they are prity similar the gunnery system on the challenger is more advanced than the m1a2 however the Armour is only slightly different as it was designed by both British and American scientists before being adapted again. the challenger 2 is the only one of the two not to have been destroyed or have lost a crew-member as a result of a direct attackRandom-Hero58 wrote:
The Abrams tank uses a similar ceramic armor just like the Challenger. In the Abrams there is also a layer of depleted uranium, a layer of kevlar, and a layer of steel. I'm not totally knowledgeable on the Abrams target acquisition system, but they both sound extremely similar.scouseclarky wrote:
thats a bit wrong the m1a2 is good but in a tank on tank battle the challenger2 would win . thanks to it's 2 special ability's. 1) the chubbm Armour it is fitted with. in Iraq at the beginning in Basra a challenger lost its track then it was attacked by insurgents, for 12 hours it was pounder with rpg's a total of 19 times and hit with a anti tank missile 1 they recovered the crew and tank and it was operational the next day no lives were lost. i say this is impressive. (2) the tog or target optical gunnery system, it allows the commander to select a target the turret the automatically traverses and lays the gun on target so the gunner can shoot while he is doing this the commander searches for his next target when the first target is destroyed the gun automatically traverses on 2 the next designated target and the process starts again. this means that in the time it takes an enemy gunner to move the turret the challenger 2 has already acquired the target the gunner has probably fired and the next target has been selected.silentsin wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
ooh yeah i almost forgot in the first gulf was the challenger 1 entered the record books by making the longest tank on tank kill ever recorded at a distance of 2.1 miles the shell was in the air for 3 seconds before destroying the enemy tank
Poll
In RealLife The Better Tank is ?
| T72 | 2% | 2% - 9 | ||||
| T80 | 10% | 10% - 35 | ||||
| M1A Abrams | 62% | 62% - 220 | ||||
| others | 24% | 24% - 86 | ||||
| Total: 350 | ||||||
the tank known as Volvo 240 is the best in the world
the best is the Leo II,
it's a german product
it's a german product
Abrams has no autoloader, meaning if the loader gets shot, you're fucked.
the auto load is a peice of shit where 100's of moving parts have the ability to break down. once that auto loader is down, you just got a really heavy commie paper weight
If the loader were to get shot while loading the tank......Yep your fucked.PBAsydney wrote:
Abrams has no autoloader, meaning if the loader gets shot, you're fucked.
but if the someone isn't pointing a gun down in the turret and the loader dies, then the gunner will load for the TC. A 4 man crew is more eyes/ears/arms on a tank. they can accomplish more and quicker. think about bustin' track while providing security, scanning for enemy, creating a hasty defensive position....elc.
I lived it, didn't just look at the pictures.
Damn good tank and all Germans should be proud of it.TodErnst wrote:
the best is the Leo II,
it's a german product
The M1A2 has the same targeting system, same armor but more of it. The Challenger is a very accurate tank from what I have hear though. I don't know which is better for accuracy though.scouseclarky wrote:
they are prity similar the gunnery system on the challenger is more advanced than the m1a2 however the Armour is only slightly different as it was designed by both British and American scientists before being adapted again. the challenger 2 is the only one of the two not to have been destroyed or have lost a crew-member as a result of a direct attackRandom-Hero58 wrote:
The Abrams tank uses a similar ceramic armor just like the Challenger. In the Abrams there is also a layer of depleted uranium, a layer of kevlar, and a layer of steel. I'm not totally knowledgeable on the Abrams target acquisition system, but they both sound extremely similar.scouseclarky wrote:
thats a bit wrong the m1a2 is good but in a tank on tank battle the challenger2 would win . thanks to it's 2 special ability's. 1) the chubbm Armour it is fitted with. in Iraq at the beginning in Basra a challenger lost its track then it was attacked by insurgents, for 12 hours it was pounder with rpg's a total of 19 times and hit with a anti tank missile 1 they recovered the crew and tank and it was operational the next day no lives were lost. i say this is impressive. (2) the tog or target optical gunnery system, it allows the commander to select a target the turret the automatically traverses and lays the gun on target so the gunner can shoot while he is doing this the commander searches for his next target when the first target is destroyed the gun automatically traverses on 2 the next designated target and the process starts again. this means that in the time it takes an enemy gunner to move the turret the challenger 2 has already acquired the target the gunner has probably fired and the next target has been selected.
ooh yeah i almost forgot in the first gulf was the challenger 1 entered the record books by making the longest tank on tank kill ever recorded at a distance of 2.1 miles the shell was in the air for 3 seconds before destroying the enemy tank
This is more of a- The M1 has six cup holders and the Challenger has five - type argument.
Personally I think the Israelis got it right with their tank, but I never have been around one personally.
isn't the gun on the Abrams a German design
Yeah, Germans know their shit about tanks.herrr_smity wrote:
isn't the gun on the Abrams a German design
The fact is that the M1A2 has better armor, more advanced computer systems, and can shoot from a much farther distance. As if that isn't enough the crews also are the best trained, only ones that equal training are allies in tanks like the Challenger II or the Leopard.
Herrr_Smity,
Isn't Norway that big penis looking country on top of the globe that appears to be preparing to pee on France.
If it is +1 Karma for you.
Spittle
Isn't Norway that big penis looking country on top of the globe that appears to be preparing to pee on France.
If it is +1 Karma for you.
Spittle
So 2500 people armed with top of the line tanks, weapons, tactics, and logistics can beat a bunch of unorganized tribal people armed with AKs and RPGs (that don't work half the time), no tactics to speak of and logistics that consist of whatever they can dig out of the trash, who are as bent on killing each other as the UN forces? Quite an accomplishment.Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
FALSE!! Several US tankers have been killed during action in Iraq, or during training accidents. And also, Tom Clancy and 5 generals of diffrent countries have named the swedish version of the German Leopard II the most advanced and deadly tank in the world. It's called Stridsvagn 122, and has been battletested in Liberia/Monrovia during the UN occupation. The UN operation in Libera has been declared the most succesful UN operation EVER due to the fact that swedish special forces and Irish rangers are doing everything down there. 2500 UN soldiers have succesfully unarmed 60000-70000 rebels during a 3 year time span, much thanks to the Stridsvagn 122 and the swedish combat vehicle CV9050b. The 9050b was actually made for swedish winter combat, but has shown outstanding statistics in the jungle enviroment of Africa. The M1A2 is an outstanding tank, but it's not godlike, and remember that US tanks during the first and second Gulf war often fought old T-55s, not T-72 and T-80s. Also, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.TheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.
I live on a penis. ha ha ghaMajor_Spittle wrote:
Herrr_Smity,
Isn't Norway that big penis looking country on top of the globe that appears to be preparing to pee on France.
If it is +1 Karma for you.
Spittle
Hey, sweden makes up that penis! Finland are the balls. And KRU-FEOS, without a single death. The US have already lost more than 2500 soldiers against not even 50000.herrr_smity wrote:
I live on a penis. ha ha ghaMajor_Spittle wrote:
Herrr_Smity,
Isn't Norway that big penis looking country on top of the globe that appears to be preparing to pee on France.
If it is +1 Karma for you.
Spittle
Last edited by Sh1fty2k5 (2006-05-27 16:08:19)
The loader mans the M240 on top of the abramsMajor_Spittle wrote:
If the loader were to get shot while loading the tank......Yep your fucked.PBAsydney wrote:
Abrams has no autoloader, meaning if the loader gets shot, you're fucked.
but if the someone isn't pointing a gun down in the turret and the loader dies, then the gunner will load for the TC. A 4 man crew is more eyes/ears/arms on a tank. they can accomplish more and quicker. think about bustin' track while providing security, scanning for enemy, creating a hasty defensive position....elc.
I lived it, didn't just look at the pictures.
It was already said that my fact was false (but not by much, very few have been killed indeed). Please read the rest of the thread if you go as far as to criticize my post. I already said I would correct it.Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
FALSE!! Several US tankers have been killed during action in Iraq, or during training accidents. And also, Tom Clancy and 5 generals of diffrent countries have named the swedish version of the German Leopard II the most advanced and deadly tank in the world. It's called Stridsvagn 122, and has been battletested in Liberia/Monrovia during the UN occupation. The UN operation in Libera has been declared the most succesful UN operation EVER due to the fact that swedish special forces and Irish rangers are doing everything down there. 2500 UN soldiers have succesfully unarmed 60000-70000 rebels during a 3 year time span, much thanks to the Stridsvagn 122 and the swedish combat vehicle CV9050b. The 9050b was actually made for swedish winter combat, but has shown outstanding statistics in the jungle enviroment of Africa. The M1A2 is an outstanding tank, but it's not godlike, and remember that US tanks during the first and second Gulf war often fought old T-55s, not T-72 and T-80s. Also, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.TheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.
Also, why did someone give me negative karma for my post and their reason was "I love cream". What the hell? Good god, grow up, please.
Last edited by TheMurf (2006-05-27 16:33:51)
Not sure where you get your numbers of the insurgency... you must work for an intelligence service or something.Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
Hey, sweden makes up that penis! Finland are the balls. And KRU-FEOS, without a single death. The US have already lost more than 2500 soldiers against not even 50000.herrr_smity wrote:
I live on a penis. ha ha ghaMajor_Spittle wrote:
Herrr_Smity,
Isn't Norway that big penis looking country on top of the globe that appears to be preparing to pee on France.
If it is +1 Karma for you.
Spittle
Again, the Iraqi insurgency is organized, they use adaptive tactics, they are well-trained and well-supplied with modern weaponry (by Syria and Iran). The Liberians are/were unorganized, fractured, fighting amongst themselves with no weapons other than antiquated assault rifles and RPGs and no training to speak of. I'm not saying that the Swedes are weak or anything--it's just a completely different situation, from the perspective of who the adversary is.
Fuck You The Swedes Are The Best!
NOSh1fty2k5 wrote:
Fuck You The Swedes Are The Best!
OMG, norway with ur fucking oil and shit, you dont count as a country. Your a swedish puppet state. Norway and Finland belonged to us once and they will once more as i come in power as the new SuperFührer in sweden!
SIEG HELLO!
SIEG HELLO!
arrrg
lets celebrate neutrality
This thread is starting to steer out of hand.
battle tested against what? Twigs and rocks? Liberia IS known for the amount of armor their armed forces have? the only way you could battle test a tank is against another tankSh1fty2k5 wrote:
FALSE!! Several US tankers have been killed during action in Iraq, or during training accidents. And also, Tom Clancy and 5 generals of diffrent countries have named the swedish version of the German Leopard II the most advanced and deadly tank in the world. It's called Stridsvagn 122, and has been battletested in Liberia/Monrovia during the UN occupation. The UN operation in Libera has been declared the most succesful UN operation EVER due to the fact that swedish special forces and Irish rangers are doing everything down there. 2500 UN soldiers have succesfully unarmed 60000-70000 rebels during a 3 year time span, much thanks to the Stridsvagn 122 and the swedish combat vehicle CV9050b. The 9050b was actually made for swedish winter combat, but has shown outstanding statistics in the jungle enviroment of Africa. The M1A2 is an outstanding tank, but it's not godlike, and remember that US tanks during the first and second Gulf war often fought old T-55s, not T-72 and T-80s. Also, the russians stripped all tanks of digital and electrical systems before selling them to Iraq. This includes laser sights and even simple things like radio, and the iraqis never replaced these. This was fatal to the Iraqi tank armed forces.TheMurf wrote:
Simple fact: Not a single M1A2 crewman has ever been killed or severely injured EVER. Few tanks have ever been disabled past the point where they can be salvaged, either. The M1A2 tank has also been declared the best tank in the world (by the american military). Also, the challenger is the "most armored tank in the world" while that may be true, it is not necessarily the most reliable tank, nor does it necessarily have the most range or piercing capability. The abrams is still an extremely effective tank, either way you look at it. As well, a lot of warfare comes down to training. I would bet on an american tank crew winning using an abrams against any other country's tank, just because they are so well trained. And again, the thing about never losing a crewman and only losing a tiny number of tanks to enemy fire truly says that the abrams is a fine tank, despite what much of this thread has said.