Librarium Online Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 66 Posts

·
Bearded Ninja
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
The challenger is actually slightly worse than our current MBT, the M1A2 Abrams. It has weaker armour, is slower and about the same gun but less advanced targeting systems. The challenger is surviving because they are kept out of cities when ever possible. In a city a tank is extremely vulnerable, as witnessed in Iraq. The challenger is still an excellent tank though.
personally id have to disagree with one or two points here about the challenger/abrams thing.

from what ive read on a lot of tank forums and seen on documentaries and the like the challenger is considered to have the advantage in terms of armour. Currently the main innovators in tank armour is GB with the armour the Abram is using being based on the British Chobham armour which we shared with the American Government.

the guns I do agree with, they are very very much on a par with each other but for different reasons.

the challenger currently makes use of a 120mm gun much like the American smoothbore gun but it happens to be rifled much like most small arms today. this tends to let the gun be more accurate in comparison to the American gun when un aided by tech. this gun also holds the world record for the furthest Tank Vs. Tank kill with an allmighty 5.1km kill. the rifled barrel allows the challenger to have more options in its shot type and allows the use of the favorite H.E.S.H rounds

the weapons do even out however when tech is included. The Abram is by far the most technically advanced tank out of the pair with a much more advanced and complex weapon system which allows greater group combat (sort of like that those radars you get in wing commander games.) the tech aiding the gun its self makes it more effective in the short-medium ranges than the challengers gun (but as most tank combat is about medium range so this kind of cancels out a bit).

the counter the Abram has to the tougher challenger however is very much faster and more manoeuvrable. this is thanks to its gas-turbine engines but sadly this bites back by limiting the tanks effective range due to consuming lots of fuel fast.

in brief id say that the tanks are very much on a par, with neither being better than the other. both geared for similar parts of the three feature balance of all tanks.

armour
gun
speed

all tanks have followed this balance and every side has its own ideas on it.

but generally from what ive researched and feel personally id put things in this order

Armour: challenger
gun: draw (same calibre and generally the same accuracy)
speed: Abram

so in conclusion, a draw in my own opinion
 

·
The Pacifist Wargamer
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Haha, the German army! Whoo! :)

Weaknesses: no one really wants to fight and no one really wants us to fight. Any military tradition we may have is hushed-out now because of the politics that go with it. (Regardless of the fact that the Germans have completely revolutionized warfare three times in the last two hundred years. More on this later.)

Strengths: no one leaves their time in the Federal Defense saying they had a bad time. You wear silly clothes, march about, fire off some guns and learn some neat skills. ...and you drink a lot.

There was an exposition a few years ago that toured in Germany that tried to separate the German soldier from the Nazi ideology. Perhaps as a means of expunging some of our national shame. It was not well-received. Everyone knows that not every German solider was a bad guy, and everyone knows that the German people suffered as much as any, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a lot of evil flying around in those times and practically all of it was written in German.
A lot of younger Germans who have no connection to the old days would like to be able to stand up and say, "The Germans have one of the proudest (if not the proudest) military traditions in the world, we should be allowed to take pride in it."
 

·
Consumate professional
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
Quick said:
A lot of younger Germans who have no connection to the old days would like to be able to stand up and say, "The Germans have one of the proudest (if not the proudest) military traditions in the world, we should be allowed to take pride in it."
I agree, you should be able to. At the end of the day the German army in the 1930s was completely seperate from the National Socialist movement, and were treated with suspicion by the Nazi hierachy, but were obviously utilised for their skills. British and German troops, aside from the two world wars, have often fought side by side (due to our german royal Family) a large number of the 'british ' troops in the American Revolution were from German states for example.

Also in reference to Brother Dariens point about friendly fire, i have often thought its unfair the association the Americans have with friendly fire. Yes the fire recorded incident was when American troops bombarded a hill recently captured by British troops during the Korean war, and there are occassionally highly publicised occurances in recent theatres of war but thats due to the fact that America has had a heavy involvement in tons of wars in the last century- its collatoral damage that will occur in modern warfare while infantry and ground troops are still used- all armed forces do it to some degree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
Being of a Naval background I would like to say that the RAF deserves little praise. Especialy as other Brits have been supporting it.

I will try not to step on any crab claws, but.

The Battle of Britain was a draw. We didn't win.

Throughout WWII British army and Navy units were at the mercy of the Luftwaffe with minimal air cover form the RAF-Norway, Crete none. Repulse and Prince off Wales none.

Today the RAF has invested in expensive EU Eurofighters. Why? the Russians aren't a threat any more? Can they get anywhere in the world? no. In the Faulklands, apart from cratering some Argentinian runways what did they achieve?

Scrap the RAF for more Naval funding.

On the German military, I agree with its proud martial tradition. Waterloo was only won by the arrival of Blucher and his Prussian army.
 

·
Consumate professional
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
Wings of Doom said:
On the German military, I agree with its proud martial tradition. Waterloo was only won by the arrival of Blucher and his Prussian army.
Plus units like the Kings German Legion fought in the British army that day- holding off the french guard at Hugeumonte
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
628 Posts
Wings of Doom said:
The Battle of Britain was a draw. We didn't win.
I have to disagree with you.

I know you're a Brit and I'm a Yank so who the hell do I think I am argueing the point, but I will anyway.

German objectives were to break British spirit and pave the way for an invasion. They failed.

British objectives were to prevent the German objectives from fruition. You succeeded.

So I think you should claim victory in The Battle of Britain based on military objectives and their success or failure.

Your "draw" was; in every definition of the word; a 'victory'. :)

Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Arklite said:
from what ive read on a lot of tank forums and seen on documentaries and the like
Forgive me for digressing, but... there are tank forums? Not only that, but there's enough of them to say "alot of tank forums?" :huh:

The internet never ceases to amaze me.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Joker said:
British objectives were to prevent the German objectives from fruition. You succeeded.
But not because of any action on the part of the British.

At the time the battle ended, German casualties were high, this is true. However, compare the relative airforce sizes, the ammount of damage which had been done, and so forth, and you still have a situation which was far from resolved. Hence, a draw..

The reason the invasion didn't occur was because Hitler suddenly decided he wanted to veer East. Had he been slightly less syphilitic, his side may well have won.

Wings of Doom said:
Throughout WWII British army and Navy units were at the mercy of the Luftwaffe with minimal air cover form the RAF-Norway, Crete none. Repulse and Prince off Wales none.
True.. I'd say the best navies of the war were Japan and America, the former at the beginning, and the latter by the end. They were the only two to actually realise that battleships were obsolete compared to carriers. Who cares how big your guns are when you can be wiped from 100 miles away by a squadron of aircraft.

Germany did well too, until the technology was in place to destroy submarines. My grandfather was a radio operator out in the Atlantic, and it sounded pretty scary out there. There's something obscenely pathetic about someone investing thousands of tons of material and manpower hours building a battleship, only to have it wiped out by a 100 ton submarine.

In modern terms.. I'm still siding with the Americans because they have the most missiles. Who cares how many troops you have, how good they are, or how well designed their tanks are when they've all been vaporised or are vomiting their intestines out of their mouths. That's the sad reality of the modern world.. technology has eclipsed any of the heroic fantasies we all have about going off to war and being brave and honourable and cool. People were starting to realise that by world war 1, now it's obvious. Even if we go non nuclear, no ammount of heroism and training is going to save you from having your lungs sucked backwards out of your mouth by a fuel air bomb, or having your body torn apart from the inside by cluster munitions.

None of the things we can take pride in, like the bravery and training of our infantry, the quality of our tanks, or the abilities of our navy really matter any more. There are only a few weapons which really matter in modern warfare, and they're deployed completely impersonally, by a guy pushing a button thousands of miles away, or in a bomber several kilometers up.
 

·
durus
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
The_Giant_Mantis said:
True.. I'd say the best navies of the war were Japan and America, the former at the beginning, and the latter by the end. They were the only two to actually realise that battleships were obsolete compared to carriers. Who cares how big your guns are when you can be wiped from 100 miles away by a squadron of aircraft.
A little tidbit: At the end WWII, Canada had the third largest Navy in the world. How far we've fallen.........:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
Joker said:
I have to disagree with you.
I know you're a Brit and I'm a Yank so who the hell do I think I am argueing the point, but I will anyway.
German objectives were to break British spirit and pave the way for an invasion. They failed.
British objectives were to prevent the German objectives from fruition. You succeeded.
So I think you should claim victory in The Battle of Britain based on military objectives and their success or failure.
Your "draw" was; in every definition of the word; a 'victory'. :)
Just my 2 cents.
I hoped to spark some debate on that. The Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF, even with the RAF doing significant dammage (2000 to 1300 planes shot down) the Luftwaffe could absorb those losses.

Operation Sea Lion would never have succeded. Overlord had Total air and sea superiority and the largest armada of warships ever assembled. The basic German plan was barges powered by converted Me109 engines. 1 study showed that the wash from driving a RN cruiser past could have sunk them. No need to even shoot them.

Survival can hardly be called a victory. Dunkirk was a defeat. You dont win wars by retreating. Plus if Hitler hadnt launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded Russia the long term survival chances of the RAF wouldnt have been rosy. They only survived because the Luftwaffe shifted to night bombing of British Cities. The London Blitz.

Britain was the first nation ever to purpose build an aircraft carrier and the RN air service did some sterling work. Including hunting the Bismarck, Toronto (which gave the Japanese the idea for Pearl Harbour). Supplying Malta. Figting U-Boats and other German surface warships.
Plus having armoured Flight Decks. HMS Illustrious survived 4, 500lb bomb hits where US carriers were known to sink to a single Kamikaze. Though of course by that stage in the War the US outnumbered us several times over.

Another thought. UK military strengths, being chummy with the US. Best move to make.
 

·
The Pacifist Wargamer
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Wings of Doom said:
On the German military, I agree with its proud martial tradition. Waterloo was only won by the arrival of Blucher and his Prussian army.
History books are peppered with great moments in German warfare, starting with Teutoberg Massacre in A.D. 9, through the destruction of of the Roman Empire. In more modern terms, there are shining moments such as the Franco-Prussian War, which was the single worst defeat the French had ever taken on their home soil.
Countless innovations in the martial fields of infantry tactics, artillery, naval warfare, firearms, etc.

That all sounds pretty good, and something a good soldier such as myself should be proud of, right? Moreso, which culture in Europe has a reputation for cold, mechanical, martial efficiency? :shifty:

There's just one problem: around 1914 German history becomes very black. When Hitler was rousing the masses in the 1930's, it was this very same martial tradition that he used to stir up German patriotism into a fervor. We all know how that ended...

The "new" Germans, as those of my generation are called, pretty much realize that you can't pick and choose with these things. You have to take the good with the bad. With most countries, this isn't a problem, because the worst of "the bad" happened hundreds of years ago and has passed into legend. For the Germans, the legend is all "the good" and the only visceral evidence is not only bad, but evil as well. There is no one around to tell good war stories. (The only war story my grandfather would tell that was even remotely amusing was how his unit was starving and he killed his commanding officer's horse and made a goulasch out of it. ...That is, when he even spoke of war.)

New Germans simply accept that the German Armed Forces can accomplish whatever needs to get done when it needs to get it done. German pride now stems from scientists, athletes, and artists, but not soldiers.
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
4,529 Posts
Wings of Doom said:
Operation Sea Lion would never have succeded. Overlord had Total air and sea superiority and the largest armada of warships ever assembled. The basic German plan was barges powered by converted Me109 engines. 1 study showed that the wash from driving a RN cruiser past could have sunk them. No need to even shoot them.
This is why air superiority was needed.. The largest armada of warships ever assembled is one thing. But if they can be bombed with impunity, they're still going to suffer horrific casualties trying to do anything. If the battle of Britain had been decisively won, then the losing side was not going to be taking control of the channel any time soon.

Wings of Doom said:
Plus having armoured Flight Decks. HMS Illustrious survived 4, 500lb bomb hits where US carriers were known to sink to a single Kamikaze. Though of course by that stage in the War the US outnumbered us several times over.
Of the 300+ events in which US ships were struck by Kamikaze pilots, the number which actually sunk was in the 30s. As far as I'm aware, only one British ship was ever actually hit by a kamikaze at all, so we have no data. There are US ships which survived equally improbably, like the USS Bunker Hill, the USS Franklin, and the USS Saratoga. Not criticising your observations, but we just don't have the evidence to make assumptions that British ships would have fared better, because they never had to.

The Japanese were using armoured flight decks on many of their carriers, for example, and, although many were sunk by submarines, they also proved vulnerable to air attack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
M1A2 Abrams http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/
Depleted armor equals better.

Challenger 2 http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/

Fact that the Brits are "upgrading" to the smoothbore gun that the Abrams has.

They are Upgrading to the Gun use by the M1A2 and Leaopard 2A6 means that their armament is simply, not as good.

The Challenger 2 and the M1A1 are clearly matched, but as I said the M1A2 is better, unfortuneately it's once again 'cause money talks, we can buy the best of everything our allies have and use it for ourselves as well as mass produce our own very expensive technology. So you have it right with the A1 but not the A2.

As for the Battle of Britain the Brits won. why? because their allies the russians were attacking the Germans therefore Hitler needed to defend. Though I often wonder, had he stayed could he have destoroyed britain and then still had time to save nazi germany from russia? As for the German military, you better be proud! your nation revolutionized they war is waged today. The Nazi part sucks, but you can be proud of your soldiers and scientists, but I don't think you have a right to be proud of Hitler....

BTW, if you guys think the Islamic radical insurgents are bad, do your research on the Viet Cong, they make those suicide bombers seem gentle.

A navy without air support will soon find itself at the bottom of the sea...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
The_Giant_Mantis said:
True.. I'd say the best navies of the war were Japan and America, the former at the beginning, and the latter by the end. They were the only two to actually realise that battleships were obsolete compared to carriers. Who cares how big your guns are when you can be wiped from 100 miles away by a squadron of aircraft.
You saw the same documentary I did about the carrier eclipsing the battleship didn't you? :) I think it was a BBC doco so no surprise there...

The_Giant_Mantis said:
None of the things we can take pride in, like the bravery and training of our infantry, the quality of our tanks, or the abilities of our navy really matter any more. There are only a few weapons which really matter in modern warfare, and they're deployed completely impersonally, by a guy pushing a button thousands of miles away, or in a bomber several kilometers up.
So true. Which is why I abhor war of all kinds and think that it is never necessary, though that is for another thread. It sickens me truly and deeply.

Coming from a family that has been in the military for at least the last 200 years I must be especially on my guard against the unrealistic glorification of war and soldiering. I am the first son in my father's line as far as anyone can remember who has not been a soldier, and I never will be. Working at the War Memorial helps me to remember that every single person who fought and died in every war is a guy like me who was just trying to get through life. It's tragic seeing their diaries talking about all the little things that happened to them every day and then suddenly the diary ends and there's a sheet attached saying "personal effects to be returned to NOK: 1 comb, 17 francs, 1 St. Christopher medallion, 1 pocket knife (broken)." At least in WWI you were mostly likely shot by another man from relatively close range, he could probably even see your face. Nowadays its BAM! and your whole squad is vaporized before they can even look up.

Sorry for bringing everyone down :tongue: but no way is war ever cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
But for a while there in WWII everybody was on a level playing field.

Darian: Whats it matter is the Abrams is better than the Challenger, THEY ARE ON THE SAME SIDE!! Why don't you talk about the T-72 or T-55. Any coutnry we a bound to invade in our "war" on terrorism is going to have these tanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H0urg1ass

·
Bearded Ninja
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
They are Upgrading to the Gun use by the M1A2 and Leaopard 2A6 means that their armament is simply, not as good.
im all for it the 120mm smooth bore. however more accurate a rifled gun is it lacks the pressure of a smoothbore and tends to be less effective at fireing armour piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds. the guns are very much different weapons (more accurate at range but slightly less punch). saying they they are changing the gun because its "better" is quite an exaggeration. rifled barrel tanks are only used mainstream by the british and indian armies and generaly provide more accuracy at greater ranges. the only reason a smoothbore gun would be used is to allow use of more standard ammo. (normal sabot rounds and H.E.A.T rather than H.E.S.H)

but back on the armour frontaly the M1-A2 and challenger are probebly just as good but for allround armour the challenger does have a big edge (current reports suggest 500mm all round)

on the subject of DU armour it is a fact that the M1-A2 uses 1st generation chobham armour with some DU plates added to protect the crew from ammunition/fuel explosions and not much more.

the challenger on the otherhand is using second generation chobham armour which is very much supiorior to its older version. the building of this armour is very much kept in the hush hush by the brittish gov but it is known that it involves certain ceramics, steel and the use of an air gap in the armour.

also as a general note army-technology.com tends to be rather useless in comparing tanks to each other as they give almost no details on the weapons and armour of the tanks (no past experiances etc.)

for example in iraq a challenger2 tank managed to take 8 rpg hits 1 anti tank missile (i can't quite remember the type but a strong one non the less) and a crap load of machine gun fire. the tank survived the ambish nicly though it lost its weapon sights after it lost a track earlier on.

in tank on tank battles no challengers were lost in iraq conflict. they were engaging the same tanks as the abrams but came out the better by a small margin. as for taking part in city combat the challengers took a major part in the battle for basra and there are alot of images of challengers storming through the city enganging defence forces. they took part in the same types of conflict as the abrams.

the tanks are very much equal.

but rather than continue this debate its probebly best if we get back on topic. there have been a few discussions on challenger and Abrams in the past and it tends to come out as the tanks being a match for each other in most ways but with the challenger being better with armour and abram being better with speed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/letters.xml

scroll down to Challenger v Abrams

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/east/1201/tank_against_tank_who_wins_.htm

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18599

each one tends to have slightly different opinions but you can get the idea.

but who cares! were allies :p both tanks preform to be 2 of the top 5 in the world! now if the Mid east had somehing to compare to the two tanks... then we would have to worry a bit
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
robotnik said:
Forgive me for digressing, but... there are tank forums? Not only that, but there's enough of them to say "alot of tank forums?" :huh:

The internet never ceases to amaze me.
I bet somewhere one one of those tank forums, there are people going: "There are forums for guys that play with toy soldiers and roll dice?The internet never ceases to amaze me, now back to Abrams Online...";)

Then again, there a quite a few Wargamers in the military, so maybe not..:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
The proud vikings...

To be honest, my country is not allowed to have any military. The Danes control all of that stuff. On the other hand, we are not drafted, and the Danes have to protect us if anything happens.
The only military installation we have is a station in a valley somewhere far from everything, where they keep radars and stuff. Aparently it was important during the cold war, since we are smack in the middle of the North Atlantic.

But the WW2 was good for the Faroes though, the Brits were a kind occupying force, building our airport (which we still use today) and authorizing the Faroese flag. They are also the reason that many of our old poeple speak a bit of EnglishOn a sadder note, we also have a couple of British graves at our graveyards. Several stayed behind, so we have a couple of British last names in the Faroes.

On the other hand, we have a huge fleet of transport/fishing vessels, and I believe we did some massive trade with the Brits during WW2 as well. I believe we brought quite a bit of the supplies to Brittain. Also, we lost many vessels to mines. And they were fishing mines here until a few year ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
Gerbrith said:
...The only military installation we have is a station in a valley somewhere far from everything, where they keep radars and stuff. Aparently it was important during the cold war, since we are smack in the middle of the North Atlantic.
Actually you have more military assets and installations than you think. You have NATO JHQ (Joint Headquarters) North responsible for all NATO operations in the Northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean and Arctic Circle (I spent 3 months there...it's located in a WWII german command and control center deep in the side of a solid cliff just outside of Stavanger not far from the Hafrfjord (spelling?). There are also many munitions and operating bases scattered throughout Norway (Bodo and Lillehammer spring to mind). Although Norway may not have the massive military presence that other countries do they do have a very solid navy and coast guard and it's location is very strategic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
It ought to be clarified that I am from The Faroe Islands and not from Norway. I am in Norway at present, studying. They might well have the Joint Headquarters in Norway, but I believe all Norwegians would be offended if you tried to claim that they have no military, or that the Danes were protecting them.

The Installation we have in the Faroe Islands, is really quite small, situated in Mjørkadalur, and only holds a couple of radars and things. There are a few Danish forces there, armed, and they have about four cars owned by the base.

So, Norway: Big important country, army.
The Faroe Islands: Small insignificant contry, small base owned by foreigners.
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top