Author Topic: Challenger II Tank vs. Range Rover Sport (Read 769 times)

Suave · « **Reply #30 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:36:43 AM »

I think pride clouds your reason. Just like the brits that proclaim the challenger II to be the best and the russkis who swear the t-90 is the best. I think you're more interested in appearing to be right than anything else. Before today you probably didn't even know that the challenger II had stronger armor and a more potent cannon than the m1a2.

I love to talk tank, but I grow weary of poser grognards who can't cache their nationalism.

I gotta start remembering to log in before I read these threads.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #31 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:37:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I think pride clouds your reason. Just like the brits that proclaim the challenger II to be the best and the russkis who swear the t-90 is the best. I think you're more interested in appearing to be right than anything else. Before today you probably didn't even know that the challenger II had stronger armor and a more potent cannon than the m1a2.

I love to talk tank, but I grow weary of poser grognards who can't cache their nationalism.

I gotta start remembering to log in before I read these threads.

Wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion. Laters.

Karaya

Furball · « **Reply #32 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:43:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Challenger was LOST. Bottom line.

Again, more than 8,800 Abrams have been produced. Abrams have been victims of "friendly fire", the tanks were NOT destroyed. In friendly fire incidents the front armor and side turret armor survived direct APFSDS hits from other M1A1s (regardless of distance).

There is no copmparison.

Karaya

what about those abrams which have been totalled by old soviet rpg's and anti tank missiles?

http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1704995.html

There is the report from iraq where a Challenger II suffered an engine breakdown in the middle of a town, it was hit by something like 7 rpg's and 2 anti tank missiles before it was recovered, without a single scratch to the crew and without serious damage.

the Challenger has not suffered a single combat loss and holds the record for the furthest confirmed kill. and also, dont forget, the Abrams uses the British Chobham armour of which the Challenger II uses a higher spec version codenamed Dorchester.

Suave · « **Reply #33 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:50:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion. Laters.

Karaya

Sorry I over reacted. I came back to delete my post you had allready responded.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2006, 07:00:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
what about those abrams which have been totalled by old soviet rpg's and anti tank missiles?

http://www.militarycity.com/iraq/1704995.html

There is the report from iraq where a Challenger II suffered an engine breakdown in the middle of a town, it was hit by something like 7 rpg's and 2 anti tank missiles before it was recovered, without a single scratch to the crew and without serious damage.

the Challenger has not suffered a single combat loss and holds the record for the furthest confirmed kill. and also, dont forget, the Abrams uses the British Chobham armour of which the Challenger II uses a higher spec version codenamed Dorchester.

Tank to tank Furball. The complete design of the Abrams armor is specualtory at best. It's still classified as far as I know. I hate those engine grills, they should armor them better. Furthermore, the "Friendly fire incident" was chalked up as a LOSS.

Karaya

Furball · « **Reply #35 on:** February 05, 2006, 07:08:27 AM »

so you are saying that the Abrams is better because it has only lost tanks to a guy toting a cheap russian RPG...

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml

...compared to a FF incident where a single tank, one of the finest tanks in the world, with a more powerful gun than any of the enemy it is up against, accidentally shoots another tank, killing 2 of the 4 man crew being its single loss?

To date the Challenger (one or two) has not suffered a single LOSS to enemy action in what, 3 wars?

Masherbrum · « **Reply #36 on:** February 05, 2006, 07:22:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
so you are saying that the Abrams is better because it has only lost tanks to a guy toting a cheap russian RPG...

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml

...compared to a FF incident where a single tank, one of the finest tanks in the world, with a more powerful gun than any of the enemy it is up against, accidentally shoots another tank, killing 2 of the 4 man crew being its single loss?

To date the Challenger (one or two) has not suffered a single LOSS to enemy action in what, 3 wars?

No, I'm merely stating that the Abrams has seen a helluva lot more combat than the Challenger. I guess the inferior M256 120 mm smoothbore gun developed by Rheinmetall AG should be upgraded?

Comparing the "battle record" of less than 500 Challenger II's made to 8,800 Abrams is pointless too.

Karaya

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2006, 09:16:57 AM »

whooops!