IMO its Leo2A6 vs M1 vs Type 90
Very good analysis Orgtheone ! Challenger 2's main drawback : cost, Leopard is 35% cheaper.
well from the tech side the abames and the challanger are on an equal footing, using simalar aromur developed in the joint operations between the US and the UK, actually, there are both durrived from the resulting pototype, also the ammunition is simalar, using HE and Dep. uranium sabo, incased solid slugs. so realy it would be a one shot deul, who ever could aquire their target.
as for the tiger tank....the tiger tank? realy? never mind the fact that it was outclassed in all criteria by the T-34? remember the t34 was the first tank to ever use a desle power plant, so that it did not catch fire when hit. as aposed to the the paton which if i remember they nicknambed the "bic", it lit up every time.
as for the tiger tank....the tiger tank? realy? never mind the fact that it was outclassed in all criteria by the T-34? remember the t34 was the first tank to ever use a desle power plant, so that it did not catch fire when hit. as aposed to the the paton which if i remember they nicknambed the "bic", it lit up every time.
So is that a picture of an Abrams or a Challenger, looks like an Abrams to me presuming elite's picture is that of a challenger, the skirt over the tracks looks different to me.DazBurt wrote:
I think this says otherwise<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
Challenger 2 has reported 0 losses, the armor is superior to that of the Abrams, and the targetting system is spot-on accurate at extremely far distances.
http://mofclan.phpbbhost.co.uk/album_pic.php?pic_id=31
This is just one of the pics that I took while I was out in Iraq, but even so, the Challenger is far superior than anything previousley built (including the Abrahms which is outdated now
yeah, my picture is a challenger 2, the tank wreck is the m1a2 abrams tank
The M1A2 would eat a challenger 2 and shit out a pop can! Challenger 2 has a TOP SPEED of barely 30 MPH or 53 km/h, it's flippen slow, I could run faster than that, by the time the challenger showed up, the battle would be over. The two are on even ground as far as everything else goes, so what the challenger has a slightly better gun. It was said that the challenger gets better gas mileage, when in reality it gets worse. It has also been said that the M1A2 is obsolete, who ever said that I wish they would share what ever the hell it is there smoking, the Abrams is still at the fore front of modern tech and will remain that way, we the USA refit those tanks all the time.
So as far as a tank to tank battle, the challenger lacks the offensive edge of the Abrams!!!
So as far as a tank to tank battle, the challenger lacks the offensive edge of the Abrams!!!
everyone should check out the Future Combat Systems (FCS) tanks, although not in the field yet, I am currently part of a team that is incorporating them into the main Army Simulation, OneSAF. Check out the Mounted Combat System (MCS) tank. I cant get into too much detail because some stuff is classified but I am sure what I cant tell you, you could probably find out online through google or something.
It's amazing how ignorant some of you are.
UH YEA! You sound real intelligent yourself there _i#$%*_!!_j5689_ wrote:
Is it bad to use radioactive stuff? It's in small quantities.Wolfren wrote:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp another article explaining a little better. Also they make a good point in that Abrams uses depleted uranium in armor and shell where others have yet to attempt, they take the slightly lets radioactive way.
I'm just saying, it's radioactive shit that doesn't work anymore and it's in small quantities, so it can't be that dangerous. No need to be an ass.EVIL_STYX wrote:
UH YEA! You sound real intelligent yourself there _i#$%*_!!_j5689_ wrote:
Is it bad to use radioactive stuff? It's in small quantities.Wolfren wrote:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp another article explaining a little better. Also they make a good point in that Abrams uses depleted uranium in armor and shell where others have yet to attempt, they take the slightly lets radioactive way.
Just hope its not gonna be like the US tank!
The us tank is ok, but what makes it suck a bit is that it gets damaged by driving in a bit bumpy area! It always hit and smacks in the ground somehow, ever tryed it at Kubra dam? impossible to get it up a road or around without getting damaged! And its not very good at driving up hills to, its to weak to get up!
The other tanks in the game is really good! Dunno if the US tank is like this for real, but it is in the game! Dunno if the US tank has better armor than the other ones, cus i havent even tryed to figure that one out! Someone knows or someone know the compleate difference between the US tank and the other ones?
The us tank is ok, but what makes it suck a bit is that it gets damaged by driving in a bit bumpy area! It always hit and smacks in the ground somehow, ever tryed it at Kubra dam? impossible to get it up a road or around without getting damaged! And its not very good at driving up hills to, its to weak to get up!
The other tanks in the game is really good! Dunno if the US tank is like this for real, but it is in the game! Dunno if the US tank has better armor than the other ones, cus i havent even tryed to figure that one out! Someone knows or someone know the compleate difference between the US tank and the other ones?
_j5689_ wrote:
It's amazing how ignorant some of you are.
EVIL_STYX there is indeed no need to be an ass._j5689_ wrote:
I'm just saying, it's radioactive shit that doesn't work anymore and it's in small quantities, so it can't be that dangerous. No need to be an ass.EVIL_STYX wrote:
UH YEA! You sound real intelligent yourself there _i#$%*_!!_j5689_ wrote:
Is it bad to use radioactive stuff? It's in small quantities.
As far as depleted uranium armour goes it sort of ok, crew exposure will be minimal, and (I think that depleted Uranium is U238 but it might be U234 which is slightly better) its only an Alpha source so won't even penetrate skin. However problems lie in depleted U234/U238 bullets, which end up sitting all over Iraq or wherever, it will take millions of years for these to turn into lead (which is what they eventaully end up as). Radioactive material will end up in water and food, and that's when alpha is extremly dangerous, it gets inside you and causes ionisation which mutates cells, causing cancers etc. Also these things will give of beta radiation which can cause ionisation (cancer etc.) even when outside the body, as it penetrates perhaps 2-3 cm into the body.
Depleted uranium is a euphanism, it is not actaully all uranium, it contains lots of other radioactive metals and the uranium will chang einto other metals over time and it is infact probably more harmful once spread among civilians in invisible amounts than a lump of pure uranium would be.
This chart may be helpful:
Could you have told pore old _j5689_ all that EVIL_STYX, I doubt it.
Yeah the challenger 2 has great armor, but when the British invented that type of armor, the Americans made a better version of it, and the tank that uses this better version is the Abrams. The Abrams shoots straight as well, and when it moves the gun doesn't shake so you can move and shoot at the same time! The only reason the abrams in the first gulf war got some casualties was because of friendly fire.rhodri_d wrote:
The Challenger 2 is meant to be the best in the world its got great armour, plus the gun is on something so it stays straight so whatever your shooting ats buggered.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
"crappy soviet designed tanks". You sir do not know what you are talking about,the russians have made some of the best tanks of all time,T-34 anyone?
Last edited by Mario-C (2006-02-07 19:29:47)
T-34 was only good due to it's sloped armor. It was an ugly and uncomfortable tank and only won due to the sheer numbers.
Look around and see if you guys can find this: Discovery.Channel.Top.Ten.Tanks.PDTV.XviD-HEH (the torrent site I got it off is private)
It's a great comparison of a bunch of tanks. They determine that the Challenger 2 is the best armored tank out there, but it's slow due to all that armor and the low production numbers drop it down a few notches. The best modern tank they decided was the M1 due to it's comparable armor, high speed, electronics (better than the Challenger's), and production numbers. The fact that it gets crap MPG though is a drawback, but then again, we're the USA and gas/a whole army of tankers isn't a big deal to us. lol
Look around and see if you guys can find this: Discovery.Channel.Top.Ten.Tanks.PDTV.XviD-HEH (the torrent site I got it off is private)
It's a great comparison of a bunch of tanks. They determine that the Challenger 2 is the best armored tank out there, but it's slow due to all that armor and the low production numbers drop it down a few notches. The best modern tank they decided was the M1 due to it's comparable armor, high speed, electronics (better than the Challenger's), and production numbers. The fact that it gets crap MPG though is a drawback, but then again, we're the USA and gas/a whole army of tankers isn't a big deal to us. lol
Thing is, in the military channel they rated the top 10 tanks by history, The T-34 was rated number one for its history and in 2nd is the abrams, I think they rated the challenger 5th, don't remember.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
I just compared the challenger 2 with the abrams, and the abrams beats the challenger.
Last edited by War Man (2006-02-07 20:00:59)
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/de … rmor_id=11 http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/de … armor_id=1
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
This would be the comment that was made by _i5689_, that I inturn made my comment about!_j5689_ wrote:
It's amazing how ignorant some of you are.
_i5689_ he is asking a question is the challenger 2 the best (which it is not) and I was simply answering that question. I really dought you would have appreciated he's response your self, mbthegreat!
mbthegreat, last I checked they do not give away badges and medals for looking up something on the internet. Any trained monkey could have got that info, so yes I do believe I could have found that (there's a big long artical all about the effects of depleted uranium, it's first thing that comes up on the search, imagine that) and I too, could have typed a big paragraph that someone else wrote to make it seem like I was intelligent!
Have a nice day!
The T-34 was the only tank that would go toe to toe with the mighty "TIGER TANK" until a much later date in the war when more powerful RUSSIAN tanks came out, that is a fact, the 76mm gun was the only thing at the time with the punch to take down a Tiger from the front and sides not just the aft and just a little bet later they got 85mm which would without a dought punch a hole in even a "KING TIGER", and as far as your sheer #'s theory go's, at the battle for Stallingrad and Kharkov the Russians where building there own tank's and driving straight into battle with the tank they had just built and they where mainly T-34's.Viper007Bond wrote:
T-34 was only good due to it's sloped armor. It was an ugly and uncomfortable tank and only won due to the sheer number's.
Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-02-08 00:25:40)
The swedish S122 is THE best tank in the world. This has been proven in numerous drills and test versus others tanks such as the T90U the M1A4SEP and the Challenger 2. The S122 is a based on a modified german Leopard tank and has a 80% hit chance ratio when moving and firing at targets more than 4 kilometers away (With an average crew)
I agree fully, and know for a fact that they made some of the best, KV series, IS series where really mean! 152mm AP round!Mario-C wrote:
"crappy soviet designed tanks". You sir do not know what you are talking about,the russians have made some of the best tanks of all time,T-34 anyone?
OK, when it comes to statistically comparing the tanks i dont think this thread will go anywhere - mainly because of all the personal opinion floating around. So how about this:
WHATS YOUR FAVOURITE TANK?
Personally mine would have to be the Russian T-90S.
WHATS YOUR FAVOURITE TANK?
Personally mine would have to be the Russian T-90S.
T-90's have to stop to shot, they can not fire on the move.
Last edited by EVIL_STYX (2006-02-08 01:10:15)