Tanks (vehicle)

your right half shaft needs to be replaced ,it is covered by a rubber bellow that cinnects to your wheel

The troops were not trained to use tanks and tanks just made them able to get over barbwire more like a powerful van not the killing machine it is seen as today

In a average Panzer Korps, there is around 250 Tanks, some did have at-least 500 in one go. This was because certain Panzer Korps were going for big targets and need a lot of fire power if it was needed to break through heavy Allied Defences and seig the area.

M1A2 Hands down, the T80 is okay on cross country but the Abrams has much more advanced fire control systems, armaments, suspension system, armor, Superior off road performance, and the ability to fire on the move. (Correction: The T-80 has the ability to fire on the move as well. And has more potent armament. The 2A46 is 8% more powerful being a 125mm vs the M256 120mm, definitely a small difference but it makes the answerer's claim incorrect. The T-80 also has gun launched ATGMs which vastly out range 120mm rounds from the L/44 M256. Both T-80 and Abrams use Torsion bar suspension, however the Abrams weighs much more and has grown heavier over time, the suspension has not changed to reflect this. It should be considered at risk of becoming a weakness.)

mine came with a 34 gal tank

hi too

In July of 1944, the French city of Caen was a German stronghold. The Germans believed that defending the city was of great importance and used 700 of its available 900 tanks to face the British troops under the command of Field Marshall Montgomery.

They were an attempt to break the trench deadlock. There were no weapons to properly counter them at the time, but the tanks were constantly breaking down, and they were also very slow. Although tanks in World War 1 proved they could open a breach in the enemy's line, they were too slow and unreliable to carry through with an attack after the breach had been opened.

WW 1 tanks were used to break the stalemate of trench warfare. Their success at doing so was limited.

-answered by some guy

Mine is 15 gallons.

An ISO Tank is a term used to describe a steel "pill shaped" container within a standard ISO (International Standards Organization) frame. 20' x 8' x 8'6" is the most standard size found within the US. This tank container is used to haul up to 6,600 gal or 25,000L of bulk liquid. The products can range from food-grade products such as orange juice or wine to hazardous chemicals such as hydrochloric acid.

About 6million dongs or $150,000 US on average

The Panther Tank was designed in May 1942 and it was soon to be Produced in September 1942. The development of the Panther between September 1942- January 1943 was Min 250 Tanks a Month but by 1943, German Panzer Divisions was in need of more tanks due to the near defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad, so it was raised to Min 600 Per month but this changed from between 150-350 a Month from January 1943 onward due to Heavy Allied Bombings as a desperate act of need to end the War in Europe.

20 us gallons. give or take a pint.

No, the turret of the Tiger tank was not electrically operated. It utilized a hydraulic system for the elevation and traverse of the gun. The design focused on mechanical operations, which were more reliable at the time compared to electrical systems. This hydraulic mechanism allowed for effective movement of the turret in combat situations.

Wheels might get shot out and tracks make it easier for the tank to go over rough land

NO IN 5 TO 10 YEAR THE UK WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A MAIN BATTLE TANK DESIGN PERIOD. FUNDING AS THE UK GOVERNMENT BELIEVE SMALLER CHEAPER DESIGNS CAN DO THE JOB PLUS THERE AIR PORTABLE RAPID DEPLOYMENT. BUT WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS MONEY AND POLITICAL WILL I.E IN THE UK NONE GORDON BROWN

Assuming a 50\50 mix of hot and cold, approximately 15 minutes.

It depends on the flow rate of your shower head and the ratio of hot to cold.

If the flow rate equals f in gallons per minute

And the ratio of hot to cold is r

t = (50 / r + 50) / f

Yes, but they mostly built Jeeps and, believe it or not, B-24 Liberator Bombers.

The Germans had been practicing and perfecting Combined Arms tactics and training, following WW1 all the way until WW2 happened, in Russia, I might add with Russian Assistance. America, on the other hand went thru the depression and the last thing on Americas mind, after WW1, was building a modern military.

The Germans had a big head start over the us military when we were drug into WW2. The Germans had proven that the tanks werent as important, as using combined arms to wage war. they had proven this when they rolled thru France, the French had better tanks, but the Germans had countered with concentrating armour and tactics, Air support, and Artillary. After the American Army got its knocks at kasseine pass, they quickly learned and adapted.

intially you have to admit that the panzer units were very successful, but don't forget that less than 10% of the German army was mechanized when they invaded Russia, The German tanks werent up to the Russian tanks in Armour or Firepower, and the burden for stopping Russian Tank attacks fell to the landser (foot soldier) in the trenches to take on these beast with smoke pots and mines. If lucky a few Stugs might be available to assist or underpowered anti-tank guns.

German tanks were well made and dependable as a rule, whether it was a mark IV, or a Tiger. But the shermans were dependable and numerous and skilled sherman crewman learned to use terrain to get in close, with other shermans, to get the close in kill. Allied fighters and Aritillary contributed greatly, when available.

hopefully i wasnt too long winded and this helps.

To add a little, the Panzers were more powerful and better armored than the most popular American tank, the Sherman. However, Germany produced a small fraction of Panzers to the amount of Shermans the Americans made. So that a one on one battle between a Panzer (especially the powerful late-war Tigers) and a Sherman was pretty much instant death for the Americans, the battles were rarely one on one. In tank battles the more powerful Panzers would be swarmed by the less powerful, but far more numerous Shermans. Another favored tactic was to call in Air support, if available, to knock out any German tanks ahead.

Also, Shermans weren't designed to battle Panzers as much as they were made for infantry support. When Panzers were spotted, usually air strikes or artillery strikes were called in to neutralize them.

So tl/dr, Panzers were better for tank vs. tank battles than Shermans, but American tactics neutralized this advantage because the Army mostly refused to get into tank v. tank battles unless the US tanks greatly outnumbered the German tanks. But usually they'd used other means to destroy them such as tank-buster planes and artillery.

yes,

When you put the armor at an angle, the thickness is increased due to the fact that it is sloped as opposed to plumb.

Yes. There were tanks on both sides. The German tank was renowned for it's 'speed' of 12kph but light armor. Thin enough for 30cal fire to shred anyone inside.. The German tanks in WW1 were not a success. The allied forces had the opposite effect. The british tanks ruled the battlefields of 1916.. Heavily armoured (or I could say excessively as it was 27tons and moved at 3kph) and well armed for it's time. However, a direct hit from artillery would knock the tank out.. It took another world war till tanks could survive a single direct artillery strike..