The German Leapord I would have to say would blow both the Challenger and Abrams out of the battle field. with equally matched crews. as for any piece of equipment you must have well trained crews in order to have them defeat the enemy. As for the Challenger and Abrams well I have seem what both tanks can do on a range and would say the Challenger seems to be the better tank. like I said depends on the crew. have a good night
New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Man, the amount of time I have spent talking to the uninformed on modern tanks.
Here is a brief synopsis:
Challenger:
The latest CHARM 3 gun is the most powerful, most accurate, most flexible weapon mounted on any MBT. Unfortunately, it is unique to the British, and they cannot afford further development. Rumour has it that they are going to cease any further spending, and new builds and rebuilds would get a NATO standard 120mm.
The Challenger is the best protected non-DU MBT out there against frontal threats. The STVR 122 is the best all-around protected non-DU MBT, while the M1A2 SEP is the best DU protected tank.
The Challenger has arguably the very best thermal system available.
M1A2 SEP
With the DU armour, is the best all around MBT for combination of mobility, protection, and firepower.
Has the second best hunter killer system (in my opinion, very narrowly losing out to the Leo2A5/6).
Requires a huge logistics train, as its engine is by far, the thirstiest engine out there.
Both the M1A2 SEP and the Challenger 2 use a made in Canada FCS, and both are very comparable in capabilities.
Here is a brief synopsis:
Challenger:
The latest CHARM 3 gun is the most powerful, most accurate, most flexible weapon mounted on any MBT. Unfortunately, it is unique to the British, and they cannot afford further development. Rumour has it that they are going to cease any further spending, and new builds and rebuilds would get a NATO standard 120mm.
The Challenger is the best protected non-DU MBT out there against frontal threats. The STVR 122 is the best all-around protected non-DU MBT, while the M1A2 SEP is the best DU protected tank.
The Challenger has arguably the very best thermal system available.
M1A2 SEP
With the DU armour, is the best all around MBT for combination of mobility, protection, and firepower.
Has the second best hunter killer system (in my opinion, very narrowly losing out to the Leo2A5/6).
Requires a huge logistics train, as its engine is by far, the thirstiest engine out there.
Both the M1A2 SEP and the Challenger 2 use a made in Canada FCS, and both are very comparable in capabilities.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
CTD said:
Is this from personal experience you are basing this on?
C
cpl forrester
Guest
o.k all valid points that i reluctantly have to except bare one point the up armour oh the challenger 2 is for extra protection and has not been widely used it is designed in mind for urban areas as we all know the tanks downfall.... having said that the challenger 1 needed the extra protection as it was cubbom 1 the new armour is cubbom 2 advanced ( all over not just the turret area as in the m1a2 ) no tank is invulnerable to Du Basra......challenger2 lite up by blue on blue (Du) also 2 m1a2's lite up by (Du) 127 Iraqi lite up by (Du) (in the two wars) but i would also like to make the point of a m1a2 being decomed as a result of two rpgs ( unconfirmed ) dirt monkey and zipperhead chat could be b*****ks but u can never be two sure after all who would admit two that a...............................so 2 surmise more power less fuel more clout and most of all the tank i would sit in on the field and fire me 120mm at some poor bas***d that really doesn't stand a chance......................................................on that note ..............have fun lol
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Just as an FYI....I recently read an article indicating Britain was going to be downsizing
their Challenger 2 fleet. If we had another party in power, we may have been able
to pick-up some good first line equipment for minimal dollars.
Matthew. ???
their Challenger 2 fleet. If we had another party in power, we may have been able
to pick-up some good first line equipment for minimal dollars.
Matthew. ???
C
cpl forrester
Guest
as far as I'm aware it has been down sized it used to b 1rtr 2 rtr 3 rtr now its just 1 and 2 some 1000 men down and there armour that was in the days of the chally1 when they brought out the royal ordnance factory challenger 2 thats when thy downsized so.................no challenger 2 4 u lol
........unless ur diplos want to pay big dollers 4 them..........lol
........unless ur diplos want to pay big dollers 4 them..........lol
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
The British are downsizing there army, air force and navy. They are reducing there tank numbers by 84 so there may be a few tanks for the taking. We can only wish the Canadian government will be interested. ;D
The British military faces one of the most radical overhauls in its history following sweeping cuts announced by the Government yesterday.
In what he claimed were moves to finally bury the mentality of the Cold War and face up to the conflicts of the 21st century, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, unveiled drastic reductions in the numbers of aircraft, warships, tanks and the infantry. Around 19,500 jobs will go 1,500 each from the Army and Navy, 7,500 from the RAF, and 10,000 MoD civil servants.
The number of the Army's infantry battalions will be cut from 40 to 36 and regiments will be merged, with some famous "cap badges", such as Black Watch and the Royal Scots disappearing. The number of the Army's main battle tanks, the Challenger 2, will be reduced by 84, and the AS90 artillery pieces by between 40 and 48.
Mr Hoon said the comparatively placid security situation in Northern Ireland had freed up troops for other duties.
The RAF, bearing the brunt of the cuts, will see its base at Coltishall in Norfolk closed, and 62 out of 309 operational strike aircraft 46 Jaguars and 16 F3 Tornados phased out. Adding warplanes no longer in service, but on emergency standby, raises the total to 134. A quarter of the fast jet crews, 69 out of 290, will also be axed.
The Royal Navy will lose 12 ships, including three Type 42 destroyers HMS Cardiff , Newcastle and Glasgow and three Type 23 frigates HMS Norfolk , Marlborough and Grafton . The number of nuclear attack submarines will drop from 11 to eight.
At the same time, Mr Hoon said, there will be investment in new technology including unmanned planes and surveillance equipment, as well as Special Forces the SAS and SBS needed to combat the new enemy, international terrorism and so-called rogue states.
The British military faces one of the most radical overhauls in its history following sweeping cuts announced by the Government yesterday.
In what he claimed were moves to finally bury the mentality of the Cold War and face up to the conflicts of the 21st century, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, unveiled drastic reductions in the numbers of aircraft, warships, tanks and the infantry. Around 19,500 jobs will go 1,500 each from the Army and Navy, 7,500 from the RAF, and 10,000 MoD civil servants.
The number of the Army's infantry battalions will be cut from 40 to 36 and regiments will be merged, with some famous "cap badges", such as Black Watch and the Royal Scots disappearing. The number of the Army's main battle tanks, the Challenger 2, will be reduced by 84, and the AS90 artillery pieces by between 40 and 48.
Mr Hoon said the comparatively placid security situation in Northern Ireland had freed up troops for other duties.
The RAF, bearing the brunt of the cuts, will see its base at Coltishall in Norfolk closed, and 62 out of 309 operational strike aircraft 46 Jaguars and 16 F3 Tornados phased out. Adding warplanes no longer in service, but on emergency standby, raises the total to 134. A quarter of the fast jet crews, 69 out of 290, will also be axed.
The Royal Navy will lose 12 ships, including three Type 42 destroyers HMS Cardiff , Newcastle and Glasgow and three Type 23 frigates HMS Norfolk , Marlborough and Grafton . The number of nuclear attack submarines will drop from 11 to eight.
At the same time, Mr Hoon said, there will be investment in new technology including unmanned planes and surveillance equipment, as well as Special Forces the SAS and SBS needed to combat the new enemy, international terrorism and so-called rogue states.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
It is basically the same hull, so comparisons of armour protection are fair.Ex-Dragoon said:
C
cpl forrester
Guest
o.k have how asked and been advised by the power that be.yes the black watch r for the chop but and i say !but!they are to be emalgermated not disbanded it is so called streamlining of British armoured Colloms....i.e..........the style of armoured fighting has changed u no longer need a long line of tanks followed by a second line on the Eastern European front so......its now regarded that u will need and use less mbt's followed by tank killing light armour and anti infantry also to be backed up by the incressing amouts of wah-64(westland built) as a result yes there will be less armour but selling it im not sure on that and the powers that be above my head seem to think that they will be put into storage in case they r needed to be called apon i.e.if one or two are lossed in combat .replace rather than by new at four times the price...........the government may not see it that way but the top brass i think will dig there heals in over this one.........as we are called to do more and more ...............how can we do it with lack of the armour we need to acive the goals that they force apon use.............im sure every zipperhead dirtmonkey and dogsbody feels the sameway as i do ............lack of supply's armour and basic kit kills good boys of all nationality's agreed?
1
12alfa
Guest
Lance Wiebe said:
And where would I fit in to your informed or uninformed group.
Ps:
As you would guess, I disagree with ya on the Charm3 being the most
most flexible weapon mounted on any MBT".
its used on 1 MBT, it's ammo is tube reliant, and can't be used on other NATO tube, like the 120mm from the US and Germany to name a few?
I know it's a small point be still valid it think.
How can a tube and the ammo for that matter that is used on only one system be the most "flexible"?
1
12alfa
Guest
cpl forrester said:
1- what is DU Basra?
2. Challey KIA was due to a hesh round into the turret through a open hatch, No tank will not survive this.
3. No M1 has been pentrated by anything but 1 rpg through the side, or can you point us to the data?
1
12alfa
Guest
12Alfa said:
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
I meant flexible in terms of use. A rifled cannon such as the Charm 3 can fire Hyper velocity KE projectiles, as well as HESH/HEP/HE aalong with various types of smoke rounds (both WP and BE). The weak link is the HEAT round, which does not perform well when spinning.
The smoothbore barrel can also fire hyper velocity KE rounds, and can fire HEAT, but cannot adequately stabilise heavy slow rounds such as the other CE rounds I mentioned. The are several reasons why many armies have gone to the smoothbore cannon. Primarily among them is that the tanks were designed for WWIII in Europe, and were prmarily designed to destroy other armour. Smoothbores are cheaper, easier to maintain, and last longer. Rifled cannons can fire more types of ammunition, and are best for supporting infantry because they do have smoke, HE, and so on. I remember well the arguments that everyone should have gone with the smoothbore, because the artillery can provide all of the infantry support required.
It is well acknowledged that the CHARM 3 gun on the latest versions of the Challenger 2 is the most powerful and most accurate tank gun on any modern MBT. Oh, I must mention, because of the two piece ammo, it is also has a lot slower rate of fire.
The smoothbore barrel can also fire hyper velocity KE rounds, and can fire HEAT, but cannot adequately stabilise heavy slow rounds such as the other CE rounds I mentioned. The are several reasons why many armies have gone to the smoothbore cannon. Primarily among them is that the tanks were designed for WWIII in Europe, and were prmarily designed to destroy other armour. Smoothbores are cheaper, easier to maintain, and last longer. Rifled cannons can fire more types of ammunition, and are best for supporting infantry because they do have smoke, HE, and so on. I remember well the arguments that everyone should have gone with the smoothbore, because the artillery can provide all of the infantry support required.
It is well acknowledged that the CHARM 3 gun on the latest versions of the Challenger 2 is the most powerful and most accurate tank gun on any modern MBT. Oh, I must mention, because of the two piece ammo, it is also has a lot slower rate of fire.
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,120
- Points
- 1,010
HEAT is a heavy slow round, one of the two main rounds fired by 120 smoothbores. Its also a CE round. There are plenty of HE rounds available for 120 smoothbore, the French are developing one with a 5000m range. About the only round that isn't really available for it is smoke, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to develop one. The CHARM cannot fire MPAT, or STAFF/TERM (to be suceeded by MRAAS) so each system has its limitations.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I don't want to be anal (but I will): Cpl Forrester, any point that you are trying to make is nearly rendered invalid by the incomprehensibility of what you are "writing". Take a pointer from Lance, 12A, Cdn Blackshirt, Canuck, et al: speak in coherent sentences. I got a headache trying to decipher what you were trying to get across, and finally ceded defeat. Making a few spelling errs is OK, but run on sentences and "cobbum" for what I assume to be "Chobham" made me think too hard......
Not all Army guys are dumb, so don't pander to that, please.
Al
Not all Army guys are dumb, so don't pander to that, please.
Al
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Spell check is there for a reason cpl forester whatever good points you are trying to make are lost from us trying to interpret your posts.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
HEAT rounds have a MV in excess of 1,000 m/sec. Most HE type rounds designed for fragmentation are about 25% slower. The reason is mass, HE, with its much heavier than HEAT projectile must have a lower MV to lessen chamber pressures. Also, smoothbore ammunition is fin stabilised. Anyone can develop a smoothbore HE round, even the French, but if 50% of its length is fin (think mortar) then there is less mass at the target end. So, you can have a 45 pound explosive shell landing at the target end from a rifled barrel, or a 20 pound shell from a smoothbore.
MPAT is simply a HEAT round with graze fusing, so it can use its puny 10 pound explosives as an fragmentation round. A poor excuse for a true HE round as fired by rifled gun tanks, as well as artillery.
MPAT is simply a HEAT round with graze fusing, so it can use its puny 10 pound explosives as an fragmentation round. A poor excuse for a true HE round as fired by rifled gun tanks, as well as artillery.
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,120
- Points
- 1,010
The French HE round has a MV of 1000 m/s. The complete weight is 22.5kg with a filling weight is 3.2 kg of HE. By way of comparision the filling wieght of a straight 105mm HE howitzer round is 2.1 kg with an overall total weight of 14-15kg. So its comparative, 1 kilo of HE for every 7 kilos of projectile weight (approx).
There is no HE round for the CHARM. The HESH round contains 4.2kg of HE filling with a 17kg projectile weight. This reflects the fact that HESH rounds are by their nature thin walled projectiles that are nowhere near as efficient as a straight HE round in the APERS role.
Basically every type of gun has its advantages and disadvantages. Most of these disadvantages can be overcome with technology. So the most flexible gun in my opinion is that which has the most R&D money and people thinking up new uses for it.
There is no HE round for the CHARM. The HESH round contains 4.2kg of HE filling with a 17kg projectile weight. This reflects the fact that HESH rounds are by their nature thin walled projectiles that are nowhere near as efficient as a straight HE round in the APERS role.
Basically every type of gun has its advantages and disadvantages. Most of these disadvantages can be overcome with technology. So the most flexible gun in my opinion is that which has the most R&D money and people thinking up new uses for it.
C
cpl forrester
Guest
right off topic guys but thought this mite help u understand pre army i was a right little shit spent most of my time in young offenders and lock up schools (reason) i lost my mum and dad in a car crash when i was very young and was raised in kids homes so as u can guess not well schooled but when i was 19 had no job no life i made a life changing decision to change my life ..............since then i have learnt to read and wright and all the other things peps that for granted........and after collage i in listed and come on in leaps and bounds.........the army changed my life and I'm a better person for it ...........so before u go judging someone on there gram" ...........not everyone is lucky not everyone is perfect..............but I'm a bloody good at what i do...........what i lack in gram" i make up for in floorless military record..........................no excuse i know but just thought it mite make u all understand where I'm coming from..............
C
cpl forrester
Guest
and to point out i never said that the m1a2 was penetrated by a rpg i said that it was decommissioned because of rpg fire sent back to the mecs for a refit.....................and that it is (unconfirmed) zipperhead talk......... u hear on thing that turns out to mean sommit completely differant...................but also as a point a m1 was destroyed by and rpg when it was in transit.this is confirmed as it was a hit to the rear .i think that it must of hit and lite a fuel line or something........i meant Basra......the (Du) was a typing mistake from now on i will double check sorry about that.as for no m1 being destroyed by anything crock of she,,it. several have been zapped in combat well known fact even the top brass in the Pentagon confirm that m1's have been destroyed in combat in the gulf war 1 & 2. a good thing about it though no service personal have(reported) to have been killed as a result that i have heard of i mite be wrong if so plz correct me.and as for the charm.3 main gun.the British army decided that the gun must above deliver accurate fire with good penetration (above addverage)as wars of the future would be hit them first to kill as apposed to rate of fire "if u lite them up they cant shot back"the charm.3 is the best kinetic round main gun to date ....................there was talk around that there mite be a development of a smooth bore for some of the tanks but only for the fire support roll.not sure about that but its something that keeps on being passed around!........hope this corrects some of my mistakes and some of yours
