Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by me262 phpbb3, Apr 19, 2006.
wich one is better?
I feel sure we've been here before! :grin:
Well, pros & cons:
Armour: Both have upgraded forms of Chobham - I'd call it as pretty equal, although the Chally 2 looks like it is better (a greater slope)
Gun: 120mm smooth bore vs 120mm rifled. Different guns, but arguably similar performance
Speed/Mobility: Definate nod to the Abrahms, 45mph+, and the gas turbine means it starts easily in any weather
Other: well, the USA has more tanks and more support that the UK, so in any conflict (unless there was some bizarre limits placed) the US force would ultimately win. Plus the latest M1A2 (is that the latest version?) apparently has very useful electronics, giving exceptional situational awareness to the tank crews.
In a one-on-one slugging match, frankly either. I'd go for the Chally, partly for the slopier armour, but mostly for the nationalism. :grin:
In a proper campaign, I'd probably pick the M1A2, provided I cuold also have the rest of the US military with me.
Except for the differences Ricky mentioned related to the integrated FBCB2 system (fuzzy bunny chocolate bunny :grin: - which could make a big difference in a large complex battle scenario) I think either tank could probably kill the other at reasonable ranges. Would the DU in the armor of the Abrams make a difference at longer ranges? Perhaps yes but we won't know since tests(guns versus armor) are classified.
I would go for the Abrams just because well I live in America and in Iraq its proved itself good against the T-72 which is not a bad tank
I'd put my money on which ever one scored the first hit.
The winner is - the one with the best crew!
"We march in our might to complete victory" - General Patton 1944
-Downgraded Russian export version
-They couldn't see shit when in a sandstorm or at night because they have no night vision
-There ammunition was highly outdated
-newer/up to date design
-They had thermal imaging so they could shoot the hell out of those blind T-55 and T-72 tanks, just sitting ducks, no challenge to it.
-There cannon combined with the latest/newest ammunition could hit and destroy a T-55/T72 even when behind the targeting range of the Iraqi tanks
-And they probably had alot more tanks in the desert than the Iraqi's did.
So the best tanks because they could defeat crappy Iraqi tanks.....
i say the abrams because it is faster and more mobile and it would be more capable of outmanoeuvring the enemy (despite having supposedly less armor)
a modern T-72 GOES EVEN FASTER but i'd still go with the Abrams because it has twice the effective range
Both vehicles are about the same. If the Chally had a 105mm gun, I'd point that out, but since it also has a 120mm, it'd probably be a tie in a showdown. In a campaign, the Abrams 'cause it's faster and works in any weather.
Re: RE: Challenger 2 vs Abrams
As far as I know, all modern Challengers (1 and 2, not that cruiser tank from WW2) had 120mm main guns. Same cannot be said about Abrams, original M1 Abrams had 105mm main gun. A1 and A2 variants have 120mm main gun.
And I believe Challengers can be used also in any weather.
Well, what about speed and price, then?
I was chatting to a mate of mine who is in a Signals unit in the TA - he was waxing lyrical about the new 'Bowman' package that they are about to get - from what he said it is a rough equivalent to the FBCB2...
It is vehicle-mounted, thanks to size.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/categori ... ehicle.asp
well these are the supposedly the los thickness of the chally 2, anyone got abrams los drawings?
You should know that the US and UK share technology with one another and have been doing so for quite some time.
The article you quoted is a bit misleading though since it asks in the headline:
Then goes on to say in the body of the article:
I'm certain that the US and UK will have similar systems just as they do with armor technology. The only question remains, as I have pointed out in other posts, is what digital data will be shared? The didgital system is nice but one needs to have diverse inputs for it to function to it's maximum potential. One needs, in addition to other armored vehicles, air assets both manned and unmanned, satellite data and data from higher levels of command all integrated into the system. Perhaps the UK forces will be able to accomplish this level of integration as well but in order to do so they may have to increase their defense budget a wee bit :wink:
Thickness of armor isn't as important as it used to be back in the days when armor consisted of homogenous steel. The advanced armor used in both vehicles is classified both likely both have some of the most advanced in the world. The only difference that I know of that "may
be significant is that the Abrams uses depleted uranium in it's composite armor instead of the tungsten used in the Chally armor.
well the defence budget is being increased.
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/20 ... ble14.html
and there has been another spending increase announced as well i belive.
but i was only posting the article to give information, i dont understand it that well myself.
true, but a comparison would at least give a rough idea.
i have heard it posted the DU in the abrams is a layer by itself, whereas the tungsten in the chally 2 is in some sort of matrix.
but this is of course all rumour, its all classified and if i realy knew i wouldnt post it here!
I'd take the Challenger. May not have as good performance or armour, but with a good crew it is a potent fighting machine. and unlike the abrams it's engine is not a turbine. turbine produce more heat and a good scout with a pair of IR goggles can pick tanks up from behind hills by the heated air over them. At least the heat sig is reduced.
Heat signals ain't everything, Siberian. Performance and armor matter as well, and the Abrams wins in both of those categories. Crew skill is still the bottom line, though.