Is the Abrams the next step up from the Maus? Wouldn't a

There is no such thing as tank classification anymore - only MBTs.
And it makes sense, with modern technology tanks are the best of all three classes.

FUCK OFF

It would be faster, but more able. An MBT can take a hit and still fire back. A medium, or light tank can't.

>>30544933
Seconded

>>30544875
Sprey plz

Report and move on.

File: m8_buford.jpg (43KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x375px

>>30544875

MBT is medium tank with heavy tanks firepower, in other words medium tanks became capable to destroy heavy tanks at all combat distances with HEAT and sabot rounds. That made heavy tanks obsolete. Next step with 2nd generation MBT's was adding heavy tanks armor to medium tanks, that was made possible with better engines that became available in 70's.

While Abrams is heaviest of current MBT's it's not so heavy that it would be on class of it's own when compared to contemporaries like Leopard 2 or Challenger.

>>30545035

Light tanks still have their niche to fill. Those can get into places where MBT would be too much for roads or terrain and too far logistics. Most countries just don't need 'em that much that it would justify costs, ATGM's and other weaponry on light vehicles are used compensate for lack of light tanks.

>>30545089
I like how armored cars have turn into cheap anit tank weapons.

>>30544927
>MBTs
Asymmetrical warfare beats MBTs easily.

>>30546553
Not really. Unless you're the sort of incompetent Russian who sends T-80s into a high-rise Chechen city an MBT can be used effectively as a counter insurgency weapon

>>30546597
Well. If the recent wars in the middle east are any proof you'll see that America has lost plenty of tanks not to enemy tanks but to IED's and other types of weapons making the tank ineffective when you can't see your enemy.

>>30546625
Do I have to call engie and tanksgt to counter your bullshit?

>>30544927
>There is no such thing as tank classification anymore
Only because there are no tank fights anymore

>>30546665
While your at it, call in an airstrike. It won't help the fact that you didn't' counter me.

Still please do counter..

>>30547007
Time amount countering bullshit>>>>time amount telling bullshit
go bait somewhere else

t. other guy

>>30546545

While there are armored cars that are reasonably capable anti-tank vehicles like Italian Centauro, most of light weapons carriers are simply APC's with TOW or other comparable ATGM or even unarmored vehicles like HMMWV with weapon bigger than .50cal MG.

>>30546625

In recent wars 'murrica and other fellow travellers have used MBT's as fire support vehicles for infantry. The main role of tank, even if it had been less priority to anti-tank role when current generation MBT's were designed. Tank in the end is a direct fire artillery piece on tracks and with armor to withstand fire it's expected to receive while providing that fire to support infantry.

Most destroyed tanks have been with huge IED's. Something tanks have never been designed to survive. First destroyed Merkava 4 is a good example. It took took between 70 and 100 kg of TNT to kill it. It's 7 to 10 times what would have mobility killed it.

>>30544875
Are you pretending?

>>30544875

Tell that to the T-55-T-90.

>Heavier=Bigger Guns, Better Armour