Leo 2/Abrams vs. Challenger 2

Leopard 2/Abrams vs. Challenger 2

  • Leopard 2/Abrams

    Votes: 16 76.2%

  • Challenger 2

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
I wonder if that record-setting long range tank vs tank kill is more attributable to luck or to the fact that the UK's Challenger II is the only MBT left in the world (that I can think of) that still uses a rifled barrel for their main 120mm gun. I suppose there should be enough hard data to sort it out since the UK and USA have worked together very closely in numerous recent conflicts/wars. Has the Challenger II tended to kill at further distances?
 
Last edited:
AlexKall said:
Didnt Koz post a number of 5000 metre with some type of challanger?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that the Challenger's record tank kill is 5100m, rather then 4000m. 4000m is too low to be the "record" tank kill because a US tanker in the Gulf war made a kill at 4120m using his auxilary sights. He described the process in detail on tank-net.

godofthunder9010 said:
I wonder if that record-setting long range tank vs tank kill is more attributable to luck or to the fact that the UK's Challenger II is the only MBT left in the world (that I can think of) that still uses a rifled barrel for their main 120mm gun. I suppose there should be enough hard data to sort it out since the UK and USA have worked together very closely in numerous recent conflicts/wars.
Click to expand...

It is true that the Challenger's rifled barrell is more accurate then other guns. Spin stabilized projectiles are inherently more accurate then fin stabilized ones. The 5100m kill came about by a combination of luck, the rifled barrell, the crew's skill, the fact that both the Challenger and target were stationary, and the crew had plenty of time to aim. There is also the fact that having targets at 5100m is EXTREMELY rare, most battefields don't have visible ranges exceeding 2000m.
 
It's clear to me that all 3 tanks are so close as to be practically indistinguishable from each other. The only worry for me is that in any future conflict Western Armies come up against these tanks in combat. ATM I'm not aware of any of these tanks having being sold to potentially unstable nations but you never know. For example, US or UK armies having to deal with Leopard 2s, M1s or Challengers on the field of battle would be a nightmare.
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Saudi Arabia has M1A1s. If the tyranny there collapses, the next leadership wouldn't be too friendly toward the west.
Click to expand...

Noted but unlikely to happen very soon though AFAIK.
 
Doppleganger said:
It's clear to me that all 3 tanks are so close as to be practically indistinguishable from each other. The only worry for me is that in any future conflict Western Armies come up against these tanks in combat. ATM I'm not aware of any of these tanks having being sold to potentially unstable nations but you never know. For example, US or UK armies having to deal with Leopard 2s, M1s or Challengers on the field of battle would be a nightmare.
Click to expand...
The solution is sortof built in: The USA, UK, France, Germany, etc, all will generally only sell versions of their equipment that is 1 step or more out of date. The USA, for instance, would be willing to sell off M1-A1's to nations that may potentially become a threat. Nations that are not likely to ever be hostile are handled differently. I'm unaware of any potentially hostile nation that is being sold Top of the Line military hardware (talking about big items, not assault rifles and the like.) Mind you, that doesn't exactly make us all feel better, but its something. The most tightly kept secrets: The latest and greatest armor and the latest FCS are unlikely to be sold off to any foreign nation under any circumstances.
 
one knows which latest tank is superior tank against each other we never get to see them vs each other from merkava xk2 m1a2 L2a6 chally2 T90 Typ90 and the jap version and all the other latest mbts that i cant remember to put in
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Yes, I believe that the Challenger's record tank kill is 5100m, rather then 4000m. 4000m is too low to be the "record" tank kill because a US tanker in the Gulf war made a kill at 4120m using his auxilary sights. He described the process in detail on tank-net.



It is true that the Challenger's rifled barrell is more accurate then other guns. Spin stabilized projectiles are inherently more accurate then fin stabilized ones. The 5100m kill came about by a combination of luck, the rifled barrell, the crew's skill, the fact that both the Challenger and target were stationary, and the crew had plenty of time to aim. There is also the fact that having targets at 5100m is EXTREMELY rare, most battefields don't have visible ranges exceeding 2000m.
Click to expand...

Hi - could you elaborate a little more on why you have come to the conclusion that rifled mainguns are more accurate over smoothbore.

Also why is it that the UK is placing the L-55 into the Challie 2, some would state that it is due to NATO compatability in tank projectiles but there could be more into that decision.
 
My opinion is that the winning tank will have the best logistics, supply, CSS and ISR capabilities supporting it. I don't care what you drive, you'll be worth two thirds of f**k all if you haven't got the support to make it work.
 
AussieNick said:
My opinion is that the winning tank will have the best logistics, supply, CSS and ISR capabilities supporting it. I don't care what you drive, you'll be worth two thirds of f**k all if you haven't got the support to make it work.
Click to expand...

Yes - those are some important factors that you have pointed out, especially with the speed of modern warfare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top