British Challenger 2

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Warning: www.rense.com...

The above link contains about several pictures of destroyed M1A1/2's, caused by Iraqi resistance. Although one are two are Iraqi armor, the other lot are genuine.




posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo

But one thing has to be noted..

Abrams:
Armor: Brittish
Gun: English

The engine on the Abrams is an inefficient Gasoline Engine, NOT a fuel efficient diesel...


Both guns are made by Rheinmetall Defence Technologies which is a German company. They are not the same gun though M1 uses a 120 mm smooth bore. The Chally uses a 120 mm rifled tank gun.

About the armour even though Chobham armour was invented in the UK it was first used on a US tank. The Chally 2 uses a upgraded version dorchestor I think its called from the M1A2 does not use that same type.

The M1A2 does have the better engine of the two.

Chally-12 Cylinder Diesel @ 1200hp
Abrams-Gas Turbine @1500Hp



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Here is some info on the M1A2, seems as though several parts are not US made, like the gun which is German, and the fire control computer is Canadian.

M1A2

And here is the info on Challenger 2. Seems to be completely British in design:

Challenger 2


EDIT: Correction, they both use the same fire control system. And the Gun on the Chally is not made by the Germans, it is made by BAe.

[edit on 15/1/05 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenshin
Warning: www.rense.com...

The above link contains about several pictures of destroyed M1A1/2's, caused by Iraqi resistance. Although one are two are Iraqi armor, the other lot are genuine.


I dont remember anyone saying the Abrams was invincible. One of those tanks was taken out with 3 anti-tank mines placed on top of one another. That would take out a Chally and any other tank on the planet.



[edit on 15-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I don't remember saying that I thought the tanks were invincible, neither saying that anyone else implyed that they were invincible. I was simply showing you some destroyed U.S armored vehicles of which I did not hear anything about on the news.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Ok you didnt say that my bad. But you could find information about those tanks not sure about on the TV though. Cant say I ever saw those pics on the networks.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
But you could find information about those tanks not sure about on the TV though.


What do you mean by that ? I never stated that I had a lack of information, I just said that I never had seen on TV these pictures of tanks destroyed. If I wanted information on either the M1A1/2 There is plent of it.

Abrams sites:
www.fas.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.warfare.ru...
www.army-technology.com...
www.battletanks.com...
www.fprado.com...
www.army.mil...

Over exageration of this tank is common. Just because it has been battle testest against tanks 20 years its senior they claim its the best in the world.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
No I was talking about those destroyed M1s not information on the Abrams in General.

It may have fought older tanks but atleast it saw large scale tank combat something alot of the tanks in the world cant boast.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Over exageration of this tank is common. Just because it has been battle testest against tanks 20 years its senior they claim its the best in the world.


The T-72 wasn't 20 years its senior. The M1A1's used in the Gulf War weren't much newer then the T-72. The T-72 was still in wide use in Russia. The M1A2 didn't actually get used during the first Gulf War, and its a huge step up from the M1A1.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
True it did see ' large ' scale tank battles. But does that really count ? they had total control of the air, A-10's strafing the battlefield, artillery and countless other weapon systems pounding the Iraqi armor. The major factor of the so-called ' tank battle ' was that the Iraqi tanks couldn't even engage the Abrams ! The Iraqi tanks were also downgraded and extremely un-maintaned. So tell me how could that have benifited in anyway to the actual tank vs tank scenario for the tank crew ? besides given them target practice, whilst being totally immune to any harm.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Over exageration of this tank is common. Just because it has been battle testest against tanks 20 years its senior they claim its the best in the world.


The T-72 wasn't 20 years its senior. The M1A1's used in the Gulf War weren't much newer then the T-72. The T-72 was still in wide use in Russia. The M1A2 didn't actually get used during the first Gulf War, and its a huge step up from the M1A1.


The majority of tanks in the Iraqi armor formations were not T-72's, in fact there were only 780 in the armor, 500 of which were operational. And a futher 500 which were manned by illexperienced men, also the hull condiguration was different to those on Soviet T-72's. The rest were of mixed T-55, T-66, Type-59 tanks, aproximately 1,800 of these, all in poor condition, and none comparable to there so-called ' counterparts ' in the Soviet Army. I don't know much about the Type-59, but I doubt they were in any better condition than the rest of the armored forces.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
A-10's destroyed just 700 tanks. The Iraqis had the armor advantage. They had more artillery and tanks.

The T-72's didn't have the range the M1A1's did, but that's just because they were inferior tanks. It's not like Russian T-72's would have done better. Most Russian tanks since then aren't that great of improvements over the T-72. The T-72 beats the T-80 in a few areas. The M1A2 is statistically better than any other tank (not counting the Challenger 2 which is either equal or better).

The M1A2 is a very capable tank. If not the best, then second best, and only by a small margine.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I would call 700 tanks out of 2,500 quite alot. I would have put the figure much higher, but I'll use your figure instead. The tanks used by the Iraqi armor brigades were not in effective ' formations ', if you can even call them that, they were poorly trained and there tanks were even more poorly maintained. The performance of the T-72's in both Iraqi wars in no way reflect in Soviet T-72's. I think the outcome would have been the same if the Americans were using the T series and the Iraqi's using the Abrams. As for the range arguement, I doubt even if they were within range, They would not even know what to do.

Also i'm not to sure about T-72's actually engaging the Abrams on the open field, as they were all in the Republican Guard Armored division, which I think I can remember was stationed in Baghdad and had the absolute day lights blown out of it by artillerly and rocket bombardments.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
The Republican Guard was on the front line during the first Gulf War, and was no match. The Republican Guard was highly trained, at least the level of the average Soviet tank crew. The T-72's, as well, were maintained well. They were the pride and joy of the Iraqi ground forces. They also had real combat experience.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Actually your right, they were on the front lines, one of the first targets of which the coalition planners considered. But most of them were killed in the first gold war. And were just replaced by average Iraqi soliders. And the entire Guard was down to one operation division during the most recent Iraqi campaign. They would have had basically no moral at all. And they would have had more to deal with than just the on coming Abrams and there own retreating soliders.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Sorry, but M1A1's did meet the Republican Guard and the T-72's.

Besides, anything Russia had would have fallen victim to bombing and A-10's just the same.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Only that they will have S-300s and S-400s,and they have T-90s. Try that for a fair match



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I doubt it, if the scenario had changed and the Americans had used a similar tactic, invading Russia. It would have been even, Russian fighters would have met the A-10 in the air along with the F-16 etc. Russia's tanks would have had the advantage of surperior numbers Vs. Technological superiority, except in the case of the T-72UD etc & T-90's. But any major ground defeat would surely lead to Nuclear weapons, this topic has been discussed to many times And I don't wish to get into an indepth arguement about it again.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Air superiority would go to the Americans. There's plenty of topics to debate that, so I won't go further.

America has an enormous amounts of tanks and artillery of its own, and it was higher during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't have a numbers advantage.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I meant to say german, why would I say brittish and english? it makes no sense, it was just my mind being confused...

It uses a similar gun to the Leopard A6...don't redicule me...please...

People make mistakes...

The T-72 is older, made in the 70's, hence 72, the M1 is comparable to the T-80 in it's timeline...the T-80 was made in the 80s like the Abrams

[edit on 16/1/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join