Why is Chally2 better than the Abrams?

Discussion in 'RAC' started by paul2005, Aug 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I have a friend who is in the USMC who works on the M1A1 and want to wind him up over the Chally being better, but unfortuantly I don't know enough about the two to do it. Any suggestions why the Chally's better?
  2. It probably isn't. Tanks are usually rated on firepower, mobility and protection.
    The Chally main armament is very good with plenty of potential to fire future natures. It can also do bombardments because of it's rifled gun. Split ammo is safer but takes longer to load than the M1 one-piece. The M1 smoothbore defeats anything at present but would need a longer barrel to get faster projectiles. Infantry suppression is woeful on the Chally whereas the US have a total of three MGs and may be fitting a remote weapon system for the commander.
    The M1 wins hands down on mobility; it has a very powerful and reliable gas turbine which drinks like a fish but just goes on and on. Compare that to the train engine in the Chally. Chally can go much further on a tank of fuel, and even further with it's extra fuel drums.
    The bow of the M1 seems invulnerable while the sides are are weak. Chally has a questionable bow-hence the ERA-but has fabulous add-on Dorchester on the sides. You are more likely to survive a turret strike in the Chally due to it's split ammo stowage and it's electric gun kit; ie no hydraulic fluid to explode.
    Hope I haven't missed/misrepresented anything as it's been a while since I've been near a tank.
    (Nearly forgot; Chally has a boiling vessel.)
  3. although correct i think the recent iraq adventure would have a lot of serving chally crews disagreeing. numerous M1A1 were lost to RPG attacks and i saw a SDG chally2 that took 8 direct RPG hits and a milan hit and still fought on.

    the only chally lost was due to a blue on blue incident from another chally2. (and that was a mess)
  4. My personal preference would be the Challenger actually; for the reasons you give-it must be the best protected tank out there, apart maybe from the Swedish Leo. I remember crawling over the original M1 with the Centurion gun when it first came out. It seemed to have been put together by aircraft rather than AFV designers. The gun clamp was a wire hawser for goodness sake. At the time their thermal sights were like looking into a gloomy goldfish bowl. I fail to understand why the Ch2 didn't get the MTU engine in Ch2E? Having suffered Chieftain engines for 11 years I had assumed the lessons would have been learned?
    BTW, what is it with the white paint in Ch2; we were always told that silver paint went to powder when struck and white paint flakes were a hazard?
  5. If I remember rightly the reason for staying with conventional diesel engine was because of the logisitcs support required to keep a turbine in fuel :?
  6. im not 100% but the white paint is to make the turret seem more spacious. some current serving RAC types will no doubt correct me if im wrong. but having been in Chieftain, CR and CR2 the latter does seem to have a great deal more room due to the fact its white inside. another plus being (as ex REME VM(A)) u dont get the silver paint all over your boots when ur working in the hull/turret/drivers cab!!

    u ex 4RTR jock? or a cav type?
  7. sorry, forgot to answer this in the prev post, i think the only reason was down to money, procurement saving pennies here and there. having spent a few years at ATDU they take little notice of what u say is the best bit of kit and it all comes down to what they can afford at the time. CR2E would overall have been a better option full stop. maybe we would not hav had to modify all our CR2 air filters and fit skirts for iraq? no lessons learned from CR in the 1st Gulf war then i hear u ask!! we were still doing the mods days before the tanks went over the border!!
  8. the MTU is a conventional diesel engine, i think you may be thinking of the M1A1 engine which is a gas turbine. even tho this is a gas turbine it runs on a diesel/kero mix not aviation fuel as you would think. i cant remember the name of this fuel of the top of my head.

    our CR2 were converted to run on this fuel in iraq so we could use the yanks fuel and log support. to do this the DASCU was played with to up the power output of the CV12. this was because the yank fuel reduced the power on the CV12 and it needed to be adjusted to get the 1200bhp back.
  9. 4 then 1RTR, went to Granby with Scots DG.
  10. i was 1 RTR for 5 years, paderborn A Sqn then warminster with A Sqn. what Sqn were u with?
  11. The Cr2E out performed the M1 on trials in Greece hands down, oh yes and the M1 broke down and got recovered by a CRARRV with a photo ban imposed by the spams!!
  12. Thanks for the replys guys but there doesn't seem to be much ammunition here, come on there must be some good points!
  13. i would say the biggest amunition u have got is the fact chally2 does not fall apart when a RPG7 is fired at it?? at the end of the day thats what its all about isnt it? whos left to fight another day? thats all the amunition u need for your yank buddy i feel!
  14. ArmySurplusSpecial; I was G (C) sqn 1RTR in Tidworth then took redundancy.
    BTW, I believe it was not the tank itself, CH2, which caused it to drop out of the Greek trial but a problem with the ammunition. If I recall correctly the ammo was ancient and the safest place to stand on the range was in front of a barn door. :roll:
  15. yeah i recall hearing that too, not sure of any details tho.

    had some good times with 1RTR will PM some names see if you know them, cracking bunch of lads