BF2S Forums Best tank in the world !

Vilham wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

"sir we're out of ammo!!"
     
          "dammit, load the boiling tea!!!"

Where as in the Abrams...

"boss we're out of ammo!!"

"o crap, load the burgers!!!"

Pernicious544 wrote:

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.

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)

LostFate wrote:

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.

LOL!


are you serious? lets see sweden against the british army, you'd get your ass handed to you

Pernicious544 wrote:

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.

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)

King_County_Downy wrote:

stkhoplite wrote:

Teh Turtle Tank


http://www.allfantasyart.com/photomanip … letank.jpg

No way...pink tank ftw!

http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/69382b15d1.jpg

My real vote: A1

Bertster7 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

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 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.

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.

Bertster7 wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

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.

The Challenger 1 was used in Desert Storm, not the Challenger 2. Thought I'd clear that up for you all.

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.

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.

Pernicious544 wrote:

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.

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)