What military vehicle would you most like to drive?

If I’m allowed to be a bit heretical and go “ancient warfare guy,” the vehicle I’d most like to drive is the closest modern equivalent to an ancient shock platform: an M4 Sherman in running condition. Not because it’s the best tank (it wasn’t), but because it’s arguably the most historically instructive.

You’d feel, in a very practical way, why WWII armored doctrine evolved the way it did—crew workload, limited optics, how fast a formation can really move, and why combined arms mattered. The Sherman sits at the intersection of mass production, operational art, and tactical improvisation—think North Africa to Normandy.

For sources that shaped my view: Zaloga’s work on Sherman variants and US armored tactics, and the postwar US Army operational analyses that emphasized reliability and logistics as decisive factors.

If I had to pick a Cold War “doctrine in motion” option: a Leopard 1 or early M60—built around mobility and gun handling in the era before heavy composite armor dominated thinking.

Give me a Stryker ICV with a full kit loadout in the back (empty seats is cheating). I’m weirdly into the “how does this actually work for the people inside” side—stowage, tie-down points, access to comms, how fast you can get in/out with body armor, rucks, and weapons.

Tanks are cool, but the Stryker feels like the ultimate practical military vehicle to experience: road speed, creature comforts (relatively), and a layout built around troops. Also, I’d love to see how much vibration and noise you get compared to what you assume from YouTube.

Bonus: I’d want to do it with proper hearing protection and eye pro—if you’ve ever stood near a running diesel platform you know it’s not “optional.”

From a “most fun to actually drive” standpoint, I’ll take an MRAP on a driver course any day. I’m not claiming it’s glamorous, but the feeling of sitting high, dealing with the weight, and learning how wide you really are is memorable.

What surprised me early on: visibility is both better (you’re up high) and worse (blind spots are real), and everything happens slower than you think because you’re moving so much mass. You learn discipline quick—spacing, speed, and not trusting your instincts on tight turns.

If you get the chance at a museum or sanctioned event, do it the way they tell you. These things don’t forgive “I think I can fit.”

Everyone saying “Abrams” is basically admitting they want a theme-park ride, not a driving experience. If the question is what you most want to DRIVE, then pick something where the driver actually matters and you’re not just steering a 70-ton political statement.

My pick: Bradley. It’s the sweet spot—fast enough to feel alive, still armored, and it’s a vehicle that’s actually been at the center of real combined-arms debates for decades. Plus, you’ll appreciate how cramped and noisy it is compared to the armchair fantasies.

And yeah, I’m going to say it: if you only care about “biggest gun,” you’re missing the point of why vehicles exist in doctrine.

I know the thread says “drive,” but I’d pick a vehicle that’s basically the bridge between driving and autonomy: a UGV in the class of RCV-Light or a small tracked EOD robot scaled up to something you can control from inside an armored cab.

What I’d want to experience is the human-machine interface: how situational awareness changes when your “windshield” is cameras, how latency and limited field of view mess with instinct, and how autonomy assists (lane keeping, obstacle detection) could reduce driver workload.

If we’re sticking to traditional vehicles, I’d still pick something modern with driver aids—because the future of military vehicles is less about raw horsepower and more about sensing, networking, and decision support.

If I get one pick purely to drive: Leopard 2A6 (or any A5/A6 family). It’s the “driver’s tank” in my opinion—excellent mobility, predictable handling for the class, and a powerpack reputation that shows.

Abrams is incredible, but the turbine adds a different flavor (fuel consumption, heat, acoustic signature) and the whole package feels like it’s optimized around US sustainment and doctrine. Leopard 2 feels like a very refined conventional approach.

If we’re talking IFVs: CV90 would be high on my list for the same reason—well-engineered, good mobility, and a layout that reflects decades of mechanized lessons.

And for a realistic civilian-access experience, a running M113 is underrated. Not fast, not fancy—just pure “this is how mechanized infantry actually moved for generations.”

Land vehicles are everyone’s first instinct, but my “drive” answer is a small naval platform: a RHIB used by naval boarding teams or coast guard-style interceptors. The sensation of speed, sea state, and handling is the closest maritime equivalent to “driving an armored vehicle off-road.”

If we expand beyond literal driving: I’d love to stand a watch in the control room of a modern submarine or be on the bridge during restricted waters navigation. Not because it’s flashy—because it’s high consequence and deeply procedural.

Maritime operations make you appreciate logistics and environment as an adversary. The ocean punishes mistakes without needing an enemy to show up.

I’m going to cheat slightly and say “fly,” not drive: AH-64 Apache. If I had to stay grounded, then I’d pick something aviation-adjacent like an airfield crash truck or an aircraft tug—those are still “vehicles,” and they live in the same ecosystem.

But the dream is the Apache because it’s the perfect blend of piloting and tactical decision-making. The training pipeline, crew coordination, and sensor management is what fascinates me—more than raw speed.

If anyone’s done a helicopter familiarization ride (legit, supervised), I’d love to hear what surprised you—vibration, workload, or just how quickly you lose sense of “up” when you’re heads-down on instruments.

If you’re asking because you’d like to actually get behind the controls one day (not just hypothetically), the most realistic path is through service roles that routinely train drivers: motor transport, armored/mech units, combat engineers, and some support specialties.

Vehicle-wise, I’d pick a HMMWV or JLTV first—because it’s a common entry point and the skills translate (convoy discipline, maintenance culture, route planning). Then work up to heavier platforms if your unit/role supports it.

If you’re a civilian: look for reputable museums, veteran org events, or sanctioned training experiences. Avoid sketchy “private range” offers—these vehicles are dangerous when poorly supervised.

For pure “most want to drive,” I’ll take a GMV (Ground Mobility Vehicle) style platform—think SOF-configured JLTV/ISR-friendly buggies or a Polaris MRZR-type vehicle. Not because it’s the toughest, but because it matches how special operations often prioritize mobility, speed, and getting in/out fast.

The fun part isn’t top speed—it’s how the vehicle supports a mission profile: comms integration, mounts, stowage for kit, and the balance between stealth and capability.

Honorable mention: a fast attack vehicle in desert terrain. It’s the closest modern equivalent to cavalry—just with radios, night optics, and a ton of logistics behind it.

I’d pick something simple and reliable that you can actually recover and sustain in ugly conditions: an old-school deuce-and-a-half (M35) or a basic 4x4 military truck.

Not glamorous, but from a survival and preparedness angle, mobility is about fuel, spares, and fixability. I’d rather “drive forever” at moderate speed than have a high-tech platform that’s dead in the water when one sensor or specialized part fails.

Also, driving a heavy truck off pavement teaches you a lot about terrain reading—mud, soft shoulders, water crossings (only if supervised), and why route selection is a skill, not a guess.

My pick is the most geopolitically “revealing” vehicle: a logistics truck in a brigade support battalion—HEMTT class, fueler or cargo variant. Because if you want to understand modern conflict, drive the thing that makes everything else possible.

Tanks and jets get headlines, but sustainment is the center of gravity in many campaigns. Fuel, ammo, parts, and maintenance tempo shape operational choices more than people like to admit.

In Ukraine, the Middle East, or any large-scale scenario, the side that protects and scales logistics tends to outlast the side that only optimizes shooters. Driving a heavy logistics platform would make that lesson visceral.

I’d love to drive an AVLB (armored vehicle-launched bridge) or a modern combat engineering breacher. Watching videos is one thing—feeling the weight shift while deploying a bridge or managing a specialized chassis would be unreal.

Engineer vehicles are the “silent enablers”: they turn terrain from a barrier into a route. That’s mobility doctrine in the most literal sense.

And selfishly, the control systems and hydraulics fascinate me—how operators coordinate with security elements, how long deployment really takes under safe conditions, and what the maintenance burden looks like afterward.

I’m still learning so this might be a basic answer, but I’d pick a Bradley or a Stryker because they seem like what you see most in modern footage and they carry troops, not just the crew.

Question for people who’ve been in them: is it harder to drive a tracked vehicle than a wheeled one? Like does turning feel totally different? Also how do drivers even see anything at night—are the cameras/thermals easy to use or super disorienting at first?

From a wargaming perspective, I’d pick whatever platform best teaches the constraints that sims often abstract away: a self-propelled artillery piece like the M109.

Why? Because it forces you to think in terms of positioning, displacement drills, and timing—shoot, move, resupply—rather than the “rush forward and duel” mentality. Driving it would highlight the practical side of operational tempo: how fast you can relocate, how terrain affects routes, and how quickly fatigue and maintenance accumulate.

If we’re keeping it more mainstream, an IFV is the best “combined arms classroom” you can sit in—because it lives at the seam between infantry problems and armor problems.

I’d choose an unmanned-capable convoy vehicle—something in the autonomous logistics lane where a human can drive, but the point is to transition to leader-follower or supervised autonomy.

What I’d want to feel is the handoff: manual driving vs assisted driving vs remote supervision, and how trust develops when the vehicle is making micro-decisions (spacing, braking, obstacle avoidance). That’s where near-future military vehicles are heading—especially for resupply in contested areas.

If we’re talking pure fun, sure, tanks are iconic. But the most interesting “driver seat” in 10–15 years might be a console managing a pack of trucks that drive themselves.