British Challenger 2

page: 17
1
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
How can the Challenger 2 cost more than the Abrams wasn't there some computer simulations that showed one Abrams would defeat three Challengers in combat.

Of course the British tank is probably better than the leopard 2 and leclerc but definitely shouldn't cost more than the vastly superior Abrams tanks it doesn't even have a turbine.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamanator[/url]

I guess your signature says it all:

An open mind is like an open window all kinds of weird and strange bugs will fly in.


Your mind must be full of the brown smelly stuff if you think 1 crappy Abrams = 3 Challies.

You'll only see the light when you fall out of bed and wake up!


It's not about how much? It's more about the training and quality of the troopers inside the iron cow and how they operate as a team.

I would even put up my old Troop (4/A[RGH]RWxY) against anyone in an Abrams - and expect them to win any shoot out on any gunnery range on any training area anywhere in the world.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by fritz]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
How can the Challenger 2 cost more than the Abrams wasn't there some computer simulations that showed one Abrams would defeat three Challengers in combat.

Of course the British tank is probably better than the leopard 2 and leclerc but definitely shouldn't cost more than the vastly superior Abrams tanks it doesn't even have a turbine.


Abrams is an old design updated with excellent electrical systems. CR2 is a much newer design with similar electrical systems......
A turbine is considered by most people to be a disadvantage due to the massive amounts of fuel that is used...
CR2's armour is also of a much newer design than the Abrams old Chobham armour...
The simulation where an Abrams(M1a2?) could beat 3 Challengers was probably CR1. The CR1 was better than M1a1 Abrams when it entered service...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Love to see the US Purchase at least 100 Challenger II and change the Engine to 1500 HP General Motors Diesel Engine.

Challenger was built with the idea of fighting horde of Russian Tanks trying to break through NATO Defense in Germany. The Comet, Centerion, Chieftain and Challenger Tanks have been built to stand and fight mobility being secondary thought.

Sherman, M26 Pershing, M-46,M47, M48 , M60 Pattons and M1 Abrams were to be very mobile tanks side Armour and rear armour have been sacrifice to make them very agile though better protected than Soviet, French Tanks and Even later German Tanks.

Although the Latest German upgrade to Leopard II Arrow head shape is very impressive Isreali Merkava has a similar shape. Korean and Jap Tanks look too much like the Abrams I have to believe there was some copying. T-64-T72 and T80 are excellent tanks if they have proper crew they were
meant for mobile warfare and have little doubt if they get the first hit they will cause damage. Making of proper ammo is important and you can cut corners the Iraqis did and their sub standard ammo bounced off American And British tanks. Russian Made Ammo will penetrate have little doubt.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Believe me when I say that the Chally 2 IS the greatest all round tank on the planet. I've used the abrams & leopard and discussed the topic at some length with their crews.

It is quite simply the greatest tank on earth.



Yes very interesting... not. If you want to be taken serious then the least you should do is providing some proper elaboration instead of saying:

Chally is the best because..... .... and all others suck.


The fact that the Challenger and Abram are battle proven says something about these tanks, not about the Leopard. And because a tank is battle proven doesn't make it better than the Leopard just because it hasn't been in battle.

A lot of nationalism involved here
By the way this week the Frenchies bought your biggest electricity generator. Just reminding you in case you Brits forgot about it


[edit on 26-9-2008 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The Challenger 2 has the strongest armour FACT.


Since when do you have access to German classified info? You don't know the composition of the Leopard 2a6 in detail.


This is a real monster:

The Leopard 2A6 PSO
img89.imageshack.us...



Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
has the longest recorded range FACT.


Since 2006 the Brits are upgrading their Challengers with German made L55 smoothbores. The same used for years on Leo's. German and US ammo



Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
has a highly stable and manouverable hull, FACT.

What makes you think the Leo and Abrams don't have so?


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

It is quite simply the greatest tank on earth.



Thanks for your personal opinion

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Mdv2]

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Mdv2]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


FYI the Challenger 2's hull is more maneuverable because the tank uses hydropneumatic suspension, instead of the torsion bar suspension found on the Leo and Abrams. That means its cross-country performance (not necessarily speed, but firing ability and maneuverability) is superior.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
Since 2006 the Brits are upgrading their Challengers with German made L55 smoothbores. The same used for years on Leo's. German and US ammo



Actually, since 2006, the british have equipped ONE Chally with the L55 and it is undergoing trials.

There are very good reasons for the original gun and good reasons for the new gun. We're comparing them against each other to see if it will work.

As for your comment on the Armour... Dorchester armour, the armour on the Chally 2, is superior to Chobham, a version of which is used by the US. Your saying that the Leopard's armour is better yet than Dorchester?

If so, why are the Yanks not using it? Just like you snidely said to the other poster, do you know specifics about Dorchester armour to readily dismiss it in favour of your "home teams" version?

Chances are, they are very similiar, if not identical.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

As for your comment on the Armour... Dorchester armour, the armour on the Chally 2, is superior to Chobham, a version of which is used by the US. Your saying that the Leopard's armour is better yet than Dorchester?

If so, why are the Yanks not using it? Just like you snidely said to the other poster, do you know specifics about Dorchester armour to readily dismiss it in favour of your "home teams" version?

Chances are, they are very similiar, if not identical.


I have no clue my friend. As you know information related armour is highly confidential. Very few people now the exact composition of Western main battle tanks. No way MBT crews get the opportunity nor have the knowledge to thoroughly research the composition of the armours of their or another's MBT.

So saying the Challenger is better than the Leopard 2A6 or the other way around,based on the kind of armour, is impossible.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Basically look at my signature for answers.

Considering we sold the US and germans their armour tech in the 80's... but have since moved on to newer and better things... it's safe to say the Challenger 2 is the best protected and most survivable tank in NATO.


Dude, don't know if you noticed, but your signature is blank

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Thebudweiserstuntman]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Challenger is exceptional tank. Like to see the US buy 100 or more of them
and add 1500HP Turbine engine to it.

British have a lot to be proud of and Military expertise is one of them. Abrams
Japanese Type 90, Korean K-1 or II tanks all look very very similar. Room for improvements yes but produced in large enough numbers to over run any opponent.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
How can the Challenger 2 cost more than the Abrams wasn't there some computer simulations that showed one Abrams would defeat three Challengers in combat.

Of course the British tank is probably better than the leopard 2 and leclerc but definitely shouldn't cost more than the vastly superior Abrams tanks it doesn't even have a turbine.


It's called "economy of scale". If I only build one Mini and do it all by hand by myself then it will be more expensive than a Porsche.

How many C2s are there? How about C1s? Or even their predecessor, the Chieftan?

I bet even adding the three production runs together won't compare with the total number of Abrams to come off Chrysler's assembly line.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Sorry to hear that the British will use the German Gun....NATO Standards or something? Was hoping the US or British would come out with rifled 127mm gun similar to navy guns in size.

As far as Armor I think all NATO countries share their info so they probably use the same add on plates the difference is to what extent.

Wasn't the next NATO tank suppose to be a robot? Like to see the Next Nato
tank be the standard made by all members. Any chance of that? If not I like to see British American Tank



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamanator
 


Ha, I'd like to see evidence of this "simulation" and the Abrams supposed "vast superiority".

Considering that a good portion of the Abrams is old British/foreign tech (optics, fire control system, armour etc etc), I would be massively surprised to find that the Abrams was better and think it is just American bravado your showing as you cannot stomach that you're not "number 1" in something.

I'm unsure as to why you feel the gas turbine is superior to the diesel, which requires less maintainence and gives better performance.

But having said all that, it is largely down to the crew. Put a good crew in an Abrams and a green one in a Chally and the Abrams will win. Same vice versa.

I do know that in the field, an experienced Chally crew and a REME detachment can get a broken down tank going a damn site faster than any Yanks can. Complete engine changes can be done in 1/2 hour!

The Yanks, of course, will just telephone for a new tank and have the old one taken away like a dodgy washing machine.

EDIT: Plus, every British Armoured vehicle comes with a boiler for making a fresh brew! That should score points!

[edit on 4/10/08 by stumason]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
The Germans have a long history in the development of MBTs. Already in World War II they developed tanks farsuperior to all others. Pitiful for them, they couldn't manufacture large enough numbers.

Just because the Leopard 2a6 is not British/American, is reason enough for Brits and Americans not even to consider it for the number one position.

The gas guzzling M1a2 cannot be considered to be number one MBT as it has been proven to be inferior to other MBTS. It's an old design, consumes way too much fuel to be the number one main battle tank.

The Abrams M1a2 gun (L44) vs the Leopard 2a6 gun (L55):
The L55 is the successor of Rheinmetall's L44 gun. Being 25% longer, it is significantly heavier, but has higher muzzle velocity (over 1750 m/s) which gives better range and penetration for APFSDS kinetic energy rounds.


Challenger 2 tested with 120 mm smoothbore gun

A British Army Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) armed with a hybrid German Rheinmetall 120 mm L/55 smoothbore gun has recently undergone a series of successful firing trials in the UK.

The British Army has a total of 386 BAE Systems Land Systems Challenger 2 MBTs all armed with a 120 mm L30 rifled tank gun. The UK is the only major NATO member to use a 120 mm rifled tank gun as most countries now opt for a 120 mm smoothbore weapon.

The 120 mm L30 rifled tank gun fires a depleted uranium (DU) type armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) projectile that is only used in combat.

There has been no recent UK production of the 120 mm DU round, which is now out of favour with most countries, or of other 120 mm ammunition types such as smoke or high-explosive squash head (HESH).

Following a competition, the then RO Defence was awarded a GBP3.5 million plus (USD6 million) contract from the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) for the 120 mm Smoothbore Option Technical Demonstrator Programme (SO TDP).
The programme essentially uses the German Rhein-metal! 120 mm U55 smoothbore tank gun, which is fitted into the latest German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6 MOT. So far two hybrid 120 mm U55 barrels have been supplied to the UK plus a quantity of ammunition.

Ballistically the new weapon is the same as the German 120 mm L/55 but externally can tit into the space previously occupied by the L30.
The current Challenger 2 installation retains the L30 rifled gun's cradle, gun clamp, thermal sleeve, fume extractor and muzzle reference system.
Following trials in Germany the weapon was also tested in a static mount installed on a Centurion chassis in mid-2005 and late last year was finally integrated into a Challenger 2 MBT.

Static firing trials have been conducted against a wide range of targets firing the Rheinmetall 120 mm DM53 APFSDS projectile with a conventional penetrator. These trials are understood to have shown that the DM53 gives enhanced performance over the current 120 mm CHallenger ARMament (CHARM) 3 DU round.


Moreover, the Leopard is slightly faster than the Abrams, much faster than the Challenger, and the the biggest range of all.

Couldn't figure the fuel consumption of the Challenger 2 unfortunately. Not to speak of the logistical problems for the Challenger's ammo.

Another drawback is its price. It's much more expensive than the Leopard 2a6.

Last, the fact that only one country (Oman) has bought the Challenger why tens of countries have bought the Leopard 2a6 should also indicate something.

The only aspect the Challenger beats the Leopard is the armor which according to various sources is slighty better than the Leo's.




[edit on 4-10-2008 by Mdv2]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
The Germans have a long history in the development of MBTs. Already in World War II they developed tanks farsuperior to all others. Pitiful for them, they couldn't manufacture large enough numbers.


Er, such as...



Another drawback is its price. It's much more expensive than the Leopard 2a6.


Once again, we go back to "economies of scale". The Leopard 1 was cheaper than the Chieftain, which is why many countries chose it to replace their Centurians, but I know which one was better.


Last, the fact that only one country (Oman) has bought the Challenger why tens of countries have bought the Leopard 2a6 should also indicate something.


Oh yes? So the fact that five-and-a-half million people have chosen Minis tells you that they are better cars than Ferraris?

Could it be that they are cheaper? If you won't spend the money designing, developing and building your own tanks, it can be assumed you also won't spend your money on the most expensive one available, regardless of quality and performance.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Er, such as...


I wouldn´t have used the "far superior" expression, but the Panzer V is considered the most "complete" tank of the war (the mature models, not the early ones rushed to the front). It certainly beat anything the western allies could field in significant numbers. Even the Panzer IV in later models was tough enough to beat, and it served in a myriad of successful variants through the war. And while they probably were a step in the wrong direction, the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks still were exponentially more effective than most of their allied heavy tank counterparts.



Once again, we go back to "economies of scale". The Leopard 1 was cheaper than the Chieftain, which is why many countries chose it to replace their Centurians, but I know which one was better.


Um, a bit simplistic to say the least. The Leo1 customers were and still are in the top 20 richest nations on this world - and ALL of them were considered to partake in the looming war against the tank hordes of the soviet union - and all of them had a defense budget reflecting that. Was the Leo1 cheaper? Yes. Was the Chieftain the bigger bully on the block? Yes.

But the core of the Leo1´s success was that it was much more capable at tactical maneuvers, its mobility and reliability. It functioned like a clockwork from winter storms to hot deserts, it was able to deep ford up to 4 meter depths and could literally drive circles around any and all tanks existing before it and, for a time, after it including the Chieftain. A funny bit of trivia is that Leo1s on several occasions during early trials had to tow older recovery and engineer vehicles sent along when conditions got too harsh.

The vehicle itself was soo good that Germany had even more customer nations for engineer-, bridgelaying- and recovery vehicles on Leo1 basis than the tank itself.


Oh yes? So the fact that five-and-a-half million people have chosen Minis tells you that they are better cars than Ferraris?


Certainly a Mini is the more sensible and rewarding car for 99% of the customers



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Er, such as...


I wouldn´t have used the "far superior" expression, but the Panzer V is considered the most "complete" tank of the war (the mature models, not the early ones rushed to the front).


Wonderful, except for the fact that it was a direct response to the T-34, so, not exactly leading design or "far superior".


It certainly beat anything the western allies could field in significant numbers.


Glad you tacked on that "significant numbers" corollary. Anyway, only a fool would ever hold the Sherman up as an example to be followed.


Even the Panzer IV in later models


Yes, but developing an existing (and flawed design) by up-gunning and up-armouring (and therefore slowing) isn't exactly the definition of "leading" that I would choose. Nor would I classify Panzer IV as being "far superior" to Churchill or Cromwell (and definitely not "far superior" to Comet), and the "far superior" is exactly the phrasing I am concentrating on, as that was the description used.



And while they probably were a step in the wrong direction, the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks still were exponentially more effective than most of their allied heavy tank counterparts.


Define "exponentially more effective". Looking at the data I've seen I'd have to say they were exponentially more damaging to their home economy than even a failure like the A37 Tortoise. Too much effort wasted in design and proving (not to mention two competing prototypes) when said effort could have been put to far better use, too difficult to produce under war-time strain, too heavy, slow, unmanouverable, complex and thirsty. For what damage they did to the allies on the battlefield they did far more damage to the German war-effort in wasted resources.





Once again, we go back to "economies of scale". The Leopard 1 was cheaper than the Chieftain, which is why many countries chose it to replace their Centurians, but I know which one was better.


Um, a bit simplistic to say the least. The Leo1 customers were and still are in the top 20 richest nations on this world


Suggest you go back and check who the customers were and who the top 20 richest nations in the world are.


- and ALL of them were considered to partake in the looming war against the tank hordes of the soviet union -


I really, REALLY, doubt our 90 Leo 1s were considered to be part of the anti-Red Army equation. The customers for Leo 1 were NOT ALL western European nations.


and all of them had a defense budget reflecting that.


Again, not true.


Was the Leo1 cheaper? Yes. Was the Chieftain the bigger bully on the block? Yes.

But the core of the Leo1´s success was that it was much more capable at tactical maneuvers, its mobility and reliability. It functioned like a clockwork from winter storms to hot deserts, it was able to deep ford up to 4 meter depths and could literally drive circles around any and all tanks existing before it and, for a time, after it including the Chieftain.


But here's the thing...Your circles don't matter much when I take a harder hit and hit back harder than you can. So, while the Leos are doing their balletic manouvres, and no doubt much impressing the Red Army Guards divisions, what really matters is whether you can survive the 60-100 armoured devisions heading your way and damage them more than they can damage you. Chieftain mightn't have been as fast and it mightn't have been as nimble, but "pound for pound" ratings are purely theoretical. Once Ali lands a hit on you, you don't get up, I don't care if you are Sugar Ray.

Leo 1 was available earlier (barely) than the Chieftain, when some were looking to replace their Cents. Doesn't mean it was better than Chieftain.

Anyway, the point I was making was about the inadvisably-used hyperbole of "far superior".



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Can someone please remember when the Centurian was developed... Oh yes WWII.

I seem to remember that particular western tank did significant damage to "everything else" in the hands of the IDF. Even the Sherman was turned into something of a "monster" by them as well.

Hyperbole is never a good idea. The ChallyIIE was developed for export and had the MTU 1500hp diesel. No-one particularly wanted it . Why pay when the US would alomst discount sale the M1 for not much.

Chally II has all electric turret drive, the M1 (all versions as far as I am aware) has hydraulic drive which is "old tech" and kills people in the event of a penetration.

Problem with the Chally is there are not enough of them. If the US had developed it we would see them all over the globe by now, a sad reflection of global politics I am afraid.

Both tanks are great and the tea urn tips it for the Chally for me.

One anecdote. A close friend from many moons ago was in a certain tank Reg and used to use the IR detector on his Chieftain as an alarm clock for when the sun came up. I must admit I would love to see the results of live firings against the Stillbrew kit on the Chieftain to see just how good it was.

Love this debate keep it up guys thanks...



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

I really, REALLY, doubt our 90 Leo 1s were considered to be part of the anti-Red Army equation. The customers for Leo 1 were NOT ALL western European nations.


Thats right, but Canada as well as all the continental European customers are in NATO, and Australia, based on history, could have been expected to join a fight. I did not count some of the late and/or 2nd hand customers.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Suggest you go back and check who the customers were and who the top 20 richest nations in the world are.


Um, I did. Take any GDP-PPP per capita list, erase all the microstates and tax heavens as their numbers are not representative, and you pretty much arrive at that number, give or take.



But here's the thing...Your circles don't matter much when I take a harder hit and hit back harder than you can.


Precisely not. The most basic maneuver in the history of warfare is flanking, the best guarantee for a victory is encirclement. The individual combat strength of a tank does not matter AT ALL in a flanking maneuver (as long as it is strong enough to hurt the enemy); and its the maneuver that wins battles, not a big ass gun. There is a reason why modern tankers still treasure their roots in cavalry.

There are actually only two basic maneuvers, the charge and the flanking, and in a both defense and attack the charge would favor a strong tank like the Chieftain as it leads to an endurance battle. But considering the superior numbers of the Soviet tank corps and the danger of tactical neclear weapons, that was pretty much out of the question. Flanking is almost always the better option, and pretty much all the great victories in military history were won by those who were the best at flanking, at denying the enemy room to maneuver - often with far inferior forces on paper.

Examples are Cannae, Tannenberg in 1914 or Fall Gelb.


Doesn't mean it was better than Chieftain.


Never said that, I actually agreed the Chieftain was the "stronger" tank. The problem is that people often judge tanks based on caliber, armor thickness and the like, while there are actually big differences in the conceptual design. And especially Germany and the UK have had quite opposite positions, with german tanks championing mobility and platoon firepower sacrificing armour, while british tanks favoured armour and individual firepower while enduring substandard to abysmal mobility - a school of thought of which the Chieftain is the prime example. German tanks are built on the premise that protection technology never develops as fast as weaponry.

So the question has to be which is the most useful vehicle, not the best.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by Lonestar24]





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join