No need. It's clearly the F-22. Although If you bring price into the equation things get interesting. The F-22 is about 3 times the price of the Typhoon (if you include all costs). 3 Eurofighters are much better than 1 F-22. The Rafale looks a bit gay and the J-xx (if that's what it's called) probably won't be all that (except maybe in BF3?).Kmarion wrote:
I feel a best fighter jet thread coming on.
lol j10.Kmarion wrote:
I feel a best fighter jet thread coming on.
No Challengers were lost in the first Gulf war. Only 1 Challenger tank of any sort has been lost in combat ever and that was because it got shot by another Challenger.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
That's false. They lost around 4 or so in the First Gulf War.Poseidon wrote:
Abrams. It's never lost in tank on tank combat (though I'm not sure if it's ever been in it ).
Also has longest range tank to tank kill ever.
You can make tea in it too.
Battle tested = nilBertster7 wrote:
No Challengers were lost in the first Gulf war. Only 1 Challenger tank of any sort has been lost in combat ever and that was because it got shot by another Challenger.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
That's false. They lost around 4 or so in the First Gulf War.Poseidon wrote:
Abrams. It's never lost in tank on tank combat (though I'm not sure if it's ever been in it ).
Also has longest range tank to tank kill ever.
You can make tea in it too.
Abrams still wins
that's why the merkava shouldn't be overlooked, it's one of the few MBT's to be designed to focus on crew survivabilityFenris_GreyClaw wrote:
its both.HW--CHOPPER wrote:
but i think its not the tank its the person in the tank
It was 18 Abrams that were lost in desert storm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams# … sert_Storm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams# … sert_Storm
lol battle tested = nil how?? Surely the better tank is the one that doesn't get their side killed. The aim of battle isnt to kill the enemy, its to not let them kill you.stryyker wrote:
Battle tested = nilBertster7 wrote:
No Challengers were lost in the first Gulf war. Only 1 Challenger tank of any sort has been lost in combat ever and that was because it got shot by another Challenger.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
That's false. They lost around 4 or so in the First Gulf War.
Also has longest range tank to tank kill ever.
You can make tea in it too.
Abrams still wins
What do you mean Battle tested = nil?stryyker wrote:
Battle tested = nilBertster7 wrote:
No Challengers were lost in the first Gulf war. Only 1 Challenger tank of any sort has been lost in combat ever and that was because it got shot by another Challenger.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
That's false. They lost around 4 or so in the First Gulf War.
Also has longest range tank to tank kill ever.
You can make tea in it too.
Abrams still wins
It has been battle tested, as I've pointed out. It has better battle stats than the Abrams.
300-0 first Gulf war. ?-1 (friendly fire) in Iraq. There have been loads of deployments of Challengers. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo etc.
Perhaps not quite as many have been deployed as Abrams, but the ratios are better.
The Merkava is not as good as people think. Many Merkavas were taken out with rubbish outdated anti-tank weaponry used by Hezbollah. The sort of weaponry that a disabled Challenger 2 stood up to sustained attack from while it couldn't move. Now that's a tough tank.
best tank, Arjun Main battle tank, primary tank of India(Home country ) Its name after a God
challenger 2 is no 1!!!
just admit your sorry asses its true
just admit your sorry asses its true
battle tested = nil
and the tandem warheads hezbollah used were far from outdated rubbish
and the tandem warheads hezbollah used were far from outdated rubbish
M1A2... Only the US's allies tanks could stand up to it, but even then, it would most likely come out on top.
Lets get real here for a second.Miller wrote:
M1A2... Only the US's allies tanks could stand up to it, but even then, it would most likely come out on top.
The M1 Abrams can be taken out with an RPG.
The Challenger 2 can take a hit from nearly anything, proof being that only 1 has ever been taken out.
Challenger wins. You American guys need to accept you dont have the best stuff.
Notice you said the M1 Abrams was taken out by an RPG, not the M1A2. Sorry, M1A2 is better than the M1.Vilham wrote:
Lets get real here for a second.Miller wrote:
M1A2... Only the US's allies tanks could stand up to it, but even then, it would most likely come out on top.
The M1 Abrams can be taken out with an RPG.
The Challenger 2 can take a hit from nearly anything, proof being that only 1 has ever been taken out.
Challenger wins. You American guys need to accept you dont have the best stuff.
They weren't all taken out by those. I remember reading an article written by an IDF soldier about how a couple of his friends were killed in a Hezbollah attack.kr@cker wrote:
battle tested = nil
and the tandem warheads hezbollah used were far from outdated rubbish
One tank in their convoy was taken out by a hit from an RPG-7. The most used by Hezbollah for anti tank combat.
They also used a lot of AT-3 Saggers and RPG-29s, which are more advanced. They also used US made TOWs.
The disabled Challenger I mentioned took numerous hits from RPG weapons and 1 hit from a more advanced anti tank missile. The crew described the impacts as dull thuds.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-05 15:50:50)
those rpg hits were to the tracks of the abrams, if the challenger had ever seen combat on a scale comparable to the abrams it might take a few tread hits as well, and would have been just as easily stopped
Now you're talking nonsense. The disabled Challenger I mentioned took numerous RPG hits while disabled, the Anti tank crews could take as long as they wanted targeting the weak points on the tank, which was imobile.kr@cker wrote:
those rpg hits were to the tracks of the abrams, if the challenger had ever seen combat on a scale comparable to the abrams it might take a few tread hits as well, and would have been just as easily stopped
Automatic win by me...acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Notice you said the M1 Abrams was taken out by an RPG, not the M1A2. Sorry, M1A2 is better than the M1.Vilham wrote:
Lets get real here for a second.Miller wrote:
M1A2... Only the US's allies tanks could stand up to it, but even then, it would most likely come out on top.
The M1 Abrams can be taken out with an RPG.
The Challenger 2 can take a hit from nearly anything, proof being that only 1 has ever been taken out.
Challenger wins. You American guys need to accept you dont have the best stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1a2#Iraq_2003-
Either way it aint all that.
"There was only one loss due to a blue-on-blue incident (friendly fire) in which one Challenger 2 mistakenly shot another, destroying the second tank and killing two crew members.
In one encounter a Challenger 2 took hits from multiple Rocket propelled grenades and one MILAN anti-tank missile and was under heavy fire for a few hours from small arms fire. The crew survived and the tank was able to pull back for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system."
In one encounter a Challenger 2 took hits from multiple Rocket propelled grenades and one MILAN anti-tank missile and was under heavy fire for a few hours from small arms fire. The crew survived and the tank was able to pull back for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system."
That's what I've been talking about.Vilham wrote:
"There was only one loss due to a blue-on-blue incident (friendly fire) in which one Challenger 2 mistakenly shot another, destroying the second tank and killing two crew members.
In one encounter a Challenger 2 took hits from multiple Rocket propelled grenades and one MILAN anti-tank missile and was under heavy fire for a few hours from small arms fire. The crew survived and the tank was able to pull back for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system."
Didn't know what type of anti-tank missile it was though, thanks for that. Where'd you find that? Wiki?
I got it off a documentary I saw. The really funny thing was the way the crew described the RPG hits and the anti-tank missile hit. Did make me laugh, I think you can find the documentary on youtube, someone posted a link to it in a different thread.
I just remembered... on the Military Channel, experts did a Top 10 Tanks countdown. I can't remember all of them, but some of the ones that made the list are:
Centerion, Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, Tiger, M1A2, and I don't remember the other 4. But, The Challenger 2, nor the Leopard were on the list.
Centerion, Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, Tiger, M1A2, and I don't remember the other 4. But, The Challenger 2, nor the Leopard were on the list.
Really ? It's a pity you don't know russian and I have no time to translate a whole book about soviet heavy tanks during WWII .acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
There hasn't been a recorded instance of a King Tiger being taken down from a shot to it's frontal armor.
Then I'm probably wrong. Wouldn't suprise me if I am.Longbow wrote:
Really ? It's a pity you don't know russian and I have no time to translate a whole book about soviet heavy tanks during WWII .acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
There hasn't been a recorded instance of a King Tiger being taken down from a shot to it's frontal armor.
I wouldn't pay any attention to those.acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
I just remembered... on the Military Channel, experts did a Top 10 Tanks countdown. I can't remember all of them, but some of the ones that made the list are:
Centerion, Sherman, Panzer IV, T-34, Tiger, M1A2, and I don't remember the other 4. But, The Challenger 2, nor the Leopard were on the list.
My friend is making a documentary on the best tank in the world right now. They're making it about the M1A2. Despite the fact that the majority of the production and research team (which he is a part of) don't thinkit is the best tank in the world.
Why?
Because they have found it easier to obtain data about the M1A2 so it makes producing the documentary easier if they focus on that.
All information on the Challenger 2s armour, codenamed Dorchester, is highly classified and that's the most interesting thing about it.
The M1A2 has one advantage over the Challenger 2. The main gun can fire more diverse and modern anti-tank rounds. The Challenger lethality improvement program aims to re-equip Challenger 2s with the L55 gun, which is more advanced than the L44 used on the M1A2. The Challengers gun does not work with many ammunition types because it is rifled for higher accuracy, this is good and bad.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-05 16:30:01)
On the subject of WWII tanks, I've got two cool sites about a lot of tanks that were used by the Allies and the Axis.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/
http://gva.freeweb.hu/index.html
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/
http://gva.freeweb.hu/index.html