Which is the best tank?

[tomas]

which is the best out of these. in my opinion and mine means most since i started this thread it is the far superior challenger II.

:D :D :sniper :taynk :taynk :taynk

[bigross86]

A- Your opinion isn't the most important, everyone's opinion is equal. Second, I'd have to say its the Merkava Mk IV

[tomas]

i was being sarcastic dude
:D :D :sniper :taynk

ps nice to see you again

frag

[Ironduke]

Heh, Abrams, battle tested to the bone.

[tomas]

i would say you guys are nutts voting for the abrams but you guys are american so you would vote form your tank

[Ironduke]

I would go with what has been proven in battle.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Challenger was in the Kuwait and Iraq Wars also.

[tomas]

thank you very much so it has been proven too. and it is almost same specs as far as i know.

:D :D :sniper :taynk

[bigross86]

Merkava Mk I, Mk II and Mk III have all ben proven in battle. No reason why the Mk IV shouldn't be as good as the others, for tankers as well as infantry due to the compartment in the back for foot soldiers

[Bill]

The best tank is a dead tank.

[bigross86]

Says the Tank-phobic sniper...

[Ironduke]

Originally posted by tomas
i would say you guys are nutts voting for the abrams but you guys are american so you would vote form your tank

What tank has outperformed the Abrams in combat?

[axl]

try it the other way round: what tank got outperformed by the later abrams versions? let me think...wasn't it crappy t-72 versions which were 20 years older from a technical point of view, not really in a good shape and with horribly trained crews? your combat prooven means nothing.

and also one comment for the topic starter: there are nearly 15 years of development between chal2/m1a2 and t-80. so what you wanna prove? maybe that the the tommies and yanks needed quite some time to bring hunter/killer capabilities to the own tanks? yes, soviet tanks have that since the early 1980s.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

[Praxus]

From a technicle Standpoint the Leopard 2A6 is a better tank, however Abrams crews no matter how much you want to belittle this fact, has had MUCH more experiance then most other western armies(excluding GB).

You obviously have NEVER had any experiance with Tanks, no matter how much you want to pretend you can not change the facts.

[Sparky]

The ABRAMS is at the top or so close to it that ithe difference dosen't amount to anything. Understand that with the US military budget and US technology and the frequency of its likely use if the US main battle tank wasn't up to the job then it would be modified or replaced in short order. "Not good enough" wouldn't go over well in the US and it wouldn't stay that way very long if US tanker started dyng because their tanks weren't as good as opposing tanks. Unlike some other countries we critique ourselves rather nastily when it comes to military effectiveness, especially if it will mean more funding for something better. The manufactureres are just waiting for and excuse/justification for building it.