Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/29/2005 4:59:35 PM EDT
Asking the experts of ARF.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:04:34 PM EDT
IBT Poll.

Which Abrams and which Challenger?
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:05:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
IBT Poll.

Which Abrams and which Challenger?

Good point.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:05:55 PM EDT
According to the Military History Channel the Soviet T-34 was the best tank. As far as Modern day, with the Anti-Tank weapons that's available to infantry NO tank is all that great anymore.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:06:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
IBT Poll.

Which Abrams and which Challenger?



The newest vs the newest I guess. Give me some hints.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:07:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
As far as Modern day, with the Anti-Tank weapons that's available to infantry NO tank is all that great anymore.

Right, but with modern armor, isn't the likelyhood of a top-of-the-line MBT vs. MBT frontal kill extremely remote?
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:07:28 PM EDT
What's the one the Israelis use? Those are some top-notch tanks. The crews can easily get out from bottom and back hatches, good manuverability, ARFCOM worthy firepower, armor that is made of stuff in par with US/UK and uses the materials to it best ability (again, like us).

Don't forget the Germans! Since they can only have a few, they might as well have AWESOME ones aswell.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:09:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
As far as Modern day, with the Anti-Tank weapons that's available to infantry NO tank is all that great anymore.

Right, but with modern armor, isn't the likelyhood of a top-of-the-line MBT vs. MBT frontal kill extremely remote?


True, with the Chobbam Armor that the Main Battle Tanks are using today a Tank on Tank batter with state of the art tanks is kind of a moot point. None of em' can cut thru that stuff. Now on the older T-72/T-82's either will take em' out in a heart beat.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:09:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 5:12:52 PM EDT by DzlBenz]
Keep it simple. M1A2 vs. Challenger II.

M1A2

Challenger II
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:10:56 PM EDT
Paging Manic Moran...
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:11:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Keep it simple. M1A2 vs. Challenger IIE.



I'd tend to go with the Challenger IIE because of it's engine. A standard engine just seems more reliable, especially in a dusty enviroment then a turbin engine.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:12:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 5:14:03 PM EDT by samsong]

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
What's the one the Israelis use? Those are some top-notch tanks. The crews can easily get out from bottom and back hatches, good manuverability, ARFCOM worthy firepower, armor that is made of stuff in par with US/UK and uses the materials to it best ability (again, like us).

Don't forget the Germans! Since they can only have a few, they might as well have AWESOME ones aswell.



Merkava, Leopard II. Both excellent. Wouldn't want to face either in any battle situation.

ETA: You could place everything I know about tanks in a thimble and have room for an elephant. My opinions come straight from the internet and the bottom of my glass of Famous Grouse.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:12:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
What's the one the Israelis use?



Merkava
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:14:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
What's the one the Israelis use?



Merkava

Let the winner of the M1A2/ChallengerII battle take on (and lose to) the Merkava IV.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:18:38 PM EDT
I would have to say that the M1A2 would be damn hard to beat. But The Challenger 2 should be pretty much on par. They are very similar. I dunno where the Merkava IV would fit into things, but I doubt it's superior to either Challenger 2 or M1A2. However, I am mostly into fighter jets, so I know little about tanks. Therefore I wouldn't bet any money on either being superior.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:20:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 5:38:31 PM EDT by CAM_PIN]
I'd say that the Abrams (both M1A1 and M1A2) is better than the Challenger II, having had first hand experience with both. I was an armor crewman on both the A1 and A2 during my 7 year enlistment. When I was stationed with 1/68 Armor in Ft. Carson, we did an exchange program with the British 1st RTR in Germany. We swapped a company of soldiers. They got to train on our equipment, and us on theirs. It was more of a goodwill thing, than it was for serious training, but we recieved some pretty good training on their equipment. Lets just say that I wasn't very impressed with the Challenger, without giving away any sensitive operational details.

ETA: Don't get me wrong, the Challenger is still a fine tank, but not as good as our stuff in my opinion.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:21:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 5:21:48 PM EDT by VTwin60]
The challenger 2 for its protection but its gun sucks (rifled bore 120).

The M1a2 for its gun and firing system.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:26:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
What's the one the Israelis use?



Merkava

Let the winner of the M1A2/ChallengerII battle take on (and lose to) the Merkava IV.




M1A2>Challenger
M1A2>Merkava

I don't think the Merkava has been in actual tank-on-tank combat yet. Both the Challenger and Abrams have been in combat before, and both are good systems. That said, I beleive the Merkava is a fair bit smaller than either the Abrams or Challenger and I'd suspect that it would be smoked by either too.

ben
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:27:46 PM EDT
IIRC Challenger is slightly better protected, but slightly slower. Challenger's gun has a longer range, but doesn't have the velocity, the whole rifled vs smoothbore thing. Optics are probably a wash. I guess it depends on what you want to do.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:28:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TNFrank:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
As far as Modern day, with the Anti-Tank weapons that's available to infantry NO tank is all that great anymore.

Right, but with modern armor, isn't the likelyhood of a top-of-the-line MBT vs. MBT frontal kill extremely remote?


True, with the Chobbam Armor that the Main Battle Tanks are using today a Tank on Tank batter with state of the art tanks is kind of a moot point. None of em' can cut thru that stuff. Now on the older T-72/T-82's either will take em' out in a heart beat.



In the invasion stage of the war in Iraq, an M1 was stuck in the mud while 5 Iraqi T-72s ambushed it. The M1 destroyed four and crippled the other. It defended itself until an engineering vehicle could come and free it from the mud.

Ben
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:30:03 PM EDT
The best on paper:
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:36:37 PM EDT
Since they both came out of the "euro-tank" project. They are equal.

The M1, Challenger and Leopard 2 were spun off the MTB-70 project after the three parties could not agree on the final design.

Here is the MTB-70, the mother to the M1, Challenger and Leopard
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:37:19 PM EDT
The C2 has better side protection than the M1A2. M1s has been knocked out by RPG hits to the sides while the C2 has heavy composite armor side skirts. I cant remember the details but there was a C2 that took many RPG hits in one attack (more than 10 IIRC) and survived
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:44:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
The C2 has better side protection than the M1A2. M1s has been knocked out by RPG hits to the sides while the C2 has heavy composite armor side skirts. I cant remember the details but there was a C2 that took many RPG hits in one attack (more than 10 IIRC) and survived


That's because the British Army has an urban fighting kit developed from a vast experience in N. Ireland. The US Army has only recently developed one.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:47:40 PM EDT
Keep it coming guys. Very intersesting.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:49:09 PM EDT
Ask yourself which one is the most proven....
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:01:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 6:23:01 PM EDT by natedogg42]

Originally Posted By TNFrank:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
As far as Modern day, with the Anti-Tank weapons that's available to infantry NO tank is all that great anymore.

Right, but with modern armor, isn't the likelyhood of a top-of-the-line MBT vs. MBT frontal kill extremely remote?


True, with the Chobbam Armor that the Main Battle Tanks are using today a Tank on Tank batter with state of the art tanks is kind of a moot point. None of em' can cut thru that stuff. Now on the older T-72/T-82's either will take em' out in a heart beat.



Actually, 1 Challenger 2 completely destroyed a friendly Challenger 2 during the recent invasion of Iraq near Basra. Shot straight through the frontal armor.
LINKY


ETA: The answer is the M1A2SEP btw, and IBAPTC (In Before ANdy Praises The Challenger)
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:08:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ask yourself which one is the most proven....



The answer is so obvious that it smacks you in the chops!

Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:28:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ask yourself which one is the most proven....


I hate to get Clintonish on you, but what do you mean by "most."
The M1, M1PIP, and M1A1 along with the Challenger 1 saw action in Desert Storm.
The M1A1, M1A2 and Challenger 2 saw action in OIF.
Both conflicts saw the M1 series used in greater numbers, but the number of "wars" under their belt are equal.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:36:21 PM EDT
M1A3 with TUSK would give anybody a run for their money.

I think we were all watching the same History Channel show (2100 Eastern this evening), anyone else think it odd the British train the loader to be second in command? IIRC, the loader in an Abrams is the least-trained crew member, with the gunner being second in command.

Kharn
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:54:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
M1A3 with TUSK would give anybody a run for their money.

I think we were all watching the same History Channel show (2100 Eastern this evening), anyone else think it odd the British train the loader to be second in command? IIRC, the loader in an Abrams is the least-trained crew member, with the gunner being second in command.

Kharn



M1A3?
I've heard of M1A2 SEP, and I know of the TUSK upgrades, but M1A3? Not familiar with that designation.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 10:55:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fadedsun:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
What's the one the Israelis use?



Merkava

Let the winner of the M1A2/ChallengerII battle take on (and lose to) the Merkava IV.




M1A2>Challenger
M1A2>Merkava

I don't think the Merkava has been in actual tank-on-tank combat yet. Both the Challenger and Abrams have been in combat before, and both are good systems. That said, I beleive the Merkava is a fair bit smaller than either the Abrams or Challenger and I'd suspect that it would be smoked by either too.

ben



Funny how Ben and I end up going to the same stuff a lot more often recently...but I think someone has failed to do their homework on the Merkava...it would eat the Abrams (and every other tank) alive. It was designed to have the best crew survivability of any MBT, while still maintaining its teeth. It certainly has meet its designers standards and more.

-Ben (not the one from before )
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:09:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:10:38 PM EDT by Mr45auto]
I'll take this one



Hopefully we'll never have a need to find out which tank can beat the other.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:13:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:16:22 PM EDT by Combatvet]
M1 Abrams has a .50 cal, I think the Challenger has a 7.62. The Brits can make tea in their tank, we can't!
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:20:42 PM EDT
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:24:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
As far as Modern day, with the Anti-Tank weapons that's available to infantry NO tank is all that great anymore.

Right, but with modern armor, isn't the likelyhood of a top-of-the-line MBT vs. MBT frontal kill extremely remote?


True, with the Chobbam Armor that the Main Battle Tanks are using today a Tank on Tank batter with state of the art tanks is kind of a moot point. None of em' can cut thru that stuff. Now on the older T-72/T-82's either will take em' out in a heart beat.



Actually, 1 Challenger 2 completely destroyed a friendly Challenger 2 during the recent invasion of Iraq near Basra. Shot straight through the frontal armor.
LINKY

ETA: The answer is the M1A2SEP btw, and IBAPTC (In Before ANdy Praises The Challenger)



No it was not shot through the frontal armor, the destroyed tank was parked behind a berm, two of the crew were standing on top of the hull, the other brit tank mistook the crew members for Iraqi troops standing on the berm, the shot was a high explosive round that went over the berm and into the turret through a open hatch, blowing the turret off, killing the crew who members were inside the tank.

The link you posted was an early account, it took weeks for the details to come out.

No tank could protect its crew in such an incident.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:26:19 PM EDT
buy both
lol
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:31:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.



The merkava has not only (supposedly) better armor up front, but in addition it has the engine placed in front of the crew to help allow better survivability. The cross country speed of the Merkava is about 55 kilometers per hour on average, while the Abrams is about 49kph. The Abrams has the main gun, a .50, and two 7.62s, while the Merkava has the main gun, a .50, 3 7.62s, and a 60mm mortar (fired without exposing the crew of course). And yes, the Merkava has all the same digital goodies and capabilities of the M1A2, including being able to shoot on the move.

-Ben
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:32:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Ask yourself which one is the most proven....

Anyone still echoing / whining the 'M1 in Dust = disaster' line needs to re-read Lumpy's post, then consider their performance since '90/91 to Present.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:36:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:37:31 PM EDT by NH_AR_Shooter]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.



The Merk 4 has better overhead protection than any other tank, Frontal protection is at least as good as the others. Rear protection is better. It has a heavily armored rear crew hatch, the crew can enter or exit and refurbish supplies without climbing on top and exposing themselves to fire.

I like the coax mounted .50 cal, which is tied in to the main fire control system, they use it for sniping, they can take out a guy in the dark, in window from god only knows how far, given the power of the optics and a gun stabilized by about 65 tons of tank.

It is said to be quite fast, good on extremely bad terrain, it is built to suit its particular environment, not to be shipped off somewhere to fight in a different part of the world.

Yes, I spend too much time over at Tanknet.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:42:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RockHard13F:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.



The merkava has not only (supposedly) better armor up front, but in addition it has the engine placed in front of the crew to help allow better survivability. The cross country speed of the Merkava is about 55 kilometers per hour on average, while the Abrams is about 49kph. The Abrams has the main gun, a .50, and two 7.62s, while the Merkava has the main gun, a .50, 3 7.62s, and a 60mm mortar (fired without exposing the crew of course). And yes, the Merkava has all the same digital goodies and capabilities of the M1A2, including being able to shoot on the move.

-Ben



What it would gain in frontal protection by the having the engine up there would be lost in protection to the rear that the Abrams offers. You have no way of knowing where the enemy will attack from. With anti-tank weapons, they could just as easily attack from the rear as the front. So I see neither tank really having an advantage in that regard.

The Merkava might have an extra weapon or two, but how many of those can you fire at once anyway?

In all honesty, they look pretty even to me. But I certainly don't believe the Merkava would wipe the floor with the Abrams or the Challenger, though I'm sure it's a fine tank.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:42:52 PM EDT


Nuff said


game over


nothing more to see here


PWND!


You paid WHAT for that flaming pile of rubble??!!
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:46:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:48:43 PM EDT by NH_AR_Shooter]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By RockHard13F:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.



The merkava has not only (supposedly) better armor up front, but in addition it has the engine placed in front of the crew to help allow better survivability. The cross country speed of the Merkava is about 55 kilometers per hour on average, while the Abrams is about 49kph. The Abrams has the main gun, a .50, and two 7.62s, while the Merkava has the main gun, a .50, 3 7.62s, and a 60mm mortar (fired without exposing the crew of course). And yes, the Merkava has all the same digital goodies and capabilities of the M1A2, including being able to shoot on the move.

-Ben



What it would gain in frontal protection by the having the engine up there would be lost in protection to the rear that the Abrams offers. You have no way of knowing where the enemy will attack from. With anti-tank weapons, they could just as easily attack from the rear as the front. So I see neither tank really having an advantage in that regard.

The Merkava might have an extra weapon or two, but how many of those can you fire at once anyway?

In all honesty, they look pretty even to me. But I certainly don't believe the Merkava would wipe the floor with the Abrams or the Challenger, though I'm sure it's a fine tank.



The Abrams has praticaly no rear protection, stray 25mm rds from Bradleys disabled more then one Abrams early in the war. The M1 places frontal protection above all.

The Merk has more rear armor than any other tank.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:46:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By RockHard13F:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.



The merkava has not only (supposedly) better armor up front, but in addition it has the engine placed in front of the crew to help allow better survivability. The cross country speed of the Merkava is about 55 kilometers per hour on average, while the Abrams is about 49kph. The Abrams has the main gun, a .50, and two 7.62s, while the Merkava has the main gun, a .50, 3 7.62s, and a 60mm mortar (fired without exposing the crew of course). And yes, the Merkava has all the same digital goodies and capabilities of the M1A2, including being able to shoot on the move.

-Ben



What it would gain in frontal protection by the having the engine up there would be lost in protection to the rear that the Abrams offers. You have no way of knowing where the enemy will attack from. With anti-tank weapons, they could just as easily attack from the rear as the front. So I see neither tank really having an advantage in that regard.

The Merkava might have an extra weapon or two, but how many of those can you fire at once anyway?

In all honesty, they look pretty even to me. But I certainly don't believe the Merkava would wipe the floor with the Abrams or the Challenger, though I'm sure it's a fine tank.



Fair enough. Just passing on what I know. *end of hijack* I dunno much about the Challenger, sorry.

-Ben
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:48:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By RockHard13F:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What makes the Merkava so good?

It's armor? How is the armor it uses better than the Challenger or Abrams?

Weapons? I don't see much difference there.

Does the Merkava have all the digital goodies and capabilities of an M1A2?

Is it faster or more manuverable?

Again, I don't know a great deal about tanks, but I find the comment "the Merkava would eat the Abrams or any tank alive" just a little hard to believe.



The merkava has not only (supposedly) better armor up front, but in addition it has the engine placed in front of the crew to help allow better survivability. The cross country speed of the Merkava is about 55 kilometers per hour on average, while the Abrams is about 49kph. The Abrams has the main gun, a .50, and two 7.62s, while the Merkava has the main gun, a .50, 3 7.62s, and a 60mm mortar (fired without exposing the crew of course). And yes, the Merkava has all the same digital goodies and capabilities of the M1A2, including being able to shoot on the move.

-Ben



What it would gain in frontal protection by the having the engine up there would be lost in protection to the rear that the Abrams offers. You have no way of knowing where the enemy will attack from. With anti-tank weapons, they could just as easily attack from the rear as the front. So I see neither tank really having an advantage in that regard.

The Merkava might have an extra weapon or two, but how many of those can you fire at once anyway?

In all honesty, they look pretty even to me. But I certainly don't believe the Merkava would wipe the floor with the Abrams or the Challenger, though I'm sure it's a fine tank.



The Abrams has praticaly no rear protection, stray 25mm rds from Bradleys diabiled more then one Abrams early in the war. The M1 places frontal protection above all.

The Merk has more rear armor than any other tank.



I can't think of many tanks that will ever make it past the business end.
I don't see how it's tender ass is a problem against another tank.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:49:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:52:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:53:27 PM EDT by NH_AR_Shooter]

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:


The Abrams has praticaly no rear protection, stray 25mm rds from Bradleys diabiled more then one Abrams early in the war. The M1 places frontal protection above all.

The Merk has more rear armor than any other tank.



I can't think of many tanks that will ever make it past the business end.
I don't see how it's tender ass is a problem against another tank.



Its not other tanks, but RPGs, auto cannon fire from all sorts of vehicals, AAA guns, even a .50cal can take out many tanks from the rear. The Merk is built for urban combat, as well as tank vs tank.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:58:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:59:43 PM EDT by MonkTx]
Merkava IV video.

Merk

Damn, linkee no workee.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 12:05:49 AM EDT
Without further hijacking this thread, you can learn more about the Merkava here

Merkava Page

Link Posted: 7/30/2005 12:08:03 AM EDT
How much does the Merkava 4 cost per unit?
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 12:12:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 12:22:40 AM EDT by vito113]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top