Upgrades to the already dominating MBT are a go!

why is this turning into a `my c**k is bigger than your c**k` contest?

both the Abrms and the challenger are GOOD tanks , both have advantages and disadvantes , and neither can say its the best in the world as being truely honest there are many that claim that.

what can be said is the challenger has slightly heavier armour and quite likely the leapard (and soon the abrams) has slightly better firepower

but unhder the `test` of combat they all do well - including the leapoard in afghan.



now as for the longest range tank kill? it didn`t use CHARM3 - it was a HESH lod , as at 5km`s the long rod would have bled off to much energy - one reason why the UK has allways leant towards HESH ratehr than DU

edit:

also as for anti-tank weapons; in iraq so far to date there hasn`t been any cofirmed use or find of the RPG-29 - alhthough it is reported one took out the challenger in the dront , and also taken out anumber of abrams.

what is extensive in use and does `hurt` is the RPG-7VR - tandem charge dual HEAT - which has knocked out abrams before with side on hits.

[edit on 18/8/09 by Harlequin]

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.

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]

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]

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

[insert did not work]

[edit on 18-8-2009 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 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.

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










[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a50c96b065cf.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31d064186db7.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SKUNK2

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 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 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.

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.

Originally posted by SKUNK2
Way to go with the insults.

In my honest opinion, simply from observation, you deserved everything thrown at you. No one has any business telling someone who lives and breaths armor how their tank performs. That's just asking for it. There is no need to lock the thread, it's one of the most informing on this forum.


Furthermore, all this talk about which tank is the best does not take into consideration a much more important aspect; real life scenarios. Just the U.S. Army will have three times as many M1A2SEPs in the next few years as the nearest next country has *state of the art* front line MBTs.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by WestPoint23]

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

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Furthermore, all this talk about which tank is the best does not take into consideration a much more important aspect; real life scenarios. Just the U.S. Army will have three times as many M1A2SEPs in the next few years as the nearest next country has *state of the art* front line MBTs.
[edit on 20-8-2009 by WestPoint23]

If you want to get into the amount of tanks then you should just consider all operational tanks, not just the newest models.

Here are some numbers according to Wikipedia for operational tanks or tanks in storage that can go immediately into active service. Abrams is the only American operational MBT, right?

US:
Army: Unknown M1 (most have been converted, yes?)
Army: 4,393 M1A1
Army: 1,174 M1A2
Marine: 403 M1A1

Russian:
-900 T-90
-4500 T-80
-5000 T-72
-4000 T-64
-3100 T-62

Chinese:
-600 Type 99
-2500-3000 Type 96
-2500-3000 Type 88
-not clear Type 69
-5500-6000 Type 59

Considering most of these MBTs are modernized (regardless of when they were commissioned), these nations all have an impressive MBT force alone.

some stuff:

There is no best tank in the world

always in actual combat tanks perform worse than in theory no exceptions.

M1's most likely m1a1's equipped with m892a2's faced old t72's with kontakt-5 at the bagdad airport. The shells didnt penetrate and the firefight lasted a while. No t72 managed to penetrate any m1.

There is a story of syrian T72's engaging M1's in lebanon in 82 and taking them out. How true this is i dont know but i think its more likely to be true than not considering the source.

In general russian tanks facing combat against western tanks were aged monkey models using almost antique ammunition.

Russian tanks weigh much less and are much smaller than their western counterparts save for the leclerc.

No rpg29's have been confirmed to have been found in iraq nor afganistan.

No challenger 2 vs abrams comparison in action is valid as there are always different situations and pure luck.

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]

reply to post by Tank2/8


I fear what this could lead to.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


If there are, I haven t read about it yet.