Is it, or can other tanks compare? I've heard that it is the best tank in the world and would like to know for sure.
Last edited by _j5689_ (2006-02-25 16:31:32)
German Leopard is the best.. atleast that is what I saw in the Greatest Ever.._j5689_ wrote:
Is it, or can other tanks compare? I've heard that it is the best tank in the world and would like to know for sure.
My money is on the new Merkava. Albeit I am an Abrams fan, the Merkava is sweet.
The merkava was a Ground breaking, good but limited and dated design, it lacks the latest technical inovations. all other things being equal it Would be terribly out classed by late model tanks.Arkane wrote:
My money is on the new Merkava. Albeit I am an Abrams fan, the Merkava is sweet.
Its is a deadly looking thing though. F**ker looks scary.
My own Uninfromed ( not in the Millitary intell loop or have any real Armour Expirence ) opinion/Geuss
Is that they Challanger II Vs Abrams
would be an even match or not be able to badly damage eachother. I have read stories of M1 Abrams being unable, at point blank range, to Destroy an M1 abrams tank that was stuck and needed to be left behind. After repeated rounds into it an armor recovery vehicle happaned by ...pulled free and it was ready to fight in less than 24 hours.
The Challenger 2 is meant to be the best in the world its got great armour, plus the gun is on something so it stays straight so whatever your shooting ats buggered.
It looks obsolete.rhodri_d wrote:
The Challenger 2 is meant to be the best in the world its got great armour, plus the gun is on something so it stays straight so whatever your shooting ats buggered.
The Challenger is hands-down the best tank in the world. It may sound like i'm biased but it has a better gun, better armour, and a better crew - what more do you need?
Better crew makes you sound biased.=FDX=VEga wrote:
The Challenger is hands-down the best tank in the world. It may sound like i'm biased but it has a better gun, better armour, and a better crew - what more do you need?
well, i don't know much about tanks, but judging by this picture (link below) I would bet that the merkava's barrel is pretty strong...
http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabenn … picada.jpg
http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabenn … picada.jpg
Last edited by bEAv3D (2006-01-28 13:19:32)
That site doesn't even have english.bEAv3D wrote:
well, i don't know much about tanks, but judging by this picture (link below) I would bet that the merkava's barrel is pretty strong...
http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabenn … picada.jpg
I know, it just came up on a google image search, and I thought it was funny. If you really want to put 2 tanks head to head, get the facts here. It lets you compare, pretty much, any tank in the world to another one._j5689_ wrote:
That site doesn't even have english.bEAv3D wrote:
well, i don't know much about tanks, but judging by this picture (link below) I would bet that the merkava's barrel is pretty strong...
http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabenn … picada.jpg
http://www.militaryfactory.com/tank_comparison.asp
I'm not saying that the Challenger 2 is not superior to the Abrams, as I don't think I have much knowledge on the subject, but the Abrams has been around longer. The Abrams came into service in 1980, where as the Challenger 2 came into service in 1994, so there hasn't really been a lot of time for the Challenger 2 to get beat up on Like I said, I'm degrading the Challenger 2, but the Abrams is a very praise worthy piece of armor. Just my 2 cents.<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
Challenger 2 has reported 0 losses, the armor is superior to that of the Abrams, and the targetting system is spot-on accurate at extremely far distances.
Here's the usual problem with comparing tanks that allied countries use, they never have and never will be in a battle with each other. However there are other quantifying measures people can use, unfortunately armour on these tanks are classified information. But keep in mind, it's not just the quality of the tank, but also how easy it is to produce the tank. Germany had the best tanks in WW2 but were very expensive to produce, couldn't stand up to the allied production of tanks. It was simply a war that was won over shear number of tanks, and not the quality of them. It's also a matter of, does it get the job done for what you need? I think in the case of US, and Britian, the Abrams and Challenger are good enough to take out crappy soviet designed tanks.
Do they have the Challenger II in Iraq?
I think they do. But tanks aren't what they need against an insurgency.
Unless the insurgents put something together from the pieces of the ruined tanks that Abrams took care of, but what are the odds of that?jarm8180 wrote:
I think they do. But tanks aren't what they need against an insurgency.
Darn, they don't have the M1A2 SEP.bEAv3D wrote:
I know, it just came up on a google image search, and I thought it was funny. If you really want to put 2 tanks head to head, get the facts here. It lets you compare, pretty much, any tank in the world to another one._j5689_ wrote:
That site doesn't even have english.bEAv3D wrote:
well, i don't know much about tanks, but judging by this picture (link below) I would bet that the merkava's barrel is pretty strong...
http://www.blimdanet.com/galeria/pabenn … picada.jpg
http://www.militaryfactory.com/tank_comparison.asp
i seen the challenger 2 tank in iraw on the news, it was awesome, and it is unmatched, the leapord was best on greatest ever tanks :S, also was the sherman, doesnt that say how well it did in battle, the challenger 2 hasnt been in hardly thats why it didnt come top.
if i had to chose a tank to go to war in it would be the challenger 2
if i had to chose a tank to go to war in it would be the challenger 2
Yeah.... The Merkava pwnED em all! Challenger 2 seems to be BIG!!!! Leopard.. Hm... I don't know...
I think all 3 are damn good Challenger 2 seems to really be the best!
EDIT: If you believe this tank comparement website (which was posted before), the Leopard 2 is better than the challanger in nearly everything which is listed there... Its faster, its motor is better, its range is higher, it has more smokegrenades (I don't really understand the rest of the weapons).......... Probably its just better technology in targetting and stuff and its armor is probably better...
BTW: I remember the Merkava was developed for the crew. Somehow its safer for the crew who is in there as it is in other tanks. When they developed the Merkava they were especially worried about the crew, because the crew is fucked up normally, when a tank is nearly to burn or explode (but I think that only happens in movies an BF).
I think all 3 are damn good Challenger 2 seems to really be the best!
EDIT: If you believe this tank comparement website (which was posted before), the Leopard 2 is better than the challanger in nearly everything which is listed there... Its faster, its motor is better, its range is higher, it has more smokegrenades (I don't really understand the rest of the weapons).......... Probably its just better technology in targetting and stuff and its armor is probably better...
BTW: I remember the Merkava was developed for the crew. Somehow its safer for the crew who is in there as it is in other tanks. When they developed the Merkava they were especially worried about the crew, because the crew is fucked up normally, when a tank is nearly to burn or explode (but I think that only happens in movies an BF).
Last edited by TC><Injecter (2006-01-28 14:27:02)
Zero. Unless you live in the BF2 world, and insurgents have night vision and ziplines._j5689_ wrote:
Unless the insurgents put something together from the pieces of the ruined tanks that Abrams took care of, but what are the odds of that?jarm8180 wrote:
I think they do. But tanks aren't what they need against an insurgency.
We will still have to see it is said that the targeting system on the Abrams is still the best because it keeps being upgraded and the armor stats for both have not yet been released. So until they battle we wont know because as of yet the challenger has 0 losses and the abrams has never been taken out by another tank in combat.
How many wars has it been in? Cuz that would explain the "0 losses part". And how much newer than the abrams is it?<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
Challenger 2 has reported 0 losses, the armor is superior to that of the Abrams, and the targetting system is spot-on accurate at extremely far distances.
I think they don't have that listed because, essentially it is the same tank. That site doesn't go into enough detail to distinguish between the M1A1 and M1A2 SEP. Since the SEP, to my knowledge, pretty much consists of improved viewing devices for the crew, along with some other electronic bells and whistles, the general specs don't change that much. I don't even think they upgraded all of the tanks. They stopped in 2004, with the exception of just a few in 05. Now, the Marine M1A1 tanks received a FEP, or Firepower Enhancement Package, which upgraded their targeting and weaponry a bit.Arkane wrote:
Darn, they don't have the M1A2 SEP.
They dont have Merkava either or?!
EDIT: Found it when I clicked the Israeli flag up there
EDIT: Found it when I clicked the Israeli flag up there
Last edited by TC><Injecter (2006-01-28 14:35:36)