But if the design etc of the tank increases the burden on the supply chain... Anyway, I agree with you that 5th is a little... unusual... Especially over tanks which have not been 'blooded'! Has the Merkava Mark IV (when did they release the Mk.IV??) ever fought other tanks?
Funny. My sources quoting Forecast International in their investigation on modern tanks state that the Leopard 2A7 was considered the best tank in the world. Now you qoute the same agency as calling the Abrams the best. I can't quite follow this, but am inclined to believe a military magazine rather than my own popular science magazine. Which means that you people should ignore most of the things I've said in this section, because most of my knowledge was based on information given by that magazine over the years... :cry:
The burden on the supply chain has no bearing on the quality of the tank. IMHO. the Chally has around 50 rounds inside, so it can attack a good 30 targets before it needs re-plenishing. By this time if it is so hideously outnumbered hen it would have been destroyed, also tanks very seldom attack as individuals. The possibility in this day and age of having to use ammo from other nations is sufficiently slim enough to be negligable.
I'm just trying to give what their view may be. If for some reason NATO went to war on a large scale (probably China is the only realistic opponant here!), then logistics can get confused, and so ideally any supply convoy with tank ammo should be able to supply any column of tanks. Not quite sure why I'm defending them, though... :bang:
If that is the case then is is poor designing not a poor tank. The article was about quality of tanks not about thier re-sup efforts.
That must feel great, finally you can ignore me, after almost four thousand posts... Don't ignore me when I'm writing some Moderator text though!