Upgrades to the already dominating MBT are a go!, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 11:30 AM by Tank2/8
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Originally posted by aorAki
It's quite sickening really, isn't it?

All the money being spent of machines of death.


haha, I completely disagree. Weapons are beautiful for death is the most ultimate force and weapons are the instruments to conduct this force.

I hate cars. I hate the people who drive their cars everyday to do worthless # in order to make their lives last as long as possible. Humans were not designed to live forever, they were designed to live, fight and die young. That's the problem with society today, there needs to be more bloodshed to cull the population of the weak and to instill discipline in all those who survive.

Humanity is weak because of those who disagree with war and because very few people have the balls to die with real glory. I feel bad when I see old veterans because when I join the fighting, there's no way I'm going to just retire and start living a civilian life again. I would rather shoot myself if the enemy does not do it for me.


LMAO! very motivating besides for the last sentence. Even when I retire I will never be a civilian again. It is also a mentality. If you fight, fight, fight and live. That is a good thing, it means you fought well. Dieing in battle to me is one of the best ways to go in my opinion, but if it does not happen, I will not fall on my sword at the end of the day.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Tank2/8]


reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 12:30 PM by SKUNK2
Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by SKUNK2


Only because the Challenger 1 was not under intense battles like the Abrams tank was, especially against the Republican Guards. But then the Abrams performed very well along with the crews during GW1. If someone wants to use the wiki as the source well then...



I'm sorry your wrong.
Both the CR1 and CR2 encountered heavy resistance in the Gulf war and Op Telic. In both wars the Challenger tanks out performed the Abrams.
Also i don't use Wiki, if you could read you would have seen i posted a Janes link.

reply to post by Tank2/8


Your ignorance is sickening.
American forces didn't even go to Basrah in the invasion they went to Al Amarah which is nearly 100miles away
Challenger2 is not "slightly" better protected than Abrams either. The fact that not one has never been KO'd or destroyed by enemy fire shows this. CR2 has even taken a hit from RPG29 and moved back to base under its own power. One CR2 has also been hit with 70 RPG7s, one even sustained a hit from a MILAN3 stolen from RM Commandos, 7 RPG7 and HMG fire which destroyed all the sights. Also only one CR2 has ever been penatrated by an IED.
In Europe it depends who you ask, who has the best tank. If you want to defend CR2 is the best, if you want to attack the French LecLerc would dominate with its superior speed and off-road performance. Leo2A6 is a jack of all trades striking a good balance of firepower, manouverability then armour armour.

reply to post by Harlequin


The CR1 that scored a kill at 5.2km used an APFSDS round not a HESH.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by SKUNK2]


reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 12:45 PM by Tank2/8
Originally posted by SKUNK2
Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by SKUNK2


Only because the Challenger 1 was not under intense battles like the Abrams tank was, especially against the Republican Guards. But then the Abrams performed very well along with the crews during GW1. If someone wants to use the wiki as the source well then...



I'm sorry your wrong.
Both the CR1 and CR2 encountered heavy resistance in the Gulf war and Op Telic. In both wars the Challenger tanks out performed the Abrams.
Also i don't use Wiki, if you could read you would have seen i posted a Janes link.

reply to post by Tank2/8


Your ignorance is sickening.
American forces didn't even go to Basrah in the invasion they went to Al Amarah which is nearly 100miles away
Challenger2 is not "slightly" better protected than Abrams either. The fact that not one has never been KO'd or destroyed by enemy fire shows this. CR2 has even taken a hit from RPG29 and moved back to base under its own power. One CR2 has also been hit with 70 RPG7s, one even sustained a hit from a MILAN3 stolen from RM Commandos, 7 RPG7 and HMG fire which destroyed all the sights. Also only one CR2 has ever been penatrated by an IED.
In Europe it depends who you ask, who has the best tank. If you want to defend CR2 is the best, if you want to attack the French LecLerc would dominate with its superior speed and off-road performance. Leo2A6 is a jack of all trades striking a good balance of firepower, manouverability then armour armour.

reply to post by Harlequin


The CR1 that scored a kill at 5.2km used an APFSDS round not a HESH.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by SKUNK2]


LMOA! yes I miss spoke a little bit about basra only in that is was the UK who physically got credit for taking basra. US forces WERE present on the ground and in hitting the city heavily with artillary and helicopter attacks before heading north west. That story about the C2 taking 70-100 RPG hits is total BS and is something I have heard know it alls like youself talk about for a while.
1. ALOT of RPGs used in 2003-04 FAILED. They either failed or the dumbasses using them did not pull the pin before firing.
2. There is no way a challenger would be sitting there, able to be fired upon that many times to begin with. Say that one particular Tank was surrounded buy 100 baath soldiers and out of that 100, 20 of them carried RPGs. where was the rest of that challengers platoon?? company??
You honestly believe that??? What rounds did impact and detonate more then likely hit the least volunerable spots. That was not the only BS story that came out of UK's soldiers mouths either. There where more then one instances where UK officiers hand to come and appologize to the media for its soldiers telling fibs to the reporters.

The Uk forces, Polish Ausi's.....they conducted themselfes horribly while in basra/diwaniyah. THEY WOULD NOT STAND UP TO THEY MAHDI ARMY!!! US forces where called down there on several occasions even when UK had plenty of forces to handle it, they could not get the job done!!! I was apart of the battle of Diwaniyah. The Mahdi were constantly kicking the dog snott out of the IA down there and in Basra. You know what the UK forces were doing??? COWERING! They fled to the airport and made backdoor deals with the mahdi so the mahdi would leave them alone!! forget about the polish. they where good at lifting weights, not much else.

# man, you know we rolled down there with half a tank and half a infantry company along with a few SF for intel and did more in a month then the bulk of the multinational forces did in a couple yrs?!! The UK military was making back door deals with the mahdi because they could not handle them!

You make me sick skunk. you know a good deal about tanks but then you go and blow it by trying to tell me what did and did not happen in iraq. Wiki, janes...I dont care, it is not 100% accurate. I am telling you things from personal experience and 1st hand accounts from soldiers I fought beside in later tours and we got battle field reports from our chain of command on the going ons of the rest of the battle field because we were some hard hitt'n mother#ers and would get tasked to go assist and bailout when needed. It was nothing to make a hundred+ mile road march to go assist in hot places.


And again with your irrelevant point that no c2s were ko'd. Put them out in the same numbers with the same engadgements and we will find weaknesses.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

Before I get jumped on by some British troops here for making that painfully truthfull statement, I understand that alot of your problem was gov. support and not a lack of ability.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Tank2/8]


reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 06:13 PM by SKUNK2
reply to post by Tank2/8

What you say is not true and you don't like the fact that i speak the truth. You have an inferiority complex and you lie about being in the military.


reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 06:40 PM by Tank2/8
Originally posted by SKUNK2
reply to post by Tank2/8

What you say is not true and you don't like the fact that i speak the truth. You have an inferiority complex and you lie about being in the military.


Inferiority complex??!! You have got to be high!
Take your inaccurate accounts of events you did not witness somewhere else






















reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 07:31 PM by Tank2/8
reply to post by SKUNK2


go ahead fool...tell me I just put up pics of somebody else or just any pics off the internet


reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 02:16 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by SKUNK2


the APFSDS load of the challenger in operation granby was the L23 - tungstun core with a max range of 3km`s - which is why CHARM was being rushed out so quickly for 1991, yet they couldn`t issue enough of them before the start of the invasion , as the UK wasn`t sure if the standard non DU load would actually kill a T72, yet they couldn`t issue enough of them before the start of the invasion .

it was a HESH load at that range.


reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 09:28 AM by SKUNK2
reply to post by Tank2/8


Way to go with the insults.

You should read your posts from ther beggining of this thread to see how stupid sound.

"The military channel always places the Abrams #1 in its top ten"

"the loader will have a round chambered in 3sec and the gunner or TC will have the shot downrange before the 4thsec turns"

"I did not say that a round is loaded every 3seconds."

"I said a good loader can have a round chambered in 3sec and a round down range in 4. That is not saying that a round is chambered every 3sec on the clock."

"Not only did that comment make your look like a douche bag, but the inaccurate rebuttle about how fast a crew can load and fire makes you look like a #'n idiot"

"the UK had to come up with a better MBT in the '90's because the Challenger1 was a flop"

"The Abrams has thus far proven its survivorbility in combat"

"Alot of piggy back training takes place in germany between the US and UK in very compedative field training and the US has come out ontop the majority of the time"

"Abrams crews took care of most of the fighting in basra anyhow and the UK brought up the rear to hold it"

"US forces WERE present on the ground and in hitting the city heavily with artillary and helicopter attacks before heading north west"

"That story about the C2 taking 70-100 RPG hits is total BS"

"there is no way a challenger would be sitting there, able to be fired upon that many times to begin with. Say that one particular Tank was surrounded buy 100 baath soldiers and out of that 100, 20 of them carried RPGs. where was the rest of that challengers platoon?? company??
You honestly believe that??? What rounds did impact and detonate more then likely hit the least volunerable spots. That was not the only BS story that came out of UK's soldiers mouths either. There where more then one instances where UK officiers hand to come and appologize to the media for its soldiers telling fibs to the reporters."

"The Uk forces, Polish Ausi's.....they conducted themselfes horribly while in basra/diwaniyah. THEY WOULD NOT STAND UP TO THEY MAHDI ARMY"

"US forces where called down there on several occasions even when UK had plenty of forces to handle it, they could not get the job done"

"I was apart of the battle of Diwaniyah"

"You know what the UK forces were doing??? COWERING! They fled to the airport and made backdoor deals with the mahdi so the mahdi would leave them alone!! forget about the polish. they where good at lifting weights, not much else."

"# man, you know we rolled down there with half a tank and half a infantry company along with a few SF for intel and did more in a month then the bulk of the multinational forces did in a couple yrs?!! The UK military was making back door deals with the mahdi because they could not handle them"

"You make me sick skunk. you know a good deal about tanks but then you go and blow it by trying to tell me what did and did not happen in iraq"

"Take your inaccurate accounts of events you did not witness somewhere else "

"go ahead fool...tell me I just put up pics of somebody else or just any pics off the internet"

Good day and have fun.
Plz lock the thread.


reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 09:37 AM by SKUNK2
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by SKUNK2


the APFSDS load of the challenger in operation granby was the L23 - tungstun core with a max range of 3km`s - which is why CHARM was being rushed out so quickly for 1991, yet they couldn`t issue enough of them before the start of the invasion , as the UK wasn`t sure if the standard non DU load would actually kill a T72, yet they couldn`t issue enough of them before the start of the invasion .

it was a HESH load at that range.


L15 was a Tungsten round but i don't know about the L23 except that it was apfsds.
The CHARM round was also available for Op Granby designated as L27. Challenger2 uses L27A2.


reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 11:45 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by SKUNK2


APFSDS L23 This is the main projectile used for the attack of armour and involves a monobloc tungsten nickel copper long rod penetrator carried in a light alloy sabot. The penetrator rod uses six aluminium fins. The projectile assembly is fired using an L8 CCC containing 6.65 kg of AX/S64-20 triple-base propellant in stick form. It can also be fired using a modified L14 CCC. Muzzle velocity is 1,534 m/s and the maximum effective range is given as 3,500 m.



L26 was CHARM 1 , L27 is CHARM 3



reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 05:32 PM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I don't mean to be so anti-Abrams or anything, but here is an informative article that I found earlier on Wikipedia that I chose not to post, but now I will to support the previous poster.

In the T-72 article:
"Many Western analysts think that T-72's 125 mm 2A46 main gun is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today. However, on the three occasions when users of T-72s have met Western armies that possessed modern main battle tanks —Lebanon in 1982 (against the Israeli Merkava), Iraq in 1991 (against the U.S. M1 Abrams and the British Challenger 1), and again Iraq in 2003— the T-72 showed little success. After clashes in Lebanon in 1982, both the Israelis and the Syrians claimed their main tank's superiority. In both the Gulf War and the Iraq War, the Iraqi tank units were heavily defeated, although this might have more to do with poor Iraqi crew training and full Allied air supremacy than with any deficiencies of the T-72 itself. Furthermore, while facing the most modern Western tanks, the versions the Iraqi army fielded were out of date at the time. The Iraqi T-72s were less-capable export versions that had not been significantly upgraded, and were firing inferior ammunition (often with steel penetrators and half-charges of propellant)."

I believe that in OIF, the only true T-72s were the ones with Kontakt-5 at the airport and I too heard that it was a tough battle for both tank groups there. I believe that they represent the capability of the T-72 vs M1A1 quite well (that being M1A1 is better than T-72).

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 11 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 4 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 12 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags
Taking the Crowd Out of Firing 155mm Artillery.
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags