Main Battle Tank Battle
LeEnfield
Active member
There was only one Challenger knocked out of action and that was done by another Challenger. The Challengers were in a middle of a dust storm and one strayed of course and in the gloom received a round from another Challenger at very close range. No one was killed but the tank was disabled.
Redneck
Active member
LeEnfield 2, what is the purpose of posting those images? Many forum members have friends and family serving in these vehicles and others at this time, and your childish behavior is both unwelcome and unnecessary. Make your point in a mature and responsible manner or do not post.
Rabs
Active member
I dont beleive the brits have too many Challengers 2 in Iraq, and the ones they do serve in the much more peaceful southren part of the coutnry. The Challenger 2 has better armor than the Abrhams but looking at the damage on some of these tanks, youd see the same kind of damage to both MBTs.
from what i understand the brit have about half there challenger 2 fleet there or a little under at 150 tanks. there have been other challenger 2 disable but the were repaired with in ten hours on back on the street of basra.
the thing you all most think about is that the challenger 2 was developed in the mid-90s and the abrams was design in the late-70s so most of the week point will ahev been iron out like using gas turbine which i my say is a big no no fort the reson to much heat and infantry can't be behind the tank cos of the fumes and heat of the engine gas.
it also has the most protected armour on any tank with second genation chonbom.
the thing you all most think about is that the challenger 2 was developed in the mid-90s and the abrams was design in the late-70s so most of the week point will ahev been iron out like using gas turbine which i my say is a big no no fort the reson to much heat and infantry can't be behind the tank cos of the fumes and heat of the engine gas.
it also has the most protected armour on any tank with second genation chonbom.
maidenfan666
New Member
two things:
one: no one has made a comment on the abrams low silouhette. now, i'm not sure about the others, but i know the abrams is only 8 ft. tall
two: if you search m1a3 on google, one of the first hits is something about a company selling them(it has nationstates in the adress) it lists improvments like new armor, a new gun and SAMs, now, i think this is bull but any comments
one: no one has made a comment on the abrams low silouhette. now, i'm not sure about the others, but i know the abrams is only 8 ft. tall
two: if you search m1a3 on google, one of the first hits is something about a company selling them(it has nationstates in the adress) it lists improvments like new armor, a new gun and SAMs, now, i think this is bull but any comments
19kilo30K4
Active member
Then why did the Ministry of Defense say that one had been penetrated by an RPG 29 and release that information in a statement to the Telegraph in May of 2007? Nobody was killed but the driver was injured and the tank was heavily damaged. An IED in Basra also heavily damaged a Chally 2 and cost the driver both his legs. Brits are so crazy about the Challenger, that even when your own government confirms they can be blown up, you won't listen. This story was first covered by the British newspaper the Telegraph and was reported by Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent on 13 May 2007. Trooper Sean Chance of the Queen's Royal Hussars lost his legs in the attack, so maybe you can tell him and his mother Kay Chance from Bromsgrove about how that tank has never been knocked out. I'm sure they'd love it. This is not Wiki information here, it's confirmed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html why don't you try reading your own newspaper articles about it? Escpecially the part where the MoD spokesman says:
"We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable. There is no question of a cover-up. Any suggestion that this was the first successful attack against a Challenger 2 tank was given in good faith based on the information available at the time. We would like to reassure the family that lessons were learnt from the incident last August and measures were taken to enhance the protection of our personnel."
Any person who claims that a tank cannot be killed, regardless of what is thrown at it is absolutely wrong. The Abrams can and has been disabled, and so has the Challenger 2. I feel safe in my tank, but I also know that I can't drive around Iraq pretending that it is impossible for me to be killed. Even though you posted pics of destroyed M1s and I'm an M1 tanker, I'm not mad at you. It is important for people to understand the limitations of these vehicles, instead of just saying how the M1 is so great. The burned one I think was a training accident and the one with the hole in the side looks like it was abandoned. Yes, it was a vehicle kill shot, but obviously they still had the ability to get the gun over the back to get the driver out and pulled all the machine guns off. In the spot that penetration was, it wouldn't have killed anyone. That one with the turret off was a confirmed catastrophic kill, everyone in the M1 died. It was a deep buried IED emplaced by guys who were pretending to be a road construction crew, complete with hard hats, reflective vests, cones and the whole bit. That blast would have killed any vehicle on the planet, and beleive me when I say we learned from that. There is no such thing an an unkillable tank, but against the entire Iraqi Army, 2nd BDE 3rd ID took the city center of Baghdad with only one tank lost. It was a recoiless rifle shot through a fuel cell that caught it on fire. No casualties, but the tank was abandoned and torched. Later that night, Iraqi fighters took pictures of themselves dancing on the burned out M1 and claimed they had killed it. It was actually destroyed by us to keep it from being captured, so don't beleive everything you see in pictures. A lot of burned M1 pics are accidents. One near Balad was roasted by improper recovery procedures in 2004 and we had one burn up due to faulty NBC filters and kill the driver in my own unit (R.I.P Chavez, C TRP 1/7 CAV). Does that mean the M1 is not a highly successful tank that actually faced enemy armor and won (unlike the Chally that came later)? No. It works, and is used on a MUCH wider scale in many more operations and in much greater numbers than the Chally 2, so how can you not understand that more M1s than Challys would be hit? Look at where Challys have operated in the past. Not in the Sunni triangle, for damn sure, and in case you didn't know.... that's where the actual bad guys were. Get over yourself, and give credit where credit is due: to the tank that actually fought the Iraq war.
Last edited: