Which is better.. American Abrams Tank or Challenger II MBT?

P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#2
CRII. But you've not added the Leopard II into the equation.

The Merkava wins on "looking ally" however.

It's a very dull topic, so I'm off.
 
#3
Oh gawd all the old timers will be here in a minute talking about Chieftens and Centurions! God help us if someone mentions the S word!

I jest gents
 
#4
Oh gawd all the old timers will be here in a minute talking about Chieftens and Centurions! God help us if someone mentions the S word!

I jest gents
Sodomy? Wouldn't that be rather difficult in the cramped confines of a tank? Unless it was a tank with dwarf crewmen, of course.

Can we have a forum for fans of military-themed dwarf deviancy?
 
#5
Oh gawd all the old timers will be here in a minute talking about Chieftens and Centurions! God help us if someone mentions the S word!

I jest gents
I know somebody who keeps a Centurion in his shed.
 
#7
Sodomy? Wouldn't that be rather difficult in the cramped confines of a tank? Unless it was a tank with dwarf crewmen, of course.

Can we have a forum for fans of military-themed dwarf deviancy?
He might bite for this?



The Baron of Castleshort - ARRSEpedia
May 29, 2012 ... James Gerard Richard Shortt, born Purley, Surrey, in the southern suburbs of London, on 17 September 1953 passes himself off as an expert in ...
The Baron of Castleshort - ARRSEpedia
 
#9
Which is better? Abrams or Challenger II MBT?
Theres no longer any difference. Since 2007 Daewoo have been making them under license in Korea. Its the same vehicle, they just make one RH drive and call it the Challenger, the other LH drive and call it Abrams.
 
#12
Which is better? Abrams or Challenger II MBT?
Chally II 446
M1Abrams 9000+

Both do the Job their nation designed them for.

Users M1
USA
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Kuwait
Egypt
and now apparently Greece & Morrocco will have them on inventory


Users Chally II
UK
Oman

Kinda surprised Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth countries don't use the Chally. Guess it's like the L85 huh?
 
#13
Sodomy? Wouldn't that be rather difficult in the cramped confines of a tank? Unless it was a tank with dwarf crewmen, of course.

Can we have a forum for fans of military-themed dwarf deviancy?
For some reason your post has captured my attention sir.
 
#14
#15
Doesn't everyone?
heres a question for you old guys
The Original Cent turret had a Polsten gun in a seperate mounting very like the PzKpfw 38(t) what did y'all do with those turrets when the Mk.III came along? re worked, scrapped, or range targets?
 
#16
heres a question for you old guys
The Original Cent turret had a Polsten gun in a seperate mounting very like the PzKpfw 38(t) what did y'all do with those turrets when the Mk.III came along? re worked, scrapped, or range targets?
Coaxial cannon were quite frankly an answer looking for a question. The fundamental problem is that anything worth shooting with the 20mm is worth shooting with the main gun and why bother filling the target with a bunch of little holes when you can just blow it up! The French tried to persist with the 20mm coaxial gun on the AMX-30 but abandoned it with the AMX Char LeClerc. Several export customers for the AMX-30 opted for 12.7mm machine guns in lieu of the cannon. The Swiss originally mounted 20mm guns on their Pzr 61 tanks only to later replace them with 7.5mm machine guns.

Only a handful of Centurion prototypes had the 20mm so one could hardly say it was "abandoned", just experimented with and found wanting.

Putting a 20mm cannon on the commanders cupola seems wasteful. The installation would be large, conspicuous and heavy and would give the tank commander a major caliber weapon to employ when he is already busy trying to command the tank. I am not aware of any successful attempts to mount such a weapon.

About 10 years ago I believe it was the Czech's who produced a prototype of a T-72 fitted with a 20mm Oerlikon mounted externally on each side of the turret at the rear. These could be elevated and fired independently of the main armament. Nothing seems to have come of it but it was amusing.

Although the external machine gun mounted on top of the turret (which might be operated by the commander or loader depending on the tank and the doctrine of the user) is usually called an "anti-aircraft" machine gun in reality it has almost ZERO effectiveness in this role and is invariably used only against ground targets. The American's have always been fond of using the M2 Browning but most other countries employ a rifle caliber machine gun in this role. There are good arguments either way on this one and again it comes down to the doctrine of the user. American Lend-Lease M4 Medium's were supplied complete with M2 Browning external machine guns and crew small arms (M1 Thompson's, M1911 pistols) but these were not always employed by the end users. In photographs sometimes you see the M2's fitted, sometimes not. Mostly though it seems they were not installed.

The Crusader AA tank was employed only for a few months in the summer of 1944 with a platoon of six being attached to each British and Commonwealth tank regiment. They had little to do thanks to a minimal German air threat and they were withdrawn by late summer. Each armored division had a regiment of towed Bofors guns which were retained.

American armored divisions had no attached anti-aircraft weapons at either battalion, battle group or division level. These would be assigned from Corps assets as required but it was common for a battalion of M16 half-tracks fitted with M55 quadruple 12.7mm machine gun turrets to be assigned. These, like many SP anti-aircraft weapons saw more use in the ground role than the air defense role.

And breathe...
 
#17
I can't see western armour even having blokes inside it within a few decades so that will free up a fair bit of room and allow for move back to the heavy tank/light tank concept to work again as crew survivabilty will not be such a problem.

Send in the drones.
 
#19
Yeah and the Infantry are getting chinned off and replaced with Terminators.
Yeah and they will never replace fighter bombers with remote controlled ones either...

There might not be terminators but there will be various swarms of small things that crawl, swim or fly.

And then go bang.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top