Challanger2 don't get me wrong the M1a2 is a great tank but the challanger2 is alot better then against does it realy matter we're both allies right ?
sigh
Erm were talking about the best tank not the best tank crew. Do try to keep to the point.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Oh myTheEternalPessimist wrote:
Erm were talking about the best tank not the best tank crew. Do try to keep to the point.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Sorry to say your tank crews arent the best, how can you even make such a rediculus claim? The Challenger is a better tank.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Btw Shadow, the Challenger 2 is the fastest off road tank in the world.
Jet power baby. Uses extreme amounts of fuel, but goes really fast.usmarine2007 wrote:
M1
What the fuck are you reading?Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say your tank crews arent the best, how can you even make such a rediculus claim? The Challenger is a better tank.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Btw Shadow, the Challenger 2 is the fastest off road tank in the world.
He said allies won the war not Americans dumbass. He is saying that even with a good tank, a crap commander can make the tank look like failure.Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say your tank crews arent the best, how can you even make such a rediculus claim? The Challenger is a better tank.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Btw Shadow, the Challenger 2 is the fastest off road tank in the world.
Sorry to say, but.... You Fail.usmarine2007 wrote:
Please look above your post. KthxBernadictus wrote:
Challenger 2
You proved no figures to show anything and yet all the facts show the Challenger 2 is a better tank and most likely the best tank in the world. Please just accept you don't have the tank.
As to the crew part. Take two identical crews with the same skill and experience and everything, Challenger 2 will win.
I'm not saying either the challenger or leopard are worse than the abrams (tbh they're probably all 3 basically a tie), it's just that the abrams has seen the most combat and continues to come out on top, unfortunately, by the time the leopard and challenger 2 see an equivalent level of action (hopefully they won't need to) the m1a2 will be replaced, maybe even the challenger as i seem to remember it's "platform" is about as old_lecro_ wrote:
Challanger2 don't get me wrong the M1a2 is a great tank but the challanger2 is alot better then against does it realy matter we're both allies right ?
they're all kinda give and take, like when the whole smooth/rifled bore comes up, rifled allows for longer effective range, but smooth allows for more different types of ammunition
edit: you subliminally implanted "don't get me wrong" in my head, didn't mean to use the same phrase and sound snarky
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-06 06:41:18)
T-34.
There is no competition if we are talking about according to it's time.
If we are talking modern day it's the Leppy 2A6
There is no competition if we are talking about according to it's time.
If we are talking modern day it's the Leppy 2A6
It uses the same engines as the F-16 Falcon, ever seen a vehicle driving behind the M1? No, because it would have to be pretty heat resistant to do that.the_outsider38 wrote:
Jet power baby. Uses extreme amounts of fuel, but goes really fast.usmarine2007 wrote:
M1
Last edited by PBAsydney (2006-12-06 06:36:31)
There are never two identical crews and commanders, and I do not like to play the theory game.Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say, but.... You Fail.usmarine2007 wrote:
Please look above your post. KthxBernadictus wrote:
Challenger 2
You proved no figures to show anything and yet all the facts show the Challenger 2 is a better tank and most likely the best tank in the world. Please just accept you don't have the tank.
As to the crew part. Take two identical crews with the same skill and experience and everything, Challenger 2 will win.
Which tank has better fire control systems? Seems to me the Abrams was supposed to be able to hit their target before you even knew the tank was there.
And enough about the fricking crew.
And enough about the fricking crew.
Last edited by the_outsider38 (2006-12-06 06:36:50)
I dunno...The guy who hosts it has a British accent...Seems shifty.fatherted13 wrote:
Challenger 2. By miles and miles. watch the top gear feature on it
He is actually making a claim that makes an attempt to point towards his view that America tanks are better by stating that even if the Challenger 2 is better the crew won't be. Also they werent defeated by better commanders, the German tank divisions were the best in the world bar soviet tanks, they got beaten by NUMBERS not skill.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
He said allies won the war not Americans dumbass. He is saying that even with a good tank, a crap commander can make the tank look like failure.Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say your tank crews arent the best, how can you even make such a rediculus claim? The Challenger is a better tank.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Btw Shadow, the Challenger 2 is the fastest off road tank in the world.
That it? k.usmarine2007 wrote:
Oh myTheEternalPessimist wrote:
Erm were talking about the best tank not the best tank crew. Do try to keep to the point.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
This is why abrams is better IMO, allowing more types of ammunition.kr@cker wrote:
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying either the challenger or leopard are worse than the abrams (tbh they're probably all 3 basically a tie), it's just that the abrams has seen the most combat and continues to come out on top, unfortunately, by the time the leopard and challenger 2 see an equivalent level of action (hopefully they won't need to) the m1a2 will be replaced, maybe even the challenger as i seem to remember it's "platform" is about as old_lecro_ wrote:
Challanger2 don't get me wrong the M1a2 is a great tank but the challanger2 is alot better then against does it realy matter we're both allies right ?
they're all kinda give and take, like when the whole smooth/rifled bore comes up, rifled allows for longer effective range, but smooth allows for more different types of ammunition
What ridiculous claim? Did you even read his post?Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say your tank crews arent the best, how can you even make such a rediculus claim?usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
..............,-~*'`¯lllllll`*~,._
..........,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
.....,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
..,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\
;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
.\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
..\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,
..\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)
...\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/.
....|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\
..../.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\..
...|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,..
...|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,....
..././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,
...(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\.........
.....*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
.........*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
............`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\.......
............,~)...........)|............*,`*~--*........|......`-,.........\.....
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-06 06:42:58)
I actually do not care who has the better tank. I am not stearing anything.Vilham wrote:
He is actually making a claim that makes an attempt to point towards his view that America tanks are better by stating that even if the Challenger 2 is better the crew won't be. Also they werent defeated by better commanders, the German tank divisions were the best in the world bar soviet tanks, they got beaten by NUMBERS not skill.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
He said allies won the war not Americans dumbass. He is saying that even with a good tank, a crap commander can make the tank look like failure.Vilham wrote:
Sorry to say your tank crews arent the best, how can you even make such a rediculus claim? The Challenger is a better tank.
Btw Shadow, the Challenger 2 is the fastest off road tank in the world.
wow that's an effective rebuttalELITE-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")
hey did you know the challenger makes tea? i guess it wins
You dont even know who Jeremy Clarkson is! What hes a legend.PspRpg-7 wrote:
I dunno...The guy who hosts it has a British accent...Seems shifty.fatherted13 wrote:
Challenger 2. By miles and miles. watch the top gear feature on it
Pollux its called an incinuation...Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What rediculous claim? Did you even read his post?
Its not that bad, but its not that great either. Its not like it just dumps the exaust straight out there.PBAsydney wrote:
It uses the same engines as the F-16 Falcon, ever seen a vehicle driving behind the M1? No, because it would have to be pretty heat resistant to do that.the_outsider38 wrote:
Jet power baby. Uses extreme amounts of fuel, but goes really fast.usmarine2007 wrote:
M1
Top Gear has to be the best car show EVER, no competition in any wayVilham wrote:
You dont even know who Jeremy Clarkson is! What hes a legend.PspRpg-7 wrote:
I dunno...The guy who hosts it has a British accent...Seems shifty.fatherted13 wrote:
Challenger 2. By miles and miles. watch the top gear feature on it
ROFLkr@cker wrote:
wow that's an effective rebuttalELITE-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?
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")
hey did you know the challenger makes tea? i guess it wins