M1A2 vs Challenger 2 (intelligent debate)

[Tankguy]

I was in B/1-64. The Desert Rogues. (Tuskers were 4-64)

I remember the crazy Cadillac that some 3-19 guys had. They cut the top off, painted it with a flame job, put wooden fangs in the grill and patio furniture where the back seat/trunk normally were.

[Albany Rifles]

My bad...you tankers all looked the same to me!!!



Remember CSM Dog Ear?

WHo was your company commander?

I think the car you are talking about belonged to a guy from our Delta Company.

Once again showing that since Georgia had no vehicle inspections, folks could get away with anything!!!

[Tankguy]

I had CPTs Cox and Hadjis in my tenure. That CSM was NUTS!

[Albany Rifles]

Tank Guy

CSM Acebes was a piece of work. He would bring coffee to three people in the TOC...LTC Bud Schatzer (BUD LIGHT), MAJ Tony Taguba BN XO and me, the cross attached infantry company commander.

You know the story about his ear, right?

I remember Cox vaguely but John Hadjis sticks out to me. Real good officer (well from my perspective).

So did you cross attach or did you stay with the Desert Rogues?

BTW, do you know where the name Desert Rogues came from?

And did they still have Santa on top of that M46 in front of the battalion HQ every Christmas?

[HKDan]

Since this seems to be where the pros are hanging out, I have a question that I have been having a hard time finding an answer to. Does anyone know if the 3rd ACR is going to change to the new brigade format and be a heavy brigade combat team or is it going to stay in the configuration that it has been recently?

[Albany Rifles]

HKDan

Total open source....

The plan is for 3 ACR to stay as a armored cavalry regiemtn...3 armored squadrons and an air cav squadron.

That said, truth has a date time group!

[Tankguy]

When I left in summer of 1990, Santa still was a TC every Christmas. My platoon cross attached. I remember one rainy NTC train-up got interesting. The infantry company I was with was crossing Metz DZ on the main tank trail. Our tank platoon was in the lead. We went through the old moving target berm and my PSG had me dismount to guide the Brads through. It was a nasty night, NODs weren't any good. Lead brad made it through, second Brad rolled when the railroad ties reinforcing the TT gave way.

The driver of the lead Brad (his name was Massey) and I had to break open the combat locked rear door and evac the crew. They were okay, it was a PLs track with no dismounts. The driver was a little shocky, but okay. That Brad was full of water...really dicey for a while...

[HamishUK]

I'd say that the lack of blowout ammo storage panels in the Chally significantly detracts from its place on the pyramid. This problem is even more so exacerbated by the Leo 2, which as far as I'm aware has rounds openly stored right in the turret personnel compartament.

The Challenger II is equipped with blowout armoured bins for the propellant charges.

Since the charge and the penetrator itself are seperate the safety margins are often better for handling.

The location of the TISH head on CR2 creates some issues causing longer engagement times.

@ Tankguy: I am skeptical on this only that when boresighting the TIS it is far quicker than using the main optics. Since the TI sight is pretty much in constant use day or night the benfits of it being in-line with the main gun.

I think the factor here is both tanks have their plus and minus points but just be thankful they bat for the same side. :))

[Stan187]

The Challenger II is equipped with blowout armoured bins for the propellant charges.

Since the charge and the penetrator itself are seperate the safety margins are often better for handling.

That's good to hear, I'm glad to be corrected on this point, it makes our allied tankers much safer.

[HamishUK]

That's good to hear, I'm glad to be corrected on this point, it makes our allied tankers much safer.

It does indeed.

Some interesting Challenger II Tusk upgrades.

"...images of a Challenger 2 from the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU) at Bovington with several upgrades and modifications.

-For close-in self-defence the Selex Sensors & Airborne Systems Enforcer 7.62 mm remote-controlled weapon station (RCWS) has been installed in front of the loader's hatch.

-A new nose armour package called "Toe Armour" has replaced the previously mounted ERA.

-In the center of the glacis plate there is what is likely a thermal camera.

-Mounted on the outside of each headlight is what may be part of an anti-IED system.

-Clearly visible are rectangular additional devices mounted on the outrigger frames on either side of the track guards...the front part covered by a warning sign....probably additional anti-IED devices.

There are currently Challenger 2s in Basra, Iraq with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, Cyclop Squadron with all of these modifications and upgrades.....the tanks had all these modifications visible in October 2007. The tanks in Basra also still have the already seen slat armour and hull and turret armour packages."

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2...dedec20iw3.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6...dedec20dj3.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9...dedec20eh7.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3...dedec20jz9.jpg

[SenorPabloIII]

The M1A1 and M1A2 are battle tested and proven tanks, their fire control systems are superb, and the gas turbine is innovative and reliable, but is a gas guzzler. The Challenger is proven to be an indestructible tank, but both the M1 Abrams and the Challenger 2 have been damaged in it's weakest parts by RPG-29's (from what I've heard) But both tanks have the exact same armor. They use chabbalm armor and since the United States and Great Britain have shared technology over the years, especially in World War II, the way it's configured is probably almost identical. The M1A2 uses newer chabbalm armor but the only difference between the two tanks is that the M1 Abrams uses depleted uranium in it's armor. Both tanks have resisted numerous RPG-7 hits, on their sides, front, back, top, etc but in the First Persian Gulf War I think Abrams was hit by RPG's in their tracks and were immobilized, and some were blown up purposely so they wouldn't be captured. Both tanks have never been lost to enemy fire. The Challenger 2 isn't the best, neither is the Abrams, but both have prooven themselves, from the Challenger taken multiple hits from RPG's and still going on and the Abrams winning tank battles outnumbered but never loosing a tank to enemy fire. They're both equal, don't compare.

P.S I don't know much about the Challenger, but I do know enough about it and all of this information is from what I've heard on many sources and other people.

[Stitch]

The M1A2 uses newer chabbalm armor but the only difference between the two tanks is that the M1 Abrams uses depleted uranium in it's armor. Both tanks have resisted numerous RPG-7 hits, on their sides, front, back, top, etc but in the First Persian Gulf War I think Abrams was hit by RPG's in their tracks and were immobilized, and some were blown up purposely so they wouldn't be captured. Both tanks have never been lost to enemy fire.

AFAIK, only the M1A2 HA (Heavy Armor) has the DU armor, the rest have the 2nd-gen Dorchester armor, a development of the original Chobham armor, using silicon carbide tiles instead of the original metal matrix composites. One or two tanks were purposely destroyed by friendly forces in the first Gulf War, one by airstrike, but both were eventually recovered and sent back to the States to be rebuilt.

[R Thomas]

AFAIK, only the M1A2 HA (Heavy Armor) has the DU armor, the rest have the 2nd-gen Dorchester armor, a development of the original Chobham armor, using silicon carbide tiles instead of the original metal matrix composites. One or two tanks were purposely destroyed by friendly forces in the first Gulf War, one by airstrike, but both were eventually recovered and sent back to the States to be rebuilt.

It is my understanding that the M1A2 incorporates 'Chobham' armour and that it may also be fitted with reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit) and Slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs. It is also my understanding that all M1A2 incorporate depleted uranium mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull.

The Challenger 2 is fitted with DL2F armour, Dorchester armour is regarded as being superior to DU, the US went to a DU solution as Dorchester was not provided to the US for the Abrams. The Abrams armour is a hybrid.

[Harney]

Practically speaking, the two tanks are really equal to each other. The famous tank competitions have consistently shown that when it comes to the MBTs of the West as they are at the moment, it is more crew than tank that decides the day.
The important things to remember is that from the frontal arc, both the Challenger 2 and Abrams are immune to each other's gun. This means that the decision in a battle would come from whoever can get the flank and rear shots more. That is generally is decided by crew skill.

[SenorPabloIII]

It is my understanding that the M1A2 incorporates 'Chobham' armour and that it may also be fitted with reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit) and Slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs. It is also my understanding that all M1A2 incorporate depleted uranium mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull.

The Challenger 2 is fitted with DL2F armour, Dorchester armour is regarded as being superior to DU, the US went to a DU solution as Dorchester was not provided to the US for the Abrams. The Abrams armour is a hybrid.

I dunno man, earlier versions maybe didn't but most of the abrams are being sent back to be upgraded with dorchester and more recent chabbalm armor from what I've heard. But if not then the armor still works (Note the challenger and abram have been hit by RPG-29's and both were damaged in similar ways)