M1A2 vs Challenger 2 (intelligent debate)

[Kernow]

Multi-Fuel Engines

But aren't those diesel engines everyone else uses also multi-fuel? Just not to the same extent as the turbine. Anyone?

As far as I am aware the only Tank that had a Diesel engine, that could be converted into Multi-Fuel was the Chieftain Tank, Challenger 1 and 2 do not have this capability.;)

[Kernow]

Your off your rocker

1- The Abrams has a manual travese and master-blaster. Thus even if the tank is a completely mobility kill and has zero power the gunner can via the aux daysight still traverse and fire.

2- The Leo and Leclerc do not use Chobbam, never have never will. They do not use ceramics at all in fact. But a mixture of spaced armor and appligue backed in certai areas by ERA.

3- they do not sue the same fire control system. 120mm smmothbore and 120mm rifled have much different charateristics. What they (Chally/Abrams) do have is the same company making the FCS.

4- the gun on the Leclerc is a French design in 53 caliber. The Rheinmetall gun comes in either 44 or 55. The British gun is likewise not German either the L11A5 or the newer longer L30.

5- the US did not place an emphasis on any one factor but instead demanded equal parts mobility/protection/firepower*. They achieve this war winning combo by going outside the box and using the new Chobbham Armor to give world class protection while using a turbine to provide mobility. The sacrafice was range.

6- Two wars alsting 5 years, and 25 years of NTC rotatiosna dn Kuwaiti deployments so far and people still think the Abrams has issues in the desert. Just how many drives across desert doe sit take to kill that urban legend? As long as you do your daily maintece the Abrams does fine in almsot any enviroment. Becuase the US physically has every type of climate in the world our equipment is multi-enviroment capable.

7- The Smoke grenades on the Leo are german mortar style, not British.

8- Abrams has AC, APU, and NBC overpressure.

9- Abrans uses a pnuematic-torsion bar system making it a very stable gun platform from 0-45kph. Only 3 tanks in the world even make claims or demonstrate a higher ability. SK-2, Arjun, Leclerc.

10- The effective thermal signature on the abrams is not nearly as great as some people think, or nealry as important. The Turbine has much less radiated heat venting most out the rear. Deisels with large amounts of radiated heat warm up the entire rear of the tank. No tank is IR freindly, metal heats and cools differently form good old fashioned dirt and excpet for two breif periods every 24 hours when the tank matches the surronding terrian either as it cools or heats all tanks stand out like sore thumbs on a decent thermal viewer.

11- The Challenger CLIP (Challenger Leathaility Improvement Program) is not much different than the new TUSK upgrades being put on the Abrams. They both add ERA to weak spots, SLAT armor to the rear sides and rear and upgrade the cermaics to the 2nd generation level. However the Abrams has superior thermal systems, a better battle management and vastly superior frontal armor on a level plane via DU rods.

12- ad finally its not a gas turbine (gasoline) but a mutli-fuel turbine.

If I had to go into combat in one I'd pick the Abrams its the beast I know. However familarity aside it has several distinct advantages over the Chally that my training can make use of. I'd probalby get slaughtered in a Chally using Abrams tactics, and vice versa. The emphaiss in the Abrams is much more offnesive move and shoot and fight from concealment(smoke/night/inclement weather) than the very defensive minded Challenger where fighting from cover and all around protection took precedence.

Thanks for the slagging, no need to make it personal. From your comments it looks like Challenger 2 and the Abrams are now a very similar beast, and as you say at the end "If I had to go into combat in one" you would pick the Abrams it's the beast you know. Now if I were to go into combat, I would definately choose the Challenger 2, the beast I know very well, and have fought successfully with it in combat, and the quote about Challenger being defensive is a little untrue, it depends on the situation at the time. If you are advancing to contact you would use defensive techniques, the same as the US Army does i.e. Two-Up, Snake Patrol (for roads) etc. Challenger 2 is pretty awesome in the assualt. I have also had the experience of Exercising on the M1 in Grafenvehr in Germany for two weeks, I found it a rather dull experience. Again thanks for your comments.

[R Thomas]

A Few Facts

Challenger 2

Just over 400 tanks produced

Armour: Chobham/Dorchester Level 2 (classified)
Primary armament: L30A1 120 mm rifled with 52 rounds, L55 smoothbore cannon(Challenger 2E)

Secondary armament coaxial: 7.62 mm L94A1 EX-34 (chain gun),
7.62 mm L37A2 Commander's cupola machine gun

Engine Perkins: CV-12 Diesel
1,200 hp (895 kW)
Power/weight 19.2 hp/tonne

Operational range: 450 km (279 miles)
Speed 59 km/h (37 mph)

------------------------------------M1 Abrams-------------------------------

8800 tanks produced

Armor Chobham: RHA Level 1

Primary armament: 105 mm M68 rifled cannon (M1)
120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon (M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP)

Secondary armament: 1 x .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine gun
2 x M240 7.62 mm machine guns (1 pintle-mounted, 1 coaxial)

Engine: AGT-1500C multi-fuel turbine engine 1500 hp (1119 kW)

Power/weight: 24.5 hp/tonne

Ground clearance: 0.48 m (M1, M1A1) 0.43 m (M1A2)

Operational range: 465.29 km (289 mi) With NBC system: 449.19 km (279 mi)

Speed Road: 67.72 km/h (42 mph)
Off-road: 48.3 km/h (30 mph)




Losses:
Challenger 2, 3 losses, 1. A blue on blue(Only Charlie2 to be totaly destroyed, 2. RPG-29 penetrated the frontal armour, 3.500 pound IED penetrated the underside of the tank

One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident but remained Combat ready. Another took 8 RPG-7s and a MILAN anti-tank missile


M1A1 Abrams, I don't no a lot about the abrams losses however i no 23 were lost in the first gulf war and No Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but there is at least one account, reported in the Gulf War's US Official Assessment, of an Abrams being damaged by three conventional kinetic energy penetrators from a T-72

In conclusion both tanks are good in their own right. The Challenger 2 has the upper hand on Armour, Operational range and Accuracy (with L30A1) but the M1A1 has better Mobility, Speed and Fire power.

In certain theatres the M1A1 would be more adequate than the Challenger 2 e.g. in close combat the M1A1 can be reloaded faster as it uses 1-piece rounds and it has two 50.Calibre machine guns with the option of a Remotely Operated Gun. By the same respect the Challenger two is more accurate at long range due to its rifled gun.

Both tanks all though proved in combat have not had to face any tank that is anything like the tanks of today (T-72). Only if these tanks face modern tanks will we really no which one is best. So really there is no way to deem which one is truly ultimate. Obliviously a brit like my self would say Charlie2 and an American would say M1A1/2.

PS Not touching the crews.

[S2]

el guapo Reply

"...(intelligent debate)", remember?

"Challenger 2 is the most advanced tank. Why? I don't know."

Restrain your mindless typing and read more. Your comments are a distraction from a good discussion.

[HistoricalDavid]

One thing roundly superior on the Abrams is the MG armament, especially so with TUSK.

[S2]

Machine Guns

When was the external, barrel-mounted .50 cal w/ the spot-light added? Isn't there a coax M240 7.62mm in addition to the loader and commander weapons?

[HistoricalDavid]

There is. Two 7.62s and two .50cals, at least on the upgraded versions. I was as surprised as you to see that it has two coax MGs but upon reflection I don't know where else they could have added the extra MG.

It was added recently as part of the TUSK programme but I cannot say more as I do not have the article or context in which the pictures should be.

Note also the ERA, loader's transparent shield and something which I cannot identify; a hinged black bar or two right at the hull's front. Tankers, help?

[R Thomas]

Sorry not 2 50.cals(Inless with TUSK), its 1 thats me getting carried away with the typing

[HistoricalDavid]

You'd be wrong a year ago, you're right now.

[R Thomas]

You'd be wrong a year ago, you're right now.

:) Oh with TUSK? i don't no a lot about the current M1A2

[HistoricalDavid]

:) Oh with TUSK? i don't no a lot about the current M1A2

Can't you see the pictures I posted?

[R Thomas]

Yes :)) See this aswell http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-09-165522.jpg

[HistoricalDavid]

I know, I was puzzled about the addition of a coax HMG but it appears it's now part of TUSK, whereas that last pic has been around for ages.

[R Thomas]

Anyway back to the main idea of the thread ;) In a urban enviroment i would rather have the M1A2. Although over that i would prefer the Warrior AFV

[ofogs]

Note also the ERA, loader's transparent shield and something which I cannot identify; a hinged black bar or two right at the hull's front. Tankers, help?

That's the tow bar. You'll see a lot of units do that so it's readily accessible for recovery ops.