I dont see what you point is really why do you assume that I do not know how something works?Everyone knows how the javelin works it has only been shown on 20 or 30 different Discovery and Military Channel shows but it still employes a copper shaped charge as it warhead and is still designed to hit the weakest part of a tank but any other nation can also design a missile with similar abilities and many nations employ DU dart rounds that will go through even an Abrams tank weather you believe it or not.

The thing also to consider is that when the Abrams that suffered serious damage it was caused by Iraqi insurgents with rather primitive weaponry they simply let the M1s pass by and waited for their fuel trucks to ride past later down the line and attacked them or they attacked the Abrams with the intent of disabling a non or poorly armored section and disabled the tank forcing it to be destroyed by allied troops in an insurgency that is a victory.

Also the Abrams cant be the best tank in the world when the British Challenger has a better combat ratio none have been destroyed or lost to enemy tank action not so with the M1A1 one of which was lost in 1991 but its crew protecting systems saved the crew the tank was destroyed and if a tank must scuttled then that counts as a loss as well.Dont even get me started on the low life span gas turbine engine that the Abrams uses they should swap that out for a good turbo diesel like the Brits and Germans use.

There are, in fact, plenty of ATGMs capable of making top attacks besides the Javelin. Curiously enough, I don't think the Soviet Union/Russia ever put such weapons into service, but many other nations have.

Also, declaring the Abrams to be the best in existence is slightly problematic considering that it, like most other modern tanks, has never faced a remotely comparable enemy force. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that no tank is superior in all areas to other comparable tanks...

:up: 100% agree on this one take the 1967 and the Yom Kippur wars many western analysts at first attributed the tank battle victories to have been thanks to the Israeli use of Western tanks many today feel that in fact it was not superior technology but superior training and more importantly will to win no matter what for the Israeli tanker he knew that his tank was all that stood between the enemy and the very survival of his nation.In some cases during Yom Kippur there where only one or two Israeli tanks still running and they faced vastly larger numbers.

Most every western anti-tank missile tries to hit from the top the Hellfire comes to mind right away.

I think the Soviet/Russian thinking is just keep shooting cheap missile after cheap missile at him sooner or later they will penetrate and by then some Russian will have run up and
thrown an explosive device at the engine exhaust as well if a Russian T-90 dose not score a hit with a APFSDS round assuming that an Abrams does not hit him with a APFSDS round first.
Too many factors to say what one MBT is truly the best.

When comparing tanks its also good to remember that Soviets (and Russians today) always had two versions of their weapon: national and export. For example T-72 of Red Army and Finnish Army were not same. Version sold to Finland (and Iraq and...) was heavily tuned down version. One important feature not included in export version was modern armour.

Thats why estimates of quality/capabilities of Soviet/Russian weapons should not be made based on proxy wars or other conflicts where Soviet were not direct participant.

They usually have the same main gun though and that by and large is the most important part.The export Abrams also lack the DU layers of armor.What you say is very true for Soviet gear but even US gear is often a lesser version of the model used by the DOD unless they are a very close Ally like England whose Apaches are actually the best in the world but that is beacuse they are made by AgustaWestland and have differing systems and engines than the US Army model.Even the Aussies the M1A1s that they have also lack the DU layers.

Its the most dense material on Earth. I'll go right through a tank, defeating it's reactive armor.

To my knowledge, it isn't too dangerous. I'm working on a process for embedding diamagnetic molecules in it using a particle accelerator to create a power source. All indications are that it is totally safe.

Take this just in-case
http://archer.gamebanana.com/img/ico...rowbar_pic.png

LOL :DL

http://www.addasnap.com/main.php?g2_...serialNumber=1

Though the fire control systems tended to be severely downgraded, and the ammunition exported with it was usually significantly inferior...

Kontakt-5

Kontakt-5 was immune to the first mark of M829 Sabot, much to the surprise of the West. It broke up the DU dart before it could pierce the armour of the tank.

The west responded by creating the M829A2 and A3, but the Russians have also responded by upgrading the ERA to Relikt which is meant to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5. Furthermore, Kaktus has been proposed to counter the new era of M829E4.

It isn't the most dense by a long shot, but it is more widely available than the other materials and has properties which some of the much denser materials do not have.

Here's a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

Uranium comes in at 18800 and Osmium is six positions higher at 22570

Should've corrected myself

Most dense WIDELY AVAILABLE material

Well there is five times more Dark Matter in the Universe than normal matter so super dense matter such as black holes, neutron stars and brown dwarfs are far more common in a cosmolgical sense than Uranium, Osmium or any "normal" atomic element and far more dense.

So there is still hope for those who want to built their "Ultimate Weapon" armored with Neutronium.

^ He said "on Earth" in his post before the last one. ;)