best MBT

lets get bck to comapring stats arnmanment and armor and speed.hands down M1A2 is the fastesrt

armor and armnament www.fprado.com...

Tuska rmor upgrade with ERA armor scales for added protection www.globalsecurity.org...

M1A2 ammounition www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by skippytjc
How many Challengers are fighting in the backstreets of Baghdad right now?

None because the British are deployed in southern Iraq, in and around Basra.

Originally posted by urmomma158
lets get bck to comapring stats arnmanment and armor and speed.hands down M1A2 is the fastesrt

Not hands down, the Leclerc is comparable in speed and has a very high power to weight to ratio and initial acceleration and good deacceleration.

Best armour is on the Challanger II, hands down the Dorchester is the best . same with Armament the120 mm L30A1 tank gun beats the rest becuse of supperior muzzle velocity and accuracy. thats it as far as im concerned.

Originally posted by buckaroo

Originally posted by urmomma158
lets get bck to comapring stats arnmanment and armor and speed.hands down M1A2 is the fastesrt

Not hands down, the Leclerc is comparable in speed and has a very high power to weight to ratio and initial acceleration and good deacceleration.

Best armour is on the Challanger II, hands down the Dorchester is the best . same with Armament the120 mm L30A1 tank gun beats the rest becuse of supperior muzzle velocity and accuracy. thats it as far as im concerned.

not true M1A2 ha sbetter protection
members.tripod.com...
loaddown on the abrms www.fprado.com...

Abrams has the worlds best penetrators www.globalsecurity.org...

do u ahveany sorces to abck up your statement other than opinion hard facts about ammmo muzzle of the chally 2 and M1a2 an dother tanksa swell as armor (which i gave) our M1A 2was hit by many penetrators n wasnt scratched chall 2 aint the only 1 wit chobham the m1a1 had it and no doubt the m1a2 has a better chobham thn the m1a1 there are cohbham producing factories here asw ell in the Us. plus the abrams has DU instea of steel for added protection dont forget the added ERA in my prevoius post for even more prtection forigve my crappy typing skills




[edit on 14-3-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by urmomma158]

Just to follow up on what Skippy said, in Desert Storm over 1,800 M1’s were deployed to Iraq and only 18 were taken out of action, of those 18 there were no crew losses, and most of those 18 were disabled by friendly fire incidents. In several friendly fire incidents during Desert Storm Abrams were able to withstand APFSDS rounds from other Abrams if hit on the front or side armor. In fact only three crew members have been killed as a result of enemy fire in the history of the M1. Two were killed when an Anti-Tank rocket hit an Abrams at close range in Iraq at a very weak point in the armor. The other died when an IED consisting of 3 artillery rounds combined with other explosive detonated next to the Abrams. Also in 91 several Abrams were mistakenly hit by US Hellfire missiles but they were able to withstand them and no crew were killed. Very few Abrams have ever been hit by enemy tanks of those that have been hit none were destroyed. They were disabled but not destroyed.

Pretty impressive resume don't you think?

[edit on 14-3-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by urmomma158

not true M1A2 ha sbetter protection
members.tripod.com...
loaddown on the abrms www.fprado.com...

Abrams has the worlds best penetrators www.globalsecurity.org...

do u ahveany sorces to abck up your statement other than opinion hard facts about ammmo muzzle of the chally 2 and M1a2 an dother tanksa swell as armor (which i gave) our M1A 2was hit by many penetrators n wasnt scratched chall 2 aint the only 1 wit chobham the m1a1 had it and no doubt the m1a2 has a better chobham thn the m1a1 there are cohbham producing factories here asw ell in the Us. plus the abrams has DU instea of steel for added protection dont forget the added ERA in my prevoius post for even more prtection forigve my crappy typing skills

The Abrams does not have Dorchester Armour they had only a small amount of a finalsed prototype Chobham supplied by the british , Dorchester is a classified and patented British product The reason the Abrams use DU because of the fact that the Americans can not produce it and thus are up armoured with a DU mesh layer,which has the disadvantage of breaking up in to Radioactive dust particles should it be impacted upon(not good for the old sperm count either)Although it is cheaper to produce than Dorchester.

Dorchester armour (or Chobham mk2) is not built in America and DU is used to supplement MKI Chobham on the Abrams, the Americans do not produce the latest Chobham Armour, just to reiterate.

* although now dorchester is here i believe that Chobham mk 1 is availiable to the Ameriacans hence the hybrid DU/chobham on the sep,not sure on the technicalities though




[edit on 14-3-2006 by buckaroo]

Originally posted by skippytjc
There were over 1900 Abrams deployed for Desert Storm, something like 19 were disabled. Today, nobody is reporting officially yet, but there has been an estimated 80 or so Abrams disabled in Iraq so far out of about the same 1900 total tanks, and that’s fighting a style it wasn’t meant to fight!! That’s less than 4 out of a hundred fighting out of its element.

I’m sorry folks; the Abrams is the best tank on the planet. And until another tank can post the same REAL LIVE COMBAT record, it won’t change.

Challenger 1. Desert Storm.

Deployed to Saudi Arabia: 180

Number of enemy tanks destroyed: 300

Number of Challengers lost: 0

Number of kilometres advanced in 100 hours ground war:

Number of tanks broke down and repaired in field:

Do the Challengers used DU penetrators or do they use Tungsten?

Not even trying to get into any debate about the DU. It clearly has superior penetration characteristics when compared to Tungsten. Mainly the fact that it self sharpens on impact rather then tending to Mushroom like Tungsten.

Earlier this year a senior British Army representative told Jane's Defence Weekly that the army intended to retain the L23 for those theatres in which Du ammunition cannot be used and had no intention of investing in a new tungsten round. However, if the L23/L14A1 stockpile proves unsatisfactory the L28 could represent a solution. The newer design of its projectile would also remove the inherent accuracy debits of the first-generation L23.

Source New projectile for Challenger 2

So yeah the Challenger has DU Penetrators CHARM1 and CHARM3.

The reason I think the Challenger 2 is the best Main battle Tank is the following

#1. Rifled gun shoots further and more accurately.
#2. Superior Chobham Armour (Dorchester)
#3. British Tank Crews
#4. Advanced Suspension

It's two weakness are

#1. speed but the unique suspension (Second-generation Hydrogas suspension) goes a long way to evening thing's up cross country and mean's it can travel faster over terrain other tank's would have to slow down for.

#2. It's the most expensive of all the Tank's mentioned this I'd guess is mainly to do with the number's produced.

So all in all it's the best armoured has a hell of a punch and is operated by very professional crews.

To be fair to the rest of the Tanks mentioned I believe every one of them is capable of knocking out any other one It basicly comes down to who get's to fire first and make it count.

No M1A1 has ever bounced a DU round.ever.

let me throw some numbers at you:

M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)
M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Kinetic Energy (in mm of RHAe)
Turret 800 - 900
Glacis 560 - 590
Lower Front Hull 580 - 650

M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Chemical Energy (in mm of RHAe)
Turret 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis 510 - 1,050
Lower Front Hull 800 - 970


The 120mm APFSDS-T M829E3 has an estimated penetration performance: 960mm at 2,000 meters.

fprado.com...

So that will blow through the heaviest armour section at 2km`s on an M1A1D - which is the most common tank (by several thousand) in US Army service.

btw - the german leopard 6 - which uses the same gun (it is german after all) achieves better armour penertration using tungstan rounds.


chally 2:

Challenger 2
Against Kinetic Energy
Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590
Against Chemical Energy
Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

In theory a chally 2 could bounce a shot by an M1A2 SEP (M829E3 round) but it is unlikely the M1A2 could bounce a CHARM3 round (very similar to the M829E3)

[edit on 15/3/06 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by buckaroo

Originally posted by urmomma158

not true M1A2 ha sbetter protection
members.tripod.com...
loaddown on the abrms www.fprado.com...

Abrams has the worlds best penetrators www.globalsecurity.org...

do u ahveany sorces to abck up your statement other than opinion hard facts about ammmo muzzle of the chally 2 and M1a2 an dother tanksa swell as armor (which i gave) our M1A 2was hit by many penetrators n wasnt scratched chall 2 aint the only 1 wit chobham the m1a1 had it and no doubt the m1a2 has a better chobham thn the m1a1 there are cohbham producing factories here asw ell in the Us. plus the abrams has DU instea of steel for added protection dont forget the added ERA in my prevoius post for even more prtection forigve my crappy typing skills

The Abrams does not have Dorchester Armour they had only a small amount of a finalsed prototype Chobham supplied by the british , Dorchester is a classified and patented British product The reason the Abrams use DU because of the fact that the Americans can not produce it and thus are up armoured with a DU mesh layer,which has the disadvantage of breaking up in to Radioactive dust particles should it be impacted upon(not good for the old sperm count either)Although it is cheaper to produce than Dorchester.

Dorchester armour (or Chobham mk2) is not built in America and DU is used to supplement MKI Chobham on the Abrams, the Americans do not produce the latest Chobham Armour, just to reiterate.

* although now dorchester is here i believe that Chobham mk 1 is availiable to the Ameriacans hence the hybrid DU/chobham on the sep,not sure on the technicalities though




[edit on 14-3-2006 by buckaroo]

not tlking of dorchester they still use a composite armor similar to chobham the first abrams had chobham and no doubt we dont have chobham but similar armors we do have. and do u have any proof we cant produce it any links.By the way check ou the armor protection levels i supplied

[edit on 16-3-2006 by urmomma158]

Originally posted by Harlequin
No M1A1 has ever bounced a DU round.ever.

let me throw some numbers at you:

M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)
M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Kinetic Energy (in mm of RHAe)
Turret 800 - 900
Glacis 560 - 590
Lower Front Hull 580 - 650

M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D Against Chemical Energy (in mm of RHAe)
Turret 1,320 - 1,620
Glacis 510 - 1,050
Lower Front Hull 800 - 970


The 120mm APFSDS-T M829E3 has an estimated penetration performance: 960mm at 2,000 meters.

fprado.com...

So that will blow through the heaviest armour section at 2km`s on an M1A1D - which is the most common tank (by several thousand) in US Army service.

btw - the german leopard 6 - which uses the same gun (it is german after all) achieves better armour penertration using tungstan rounds.


chally 2:

Challenger 2
Against Kinetic Energy
Turret: 920-960
Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590
Against Chemical Energy
Turret: 1450-1700
Glacis:1000
Lower front hull: 860

In theory a chally 2 could bounce a shot by an M1A2 SEP (M829E3 round) but it is unlikely the M1A2 could bounce a CHARM3 round (very similar to the M829E3)

[edit on 15/3/06 by Harlequin]

ah but the M1A2 is better protected than the chally when it comes to the turret look at this the M1A2 has better armor than the M1A1D members.tripod.com... hands down they can both survvie each other's rounds but u forget that for aghainst a 960mm parmor protection level a 900mm will pentrate 900mm leaving verl litlle protection left the chally 2 can fire at 5.1km but the M1A2 isnt that far behind 4km (more with the new ammo) besides the reason why it gota 5.1 km kill was because the area was flat( a hilly area would block it) other tanks can shoot near 5.1 km but will not be successful. the chally got lucky thanks to the hilly terrain
. Dont u think the EP"S 1st gen chobham wouldve been modified. i mean really . look att his the SEP has similar protection thsnk s to the DU paltes www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/exclusions/letters.xml

they are both similar in protection but i'd go withe abrams because of the new ERA add on armor www.fprado.com...
www.afvnews.ca...

on the first link its near the bottom bottom in addition to its normala rmor the ERA would help greatly.
Lets not forget the XM 943 STAAF munition for the M1A2 the Chally would be destroye dif hit by this www.globalsecurity.org...

newst APFSDS round www.pica.army.mil...
www.fas.org...

also the abrams ahs also taken shots to the bottom ie IEDS have hitt he tank and it has taken those hits and survived tell me how many tnks can do that. The rifled is acccurate butt he smoothbore is more powerul yet less accurate. The abrams ahs a much better fire control system and ISR interface. it can communicate with other tanks, strike fighter, attack helicopters(apache),artilley etc to deliver a full on festival of firepower.the abram doesnt have to fight strike jets can easily launch mavericks at the tank. (2 variants the preferred one uses kinectic energy to punch through and then uses a delayed fuse to detonate a very powerful explosive.

you stated that teh M1A1 has bounced DU - it cannot do

AND

the majority tank in the US Army will allways be the M1A1 - there will nbe something like 300 SEP`s and thats it.

What GW1 showed was that the russian tanks had numbers only - and that any tank battle in the fulder gap would have come down to using nukes instead as he nato tanks are better than the contempary russian ones (chally and abrams vs T72)

Originally posted by Harlequin
you stated that teh M1A1 has bounced DU - it cannot do

AND

the majority tank in the US Army will allways be the M1A1 - there will nbe something like 300 SEP`s and thats it.

What GW1 showed was that the russian tanks had numbers only - and that any tank battle in the fulder gap would have come down to using nukes instead as he nato tanks are better than the contempary russian ones (chally and abrams vs T72)

well u noe i meant m1A2 sometimes i type worng things like that. true only 300 SEPS but im comparing which tank has the better armro protection and pointing out that the challenger armor isnt invincible its penetrable with the right weapon especially the XM 943 which has more range than conventional munitions.

XM - experimental!!


and the M1A2 wasn`t around for GW1

yea but what if it was armed with it im not here to argue about wahts in production or not im just givng a scenario if the STAFF was in production and armed on the M1A2 and can i ahve sources stating it was cancelled thank you

yeah and what if it was armed with a 10cm railgun and in fact it is a hover tank with perimeter laser defences


since your not `talking about things in production`

Originally posted by Harlequin
yeah and what if it was armed with a 10cm railgun and in fact it is a hover tank with perimeter laser defences

since your not `talking about things in production`

no not like that i meant wweapon ssytems that were proposed for a platform (like a tank) but cancelled so the STAFF would fit.

Originally posted by Harlequin
...
btw - the german leopard 6 - which uses the same gun (it is german after all) achieves better armour penertration using tungstan rounds.

...

Then again the Leopard 2A6 doesnt have the same gun anymore, it has the L55 now which can both accelerate the projectile longer and withstand higher pressures compared to the previous L44/M256 system...