BF2S Forums Best tank in the world !

M1A2 Abrams
Its extremely fast for a tank, extremely advanced computer system, and perhaps the best armor of any tank in the world

in fact the only downsides to the M1A2 are its pitiful gas mileage (~1 gallon/mile, sometimes a little bit more or less though), and its extreme cost and complexity.  But one on one with any other tank in the world it would own, except for possibly that british tank, forgot what its called, that one would have a fair chance if it got the drop on the abrams

Blehm98 wrote:

M1A2 Abrams
Its extremely fast for a tank, extremely advanced computer system, and perhaps the best armor of any tank in the world

in fact the only downsides to the M1A2 are its pitiful gas mileage (~1 gallon/mile, sometimes a little bit more or less though), and its extreme cost and complexity.  But one on one with any other tank in the world it would own, except for possibly that british tank, forgot what its called, that one would have a fair chance if it got the drop on the abrams

Prepare to get flamed for this.

The Brit tank is the Challenger 2.

Blehm98 wrote:

I thought it was challenger but i wasn't 100% sure so i decided against making myself look stupid using the wrong name

Lol, I meant about you saying the M1A2 has the "perhaps the best armor of any tank in the world." The Brits and Challenger 2 lovers are gonna flame you for saying that.

I crew a Challenger 2 and have done for 10 years now, in my time in the Army i have been lucky enough to work with Abrams and Leopard 2 as well.
IMHO the best armour of the 3 is Challenger 2, Abrams has the best engine/gearbox by a country mile and Leopard doesnt really float my boat.  I saw a Challenger 1 reverse into a Leopard in Hohne in Germany in 1998 and it ripped the thing wide open.  The only damage to the Challenger was a broken tail light.

I wouldnt say the rifled gun is not as good as L55, on the contrary, it is in many ways, superior.  The ability to fire HESH and the rifle works at much higher pressure than smoothbore equivelants, meaning higher pressure rounds which can travel further. 

But very few countries use 3 piece ammunition and its very expensive to develop thses things on your own, to switch to the NATO standard is to bring into availability the mirriad of ammunition that every major/minor and flip flop country has developed to be shot out of the smoothbore.
Quite where we are meant to put these rounds is beyond me as the turret is designed with projectile stowage in minda dn we simply dont have room to mess about with rounds the size of your own leg.

All these tanks are good and built for their own environment, CR2 was built for Western Europe, while M1 and LEO2 had a different agenda, LEO 2 to be sold to every nation wanting a computerised diagnostic system (if your training was any good youd know what was wrong with the tank) and M1 for a similar role to CR2, only faster because the engine is spot on.

But lets not knock the Russian kit, ive worked with them too and despite the short sighted opinion some people have they are smaller, faster and equally as accurate as any western tank IMHO opinion the only let down is lack of armour through shrinking the things down.  We are lucky they cant afford to produce them in the numbers they once did.

XW ford falcon.

Challenger 2

I look at these posts and see people just claiming that a certain tank is better. Then i look at where they are from. The tank they choose is from where they live...

Btw abrams all the way. Most of their deaths are from friendly fire. I also see people say the abrams fall to RPG's. Thats minor track damage or other tiny things that arent significant.

All those tanks have their strongs points.

I just choose the abrams...

usmarine2007 wrote:

The reason I say M1, is not because of "numbers" and "stats," it is because of the Gulf War.

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-73-easting

85:1 K/D ratio. Pretty good.

I'm gonna have to go with the Abrams, it has an undeniable kill record, the Challenger is also a great tank but I've never really heard of them being used in much tank on tank combat - correct me if I'm wrong though

nukchebi0 wrote:

This is pretty sad. Everyone from Britain thinks that their tank is better, and the same from the U.S. That being said, the M1A2.

well actually i chose the Challenger because it has the most superior KDR. Which is what matters. The purpose in war isnt to kill your enemy its to not be killed yourself....

just so you know that kdr... its 400:1

Last edited by Vilham (2007-04-15 04:43:23)

Pernicious544 wrote:

sad because they are so damn thick headed that they can see that the aromor on the two are nearly the same. Brits have their heads up thier butts so far sometimes it makes you just want to push on their stomach so that they'll fart their head back out.

I say thats rich coming from chaps like you. The vast majority of Americans belive that if it was'nt for them then the Brits would no longer be drinking tea but eating sausage and Hiter would be the reining monach.

As an Armed force you do have alot of decent kit. We no longer have long range bombers (the Last being the Vulcan) you have several. we've pinched the old underslung grenade launcher off you. We've taken the Jav also, not to mention other bits and bobs. But we do have thinks that are better than yours like rations, you've replaced the M60 with the GPMG and tanks! The only way this could be resolved is to pitch a Challenger 2 and M1A1 in a set of challenges!

challenger tank

Neither the Abrams nor the Chally can be said to have better armor than each other, this sort of clarifies it
From Wikipedia
"In one encounter a Challenger 2 was hit by several rocket propelled grenades and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived and the tank was able to withdraw for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs."
"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. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick was fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior."
Although the Abrams had to be destroyed there is still a hell of a lot of firepower needed to do so.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-04-15 09:36:34)