user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Were your choices Challenger & Leopard?
I'd say Pz VI Koenigstiger in its day, nothing could touch it for armour & firepower - at least not for a good while.
You forgot survivability. In that respect I would rather be in a Merkava than anything else, including an M1A2.
my choices were challenger and merkava, and I am only considering present generation MBTs, so while in it's day the King Tiger was the best, it does not apply to my poll. Thanks, though.
That the m1a2 abrams outranks the merkava in this poll is PRROOF that stupid yanks who know NOTHING about armour wil;l invariably vote american even though it is NOWHERE NEAR as good a tank as the merkava.FUCK OFF YANKS.
King Tiger's an incorrect translation. Should be Bengal Tiger... look it up if you don't believe me.
I agree about those fucking yanks though. Utter wankers, the lot of 'em.
Ha. Sorry non-wanker yanks, I was in a transient mood when I posted that last comment.
actually, i'm not sure whey there is even a poll for this. Without a doubt the M1A2 Abrams outranks any tank ever made.....its really not even close.
Mitus, I challenge you to back that up with facts. I've trained on Abrams in Fort Knox Kentucky, and on Challenger II in Germany with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. There is absolutely NO COMPARISON. I myself am a career armoured Crewman, trained first as a Driver, then Gunner, and subsequently Crew Commander on the Leopard C2A1. So back up your assertion with fact, if you can
Abrams--aka "Silent death" is the best tank out there--3 mile range is hard to beat
The abrams is the best and its obvious. Would the dumbass Canadians every beat the US in a war? FUCK NO! Only in your dreams.
yet still NO PROOF . Best in what respect? Certainly Abrams armour does not compare t oBritish Chobham composite armour?! W/ add-on reactive armour? And the 120 Rheinmetall cannon has problems due to it's smoothbore composition? Do you HAVE ANY FACT MITUS? Or are you talking out of your ass?
flagrantviolator, why is it, exactly that the US Ambrams tank has a smoothbore cannon? I could never see the advantages of smoothbore over a rifled gun. please enlighten me. or maybe its just that the americans, being the technological wonder-workers that they are, havent discovered rifling yet. As for the best tank, i hear that the Challender II is exceptionally good, and the German MBT is very good also.
"While it has been obsolete for hundreds of years in infantry firearms the same is not true for cannon barrels. The rifling on a gun tube imparts a spin that assists in the rounds accuracy over long range but at the expense of a loss of pressure. It not a very big loss but it does happen and it will reduce the rounds velocity to a slight degree. That is not the reason the 120mm uses a smoothbore barrel, it's for the fin stabilised dart projectile. The armor piercing qualities of a dart projectile are far superior to anything else available. It is basically a one inch by twenty inch long rod that can puncture almost anything. Any bow hunter can demonstrate the fact by shooting an arrow through a sandbag that can stop a bullet. I've done it myself. The problem is that it cannot be stable in flight if spinning like a bullet so you have to shoot it through a smoothbore or it will tumble out of control. Stability and accuracy are then achieved through small fins on the back.It works very well as demonstrated in the gulf war. It's not the last word in tank guns and I'm sure the rifled gun tube will make a comeback in the future"
the British armour piercing round is also a dart, enclosed in a SABOT, which ensures the dart does not spin. the SABOT falls away when the round leaves the barrel, meaning greater accuracy than its smoothbore counterparts.
when it comes to firing High explosive rounds, the smoothbore does have a distinct disadvantage, dont you agree, jappy?
I THINK THE CANADIANS BEAT THE USA ABRAMS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION WITH THE LEOPARD
The abrams is the best and its obvious. Would the dumbass Canadians every beat the US in a war? FUCK NO! Only in your dreams.
by JMitus on Feb
You know what. This is definately one of those loaded questions that doesn't have any "real" answer. What are you gonna base your opinion on? Survivability? Range? Overall track record? Each of the tanks mentioned here has it's own pluses and minuses. It is true, some have a definate advantage if say they were to go one on one. But in my opinion the top three are: Challenger II, Merkava, M1A2. Not necessarily in that order. I choose these because of the tanks listed these stand out as having the best track record and have seen the most action. I have to strongly disagree with Mr. violator on his write off of the abrams, for the simple reason it is the most battle tried and tested tank of this bunch.(except in the case of the merkava) It has a good track record and been seen to be effective, reliable and adaptive.
Also a tank is only as good as it's air support. And guess who has the best in that area. U S A(Lets see someone compete with an M1A2 when there is an
A-10 or AH-64 overhead.
CR2 Rocks. flagrantviolator, CR2 doesn't have chobham armour. its has darlington armour, FACT. No girly turbine engine either that breaks easily, needs hours of maintainence and sucks fuel by the ton. CR2 CV12 goes for ever.
Russian T-72, or any of its upgrades like the t-80. The Abrams might outperform it-when the Abrams is actually running, which is not that often. An analogy to the AK-47 works here: the t-72, while not that powerful, rarely breaks down, and when it does, even the dumbest tanker can usually get it going again in seconds. It's surprising how heavily that counts in the real world.
Abrams
|
|
