Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

challenger 2 and m1a1

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Sherman phpbb3, Aug 6, 2005.

  1. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    and guzzle all the petrol but we digress

    FNG
     
  2. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I like US cars, I'm thinking about buying a 1974 Dodge Challenger when I got some money :lol:

    Ive seen tests for the abrams were they show what happens when the shell hits the armor .My uncle that is in Iraq also told me that it had exploding armor to off set the shell

    Sure... :D

    O and I dont freakin care about what the Japenese or the French have .Are they fighting in Iraq with them ....No .I dont even buy dam cars from the japenese

    You said the Abrams is the most high-tech tank out there, I tell you the Leclerc and Type 90 are more sophisticated, so why start bashing the 2 countries...
     
  3. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    1974 Dodge Challenger - wooah, thats a nice looking car!

    [​IMG]

    old american cars are the best looking and they look big simple machines. They have just lost there way at the moment trying to compete with German engineering and japanese accesories and reliability.

    But back the thread. There is no real evidence that either tank is significantly better than the other as neither has been field tested in battle conditions. Shooting up T-64's and T-72's in a duck hunt doesn't count.

    FNG
     
  4. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    LOL, agreed, thats comparable with a firing range :lol:

    Lets make a car topic :wink:
     
  5. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Just to add, both have a gun of fairly comparative penetration, both have good top speed and accelaration and both have good armour with no significant difference.

    Does either tank do something especially well that the other doesn't?

    Cup holder? CD changer? TomTom?

    FNG
     
  6. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I've heard stories about a microwave in a Challenger... :eek:

    Does either tank do something especially well that the other doesn't?

    Yeah, the Abrams uses ALOT of fuel, thats the MAJOR flaw.
     
  7. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Oh my @#$%in' God.. once again, i'll have to shed to light that we're not using M1A1 tanks anymore. I REPEAT, NO M1A1 TANKS. We're using the M1A2
     
  8. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    God.. once again, i'll have to shed to light that we're not using M1A1 tanks anymore.
    Yes you do use M1a1's. I even think the biggest part of the US Army still uses the M1a1 (Heavy armor version, and with some improvements like 2nd gen. FLIR if I'm correct.). There may be not enough money to upgrade all the M1a1's to a2 or a2-SEP level. The USMC also uses the M1a1...

    Most movies/pictures I've seen from tanks in Iraq are from M1's.
     
  9. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Does the A1 use less fuel than the a2? I heard that it takes gallons of the liquid gold just to start!

    A microwave? Can't make tea in a microwave, it would taste awful

    FNG
     
  10. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Edit: Not even gonna try. Yes, we still use the M1A1. That's all we use. Yay America. M1A2? WTF are you talking about?
     
  11. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    You want some pictures of M1a1 in Iraq, I got about 100 of them...

    Does the A1 use less fuel than the a2? I heard that it takes gallons of the liquid gold just to start!

    I think it does, the M1a1 is a bit lighter than the A2 so its possible.

    The Leopard2a6 uses about 40 liters (don't know how many gallons that is..) of fuel if it has a cold-start, I don't even wanna know what the M1 uses for 1 cold start :eek:
     
  12. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, Jeffrey. Please share these pictures, because it would help us so much for the purposes of this (I never would have guessed) biased comparison.

    After some research I admit that I may have been brash, but really. Comparing an old American design to a new British tank is borderline stupid.

    The M1A2 is our latest, so that is what should be compared with their latest. I'm sick and tired of people thinking that "M" "1" "A" and "1" again are the two letters and one number that define the United States military.

    Fact is, M1A1 tanks are constantly being upgraded to the M1A2 standard, and M1A2's have entirely replaced M1A1 tanks in first-to-fight units. Meaning in actual tank-to-tank combat, it's going to wind up M1A2s vs. whatever they're fielding.
     
  13. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    After some research I admit that I may have been brash, but really. Comparing an old American design to a new British tank is borderline stupid.

    Challenger 2 hull is the same as 1 :-?
    Only big difference between the M1a1 and A2 is the commander's ability to use a thermal sight.

    Fact is, M1A1 tanks are constantly being upgraded to the M1A2 standard

    I doubt it, mainly because of the lag of money, and if they where upgrading them all to A2 level why than are they installing new sights for the gunner on the M1a1?

    and M1A2's have entirely replaced M1A1 tanks in first-to-fight units. Meaning in actual tank-to-tank combat, it's going to wind up M1A2s vs. whatever they're fielding.

    Any source?

    At picture: M1a1's in Iraq fully equiped.
     
  14. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Same group of M1a1's being engaged by the enemy, they immediatly turn to the direction of the fired shots:
     
  15. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Challenger 2 hull is the same as 1 :-?
    And the hull of the M1A1 and M1A2 is the same. What's your point? Besides additional NBC protection, the hull is the same on the M1A2. Keep in mind, the Challenger made the same upgrade, as well as updating it's armor protection.

    I doubt it, mainly because of the lag of money, and if they where upgrading them all to A2 level why than are they installing new sights for the gunner on the M1a1?
    You doubt it? That it? That's your response, your flawless presentation of facts to counter my point? That's a joke. You counter with something like "I doubt it" and expect me to take you seriously?

    Any source?

    http://www.globalsecurity.org is the only redily available one I will even bother to show you. You'll notice that the Unites States keeps upgrading more and more Abrams to the M1A2 Standard.

    By the way, I was joking when I asked for those pictures. I already conceded that we still use M1A1's.
     
  16. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    On the issue of fuel consumption and range from another forum, comments from a tanker:


    Can't personally vouch for the accuracy of the information though it sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
     
  17. Sherman phpbb3

    Sherman phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    [Edited by Moderator]ok you know what Im just not going to come here anymore I dont need some persons opinion on the [expletive deleted] best tank in the world .O and a 1963 corvette could smoke any crapy japenese car any day
     
  18. Sherman phpbb3

    Sherman phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    [Edited by Moderator]
     
  19. Sherman phpbb3

    Sherman phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    you guys drive me nuts
     
  20. dave phpbb3

    dave phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bristol, England
    via TanksinWW2

    plenty of things drive me nuts but i dnt have to start ranting n raving at others
     

Share This Page