while were on the subject of the best fighting force, id like to add this topic.
what do you regard as the best battle tank currently in service.
obviously im going to nominate the Challenger 2.
reasons;
-charm 3 main gun, most accurate and powerfull in service
-heavy chobham armour protection
-reliable, powerfull engine
-without doubt the most battle proven tank today, capable of withstanding fire that can reduce an abrams to smouldering wreck. rpg's etc.
and yes i am biased cos its british hehe
cheers
joe

p.s its about time we had a good peice of kit!

M1 Abrams, because my friends brother works on on, infact he is in Iraq right now.

~Chip :-)

M1 Abrams...... :-)

While I agree that the Challenger is a fine tank... the Abrams set the standard, and is still the best... :-)

Of course - I am an American, and my brother-in-law is in Iraq right now, so my view might be biased...

Later-
Jeff

Hands down favorite the M1A2 Abrams......best tank on the planet manned by the best tankers in the world!
DJ

Prove it.

Tired of these questions about the M1, just because of one or two Abrams knocked out in a pretty big war.

All tanks can be destroyed and all will burn. Just depends on circumstances...

Steve

Steve--great! What is made by man can be destroyed by man. A superb tank is not invincible.
DJ

ok i seem to have rufelled a few feathers!
Tired of these questions about the M1, just because of one or two Abrams knocked out in a pretty big war.

yes, but the only challenger knocked out during op telic/iraqi freedom was knocked out by another challenger!
the fact that only a few abrams were knocked out is testement to what is a superb tank, but i believe the challenger is superior, maybe because its a much newer tank, the designers had the oppertunity to see the shortcomings of its predeccesor and the abrams and address some of them, but you have to agree, the combat record from iraq of the chally 2 seems to speak to itself :-)
cheers
joe
p.s hope any relatives or friends serving in iraq come back safe and sound!

Greatbrit-
I wouldn't say you ruffled some feathers... I think that what got to people was this...



RPG's did not reduce a single Abrams to a smouldering wreck... The US Air Force did that. Sure some M1's got "put out of action" by RPG hits to the tracks, etc., but these tanks were then destroyed by our own forces to prevent them from falling into enemy hands.

I know the Challenger is a great tank - so is the new Leopard the Germans and Swedes use... not to mention the Merkava.... All are really devastating battle tanks.

I think that the tactical considerations in Iraq had more to do with tank losses than the tanks themselves. I don't know the numbers, but I am under the impression that there are a whole lot more Abrams tanks in Iraq than Challengers, so the odds of more M1's getting knocked out of action would be greater. I would venture to say that if the roles were reversed, the Brits assaulting Baghdad and the Yanks taking Basra, the combat casualties would also have been reversed.

As it stands, I wonder what the percentages are... I.E. - Out of X number of Abrams tanks in theatre Y got KO'd, and out of Z numbers of Challengers Q got knocked out... That would be interesting to know.

Thanks for the topic- Good discussion-
Jeff

An article over at Jane's Defense Weekly (link below) quotes someone from TACOM stating that 14 Abrams were damaged and 2 were destroyed during OIF. Good article. Link below.

Shaun

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml

good points jr, but,
while it may have been the case in the majority of cases, the us air force didnt destroy all the abrams lost in iraq.
i saw one go up live on sky news during the assault on baghdad, and there wasnt an aircrt in sight, thankfully the crew were uninjured and escaped before the tank seemed to brew up. i dont know if the british news chnnels showed more footage of such events or not but it was definately on sky news.
the particular tank was hit on the flank by a rpg or some such weapon and it appeared that the engine and turret bustle ammo stowage seemed to go up after the exterior of the tank had been burning for five or so minutes.

if you like such discussions why dont we start them more often in this forum?
part of the reason i chose this particular topic is because i knew it would get replies!
the history club hasnt seen much use lately, so why dont we all start to use it more?
cheers
joe

Greatbrit-
You guys in Europe got to see more coverage of the war than we did in the states... Our new casts didn't really show stuff like destroyed US equipment. I have a few photos of some M1's that were damaged or destroyed. Do any of these pictures look like the tank you saw get hit?
In this first shot - I especially like the Iraqi RPG guy photoshopped into the pic. This tank was disabled by a RPG hit to the track (it did not penetrate, so the hole you see was photoshopped in as well). This particular vehicle was later put back into service.



In this next shot you see "Cojone". This vehicle was a victim of an engine fire. The tank was totally destroyed by another M1, to keep it out of enemy hands. You can see the sabot hole in the turret.



This next pic is a shot of an M1 disabled near Najaf... RPG hit to the sprocket... This vehicle was later destroyed by Apache choppers using hellfire missles.



The next M1 is probable the one you are talking about in your post... This vehicle was hit by an RPG. The crew bailed out and the tank was totally destroyed a few minutes later with a ATGM by our own forces.



The info on these pictures is only what was told to me by others.... so I don't claim that I am not wrong on any of this... If I have erred on anything - let me know.

Jeff

to be honest it could have been any of them, bear in mind it was a while ago now.
although i dont think the one on sky had a name on the barrel, i may be wrong.
and it was deffinately destroyed by the first hit, the news crew stayed there whilst an m113 engaged iraqi infantry to cover the abrams crew bailing out. they stayed until the abrams went up, filming it from a safe distance of course!
i think we should lay this arguament to rest now, as it seems im out voted!
doesnt mean im admitting defeat though!
cheers
joe

No need to admit defeat :-)

I am not arguing, or anything like that.... I'm just curious now. I believe you - it's just that I want to know more info now. If indeed the Iraqis destroyed an M1 with a RPG - I stand corrected. It sounds as if they did. Sure glad the crew got out uninjured!!!!

Take care -
Jeff

Reagrding RPG damage. I defer to Sabot on responding, but my hip shot reply is that RPGs cause mobility kills (track, skirts, roadwheels). But, a catastrophic hit with an RPG, well, I am dubious. On the other hand, any one can have a good day. So, some clown may have gotten a lucky shot on a mechanically disabled tank...but, I wasn't there (unfortunately).
DJ

Hopefully the guys that design and select our countries' weapon systems aren't as patriotic about the issue as we are. When it comes to things like this, we should never be completely happy with what we have, else we should grow complacent. The next thing you know, someone previously running the rear in the arms race comes up with something better! There's some silly leadership book that says something to the effect that "good isn't good enough" and "good is the enemy of great" and this rule should especially apply to the development of the vehicles and weapons our soldiers are heading into battle with. Just a little quasi-philosophical food for thought :-)

Nic

the tank was certainly destroyed by one rpg, it was hit on its flank, between the rear right hand corner and the grills on the back. the rear of the tank was on fire for a few minutes maybe five or so, in which time the crew got out safely. the film crew were behind the vehicle taking cover behind another tank as the m113 fired at iraqis, and they got a good iew of the abrams. after burning for a while, i guess the engine caught fire, the rear turret ammo stowage went up, blowing the back of the turret to bits. the columm then moved on down a motorway sliproad towards the airport i think. i think earlier in the patrol they had pssed a number of knocked out T72's, but this may have been a different patrol its hard to tell when its on the news.
thats all i can remember, i cant rremember exact units as it was a while ago now.
cheers
joe
p.s i still prefer challys!

The only combat casualties in an Abrams during OIF occurred when an Abrams was crossing a bridge and a sniper killed the driver. The tank slewed around and went of the bridge into the river, where the other three crew members drowned. Other than this freak incident, there have been no casulaties of Abrams crewmen who were inside the tank. I would say this rercord speaks for itself. I do not deny that the Challenger is a fine tank and might even prove superior in firepower to the Abrams, but the Abrams has gone through two wars and numerous skirmishes with only four combat casualties and in much larger numbers than the Chall. 2. In my opinion that makes it better. Perhaps this attitude will change in time if the Chall. 2 spends as much time per unit produced in combat, but then again I am a Yank and must do as the Yanks do.

Rob

PS. I would also point out that I have seen the Official AAR of the Abrams and can say more tanks were lost due to mechanical failure during combat (read APU fires, Air filter fires, and idiot drivers) than were lost due to enemy action. Cojone Eh caught fire from its air filter overheating and was destroyed by an A-10 with a couple of mavericks. The tank with the photoshopped RPG gunner doesn't have a hole in it, that is the return roller mount you see, the roller itself is gone . The third picture JR shows was disabled by an engine fire and was abbandoned. Note that it has been stripped this wouldn't have been possible if it was on fire from an RPG. Most damage seen in the news was done after the vehicle was abandoned. Some idiot Iraqi hitting an abadnoned tank with an RPG for the news cameras.

this discussion seems to be driven more by patriotism than anything else, and i for one am definately guilty of this!
im personally getting a little bored of this topic so this will be my last post on it.
we all have different views on this matter, and after all unless the two tanks are engaged in direct combat we never shall actually see which is better will we? and i sure as hell dont want to see that happen!
and as for the other tanks mentioned, yes the merkava is a superb tank possibly on par with the challenger or abrams, but i dont think the leopard can be considered as it has never been proved in combat like the others have.
thanks for an interesting discussion!
joe

Stop the madness!

I'm sure the powers that be will do anything required to fix any shortcomings with the Abrams. (At least I hope they do.)

Actually, it's probably a good thing that any apparent weakness was exposed. It may save lives in the future.

Maybe there are problems with the Challenger that will be corrected too. They have not seen near the action that the Abrams have, so I'm sure there are weaknesses with it too.

I said this was a question that has been fought over before...

Steve

I'm glad I read through the posts before my dander caused me to respond. They are both the top of the line vehicles, we're on the same side , so we more than likely won't ever find out which is superior, the vehicles are both so close tht more than likely in a combat situation it would depend on the crew training. Bottom line is, the bad guys depending on old warsaw pact made equipment are the ones that need to worry as they truely have inferior stuff.

I agree with blaster regaurdless of tank as shown in other posts on this site it's all down to training you can give a sprog crew a chally2 or abrams but it doesnt make them the big dog on the battlefield it all comes down to training and knowing how to exploit the weakness
in the enemys armour