Tanks (vehicle)

(This answer has been updated and corrected with the intention to improve the answer by providing unbiased corrections to inaccuracies. I urge the original answerer to please do more extensive research in the future however.)

Most comparisons about the best tank are between Abrams and Leopard 2. Which conclude that the Leopard 2 A6/A7 is the best tank for the price. So you get the best tank for each Dollar or Euro your spend (The Leopard 2 is cheaper to buy and operate). However when looking purely at combat performance the Abrams is the best tank. The Challenger 2 is never number 1 in such comparisons.

The Abrams is the best protected tank. Like the Challenger 2 it has a variant of Chobham/Burlington armor. But in the case of the Abrams it is improved with a layer of steel encased depleted uranium (DU). The radioactivity of DU is harmless. (Correction: This is contested by Australian evaluations, though the extent of harm is believed to be limited.) It is a very dense material which gives a lot of extra protection against kinetic energy (sabot) projectiles.

The older M1A1 Abrams in Desert Storm could survive hits at the front and side turret. Not just of obsolete T-72's but also pointblank 120mm 'Silver bullet' rounds from other Abrams which pass straight trough a T-72 or T-80. (Correction: Proper T-72s did not engage Abram tanks in Desert storm Iraq did not use them. They used local models 'Sadda' 'Assad Babil' and diminished export T-72s.)

When Abrams tanks had to be abandoned and destroyed when stuck in mud or were disabled (blown track, engine failure) other Abrams were often unable to do so. With the versions after that (M1A1 HA, M1A1 HC, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP TUSK) protection has become even better.

During Thunder Run (armored assaults into Baghdad) Abramses were hit to up to 15 anti-tank weapons and kept going. The only one knocked out was a lucky shot which hit a drum of fuel at the rear turret. The fuel got into the engine and caused fire. The (uninjured) crew was unable to get it out and had to leave it behind.(Correction: These anti-tank weapons consisted primarily of SPG-9 recoilless rifles and RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launchers. Later RPG-29s were found more effective against the Abrams even the front armor and accounted for many the losses the Abrams suffered during the war.) As other tanks can't penetrate Abrams the abandoned tank it was taken out with an air strike to prevent it falling into enemy hands. This required 2 Mavericks and a Hellfire (which are very heavy anti-tank missiles). So the Abrams performed very well in an urban environment (which is usually a bad place for tanks) before it even had an urban warfare kit.

The Abrams also has ammunition blow-out panels. When the ammunition is hit (which is at the rear turret) these panels blow out forcing the blast upwards instead of towards the crew compartment.

Neither Challenger or Leopard 2 have ammunition blow-out panels so an ammunition hit will mean more damage and more injuries. (Correction: Challenger uses separately loaded ammunition, therefore Blowout panels are not needed. Furthermore Abram's blowout panels are rated for 105mm ammunition and should not be considered protection from 120mm cook offs)

The Challenger is also very well protected but not as much as the Abrams. Both have a chobham variant but the Chal has no DU in its armor. (Correction: Chobham armor is just another term for composite armor. The Dorchester Mk2 of the Challenger and the RHA + DU armor of the Abrams are not comparable. Dorchester Mk2 contains Tungsten Carbide and a variety of other materials in a different (though also classified) sandwich. However combat experience has shown that DU armor provides no greater protection.)

There have been instances where they have been penetrated by other Challengers (freindly fire). The ammo is seperated but there are no blow-out panels. The Challenger 2 can be regarded as the second best protected tank behind the Abrams. (Correction: In light of the original authors misunderstandings about blowout protection, and armor types their conclusion can be disregarded as well. PS Armor was not penetrated HESH creates spalling of the armor but does not penetrate. Furthermore the tank that suffered from the strike was equipped with older armor thus should be considered in the category of the Abrams A1 which suffered many penetrations during the Iraq wars.)

The Leopard 2 has advanced composite armor but no chobham variant or DU. It has been deployed to Afghanistan by Denmark and Canada.

In a test with a Leopard 2 A5 which was shot by another it required 7 hits.

One could argue that more Abrams has been disabled then Challenger 2. This is not a fair comparison as much more Abrams have been deployed then Challengers. When there are more around there is a bigger chance one is hit. (Correction: As per percentage of tanks hit, Abrams have suffered greater causalities. Thus the mention of their losses is still relevant.)

The only Abrams destroyed were hit by 500kg IED underneath which would have destroyed everything.

In freindly fire between Abrams there were no casualties (even point blank no penetrations at front and sides). In friendly fire between Challengers 2's there was. (Correction: Not a penetration, and the L/44 M256 is not comparable to other MBT weapons and should not be considered proof positive.)

It most however be noted that there is a diffirence between the American Abrams and the export Abrams. The export Abrams does not have the DU armor package.

So while the US Abrams has better armor for sure, it could very well be that in armor protection the export Abrams is equal or maybe even less then the Challenger 2.

Protection:

1. Challenger 2

2. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down a slot to correct the original authors bias and misunderstandings in order to better reflect the actual protection.)

3. Leopard 2 A6

The Challenger is underpowered. It only has a 1200hp engine compared to 1500hp on Abrams and Leopard 2. The Abrams has better mobility and the Leopard 2 more mobility then Abrams.

Winner on mobility. Dutch Leopard 2 reached 110km/h on German training area. Abrams reaches 120km/h with speed limiter removed (but fuel consumption is drasticly increased). (Correction: The Challenger is not underpowered, underpowered implies that it struggles in mobility. It does not. However it does have a less powerful engine. It should be noted that the 1500hp Gas-Turbine is prone to fan sheering and is highly inefficient, future US army tanks will use diesel engines. Finally turning off the engine governor requires work at the motor pool and operating beyond the governed speed will cause damage to the tank. It is highly recommended against by the tanks manual.)

Mobility:

1. Leopard 2 A6

2. M1A2 SEP Abrams

3. Challenger 2

Both Abrams and Leopard 2 A6 can destroy a T-90 or T-80U at 4km with a single shot. The Leopard 2 A6 has a better gun but the Abrams has comparable firepower because of DU ammo (just a bit less). (Correction: The difference between tungsten and depleted uranium penetrators is negligible. The difference in force behind the round however from the shorter barrel is not. The challenger 2 is capable of doing the same at 4-5km.)

I have no information regarding the Challenger 2 but they want to replace the rifled gun with the German L55 of the Leopard 2 A6 which indicates the firepower is less then the Leo 2 A6.

So the Leopard 2 wins with the Abrams following very very close behind. (Correction: The British army evaluated the L55 for a short time, not due to performance requirements but due to ammunition considerations. Ammunition for the L30 was no longer produced and they evaluated adopting a gun with widely available ammunition. Due to the size of the cased 120mm for the L55 however the tank fit less than 10 rounds, instead of the normal 40. The L55 evaluation has since been cancelled and ammunition for the L30 is being produced again. It was never an adoption only an evaluation on a single tank. Information on the L30 is widely available.)

Firepower:

1. Leopard 2 A6

2. Challenger 2 (Correction: For the purposes of accuracy, the Challenger and Leopard A6 onward can be consisidered tied. The L30 has much greater range, but the L55 has a greater variety of ammunition. Older leopards however can be considered inferior because they use an L/44.)

3. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down because the abrams uses a 44 caliber gun, with less power

Challenger does not win in any of these catagories.

Overal I would rank protection as most important as it determines the survival of tank and crew. Abrams is clearly winner here.

Second is firepower. Leopard 2 wins here but with a very small margin. In practice its compable. Leopard 2 wins on mobility.

I would take any of these tanks to combat. But if I had to pick I would want to be in the Abrams rather then the other 2.

So the Abrams is the best tank when judging combat performance. (Correction: See previous corrections. Best mobility focused tank: Leopard 2A4 & A5 [A6, A7 & E are much heavier and less mobile] Best protection focused tank: Challenger 2

Best firepower focused tank: Tie between Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 A6-E

1961.

10

Dane.g.elliott

The pro side was that they were cheap, easily produced and the US

was able to put many of them into the field quickly.

The con's include the lack of firepower and armament, the lack of an

adequate defense and because they were fueled by gasoline they lit

up like torches when hit. They were called Zippos because they were

guaranteed to light up every time.

In addition, the Sherman was a Medium Infantry tank - its primary mission was to support infantry, not go head-to-head with the much heavier German tanks (the Panther and Tiger series). As such, it was intended to attack fortified pillboxes and strongpoints, provide fire support, and counter light armor. It thus had a medium-velocity mid-size gun, which proved excellent for use with high-explosive rounds (which, against masonry and concrete, are highly effective). The lack of sloped armor on the hull sides made manufacture much simpler, as did the rotary gasoline engine (which was simple to make, and even simpler to service in the field). Finally, its light weight meant it could easily use bridges which could not support many other tanks, as well as making it easy to adapt for a variety of unusual services that heavier tanks were unsuitable - floating tanks and anti-mine tanks, are some of many adaptations made to the Sherman.

Thus, the Sherman was optimized for very high rate of production, ease of service in the field, and for use in a scouting and infantry support role.

Unfortunately, the Sherman frequently found itself pressed into service in roles it was entirely unsuitable for, particularly when put up against much, much heavier German tanks and high-powered anti-tank weapons. The armor arrangement of a Sherman was suitable protection against up to 60mm medium-velocity or 40mm high-velocity rounds (as those found on the Panzer III & IV series), whereas the Panther and Tiger tanks used 75 or 88mm high-velocity weapons (as did the feared 88m anti-aircraft gun). The gasoline engine (a benefit in the cold weather vs a diesel one) quickly became a huge liability there, as the insufficent armor protection meant that a Sherman would catch fire quickly. In addition, the Sherman lacked a proper ammunition storage system, as most rounds simply sat on the floor. Naturally, this is a horrible thing when the armor is pierced - almost as many Shermans blew up from a hit as caught fire.

Similarly, the original engine in the Sherman was of sufficient power to move the tank at good speeds; however, as serious field modifications radically increased the weight of the tank, the engine and transmission became overtaxed and resulted in significant maintenance issues.

Bottom line: the Sherman was a good design (and, in the end, a war-winning one), but one which had severe limitations when pressed into service for purposes which it wasn't designed for. Unfortunately, due to the lack of production of the M-26 Pershing and similar heavy Allied tanks, the Sherman frequently found itself being used in circumstances where its limitations were quickly exposed, usually to the serious detriment of its crew.

Most likely there was no use of restrooms in tanks, most men went to the bathroom before or after the battle, as most major advances were prepared for in advance

France came up with the first idea of a tank in the 15hundreds, Austria came up with the first prototype of a tank in 1912, but the first people use them were the British in the battle of the Somme of 1916

The Vietnam era M48 Patton tanks were about 13 feet tall (at the cupola) about 11 feet wide and weighed 52 tons combat loaded. The M551 Sheridan, a brand new tank first fielded in Vietnam in January of 1969 weighed in at about 17 tons.

On some of the Tiger Tanks, they'll carry a 88 Flak Gun.

Bangladesh have 644 old + new 44 main battle tank. Also have 140+light tank

It's nearly tottally impossible to count every vehicle destroyed by Tanks during WW2 but it estimated to be millions if you include civilian vehicles.

95 and newer

As Landships. Armies had never utilized hatches, turrets, or internal cannons; consequently, armies had to turn to the Navy for technology. The first cannons (guns) installed in tanks were Naval guns. The nomenclature for tanks were adapted from Naval terms: hatches, turrets, sponson boxes, back decks, bow machine guns, and the hull, etc. The first tanks were designed by Naval architects.

By the British in World War.

Tanks were extremely effective in WWI, if only in short supply. WWI was a trench war where both sides were so well defended that offensive assaults were extremely costly. WWI was a great example of a period in history where technology was advancing very rapidly and the countries who kept up with it were at a great advantage.

Infantry assaults were getting bogged down and had high body counts from the invention of simple defenses like barbed wire, better rifles, and later machine guns. Jumping over your trench, running across the dead zone in a mass assault troops had to cross rows barbed wire fence coils. The ground was pitted from constant artillery bombardment. Both sides could see each other coming, so you also had to face continuous rifle fire, machine gun fire, and artillery. It was very bloody and obviously these attacks did not help morale.

The tank really helped this in that it was a tracked vehicle and could cross these defenses and reach the enemy territory. It had armor to make the trip more survivable under small arms fire. It effectively led the way for infantry assaults. Although both sides were racing in technology fast enough that tank advances saw advances in anti-tank weapons both infantry portable and as artillery. and fixed defenses also adjust to block tanks. They were effective in their role on the battlefield, but did not happen in a way that caused either side a decisive victory.

You have to be more specific. I don't know the total number of Tiger Tanks destroyed but if you look at the German's records, they list many of them destroyed or abandoned by their own men. This was probably due to the fact that the tanks used so much gas the Germans may have had to leave them behind after destroying them. Also, German equipment was so finely engineered that they were too complex to repair in the field. Or it may simply be a propaganda ploy so it would keep up the belief that their Tiger tanks were indestructable. So, do you mean how many Tigers were destroyed in combat?

yes if your military officer or if you are a navy marine or in the core or shock wave (Russian core)

Could go further, faster, and do more damage.

a gas tank does not have a filter!

Many newer vehicles have the fuel filter integrated into the fuel pump.

== == Canada sold many of it's naval ships to smaller nations like Chile and Brazil to boost their military forces at a low cost. The air force kept some planes for the peacetime reserve but most were sold off for private use, with the Lancaster bombers becoming freight carriers, and the twin engine Mosquitos became short range passenger planes. The Army kept about one third of it's armored units intact, along with about 4,ooo trucks and jeeps, the rest were sold at auctions as war surplus, to private buyers who repainted them and used the trucks for work in transport and industry. Bulldozers and other types of construction equipment were sold at auction and were soon at work building the new homes and factories that came in the post war boom of building that went on into the 1960's in Canada. Naval ships were surplus and were sold as scrap, to be broken up and the metal re-cycled onto other things. The same happened to many armored units. In some cases, the Allies left their equipment in Europe, to be sold " as is where is ", to the highest bidder, especially any equipment that was "battle damaged". Box cars full of uniforms and boots went for a few CENTS per hundred pounds of weight. It was cheaper than paying to have it shipped back to North America.

If I'm not badly mistaken, there was a recall on that problem.

I'd Google the problem first, and then contact a dealership and ask about it.

________________________________________________________________________________

That recall ended in 2001. You need to replace the fuel pump in the tank that is filling up. ie: If back tank is pumping into front tank and overflowing it then the front tank fuel pump module is bad. Replace it. Part is between 138.00 and 200.00 at a parts store.

23-30 gallons

Something was needed to break the stalemate (to breach the defenses); tanks could do that.

Most of the tanks in World War 1 were very slow they were also extremely heavy so they could sink into the mud.They were prone to mechanical failure and they couldn't withstand a direct hit from an artillery shell.