first of all, to “transformers….”….it’s not the Abrahms, it’s a tank destroyer, ANOTHER MODEL….second, IT’S NOT THE DAMN F-22….it’s the F-35 Joint strike Fighter, NOT the Raptor….you should actually try and do some research before you post dumb crap….

oh yeah, the F-22 Raptor DOES NOT have the VTOL capability, it ONLY has the rear engines….

Both the Abrams and the F22 were used in Transformers. Although the tank was highly modified for the movie the base was an Abrams. Maybe you should try to do some research on the sources you provided yourself as Wikipedia clearly states that Transformers was the F22′s Hollywood debut.

At any rate thanks for visiting and for your comments.

Also where does it say that the F22 has VTOL capabilities? I couldn’t find that article.

Thanks

I never said the F-22 has VTOL, I stated it DOESN’T. And great thing wikipedia….right….You know it’s user edited right? Trust me, neither were in the movie….

Starscream was an F-22! End of story!

I think the only tank in the world that could possibly beat the m1a2 in head-to-head is the Leopard 2, and even then I’m not sure.

The Challenger II, Lepord II and Abrahms are all amazing tanks, and I’m sure each would play a specific role better then the next, but who cares? we’re all on the same side, unless theres something I don’t know about, right?
All We have to know is that it’s better then the T90, and Type 99 by a long shot, same with the Blank Panzor, or what ever, (The Korean tank)

Andrew’s bias in this article is ridiculous, yes the Abrams has been tested but only against cheap export versions of Soviet tanks from the 70s. Andrew makes it sound like the Abrams has actually fought any tank of significant value, it hasn’t, but neither has any real modern MBT. But the point is just because the Abrams fought Iraqi tanks without even night vision/IR equipment doesn’t mean its “the greatest tank in existence.” If you ask all NATO countries or poll armies of western civilization, all of them except for Australia will say the Leopard L2, especially the Leopard 2E. Which offers more maneuverability, smaller foot print, less fuel requirement, savings in weight from using none DE (Depleted Uranium) armor slats that the Abrams M2A1. While having similar levels of protections and using the same exact gun. And the simple fact is that the Leopard A2 is the tank world’s F-16. It is simply the most widely exported Western MBT. Aside from Australia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia no one else really uses the Abrams in large numbers. Due to it’s weight and its fuel consumption and the logistics required for it due to those two factors.

Furthermore, the Abrams has been updated over time, but not anywhere as close to the number of versions as the Leopard 2 has. Even now the army has not updated the Abrams with the urban warfare kit you have posted on the top of your article. So your MISLEADING people with that picture, showing what it could have when it doesn’t. A great Russian analysis of Abrams points out that the Abrams while in Iraq shows a vulnerability from engine fires from RPG hits and is exposed in the back area to RPGs especially. As that picture shows, the slat armor in the back is suppose to fix that issue but that kit has still not been installed on Abrams.

And speaking of RPGs, an RPG-7VR has penetrated an Abrams, and RPG-29 has penetrated both an Abrams and a Challenger. Soviet tanks ever since the Afghanistan days have incorporated both ERA armor (Kontakt-5, kaktus, relikt)and active protection system to protect (Drozd, Areana) against RPG and anti tank missiles.

So the best tank in world if you were to ask tankers of the world would probably be either the Leopard 2A6/E2 or the Merkava. As the Merkava has arguably the greatest crew survivability in the world with the engine being placed in the front and the concealed rear entry way on top of their active protection system (Trophy, Iron Fist). And the Merkava can engage helicopters and has a 40mm mortar that can be operated from within the tank.

Abrams cant be hurt on the front. Top or rear only, bottom with mines or tracks.

The Leopard tank is very good however its still not been tested at all even against cheap export versions of Russian tanks whereas the Abrahams and Challenger have. As was pointed out the Challenger was penetrated by an RPG-29 however the tank in question was fitted with ERA and it failed so this may have simply been a manufacturing fault as opposed to a design fault as is being suggested. Im sure that faults with the Leopard would be exposed if it were put to the test just like any other tank including the Abrahams.

the british challenger 2 tank is far better in every way than the abrams mtb, 8 rpg and a milan anti tank missile failed to destory the challenger and it still under its own steam got back to base, the abrams have been knocked out of action by rpg’s.. people you decide

I agree with robin linstrom, the challenger 2 is a better tank due to multiple innovations, I.e the separate charge system, the rifled gun and so on and so forth

Anyway, the main reason for the Abrams success is Chobham armour which is BRITISH!!! AND had the American government requested for examples of jet technology “To aid you in breaking the sound barrier” from the british, they’d still be using turbo-prop aircraft

And while I’m on the subject, American independence. They used guerilla tactics on us, the British (yes I’m a Briton). I have no qualms with that it was an extremely effective fighting method, however, what they’re not saying is that they needed French help (the Lerec or however it’s spelt is a great tank by the way) as well as Dutch mercenary help to win. While the british were AT WAR!! And the fact that when you used guerilla warfare against us, they were inspired tactics and when the Viet Cong and more recently the Taliban (WHICH YOU ARMED(Mujahadeen morons) used them on you the were cowardly and deceptive.

Anyway the Abrams both A1 & A2 are excellent tanks

Rant over