User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:04:34 PM EDT
[#1]
IBT Poll.
Which Abrams and which Challenger? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:05:28 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:05:55 PM EDT
[#3]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:06:13 PM EDT
[#4]
The newest vs the newest I guess. Give me some hints. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:07:12 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:07:28 PM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:09:53 PM EDT
[#7]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:09:54 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:10:56 PM EDT
[#9]
Paging Manic Moran...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:11:34 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:12:36 PM EDT
[#11]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:12:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Merkava 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:14:06 PM EDT
[#13]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:18:38 PM EDT
[#14]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:20:07 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:21:14 PM EDT
[#16]
The challenger 2 for its protection but its gun sucks (rifled bore 120).
The M1a2 for its gun and firing system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:26:44 PM EDT
[#17]
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 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:27:46 PM EDT
[#18]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:28:30 PM EDT
[#19]
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 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:30:03 PM EDT
[#20]
The best on paper:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:36:37 PM EDT
[#21]
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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:37:19 PM EDT
[#22]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:44:47 PM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:47:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Keep it coming guys. Very intersesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 5:49:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Ask yourself which one is the most proven....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 6:01:07 PM EDT
[#26]
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) |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 6:08:12 PM EDT
[#27]
The answer is so obvious that it smacks you in the chops!  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 6:28:21 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 6:36:21 PM EDT
[#29]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 7:54:50 PM EDT
[#30]
M1A3?  I've heard of M1A2 SEP, and I know of the TUSK upgrades, but M1A3? Not familiar with that designation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 10:55:53 PM EDT
[#31]
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  )
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:09:52 PM EDT
[#32]
I'll take this one
 Hopefully we'll never have a need to find out which tank can beat the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:13:50 PM EDT
[#33]
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!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:20:42 PM EDT
[#34]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:24:15 PM EDT
[#35]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:26:19 PM EDT
[#36]
buy both
lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:31:14 PM EDT
[#37]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:32:07 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:36:44 PM EDT
[#39]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:42:10 PM EDT
[#40]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:42:52 PM EDT
[#41]
.JPG) Nuff said game over nothing more to see here PWND! You paid WHAT for that flaming pile of rubble??!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:46:17 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:46:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Fair enough. Just passing on what I know.  *end of hijack* I dunno much about the Challenger, sorry.-Ben |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:48:07 PM EDT
[#44]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:49:46 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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 /quote] Wrong!!! It was not a frontal hit. The two Challengers were fighting in a built up area, the lead Challenger drove out of a side street across the line of fire of the No2 who shot it in the turret at point blank range. The hit was near the rear (least armored part) of the turret. ANdy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:52:21 PM EDT
[#46]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:58:35 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 12:05:49 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 12:08:03 AM EDT
[#49]
How much does the Merkava 4 cost per unit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2005 12:12:57 AM EDT
[#50]
Challenger II vs M1A2… Best tanks in the world… both Combat Proven in the only testing ground that matters.
M1A2 is a faster, but the Challenger drinks less fuel… Agility… nothing in it Sights/Optics… nothing in it Armour… Challenger has much has better protection than M1A2 thanks to it's add on Combat Armour Pack. ERA on the front, CHOBHAM side skirts. One Challenger in the fighting in Basra received 21 RPG hits in an ambush and was undamaged, although the crews pants may have needed some 'maintenance' afterwards!!. Gun… currently… M1A2 has the better Long Rod rounds, but Challenger has HESH. Gun accuracy… Challengers riled gun is more accurate then the smooth bore 120mm… a Challenger holds the record for the longest range verified tank kill. However… the Challengers are to be retrofitted with an L55 120mm smoothbore gun … so there will be nothing in it. Crews… nothing in it. Reliability… nothing in it. Habitability… Challenger wins hands down thanks to that envy of all US arnoured people… the British built in Boiling Vessel!!!! Constant hot water, tea/coffee and food on demand Which is the best tank?… nothing in it really. Point though… ONLY the US, UK & Australian Challenger and Abrahms carry the 'real deal' CHOBHAM armour, no one else gets it as it's exclusive to a 'select' club. The Leopard and Merkava do not carry CHOBHAM… it's their own brand indegenous stuff and not as good. ANdy |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
