The Challenger I was a horrible tank.

I'd rather go to battle in a Challenger II than any other armored vehicle in the world.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

The Challenger I was a horrible tank.

I'd rather go to battle in a Challenger II than any other armored vehicle in the world.

Challenger II is based on Challenger I.

It is like that one says F-16A was a horrible plane.

Every thing gets better over the time and machines are no exceptions.

No, the Challenger II really is a completely different tank. The most it has in common with the Challenger I is the name.

Now the reason I posted this information was to give some people an idea what the Challenger was all about. There are comments made about this tank on threads on the different Web sites that seem very ill informed so I thought I post some actual facts about the tank.

good job!

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

The Challenger I was a horrible tank.

I'd rather go to battle in a Challenger II than any other armored vehicle in the world.

the Challenger 1 did fine in the Gulf War.

Originally Posted by Koz

the Challenger 1 did fine in the Gulf War.

It also finished last in the NATO competition by a good margin.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

It also finished last in the NATO competition by a good margin.

Got any links?

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

The Challenger I was a horrible tank.

I'd rather go to battle in a Challenger II than any other armored vehicle in the world.

Why it is a horrible tank?

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

It also finished last in the NATO competition by a good margin.

So?

tanks are supposed to fight wars, not win competitions.