English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I realize that "best" is rather subjective. I would like an explanation of why you think it is the best. Even though an M1A2 abrams can survive an attack by almost any other tank, it is extremely expensive, heavy, and guzzles gas. Tell me what you think is a tanks most important feature (i.e. survivability, cost, leathality) Thanks in advance for your responses.

2007-05-11 10:36:06 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Most consider these tanks in the top 5:

The United States' M1A2 Abrams
British Challenger 2
German Leopard MA5
Isreali Merkava
France's LeClerc

2007-05-11 10:43:07 · update #1

6 answers

The M1A2 SEP. The new features include the 12 Kilometer range laser guided cannon fired MRM-CE round (the Israelis have their own laser guided round along with the Russians with their own tanks), slat armor (seen on the stryker), transparent Armor Gun shield for the machine gunners/The PROTECTOR M151 Remote Weapon Station (seen on the Stryker), and an anti missile missile system such as the Israeli TROPHY system.

It does need a new engine though and that's it's big flaw along with heavy maintenance (maybe also attributed to the engine). They are making a gasoline engine for it, but that would create its own problems.

2007-05-11 12:06:17 · answer #1 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1 0

Actually, in a head to head battle with all other tanks the Abrams is actually the cheapest. In Iraq we took on the best Soviet tanks and won by huge margins. A tank that is blown up is a waste of money. They do not use an autoloader and therefore are safer and have a higher rate of fire, and computerized aiming systems that compensate for the movement of both the Abrams tank and the target.
Also, the gas guzzling is becoming less of an issue as we increase the number of Strykers, Bradleys, and MRAPs (armored trucks) that are far more suited to urban combat, limiting the need to use tanks except when needed.

2007-05-11 17:43:10 · answer #2 · answered by Troy 6 · 1 3

well panzers were the same in their day and the only reason the Germans lost was they didnt have enough of them. Have to stick with our M1 A2. The russians build crap tanks. The only thing is we have never had a real fight with tactical air for the enemy to determine how well they hold up. We had engagement ranges in the 4 kilometer range for our tanks. The fleeing Iraqis had absolutely no chance of escape because they couldnt see or hear or know they were targeted and about to die.

2007-05-11 17:43:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

No one or country wants to build anymore modern tanks because with the attack helicopters, drones, and planes, no tanks can stand the aerial assaults they would be subjected to.

2007-05-11 17:42:38 · answer #4 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 1 0

the only problems you site for the M-1 are things that America doesn't have a problem with anyway, it's heavy, so we have the equipment to move it, it's expensive, so we have a budget big enough to pay for it, and it guzzles fuel, so we have plenty of POL supplies

2007-05-11 17:40:06 · answer #5 · answered by kapute2 5 · 0 2

Which ones would that be? So far, the "best ones" are getting blown up in Iraq!

2007-05-11 19:14:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers