Not to upset anyone with this question, but if the modern tanks are fairly well matched, which armed service has the 'best ' tankers. To clarify, who spends the most time in training, whose training is the most realistic, who has the most time in service, time in combat, etc...?

There was a special on Discovery not long ago about the 10 best tanks in the world through history. They got points in 5 different rankings (which I can't remember)

M1 Abrams was ranked 2nd, Tiger 3rd.

Winner was: T-34

In order: Challenger 2, Abrahms and Merkava.
All proven in combat, therefore not Leo 2 which is unproven.

Okay, I'll bite. What difference does it make whether or not a weapon system is 'unproven'? Does that mean the F-22 would not make your 'top ten fighter aircraft' list?

The M1A2 is not going to replace the M1A1. In fact, the majority of tanks being produced are M1A1AIMs. The A2 was great for going against multiple enemy tanks, but that threat does not exist any longer.

Quoted Text

---

Okay, I'll bite. What difference does it make whether or not a weapon system is 'unproven'? Does that mean the F-22 would not make your 'top ten fighter aircraft' list?

---

On paper, or in a "Clean" test environment a particular weapon system could be the best. But until it has been put to the test of battle with all of the unforseen circumstances and adding the human factor to include stress under fire, it is unproven. I may have all the talents and required skills to be a Hall of Famer, but if in the game I "#$%^", well I very well could lose the game.

Quoted Text

---

The M1A2 is not going to replace the M1A1. In fact, the majority of tanks being produced are M1A1AIMs. The A2 was great for going against multiple enemy tanks, but that threat does not exist any longer.

---

I dont know about you, but the faster I can lay on target and shoot, the longer my crew and I will live. The CITV allows me to do just that. But to say that the threat of multiple targets does not exist is in my opinion....wrong. My tank against 2 tanks is considered to be a multiple engagement. It doesnt need to be a Kursk reenactment, just 1 more than me is enough to justify the M1A2.

EDIT: Anyone know how many Abrams chassis were built and how many are still considered to be in the inventory?

Quoted Text

---

Rob-- so who makes the best pick-up?
DJ

PS _ I only drive GMC trucks.

---

No debate there -- Chevy (or any other GM truck)

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Rob-- so who makes the best pick-up?
DJ

PS _ I only drive GMC trucks.

---

No debate there -- Chevy (or any other GM truck)

---

I've driven Chevy/GM, Ford and Dodge. Chevy/GM good trucks for a short period-less than 10 years. Ford, excellent trucks for their life span. Dodge, no comparison to Fords or Chevy/GM. I'm biased to Fords
Ch

The M1A2 was developed to allow each tank to engage multiple (dozens) enemy tanks/APCs sequentially, and in concert with adjacent M1A2s. One shot, one kill...on one enemy tank!

This was to insure that each enemy tank was targeted by only one US tank. You'd be surprised how many Iraqi tanks were shot by 2-3 tanks fractions of a second apart during ODS. Our crews were just that fast, but the speed lead to double and triple servicing of an enemy target. This was wasteful in a future WW3 in Europe and would not have helped stop the tidal wave of Soviet tanks efficiently.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Rob-- so who makes the best pick-up?
DJ

PS _ I only drive GMC trucks.

---

No debate there -- Chevy (or any other GM truck)

---

I've driven Chevy/GM, Ford and Dodge. Chevy/GM good trucks for a short period-less than 10 years. Ford, excellent trucks for their life span. Dodge, no comparison to Fords or Chevy/GM. I'm biased to Fords
Ch

---

Ford makes a superb truck. I loved my Explorer, but they have the dumbest sales and service people on the planet. I stick with one dealer who does well by me with GMC trucks.

That war never materialized. I am talking about todays war, or tomorrows. I am thinking as a Tank Commander today. The opposition then ended up not being the monster we all feared. Just look at their endeavors in Afghanistan or Chechnya, and what they are left with today. When & if I fight from the cupola in the near future or after my 11B MOSQ school that I am about to attend, I say again, there arent any finer AFV's or crews manning them. The T34 was good for its time, so perhaps was the T55, but now is not their day.

I really love this topic when it comes up and all the arguments that people bring to the table.

I believe that none of them is the best "TANK" in the world. Each tank can claim the title since they were all designed to different specs and for different reasons. Maybe the argument should be, "Who has the best crews in the world". You can have the best vehicle and still get your butt kicked, its a combination of Man and Machine that make it a fighting system.

Just my .02

Tanks
Andy

I agree and it is one of my points in my initial post on this topic.

You close to retirement? The wife is starting to make comments about our next move being to Ft. Livingroom.

Thanks for the answer. I have no doubt tanks crews from eras gone by felt they were in combat.

What I was getting at was that a MBT's primary function is to fight other tanks. No modern tanks have fought a comparable foe....except for maybe the Israeli Magach against T-72s.

"Proven in combat" for a tank should encompass all elements of the modern battlefield...enemy tank engagements, anti-tank weapon attacks, and Infantry support tasks

Have any Abrams, Challenger 2s, or Merkavas been hit by modern AT missiles?...other than testing. There were Abrams hit by RPGs and T-72s and survived but I think there were also Abrams disabled by RPGs too.

The modern tank and the modern soldier has entered into a new era of war fighting. Fighting in dense urban areas is not tank country...not without extensive Infantry support. A tank in a city is only as good as its crew, tactics, and the Infantry that are with it on the ground.