http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Cd_Tank.htm

-For those who found German tanks hard to knock out in the game, the real-deal was even harder.

Yea the Germans really had the upper hand with their tanks, but we just had more...thats all
Good thing we got with the program and now have the M1 Abrams

When the Germans first started off, their tanks weren't that great. In fact, if the French knew how to deploy their tanks, their heavy tanks could have taken out what Germany fielded during the blitzkrieg of France. And of course when the Germans first encountered the Russian T-34 they were shocked. They were able to inflict heavy losses because they were better trained than their Russian counterpart and they were also able to communicate between tanks since they had radios.
After the T-34, then the Germans started building the Tiger I and Panther...they were deadly, but complicated to build...so they took longer to get into the field, where the Americans were able to mass produce the Sherman because they were easier to fabricate and of course, we did the same prior to the war with automobiles. It usually took 5 shermans to knock out one tiger, but when you build 56 thousand Shermans, I guess you are willing to take those losses.

A little while back there was an interesting Military Channel show about Blitz Krieg where they indeed talked about inferiority of German armor early in the war. Not just quality but quantity. What they did understand a lot better is how to use combined arms to exploit the strengths of each component to make up for weaknesses of others.

As Punji mentioned later German tanks were technologically superior to anything the allies could throw against them. But they had reliability problems and consumed too many resources to build, maintain and operate. So Allied tanks like the Sherman could employ wolfpack techniques to knock 'em out. A very expensive proposition. Unfortunately life was cheap then. There were reports of a single Tiger knocking out more than a dozen Shermans before getting out manouvered and destroyed from behind. In hind sight it is inexcusable that the Allies didn't field a better tank till late in the war. Thankfully tanks like the Abrams, Challenger and LeClerc are more than a match for Soviet armor. Of course the Germans still make Leopard tanks and those are just as good. You can always trust a German to make a good tank

For some Hollywood 'evidence' of the lack of punch that a Sherman provides I recommend the movie 'Battle of the bulge' where Telly Sevallas shoots at Germans and complains how he's shooting with tennis balls as his rounds are simply bouncing off. In a related anecdote on a square in Bastogne there is a Sherman with an AT hole in it to commemorate the bravery and sacrifice of the Allies to stop the counter attack. At least it was there 15 years ago. I assume it's still there.

American armor was the way it was because the US plan was for fast, mobile tanks that directly supported the infantry (thus the decision for the low velocity 75mm gun on the Sherman). American planners still believed in the infantryman as the primary offensive weapon. The American armor force was not designed for a battle of attrition like in Normandy. After the breakout, American armor's mobility really shined by moving very swiftly to the borders of Germany. Where America went wrong was in the belief that mobile "tank destroyers" (lightly armored vehicles, like halftracks, with anti tank guns on them) could deal with the tanks. By the time America learned its lesson about needing heavy tanks to take out German tanks, it was too late.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SgtGarand:
now have the M1 Abrams

---

maybe so but us Brits have the Challanger Mk2 tank its newer and better then the abrams. check its info out:

Crew 4
Length Gun Forward 11.55m;
Hull Length 8.3m;
Height to Turret Roof 2.49m;
Width 3.5m;
Ground Clearance 0.5m;
Combat Weight 62,500 kg;
Main Armament 1 x 120mm L30 CHARM Gun (CHallenger main ARmament);
Ammunition Carried Typically 50 rounds - APFSDS, HESH, Smoke;
Secondary Armament Co-axial 7.62mm chain gun; 7.62mm GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence;
Ammunition Carried 4000 rounds 7.62mm;
Engine 1200bhp Perkins-Condor CV12;
Maximum Road Speed 59km/h;
Average Cross Country Speed 40km/h

quote:

---

maybe so but us Brits have the Challanger Mk2 tank its newer and better then the abrams.

---

I think I'm in love.
What's the form for upping with a Brit Armored Reggy?

WTF!!!

WTF???

Well, Canada's only 'real' tanks are 60's-era Leopards.
Granted, they've received upgrade packages over the years.
But they're still only a Medium Battle Tank.

And the Canadian government has NO intention of buying modern tanks.
Instead, their brilliant notion is to go with the wheeled Mobile Gun System AFV.

As a former tanker, that Challenger tank is just gorgeous to my eyes.
Hence, "I think I'm in love"...

Sorry mate i just never understood what you wrote properly, anyway dad loved the tank, he was in the Brit Infantry and trained with both the Challanger MK1 and 2, and in my Army interviews my second choice was a Tank commander.

FYI -

As a brit (but living in USA). I was watch the military channel, they were comparing modern and historic MBTs.
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/tanks/sildeshow/slideshow.html

They gave this story about the Challenger Tank.
It is the only MBT not to suffer a single loss in either Iraq war.

There was also a story about a single Challenger 2 Tank that was attack in Iraq and hit by 17 RPG's and one milian anti tank missle and was still to continue its mission.

Of course in addition longest range main weapow.

Yes, I saw this show too, very good stuff. No surprise that the T-34 'won'.

It is true that the Challenger didn't suffer a single loss that that statement is meaningless without comparing the threat it was exposed to or the tactics that were employed. AFAIK the Abrams and Challenger use the same or similar Chobbam (sp?) armor so unless the yanks messed it up the M1 should have the same inherent capability to resist enemy fire. It could be that the Challenger has newer and thicker armor, of course.

That story of the tank that got trapped (different show specifically about the Challenger) was very impressive. To resist so many rpgs and even a Milan hit is testament to the tanks survivability.

So anyway, my point was that without knowing what type of resistance the Challenger faced in and around Basra and comparing that to what the M1 faced on the road to Baghdad the loss numbers are meaningless. Perhaps Basra was only defended by T-55s and light AT weapons like early gen RPGs. Certainly the battle didn't last as long.

Too bad a few Leopards and LeClercs weren't thrown into that sandbox. Would have been a good training session :-)

Dont get me wrong the M1 is one of greatest tanks around and certainly had to deal with much stiffer continuing resistance that the British, however it is good to know the Challenger 2 is right up there as well. Especially in light of shortcomings of original Challenger 1 (poor targeting systems etc).

I know quite a bit about the Challenger MK2 (i can't wait to see them on action) so i will help sort some points out:

First up Chobbam Armour,
both the Abrams and the Challanger MK2 have them it is a British invention (we sold the US some to their Armoured corps) however we are constantly upgrading it trying to make it take more, a new idea that is being tested is electrical Chobbam Armour the shock helps to absorb the blast before the Chobbem armour takes effect.

Iraq War
In Basra the biggest tank battle involing British armour since WW2 took place it was about 30 odd T72 against 15 or so Challenger MK2's, the battle was over in about 10 - 15 min and every Iraqi tank was destroyed before they knew what hit them ('ave it!!)

Weapon System
The MK 2 was upgrading not long after the first Gulf war and they tried to give it a new gun and targeting system, but in the end they gave it a whole new turret. This is a quote from the British army website:

The superb Challenge 2 (CR2) is the British Army’s Main Battle Tank. CR2 is based on the Challenger 1 that served with distinction on operations in the Gulf War and the Balkans. Only 5 per cent of Challenger 2 components are interchangeable with its predecessor; over 150 major modifications include a completely new turret, L30 CHARM 120mm gun and second generation Chobham armour. Challenger 2’s Thermal Observation and Gunnery (TOGS) displays a magnified image for the commander and gunner. The commander has a gyrostabilised fully panoramic sight with laser range finder and thermal imager. The gunner is equipped with a gyrostabilised primary sight with a laser range finder and coaxially mounted auxiliary sight. The drivers position has an image-intensifying day and night periscope, and the loader has a day sight

When the Challenger goes to battle with the Abrams they are Unstopable.

here some great pics



http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_ch2.htm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bump-USMC:
Perhaps Basra was only defended by T-55s and light AT weapons like early gen RPGs. Certainly the battle didn't last as long.
QUOTE]

Nope, the City was defended with all different tanks including T-72s, and the reason the battle didn't last long was because the Iragi troops and tanks never had a chance to fight back .

I have nothing against the Challenger but a quick look at the map shows the difference between the attacks on Basra and the advance to Baghdad. In terms of sheer number of miles traversed, tanks involved and enemies engaged the mere fact that a handful of M1s were taken out vs. no Challengers doesn't say anything about the superiority of either.

I know that what i wrote proves nothing about the tanks themselves but in my opinion i think the Challanger MK2 is the best tank there is, but everyone is entilted to their own opinion and views. I think the Abrams did a great job in Iraq and if challangers did that run to Baghdad then i'm sure that a few tanks would of been taken out due to enemy fire, i respect that. The U.S. has a great military and i'm glad that us Brits fight side by side.

Right, I just got a little concerned when opinion and proof/fact got mixed up. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It's just when their substantiation with fact is a little bungled that I can't resist stepping in

Obviously the US was glad to have the Brits on their side, as has been done many times in the past. This was after all not a competition but rather a nasty job that had to get done.

Now when are you blokes finally going to get rid of that SA80? Maybe go back to the Enfield eh?

Just trying to get a rise out of you man

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bump-USMC:
Now when are you blokes finally going to get rid of that SA80? Maybe go back to the Enfield eh?

---

Oi!! The SA-80 or L85 is a great rifle its new(ish) it looks cool and its accurate. Every gun has a bad time when it first goes in to operational service (didn't most soldiers hate the M16 at first) Another good thing about the L85 its unique and exclusive to the UK.

Also, most of the L85 is made by Enfield (its not Lee Enfield any more).

Thats why more of the newer soldiers are issued M4 Carbines than the M-16 because the M4 can play a better role than an M-16 can in an urban setting. M4 is light weight and more compact than the M16, so its suitable for Urban combat such as our conflict in Iraq, it just lacks range but it'll still hit ya