Greatest ever tank

Still looking for the real life combat stats, you havent posted any yet.

And by the way, the original poster states the worlds best tank isnt the Abrams, Im just stating that actual combat perfromance says it is. And, thats the only thing that counts.

Its not "USA" crap if the numbers support what I say.

Could another tank perform better than the Abrams if subjected to the same conditions and the same volume of action? Maybe. But the bottom line is that none have, so until then the Abrams is the best.

Well, i could just as well make up a source, because you just named a percentage, but ill cut the crap, im to lazy right now to look for a source to back up the challenger, and yeah, it doesnt have the same combat reccord, but from what we know, the armour is superior, so what is there to say that it couldnt take a hit to the side? we already know it can...

Originally posted by M6D
Well, i could just as well make up a source, because you just named a percentage, but ill cut the crap, im to lazy right now to look for a source to back up the challenger, and yeah, it doesnt have the same combat reccord, but from what we know, the armour is superior, so what is there to say that it couldnt take a hit to the side? we already know it can...

I decided to do some work for you and find some stats on the Challenger II...I wasnt able to find anything other than posted specs. No combat stats what so ever.

If you want combat statistics on the M1 Abrams, look here , but you need to search it yourself.

Originally posted by M6D
Dude, dont give me that crap, blah blah blah stuff, i merely stated the abrams doesnt use chobham, dont expand it out of proportion, for petes sake, and yeah, britain is out there in the field to, so dont give me that americas so almighty stuff either.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Abrams is protected by a type of composite armor (derived from the British Chobham armour) formed by multiple layers of steel and ceramics.

The hull and turret are protected by advanced armor similar to the Chobam armor developed by the British Ministry of Defense.

www.ciar.org...

Most of what's been said about Chobham Armor here is true, except for the fact
that the US Army developed it. As I understood it, our British friends came up
with that miracle. DU is our baby, though.

I have seen a film from Aberdeen Proving Ground of an M1 turret test. A
Soviet 125mm HVAPFSDS was fired and it did not penetrate the turret
armor. It was sort of comical, seeing the penetrator sticking into the
front of the turret like a dart in a dart board.

The turret armor on the M1 IPs we were issued in 1985 was thicker than
the initial production run of M1s. (this is what leads me to conclude
that the M1A1s and subsequent tanks were up armored with either BRL 2 or
more layers of BRL 1. The M1 IP weighed a good 2 tons more than the M1.

The armor on the M1 series is of the "chobam type" but was developed by the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratories.

www.pbs.org...

The Abrams hull and turret are built of a material similar to the ceramic-and-steel-plate Chobham armor developed in Britain.

en.wikipedia.org...

The latest version of Chobham armour is used on the Challenger 2 (called Dorchester armour), and (though the composition most probably differs) the M1 Abrams series of tanks, which according to official sources is presently protected by silicon carbide tiles.

as u can see the Abrams tank do have the Chobham armor but for the U.S. Army version, not the British verson. in anicase its still have one of the best armor protection to stay in the elite tanks.

As said before, all modern tanks are almost identical armor and main guns and traction systems. Given any situation, I doubt the Chally or Abrams or T-90 or Leclerc would be noticibly better.

It simply comes down to crew training and who has more tanks.

In terms of crew training, I would rate the Russians fairly high, simply due to their combat experience.
French and British crews have no actual combat experience.
The Americans have the most combat experience and thus have the best crews.

The Russians have the most tanks, hands down, but only a fraction are modern.
Both French and British Armies have acceptable amounts to fit their missions.
The Americans have the most modern tanks of any country.

Thus the Abrams is superior, not by technical effeciency, but by default.

er...all your sources there even state that the abrams uses a 'like' chobham material, like i said, composites of sorts and DU laced, in fact, i never even claimed that britain came up with DU lace, so like i said, we use dorchester, you guys use a 'like' chobham, which is chobham...but isnt the official stuff.

The English did invent the chobham armour in the early eighties , and yes the Americans do have the chobham armour but it is not quite as good as the english version as which is used in the challenger 2.As for the challenger 2 being slow Hmmm it is actually the fastest tank when going off road maybe not when on a flat surface thats the Abrams . During the Iraq war , a challenger got directly hit 12 times by rpg's and once from an anti tank missile and the only thing that got damaged was the targeting sight on the outside of the main gun . As for the Abrams it got knocked out of action sometimes by just a single shot from an rpg , the M1 is a great tank yes but still makes you think ..

Huh? I thought the Abrams was once hit by 14 RPGs and 1 Milan before it finally got disabled... Its still not even destroyed though.

Originally posted by Ghostrider80
a challenger got directly hit 12 times by rpg's and once from an anti tank missile and the only thing that got damaged was the targeting sight on the outside of the main gun . As for the Abrams it got knocked out of action sometimes by just a single shot from an rpg , the M1 is a great tank yes but still makes you think ..

Hmm, just where did you hear this myth ? Also what sort of anti tank missile allegedly hit this Challenger ?

Originally posted by Ghostrider80
The English did invent the chobham armour in the early eighties , and yes the Americans do have the chobham armour but it is not quite as good as the english version as which is used in the challenger 2.As for the challenger 2 being slow Hmmm it is actually the fastest tank when going off road maybe not when on a flat surface thats the Abrams . During the Iraq war , a challenger got directly hit 12 times by rpg's and once from an anti tank missile and the only thing that got damaged was the targeting sight on the outside of the main gun . As for the Abrams it got knocked out of action sometimes by just a single shot from an rpg , the M1 is a great tank yes but still makes you think ..

How many of those came in from above and to the rear? Or even straight from the rear? Or into the engine at all?

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Ghostrider80
a challenger got directly hit 12 times by rpg's and once from an anti tank missile and the only thing that got damaged was the targeting sight on the outside of the main gun . As for the Abrams it got knocked out of action sometimes by just a single shot from an rpg , the M1 is a great tank yes but still makes you think ..

Hmm, just where did you hear this myth ? Also what sort of anti tank missile allegedly hit this Challenger ?

Its no myth it was on the top ten tank show that was on the discovery channel Monday just gone and they had a defence guy talking about the performance of both tanks and thats where the stats came from

Depends where the RPG’s hit the pre up armed versions of the Abrams, if it hit the back of the engine area or the tracks then it would disable it not destroy it, any other position wont do anything to it. So it all depends where those RPG’s hit the Challenger, the pictures provide by AMM shows that the Army has put ERA tiles on the skirts and better armor on the back with an armed cage to better protect the Abrams in Urban Combat.