Challenger 1 has the longest tank-to-tank kill in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of 2.5 miles (4 km). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1_tank)
Challenger 1 had poor fire control system, then I ask what can do Challenger 2.

Originally Posted by Insight

Not at all. I'm bothered by the notion that military operations can be simplified down to some objective calculus of relative technological advantage. It diminishes what we do. Wars are fought by professionals for a reason. If it was merely a matter of "the best widget wins", then it would be a relatively simple endevour that is very easy to predict.

In light of the young minds that frequent this board, I see a small obligation to inject some reality into a very serious business. I do think that is mature, and I'm not being sarcastic which would be in violation of the forum rules, IIRC. (not that it's my place to say either way, just making an observation).

I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that war is fougt not by the actual tank but the persons in it, but we're not talking about war we're talking of the lone tanks ability, tech vise against each other regardless of human ability from the different countries, to count in the human ability is imposible to compare and that is the reason why you dont take that into count, get it?

Well, I think even the best tank crews can do a fair bit of damage if they use T-62s!

Originally Posted by Insight

Not at all. I'm bothered by the notion that military operations can be simplified down to some objective calculus of relative technological advantage. It diminishes what we do. Wars are fought by professionals for a reason. If it was merely a matter of "the best widget wins", then it would be a relatively simple endevour that is very easy to predict.

I don't think anyone has or would argue the opposite.

That said, which is the best tank?

Originally Posted by zander_0633

Any idea How far can both tanks shoot?

The M1A1's fire control system stops calculating at 4km. You can shoot farther with the auxilary sight though, you need to stationary and it takes a bit of time.

The Challenger 1 made a kill at 5100m with HESH. It was stationary on a stationary target. They also had a fair bit of time to aim.

Well, I think even the best tank crews can do a fair bit of damage if they use T-62s!

This is true. In Sweden during war games new recruits in Strv-122s get clobbered by experienced troops using Centurions.

If you got that from me and i said 122 i should have said 121 (which is a slightly upgraded A4) 121 was taking over for the centurion

And it was quite a seious blow for those conscripts, as the centurion crew (instructors) used supperiour tactics, got behind them and took them out at the weaker rear of all tanks.

One of the most important aspects of Modern Tank Warfare is mobility.

Challenger II: Road speed 56 km/h (37 mph)
Leopard 2a6: 70 km/h road (43.5 mph), 50 km/h off-road (31 mph)
M1a2 Abrams: 67 km/h (41.5 mph)

What the Challenger II lacks is speed, otherwise its an absolutely great tank.

Seth.....If you read another thread on ths page called the Challenger you would not have to ask that question as it is all set out for, including cut away drawings

180 Challenger tanks were deployed to Saudi Arabia for the [persian] Gulf War. The Challenger 1 claimed 300 kills against armoured vehicles for no losses. It also has the distinction of the longest tank-to-tank kill in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of 2.5 miles (4 km).

Well, that is a RECORD to BEAT!!