 Ardent is a Paternian main battle tank introduced in 1952, an upgrade to the M6A1 Ardent previously in service.

The Type 47 is a Sino-Japanese main battle tank introduced in 1947.

The T-61 is an Aurun-Belkan main battle tank introduced in 1946, seeing service in the 1947 Aurun-Belkan Revolution within the Soviet Union. It is designed as an improvement to the Soviet T-54 and IS-3.

The HT-2 is a Malayan heavy tank introduced in 1947, based off captured IS-2.

The Jundub-203-76 is an Awwami main battle tank introduced in 1952.

This is an objective test designed to fairly evaluate the capabilities of every vehicle.

Mobility:
All machines were put through the two primary courses used to assess Paternian tankers: the cross-country and the gunnery course. The former course is designed to test a tank's general mobility across various terrain, while the latter is designed to simulate fire-and-maneuver combat.

Course times for cross-country course:
M6A3 Ardent: 20 min 0 sec
Type 47: 18 min 43 sec
T-61: 15 min 10 sec
HT-2: 25 min 32 sec
J-203-76: 19 min 1 sec

Course times for gunnery course:
M6A3 Ardent: 20 min 11 sec
Type 47: 23 min 23 sec
T-61: 21 min 43 sec
HT-2: 27 min 19 sec
J-203-76: 24 min 51 sec

Of all vehicles, the T-61 performed the best in the cross-country trial due to its high power-weight ratio, low mass, and relatively high top speed. Second place came the Type 47, followed closely by the J-203-76. The M6A3 was much slower than all other main battle tanks. Unsurprisingly, the HT-2 came dead last due to its low power-weight ratio.

However, the M6A3 came first during the gunnery course, beating the second place competitor, the T-61 by 1 minute and 32 seconds. This is due to the M6A3's excellent two-axis stabilization and smooth suspension that allows the tank to fire from an abrupt halt much more quickly than other tanks. The T-61 and Type 47 both featured 2-axis gun stabilizers, but lacked the superior suspension of the M6A3.

Armor:
The HT-2 has the best effective frontal armor, followed by the Type 47, M6A3, T-61, and the J-203-76. The rounded turrets and reasonable gun depression of the HT-2, Type 47, and M6A3 allow it to be quite powerful in a hull-down position. The T-61's armor, while thin and easily penetrated by modern cannon, is better sloped than the armor of the J-203-76.

However, the HT-2, a derivative of the IS-2, shares its frontal turret weakspot.

Firepower:
All vehicles in question were armed with 105mm cannon of various construction and performance.

The 105mm M68 cannon on the M6A3 Ardent was a powerful cannon capable of engaging enemy armor at all distances due to its powerful cannon and excellent HEAT-G ammunition that combines the anti-armor penetration retention abilities of HEAT with the accuracy and velocity of APFSDS. This is accomplished by having an outer driving shell resting on ball bearing atop an inner core with a HEAT charge. While the outer casing is free to spin from the rifling and stabilize the projectile, the inner shell does not, improving the effectiveness of the HEAT round. This allows it to possess a 50% first-hit probability against a target 3,000 meters away with 400mm of armor penetration while stationary.

The 105mm L7 on the Type 47 is virtually identical to the 105mm M68, as the latter is a licensed copy of the former. However, the Type 47 is not usually issued HEAT-G ammunition, limiting its potential compared to the M68. The M68 and L7 is interchangeable.

The 105mm K5 cannon and the 105mm Schkeska HV have plenty of potential on account of the muzzle energy, but was limited by the use of obsolete ammunition types, limiting both penetrating power and accuracy against distant targets. The T-61 does have access to other cannon, although these were not tested as the 105mm HV is considered standard.

Special thermite ammunition from the J-203-76 proved quite powerful and had a significant incendiary effect rather than explosive. The 120mm cannon did deliver a considerably more powerful explosive shell, but was limited to chemical energy rounds due to the lower shell velocity.

Comfort and Ergonomics:
Of all the tanks, the T-61 and M6A3 Ardent were perhaps the best. The T-61 was a certainly roomier machine than the M6A3, but ride quality suffered on rough terrain due to the rudimentary suspension.

The HT-2 and J-203-76 have surprisingly good ride quality on account of their suspension, but were found to be rather cramped vehicles. However, the HT-2's single hatch for three crew members may lead to issues when rapid egress from disabled vehicle is necessary.

The Type 47 had the worst comfort and ergonomics of all vehicles, due to the heavily domed turret roof creating a cramped interior, while possessing basic suspension systems that result in poor ride quality.

Visibility:
The machine with the best visibility was the Type 47, on account of its excellent cupola design and optics. The M6A3 Ardent came second place, followed by the T-61, the J-203-76, and with the HT-2 in dead last.

The latter three lacked a commander's cupola, meaning that they are provided very limited visibility if buttoned up. However, the T-61 did feature excellent periscopic optics which partially compensated for this flaw.