Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yahoshua
(You are a girl right?).
|
No, and if if you are not already, I could turn you into one!
Snowsub,
ATGMs, especially at close range, are so lethal today that none of the major MBTs today would rate as anything different than tank-vs-tank machines. By doctrine, German tanks for example carry almost exclusively kinetic rounds for that reason, they are not meant to hunt infantry.
The M1A1/A2 has a 1450-1550 PS turbine that consumes fuel always at the same rate: maximum rate that is, even if it sits still. That's why logistically, M1s are a nightmare. Leopard2 use a 1500 PS Diesel engine, later versions, I think, even a 1550 PS engine, which consumes fuel at varying rates, and almost nothing when the tank sits still, else it is "the faster, the more". Even at maximum speed the Leo needs far less fuel than an Abrams. These differences lead to a slight advantage of M1s in terms of acceleration, while the Leopard-2 has higher top speed.
The Merkava is result of the needs of the IDF, and focusses on crew protection, and mobility, since Israels army is not too huge and plans to compensate for that by high mobility in formation maneuvering and the ability to quickly relocate combat units. However, keep in mind that tanks only travel on the battlefield, between combat atcion they use to be carried arround by according trucks, which is faster, less fuel-consuming and less stressing/wearing for the material (engine, transmission, tracks).
The rough history of developement for all tanks can be found in brief essays at wikipedia. Just enter the tank name.