Tanks (vehicle)

They're called threads,

and they are used because they work where wheels would bog down (like mud and sand).

This depends on the vehicle you drive and the cost of a gallon of fuel. The driving distance is about 885 miles.

US military vehicles of World War II had a white star because that was the national symbol. We still put stars on our vehicles, but now they're black.

I believe a Challenger 2 with Gen 2 Chobham armour could.



Generally speaking, the advanced armor on the latest-generation NATO tanks can withstand a sabot round at all but point-blank range from ANY current cannon (including shots from other advanced NATO tanks).

The caveat is that not all portions of the tank are equally protected, and a sabot's effectiveness is affected by the range from the target tank, the exact part of the tank hit, and any ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) bolted to the outside of the tank.

Most current-generation tanks from all sources (NATO, Russian, or other) should theoretically be able to withstand a sabot round from any opponent at long ranges (1km+) provided the sabot hit the most heavily protected portion of the tank. Few can withstand even a long-range hit on their less-protected portions, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_tank

Willis Carrier

Courtesy of godfather heating and air conditioning San Antonio

In the US Army during the Vietnam War era; standard US Army machines: Tanks, Armored Personnel Carriers, Self Propelled Guns, and Helicopters were tasked for 300 miles per top off. However, no matter how or what they were designed for, rough terrain would account for less than 300 miles per full fuel cells.

all types of metel like steel ,alumanem titanium ,and ioron

The primaray perpose for a tank in WW2 was for a number of reasons. Mainly for infantry support, but the Nazi's believed in outnumbering the enemy and hitting them hard, so thay used fast, powerful tanks. E.g. Panzer IV.

Tanks were in development after WW1, mostly by Germany.

As of 2014, the Army of Bangladesh has 169 tanks and 300 other armored fighting vehicles, which is a relatively small number. Most of Bangladesh's tanks are Chinese or Russian-made, such as the Type-69. These vehicles are generally thought to be greatly inferior to the latest models.

if it is gas, there are 2 wires connected to the same plug coming directly from the engine, disconnect the plug and use the pull start. good luck!

Poison gas (of several varieties, including chlorine, mustard gas, and phosgene) was used in WW I, but tanks weren't used until WW II.

Little boys grew up in those days playing with toy soldiers, toy ships, and toy cannons. When WW1 came about, boys could add toy airplanes and toy tanks to their collection.

Air tanks were invented to hold compressed air.

Because In WW1 soldiers were running across trenches and getting constantly getting killed in mass numbers by Machine guns so engineers devices a way to keep soldiers alive, and stop the enemy and destroy their trenches.

Tanks have interior wheels that drive their treads, which revolve around the outside of the entire set of hub wheels. Light tanks may have road wheels that are fitted underneath, to avoid damaging the surfaces of roadways and bridges.

That would be the turret.

depending on the running condition, and the driving area, such as highway or city driving, its would cost you approx $254.00 with gas at $3.89 a gallon, while driving on the highway/interstate getting approx 16 miles to the gallon. Approx $300.00 with gas at $3.89 a gallon while driving within the city limits, getting 13 miles to the gallon.

we keep them in a place called the motor pool

Between 1939 and 1945 these are the total number of tanks produced between these nations:

Britain: 30,396

USSR: 105,232

Germany: 61,700

United States- 88,410

Japan- 2,515

(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