British Challenger 2

I reckon the M1A2's software suite would probably make it more lethal, i imagine it would probably see a target before the Challeger, and be ready to attack the next target first as well.

As mentioned earlier, the furthest tank to tank kill was done by a Chally. You making assumptions about the "software suite" without actually knowing anything about it. Your assuming that the US is just better, with no explanation.

As the great saying goes, "Assumption is the mother of all fudge ups"

EDIT: As it turns out, the fire control systems in both tanks are made by the same company..

[edit on 13/11/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
As mentioned earlier, the furthest tank to tank kill was done by a Chally.

No offense Stu, but this has nothing to do with the FLIR and optical sensors of either tank, more to do with target of opportunity.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by stumason
As mentioned earlier, the furthest tank to tank kill was done by a Chally.

No offense Stu, but this has nothing to do with the FLIR and optical sensors of either tank, more to do with target of opportunity.

Maybe so, maybe so.

But truth be told, he made an assumption that just becaue the M1 is American, it's better, even though in the realm of tanks, America is not and never has been the industry leader. Merely trying to get people to back up their statements, is all.

EDIT again: Just to reitterate, the same company makes the FCS for both tanks. I don;t think thats going to be what sets them apart, to be honest

[edit on 13/11/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
EDIT again: Just to reitterate, the same company makes the FCS for both tanks. I don't think thats going to be what sets them apart, to be honest.

Me neither, both tanks are evenly matched (electronic and armament wise), if they were to meet, the main factors would be tactics, training, and numbers.

To the member who said a chally 2 was destroyed by a round from another chally?. this seems to be yet another case of using 'destroyed' where 'disabled' is a more accurate term (and a term often used by many american's/ millitary websites to describe the lack of losses from the various wars by describing M1 losses and disabled)
a while back i saw a picture of the challenger in question, almost intact, exept for the small hole, the tank was virtually intact, with no doubt i expect it was probably a mission kill, yet only 'disabled' most likely it was probably recovered, as it didnt seem like a right off, anyone else who knows more about this would be able to give a deffinitive answer, but i EXTREMELY doubt it was 'destroyed' from the picture.

Its a little presumptuous to say i gave my opinion based on the fact the M1A2 is American... Im not American, I have a British passport, if anything, i should favour the British product.

Also, the information about the tanks being destroyed was sources from Wikipedia under their Main Battle tank page.

Well, lets be honest here, wikipedia isnt the best evidence, at all for backing up a source, considering it can acutally be editied or an article written by anyone, hell in any essay i have to write i cant use wikipedia as a source!
anyway, just saying take a pinch of salt with wikipedia, it isnt the most reliable source ever, its good for getting a vague idea.

The M1 AFV is better, however, the cannon it uses is British, so Britain wins anyway.

Originally posted by DissolveTheCND
The M1 AFV is better, however, the cannon it uses is British, so Britain wins anyway.

The M1 has abandoned the L7 cannon in favor of the German L/44 in 1986. No american M1 with the L7 cannon ever saw combat.

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by DissolveTheCND
The M1 AFV is better, however, the cannon it uses is British, so Britain wins anyway.

The M1 has abandoned the L7 cannon in favor of the German L/44 in 1986. No american M1 with the L7 cannon ever saw combat.

I didn't know that - can you provide any links?

Originally posted by M6D
Well, lets be honest here, wikipedia isnt the best evidence, at all for backing up a source, considering it can acutally be editied or an article written by anyone, hell in any essay i have to write i cant use wikipedia as a source!
anyway, just saying take a pinch of salt with wikipedia, it isnt the most reliable source ever, its good for getting a vague idea.

That depends on the article you read. I have read many articles which have been as good as a textbook. All you have to do is read the sources to get an idea of how valid an article is. It is no way inferior to a textbook, which is written by toffs and edited by morons anyway.

I have textbooks at home that are SERIOUSLY out of date and wrong. At least with Wiki it can be updated.

Besides, you can always check the edit history if the article seems a bit dodgy.

It really bugs me when people say Wiki is #e, it isn't. It's no more #e than a book.

like i said, wikipedia articles may be detailed, but the flaw comes in that theyre written, by everyday people, or at the least can be, this is WHY you cant use them when writting an essay as evidence, or in other points of debates, if anything wikipedia is 20 times better at giving you a good idea, a well detailed idea of what you want, however if your looking to use it for facts? hard facts in a debate? using wikipedia isnt always reliable, as like i said, an infomation source that can be CHANGED, is NOT reliable!

Originally posted by M6D
like i said, wikipedia articles may be detailed, but the flaw comes in that theyre written, by everyday people, or at the least can be, this is WHY you cant use them when writting an essay as evidence, or in other points of debates, if anything wikipedia is 20 times better at giving you a good idea, a well detailed idea of what you want, however if your looking to use it for facts? hard facts in a debate? using wikipedia isnt always reliable, as like i said, an infomation source that can be CHANGED, is NOT reliable!

But an information source that cannot be changed, grows out of date and isn't subject to review is? Nice logic.

I am aware that you cannot use Wiki as a source in essays, but thats stupid. How is it any different than using any other website? Someone has to write them too!

As a matter of fact, anyone with an ounce of common sense, who doesn't believe the every written word, can tell when an article is untruthful. I do believe that to edit an article, it must be subjected to review as well.

You may also be interested to know that I have read articles, on say Polonium-210 for example, that have been word for word what is said by Los Alamos Labs.

I suppose they are wrong then? The arguments against Wiki are poor at best. It isn't a free for all, where you write what you want. It is as good a reference point as any Encyclopedia. I would even suggest it is better, as the subject matter can be updated, unlike a book where you have to buy a new edition.

Funny that the Prof's who don't like people using Wiki are the same people writing the books.....

There's a conspiracy for you...

did i ever say use textbooks instead? thats putting words in my mouth isnt it?
now, i dissaprove of using wikipedia, like ive already said, because FIGURES can be changed, it can give you statistics yes? figures yes? please tell me how you can tell those are been untruthful? can you? because hell, if someone changes some figures to suit theyre argument i cant tell, and yes, it may be up to date, but in fact, text books are updated every year, or even more regularly, and to be honest i have no idea what text books you use, and lastly, theyre are OTHER sources out there, what you missed out on, was that OTHER sources are oft, written by proffesionals, are people who know what they're doing in theyre field, unlike, as ive already said, wikipedia which allows every joe to change or write what he wants, yes for the most part its accurate as its copy and pasted, and thats the key word here, from other sites, that HAVE been written by proffesionals, but like ive said, if im to use it as a source, its taken with a pinch of salt, after all, if a source or evidence can be adjusted, it cannot be trusted.

Then you don't know how to use Wiki. You can see the edit history. if anyone changes anything, you can see when it was done, who did it and what they changed it from. You also need approval to edit an article.

Also, how do you know the people writing articles are not professionals as well?

As for the text book comment, well, if you can't get it off the web, then it stands to reason it would come from a book/paper/something along those lines.

But, for sake of argument, instead of saying "textbooks", lets just say Generic Paper Based Knowledge Storage Device.

Happy?

Anyway, this is going way off topic. Suggest we stop this before we get told off.

the block 3 modernization of the Abrams (new engine, etc) will from all accounts make it the most effective tank in the world. Speed and maneuverability, protection, firepower, and ability to see and hit a target at all ranges, added to which the newest APFSDS rd just now coming into service, will clearly make it #1 in the world.

In some respects, the British Challenger 2 is better than the Abrams. It's armour is still regarded as the best in the world and makes its the most surivable tank.

The main armament is certainly one of the best in Nato. One of the things that makes the Challenger a mean killing machine is the aiming system. Not sure if this is the best in the world but paired with the main armament and the armour does make the Challenger 2 one of the best main battle tanks in the world.

Of greater interest to me is the number of Abrams exported. Far more than the Challenger. Several Arab countries have Abrams main battle tanks and beat the Challenger to the order.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
In some respects, the British Challenger 2 is better than the Abrams. It's armour is still regarded as the best in the world and makes its the most surivable tank.

The main armament is certainly one of the best in Nato. One of the things that makes the Challenger a mean killing machine is the aiming system. Not sure if this is the best in the world but paired with the main armament and the armour does make the Challenger 2 one of the best main battle tanks in the world.

Of greater interest to me is the number of Abrams exported. Far more than the Challenger. Several Arab countries have Abrams main battle tanks and beat the Challenger to the order.

They chose the Abrams because it's really simple to use. The British Royal Armoured Corps courses at RAC Depot Bovington, in Dorset, England are the hardest armoured courses to pass.

We even teach foreign students of most of the top military armoured formations because Bovvy is so good.

The other reason of course is that most arab countries have plenty of oil and as we all know, the Abrams loves to drink fuel.

It seems that we are overlooking a major advantage about the engine that IMHO outweighs the .5mpg issue.

The engine can run off of virtually any flammable fluid. An ambrams engine can run off jet fuel, gas from a BP station, diesel, and even alchohol if you feel like it. If it is liquid and it will burn it can usually fuel the abrams. That is a huge advantage in my mind, an abrams low on fuel doesnt have to wait for a supply line, it can literally stop by a gas station and fill up.

Also, it has to be noted that although the abrams uses an older generation of british armor, the abrams has tweaked it a bit, and I would be amazed if it was as weak as people make it out to be, especially with the DU and the anti-spalling mesh inside.

Firepower and ammunition is big. Sorry to all the diehard abrams fans here, but a smoothbore gun will simply never be as accurate as something with a rifled barrel, so states the laws of physics. But also, a new round is being deployed in 2008.

"In addition to this the new MRM-KE (Mid-Range-Munition), otherwise known as X-Rod, is also in development. Essentially a cannon fired guided round, it has a range of roughly 12km and uses a KE warhead which is rocket assisted in its final phase of flight."

Thats a bit further than 5km I think. Not to mention the anti personel round that fires over 1,000 tungsten balls in a shotgun blast at 3000fps.

Dont get me wrong, I'm half american half british, but I'm going to have to go with the Abrams on this one.

As for wikipedia: Opinionated. Thats all I have to say.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by BlackWidow23]

BlackWidow, our engines can also run on just about any fuel going with, I think, the exception of Avtur.

I know Chally 2 can run of diesel, kerosene and after tweeking the carbs [whatever], it can be run on a petrol/diesel mix [emergency only].

As to pulling up to BP or Shell, Esso, Total and whatever, just filling up and going to battle...............and?

What's your point? Most of not all AFV's can fill up at a petrol station. Not too sure about who gets the frequent flyer or nectar points though.

So you canny Yanks have tweaked our Chobham armour about a bit have you? Good for you lot.

Just remember though, what you guys did to probably the best machinegun in the world..................................and look what you got.

Why do you think we Brits gave you the info about our armour in the first place? You don't seriously think we'd give you something that was current do you?

Given your track record of sharing with your [allegedly] No 1 ally.