now watch this video and reconsider what you just saidkr@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
Last edited by ELITE-UK (2006-12-05 16:43:08)
Yes but that list clearly isnt based on NOW. A sherman would be fucked against any modern day tank, it was fucked against any WWII german tank and only ever won through numbers.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.
Not against any German tank. Some of the Shermans were actually pretty good.Vilham wrote:
Yes but that list clearly isnt based on NOW. A sherman would be fucked against any modern day tank, it was fucked against any WWII german tank and only ever won through numbers.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.
as i understood it, the tank backed into a hole for shelter and awaited backup, returning fire when possible, to protect the engine compartment and treadsBertster7 wrote:
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
and you know that it was the same weapons used against each tank and the abrams had the current armor fitment how?ELITE-UK wrote:
now watch this video and reconsider what you just saidkr@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
now only 1!!! rgp can take out a abrams, the challenger 2 is so strong, its the best!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MnKe_E … mp;search=
Did you watch the video? Based on this statement above, a. you didnt watch it. b. you don't understand spoken English very well.kr@cker wrote:
as i understood it, the tank backed into a hole for shelter and awaited backup, returning fire when possible, to protect the engine compartment and treadsBertster7 wrote:
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
i saw a documentory on the american drive towards baghdad, and it showed you a 2 mile column on m1a2 abrams tanks and resupply trucks, they where on the highway towards baghday when they were passing under a bridge, insurgents poped up on the bridge ad fired a shit load of rpgs at the tanks, all missed apart from 1, which hit directly on the tank causing it to stop and set on fire.kr@cker wrote:
i suggest you start paying attention to what can NOT be determined by the video, like maybe whether or not that challenger was hit by the exact same types of ammo the destroyed abrams were
Actually its a total of 50 loses in combat for the M1 of all types. 6 or 7 loses of the M1A2ELITE-UK wrote:
i saw a documentory on the american drive towards baghdad, and it showed you a 2 mile column on m1a2 abrams tanks and resupply trucks, they where on the highway towards baghday when they were passing under a bridge, insurgents poped up on the bridge ad fired a shit load of rpgs at the tanks, all missed apart from 1, which hit directly on the tank causing it to stop and set on fire.kr@cker wrote:
i suggest you start paying attention to what can NOT be determined by the video, like maybe whether or not that challenger was hit by the exact same types of ammo the destroyed abrams were
now in the documentory about the challenger 2, it can take direct hits from a anti tank missile! without damaging it, so think about it dude for once you have to accept we brits have a better sodding tank that you guys.
the british army has 0 tank losses in combat, only 1 loss due to friendly fire from another challenger 2.
the usa army has i think 18 in combat..mmmmmm which is better..mmmmmm!!!!! think boy! think!
how many hundreds more abrams were deployed?ELITE-UK wrote:
i saw a documentory on the american drive towards baghdad, and it showed you a 2 mile column on m1a2 abrams tanks and resupply trucks, they where on the highway towards baghday when they were passing under a bridge, insurgents poped up on the bridge ad fired a shit load of rpgs at the tanks, all missed apart from 1, which hit directly on the tank causing it to stop and set on fire.kr@cker wrote:
i suggest you start paying attention to what can NOT be determined by the video, like maybe whether or not that challenger was hit by the exact same types of ammo the destroyed abrams were
now in the documentory about the challenger 2, it can take direct hits from a anti tank missile! without damaging it, so think about it dude for once you have to accept we brits have a better sodding tank that you guys.
the british army has 0 tank losses in combat, only 1 loss due to friendly fire from another challenger 2.
the usa army has i think 18 in combat..mmmmmm which is better..mmmmmm!!!!! think boy! think!
THE HELL U ON ABOUT, THE FACT IS THE ABRAMS ARMOUR IS WEAK!! CHALLENGER 2 PWNS ABRAMS!!!!kr@cker wrote:
how many hundreds more abrams were deployed?ELITE-UK wrote:
i saw a documentory on the american drive towards baghdad, and it showed you a 2 mile column on m1a2 abrams tanks and resupply trucks, they where on the highway towards baghday when they were passing under a bridge, insurgents poped up on the bridge ad fired a shit load of rpgs at the tanks, all missed apart from 1, which hit directly on the tank causing it to stop and set on fire.kr@cker wrote:
i suggest you start paying attention to what can NOT be determined by the video, like maybe whether or not that challenger was hit by the exact same types of ammo the destroyed abrams were
now in the documentory about the challenger 2, it can take direct hits from a anti tank missile! without damaging it, so think about it dude for once you have to accept we brits have a better sodding tank that you guys.
the british army has 0 tank losses in combat, only 1 loss due to friendly fire from another challenger 2.
the usa army has i think 18 in combat..mmmmmm which is better..mmmmmm!!!!! think boy! think!
how many hundreds more abrams have been engaged?
vilham's own link showed the abrams drive to baghdad alone to be what, 8 times longer than the push to basrah
how many more armor vs armor engagements has the abrams been in?
do you know the exact same types of rounds were used against each tank?
the only mbt's with any kind of battle history are the abrams, the merkava, and of course those communist pieces of crap that don't even merit discussion, and even the merk is severely lacking in the amor/v/armor history (it can be misleading as the IDF tends to name EVERYTHING that moves "merkava")
lol hes argueing about nothing... challenger 2 has been in countless peace forces, the M1A2 hasnt. blah blah blah, combat experience, blah blah blah.ELITE-UK wrote:
THE HELL U ON ABOUT, THE FACT IS THE ABRAMS ARMOUR IS WEAK!! CHALLENGER 2 PWNS ABRAMS!!!!kr@cker wrote:
how many hundreds more abrams were deployed?ELITE-UK wrote:
i saw a documentory on the american drive towards baghdad, and it showed you a 2 mile column on m1a2 abrams tanks and resupply trucks, they where on the highway towards baghday when they were passing under a bridge, insurgents poped up on the bridge ad fired a shit load of rpgs at the tanks, all missed apart from 1, which hit directly on the tank causing it to stop and set on fire.
now in the documentory about the challenger 2, it can take direct hits from a anti tank missile! without damaging it, so think about it dude for once you have to accept we brits have a better sodding tank that you guys.
the british army has 0 tank losses in combat, only 1 loss due to friendly fire from another challenger 2.
the usa army has i think 18 in combat..mmmmmm which is better..mmmmmm!!!!! think boy! think!
how many hundreds more abrams have been engaged?
vilham's own link showed the abrams drive to baghdad alone to be what, 8 times longer than the push to basrah
how many more armor vs armor engagements has the abrams been in?
do you know the exact same types of rounds were used against each tank?
the only mbt's with any kind of battle history are the abrams, the merkava, and of course those communist pieces of crap that don't even merit discussion, and even the merk is severely lacking in the amor/v/armor history (it can be misleading as the IDF tends to name EVERYTHING that moves "merkava")
shadowcell_01 wrote:
The M1 Abrams is statistically worse than the shallenger. It is bigger (easy target) but it is faster, it lacks range which the challenger has. I'm not just gonna pick the Abrams just because I'm american. I will admit that the Challenger 2 is better than the Abrams.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Listen you knobs, tanks are only as good as the crews and the commanders. Who had the better tanks in WWII? Allies? No, the Germans right? Yet, with good tactics and shear numbers, they were defeated.
Please look above your post. KthxBernadictus wrote:
Challenger 2
You missed out one point, the Leopard is fastest over flat, nicly smoothed out tarmac and the like, the challanger 2 is the fastest over rough terrain.Speed84 wrote:
Armour aside (since few of you have the clerance to know the true quality of one, and none of you know the true quality of all!). The Leopard 2, M1A2, Challanger 2. Differs little (with ww2 eyes).
Firepower: All have a 120mm main gun.
Speed: Ch2 56 km/h - M1A2 67 kmh - Leo2 72 km/h
Range: Ch2 450 km - M1A2 426 km - Leo2 550 km
Weight: Ch2 62t - M1A2 63t - Leo2 55t
Armour: Ch2 Compsite w/cheramic tiles - Composire w/DU rods/tiles - Leo2 Composite
The strength is unknown (duh!) however, since the leo2 is faster and lighter. With same amount of HP (~1500) it can be assumed that it have a trade-off in protection. But since i dont know the weight of the powerplants used, the composite used or weight effectiveness. Its only an estimate.
But i do firmly belive that the Ch2 is somewhat more effective protected against HEAT attacks armour.
Witch one is better? Can't say, but i like the leo2 design better.