The M1 Abrams Tank.Is It That Good?

Hello,

I was watching this documentary about this tank.They were saying it was the most dangerous tank on the planet.
I'm not much of a tank man,but I want some clarification.Is this beast unbeatable?

Can you say it's the most dangerous tank out there?

Thanks.
Posting pics of other(possibly better) tanks is fine by me.

.

*tank*

Dylan_11

Challenger 2 (British) is slightly better than the M1A2

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks operating in the Gulf suffered no losses to enemy fire.

In third place, the Leopard 2 from germany would come by. Germany are pretty beast when it comes to tanks =)

Challenger 2 (British) is slightly better than the M1A2

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks operating in the Gulf suffered no losses to enemy fire.

In third place, the Leopard 2 from germany would come by. Germany are pretty beast when it comes to tanks =)

Ironbash

[QUOTE="Ironbash"]

Challenger 2 (British) is slightly better than the M1A2

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks operating in the Gulf suffered no losses to enemy fire.

In third place, the Leopard 2 from germany would come by. Germany are pretty beast when it comes to tanks =)

Lto_thaG

Russia tanks have since post WW2 -> cold war and recently been about dogfighting - medium tanks specifically. For russians I'd probably say a variation of the T-72/T-62 or T-55

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

[QUOTE="Ironbash"]

Challenger 2 (British) is slightly better than the M1A2

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks operating in the Gulf suffered no losses to enemy fire.

In third place, the Leopard 2 from germany would come by. Germany are pretty beast when it comes to tanks =)

Ironbash

Russia tanks have since post WW2 -> cold war and recently been about dogfighting - medium tanks specifically. For russians I'd probably say a variation of the T-72/T-62 or T-55

Alright.Thanks. Any comments regarding tanks is welcome.Random facts and such.

Lto_thaG

Tanks are huge, fast, loud, and very intimidating in person.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

Alright.Thanks. Any comments regarding tanks is welcome.Random facts and such.

Palantas

Tanks are huge, fast, loud, and very intimidating in person.

[QUOTE="Ironbash"]

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"] So.. Challenger
M1A2
Leopard 2

What about the Russians?

Lto_thaG

Russia tanks have since post WW2 -> cold war and recently been about dogfighting - medium tanks specifically. For russians I'd probably say a variation of the T-72/T-62 or T-55

only 2 Challeneger 2's have ever been destroyed and one due to mistaken friendly fire

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident

Yes Challenger 2's are 'ard nuts =p

In case you were wondering on where I got my interest from tanks, its from a game I used to play called World of Tanks (WW2 tank fighting game), pretty good game if you are interested in tanks http://worldoftanks.com/

only 2 Challeneger 2's have ever been destroyed and one due to mistaken friendly fire

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident

Yes Challenger 2's are 'ard nuts =p

In case you were wondering on where I got my interest from tanks, its from a game I used to play called World of Tanks (WW2 tank fighting game), pretty good game if you are interested in tanks http://worldoftanks.com/

Ironbash

It really can't be determined yet. The M1 Abrams has not yet been able to go up against a worthy adversary.

Haha..yeah. They talked a lot about that.You know,about the Abrams.Saying it was intimidating.Physically and mentally intimidating.

Lto_thaG

That'd go for any tank. I've always been in light units, so the first time I even saw a tank was on my first deployment. I was in a convoy in Iraq, and at one point we were ordered to clear the road for a higher-priority convoy. After a little bit I heard this rumbling, which grew louder and louder, until it sounded like someone grinding metal right next to my ear. Then these two huge metal shapes went zipping by at Interstate speeds. I was like, "Holy s***, so that's a tank." You're not used to seeing something that big move so fast.

I did some operations in conjunction with a couple tanks. These tanks were moving down a main avenue, while infantry units cleared buildings to the sides. This tank was rolling forward at about walking speed, when suddenly a bright light zipped in from the 12 o'clock and hit it. It took me a few seconds to realize it was an RPG. A few seconds later another one hit it. These RPGs did nothing to this tank. Like I said, it was moving, and they didn't even rock it. A few seconds later the tank fired at something a ways off. That main gun is absurdley loud.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

Alright.Thanks. Any comments regarding tanks is welcome.Random facts and such.

Tanks are huge, fast, loud, and very intimidating in person.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

Haha..yeah. They talked a lot about that.You know,about the Abrams.Saying it was intimidating.Physically and mentally intimidating.

Palantas

That'd go for any tank. I've always been in light units, so the first time I even saw a tank was on my first deployment. I was in a convoy in Iraq, and at one point we were ordered to clear the road for a higher-priority convoy. After a little bit I heard this rumbling, which grew louder and louder, until it sounded like someone grinding metal right next to my ear. Then these two huge metal shapes went zipping by at Interstate speeds. I was like, "Holy s***, so that's a tank." You're not used to seeing something that big move so fast.

I did some operations in conjunction with a couple tanks. These tanks were moving down a main avenue, while infantry units cleared buildings to the sides. This tank was rolling forward at about walking speed, when suddenly a bright light zipped in from the 12 o'clock and hit it. It took me a few seconds to realize it was an RPG. A few seconds later another one hit it. These RPGs did nothing to this tank. Like I said, it was moving, and they didn't even rock it. A few seconds later the tank fired at something a ways off. That main gun is absurdley loud.

When a tank fires,dust flies everywhere.What would happen if you were standing close to it? Besides losing your hearing. Will the blast take you down?

Lto_thaG

If you're expecting it, it won't knock you down. If you're not in a stable position, it can knock you down.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

When a tank fires,dust flies everywhere.What would happen if you were standing close to it? Besides losing your hearing. Will the blast take you down?

Palantas

If you're expecting it, it won't knock you down. If you're not in a stable position, it can knock you down.

The Challenger 2, so far, fares way better when it comes to survivability (one has been proven to take 7 RPGs and still come out alive, with minor injuries to the crew). Abrams have been lost in action, but the Challenger 2, as mentioned earlier, suffered no combat losses.

In regards to the Challenger 2 versus the Abrams, how many of each system have been deployed?

In regards to the Challenger 2 versus the Abrams, how many of each system have been deployed?

Palantas

Over 9000 Abrams have been built but only 446 Challengers have been built. But of course, the UK isn't a war machine compared to the US.

It's damn good for such an old tank. Obviously it has alot of upgrades and slight redesigns but it's pretty awesome that it is still one of the best MBTs in the world while behind so old. I want to see what they US thinks up next :D. Though if I recall, tanks will be focusing more on stealth and mobility in the future rather than raw power.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

In regards to the Challenger 2 versus the Abrams, how many of each system have been deployed?

Desulated

Over 9000 Abrams have been built but only 446 Challengers have been built. But of course, the UK isn't a war machine compared to the US.

we'd still win. we always do.

It's damn good for such and old tank. Obviously it has alot of upgrades and slight redesigns but it's pretty awesome that it is still one of the best MBTs in the world while behind so old. I want to see what they US thinks up next :D. Though if I recall, tanks will be focusing more on stealth and mobility in the future rather than raw power.

Espada12

Lto_thaG, you might like reading this article on the M1 Abrams. It notes the tank could make kill shots > 2,500 meters.

Lto_thaG, you might like reading this article on the M1 Abrams. It notes the tank could make kill shots > 2,500 meters.

topsemag55

Lto_thaG, you might like reading this article on the M1 Abrams. It notes the tank could make kill shots > 2,500 meters.

topsemag55

Over 9000 Abrams have been built but only 446 Challengers have been built. But of course, the UK isn't a war machine compared to the US.

Desulated

In that case, it doesn't seem fair to use casualty figures as a metric for combat survivability.

The UK is a war machine compared to most of the world.

The Abrams, Chllanger, and leopard are all the best tanks right now(in what ever top version), and very simular.

Main differences being Challenger has a rifled gun(US & Ger have sabot), and Abrams has a turbine engine (more power, less MPG)

Edit: Also I hate when people bring up Challenger tank casualty lists, when the Abrams been much more heavily used

A guy in your neighborhood has a Sherman, huh? A guy in my neighborhood has a motorcycle.

A guy in your neighborhood has a Sherman, huh? A guy in my neighborhood has a motorcycle.

Palantas

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

A guy in your neighborhood has a Sherman, huh? A guy in my neighborhood has a motorcycle.

ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

A guy in your neighborhood has a Sherman, huh? A guy in my neighborhood has a motorcycle.

KC_Hokie

No tank is unbeatable. Despite the best armor, they will always make a better round that can penetrate it. The Abrams tank was centered around speed/mobility, reactive armor, and firepower. It performed extremely well against the Iraqi russian tanks and tactics in the Gulf war and Iraq War, but that's the only major experience that I've seen it in. The tactics seem to work well for it. But honestly, against air power, most tanks are virtually helpless.

No tank is unbeatable. Despite the best armor, they will always make a better round that can penetrate it. The Abrams tank was centered around speed/mobility, reactive armor, and firepower. It performed extremely well against the Iraqi russian tanks and tactics in the Gulf war and Iraq War, but that's the only major experience that I've seen it in. The tactics seem to work well for it. But honestly, against air power, most tanks are virtually helpless.

sonicare

No tank is unbeatable. Despite the best armor, they will always make a better round that can penetrate it. The Abrams tank was centered around speed/mobility, reactive armor, and firepower. It performed extremely well against the Iraqi russian tanks and tactics in the Gulf war and Iraq War, but that's the only major experience that I've seen it in. The tactics seem to work well for it. But honestly, against air power, most tanks are virtually helpless.

sonicare

The majority of MBTs are target practice for air-to-surface missiles fired from aircraft and gunships.

Heck, even in urban warfare, handheld AT weapons will be problematic.

The m1a2 is pretty much the Tiger tank of the 21st century. But then no tanks have really seen another combat to really judge them

But in a current combat, tanks aren't as effective against a real army. A jdam or any other large explosive war head or bomb will blow them up

No tank is unbeatable. Despite the best armor, they will always make a better round that can penetrate it. The Abrams tank was centered around speed/mobility, reactive armor, and firepower. It performed extremely well against the Iraqi russian tanks and tactics in the Gulf war and Iraq War, but that's the only major experience that I've seen it in. The tactics seem to work well for it. But honestly, against air power, most tanks are virtually helpless.

sonicare

Unless they decide to install ECM capabilities in tanks, such as jammers, chaff, decoys, etc.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sherman or Stuart tank?KC_Hokie

I hate topics like these.

Instead of everybody pretending to know like they've actually worked with this ****, why don't we just leave the tank discussion to people who work with goddamn tanks.

We don't know which is the "best" tank... at least not in practice.

I hate topics like these.

Instead of everybody pretending to know like they've actually worked with this ****, why don't we just leave the tank discussion to people who work with goddamn tanks.

-TheSecondSign-

Some of us have served.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

I hate topics like these.

Instead of everybody pretending to know like they've actually worked with this ****, why don't we just leave the tank discussion to people who work with goddamn tanks.

topsemag55

Some of us have served.

I get that but these topics almost always dissolve into ridiculous discussion.

I am always interested in hearing from people who actually worked with them. I've never actually worked around tanks, though, so I won't even bother to comment other than that I know that I can hide behind it for cover.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

I hate topics like these.

Instead of everybody pretending to know like they've actually worked with this ****, why don't we just leave the tank discussion to people who work with goddamn tanks.

-TheSecondSign-

Some of us have served.

I get that but these topics almost always dissolve into ridiculous discussion.

I am always interested in hearing from people who actually worked with them. I've never actually worked around tanks, though, so I won't even bother to comment other than that I know that I can hide behind it for cover.

Some people follow military tech such as myself.

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

Alright.Thanks. Any comments regarding tanks is welcome.Random facts and such.

Palantas

Tanks are huge, fast, loud, and very intimidating in person.

for all practical purposes, the Abrams cannot be beat because there is no real-world, enemy tank that can beat it.

I am sure toe-to-toe with a Challenger 2 it'd be interesting, but as that will never happen, I think the Abrams is, yes, that good. Just ask the Iraqis, specifically during the first war.

I think the Abrams is, yes, that good. Just ask the Iraqis, specifically during the first war.

mrbojangles25

Post-war, the unofficial banter between American and Soviet officers was priceless.:P:lol: