Ridiculous question. The M1 Abrams as a battlefield tank, is faster, more agile, and more accurate than a M109 howitzer. Both weapon systems have very different missions, and while the delivery system of the Abrams is exceptional, which would give it a head to head advantage, it does not fire the same ordinances as the M109, which has potentially far greater destructive power over greater distances.
The elephant would win.
obviously army to army Persians would win by tactics but one to one a barbarian would win
raiden would win
Brock Leasnar would win
John cena would win in a fist fight an 50 cent would win in a in a gun fight
The newer Abrams would win. It has advanced armor design and a 120-mm gun. The German Tiger had the beginnings of slopped armor but only had an 88-mm gun. Also the Abrams new optic sight allows for thermal and infra-red imaging to see in the dark and through the smoke. You're not comparing apples to apples. You're comparing technology that is almost 70 years old to tech that is state of the art. Who would win in a tug of war? An original model T ford or a new F-550 diesel? See my point? By the way....the gun on the abrams, its German made. If you ever get a chance to go to Aberdeen they have a King tiger there and an Abrams on display. Its mind boggling how FREAKN BIG the King Tiger compared to the Abrams. It would be scarey to have that sucker rolling at you, 70 yrs old or not.
Rachel Carson did not win the Pulitzer Prize, but she did receive numerous other awards for her work, including the Audubon Medal, the National Book Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in recognition of her environmental advocacy and scientific contributions.
i would win
The GSG9 would win. The SWAT would win. And there you have it.
Wolverine would win, unless you are Wolverine. Then he'd still win. If talking about the animal, you would win.
I would win.
chargers would win
crocodile would win
a spider would win.
A monk would win.
billismad would win
The lion would win.