challenger 2 and m1a1

ok you know what Im just not going to come here anymore I dont need some persons opinion on the fucken best tank in the world .O and a 1963 corvette could smoke any crapy japenese car any day

Ever considered speaking with a doctor
With this kind of behaviour its better that you don't come here naymore as you said yourself.

And the hull of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the same. What's your point? Besides additional NBC protection, the hull is the same on the M1A2. Keep in mind, the Challenger made the same upgrade, as well as updating it's armor protection.

My point is that the Challenger 2 turret is a completely new design...

You doubt it? That it? That's your response, your flawless presentation of facts to counter my point? That's a joke. You counter with something like "I doubt it" and expect me to take you seriously?

I've searched google for some facts, and the first link a visited I read this:

''For the M1A2 Upgrade Program, over 600 M1 Abrams tanks are being upgraded to M1A2 configuration. Deliveries began in 1998.''

''The US Army planned to procure a total of 1150 M1A2 SEP tanks but the US Army has decided to cancel future production of the M1A2 SEP from FY2004.''

Its from army technology.

This kinds proves what I already thought.

http://www.globalsecurity.org is the only redily available one I will even bother to show you. You'll notice that the Unites States keeps upgrading more and more Abrams to the M1A2 Standard.

I don't really call this website reliable, about that ''first to fight units'' I think thats crap, very armored unit that goes to Iraq returns after 6 monds, than another unit is sended to Iraq, first to fight sounds like BS.

And whats the big difference between te M1a1 and M1a2???
Only big difference that I can see s that the a2 has a thermal sight for the commander, they have installed things like APU's and such on the M1a1 also.

 

Ok,

I have moved the topic to post-WW2 tanks, split off most of the car stuff to a new topic in the Member's Lounge, and done a little editing.

Ok, no more rubbish.

Right, M1A1 vs Chally 2 - my money is probably on the Chally 2.
However, as Danyel points out, it is an unfair competition, as the M1A2 is in service. Between M1A2 & Chally 2... Well, there is very little between them. Sad to say, I think I'd have to say M1A2, based entirely on the fact that the Chally 2 is ugly.

 

The member "Sherman" has been banned for disrespectful, insulting posting and an explicit disdain for forum guidelines.

This will not be tolerated. It's an unfounded attack at a person's health which you know nothing about. Besides, since when is it normal to argue against the person instead of against his opinion?

This isn't the kind of language I want to hear as a response to people asking for sources to back up arguments. It is either a disrespectful jab at your opponent in a discussion, or a very poor way to cover up a lack of sources or willingness to link them here.

Carry on and Be Polite.

 

Language?!
I'm thinking you misunderstood my post. The reason that was the only source I was willing to show was because it happens to be the most credible one that is available for me to show. However, to my unsurprisement, he fell back on the old "websites suck" strategy.

 

:lol:

 

Check this out

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/Abrams/oops/

Various M1 tanks in quite poor shape.

FNG

 

Wov - I wonder : How many M-1's have actually been lost (Knocked-out and total write-offs) in combat and by which types of weapons (tanks, ATGM, RPG, mines etc.) ?

The hit in this pic is very interesting :

Did it penetrate and disable the tank or injure the crew ?

 

I thought that that tank was destroyed by own troops after being disabled by the enemy, don't know what weapon was shot at it.

About that fuel consumption, it is a known fact that the Abrams uses more fuel than about every other tank, why would it only use more fuel when in idle, if it uses more fuel in idle it will also use more fuel when driving, its a fact diesel engines use less fuel, I don't know what that guy is talking about...

 

Jeffrey wrote:

He's referring to the fact that turboshaft jet engines run at a constant speed unlike diesel engines. The fuel consumption varies much more with a diesel than with a turbine engine. That isn't to say that a turbine engine uses less fuel..it uses more on average..it's just more predictable. The Abrams carries more fuel than diesel tanks and that offsets the higher consumption somewhat.

 

this one is funny. also i know there has been alot of fighting on this thread and i dont what to heat it up. but posting the link to the all the shot up Abrams is kind of dirty.

 

I say the Abrams is better by a tincey tiny hair.

 

To Tj

Tj, are you sure you are not tryin' to make fun of the Abrams?