what is the best modern tank ever made (post cold war)?
452201
The M1 Abrams series has probably the best record in combat of any modern tank. The latest versions, the M1A2s and A2 SEPs, have all kinds of computerized gear to increase their battlefield effectiveness, such as GPS, digital communications, and an advanced targeting computer. The Abrams series of tanks use a 120mm main gun (105mm on the origional M1), one .50 caliber machine gun, and two 7.62mm machine guns, which give it the flexibility to deal with MBTs, infantry, and everything in between. The Abrams has been shown to be extremly tough to knock out, due to it's composite depleted uranium armor. Even a 120mm sabot round (the standard anti-armor weapon for the 120mm main gun) can't penetrate it's frontal armor. As far as speed goes, the Abrams can reach a top speed of 45mph with the speed governor installed, and around 60 without it. The M1 series is the penultimate in armor development, imo.\n\nP.S.- The Challenger 2 is overrated. Ask anyone who has ever been on an Abrams how long it takes them to load a round. Aint' no 10 seconds, that's for DAMN sure!
327056
AK47 all the way.\n\nHundreds of thousands of hardened nutters in crackpot regimes, terrorist organisations and Russia can't be wrong.\n\nBesides, they will work in any conditions no problem.  The M4 is less reliable.
815366
The AK-47 is, without doubt, one of the best weapons ever created. The '47' in the name comes from the year Russia commissioned Mikhail Kalashnikov's design for the weapon. There are several deciding factors you have to take into account when considering the worth of a weapon's design. \n\n1) Stopping power\n2) Reliability\n3) Accuracy\n4) Ease of maintainance\n5) Cost\n\nThe AK-47 is chambered in 7.62x39mm, a caliber which is significantly more powerful than the M16's 5.56mm round. The larger profile of the bullet, combined with it's correspondingly larger weight transfers more destructive energy to the target. \n\nThe reliability of the AK is without a doubt the weapon's best selling point. Extreme torture testing has been done on the rifle, not limited to: \n- Running over the rifle vehicles up to 2 tons\n- Immersion in water for several days\n- Burying the rifle unprotected for several days in soil/sand\nIn every examply cited, after a quick inspection to ensure safe testing, the weapon has fired. There is a reason this rifle is the weapon of choice by militias, insurgents, and other militant groups. It requires practically no maintainence and constant cleaning/inspection as most military weapons do (M16, M4, MP5, G3)\n\nAs for the accuracy, it's limited to a maximum effective range of approximately 200 meters. This is not due to any fault in design or inferior craftsmanship. It is because in infantry confrontations, this is considered to be the longest range the average foot soldier would be able to engage. Beyond that, limitations of the soldier's marksman skills start to show. This was a lesson the Russains learned the hard way in WWII. They equiped the majority of their troops with Nagant rifles,  and took heavy losses in close quarters combat. (The 1891/30 Nagant rifle is nearly 4 feet long). \n\nAs for price, well, during the time of the cold war, each AK-47 Russia produced cost less than $100 USD. The design uses very little moving parts, has no frills (no bolt hold-open, primitive safety), and nearly all parts aside from the barrel are stamped sheet metal and welded. \n\nSo, as it stands, for the price, and the practicality, the AK-47 is an amazing weapon. In a SHTF scenario, you would be hard-pressed to find a better weapon. It's cheap, it's a common caliber, it has excellent stopping power, the most reliable gun of it's class, and the total number produced would make for nearly limitless replacement parts for a service life no doubt triple that of an AR-15/M-16/M-14 series rifle.
718169
The german tanks were initially way better than any allied tank, because they had much thicker armor, and a larger caliber gun.  The armor would not be puntured by most allied tanks guns, and the German guns would punch right through the thinner armor of any allied tank, such as the Sherman.
57738
Currently, the Russian military has been considerably diminished from where it stood 15 years ago at the height of the cold war. Most of the strategic weapons (submarines, bombers, etc) have been mothballed due to cost cuts. By comparison, the US military is perhaps the world's most well equipped. \n\nYou mention nuclear weapons. Both nations have limited strategic nuclear weapons due to the various treaties designed to limit the proliferation of such weapons. The old Russian weapons systems are in many cases not in the best shape to be used, since many of their strategic weapons depended on complex and hard to maintain liquid fueled missiles. US missiles are all solid fueled, and much more stable and reliable.\n\nThat being said, if anyone ever attempted to invade Russia, history would not be on their side. The Russians may have old technology and equipment, but they have a toughness bred of long oppression and much suffering. They have been to the edge of hell as a nation many times, and lived to talk about it. We in the US get all bothered when gas goes up a nickel, or when our cellphones malfunction.
440277
LAND\nstrongest: Panzer, hands down\nBest Made: Sheman\nAIR\nstrongest: B-29\nBest Made: Zero\nSEA\nstrongest: American Battleships\nBest Made: see above\n\nall the answers depend on what u mean by best.
217234
The Russians have a new breed of tank with anti aircraft missles that can be launched out the main barrel (mostly for destroying helicopters).\nhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/\n\n\nThe U.S. military doesn't really do tank battles (although a couple happened in the first gulf war).  Aircraft and artillery can make short work of tanks.  The U.S. feels that tanks are great if they are there, but they are extremely slow to ship around the world.  It takes like 3 to 6 months to move a shipment of tanks from the U.S. to Iraq.  That's why the U.S. has put more emphases on vehicals that can be shipped by air.\n\nhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/gvp/\nhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow/\nhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/
255887
Over all in combat the AK, it can take a hell of a lot of abuse. Trust me here, I have used both.  The M-16 A2 does well but can not handle the same environment.
99373
Actually they are the:\n\nAH-64 Apache Longbow (UH stands for utility helicopter, AH stands for Attack helicopter)\nM1A2 Abrams Tank (Upgrade of original, more features)\n\nGranted the Chinese have a bigger gun, but the Abrams can shoot farther, and has a lot more upgrades and features the Chinese don't have. Plus they don't have that many of them. Oh and the prototyped the one guy is talking about was called the Comanche, and it got scrapped by the Pentegon, if he ever read the news.
739295
As with any "what is the best" it depends what you want to do.\n\nIf you just want to punch holes in things and you aren't bothered by what the holes do then a 223/5.56x45 will be cheaper to feed than any of the alternatives. The most common of those is the AR-15 and it's many clones... of which I have four.\n\nThe G36 is certainly a more modern and a better design than the AR-15. Sorry to all the old soldiers out there, but it's not a 'great' design, it just works OK.\n\nYou might like to take a look at a Sig556 too. \n\nIf you want to make more noise and have a round that will stop deer reliably then have a look at a 7.62,  the FN-FAL is the world favorite quality 7.62x51 battle rifle, the Sig550 and the Galil (I forget the variant today) are also very good. \n\nI'd go with H&K or Sig.
50788
You could use a regular stock tank.  Not pretty, but will last a LONG time.
167890
G.M. makes alot of allison transmissons, big meaty brutes,pull houses down,there's one in an M1-A1 Abrams tank. Now I can't tell you how much horsepower or toqure that is,so why don't you guess?
788736
You are very inaccurate. This is the real ranking. \n\nMilitary: \nNOTE: Nuclear weapons, past and current military experience, unit training and equipment quality are not taken into account.\n\n1.)  United States of America \n2.)  China \n3.) Russia\n4.) India\n5.) Germany\n6.)  France\n7.)  Japan\n8.) Turkey\n9.) Great Britain\n10.) Brazil\n11.) Italy\n12.) South Korea \n13.) Indonesia\n14.) Canada\n15.) Iran\n16.)Spain\n17.) Egypt\n18.)  North Korea\n19.) Australia\n20.) Pakistan\n21.) Mexico\n22.) Saudi Arabia\n23.) Israel\n24.) Argentina\n25.) Greece\n26.) Syria\n27.) Iraq\n28.) Taiwan\n29.) Poland\n30.) Philippines\n31.) Ukraine\n32.) Venezuela\n33.) Libya\n34.) Afghanistan\n35.) Nepal\n\nEconomy: \n1.) USA\n2.) Japan\n3.) Germany\n4.) China\n5.) UK
440995
IIRC the M60A1 tank (produced about this time period) cost about $750,000.
150476
Get a shotgun first.  There so many more things you can hunt with them.  I would suggest a middle of the road 12 ga semi.  The mp-153 is a good inexpensive gun.  Was made in Russia by Baikal, now it's owned by Remington.
165687
Colt .45, Jeddi Light sabers, Roman gladius, English long bow, the German 88 mm Flak/anti tank gun,  T-34 tank, P 51 Mustang, \nAK 47, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, .... I love the old 1903 A3 Springfield , Russian Makarov pistol, UZIs, \nthe Dahlgren smooth bore howitzer, Curved laminated Mongol short bow, the silken strangling cord used by the Thugee, \nF4U Corsair, my mini 14... it all depends.\nVII C Uboat with magnetic torpedoes.
295472
The Lee and Grant Tanks have 2 guns...kind of obsolete when we got into WW2 We gave a lot to the Brits. Top gun in turrent was I believe a 37 mm gun and gun in side coupula was probably a 75mm ..Ill hve to look it up on the web.Oh you are probably thinking of the giant British Mark IV tanks of WW1  They had guns mounted on the sides..The "males" had cannons and Females had machineguns.