M1A2 vs Challenger 2A6...
Aaargh! (nose bleeds)
Will someone please give me an Advil or something??
It would be very helpful if there will be a scenario, let's say, in the middle of Kansas or Kenya. It makes me choose on a blank paper.
Anywhoo, fastest tank does not mean an agile tank. Fastest tank in a straight line maybe, but on a rugged terrain where fuel consumption is as effective as toppling down a drumful of Diesel fuel, factors greatly multiply.
So my slice of cheese goes into the Challenger 2 (but the hunk o'cheese would be given to a tank not stated here).
1
The Best of the Best
Started By Dr. Strangelove, May 22 2008 03:38
51 replies to this topic
#51
-
- Member
-
- 464 posts
Veteran
-
Projects: No current project, just to ask inane questions :p
Posted 12 June 2008 - 04:59
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#52
-
- Member
-
- 2223 posts
E-Studios Uber Computer Geek
Posted 20 June 2008 - 03:10
To the above poster, do you mean the Leopard 2A6, or the Challenger 2?
Anyways, it's a tough call between the chally and the abrams. The Abrams has the better frontal armor, which now has added DU to the burlington sandwich of armor in the M1A2 SEP. However, it's side armor is weaker than the Chally. The guns are also pretty equal, but also different, the Abrams operates the Rheinmetall M256 or L44 gun, a smoothbore 120mm gun, and fires a DU APFSDS round or a HEAT round. While the Chally uses an L11A5 gn, which is a 120mm rifled gun. THe rifling makes for a flatter trajectory, although a slower muzzle velocity, however, little of that matters with the advanced FCS anyways (well, the muzzle velocity makes the round less powerful). The gun fires HESH or APFSDS rounds. Now, for the HESH vs. HEAT debate, the HESH is a better multi-purpose round while the HEAT is a better anti-tank round, although both are far worse than the APFSDS in penetrating armor. The HEAT is countered by ceramics, ERA, and spaced armor to a smaller degree, while the HESH is countered by spaced armor. The HESH has a great ability to blast right through concrete, which makes it a good multi purpose round, but at the end of the day, tanks are built to fight tanks, and the APFSDS is used to fight modern tanks, so its a draw. It is noted that the longest kill was made by a Challenger (1), however, the gunnery contests have all been won by Canadians wielding Leopard 1 varients (I'm not sure if they're using the most updated Leopard 1s which have the smoothbore 120mm or the older ones with the rifled 105mm).
The mobility is also a draw, although they are different. The Abrams has far better acceleratiion with the gas turbine and a higher top speed, but guzzles fuel. The Challenger 2, with its heavier weight (due to more armor) and a 1200hp diesel engine, is worse in mobility itself, but it doesn't guzzle fuel quite as fast so it has longer range. So, it really depends on your purpose, if you need to be constantly moving from place to place, the abrmas is better, with the better acceleration and top speed, while the challenger is better in cross country, with the longer range.
Overall, in combat, the CHallenger 2 has the better record, as it has been proven remarkably hard to destroy. It's better all around armor has proven to be better in urban combat, where its not just head on tank battles.
Overall, 2 similar yet different tanks for two slightly different purposes. The abrams was originially designed for combat in the US owned part of West Germany, where there was little threat of flanking, so moving in reverse against a horde of inferior russian tanks would be the likely scenario, so the gas turbine and heavy frontal armor was ideal. The British owned part of West Germany had more of a treat to flanking, so they put on more armor all around the tank to compensate for that.
So its a complete draw, however, my heart will always be with the Leopard 2A6. Faster top speed than the Abrams (because of the limiter), and longer range than both the abrams and challenger (lighter than the challenger, and is a diesel vs. gas turbine). It's frontal armor is within 20mm RHA equivelent of the Abrams frontal armor against APFSDS rounds, and has superiour protection against chemical rounds compared to both (athough that doesn't matter much any more). The gun is the L55 gun, a longer version of the m256/L44 gun that is on the Abrams and other varients of the Leopard 2. So, for me, the Leopard 2A6 is the most appealing, also looks the best with the arrowhead frontal turret armor IMO.
It should be noted that now the Challenger 2 is being fitted with the L55 as well, so that makes each tank similar in firepower.
Anyways, it's a tough call between the chally and the abrams. The Abrams has the better frontal armor, which now has added DU to the burlington sandwich of armor in the M1A2 SEP. However, it's side armor is weaker than the Chally. The guns are also pretty equal, but also different, the Abrams operates the Rheinmetall M256 or L44 gun, a smoothbore 120mm gun, and fires a DU APFSDS round or a HEAT round. While the Chally uses an L11A5 gn, which is a 120mm rifled gun. THe rifling makes for a flatter trajectory, although a slower muzzle velocity, however, little of that matters with the advanced FCS anyways (well, the muzzle velocity makes the round less powerful). The gun fires HESH or APFSDS rounds. Now, for the HESH vs. HEAT debate, the HESH is a better multi-purpose round while the HEAT is a better anti-tank round, although both are far worse than the APFSDS in penetrating armor. The HEAT is countered by ceramics, ERA, and spaced armor to a smaller degree, while the HESH is countered by spaced armor. The HESH has a great ability to blast right through concrete, which makes it a good multi purpose round, but at the end of the day, tanks are built to fight tanks, and the APFSDS is used to fight modern tanks, so its a draw. It is noted that the longest kill was made by a Challenger (1), however, the gunnery contests have all been won by Canadians wielding Leopard 1 varients (I'm not sure if they're using the most updated Leopard 1s which have the smoothbore 120mm or the older ones with the rifled 105mm).
The mobility is also a draw, although they are different. The Abrams has far better acceleratiion with the gas turbine and a higher top speed, but guzzles fuel. The Challenger 2, with its heavier weight (due to more armor) and a 1200hp diesel engine, is worse in mobility itself, but it doesn't guzzle fuel quite as fast so it has longer range. So, it really depends on your purpose, if you need to be constantly moving from place to place, the abrmas is better, with the better acceleration and top speed, while the challenger is better in cross country, with the longer range.
Overall, in combat, the CHallenger 2 has the better record, as it has been proven remarkably hard to destroy. It's better all around armor has proven to be better in urban combat, where its not just head on tank battles.
Overall, 2 similar yet different tanks for two slightly different purposes. The abrams was originially designed for combat in the US owned part of West Germany, where there was little threat of flanking, so moving in reverse against a horde of inferior russian tanks would be the likely scenario, so the gas turbine and heavy frontal armor was ideal. The British owned part of West Germany had more of a treat to flanking, so they put on more armor all around the tank to compensate for that.
So its a complete draw, however, my heart will always be with the Leopard 2A6. Faster top speed than the Abrams (because of the limiter), and longer range than both the abrams and challenger (lighter than the challenger, and is a diesel vs. gas turbine). It's frontal armor is within 20mm RHA equivelent of the Abrams frontal armor against APFSDS rounds, and has superiour protection against chemical rounds compared to both (athough that doesn't matter much any more). The gun is the L55 gun, a longer version of the m256/L44 gun that is on the Abrams and other varients of the Leopard 2. So, for me, the Leopard 2A6 is the most appealing, also looks the best with the arrowhead frontal turret armor IMO.
It should be noted that now the Challenger 2 is being fitted with the L55 as well, so that makes each tank similar in firepower.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
