any of you ever seen what AIR power does to tanks? tanks are becoming a weapon of hte past...
not once you've attained air superiority, and there is armored air defense
Funny how all brits choose their beloved Challenger. The fact is that the british army is an understaffed underequipped army, and so is the Challenger 2. As some people here already stated, the tank is 50%, the crew serves the rest.
at lest burgers are a solid. If burned they can be rock fucking hard.Vilham wrote:
Where as in the Abrams...kr@cker wrote:
"sir we're out of ammo!!"
"dammit, load the boiling tea!!!"
"boss we're out of ammo!!"
"o crap, load the burgers!!!"
You kinda contradicted yourself. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6. 6 times. Also, dont forget that the Abrams is 30 years old, starting from the original M1 design. The Challenger is a much newer tank. Everyone should expect it to be better. If you cant accept that, well.....your an idiot (not meaning you, Vilham, because I can clearly see you are already a Challenger fanboy)Vilham wrote:
"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
"Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine."
Those are the whole quotes. As you can see its armour isnt that strong as it was pierced in the rear by an anti tank rifle.
Challengers have been in service since 1983. Not too long after the M1A1 entered service.Pernicious544 wrote:
You kinda contradicted yourself. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6. 6 times. Also, dont forget that the Abrams is 30 years old, starting from the original M1 design. The Challenger is a much newer tank. Everyone should expect it to be better. If you cant accept that, well.....your an idiot (not meaning you, Vilham, because I can clearly see you are already a Challenger fanboy)Vilham wrote:
"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
"Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine."
Those are the whole quotes. As you can see its armour isnt that strong as it was pierced in the rear by an anti tank rifle.
Funny how infantry isn't obsolete, isn't it?JohnLeavitt wrote:
any of you ever seen what AIR power does to tanks? tanks are becoming a weapon of hte past...
i dont understand some of you people..
a m1a2 abrams gets hit by a sodding rpg and sets on fire or blows up, with several losses..
a challenger 2 gets hit god knows how many times with a rpg and a anti tank missile and remained intact....
but you all still insist the abrams is the better tank! get real people that facts have been said already in this post, the challenger 2 is the best!
a m1a2 abrams gets hit by a sodding rpg and sets on fire or blows up, with several losses..
a challenger 2 gets hit god knows how many times with a rpg and a anti tank missile and remained intact....
but you all still insist the abrams is the better tank! get real people that facts have been said already in this post, the challenger 2 is the best!
LOL!Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
Funny how all brits choose their beloved Challenger. The fact is that the british army is an understaffed underequipped army, and so is the Challenger 2. As some people here already stated, the tank is 50%, the crew serves the rest.
are you serious? lets see sweden against the british army, you'd get your ass handed to you
Fight! Fight! Fight!LostFate wrote:
LOL!Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
Funny how all brits choose their beloved Challenger. The fact is that the british army is an understaffed underequipped army, and so is the Challenger 2. As some people here already stated, the tank is 50%, the crew serves the rest.
are you serious? lets see sweden against the british army, you'd get your ass handed to you
A challenger has been hit by an anti tank MISSLE, which has as much time as the user wanted to set up and aim. The missle did little to no damage.kr@cker wrote:
disabled /= destroyed
re read # 223
"Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact"
sounds like tough shit to me, has a challenger been hit in the rear with an anti-material rifle?
I am not a fan of any tank, I however have read up on each of the tanks and the Challenger 2 clearly comes out on top.Pernicious544 wrote:
You kinda contradicted yourself. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6. 6 times. Also, dont forget that the Abrams is 30 years old, starting from the original M1 design. The Challenger is a much newer tank. Everyone should expect it to be better. If you cant accept that, well.....your an idiot (not meaning you, Vilham, because I can clearly see you are already a Challenger fanboy)Vilham wrote:
"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
"Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine."
Those are the whole quotes. As you can see its armour isnt that strong as it was pierced in the rear by an anti tank rifle.
Also could you please show where I contradict myself...
The main reason the M1 gets such high praise is because (justifiably) it has seen extensive combat and performed well in that combat.Vilham wrote:
I am not a fan of any tank, I however have read up on each of the tanks and the Challenger 2 clearly comes out on top.
The Challenger, while having superior armor, has been largely unchallenged (hows that for a pun).
I would go with a proven record over a hypothetical record.
That isnt a tank, its a self propelled howitzer. Good try though.King_County_Downy wrote:
No way...pink tank ftw!
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/69382b15d1.jpg
My real vote: A1
It has a proven record, its been in a war zone for 3-4 years and even a single one has yet to be destroyed. How can you try to claim that isnt a proven record? Challengers have been used through Eastern Europe and Africa in peace keeping missions too, how can you claim that isnt a proven record?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason the M1 gets such high praise is because (justifiably) it has seen extensive combat and performed well in that combat.Vilham wrote:
I am not a fan of any tank, I however have read up on each of the tanks and the Challenger 2 clearly comes out on top.
The Challenger, while having superior armor, has been largely unchallenged (hows that for a pun).
I would go with a proven record over a hypothetical record.
I thought this was an interesting find.
"The Challenger 2 is currently being evaluated with the L55 under the Challenger Lethality Improvement Program."
I'm not stating if it's better or not at all, so please don't get into a big flame-war about it. All the Brits are doing is trying the German's new L55 120mm smooth-bore gun instead of the British L30A1 120 mm rifled gun.
"The Challenger 2 is currently being evaluated with the L55 under the Challenger Lethality Improvement Program."
I'm not stating if it's better or not at all, so please don't get into a big flame-war about it. All the Brits are doing is trying the German's new L55 120mm smooth-bore gun instead of the British L30A1 120 mm rifled gun.
It's not a hypothetical record though is it?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason the M1 gets such high praise is because (justifiably) it has seen extensive combat and performed well in that combat.Vilham wrote:
I am not a fan of any tank, I however have read up on each of the tanks and the Challenger 2 clearly comes out on top.
The Challenger, while having superior armor, has been largely unchallenged (hows that for a pun).
I would go with a proven record over a hypothetical record.
The Challenger has a 300-0 kill death ratio for desert storm and only 1 Challenger 2 has ever been destroyed and that was due to a friendly fire incident.
The Challenger 2 has been deployed in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as in various peacekeeping missions.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom the Challenger 2 was involved in numerous engagements around Basra with Iraqi T-55s.
120 Challenger 2s were deployed in the Basra region. Around 10x fewer than the total M1 deployment.
The only drawbacks of the Challenger are it's rifled gun, which cannot fire standard NATO rounds (although this is being changed in the Challenger upgrade program, switching to the L55, as used by the Leopard 2A6 - better than the L44 used by the M1A2). The other disadvantage to the Challenger is that it is difficult to construct.
It's major advantages are; being the best armoured tank around, having the first fully integrated digitised integrated comms and targeting systems and being able to make tea.
The Challenger 1 was used in Desert Storm, not the Challenger 2. Thought I'd clear that up for you all.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not a hypothetical record though is it?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason the M1 gets such high praise is because (justifiably) it has seen extensive combat and performed well in that combat.Vilham wrote:
I am not a fan of any tank, I however have read up on each of the tanks and the Challenger 2 clearly comes out on top.
The Challenger, while having superior armor, has been largely unchallenged (hows that for a pun).
I would go with a proven record over a hypothetical record.
The Challenger has a 300-0 kill death ratio for desert storm and only 1 Challenger 2 has ever been destroyed and that was due to a friendly fire incident.
The Challenger 2 has been deployed in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as in various peacekeeping missions.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom the Challenger 2 was involved in numerous engagements around Basra with Iraqi T-55s.
120 Challenger 2s were deployed in the Basra region. Around 10x fewer than the total M1 deployment.
The only drawbacks of the Challenger are it's rifled gun, which cannot fire standard NATO rounds (although this is being changed in the Challenger upgrade program, switching to the L55, as used by the Leopard 2A6 - better than the L44 used by the M1A2). The other disadvantage to the Challenger is that it is difficult to construct.
It's major advantages are; being the best armoured tank around, having the first fully integrated digitised integrated comms and targeting systems and being able to make tea.
And, the reason the Challenger 2 has a rifled gun is that it fires high-explosive squash head, (HESH), rounds. HESH rounds continue to be used by the British for two reasons; they have longer range than saboted penetrator rounds and they are more effective against buildings and thin-skinned vehicles
I know. Notice how I said Challenger when talking about the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 when talking about the Challenger 2.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
The Challenger 1 was used in Desert Storm, not the Challenger 2. Thought I'd clear that up for you all.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not a hypothetical record though is it?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The main reason the M1 gets such high praise is because (justifiably) it has seen extensive combat and performed well in that combat.
The Challenger, while having superior armor, has been largely unchallenged (hows that for a pun).
I would go with a proven record over a hypothetical record.
The Challenger has a 300-0 kill death ratio for desert storm and only 1 Challenger 2 has ever been destroyed and that was due to a friendly fire incident.
The Challenger 2 has been deployed in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as in various peacekeeping missions.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom the Challenger 2 was involved in numerous engagements around Basra with Iraqi T-55s.
120 Challenger 2s were deployed in the Basra region. Around 10x fewer than the total M1 deployment.
The only drawbacks of the Challenger are it's rifled gun, which cannot fire standard NATO rounds (although this is being changed in the Challenger upgrade program, switching to the L55, as used by the Leopard 2A6 - better than the L44 used by the M1A2). The other disadvantage to the Challenger is that it is difficult to construct.
It's major advantages are; being the best armoured tank around, having the first fully integrated digitised integrated comms and targeting systems and being able to make tea.
And, the reason the Challenger 2 has a rifled gun is that it fires high-explosive squash head, (HESH), rounds. HESH rounds continue to be used by the British for two reasons; they have longer range than saboted penetrator rounds and they are more effective against buildings and thin-skinned vehicles
HESH rounds are good, but not as versatile as the more standard NATO rounds.
Still the L30A1 has proven itself an effective gun, with the longest range tank to tank kill ever. So it does the job.
Damn my reading skills. I keep seeing Challenger 2 in the posts, so I assumed. Sorry about that.Bertster7 wrote:
I know. Notice how I said Challenger when talking about the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 when talking about the Challenger 2.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
The Challenger 1 was used in Desert Storm, not the Challenger 2. Thought I'd clear that up for you all.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not a hypothetical record though is it?
The Challenger has a 300-0 kill death ratio for desert storm and only 1 Challenger 2 has ever been destroyed and that was due to a friendly fire incident.
The Challenger 2 has been deployed in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as in various peacekeeping missions.
In Operation Iraqi Freedom the Challenger 2 was involved in numerous engagements around Basra with Iraqi T-55s.
120 Challenger 2s were deployed in the Basra region. Around 10x fewer than the total M1 deployment.
The only drawbacks of the Challenger are it's rifled gun, which cannot fire standard NATO rounds (although this is being changed in the Challenger upgrade program, switching to the L55, as used by the Leopard 2A6 - better than the L44 used by the M1A2). The other disadvantage to the Challenger is that it is difficult to construct.
It's major advantages are; being the best armoured tank around, having the first fully integrated digitised integrated comms and targeting systems and being able to make tea.
And, the reason the Challenger 2 has a rifled gun is that it fires high-explosive squash head, (HESH), rounds. HESH rounds continue to be used by the British for two reasons; they have longer range than saboted penetrator rounds and they are more effective against buildings and thin-skinned vehicles
HESH rounds are good, but not as versatile as the more standard NATO rounds.
Still the L30A1 has proven itself an effective gun, with the longest range tank to tank kill ever. So it does the job.
Looks like an AS90... not too sure though!ToXiC888 wrote:
That isnt a tank, its a self propelled howitzer. Good try though.King_County_Downy wrote:
No way...pink tank ftw!
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/69382b15d1.jpg
My real vote: A1
In the first Gulf War we had a 30 to 1 kill ratio I believe, maybe it was 50 to 1...Pernicious544 wrote:
You kinda contradicted yourself. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6. 6 times. Also, dont forget that the Abrams is 30 years old, starting from the original M1 design. The Challenger is a much newer tank. Everyone should expect it to be better. If you cant accept that, well.....your an idiot (not meaning you, Vilham, because I can clearly see you are already a Challenger fanboy)Vilham wrote:
"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
"Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine."
Those are the whole quotes. As you can see its armour isnt that strong as it was pierced in the rear by an anti tank rifle.
Not as good as 300-0, is it?SoC./Omega wrote:
In the first Gulf War we had a 30 to 1 kill ratio I believe, maybe it was 50 to 1...Pernicious544 wrote:
You kinda contradicted yourself. 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6. 6 times. Also, dont forget that the Abrams is 30 years old, starting from the original M1 design. The Challenger is a much newer tank. Everyone should expect it to be better. If you cant accept that, well.....your an idiot (not meaning you, Vilham, because I can clearly see you are already a Challenger fanboy)Vilham wrote:
"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. Unfortunately, the tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Ironically the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
"Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. This damage usually corresponds to the tracks of the Abrams. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine."
Those are the whole quotes. As you can see its armour isnt that strong as it was pierced in the rear by an anti tank rifle.
Bertster we gotta give up. Americans have this problem with accepting they aren't the best at everything and the world doesn't revolve around them. *sigh*
I cry stereotype! I'm American and voted for the Leopard 2A6EX!Vilham wrote:
Bertster we gotta give up. Americans have this problem with accepting they aren't the best at everything and the world doesn't revolve around them. *sigh*