An M1A2 can hit over 70 MPH if you remove the govener?

[SUBMAN1]

Wow! Just watched that on TV. Some things I didn't know about the M1, that is for sure.

The Leopard II though - best tank in the world as far as best bang for the buck goes. The M1A2 is the Rolls Royce however. One on one, Leopard II is dead, but at what price tag? Is it really worth that much more for a marginal performance improvement? I'd have to say yes since I believe our troops should have the best there is, bar none.

-S

[Sledgehammer427]

I am all for the leopard 2, the Germans know their tanking, and my uncle who served in the gulf war told me a story about how his Humvee was doing about 55 mph and to his suprise an M1 went screaming by. granted, those gas-turbine engines are a hoot, but it seriously reduces the M1's range.
which is why I would prefer the leopards diesel engine.

now there's going to be a big long argument about which tank is better hehe

[Task Force]

I perfer the tiger panzer... but... thats alittle outdated...:rotfl:

[bookworm_020]

Australia bought the M1's instead of the leopard 2. I still think we should have gone for the leopard 2:shifty:

[August]

I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience.

[Melonfish]

you guys are just missing the challenger II! what a tank! i mean can you name any other tank with a built in water heater?
pete:D

[SteamWake]

I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience.

Thats what I was thinking a ride in that thing at 70mph would be like being stuck in a clothes dryer.

[Skybird]

Plenty of secondary considerations go into guessing which tank you would prefer, Leo-2 or M1. For example the conditions of war you expect you need to fight in (defensive with stressed supply lines, or offensive), and the logistics capability of your army. That gas turbine of the M1 always consumes the same stellar ammount of fuel, no matter whether chasing down the street at maximum speed, or sitting still in idle, and it always shines bright as a christmas tree in thermal displays. The fuel needs of a Leo-2-basing tank force are much, much lower, since the Leo has as many PS as the Abrams, but bases on a Diesel engine (which additionally is extremely robust, and fast to replace if maintenance demands it). The modern versions of the Leo-2 feature equivalents to IVIS system for TC's SA, while the Leo-2 always has the additional TC advantage of that TC-perisope. Maximum speed for the Leo is slightly, but not much, higher than for the Abrams, while the Abrams has a slightly better acceleration, but if these minor difference really play a role in reality or not, only real tanker can tell you - but I doubt it. Ergonomics and firing procedures in the Leo-2 seem to be easier, shorter and thus: better. the Canadians using leased Leo2A6-ers in Afghanistan say they consider it to be the best tank in the world, and prefer it to the Abrams. But as I see it, all in all both tanks in their most modern incarnations pretty much compare to each other, with both vehicles being incredibly tough armoured, and mobilised. As an enemy tank, you would not like to have to deal with either a Leopard-2A6 or an modern Abrams. The main difference imo is the logistics factor, and easier maintenance, both speaking for the Leopard.

Both tanks derive from a German-US cooperation for a future tank, but that cooperation then broke apart. However, many of the design and dimension similiarities between both tanks are explained from that.

I must admit that I still failed to have learned anything about the Challenger-2. Shame on me! :)

[Jimbuna]

Challenger 2 Specs:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm

IMO she'll hold her own on the battlefield.

[Schroeder]

since the Leo has as many PS as the Abrams

Er, it's HP in English.;)

[Rilder]

Cool can keep up with highway traffic.

[SteamWake]

Cool can keep up with highway traffic.

Oh... and if traffic back up just driver over em ! :haha:

[Falkirion]

Australia bought the M1's instead of the leopard 2. I still think we should have gone for the leopard 2:shifty:
Couldn't agree with you more Book.

[SUBMAN1]

You guys are forgetting - the M1 has 505 Gallons of fuel on board. Yes, takes a lot to fill up, but what other tank can you run up into the local civi's garage, find some paint thinner, some vodka, and it can run on it? :D That is what it is designed to do - run on anything decently flammable.

Stick that in your Leopard! Gonna cause you much headache!

Aussies made a wise, but expensive purchase. Of course, the extra 18 tons of weight will do wonders for your black top! I guess if you are on a budget, a Leopard will fit the bill.

-S

[Thomen]

You guys are forgetting - the M1 has 505 Gallons of fuel on board. Yes, takes a lot to fill up, but what other tank can you run up into the local civi's garage, find some paint thinner, some vodka, and it can run on it? :D That is what it is designed to do - run on anything decently flammable.

Stick that in your Leopard! Gonna cause you much headache!

Aussies made a wise, but expensive purchase. Of course, the extra 18 tons of weight will do wonders for your black top! I guess if you are on a budget, a Leopard will fit the bill.

-S

As far as I remember, You can throw anything from alcohol to vegetable oil into the damn Leopard engine, and it will still run.
Interestingly there seem to be quite some international experts that put the Leopard 2 clearly above the Abrams.

[VipertheSniper]

You guys are forgetting - the M1 has 505 Gallons of fuel on board. Yes, takes a lot to fill up, but what other tank can you run up into the local civi's garage, find some paint thinner, some vodka, and it can run on it? :D That is what it is designed to do - run on anything decently flammable.


I'm not disputing that it can run on anything decently flammable... but I guess you won't get far even if you plunder :arrgh!: 10 garages for paint thinner and the like. And that's only for 1 tank. :D

[Skybird]

The Leopard-2 was demonstrated to run on vegetable oil indeed when it was introduced. It was a big story in the media, and the stupid tabloids took that as the primary argument to claim that for this reason alone it already would be the best tank in the world. Nuts. If you wage a war where you depend on vegetable oil - or paint thinner - to move your forces, you probably are already close to being defeated. :DL

While both tanks are very heavily armoured, obviously the lethality of their weapon system is what counts mosts in tanks, beside protection and mobility. The vital key figures of course are kept secret, but the usual assumption that the depleted uranium-rounds of american production are generally better in armour-penetration than the German Tungsten-Wolfram rounds, cannot be taken as "valid beyond doubt" anymore. Factors to be taken into account here are length and diameter of penetrator rods, their material (molecular density), used propellant, and gun quality, and on side of the target: armour type (material and structure of interweaving different components), thickness, and deflection angle of armour.

The American DU-round is the M829, which comes in three generations labelled A1-A3, with the M829A3 obviously being the latest and most efficient.

The premier German Tungsten-round is the DM53 and DM63, with the differences between them being discussed currently. Some say that the the DM53 fired from the new L55 compares roughly to the penetration power of a second generation DU-round. However, this is not confirmed, and in fact quite some people point out that the round is underrated and in fact matches contemporary third generation DU rounds at 2000m range. The muzzle velocity of the German projectiles is higher than that of the american projectiles, and it is an explicit claim by the producer Rheinmetall that the new German round behaves like a DU round in what before was seen as a decisive difference between both ammunition types: it is called abiatic shearing, an effect that makes the penetrator sharpening itself when travelling through the armour and constantly shearing off it'S own substance at the top of the rod. Compared to such a round hitting that constantly shapes itself into an arrow-shape at the tip, conventional rounds produce mushroom-like distortions of the impacting projectile, effecting target armour differently and less powerful. The new DM53 and DM63 are claimed by Rheinmetall to do this also abiating shearing also, which would result in much more gain in penetration power than just the estmated 10-25% (the mathematically calculated 40% probably are unrealistic in reality) in gain of penetration power due to using the LM55 instead of the LM44 gun. So indeed, there are some people out there saying that latest German SABOT rounds match latest American DU rounds for sure. You also cannot simplify things by assuming something with a higher molecular density alone, or with higher muzzle speed, for that reason alone necessarily does more damage. The overal resulting effect on the target armour is a complex formula with many variables, and ammunitions are hardly designed to maximise effects in all possible situations, but are optimised for high efficiency regarding those kind of armours they are expected to meet most often in future conflicts.

The Israelis seem to be able to produce an even better round design than the Germans (which really means something, since the Germans see themselves as global leader in conventional SABOT design), I think I read somewhere that at least one NATO army, I think the Spanish, chosed to buy the Israeli ammunition for their Leopard-2E tanks, which are upgraded Leopard-2A6-ers with LM55 guns (a formidable beast, btw, maybe even better than what the Swedish and Canadians got in Leo2A6-ers. Well, the Israelis certainly excel in picking western hardware, and then turning it into something even better.

The Americans are working on shortening the length of gun tubes while the Germans with the L55 Rheinmetall gun have just introduced a lenthened gun tube compared to the former L44 which is used in the Abrams as well. The Americans are trying to field an own-developed guided projectile comparable to Israeli and Russian designs, but with ranges of up to 12 km and capable to be fired from the existing L44 guns, and like in Germany, Italy and Israel they are also working on an electrothermal-chemical gun design that is competely different than existing gun designs and uses plasma cartridges instead of the contemporary propellants.



Jimbuna,

thanks for the link. I'm surprised that the British tank is lighter and the engine beeing 20% less powerful. While one would assume the latter is okay due to the first, nevertheless the maximum speed is significantly lower than that of the Abrams and Leopard. I wonder how it performs acceleration-wise.


A fascinating tank design of course is the Israeli Merkava with it's engine mounted on the front, adding to overall protection of the crew in case of an armour-defeating hit, and it's capability to carry an infantry squad like an IFV. Something reminds me of the old original VW Käfer here, which also was queer in being somehow the other way around. :)

[SUBMAN1]

As far as I remember, You can throw anything from alcohol to vegetable oil into the damn Leopard engine, and it will still run.
Interestingly there seem to be quite some international experts that put the Leopard 2 clearly above the Abrams.

Its called bang for buck man. Its the difference between a functional design and a Rolls Royce. That is why your experts think Leopard is the best all around tank. Easier to transport as well. I'll take my 18 tons of additional armor though, thank you very much.

-S

[stabiz]

Do you consider German WW2 tanks superior to American efforts? Or were the American tanks lighter, more efficient and cost productive, and thus better?

[Skybird]

Both tanks can use additonal armour, depending on the mission expected, and export versions of the Leo-2 have changed (tougher) roof, turret and belly armour by default compared to the Bundeswehr Leo-2A5/6. There are more versions of the Leopards in existence, then there are versions of the M1, because the M1 did not found as many export customers as the Leopard, and the internal developement of the tank for Bundeswehr demands also saw more versions than the M1 for the US Army.

But additonal armour can always be added to both tanks. In full armour load, the weight difference between the Leo2A6 and the M1A2SEP is around half a ton only. Without any additional armour, both tanks also weigh roughly the same. The French LeClerc and the British challenger nevertheless both have lesser weights.

the american tank uses Chobham armour, the German tank uses a composite-armour that nevertheless makes use of Chobham-principles regarding how to interweave different layers of material, but it is no Chobham armour.

The toughest incarnations of both tanks are the M1A2SEP, and probably the Strv-122 (I am not sure on the Leo-2E). Taking the easy road here and just quoting wikipedia without doing a longer Google search for more trustworthy sites, referring to RAH values, the frontal turret of the Leopard can withstand a SABOT hit with values of 920-940mm, the Abrams 940-960 mm. However, hits by explosive ammunition (HEAT-type) see the Leopard outclassing the Abrams with values of 1290-1960mm for the Leopard compared to 1320-1630mm for the Abrams. the difference for the Sabot ammunition is not significant, since I would be careful to take values from apper to reality anyway. The HEAT difference is significant, when considering that ATGMs are explosive warheads, and the Russian tanks' maximum engagement ranges of 5km sees them using gun-launched, guided HE-projectiles as well.

[Kapitan]

If i was going up against the M1A2 id have the challenger 2 reason personally better thank plus theres a huge diffrence between the two.

14 M1 abrams were lost in iraqi freedom not one challenger has yet been lost.

[Skybird]

If i was going up against the M1A2 id have the challenger 2 reason personally better thank plus theres a huge diffrence between the two.

14 M1 abrams were lost in iraqi freedom not one challenger has yet been lost.

Different tactics? Less operational exposure to enemy threats? The way you put it it would be premature to conclude from that alone on the armour level of the Chally2. You need to assess if they got hit, under what circumstances, by what, where, and at what range. ;) Else you end up by saying that a VW Golf is a superior armoured tank because no Golf was lost during the war ( because it never got aimed at by any shooter). :salute:

Does anyone have values for the Challenger's acceleration, and speed-in-reverse? The latter is a very interesting value, for it allows you to keep Russian-built enemies at your preferred fighting distance (under their ATGM range, but above close infights) while retreating from them, shooting at them - and still facing them with your frontal armour. Both the American and German tank excel in reverse-speed.

Ouch, and everybody please forget what I said about the low weight of the Challenger somewhere above. I memorised wrong what I had read in Jimbuna's link. With that weight of 62 tons (I assume that is default weight, not maximum combat weight) comparable to the Abrams and Leopard, a 20% lack in HP surely makes it less fast. I wonder how it turns out if even more armour (weight) is added to it.

[Kapitan]

If memory serves M1A2 has cobham amour which is also used on the challenger 2 and oddly enough cobham is british made armour.

[Jimbuna]

If memory serves M1A2 has cobham amour which is also used on the challenger 2 and oddly enough cobham is british made armour.

To date only one Chobham protected tank has been defeated in combat, an M1 that was hit by an advanced dual-warhead HEAT wire guided missile (http://ww.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Wire_guided_missile/) in the second Gulf War (http://ww.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/2003_Iraq_War/).

http://ww.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Chobham_armour/

[Kapitan]

Different tactics? Less operational exposure to enemy threats? The way you put it it would be premature to conclude from that alone on the armour level of the Chally2. You need to assess if they got hit, under what circumstances, by what, where, and at what range. ;) Else you end up by saying that a VW Golf is a superior armoured tank because no Golf was lost during the war ( because it never got aimed at by any shooter). :salute:

Does anyone have values for the Challenger's acceleration, and speed-in-reverse? The latter is a very interesting value, for it allows you to keep Russian-built enemies at your preferred fighting distance (under their ATGM range, but above close infights) while retreating from them, shooting at them - and still facing them with your frontal armour. Both the American and German tank excel in reverse-speed.

Ouch, and everybody please forget what I said about the low weight of the Challenger somewhere above. I memorised wrong what I had read in Jimbuna's link. With that weight of 62 tons (I assume that is default weight, not maximum combat weight) comparable to the Abrams and Leopard, a 20% lack in HP surely makes it less fast. I wonder how it turns out if even more armour (weight) is added to it.


I have a few friends who are in the royal dragoons who man challenger 2 70mph is achieveable in theres things and on tests which are classified i wouldnt be surprised if they do hit higher speed.

Ive seen a challenger 2 on a range they move back very fast they would out run my scania which can do 25mph in reverse and acclerates faster in reverse than going forward ! they can move and thier rifled guns help accurcy no end.

[Sledgehammer427]

yup, armor layer cake, I'm sure we use our own mix though.

[Skybird]

If memory serves M1A2 has cobham amour which is also used on the challenger 2 .
That is correct. So what...? If you think only Chobham armour is good armour, then you are wrong. It was the first composite-type of armour, developed in the city of Chobham. the German variation of that armour principle, we call it "Kompositpanzerung", obviously also is as effective. I think compared to Chobham armour it uses more ammounts of specially triple-hardened steel, a German speciality like anti-magnetic steel for submarines orginally have been, too (the Typ-206 was the first submarine using that).

[Kapitan]

Well this is something we have to find out id like to see the challenger 2 pitted against both leopard 2 and M1A2 in a fair fight just to see, but it wont happen anytime soon and untill it does we will never really know whos got the best.

we but can only guess and speculate

[Biggles]

Well this is something we have to find out id like to see the challenger 2 pitted against both leopard 2 and M1A2 in a fair fight just to see, but it wont happen anytime soon and untill it does we will never really know whos got the best.

we but can only guess and speculate

Well said.

Question: Were any of the mentioned tanks designed to actually be able to counter the others?

[Skybird]

I have a few friends who are in the royal dragoons who man challenger 2 70mph is achieveable in theres things and on tests which are classified i wouldnt be surprised if they do hit higher speed.

My condolences for the tracks! :D The M1s had problems with their tracks for many years. They then copied some principles of german track making, I remembered to have read.

Tank's maximum speeds usually are only acchieved on road tracks and unde roptimum conditions, not in terrain. But travelling terrain is where the music plays. A tank rated with a weight of 62 tons - different versions of the Leopard and Abrams also rate between 58 and 63 tons - but having 20% less engine power, I find hard to imagine to be as fast as the two rivals - it means to move faster the same if not slighlty more mass with less engine power, which is a bit of a paradox. Maybe that is why Jimbuna'S link gives a significantly less top speed, and mabye test you refer to were conducted with "naked" tanks, with reduced armour skirts, (for example those track protection skirts could have been taken off).

For the same reasons like I questioned that top speed, I would expect the acceleration of the Challenger being slightly smaller. As long as the British have not invented a fantastic gear box that works miracles and wonders in bringing engine power to the track wheels. :DL

[Kapitan]

The alison gear box which we use in our dust carts are excellent gear boxes i think they are the same type although more modified for the challenger, i have 12 forward gears 2 reverse where the challenger has 24 forward and 4 reverse , but i haave an advantage i have opti tronic gear haha ! (means i get to select the gear rather than wait for it) they last pretty much a life time these boxes and are highly loved around the transport industry.

One flaw in the boxes are that they clunk into reverse heavily they havnt worked that out yet but forwards its like your just constantly cruising.

[BulSoldier]

Is it only me or there arent fans here of russian armor ;) t80 , t90 may be, or the mystereous black eagle ?

[Biggles]

Is it only me or there arent fans here of russian armor ;) t80 , t90 may be, or the mystereous black eagle ?

Was thinking about the T80 just now. I don't know much about tanks or modern weaponry, is it still in service?

[Raptor1]

Was thinking about the T80 just now. I don't know much about tanks or modern weaponry, is it still in service?

Yes, it is.

[Kapitan]

T80 still active and is a nice tank the T90 is its sucesor and is just as equally nice and i rekon it is also in the running for top tank but i aint too sure on its specs, or what its truly capible of.

[Skybird]

T-80:
produced in reasonable numbers, while the T-90 so far made minor production appearances, although that changes slowly, so far mainly due to export calls, but also due to growing russian demand.

T-80 also is gas turbine driven, making it fast and one of the most mobile tanks in forward, the turbine has less HP than the Western tanks, but the tanks is smaller and lighter in weight. It was intended for use in guards regiments and - divisions. Mintenance however is said to be much more severe and complex, compared to Western tanks. the tank is very hot and thus easy to spot in TIS, like the Abrams. It's range with one tank filling is significantly shorter , shorter than the Abams' and much shorter than the Leopard's, I believe to remember around 350 km. It has thermals sights and a 125mm gun. It fires guided ATGM launched via the gun tube at ranges of 5000+ meters, which makes maximum engagement ranges greater than that of Western tanks, if visibility conditions allow, however, Russian SABOTS were needed in bigger quantities (they must maintain a much bigger tankforce due to their enormous territory), and thus their fiancial supplies allowed only so much developement work for coinventional SABOT rounds. where america bases on DU and Germany on Tungsten, Russia still uses steel for penetrator rods, although maybe that has changed in most recent years, I don't know. the tank has an autoloader and thus a crew of 3, like all russian tanks the ammo is stored within the crew comparetment, making it a death trap in case of fire and almost any penetrating hit in the ammo storage area. Crew protection in T-72 and T-80 is said to be extremely low. But the thing is a relatively heavy bug, not easy to crack open. The T-80 is reasonably well-armoured (though not as well-protected like modern Western tanks) and uses external reactive armour as well. Head-on it can prove surprisingly difficult to be killed at the preferred western engagement range, which is medium (on that, see below). On eof the weak spot is the roof armour, which is much weaker than in western tanks. T-80s suffered heavy casualties in Chechnya if fired upon with RPG from superelevated positions, also by flanking shots.

My speculation - just that: my subjective novice speculation! - is that where flanking is not possible, Western tanks would prefer to engage it at medium ranges, maximising the advantages of their own Sabot which is superior in effectiveness to Russian Sabot designs, that means below the range where they can effectively use their gun-launched ATGMs, but above the range where the distance is so low that even Russian Sabots can penetrate Western Chobham and composite armour. 2000-3000m may be a reasonable guess.

The T-80 must be tactically dealt with. It is no sitting duck like a T-72. I do not want to say it equals modernWetsern tanks, but it should not be taken as a lightweight, especially when it is operated by Russian "wave"-doctrin: which means it comes in high numbers.

The T-90 is an improvemnt using compinents and features of both the T-72 and T-80, in parts heavily modifying them. It uses the fire control system of the T-80, and is a bit better protected, it also features a defensive system that projects a misleading infrared signature by two infrared lights at the front and rear to irritate incoming infrared-guided ATGMs. despite several export versions, the russians have less than 300 T-90s in operation and plan to modernise 300 more T-72 to the standard of the T-90. Beyond that they have ambitious numerical goals. If they will meet them remains to be seen.

I personally would not like the idea to go to war in a Russian tank. That pretty much qualifies as a nightmare, in my opinion. their major advantages are their small silhouette, and their ATGM ammunition. everything else I see as inferior not only to top notch Western designs, but partially even to some older wetsern versions. And "crew protection" probably is a word that cannot even be translated into Russian. :D It is said russian equipement is primitive, but sturdy. That may be true for the AK-47, and many of their missiles and probbaly many other things - but definitely not for their IFVs and tanks.

P.S. I read that a Challenger-2 got stuck and immobilised due to terrain during the Iraq War. It then swallowed around 90 RPG shots from all angles, damaging it's sights, but not penetrating the armour, leaving engine and crew unhurt. After they got relieved, the sights were repaired in 6 hours, and then the tank was sent back into operation.

If that is true, that is very impressive!

[Jimbuna]

T-90 specs:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

[Rilder]

I think we just need pictures of flying tanks to decide this. :rotfl:

[Skybird]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8726/flyingtanksl.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/flyingtanksl.jpg/)

Now tell me, Rilder: did it help?

[Skybird]

(http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/1811/ws3ekz.jpg (http://img391.imageshack.us/i/ws3ekz.jpg/) )

[Jimbuna]

LMAO :DL

[Cohaagen]

The Chally's on-paper top road speed can't compare to the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Leclerc, but its cross-country performance betters all of them thanks to the hydrogas suspension. The US and Germany toyed with hydro-pneumatic suspension in the 70s as part of their collaborative tank design but couldn't get it to work - it leaked constantly and generally turned the tank into a maintenance nightmare. Britain, however, had a large civilian engineering knowledge base with a huge amount of experience with the so-called hydrogas system (developed for road vehicles by Leyland who, BTW, also designed the Chieftain tank which preceded Challengers 1 and 2). What I've heard from those who have experienced both is that CR2's ride over severe terrain is superior compared to either the German or US tank. Torsion bar suspension, used on the M1, is a pretty ancient but reliable tech, and helps keep weight and maintenance down.

As far as armour goes, Dorchester is it when it comes to MBT passive protection. Those famous stories of multiple RPGs barely scratching the armour are no exaggeration:

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8960/challyrpg.jpg

Estimates of armour thickness, RHA equivalence, etc that you find on the web are rubbish. They aren't even educated guesses - it's just some guy pulling figures out his arse. It is pretty certain though, with all the evidence from Iraq, that CR2 is more or less immune from RPGs and man-portable AT weapons, and the new armour pack with extra Chobham and reactive panels improves protection even further.

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/6329/newcr2.jpg

What few people know is that the engine is remapped to take care of the extra weight that comes from all the in-theatre fits. The Perkins CV12 in the RWS-equipped Chally above will be putting out the best part of 1500bhp (according to a old schoolfriend who is now a tank commander in the Scots Dragoon Guards, anyway).

The only Challenger 2 ever lost was due to a tragic blue-on-blue. Another CR2 put two HESH rounds into it from behind. The first blew the driver out of his station, the next, by sheer fluke and the arcing trajectory of HESH, actually part entered the turret (via an open hatch) and detonated on the hatch ring. You can imagine the result of nearly 20kg of plastic explosives in the turret confines :down:.

PS - I can also testify that Challenger 2 has THE comfiest commander's seat of any current MBT :DL.

[Skybird]

Just want to point out that it makes little sense to talk of "the" RPG-7. There are almost 3 dozen different warhead versions being produced and in operation for it, whose penetration power vary from the weakest to the strongest by a factor of 8.

Also, there are much tougher RPGs than the RPG-7 series available from Russia, and other shoulder-launched Panzerfaust-weapons from other nation's production. Chobham armour is optimnsied for withstanding especially HE and HEAT-typed (explosive) warheads. It's original design saw no comparable increases in resistance to SABOT (kinetic) ammunition, becasue ceramics that withstand explosions quite well, deal not well with kinetic impacts - that'S when they started to included spaced layers of soft materials as well. Still the resistance to explosive impacts still is very significantly higher than that to kinetic impacts.


BTW, I do not wish to give an impression as if wanting to talk down the Challenger-2. I know little about it, but time and again I read it has a very good reputation. It's just that I do not believe in total invulnerability, or a maximisation of all three tank-variables possible (speed/mobility, armour/weight, and firepower/weapon-type and -size). In 2006, a Challenger-2's hull armour was penetrated by an RPG-29 hit, injuring the driver seriously. One year later, Iraqi insurgents penetrated the lower hull armour again with an IED. So, invulnerable it is not even if not firing with Sabots at it. Tank design is about getting the best balance of these three variables speed/weight/firepower, which all - individually as well as in mutal interaction - are object to limitations in physic's laws, and also get influenced by military expectations and demands for mission profiles: or the type of enemy a tank is most likely expected to fight against. That's why I do not really agree with a description of the Leopard as being the "best" tank in the world. People saying that all in all it may be the best balanced tank imo are much closer to the truth.

Anyway, comparing tanks in tank forums often turns out to be a discussion of religion anyway. :lol:


P.S. And today I have learned what Dorchester armour is. Didn't know that.

[Jimbuna]

Dorchester as correctly pointed out by Cohaagen is the latest variant of Chobham used on Challenger 2 and Abrams, but not the Leopard which uses pure perforated armour (I don't know why).

Here is a Wiki link (appears to be quite accurate....makes a change) :DL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

An example of a typical tank discussion forum....bless em :DL

http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread59584/pg2

If you read on you might eventually get to know who had the biggest dick :D

[Max2147]

The Challenger 2 is quite good off road, as Top Gear found out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKfpPrRVIo

My impression was that the tank could have hit him a lot sooner, but they held off just to make it more fun.

[Cohaagen]

I think speculation as to the composition of original Chobham and Dorchester is pointless. I remember reading military periodicals, reference books, part works like In Combat! (remember that?) during the 80s. Many of them, with quite the air of authority, stated frequently that the "Stillbrew" applique armour on the turret of the Chieftain was Chobham, or some form of advanced laminate. It actually turned out to be a BFO thick chunk of steel with multiple layers of hard rubber backing :haha:. Still, it made the turret almost as tough as Challenger 1...supposedly. But then, post-war British tanks have always enjoyed an unrivalled reputation for protection. I remember speaking to one of the REME bods responsible for up-armouring the old Centurion AVREs (165mm gun) for Gulf War 1. They were instructed to make the frontal arc immune to third-gen ATGMs....and succeeded within weight specs. Not bad for a design dating to 1943.

Skybird: in the RPG-29 incident, the warhead went through a roadwheel and penetrated a part of the tank not covered by Dorchester - that comes straight from the squadron in question. As for the IED - yes, as a lot of journalists at the time failed to realise, it's just a matter of making a bomb big enough...no tank is invulnerable, despite the fact that they (incorrectly) assumed that CR2 had been claimed as such. Any insurgent group that has the ability to tie a few old Soviet 130mm artillery shells together has the power to destroy a modern Western MBT.

It is worth noting that Challenger 2 has taken a third-gen MILAN hit and survived. This was in the notorious incident where it also took multiple RPG-7s. The MILAN was captured from an abandoned Royal Marines WMIK Land Rover. MILAN 3 has a tandem warhead. Incidentally, the tank was disabled in this incident - because the driver panicked and backed them into a ditch. Apparently he wouldn't even open his hatch three hours later when relief arrived :DL.

Were I to go to war in a tank tomorrow, I would wish to go in a Chally. If I wanted to go to the shops, I'd take a Scimitar. Now that is a fun tank. If any UK Subsimmers ever see Scimitars for hire on driving outings, please take the opportunity. It is the most fun you can have without getting sticky in some way :DL. Bashing along the road at 55mph+ in an 8-tonne tank with a 30mm cannon above your head is about as good as it gets. Despite its reputation as the proverbial "leetle tank", a Blues & Royals Scimitar knocked out a T-55 in the first Gulf unpleasantness in 1991. That must have taken stones like Easter Island statues.

[OneToughHerring]

What about the Merkava?

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava_m2.jpg

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk3.html

[Platapus]

I once drove an M113 APC over 50mph on cobblestones. It was a puckering experience.

Can I ask how you measured the speed? That seems a bit fast.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html#M113A1

Top road speed is listed at 40 and I never was able to get a 113 above that.

The speedometers on our 113's were off a lot due to the vibrations and abuse and I don't think we ever used them in convoy. We just had pacer vehicles and intervals.

[SUBMAN1]

The short answer, no diesel powered tank is going to do much better than 45 MPH, and an M-113 - forget it.

-S

[Kapitan]

Dont be too surprised as it goes dust carts which are not made for off road and the small ones 17 tonners only have 130bhp roughly and can still make 50 over a land fill site so could a tank probably.

[Cohaagen]

An example of a typical tank discussion forum....bless em :DL

http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread59584/pg2

If you read on you might eventually get to know who had the biggest dick :D

:haha:

Not even YouTube would play host to comments as sh--headed and retarded as those.

That said, here's some things I learned from that thread:



Apparently there's a tank factory in the "city" of Chobham (pop. 3500), and "Abrahams" tanks (fuelled by latkes, brisket and chicken soup presumably) are regularly seen passing through because the richest country on earth can't build tanks worth a fart without outside help
People who can't spell, or indeed type, are nevertheless aware of the existence of "Chobham Mk5" even though the MoD isn't.
The Merkava is based on a Chinese tank, in the best tradition of age-old Sino-Israeli military cooperation.
Forget Janes - people posting on strategypage.com can be accepted with total veracity and are telling you absolute FACT. If they say they were an M1 platoon commander in Iraq 1991, by George they're giving ya' the straight dope. God bless Jim Dunnigan, the autistic John Milius of wargaming.
As long as there are inadequate morons obsessed with warfare this - http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm - stupid sodding website just won't go away.
Far from being an obsure British project unknown to the US until it fell in their laps in the early 70s, Chobham armour was actually a joint top-secret black ops black-budget majestic-classified project between America and Britain.
Almost no one on abovetopsecret.com is older than 13, and those that are have never had sex with a lady


If you read on you might eventually get to know who had the biggest dick :DFrankly, I think they've all got GG Allin penises.

[August]

Can I ask how you measured the speed? That seems a bit fast.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html#M113A1

Top road speed is listed at 40 and I never was able to get a 113 above that.

The speedometers on our 113's were off a lot due to the vibrations and abuse and I don't think we ever used them in convoy. We just had pacer vehicles and intervals.


Not very scientific i'm afraid. Just a 30 year old memory of a few quick and nervous glances down through the hatch at the speedometer, but confirmed later by the pace jeeps and other 113 drivers.

You could be right about their accuracy though. Lord knows stuff was breaking due to vibration all the time.

[Jimbuna]

:haha:

Frankly, I think they've all got GG Allin penises.

Your probably right :DL

[Skybird]

whatever conclusions technical comparisons of the American, German, British, French and Israeli tanks may come up with, three factors are also important that are not tecnolgy-related at all: training standard of tank crews, combat experience, and combat doctrine.

American Abrams saw much more opportunities for tougher action, then British Challengers at the siege of Basra. i wonder what the losses of Challengers would have been if they would have seen comparable ammounts of exposure to combat action, like the Abrams.

most American tank crews today have combat exopeirence in hot wars, could one asusme that to be right? I think so. Many British crews as well. but only few French and almost no German tank crews.

Israeli tank crews also are combat-experienced - but they suffered heavy losses in lebanon nevertheless, due to a combat doctrine suffering from bad intel, bad preparation, and a dogmatic change of the IDF over the previous years when it turned from a fighting force into a policing and occupying force.

At the same time, the German army has the highest density of hardware tank simulators of all armies in the world. the availability of first-rate tank simulator hardware and hours in it is higher in germany than in any other country. That's why the Bundeswehr currently has no interest in Steel Beasts Pro. :cry: Only due to the export success of the Leo 2 it is so overrepresented in the sim.

Tank combat doctrine is constantly being worked upon. You can see that in the many shiftings back and forth between 3 tanks in 4 platoons per 1 company and 4 tanks in 3 platoons per 1 company. also, tactical dogmas get constantly revised. Before the American armoured attack into Bagdhad, tanks inside cities were considered to be a big no-no, although the Israelis did it a lot. Now everybody is training it and has accepted that tanks in cities could have a decisive role and are not only targets. And the Israelis have combined IFV and MBT in their unique Merkava design. At the same time due to stabilised guns in moving tanks, advance-under-overwatch (2 tanks sit still, 2 tanks advance) is being reconsidered, since it's tactical need has decreased with technological advances. Just two examples.

Many of these things also play a role, these things can neutralise each other, or combine for an even imporved overall effect, but what always remains true is that the best tank is wasted if the crews as well as the military leadership do not know how to make best use of a system's unique characteristics.

[Platapus]

Not very scientific i'm afraid. Just a 30 year old memory of a few quick and nervous glances down through the hatch at the speedometer, but confirmed later by the pace jeeps and other 113 drivers.

You could be right about their accuracy though. Lord knows stuff was breaking due to vibration all the time.

Still even if you were "only" going 40 that is pretty darn fast for a 113. Don't know I would have the guts to do that in anywhere but a wide open field.

[Jimbuna]

Not wanting to stray off topic but does anybody ever wonder how the modern day platforms would compare against the likes of the King Tiger? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Not wanting to stray off topic but does anybody ever wonder how the modern day platforms would compare against the likes of the King Tiger? :hmmm:

Wie wohl...? Would you seriously expect any surprises? It's like comparing a L.A. sub versus a Type-VII. The latter would not even have a chance to ever fight back even symbolically.

[Jimbuna]

Wie wohl...? Would you seriously expect any surprises? It's like comparing a L.A. sub versus a Type-VII. The latter would not even have a chance to ever fight back even symbolically.

I take your point but I'm wondering if the front glacis armour plus tracks or sand bags would withstand the odd hit and how ell some of the composite armour would be able to withstand the Jagd Tigers 128mm gun.

Just curious....wondering if they've ever been compared on the proving grounds http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1817/thinkbigsw1yo4.gif

[Raptor1]

I take your point but I'm wondering if the front glacis armour plus tracks or sand bags would withstand the odd hit and how ell some of the composite armour would be able to withstand the Jagd Tigers 128mm gun.

Just curious....wondering if they've ever been compared on the proving grounds http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1817/thinkbigsw1yo4.gif

Is it using modernish ammunition or vintage WWII ammunition?

Even so, I doubt it would be very effective. Modern tank guns are smoothbore (despite this being a counter-development) in order to be able to use long fin-stabilized rounds capable of better penetration, so the original rifled Jagdtiger gun would not have the same performance.

[Kapitan]

Is it using modernish ammunition or vintage WWII ammunition?

Even so, I doubt it would be very effective. Modern tank guns are smoothbore (despite this being a counter-development) in order to be able to use long fin-stabilized rounds capable of better penetration, so the original rifled Jagdtiger gun would not have the same performance.

Not quite challenger 2 has a rifled barreled gun and can still fire finned projectiles.

[Skybird]

The toughest armour the Jagdtiger had at the upper front, it was 250 mm of steel. That sounds much, but mind you that steel armour used in WWII in no way matches the toughness of modern composite armour. The RHA-equivalents of modern armour at the turrets' fronts are roughly 5-10 times as high, depending on whether calculating HEAT or SABOT ammuntiion.

The 12,8 cm gun in combination with the grenades of that time had muzzle velocities that reached only a third to one half of the muzzle velocities in modern western tanks. The grenades also were not - by far not! - as destructive as projectiles of the present are. The following I just picked from German wikipedia, it might give an impression:

"With Panzergranate 39 and armour deflection of 30° the gun penetrated 166mm of steel, over 1000m it was 143 mm, and over 2000m it was 117mm. the rare Panzergranate 40/43 with Wolfram core penetrated 178, 167 and 148 mm over 500/1000/2000 m. "

Under regular combat conditions, with both tanks reasonably operated by the crews, the Jagdtiger would have zero chance. Bad vision versus superior detection capacity in the modern tank. Twice as long engagement range of modern tank. Modern armour at the turret being almost invulnerable to the old grenades. At over 2500m (3000, 4000 meters!) I would not be sure that even the flank hull would be penetrated by a shot. At closer ranges: okay, Abrams have been knocked out by even old warghead versions of RGPs, so there is a chnace then. But I thzink the Jagdtiger simply would not have reasonable chances to come as close as it need. On the other hand, the modern tank would be piercing the Tiger's armour at ranges at which its crew maybe even is not aware where the enemy is, not to mention that it. Modern tanks fire while on the move, and have roating turrets and guns. the Jagdtiger moves the whole hull to aim the gun, which can only be moved by 10°, and it must sit still to aim a shot.

No realistic chances.

[Jimbuna]

I fully agree but I have often searched for comparison data/charts and been unable to uncover anything tangible.

Any links anyone may know of would be much appreciated.

[badhat17]

Cohaagen, cogratulations for the first use of BFO in the forum that I know of. Still one of the best TLA's known to man.:up: