NationStates Jolt Archive

Which main battle tank is better, the British "Challenger" pf the American "Abrahms"?

This one:

http://www.bloomdalejiffies.com/pictures/HippyTank.jpg

They have comparable technology, they use the same armor, their guns are basically the same (the Challenger has 120mm gun and the Abrams has a 120 or 125mm, I forget). I'd say they're about equal. It would depend on the crew I think. I hope we never have to find out, though. I like them Brits too much :)

Challenger holds the record for the longest kill range so I would say it wins.

Which main battle tank is better, the British "Challenger" pf the American "Abrahms"?

If you're talking the M1A2 Versus the Challanger II, then they're about even in terms of main gun. The Challanger has a slight fuel economy, range, and armor advantage, and the M1A2 has a bit of a mobility advangate.
So what you come down to, ignoring numbers, is crew training, and frankly, the British crews are better trained.
American tank crews have one disadvantage in their training, and that is specialization. It, however, is a big advantage in mass battles, but as I said, I'm ignoring numbers.
So I'd have to say the Challanger II is better.
If you compare evenly numbered battles more then 1 on 1, then they're dead even, and in the hands of equil crews, it's pure luck who would win.

Out of those 2 the Challenger 2 is the better tank. But the best tank in the world would probably be the German Leopard 2 A6...

The Abrams are an overrated tank in fact they are using the GERMAN GUN that the Leopards have had since the first Leopard 2 (Minus the one the Australians use)

is it a "blue on blue" engagement? if so the US one wins (as shown by history :-) ), otherwise i would say even...

This one:

http://www.bloomdalejiffies.com/pictures/HippyTank.jpg

That is a photoshopped Israli Sabra tank, and isn't really comparable to a modern 2nd Generation MBT like the M1A2 or Challanger 2. In fact it's just an upgraded M-60A3.

You people scare me.

Which main battle tank is better, the British "Challenger" pf the American "Abrahms"?

:confused: :sniper: well who won a war or more with and with which one?undefined

The Challenger has a pretty-much equal main cannon, but the kill range is longer because of better targeting and fire-control equipment. It has better fuel economy and better armor protection, but the Abrams can handle rougher terrain.

For breaking a line, use Challenger tanks. For long-ranging attacks around the enemy flanks through mountains and the likes, use Abrams.

Or use the German Leopard II to do both.

haha i like that last suggestion Or use the German Leopard II to do both.

haha i like that last suggestion

Alas the Leopard is probably the best tank ever made. You get the A6 or even the A5 and they will kick the arse off any competition as they for years have had the best Gun.

Germans have been excelling in the military technology for a long long time.

Germans have been excelling in the military technology for a long long time.

German tanks have been kicking everyone elses tanks butts for a long long time.

The first German tank, the A7V, on March 24th 1918 one met up with 3 British Mk.IV's, subesquently whooped all three British tanks all by itself.
Then about 2km later, it's engines seized.

The LRBT it will run on anything...



For the emperor....

Of course, on German tanks, there is the unforgettable Tiger and Tiger II heavy tanks-slow, but virtually invulnerable from the front and big enough gun to knock out any allied tank.

They overdid it on the Maus tank though...207 US tons is a bit more than one would need...

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp
check that out i believe this guy

How does Abrams fare in low-Temperature situations and how does Leopard 2

And Maus. I remember there was only three of them in existence. The thing is just wheeled bunker with a gun.

And Maus. I remember there was only three of them in existence. The thing is just wheeled bunker with a gun.

Only 2 built, 1 with a mock turret and still viewable at the Kubinka Tank museum in Russia. Also, the Maus was 188 US Tons.
You may be adding the E-100 in with your numbers, but they were different tanks.

Anyway, the Leo2 will certianly out class the M1A2 in arctic climates, the M1A2 was not designed for those climates.

Without a doubt, the T-34. I mean, it was introduced in 1940 (?) And is still in use today.

And how can you beat that?

"Anyway, the Leo2 will certianly out class the M1A2 in arctic climates, the M1A2 was not designed for those climates."
True. Wasn´t it mean´t primarily for desert and similar climates.

"Anyway, the Leo2 will certianly out class the M1A2 in arctic climates, the M1A2 was not designed for those climates."
True. Wasn´t it mean´t primarily for desert and similar climates.

Yea, the opperational requiements were that of a dessert war because the US war department saw it's main use of tanks to be in the Middle East assisting the Israli's.
The M-60 on the other hand, was designed to fight in Europe, and thus had many many shortcommings compared to Russian tanks of it's time, which is why the M-60 has been upgraded so much, and still phased out of service in the US.

Hmm. What about Merkava then. I´ve heard it is quite potent but maybe like M1 it is climatically limited

Which main battle tank is better, the British "Challenger" pf the American "Abrahms"?
I could get into a long argument about this but I wont because I am efficient.

They are both the best for the role they were designed for

The M1A2 is an offensive tank and is the best in this role
The Challenger is a defensive tank and is the best for that role.

I could get into a long argument about this but I wont because I am efficient.

They are both the best for the role they were designed for

The M1A2 is an offensive tank and is the best in this role
The Challenger is a defensive tank and is the best for that role.


It seems that we have already turned into more general MBT discussion, but you´re right in that.

Hmm. What about Merkava then. I´ve heard it is quite potent but maybe like M1 it is climatically limited

Latest Merkava variant against an M1A2, I'd put my money on the Merkava.
Firstly, the Merkava was designed for desert fighting from experiance learned from some 20 years of desert fighting, so it's got a design edge on the M1A2 which was designed by a country who actually had little knowladge of how fighting in an open expanse of sand works.
I'm too lazy to go into details about this one, but gun, armor, and visibility wise, they are even. The Merkava has longer range, better electronics and computer systems, better design, more ammo, and more agility in loose sand.
The M1A2 has speed in some cases, but not usually.

You also have to remember that the M1A2 has never faced another 2nd Gen. MBT in battle, it has only ever faced T-72's, T-55's, and T-54's. All of which are cheap, mass-produced, intern tanks. The Russians withdrew the T-55 and T-54 from front line service in 1955, and the T-72 was never in front line service.
It's kinda funny how people say the M1A2 is the best because it has all this combat experiance and has proven itself. But it's only proven itself against lesser opponants.
Kinda like comparing a Panzer VI King Tiger to say, a Russian T-35, they're both heavy tanks, and both formidible for their day, but it's nowhere near a fair comparison.

Kinda like comparing a Panzer VI King Tiger to say, a Russian T-35, they're both heavy tanks, and both formidible for their day, but it's nowhere near a fair comparison.

T-35 would get nowhere in that combat.

The Abram can fire a larger variety of main gun ammunition, and seem to have better armor protection in live-fire environments. (To be fair, the Challenger isn't poorly amoured either, it did rather well in Gulf War I)

But the Abram uses a turbine-based drive unit, its not secret thats its a real gas hog. IMHO, that is the Achille's Heel of the Abram. Sure, it gives the tank greater speed (thus tactical mobility in manuevering) and advance faster than other tanks. This has become a double-edged sword, since the logistical chain must KEEP UP with the advance.

Darn, I forgot my next point.

T-35 would get nowhere in that combat.

That's my point. The M1A2 has yet to fight with another 2nd Gen. MBT.
And it probably won't until it's long since retired and sold to the Israli's or some small NATO nations (Like the M-60 was).
The tank the M1 was designed to counter was the Russian T-80U, which the Russians won't sell to anyone but the former USSR states that have production rights to them, so the Arab states the US might fight with won't have them. Instead they, and any other nation the US may engage in a tank battle with, is more likely to have older 1st Gen. MBT's, which are closer to the M-60 and M-48 then the M1.

So now, I post a question.. Does it make a tank great to be able to destroy many older, "crappier" tanks? Or does it make a tank great to be able to destroy an evenly matched tank?
I'd have to say the second one.
And in that case, the Challanger II would take the win, because the Challanger II has faced T-80's and Degman's in the former Yugoslavia. So has the Leopard 2, the M1 has not.

The Abram can fire a larger variety of main gun ammunition, and seem to have better armor protection in live-fire environments. (To be fair, the Challenger isn't poorly amoured either, it did rather well in Gulf War I)

But the Abram uses a turbine-based drive unit, its not secret thats its a real gas hog. IMHO, that is the Achille's Heel of the Abram. Sure, it gives the tank greater speed (thus tactical mobility in manuevering) and advance faster than other tanks. This has become a double-edged sword, since the logistical chain must KEEP UP with the advance.

Darn, I forgot my next point.

The Gas Turbine engine is stupid. I mean it isn't an easy thing to fix which is a very bad thing. It isn't the fact that it chews gas like a dog, but rather if it breaks down it is stuffed.

The Gas Turbine engine is stupid. I mean it isn't an easy thing to fix which is a very bad thing. It isn't the fact that it chews gas like a dog, but rather if it breaks down it is stuffed.

And because of the climate the M1 was designed to work in, the Desert, it clogs with sand quite quickly.
Not to mention overheats.

But I gotta gove them 1 point, they designed it around what they knew would counter heavier Russian tanks, that is speed.
Too bad the Russians stopped the heavy tank game with the T-10 and neglected to tell the poor Americans.

That's my point. The M1A2 has yet to fight with another 2nd Gen. MBT.
And it probably won't until it's long since retired and sold to the Israli's or some small NATO nations (Like the M-60 was).
The tank the M1 was designed to counter was the Russian T-80U, which the Russians won't sell to anyone but the former USSR states that have production rights to them, so the Arab states the US might fight with won't have them. Instead they, and any other nation the US may engage in a tank battle with, is more likely to have older 1st Gen. MBT's, which are closer to the M-60 and M-48 then the M1.

So now, I post a question.. Does it make a tank great to be able to destroy many older, "crappier" tanks? Or does it make a tank great to be able to destroy an evenly matched tank?
I'd have to say the second one.
And in that case, the Challanger II would take the win, because the Challanger II has faced T-80's and Degman's in the former Yugoslavia. So has the Leopard 2, the M1 has not.

I´d say that tank is great when it can adapt well in most situations and survive and destroy most known foes. (Leopard 2?)

I´d say that tank is great when it can adapt well in most situations and survive and destroy most known foes. (Leopard 2?)

I would definatly take a Leopard 2 over any other 2nd Gen. MBT. Specificly the Leopard 2A4, but that's because I love the way it looks.

I would definatly take a Leopard 2 over any other 2nd Gen. MBT. Specificly the Leopard 2A4, but that's because I love the way it looks.

Guess then why Finns upgraded to Leopard

Guess then why Finns upgraded to Leopard

Yea, and so did the Swedish.
In fact, the Swedish tested the Leopard 2A6, the Challanger II, and the M1A2, and decided the latter two didn't meet their high standard.

Yea, and so did the Swedish.
In fact, the Swedish tested the Leopard 2A6, the Challanger II, and the M1A2, and decided the latter two didn't meet their high standard.

And Finns based on this test when they chose Leopard.

Australia is getting 50 M1A1 Abram tanks, only cause our government is a bunch of US arse lickers and should be hanged for treason. I would prefered the Leopard 2 A4/5/6 any day of the week. They don't care about the Australian people, only in pleasing Uncle Sam

And Finns based on this test when they chose Leopard.

And a quick check of my notes...
As of 2002, no country except the US is using the M1, even with extensive attampts to export it.

However, Both France and the United Arab Emerates use the LeClerc.

The Leopard 2 is used by Sweden, Finnland, and the Netherlands, as well as Germany, and many other countries.

After all, they compared the top tanks, and they chose.
Although the UAE and France have been working together for a long time anyway.

Australia is getting 50 M1A1 Abram tanks, only cause our government is a bunch of US arse lickers and should be hanged for treason. I would prefered the Leopard 2 A4/5/6 any day of the week. They don't care about the Australian people, only in pleasing Uncle Sam

Well, to be fair, the M1A1 is much better then the un-upgraded Leopard 1A5's that Australia was using.
And I havn't heard of this deal being final yet. So perhaps it won't go?

And when most of Astralia is desert would´t it be reasonable to get some Merkavas.

And when most of Astralia is desert would´t it be reasonable to get some Merkavas.

That would be so cool.
Canada has even thought about getting Merkava's, with a few modifications they'd be great here.

The problem is, the Israeli's won't sell them to anyone.

That would be so cool.
Canada has even thought about getting Merkava's, with a few modifications they'd be great here.

The problem is, the Israeli's won't sell them to anyone.

Just go grab the blueprints and run.


... and hope that mossad loses your tracks.

Just go grab the blueprints and run.


... and hope that mossad loses your tracks.

I have the blueprints, mostly.
It's specific highly classfied details that are the problem. Well, not really, I could probably design a better tank from scratch with my eyes closed in a week then the M1A2, the problem is the cost to produce, test, and impliment the tank is too much for say, the Canadian government to wanna do.
Of course I have a beautiful upgrade package designed for the T-72 (One of the most widely deployed tanks in the world) which brings it up to M1A2 standard, problem is no NATO nation will use the T-72 because they're Russian tanks. And of course no one wants to adopt my designs.

And finnally, on the origonal Merkava point.
International trade and production laws, they're a bitch.

I have the blueprints, mostly.
It's specific highly classfied details that are the problem. Well, not really, I could probably design a better tank from scratch with my eyes closed in a week then the M1A2, the problem is the cost to produce, test, and impliment the tank is too much for say, the Canadian government to wanna do.
Of course I have a beautiful upgrade package designed for the T-72 (One of the most widely deployed tanks in the world) which brings it up to M1A2 standard, problem is no NATO nation will use the T-72 because they're Russian tanks. And of course no one wants to adopt my designs.

And finnally, on the origonal Merkava point.
International trade and production laws, they're a bitch.

Yep.