British Challenger 2

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I personally think the Challenger II is the better tanks...

The Armor is better, the guns is more accurate, more up to date equipment.

I still love the Abrams too, esspecially the M1A2 SEP...

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...


Each Abrams M1A2 costs $4.5 Million US. The Abrams has a 1,500 hp gas turbine, runs on jet fuel not gasoline. The gun is a 120 mm smooth bore, developed in Germany, and is shared by the German Leopard II, which it shares ammo with (NATO).

Here is a site where you can learn all you want to know about the Abrams

www.globalsecurity.org...



[edit on 17-1-2005 by CaptAvatar]




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAVERICK05
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE US WOULD LET ANOTHER COUNTRY HAVE THE MORE SUPERIOR VEHICLES? my answer is hell no.


What was the US MBT prior to M1?

M60. By the time it was replaced the Brits had had the world's best tank for a decade. Chieftan with Stillbrew.
Which became Challenger 1, which became Challenger 2. Challenger 2 destroyed more Iraqi tanks in '91 than any other, covered more ground and lost only one to breakdown (which was repaired in the field).

The M1 is the only time the US has had a tank equal or nearly equal to Britain since 1945.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I find your claim that Challenger 2 destroyed more tanks than any other kind of strange since it kind of wasn't in service during the first Gulf War.

I don't think the Chieftain was really better then the M-60.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Oops! My double plus un-good typo! Obviously that should read Challenger 1.

Chieftan was far superior to M60. Superior armour, superior weaponry, superior crew-survivability.

Until M1 US tanks have, on the whole, been far too light-skinned for main battle tanks. Pershing wasn't but the rest...

The last time the Brits did that was WW2.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I think that you'll find that the British supremacy of tanks began with the centurion. This was used by the Israelies in the Arab wars and it has defeated the most tanks, one on one, out of any tank since the end of the WW2. The M60 was inferior to the centurion and chieftain.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
M1A2SEP Advantages

M289A3... (different to Charm... but both weapons do what they were designed to... with charm having longer range)
x50 FLIR... (is also used on the challenger)
Advanced communications suite... (challenger has an excellent on-board suite)
1500hp turbine compared to 1200 diesel... ( faster, but range limited and the exhaust will cook anyone close by)

Challenger
better flank and rear armor (better all round armour... it's a full generation ahead of the m1a2)



I would say the M1A2SEP is a better tank. The Challenger is on par with the M1A1 though.



The M1a2 is a good tank... but 1+1 it would lose to a challenger, no doubt.

At 5km... the challenger could take it out while the M1A2 would still need 1000 meters less to even come close



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius

Originally posted by Kozzy
M1A2SEP Advantages

M289A3... (different to Charm... but both weapons do what they were designed to... with charm having longer range)
x50 FLIR... (is also used on the challenger)
Advanced communications suite... (challenger has an excellent on-board suite)
1500hp turbine compared to 1200 diesel... ( faster, but range limited and the exhaust will cook anyone close by)

Challenger
better flank and rear armor (better all round armour... it's a full generation ahead of the m1a2)



I would say the M1A2SEP is a better tank. The Challenger is on par with the M1A1 though.



The M1a2 is a good tank... but 1+1 it would lose to a challenger, no doubt.

At 5km... the challenger could take it out while the M1A2 would still need 1000 meters less to even come close


Not at all. The Challenger 1's 5km+ kill in the Gulf war was because it had the opportunity too. I would say 1% of all tank engagements take place past 4km. The Challenger's kill was with a HESH round, which retains it's power at all ranges, but it does not have enough power to kill a Abrams. The M1A2 doesn't share the 4km computing limit either, so it can engage with it's FCS at 5km.

Basically, it's which crew see's the other first. I would say the Abrams with it's x50 FLIR(Challenger doesn't have it). The 1500 turbine doesn't cook anyone nearby, that's a myth and the Chally doesn't have the C3 suite that the Abrams has. An Abrams' loader can also slam a round faster because the gun uses one piece ammo, unlike the Challenger. The Challenger's flank and rear armor is better, but it won't stop an M289A3 which penetrate more then CHARM at 2km, the average tank battle distance. The CHARM won't penetrate the Abrams front past 2km, nor the other way around.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Here's an interesting link

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/exclusions/letters.xml

Discussing the merits of the Challenger V Abrams by a competent source.

Can you supply a link stating that the challenger has inferior armour to the Abrams.

Spacemunkey



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I stummbled across this Link, im not to sure how accurate it is, but its used by Wargamers for re-enacting battles etc.. its a comparsion of armour protection of most MBT and IFV etc.

members.tripod.com...

Spacemunkey



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
The Challenger has better flank and rear armor then the Abrams, something like at least 500mm all around. Both the Abrams and Challengers frontal are comparable, like 960mm vs KE and 1300-1600mm vs HEAT.

The Challenger uses 2nd Gen Chobham, called Dorchester. The Abrams uses 1st gen Chobham with American made improvements such has the 2 to 4 inch layer of DU.

Basically, it would come to who see's each other first and who fired first. The Challenger 2's gunner has a x4 and x11.5 sight, the Abrams has a x3 and x10 sight, with a x50 digital zoom for both the gunner and commander. The Abrams has better optics then the Challenger. The Abrams also has the FBCB2.

AND FOR THE LAST GODDAMN TIME THE ABRAMS RUNS ON JP8 FUEL LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE US ARMY.
[edit on 18-1-2005 by Kozzy]

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The FCS is the same in the Challenger as it is in the Abrams, its made by a Canadian company.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAVERICK05
im not sure what to believe. is the british challenger 2 better than m1 a2 abrams that the us has? DO YOU REALLY THINK THE US WOULD LET ANOTHER COUNTRY HAVE THE MORE SUPERIOR VEHICLES? my answer is no.

I'm sure they WOULDN'T. BTW, as far as I know, Abrams has a Chobcham armor made of enpoverted uranium, and I haven't heard that Challenger 2 has the same armor. I think it doesn't.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
What i know is that Challenger is a better shooter but the Abrams is better at the closer ranges.

An other thing i heared is that Russian amour has greatly improved with Kontakt -5 and arena. From what i have heared Kontakt-5 will stop the current Abrams and Challenger round from 2km upwards.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
What i know is that Challenger is a better shooter but the Abrams is better at the closer ranges.

An other thing i heared is that Russian amour has greatly improved with Kontakt -5 and arena. From what i have heared Kontakt-5 will stop the current Abrams and Challenger round from 2km upwards.


Whatever difference the Abrams or Challenger have in shooting range is so small that it would make no difference in combat.

The claim that K-5 can stop the latest western APFSDS is bull#. Basically what K-5 does is add 200mm of armor on top of the passive. The T-90M has 800mm against KE and 1200-1600mm vs. CE with K-5. Arena is an active protection system that is effective against slow moving ATGMs only. Basically Russian armor has improved but has not come to the level of western armor.

Lucretius, your tank ratings don't make any sense.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Neither do yours... the German tank is almost 20 years old



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by MAVERICK05
im not sure what to believe. is the british challenger 2 better than m1 a2 abrams that the us has? DO YOU REALLY THINK THE US WOULD LET ANOTHER COUNTRY HAVE THE MORE SUPERIOR VEHICLES? my answer is no.

I'm sure they WOULDN'T. BTW, as far as I know, Abrams has a Chobcham armor made of enpoverted uranium, and I haven't heard that Challenger 2 has the same armor. I think it doesn't.


Actually is uses 1st gen chobham armour with depleted urnanium inserts a a few important areas...

Challenger 2 uses 2nd gen armour



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Another thing in favour of the Challenger 2 is however - spare parts - the majority of the vehicles working systems (ie automotive, transmission, electrical etc) are standard commercial commonents, thereby ensuring that replacement parts are easily available and at a resonable price

This is not the case in the Leopard II A6 or the Abrams

The Challengers optics are as follows

The commander has a Gyrostabilized site, model VS 580-10, from SFIM Industries of France. The upper unit of the VS 580, containing the Gyrostabilized panoramic sight and electronics, is mounted on the turret roof. A neodinium yttrium aluminium garnet, Nd:YAG, laser rangefinder is incorporated into an intermediate assembly which joins the upper unit to a lower telescope assembly inside the turret. The telescope assembly houses the optical viewing system, hand controls, electronics and the sight stabilization system. The sight provides all round vision without the commander having to move his head. The elevation range is plus or minus 35 degrees. The field of view with x 3.2 magnification optics is 16.5 degrees, and with x 10.5 magnification optics, the field of view is 5 degrees.

A thermal imager, the Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight II, TOGS II, from Pilkington Optronics of Glasgow, UK, provides night vision. The sensor is the UK TICM 2 thermal imager. The imager is mounted inside an armoured barbette above the gun. An on-board compressor and gas bottle pack provide cooling for the imager. Symbols are overlaid on the thermal image to show the aiming marks and system status data. The thermal image, with magnification x 4 and x 11.5 is displayed in the gunner's and commander's sights. The thermal image is also displayed on relaxed-viewing monitors in the commander's and gunner's stations.

The gunner has a stabilized Gunner's Primary Sight, GPS, from Pilkington Optronics of Glasgow, UK. The sight consists of a sight body with a visual sighting channel, a head unit with a stabilized aiming mirror, a 4 Hz neodinium yttrium aluminium garnet Nd:YAG laser rangefinder and a display monitor with a monocular eyepiece. The laser rangefinder with wavelength 1.064 microns, operates over the range 200 meters to 10 kilometers. The range accuracy is plus or minus 5 meters and the discrimination is 30 meters The gunner is also equipped with a reversionary mode telescope, model L30, from Nanoquest, mounted coaxially with the main gun.

The driver is equipped with a Passive Driving Periscope, PDP, from Pilkington Optronics. The periscope uses a night vision image intensifier device. At night the tank is able to achieve speeds comparable to day-time speeds using the passive driving periscope and without the use of artificial light.

The Military Standard 1553 data bus interfaces the Gunner's Primary Sight and the thermal imaging system to the fire control computer.

www.fprado.com...

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Lucretius]

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Neither do yours... the German tank is almost 20 years old


...the Leopard 2A6 came into service in the last decade I believe. If you're talking about the original model, both the Abrams and Leo came into production in 79 and service in 80. The basic design was amazingly survivable and robust back then and it still is now. The Challenger uses both the Leo's and Abrams layout and design.

Just because something is newer doesn't make it better.

"Speed to ensure survivability and expense of range" is wrong. The Abrams engaged targets at 4km during the Gulf war, this is all the range you need because the average combat range is 2km, 51% of combat ranges in Europe were under 800m. The Challenger only engaged a target past 5km because it had the opportunity to do so.

"Heaviest armor" This is true. The Challenger is probably the best protected tank in NATO. With it's frontal armor being equal while flank and rear armor being superior.

"Solid as anything, and can carry infantry" Why not say the Merkava Mk 4? The infantry carrying ability is rather overstated. The Merkava has to dump 80% of it's ammo to carry 4 people. The space was designed more for a exit hatch and storage space for a crew whose tank had been killed.

"Maximum use of emerging technology" The Type 98 has a dazzler laser. So what? I really doubt the actual combat effectiveness of it.

"Best all around" Not true. The Challenger 2 has poor mobility with it's 1200hp Perkins. I haven't heard of any new C3 suites being jacked into it either. The sights aren't has good as the Abrams(I dont see no x50 FLIR there), although solid.

You're British aren't you?

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Why can't we just all agree that the M1 Abrams, British Challenger 2, and German Leopard 2 tanks are probably the 3 finest tanks in the world and leave it at that.

This is like arguing whether a Porsche is better than a Dodge Viper or a Lamboroghini (spelling?) etc....etc.....you can go on forever.

People say Abrams has more engine power, people say the British tank has less, but doesn't need the extra power, others say the British tank can engage at a longer distance than the Abrams, others say the Abrams doesn't need the extra distance, blah blah blah.......all 3 are damn cool and perform their jobs damn well.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
This has probably been said, but the Challenger is a much heavier tank than the Abrams.
But what we've found out is that the Bradley is actually better in the type of combat we've been involved in. It has a higher confirmed kill count than the Abrams does. Not sure where I saw that, Global Security, I think.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join