Rank the Tank! - Page 26




 
--
 
September 30th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Ok,
We have been arguing for sometime, we both say our tank is the best. I'm sure we will cotiune to disagree, so lets agree to disagree.
October 1st, 2005  
pfcem
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
now the challenger 3nd gen this is called Dorchester armour this has not been sold to anyone.
the 1st gen was on the Chieftan and 2nd on the challenger 1 but in all repects the 2nd became the first in brit terms as it was basic the same as the chieftan armour with some improvment un like the challenger 2 armour which is the best in the world.
You need to get you facts straight concerning "Chobham" armor.

1) No Chieftan was ever produced with "Chobham" armor. Britain did develope an upgrade package for the Chieftain in 1986 which included an add-on array of "Chobham" armor. I do not know how many (if any) tanks were actually upgraded to this standard beyond the demonstration models.

2) British 1st generation "Chobham" armor is designated Burlington after the city in which it was developed. Chobham is a generic name used by the public.

3) The initial production version of the M1 had a US modified version of the British Burlington armor. The US got Burlington armor from the British & modified it for use with the M1. The German Leopard 2 has a form of ceramic armor similar to "Chobham" armor but it is unclear how it is related. It may be a German form of British Burlington armor or it may be something else with similar characteristics.

4) The US added DU mesh to its "Chobham" armor on the M1A1(HA) beginning in 1988. British 2nd generation "Chobham" armor (designated Dorchester) fitted to the Challenger 2 is a British variation of the M1A1(HA) DU armor.
October 1st, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfcem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wham-size
now the challenger 3nd gen this is called Dorchester armour this has not been sold to anyone.
the 1st gen was on the Chieftan and 2nd on the challenger 1 but in all repects the 2nd became the first in brit terms as it was basic the same as the chieftan armour with some improvment un like the challenger 2 armour which is the best in the world.
You need to get you facts straight concerning "Chobham" armor.

1) No Chieftan was ever produced with "Chobham" armor. Britain did develope an upgrade package for the Chieftain in 1986 which included an add-on array of "Chobham" armor. I do not know how many (if any) tanks were actually upgraded to this standard beyond the demonstration models.

2) British 1st generation "Chobham" armor is designated Burlington after the city in which it was developed. Chobham is a generic name used by the public.

3) The initial production version of the M1 had a US modified version of the British Burlington armor. The US got Burlington armor from the British & modified it for use with the M1. The German Leopard 2 has a form of ceramic armor similar to "Chobham" armor but it is unclear how it is related. It may be a German form of British Burlington armor or it may be something else with similar characteristics.

4) The US added DU mesh to its "Chobham" armor on the M1A1(HA) beginning in 1988. British 2nd generation "Chobham" armor (designated Dorchester) fitted to the Challenger 2 is a British variation of the M1A1(HA) DU armor.
Thank you pfcem.

Just to point out something now all HA's are known as HC's and the A2 SEP has DU.
--
October 6th, 2005  
pfcem
 
Just want to point out some things that may be confusing the uninformed when comparing the M1 to other tanks.

M1A1(HA) weighs 67 tons (that is US short tons) = 134,000 lbs = 60,785 kg or 60.8 metric tons

M1A2 weighs 68.5 tons (that is US short tons) = 137,000 lbs = 62,146 kg or 62.1 metric tons

M1A2SEP weighs 69.5 tons (that is US short tons) = 139,000 lbs = 63,053 kg or 63.1 metric tons

Most everybody else quotes the weight of their tanks in metric tons.

While the M1 is a "gas hog" due to its gas turbine engine, all diesel engined tanks use a lot of fuel as well. The difference is less than you might think (sorry I do not have the exact numbers available at the moment).

The M1A2 & Leclerc have a major advantage over other tanks in that they have a digital information link. That means that any information available to any vehicle on the battlefield is instantly available to the M1A2 & Leclerc. The enemy can have a tank force hiding behind a hill & if a RPV or other recon units spots them, M1A2 & Leclerc would know about it.
October 6th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfcem
Just want to point out some things that may be confusing the uninformed when comparing the M1 to other tanks.

M1A1(HA) weighs 67 tons (that is US short tons) = 134,000 lbs = 60,785 kg or 60.8 metric tons

M1A2 weighs 68.5 tons (that is US short tons) = 137,000 lbs = 62,146 kg or 62.1 metric tons

M1A2SEP weighs 69.5 tons (that is US short tons) = 139,000 lbs = 63,053 kg or 63.1 metric tons

Most everybody else quotes the weight of their tanks in metric tons.

While the M1 is a "gas hog" due to its gas turbine engine, all diesel engined tanks use a lot of fuel as well. The difference is less than you might think (sorry I do not have the exact numbers available at the moment).

The M1A2 & Leclerc have a major advantage over other tanks in that they have a digital information link. That means that any information available to any vehicle on the battlefield is instantly available to the M1A2 & Leclerc. The enemy can have a tank force hiding behind a hill & if a RPV or other recon units spots them, M1A2 & Leclerc would know about it.
Not only that the M1A2 SEP has FBCB2/BFT (Blue Force Tracker), meaning it an track any piece of allied armor with an LT.
October 6th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
"major advantage over other tanks in that they have a digital information link."

STRV 122 includes an advanced Datalink aswell :P
October 6th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Well one thing one has to keep in mind is that the Leo 2, M1, and CH2 are all decenants of the MBT-70 and MBT-80 programs.
October 7th, 2005  
Wham-size
 
Cadet Seaman no the challenger2 is not a
Quote:
Well one thing one has to keep in mind is that the Leo 2, M1, and CH2 are all decenants of the MBT-70 and MBT-80 programs.
the challenger 2 is a improved challenger with only 5% of componets being the same.
The Challenger design by Royal Ordnance Factories (later Alvis Vickers) was born of an Iranian order for an improved version of the stalwart Chieftain line of tanks in service around the world. These were the FV4030/2 Shir 1 and 4030/3 Shir 2. With the fall of the Shah of Iran and the collapse of the Anglo-German MBT-70 project, the British Army became the customer and further developed it.
The Chieftain was a development of the successful Centurion line of tanks that had emerged after the second world war.
so the britsh army has a tank family in the run the longest produce a some of the best tanks of there times and given birth to the mbt.

so think before you write next time.
but as you sayed the leo 2 and m1 are both decenants of the MBT-70
that why the challenger 2 rules
October 7th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Well one thing one has to keep in mind is that the Leo 2, M1, and CH2 are all decenants of the MBT-70 and MBT-80 programs.
Yeah but its mostly the overall design that is alike, they are however compleete induviduals.
October 7th, 2005  
CanadianCombat
 
 
There was a show on t.v. a couple days ago about the worlds top ten tanks and i cant remember them all but i remember the top three:

1-Leopard 2
2-T-34
3-M1A1 Abrams