It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenger tank : game over ?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Off topic, I apologize. StealthSpy: your loud declaration "Deny Ignorence" is misspelled. Sarcasm, or Irony?




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Wodan,

Two points to make:

1) What is the source for those figures? I am not disputing them, would just like to know where you got them.


BMVg is my source



2) Compare the 3 countries on population, area and geographical locality to the Cold War border. Do not forget to take into consideration ease of land access from ex-USSR.

Cheers

BHR


I know all those facts, but you can also compare UK with China, and if its not true, that you have one of the hugest heavy land forces on earth...then its not true, sorry..



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan
so now compare them, germany and france arent really strong armed nations, still UK hasnt much compared to them, so why do you think you have "one of the most heavily armoured and mechanised millitaries in the world"
[edit on 25-5-2005 by Wodan]

Because britain has the most heavily armoured tanks and vehilces in the world.
Size matters little if the enemy cant hurt you.

Also add to the fact your statistics are wrong, I think I will trust this.
www.armedforces.co.uk...



ARMOUR



386 x Challenger 2

136 x Sabre (approx)

60 x Striker

325 x Scimitar

1,100 x Fv 432

575 x MCV 80 Warrior

585 x Spartan

640 x Saxon

11 x Fuchs (NBC)

10 x Stormer



ARTILLERY AND MORTARS



179 x AS 90
64 x 227mm MLRS
165 x 105mm Light Gun
470 x 81mm mortar (including 112 x self-propelled)

2,093 x 51mm Light Mortar



AIR DEFENCE



98 x Rapier Fire Units (including 24 x SP)

330 x Javelin Launchers

145 x Starstreak (LML) - 135 x HVM (SP)



ARMY AVIATION



108 x Lynx (some armed with TOW)

133 x Gazelle

7 x BN-2 Islander

67 x WAH-64D Apache on order (possibly 20 in service in mid 2003)



HELICOPTERS AVAILABLE FROM RAF



38 x Chinook

39 x Puma

22 x Merlin on order




[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
In Greece the Leo represented the best value for money choice, being lower unit cost than Challenger and Abrams and signifricantly - lower running costs over its service lifetime (including potential cost of upgrade - due to the greater numbers of Leo in service)



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   


Size matters little if the enemy cant hurt you.


so 120mm KEs of a Leopard II L55 cannon couldnt penetrate your armour?



wanna try it?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
ARMOUR



386 x Challenger 2 (256 active + 130 stocked = 386, correct by me)

136 x Sabre (approx) (I said 127, we cant say this exactly, how many are ok)

60 x Striker (dont know)

325 x Scimitar (said 192, propably your numbers are more actual, and more came to your forces of them)

1,100 x Fv 432 (1.100 correct)

575 x MCV 80 Warrior (dont know)

585 x Spartan (said 520, almost right, maybe my sources are older, or some arent able to drive)

640 x Saxon (590 saxon, why do you think al 640 saxons are still ready to be used, or maybe my numbers arent actual enough..)

11 x Fuchs (NBC) (said 10, the other one is for spare parts)

10 x Stormer (dont know this vehicle)



ARTILLERY AND MORTARS



179 x AS 90 (said 180)
64 x 227mm MLRS (said 63)
165 x 105mm Light Gun (said 60, are you sure all those are still in service?)


470 x 81mm mortar (including 112 x self-propelled) (didnt count motars)

2,093 x 51mm Light Mortar(didnt count motars)


didnt count the rest

those are things, you choose three sources and each will give you different datas...



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
What WAS your source though?


RAB

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Tanks are tanks, the UK, has plenty and we must not forget the "nastyness" that is the Brimstone missiles I.E. the Typhooon can carry 18 and the tornado can carry 12. 232 typhoons on order and god only knows about the tornado!

232 * 18 = 4176 plenty tanks burning! :-)

RAB



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
What WAS your source though?


I said this already



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Wodan,

Two points to make:

1) What is the source for those figures? I am not disputing them, would just like to know where you got them.


BMVg is my source



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
BMVG?
What is this though?
Coded messages dont work if one person doesnt know the code.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Off topic, I apologize. StealthSpy: your loud declaration "Deny Ignorence" is misspelled. Sarcasm, or Irony?


Nope nothing, just a typo error. My apologies. Just make the 'e' into an 'a'.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
BMVG?
What is this though?
Coded messages dont work if one person doesnt know the code.


www.bmvg.de...



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Wodan.....


What your failing to remember is that Germany and the UK are in NATO, France have an agreement with NATO.

The reasoning behind Germany's superior number in tanks and other mechanised vehicles is that its down to cold war planning. Germany was to be the frontline in any war with the soviets, so the German army was tasked with the responsibility of maintaining a large mechanised force.

Spacemunkey



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Wodan,

Do you have any reply to Spacemunkey's post?

I think he has got the right idea.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
According to this Germany has about 50% more AFV's than UK but UK has higher overall score due to Royal Navy and having a professional army rather than national service

www.strategypage.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
According to this Germany has about 50% more AFV's than UK but UK has higher overall score due to Royal Navy and having a professional army rather than national service

www.strategypage.com...


german army has more professionals than the british, just added to them conscripteds...


The only reason thing you use your higher budget for is the Royal Navy everything else is not really much compared to others

[edit on 2-7-2005 by Wodan]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
You got to be kidding!

As previous posters have mentioned, we Brits are a small nation. Under this stupid Labour government, SecDef has honed our forces to the bone to save the taxpayer's money. He has decided that we now longer need an armoured corps with that many tank units in it, so he has decided (well General Mike Jackson has!!!!!) to trim it down to the bare minimum.

Chally 2 or rarther the latest varient, uses a ceramic armour that is superior to Chobham - as I mentioned in a previous thread - this, in part, was one of the reasons for its withdrawl from foreign sales. The Chally 2's offered for sale were the older types with bog standard Chobham armour.

The thing with the gun is that, as everybody knows, is it's rifled. This means the tank can engage enemy armour at greater ranges and, coupled with the TOGS, MRS and other sighting systems, offers prospective clients a good all round MBT.

Smooth bore tank guns have the ability to fire anti-tank guided munitions though for the life of me, I cannot understand why.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I think that the era of a main battle tank being an asset to winning wars is coming to a close now. They can easily be defeated by modern anti tank weapons that cost a fraction of what the tank costs. Lets not waste anymore money on tanks and invest in weapons that cant be easily knocked out.


That situitation has always been with us. In WW-II a german 88mm shell cost about 80 RM while a Tiger tank cost 300,000 RM. In theory it took 10 88mm shells to kill a Tiger tank or 800 RM to defeat a 300,000 RM tank.

The whole idea behind tanks in the fist place was the need to have an armored vehicle that could transit the enemy fire zones with its own gun system to defeat enemy ground positions. The specialization of tanks design has been driven by the inevitable tank vs tank clash with introduced us to the race between armor and penetration.

Such an assault vehilce will always be needed although other elements about it will change. For example its possible that ICV may approach the level of protection of tanks inorder to assault enemy positions in accompaignyment of small number of tanks. So the tanks can deal with the enemy tanks while the ICV assault the enemy position.

While advancing these ICV could fill more of a recon role until the enemy tanks are encountered when the tanks move to take the lead.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Wodan
so now compare them, germany and france arent really strong armed nations, still UK hasnt much compared to them, so why do you think you have "one of the most heavily armoured and mechanised millitaries in the world"
[edit on 25-5-2005 by Wodan]

Because britain has the most heavily armoured tanks and vehilces in the world.
Size matters little if the enemy cant hurt you.

Also add to the fact your statistics are wrong, I think I will trust this.
www.armedforces.co.uk...
]


Thanks for the link but your basic statment is silly. All tanks can kill each other its just a question of what ammo hitting where. There is precious little to choose from between the top western tanks they are pretty much all the same, but to that end they share the same design problems. IE own armor can resist the enemy gun penetration through the front turret ...but thats about it. All the rest of the armor can be penetrated.

Like wize the Warrior APC is as well protected as the German Marder1A3 and the Bradley A3 models , but all these APCs can only provide limited protection on modern battlefield over only a portion of their profiles. I think the best coverage is the Marder, while the worse is the Bradley , mind you where the Bradely is protected its got the best chance [with ERA], however they can all be defeated by the most advanced infantry RPGs around the world.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join