Challenger 2 is in my opinion the best tank in the world bar none the only thing people nitpick ussually
is the speed which is a flawed arguement the reason being the suspension on the challenger 2 lets it travel faster than any other tank over rough terrain while the rest have to slow down for certain obstacles the challenger can keep on full throttle. It is true on normal flat ground the other tanks will mostly beat it on top speed but I think for a tank tackling the rough terrain is more important.

I think C2 basicly got everything just right in armour weaponry and mobility yeah maybe they could fit an engine with a higher max speed I don't think it really needs it though.

Mdv2, a very simple question for you.

Why would you want a submersible tank that can move under 4 metres of water? That is very deep, especially for a modern MBT.

Have you not heard about the American Shermans on D-Day. Most of the tanks failled to get ashore and almost all of the crews were drowned.

I'm not suggesting that technology has not improved since 1944 but by God, what on earth are you expected to do underwater?

You can't fight, so what's the point? A surprise underwater attack? From the sea?

Got no bridges, might as well travel a deep underwater river to get to the other side. Its not like we expect them to shoot from underwater.

Why should the Abrams be knocked from top of the list? Because of the old gun its carrying? How about the new ammo the MRM-KE that can hit a tank from miles away. Far superior to the German's gun L55 unless the Germans got their own version of the ammo, or they decided to buy it from us.

Peeps, let's try to knock this Leopard is best rubbish for 6!

1. Leopards are deployed to Afghanistan! With all due respect to our Canadian friends - Big Deal!

Thus far, the Taliban have not launched an all out armoured assult on the Canadian Leopards, so not battle proven there.

2. Chally 1 and Chally 2 have, respectively, gone head to head with Iraqi armour and come off best! Guess they are battle proven.

3. Hell, Warrior ICV's and Scimitar CVR[T]'s have come off best against Iraqi armour. Guess you could say they're battle proven too!

4. US M1A1 and M1A2s have also gone head to head with Iraqi armour and they too, came off best. I would say they're battle proven.

5. Even Bradley ICV's have gone up against Iraqi armour and come off best. I would say they are also battle proven.

6. Israeli Merkarva [Mk 1] Golani Brigade went head to head against Syrian and Lebanese tanks during the 1st invasion of Lebanon. Guess what? They too came off best! IMHO they are battle proven too.

That of course leaves the French LeClerc and I don't think that Chad or Djibouti have armour so, like the Leopard 2, it aint battle proven.

Say what you like peeps but, unless a tank goes head to head against an enemy tank, and comes out best, then it aint worth a damn!

Originally posted by fritz

Originally posted by wildcat
The US is already replacing the M1A1 and we have a working prototype already. Its a 2 manned stealth tank which auto loads and you sit in it on the front of the tank, not in the turret.

According to all the websites I have seen, and a couple of Forums like this site, the US/UK joint venture has been dead for over a year, with the US leaving about $4.5M for the research to be continued by the UK.

I did see a short film of a futuristic polycarbonate 135mm armed tank, whilst on a course at the Royal Armoured Corps Training Centre at Bovington in Dorset. But whether it is this vehicle you refer to, I have no idea.

It was indeed a two man tank that sat very low on the ground, giving it a silhouette similar to, or lower than modern Russian MBTs, looked to be quite wide, was manufactured with sloping sides to the turret and gun barrel too, was of a diamond sleeved construction, with the fume extractor and MRS at the muzzle.

It was manufactured in a very dark green/black camouflage pattern, with the green highlighting the naturally darkened areas such as road wheels, underneath the turret and bustle.

I'm not too sure what the powerpack was, but this tank was very, very quiet. The exhaust vents were [surprisingly] on top of what appeared to be the engine deck, rather than being mounted on the side and rear of the fuselage.

That's all I can remember about this vehicle and to be honest, I cannot even remember it's name.

I remember from some years back (mid-90's) of talk of a tank with some sort of plastic armour, with an engine that ran on hydrogen. It could draw the hydrogen from the atmosphere if needed.... Heard nothing of it since, mind you..

They're both great tanks. However, it's not like they're ever going to verse eachother sooo......

Well, I for one, am impressed.

Those pics of Leo 2, are very pretty.

However, as I stated earlier, Chally 1 & 2, Abrams A1 & A2 together with Warrior, Scimitar and Bradley, have all been tested in battle against enemy armour who, I presume, was shooting back.

Whilst I do not denegrate the Leo 2 and the men who serve on them, it is still unproven in combat, peacekeeping duties notwithstanding.

Originally posted by fritz
However, as I stated earlier, Chally 1 & 2, Abrams A1 & A2 together with Warrior, Scimitar and Bradley, have all been tested in battle against enemy armour who, I presume, was shooting back.

Whilst I do not denegrate the Leo 2 and the men who serve on them, it is still unproven in combat, peacekeeping duties notwithstanding.

The question whether fighting T-72s and T55s could be defined as 'battle proven'. The US and British crews are likely too have more experience, but we're talking from a purely technical perspective.

You guys are splitting hairs with this number one, two, and three crap. The Abrams, Challenger II and Leopard all are great tanks. They have some advantages and disadvantages over one other, but over all I believe they share well trained crews and similar technology. Not is it only pointless to argue about which is "best" (because you cannot possibly make such a decision) but IMO it's irrelevant too. Even if these tanks face each other on the battlefield the level of performance would probably be so close that tactics and numbers, among other factors, would make it hard to distinguish who was "better" from who actually won.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You guys are splitting hairs with this number one, two, and three crap.

It's great to discuss about it

Oh come on, WestPoint!

For once I am sticking up for something that's made in America! For once, I'm saying that your tanks and crews are battle proven.

It is, in my experience, irrelevant to nit-pick about the calibre of the enemy troops facing you, their tanks and crews the allied forces faced.

Even the most poorly trained gunner in obsolete tanks such as T-55 or the semi-modern T-72s, can get lucky and score a direct hit.

To those who say that Chally 2 or Abrams 2 would be even in a face to face stand off well, you could say that, but I prefer to believe it would come down to the training and individual skill of the crews.

I think that is a reasonable assumption to make and one I firmly believe, has stood the test of time.

Originally posted by fritz
Oh come on, WestPoint!

For once I am sticking up for something that's made in America! For once, I'm saying that your tanks and crews are battle proven.

You have my thanks, and I do recognize that the Abrams and Challenger family have faced combat and have performed well under those combat conditions/threats. No doubt this is an important fact but I still feel the A6 is a good tank, as for who is the "best", well, I'm not debating it.

Its a tough call...

Discovery channel have their Top Ten show which rates the M1 higher, but they have the silly "fear factor" category and their methods of figuring out whats better seem a little dodgy.

The challenger's rifled guns seems to have a greater range the the saboted fin stabilised rounds fired out of the m1's smooth bore...

I reckon the M1A2's software suite would probably make it more lethal, i imagine it would probably see a target before the Challeger, and be ready to attack the next target first as well.

On armour, i found this little scrap of info...

...in the 1991 Gulf War it was shown that a U.S. Hellfire anti-tank missile could destroy an M1 Abrams and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a Challenger 2 was fired upon by another, destroying it and killing two of its crew...

Originally posted by BrAinOfJ76
Its a tough call...

Discovery channel have their Top Ten show which rates the M1 higher, but they have the silly "fear factor" category and their methods of figuring out whats better seem a little dodgy.

The challenger's rifled guns seems to have a greater range the the saboted fin stabilised rounds fired out of the m1's smooth bore...

I reckon the M1A2's software suite would probably make it more lethal, i imagine it would probably see a target before the Challeger, and be ready to attack the next target first as well.

On armour, i found this little scrap of info...

...in the 1991 Gulf War it was shown that a U.S. Hellfire anti-tank missile could destroy an M1 Abrams and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a Challenger 2 was fired upon by another, destroying it and killing two of its crew...

I'd forget all about what the Discovery Channel says if I were you! I made an earlier thread post about the best fighters and tanks in the world, as told by Discovery and boy! Was I hounded to hell or what

As to your asumption that smoothbore is better then rifled, well I'm afraid not! A rifled barrel gives you a higher muzzle velocity, gives you greater range and is ideal for firing APFSDB-T. It also gives HESH or HEP rounds greater range and does improve accuracy.

Because of the rifling, these barrels tend to wear out quicker and need replacing after 400 odd warshots.

Smoothbore on the other hand, are ideal for firing fire and forget ATMs, are best suited for an autoloader and of course wears out much more slowly.

^^^^
i agree

i was watching disc-wings the other week and the f-22 ended up finishing 10th out of the best fighters produced due to the fact its not battle proven.


[edit on 13-11-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by BrAinOfJ76
Discovery channel have their Top Ten show which rates the M1 higher, but they have the silly "fear factor" category...

Silly? Well, yes and no, psychology is an import aspect of war. If you're facing a high moral, well trained and disciplined military with similar systems then the "fear factor" will not be a major influence. However, if you're facing an enemy like Iraq in ODS then an overwhelming display of firepower can, and probably will, cause them to surrender in droves.