Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 323

Thread: M1A2 vs Challenger 2 (intelligent debate)

  1. #31
    Contributor pdf27's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Jun 06
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by Archer
    but even the Chally has flipped its lid on occasion (friendly fire, when a HESH round impacted on the turret).
    I've only skim-read the official report (a censored version is out there on the interweb) but my understanding is that the tank was recovered and repaired with minor damage. The HESH round hit a raised hatch, rather than the turret itself and it was blast/splash from it which caused the two fatalities. AIUI the tank did NOT lose it's turret in anything like the manner you describe, and I haven't seen any mention of ammunition cooking off at any point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer
    In terms of SA, the M1A2 has the edge in terms of situational awareness since the commander gets an independent thermal viewer iirc and the latest TUSK upgrade even gives the gunner one on his external MG. If the Chally has these too, I'd be glad to be corrected.
    Most references to the Chally 2 state something like " Gyrostabilized fully panoramic site with laser range finder and thermal imager" when referring to the commander's sight. Not been able to pin that one down for certain though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Archer
    fair point, but i still think they should have gone for blow off panels..it would have made the design that bit, perfect. besides you can always festoon the M1 with more modular side armour..
    Problem with blow-off panels is that in order to blow off they provide a weak point in the armour, straight to the ammunition. If they get hit, at very best the tank is mission killed. If the tank is hit hard enough anywhere else to penetrate the ammo bins, chances are the crew are dead from the hit anyway.
    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

  2. #32
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,296
    very interesting! so the merk basically features alloys and NERA? why do you think they went for this approach, and not the ceramic one? also, the leo2 is slab sided, (A4 mark) so if i read you correctly, the a4 armour was ceramic based, and you were referring to the wedge on the A5 as the steel applique, which is an add on.
    No steel apligue can be slab sided or angled, but ceramic cannot be angled. The Leo does not use ceramics the Gemrans felt it was too expensive and that HEAT rounds were not the only threat. When Chobham was invented HEAT was public enemy number 1 after Yom Kippur. Later ceramics wer eimproved to withstand KE as well as CE rounds in various ways. The US went with heavy DU alloyed rods and 2nd generation tiles, the British created a 3rd generation of ceramics.

    Israel does not have the industry to support armored ceramics. Steel appligue is almost as effective (but heavier), cheaper, and easier to produce and work with.

    well the israelis wouldnt release the actual figures, but it became a flame war on tanknet- y'know the usual US subsidizes israel and the IDF is showing off by goldplating its eqpt stuff..the key things said to make the merk3/4 FCS unique are that it actively takes into account the unique attributes of the tank itself, ie minute differences in its behaviour, historical record, and stuff like that and end result is that if you feed in these parameters, the FCS "learns" over time..the israeli tankers were categorical that it was the most advanced system of its kind, with most parameters still classified, and that it was far superior to the M1A2 FCS, and the Chally system is basically similar to the M1s, in terms of performance..so, my comment/s.
    Hogwash, the Abrams can hit the 2x4" post tha tholds up the gunnery targets at 2000M. Itwas an article 15 offence to do it, but there is a reason it had that penalty attached. Tankers were doing it on purpose to show case their skills. Like the special suspencion its just jingoism.

    the chally features frontal protection equivalent/ greater to abrams (bar the latest SEP) provided whom one reads..so they just made a mobile pillbox then, if i read you correctly? and the US concentrated more on frontal armour and mobility, whereas the Leo did likewise, but skimped a wee bit on armour for even more mobility..
    the Chally is heavier than the Abrams which accounts for the more heavily protected sides while retaining frontal protection equiv to the Abrams. But yes otherwise you understood me right Abrams- Massive frontal protection and mobility Chally- Massive all around protection Leo2- Decent protection all around and mobility

    All three were designed at around the same tiem to counter the T-72/ T-64 threat using new technology to over come numbers. But even though the national goals were similar the tactical considerations differed.

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor Archer's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Oct 03
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    No steel apligue can be slab sided or angled, but ceramic cannot be angled. The Leo does not use ceramics the Gemrans felt it was too expensive and that HEAT rounds were not the only threat. When Chobham was invented HEAT was public enemy number 1 after Yom Kippur. Later ceramics wer eimproved to withstand KE as well as CE rounds in various ways. The US went with heavy DU alloyed rods and 2nd generation tiles, the British created a 3rd generation of ceramics.
    Ok, so could you elaborate more on why ceramics are used and their intent? Could Germany have upgraded the Leo2 later on for ceramic packages, the Leo2A6 is a pricey beast, yet lightweight..so it does seem that it isnt all steel..


    Israel does not have the industry to support armored ceramics. Steel appligue is almost as effective (but heavier), cheaper, and easier to produce and work with.
    I think you have hit the reason with cost, because surely the israelis are producing a variety of composite materials and ceramics for various defence projects. So if they wished to, they could come up with a good product asap.
    Also, what do you make of the Merk armour package? Is it fully NERA or how do you rate it as?



    Hogwash, the Abrams can hit the 2x4" post tha tholds up the gunnery targets at 2000M. Itwas an article 15 offence to do it, but there is a reason it had that penalty attached. Tankers were doing it on purpose to show case their skills. Like the special suspencion its just jingoism.
    Very well could be...which is why there was a very intense discussion..the claim was of 5K ranges and the like, and specialised optics for long range engagement, again, fwiw.

    the Chally is heavier than the Abrams which accounts for the more heavily protected sides while retaining frontal protection equiv to the Abrams. But yes otherwise you understood me right Abrams- Massive frontal protection and mobility Chally- Massive all around protection Leo2- Decent protection all around and mobility
    Cheers for that!

    All three were designed at around the same tiem to counter the T-72/ T-64 threat using new technology to over come numbers. But even though the national goals were similar the tactical considerations differed.
    Amazing to see how the doctrine and terrain considerations shaped each tank design!
    Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

    My bow is stretched for its task

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor Archer's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Oct 03
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    I've only skim-read the official report (a censored version is out there on the interweb) but my understanding is that the tank was recovered and repaired with minor damage. The HESH round hit a raised hatch, rather than the turret itself and it was blast/splash from it which caused the two fatalities. AIUI the tank did NOT lose it's turret in anything like the manner you describe, and I haven't seen any mention of ammunition cooking off at any point.
    if you have a link, i'd appreciate it. I am going purely by memory and a discussion on tank net here..much flame and smoke, but do recall the turret being popped or some such claim by a few folks. IIRC the two crew were on top of the tank loading it up, when another chally popped it with HESH.


    Most references to the Chally 2 state something like " Gyrostabilized fully panoramic site with laser range finder and thermal imager" when referring to the commander's sight. Not been able to pin that one down for certain though.
    same here, havent come across a thermal tho'

    FPrado, which is an excellent site just states:

    The commander has a Gyrostabilized site, model VS 580-10, from SFIM Industries of France. The upper unit of the VS 580, containing the Gyrostabilized panoramic sight and electronics, is mounted on the turret roof. A neodinium yttrium aluminium garnet, Nd:YAG, laser rangefinder is incorporated into an intermediate assembly which joins the upper unit to a lower telescope assembly inside the turret. The telescope assembly houses the optical viewing system, hand controls, electronics and the sight stabilization system. The sight provides all round vision without the commander having to move his head. The elevation range is plus or minus 35 degrees. The field of view with x 3.2 magnification optics is 16.5 degrees, and with x 10.5 magnification optics, the field of view is 5 degrees.
    Problem with blow-off panels is that in order to blow off they provide a weak point in the armour, straight to the ammunition. If they get hit, at very best the tank is mission killed.
    well if push comes to shove, you still have the hull ammo!

    If the tank is hit hard enough anywhere else to penetrate the ammo bins, chances are the crew are dead from the hit anyway.
    i sincerely doubt this, because if we see accounts from WW2 (bar the sherman tommy cookers) to even modern day ones, a crew member cops it - who is in direct line of sight of the penetration, and the rest of the crew are either disabled, wounded and often escape. this when a secondary explosion does not occur. Thats my grouse with tanks without venting, because the way things are going, penetration figures just seem to be increasing, whilst tanks cannot keep piling on armour..active defence systems are also heavy and expensive.
    Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

    My bow is stretched for its task

  5. #35
    Contributor pdf27's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Jun 06
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    520
    Point is with the Chally 2 you don't still have the hull ammo - there is nothing that will go bang stored elsewhere.

    Still looking for the report (will post it if I find it). Tank was behind a berm though, with only hatches and couple of guys visible beyond it. I really, really can't see a small amount of HESH splash blowing that big a turret off it...
    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Archer's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Oct 03
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    Point is with the Chally 2 you don't still have the hull ammo - there is nothing that will go bang stored elsewhere.
    well what i meant was if the abrams ammo is cooking off, in the bustle, and the crew are willing to risk not running from the fight and stick on for sometime, they still have more rounds in the hull to use ..arguably a very rare if not impossible scenario, but just an extension of what you had stated..

    Still looking for the report (will post it if I find it). Tank was behind a berm though, with only hatches and couple of guys visible beyond it. I really, really can't see a small amount of HESH splash blowing that big a turret off it...
    thx..way i remember, the HESH went in, and cooked the rounds, (perhaps charges were out of the bin or the round went straight in to the turret), and the turret popped..
    Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

    My bow is stretched for its task

  7. #37
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    I imagine that most modern Western MBTs would be able to hit a target at 5.1km. The problem is that the Germans/French/Israelis haven't gotten in the situation where such an opportunity arose.
    Last edited by Stan187; 01 Feb 07, at 02:52.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  8. #38
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    England
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan187 View Post
    I imagine that most modern Western MBTs would be able to hit a target at 5.1km. The problem is that the Germans/French/Israelis haven't gotten in the situation where such an opportunity arose.
    Well Stan, until they are to put to the test, all we will know for sure is that CH2 can

  9. #39
    Contributor pdf27's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Jun 06
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by Ex MIB View Post
    Well Stan, until they are to put to the test, all we will know for sure is that CH2 can
    Errr... wasn't it a Chally 1 during Op Granby?
    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

  10. #40
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    England
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    Errr... wasn't it a Chally 1 during Op Granby?
    Yeah, just running ahead of myself at the mo'. But I'm sure you get what I was on about

  11. #41
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Sure until they are put to the test, we won't know. But considering the similarities of the guns, targerting systems and other common characteristics of western MBTs I think its only logical to deduce that if a Challenger can kill something at a certain range, so can an Abrams or Merkava or etc.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  12. #42
    ? Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Mar 06
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperTrooper View Post
    The Challenger 2 is world famous for it's armour and as you may know the only thing what has been proven to destroy a Challenger 2 is.....another Challenger 2.The M1A2 Abrams can't last a single RPG round...or was that the earlier Abram model,The British sold some of the Challenger 2 armour to the US but i don't think they've put it on their tanks.
    Believe me there are plenty of ATGM's that can destroy the chally one hit KO.

  13. #43
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,296
    Quote Originally Posted by urmomma158 View Post
    Believe me there are plenty of ATGM's that can destroy the chally one hit KO.
    Not really, the only missiles with the ability to by-pass the Chally's protective package are feilded by allied not adverserial forces. So fo Iraqi insurgents or say Iranians the Chally's armor package is all but unbreachable.

  14. #44
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    1- its even slower than the Chally

    2- While no Merkava IV has been destroyed in combat, several were disabled by frontal shots that fried the final drives or som eothe rpart of the mobility system.. In fact the Merkava is mor evulnerable to mobility kills becuase of the front mounted engine, transmission, and final drives bear the brunt of mines. As no Abranms or Chally has suffered a penetration from the front the dubious increase in protection is not worth the massive increased risk of mobility kill.
    The Chally gets 19.2 hp/tonne, while the Merkava mk. 4 (not the older models) gets 23 hp/tonne. Not bad, and very comparable to the Abrams and Leopard.

    While more likely to get mobility killed, there is a trade off. Loading and resupply of ammo through the back is much easier and faster. It can function as a tankbulance, which proved very useful in Lebanon. It can carry a 6 person squad and still carry more rounds than an Abrams, or ditch the squad and carry almost twice as much. This is good logistically, though some might argue that it would run out of fuel before ammo, and thus would have to be resupplied either way. I think it all depends on the needs of those who produced them. The Merkava is perfect for Israel. Not necesarilly true for the UK, but it doesn't make either any worse or better of a tank.
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  15. #45
    ? Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Mar 06
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    970
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Not really, the only missiles with the ability to by-pass the Chally's protective package are feilded by allied not adverserial forces. So fo Iraqi insurgents or say Iranians the Chally's armor package is all but unbreachable.
    I know that but I was simply pointing out no tank is invincible.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. T-95 vs M1A2
    By Lunatock in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: 11 Feb 08,, 13:11
  2. Which is the best tank?
    By tomas in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 1134
    Last Post: 20 Jan 07,, 18:46
  3. The Cosmic Landscape
    By Bulgaroctonus in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 17 Jan 06,, 01:19
  4. Intelligent falling????
    By Bill in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11 Jan 06,, 09:31
  5. Debate time? Who are the real terrorists??!!!
    By Punjab's Finest in forum International Politics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02 Nov 05,, 14:36

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •