What was the most powerful tank of WW II ?
960931
Without question the Maus. One of the subjects of liveliest controversy during the Allied invasion of France was the heavy tank—the 50-ton Pershing, the 62-ton Tiger, the 75-ton Royal Tiger. Were these worth their weight? Did they gain—in protection and fire power—as much as they sacrificed in mobility? Adolph Hitler's mind was presumably made up on this point. A pet project of his, which few were aware of, appears to have been a superheavy tank that would have dwarfed even the Royal Tiger. Dubbed the Mouse, this behemoth of doubtful military value was to weigh 207 tons, combat loaded. Two were actually built, although they were never equipped with their armament. \n\nThe Mouse is an amazing vehicle, with spectacular characteristics. The glacis plate up front is approximately 8 inches (200 mm) thick. Since it is sloped at 35 degrees to the vertical, the armor basis is therefore 14 inches. Side armor is 7 inches (180 mm) thick, with the rear protected by plates 6 1/4 inches (160 mm) thick. The front of the turret is protected by 9 1/2 inches (240 mm) of cast armor, while the 8-inch (200 mm) thick turret sides and rear were sloped so as to give the effect of 9 inches (230 mm) of armor. \n\nARMAMENT \n\nFor the main armament, a pea-shooter like an 88-mm gun was ignored. Selected instead was the powerful 128-mm tank and antitank gun, which was later to be replaced by a 150-mm piece 38 calibers in length. (The standard German medium field howitzer 15 cm s.F.H. 18 is only 29.5 calibers in length.) Instead of mounting a 7.9-mm machine gun coaxially, the Mouse was to have a 75-mm antitank gun 76 calibers in length next to the 128- or 150-mm gun. A machine cannon for antiaircraft was to be mounted in the turret roof, along with a smoke grenade projector. \n\nIn size, the Mouse was considerably larger than any German tank. Its length of 33 feet made it nearly 50 percent longer than the Royal Tiger. Because of rail transport considerations. its width was kept to 12 feet (that of the Royal Tiger and Tiger). A 12-foot height made it a considerable target. \n\n\nThis German drawing shows a sectionalized elevation of the Mouse hull. The following salient features may be diingtinguished: driver's seat (20) and periscope (14 and 18); radio operator's seat (12) and radio (21); radio antenna (28); air intakes for main engine (30); main engine (3); generator (4); the right motor of the two electric motors driving the sprockets (9); auxiliary fuel tank (29). The coaxial 75-mm gun is on the right of the turret; its position relative to the 128-mm gun is shown in dotted outline. \n\n\n\nA sectionalized plan view of the Mouse hull gives another view of many of the features shown in the first illustration. The driver's and radio operator's seats (left) are flanked by the main fuel tanks. Just to their rear is the main engine, flanked by air pumps and radiators. Further to the rear is the generator, with ammunition stowage in the sponsons on either side. In the sponson on the front right of the generator is the auxiliary engine, with storage batteries to its rear. To the rear of the hull, also in the sponsons, are the motors furnishing the electric drive. The actual transmission is in the deep part of hull between the motors, behind generator. \n\n\nIn order to reduce the ground pressure so that the tank could have some mobility, the tracks had to be made very wide—all of 43.3 inches. With the tracks taking up over 7 of its 12 feet of width, the Mouse presents a very strange appearance indeed from either a front or rear view. With such a track width, and a ground contact of 19 feet 3 inches, the Mouse keeps its ground pressure down to about 20 pounds per square inch—about twice that of the original Tiger. \n\nPOWER PLANTS \n\nDesigning an engine sufficiently powerful to provide motive power for the mammoth fighting vehicle was a serious problem. Though the Germans tried two engines, both around 1,200 horsepower (as compare
440995
IIRC the M60A1 tank (produced about this time period) cost about $750,000.
535076
The M2 Fifty Caliber machine gun can penetrate lightly armored vehicles (APC's) at up to 2000 meters. penetration of heavily armored vehicles (tanks)has occurred when the armor is at an perpendicular angle and the target is within a short range. The 20 MM Gatling gun mounted on the Bradley Fighting vehicle can penetrate a heavily armored vehicle if the conditions are right (Similar to M2 penetration).
187047
YOu *might* be thinking of the Sherman Tank, used in WWII and named after William Tecumseh Sherman, a US civil war general.  Not a water tank, though, a real tank, the kind that rolls along and blows you up.
880765
Probably alot, but neither side used them in World War 2.  Germans used most of their gas on the Jews.  Needless to say, the Nazis got creative.
675609
http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/ww2.htm
486479
The Best Fighters WWI\n\nR.A.F. S.E.5a (Britain) ,Nieuport 17 (France),Sopwith Camel F.1 (Britain) ,SPAD S.XIII (France) ,Fokker D.VII (Germany) ,Fokker Dr.1 Triplane (Germany)\n\nThe Best Fighter Planes of World War II \n\nThe Bf 109, Spitfire, FW 190, P-51, A6M Zero, P-38, F4U ,P-47...\n\nKorean war:\nMIG-15,F-86F,P-80 \n\nVietnan:\nF-105,F-4,A-6 e A-8,F-100D Super Sabre, F-84F Thunderstreak\n\nafter; Mirage,Harrier \nMiG-21 \nMiG-29\nF-14,15,16
898554
Today, there is artillery that is capable of firing off nuclear warheads, I don't believe we or our enemy had fire power like that during WWI.  Battleships, with their 8" guns were pretty darn powerful during WWII, however even then we didn't have artillery that could compete with today's range or explosive power.\n\nA number of years ago, Saddam hired a Canadian national to build a cannon for him that could reach Israel.  By the time the Canadian got this weapon designed, built, and in place to fire it had some really unusual features.  The barrel was so long, that the cannon was erected in front of a large hill.  The hill supported the barrel.  The rest of the cannon was supported on railroad tracks.  This allowed the cannon the ability to move to the rear, from the recoil when it was fired.  It was quite a contraption and unfortunately for the Canadian, Moussed caught up with him before he could finish the project, and finished him, instead!
1094590
The Yamato had thicker armour, but the Iowa class ships had better fire control due to superior gunsights etc. It's pretty much a toss-up IMHO.
471066
I think England has the strongest most powerful military, but France also has a nuclear weapon.\n\nGerman economy has a stronger GDP.\n\nSo there isn't a real definate answer. But if you had to tie me to one Id say Germany cause of their economy and the fact that they have allies enough where if they were attacked again by Russia they'd fight em off.
446466
Tank? As in ....M1 Abrams Tank?
101698
A CV-3/33 was a tankette built by Fiat and used most notably by the Spanish and the Italians in the Spanish Civil War.
138665
The K-Wagen, or Großkampfwagen, was a German super-heavy tank that never saw combat due to the end of World War I and the armistace agreement that required that all German tanks be scrapped.\n\nIt weighed 120 tons and had a crew of 27 consisting of a commander, two drivers, a signaler, an artillery officer, 12 cannoneers, eight machine gunners and two mechanics.  It was considered by the German Army to be waste of resources as it was too heavy and impratical to be of use on the battlefield.\n\nAs for how it pertains to the evolution of armoured vehicles, it was the heaviest tank ever made with the original design weighing 165 tons, later shaved down to 120.  It does not, however, hold the record for the largest operational tank as it was never fully completed.  That record is held by the French Char 2C at a mere 69 tons, although it never saw combat itself.
622054
I believe the army air corps and navy air did far more damage than artillery of WWII. Besides the two a-bombs dropped on Japan, the carpet bombing of Dresden is a prime example of the devastation left in the wake of bombing runs. That example was played over and over again in Europe, as well as the island campaigns of the south Pacific.  Then again, naval gun fire played an awfully large part in the Pacific, so I'm going to revise my answer by saying, in Europe air power was more significant, whereas in the Pacific, artillery and naval gun fire were dominant, excluding the A-bombs of coarse.
923683
Ironclad beetle\n\nThe armored tank of the beetle world.\n\nhttp://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg170.html\n\nhttp://www.texasento.net/Ironclad.html\n\nhttp://bugguide.net/node/view/5779/bgpage\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zopherinae
429292
Here is a very nice world war 2 weapons site. The site is divided into sections (rifles, machine guns etc..) for every major nation involved. It even shows a picture of the weapon discussed
165131
The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (known as the EB 16/4 Veyron in concept stages) is the most powerful and expensive production car in the world, as well as the fastest street legal production car with a proven top speed of over 400km/h. It reached full production in September 2005. The car is built by Volkswagen AG subsidiary, Bugatti Automobiles SAS, and is sold under the legendary Bugatti marque. It is named for famed Bugatti racing driver, Pierre Veyron who won the 24 hours of Le Mans in 1939.  It has a 1,001 BHP Quad-turbo engine.