http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20051123.asp one of the compair the tank sites.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp another article explaining a little better. Also they make a good point in that Abrams uses depleted uranium in armor and shell where others have yet to attempt, they take the slightly lets radioactive way.
Last edited by Wolfren (2006-01-28 14:47:54)
Is it bad to use radioactive stuff? It's in small quantities.Wolfren wrote:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp another article explaining a little better. Also they make a good point in that Abrams uses depleted uranium in armor and shell where others have yet to attempt, they take the slightly lets radioactive way.
CHALLENGER 2 is the best, dont care what ya say
geez elite, gettin a bit too patriotic their with your challenger 2, imo m1a2 or leopard
just look at it ffs, could crush m1a2 and leapord, its bloody massive, kick anyones ass
i'd just like to say that in my opinion the challenger is currently the best tank,,though its a close thing,an the main reason its the best,,CHOBHAM,,thats the armour on the tank,,its highly classifiedmand america has been asking for it for years,,but britain wont let its allies share,,also the gun is better than the abrhams by the simple fact that its rifled,reason i dont like the abrhams is is range,,damn thing is a guzzler,,needs a convoy of bowsers to keep it going,well thats my 2 pence
Id say atm that the Challenger and Abrams are both solid MBTs as are the German Leopard and French LeClerc tanks.
The challenger Has Chobam armor (in Basrah a ChII reported 230 odd RPG hits, it had to return to base after one rocket cracked the glass on the targeting lens and the tank was fighting again less than 2 hours later) which the US govenment are killing for and possibly one of the best targeting computers in the world (if i remember correctly its the current record holder for long range direct hits). But one strength of the Abrams is what was originally in its design brief.
Designed in the late 70s and introduced in 1980 it was designed (much like the EF2000 jet) to defend against the Red Army. The abrams computer can communicate and spot tagets to other armored units and basically in a HUGE tank battle, the firepower it could bring down would be insane as no 2 tanks would aim at the same target.
The challenger was introduced too late for the cold war.
All these tanks are complex and so not many exist, the Days of the MBT are dead although, and as somoene said best doesnt always win. in WW2 the tiger and panther tanks were FAR superior to Shermans by far and T34s with their sloping armour slightly. But hell, if you out number them 10 to 1, who cares if you loose 4 tanks for every Tiger, the enemy will run out of tanks before you do.
The challenger Has Chobam armor (in Basrah a ChII reported 230 odd RPG hits, it had to return to base after one rocket cracked the glass on the targeting lens and the tank was fighting again less than 2 hours later) which the US govenment are killing for and possibly one of the best targeting computers in the world (if i remember correctly its the current record holder for long range direct hits). But one strength of the Abrams is what was originally in its design brief.
Designed in the late 70s and introduced in 1980 it was designed (much like the EF2000 jet) to defend against the Red Army. The abrams computer can communicate and spot tagets to other armored units and basically in a HUGE tank battle, the firepower it could bring down would be insane as no 2 tanks would aim at the same target.
The challenger was introduced too late for the cold war.
All these tanks are complex and so not many exist, the Days of the MBT are dead although, and as somoene said best doesnt always win. in WW2 the tiger and panther tanks were FAR superior to Shermans by far and T34s with their sloping armour slightly. But hell, if you out number them 10 to 1, who cares if you loose 4 tanks for every Tiger, the enemy will run out of tanks before you do.
So that's clear ! Leopard>Abrams>Type 90>Leclerc>ChallengerForecast International/ DMS finds that, based on an overall comparison in terms of lethality, fightability, mobility and survivability, the Leopard 2A6EX comes out on top. The M1A2 takes the second place. Coming in third place in the rankings is Japan's highly sophisticated Type 90, followed by the Leclerc S XXI of France and the United Kingdom's Challenger 2 Mk.III.
That would be pretty cool if the Abrams had that armor. It would never blow up and it would still blow the shit out of everything in sight, like a godly tank. I suppose the Challenger 2s armor must be really expensive though.snidey wrote:
i'd just like to say that in my opinion the challenger is currently the best tank,,though its a close thing,an the main reason its the best,,CHOBHAM,,thats the armour on the tank,,its highly classifiedmand america has been asking for it for years,,but britain wont let its allies share,,also the gun is better than the abrhams by the simple fact that its rifled,reason i dont like the abrhams is is range,,damn thing is a guzzler,,needs a convoy of bowsers to keep it going,well thats my 2 pence
Last edited by _j5689_ (2006-02-25 16:34:45)
You don't know anything about ballistics, do you?snidey wrote:
also the gun is better than the abrhams by the simple fact that its rifledpence
yea that challenger 2 cost 2-3 million pounds each
Challenger factory , not that far from where I live. My mate works round there and says he's seen them filling up at the local petrol station... lol (no shit either)
Tank on plaque out front
Finished products
Tank on plaque out front
Finished products
Last edited by JonskyGBR (2006-01-29 14:35:53)
oh, is it in leeds...i think, correct me if im wrong
Bit further north on the bank of the TYNE.
after comparing tanks the leopard 2>m1a1>challenger 2
Last edited by ProDicTeD (2006-01-29 14:48:09)
Google Earth is awesome.JonskyGBR wrote:
Challenger factory , not that far from where I live. My mate works round there and says he's seen them filling up at the local petrol station... lol (no shit either)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonsky7/images/vickers.jpg
Tank on plaque out front
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonsky7/im … ckers2.jpg
Finished products
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonsky7/im … ckers1.jpg
Most people would say it's the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.
But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.
The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.
Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.
Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.
Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.
Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.
Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.
Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.
Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98.
Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield.
But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.
The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.
Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very effective crews and tank units.
Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.
Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.
Seventh place, by default, goes to the LeClerc.
Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.
Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.
Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98.
Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield.
Well, it's pretty pointless discussing what's the best tank unless you define what you want to use it for, no? Each of them was designed with a slightly different tradeoff on all the key characteristics. So the Merkava is much better at urban streetfighting in support of infantry than any of the others but is a bit bulky for tank-on-tank fighting, the M1 has much better acceleration and is quieter than the diesel-engined tanks but has much worse fuel economy when cruising, and so forth.
I believe all the modern western tanks use CHOBHAM armour, all have excellent guns, and all have good electronics. Whichever one has been updated last will have the best, because it's pretty marginal. The LeopardII has the best gun, but doesn't use DU ammo for political reasons, which means the Abrams/ChallengerII are pretty even with it.
So what do you want to do with your tank, what kind of enemy are you going to face, how well-supplied are you going to be, what kind of ammo are you going to use and how often are you planning to replace engines/optics/cannon/electronics? And what's your budget?
Even the subject of which engine to stick into a tank is a hugely complicated issue as you can see here http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
Fortunately in BF2 none of the tanks bear any resemblance to reality but are much simpler to play with.
I believe all the modern western tanks use CHOBHAM armour, all have excellent guns, and all have good electronics. Whichever one has been updated last will have the best, because it's pretty marginal. The LeopardII has the best gun, but doesn't use DU ammo for political reasons, which means the Abrams/ChallengerII are pretty even with it.
So what do you want to do with your tank, what kind of enemy are you going to face, how well-supplied are you going to be, what kind of ammo are you going to use and how often are you planning to replace engines/optics/cannon/electronics? And what's your budget?
Even the subject of which engine to stick into a tank is a hugely complicated issue as you can see here http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
Fortunately in BF2 none of the tanks bear any resemblance to reality but are much simpler to play with.
Bugger me someone ^^^^^ with some sense.
The Chally 2 is a DEFENSIVE tank. If it is used as a defensive tank then it is the best tank in the world. It has the longest reach of all the tanks. Its APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) can knock out a tank at 5km (It did in the gulf). Speed and range dont matter when in defense of a target.
To put it like this no other tank could get within firing range before they were hit so the point is null and void.
In an offense role I would go for the Leopard 2 but for one small point. It is manned by conscripts with no history of combat. Example: British Forces were involved in comabt for 99years out of the last 100 (1900-2000) - Experiance and tactics like that are much better than any armour.
I'm not even going to consider the Abrams as the Americans are usually too busy shooting each other to take part in a battle. Maybe George Dubya Bush ordered some stat padding?
The Chally 2 is a DEFENSIVE tank. If it is used as a defensive tank then it is the best tank in the world. It has the longest reach of all the tanks. Its APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) can knock out a tank at 5km (It did in the gulf). Speed and range dont matter when in defense of a target.
To put it like this no other tank could get within firing range before they were hit so the point is null and void.
In an offense role I would go for the Leopard 2 but for one small point. It is manned by conscripts with no history of combat. Example: British Forces were involved in comabt for 99years out of the last 100 (1900-2000) - Experiance and tactics like that are much better than any armour.
I'm not even going to consider the Abrams as the Americans are usually too busy shooting each other to take part in a battle. Maybe George Dubya Bush ordered some stat padding?
lol m8 qualitynxt-sockpuppet wrote:
I'm not even going to consider the Abrams as the Americans are usually too busy shooting each other to take part in a battle. Maybe George Dubya Bush ordered some stat padding?
How exactly would you know that we shoot each other?nxt-sockpuppet wrote:
Bugger me someone ^^^^^ with some sense.
The Chally 2 is a DEFENSIVE tank. If it is used as a defensive tank then it is the best tank in the world. It has the longest reach of all the tanks. Its APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) can knock out a tank at 5km (It did in the gulf). Speed and range dont matter when in defense of a target.
To put it like this no other tank could get within firing range before they were hit so the point is null and void.
In an offense role I would go for the Leopard 2 but for one small point. It is manned by conscripts with no history of combat. Example: British Forces were involved in comabt for 99years out of the last 100 (1900-2000) - Experiance and tactics like that are much better than any armour.
I'm not even going to consider the Abrams as the Americans are usually too busy shooting each other to take part in a battle. Maybe George Dubya Bush ordered some stat padding?
Sorry. I meant shooting the allies.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1517327,00.html
TimeOnline.co.uk wrote:
American troops are being taught to recognise that the Union Jack means British troops in an attempt to stop them firing on allied vehicles following thirty two 'blue on blue' attacks in the past year
I think this says otherwise<{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.
This is just one of the pics that I took while I was out in Iraq, but even so, the Challenger is far superior than anything previousley built (including the Abrahms which is outdated now)
As for the German Leapord, you can only watch this space and wait until it is proved in battle because trials mean shit these days.
At the end of the day, the tank is only as good as the people crewing her
P.s. I was also shot at by American troops who were IN FRONT of us
Last edited by DazBurt (2006-01-31 02:34:23)
omfg the abrams sucks, a big hole on its right side.