Posted: 11/20/2005 1:40:03 PM EDT
|
I'm arguing over which is the better tank with a couple British friends of mine, the Abrams or the Challenger 2? So far all I've done is state as much fact as I know about both tanks (which admittedly isn't much) and my personal preference for the Abrams. My english friends, on the other hand, have been regailing me with tales about how the invincible Challenger waded through an onslaught of tank rounds and RPGs to destroy the enemy in Iraq while the Abrams all had to retreat or face utter annihilation. One also told me that the British outfitted an obsolete tank from the 50's with a 100mm gun and used it to destroy a series of Iraqi bunkers while a battallion of Abrams came in well behind it to secure what it had taken out. I pretty well proved that one was bullshit and the other english guy helped out by providing specific information as to why it could never happen. Anyway, I need a straight up head-to-head comparison on which is better, the Abrams or the Challenger 2. |
|
At its designed role of killing enemy armour on the mechanised battlefield, there are arguments to the extent that nothing can beat an M1A2SEP tank with American DU ammunition. (M1A1s et al are a stickier wicket) At its designed role of being a tank designed to be more of an infantry support asset, there are arguments to the extent that nothing can beat a Challenger 2E with its rifle-fired ammo. Go here: ARRSE website thread Some arguments on there including 'livability'. I've crawled over and ridden around in both at this point, I've put my comments on there. (I chime in with rational arguments on page 4) I should add that a lot of the Abram's current-use deficiencies are being rectified in the TUSK upgraade, bringing it a lot closer to the top of the heap in the current sort of fight. NTM |
If we get any quantity of people responding to this thread, you will not end an argument, rather you will start an ARFCOM battle royale on the subject. We've seen it before, on a couple of different occassions. |
Can't be any worse than the 9mm vs .45ACP or AR-15/M-16 vs AK-47 arguments you see on an almost daily basis. 
|
|
What if you were to fit an Abrams hull with a Challenger turret and equip it with an AK-47 coax and an M16 loader's weapon? Equip half the crew with Browning 9mm and half with M1911s. can't be any worse than the 9mm vs .45ACP or AR-15/M-16 vs AK-47 arguments you see on an almost daily basis. NTM |
No kidding, heh! I think the Abrams will win out because of the gas turbine engine. The driver can hit the crazy switch and the Abrams will move like the Road Runner.
IIRC the abrams and the challenger both use Chobham armor, so unless the brits have something new that they aren't sharing, armor protection should be just about equal. |
| i have commanded abrams units. to be honest, the abrams and challenger are roughly on par, the difference is the crew. i take the position that we have superior training. Face it, either round wil kill you - unless you fire second, or unless you miss. Fire first, hit what you aim at, you win. |
|
h/w, the Abrahams has more monuverbillty, speed, firecontrol systems, and overall better gun (hw/ the challenger's gun has more range) All of those could be argued. Maneuverability is about on a par, the American turbine gives it a bit more torque though. Abrams is faster on flat terrain, Challenger is better going on rough. The better suspension system contributes to that. CR2 uses a variant of the M1A2's FCS, so no difference there. IIRC the abrams and the challenger both use Chobham armor, so unless the brits have something new that they aren't sharing, armor protection should be just about equal. Abrams and CR1 both used Burlington, the American tank receiving DU armour later on in life. CR2 is made from Dorchester, I don't know if the new-build M1A2s use it or not. More important than quality is distribution. M1 has more of it to the front, CR2 spreads it around a bit more. NTM |
IIRC, the Challenger 2 uses a later generation of composite armor. Whether or not it's still called 'Chobham', I dunno. |
Given that both are highly professional volunteer forces using first-rate training equipment, with ample enough training budgets and schedules, is there any rational basis for that statement other than national pride? I see no reason to rate either as higher than the other. NTM |
Nope, that's my sole basis.  It's hard to stay unbiased after serving in the Armored Cav.
|
|
I do believe it would come down to the crew. Do some research on the US Abrams, British Challenger, and German Leopard and then see what the Russians, Chinese, or any other military power has to muster against those three. Raw numbers may come into play, but tank for tank.... it is hard to beat those three. |