Hmmm... best tank in the world?

A-10 Thunderbolt II



AC-130H Spectre



B-52 Stratofortress



I've seen modern armor. I've worked along side modern armor. I respect modern armor. But I sure as hell love air support.

Oh yeah... modern armor is great until a GI on the back of a jeep/hmmv armed with a Javelin or a AT4 hiding behind the bend of a roadway or a bush is also a great equalizer. That is the killer of modern armor. That GI might die but in terms of numbers it's a win. Tank (Millions of dollars plus crew) vs jeep/hmmv (couple of thousand dollars plus two. Driver and gunner or if they're really gutsy. Driver/gunner.)

The world hasn't seen two modern day armies bump heads yet. When that day comes, and it will. The great tank on tank battles will be a thing of the past.

^^^I'm with this guy^^^

Good reliable tank busters are much more affordable than their targets, crews are also smaller, more flexible, cheaper and far easier to train. The tank is well on it's way to being a "non event" on the battlefield in the event of a major war, their day has passed them by.

They will go the same way as the battleship.

I doubt either of this platforms is more afordable than an MBT. The is a thread called Will the battle tank become obselete, which is the place for this posts.

Doesn't the Zulfiqar 3 look a lot similar to the M1A1? Here is a comparison
pic: The top part of the pic is the M1A1 and the bottom one is the Zulfiqar, I see a lot of similarities in the design.

The original Zulfiqar 1 body design was similar to the M-60/48
The Zulfiqar 2 looked a lot like heavily upgraded t-72/m-60
The Zulfiqar 3 seems like the Iranians based it on the M1A1.

But if I had to give it to the best tank I would say the Leopard 2A6 and the T-95 which is suppose to go into mass production in 2009 as stated by Putin. These 2 tanks seem to be the best when it comes to overall advantage in armor, mobility, tech, range, and fuel. What lets the M1A2 down is the fact that it needs a huge fuel and maintenance convoy to continuously operate them, and if a nation does not have the huge supply capability to operate the M1A2 in huge numbers the tanks fails to make an impact on the battlefield.

that A-10, can be killed more easily than a tank, just a SAM, and they cost 40 million dollars plus all the weapons abroad. Also you can add reactive or active armor to make the javelin not work, plus those are also almost a million dollars a missle.

Answer in other thread as indicated by Sherman.

Will the battle tank become obsolete?

Originally Posted by Bacara

that A-10, can be killed more easily than a tank, just a SAM, and they cost 40 million dollars plus all the weapons abroad. Also you can add reactive or active armor to make the javelin not work, plus those are also almost a million dollars a missle.

Way back when I was in the Marines the first time I saw an A-10 we were on a road caught out in the open it was ugly if that was a real situation I would have been dead as hell.

I have to say the A-C130 is about useless if the enemy has any air defense at all.

OK back on toppic.

Doesn't the Zulfiqar 3 look a lot similar to the M1A1? Here is a comparison
pic: The top part of the pic is the M1A1 and the bottom one is the Zulfiqar, I see a lot of similarities in the design

.

Yes they look similar but it means nothin. I donwt know what engine, protection, or fire controll system the Zulfiqar uses. Good looks count for exactly zero points in tanks.

Sry m8s, Leo is the best, the prove is here on Discovery:

Leo, Discovery

lol....so if discovery the "tank experts" say so who are we to argue.