Fallout Studios Forums

Discuss(I prefer Abrams)!

Aw shit.. I fucked up.

Would one of the mods be kind enough to move this to the Warfare section of Science/Technology?

EDIT: I meant M1A2
Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 22 May 2008 - 13:56.

Now if you'd said M1A2 I might have changed my mind. But M1A1 is 90's technology, and lacks networking and sophisticated sights of the sort on the Challenger and is slower off-road, needs more support and from what we know (which isn't everything) has an older armour design (Chobham and the outdated Rolled Homogenous Armour as opposed to the Challenger's Chobham and classified Dorchester Level 2).
Edit - if it's the M1A2, then, hmm, I think I might actually stick with the Challenger 2. While the M1A2 gains the benefit of depleted uranium armour it also loses its speed advantage because the new armour is so heavy, and networking is probably about the same. Not to say that Challengers are undergoing trials to replace their guns with the new Rheinmetall L-55 which is a considerable improvement to their (and the Abrams') current L-44 thanks to a longer barrel giving improved muzzle velocity.
Edited by CommanderJB, 22 May 2008 - 23:00.

I'll also merge your posts while I'm at it.

Challenger 2, Rifled bore over smooth bore.

Challenger 2, better track record, longest-range tank kill of any other tank and it just looks cooler.

M1A1 us outdated, the Challenger 2 completely outclasses it. If it were the Challenger 1 vs the M1A1, then it'd be an equal match. But with this comparison, the challenger 2 is better. Now if you change it to M1A2 that'd be a different story.

PT-91.

Challenger 2 because, a Challenger Appears!

 CommanderJB, on 22 May 2008, 5:27, said:

 Evilgmk, on 22 May 2008, 12:34, said:

I meant the A2, sorry.

 Dauth, on 22 May 2008, 8:08, said:

Rifled bores are worse for firing APFSDS rounds.

Tsar-Tank > everything else


Edited by Rayburn, 22 May 2008 - 18:38.

Abrams for me - always liked it more...

They are both shit!

Leopard II For the win!

Challenger 2

 Rayburn, on 22 May 2008, 18:34, said:

QFT

But seriously, where's the Leopard 2?

I'm going to have to say the M1A2. It has a smoothbore cannon, digital stuff etc.

Challenger 2, because it has on board tea brewing facilities. To be honest, there isn't much else to distinguish the two.

@ Rayburn - P-1000 > Tzar Tank.



See?
Edited by rich19, 22 May 2008 - 22:24.

I swear you pulled that straight out of Generals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-1000

 rich19, on 22 May 2008, 16:36, said:

But still, it does look like something out of Generals.

I know you only wanted to compare the two, but I really think you should have include at least the Leopard 2A6 and the T-90 in here as well. I would easily vote for the latter if you put it there - it just has a wealth of systems that no other tank in service in the whole world possesses, such as a bigger gun, the ability to fire ATGMs to a 5km range, an EMP system that jams magnetic mines, infra-red jammers and the Shtora laser defence system to protect from enemy ATGMs (in addition to detonating the incoming missile by blinding its homing sensors it will also alert the crew to the direction of the threat so they can get even), Kontakt-5 ERA with the option to be upgraded to the newer-generation Kaktus/Relikt ERA. All at a much lower cost of production & maintainance, a much lighter weight, and similar speeds to all its contemporaries.

 CommanderJB, on 22 May 2008, 18:43, said:

The Shtora is a jamming system not a laser defense system. But yeah the T-90 is pretty good.

Out of the M1A2 Abrams, the Challenger 2, the Leopard 2, and the T-90, they're all pretty equal. IMO the game of armored combat is won by being the first to fire. Any of the these tanks can take on the other and win, it all depends on whose the best trained, who knows their tank the best they can, and most importantly, who fires first. Beyond that I can't choose between any of those tanks, they're all so good.

I do tend to agree with you, though my recent browsing of tank armour specs has increased my respect for the amount of punishement some vehicles can take. The other huge factor is the training of the crew inside, and I would suspect that Western nations would still tend to have better training programmes than Russia, although they are picking up their act.

Interestingly I was viewing another military forum eariler today about the T-90 vs. contemporary Western tanks (it went for 48 pages! I only viewed the first four or five) and it turns out that while they're comparable the T-90 has some significant differences that reflect Russian tank strategy compared to Western. Firstly, it's not quite as well armoured; the Kontakt-5 is older-generation ERA, and it only has partial composite cover and a cast rather than welded turet and hull. While Kontakt-5 was capable of defeating any tank projectile in the world when first introduced, there have been multiple shells developed specifically to counter it, so it's not as good as several other types (though it should be noted that few if any Western contemporaries have ERA installed in a typical configuration, preferring Chobham or depleted Uranium armour instead). Russia could install Kaktus or Relikt, which are much more capable, but they prefer to mount them on their T-80/T80U/T-72BM older-generation tanks in order to maintain reasonable survivability chances on all their tanks rather than fielding a few much more expensive but capable vehicles and a lot of older, somewhat outdated vehicles.
The T-90 is actually a large evolutionary update of the T-72, and is considered something of a 'stop-gap' until they can finalise a design for the new-generation T-95 and Black Eagle tanks that no-one really knows anything about.
So, the T-90 would probably lose a 1-on-1 unless it could use all its fancy systems to its advantage, particularly the missiles which I see as being a very large advantage. But it is cheaper, deployed in larger numbers, it's diesel engine is better for cross-country than the gas turbines of the M1 series or T-80 series, and has a few cards up its sleeve, so I'd probably still vote for it as being the better out of it, the M1A2, the Leopard 2A6 and the Challenger 2 in a warfare scenario as opposed to a 1-on-1.

Edit: Regarding the Shtora, as I said it, I know it blinds the missiles and triggers their detonators too early rather being like the Paladin's PDL from Generals and actively killing them by melting. It also incorporates infra-red jammers for IR-homing missiles, laser warning recievers and elecronically-triggered aerosol mortars that fire to hide the tank from view if it's being targeted. Laser hard-kill systems are still a long way off, as they haven't even been able to build MTHEL or Talon yet, which are battlefield-scale, let alone mount something similar on a tank.
Edited by CommanderJB, 23 May 2008 - 03:33.

Bah, they both get the job done equally.

Thus it is left up to aesthetics. In this case, I prefer the industrial look of the Abrams to the "prettier" Challenger 2.

-Boidy
Edited by C. Boidy, 23 May 2008 - 04:06.

I'll have to agree, the Abrams has a nicer look than the Challenger.

 CommanderJB, on 23 May 2008, 0:43, said:

I left out the T-90 because its really more of a prototype and the Leopard because I didn't think it was quite in the same league as the two I posted.