0.9kg/cm2[/quote]
Ta - couldn’t find it on the site I checked, and I couldn’t be bothered going up stairs to dig my Janes book out
Please, please, please tell me that this mate will speak more sense that Irish Duck
Irish duck isn’t in the army,but he investigates of malvinas,and also reads a lot.
and it’s a very cult person.
Well, the combination of another collapse / imminent collapse of the Argentine economy coupled with the Dear Leader’s reduction of RN air assets means we might get to fight another bald man for a comb in the South Atlantic.
If we stick a lone Chally 2 in a C-17, it can be part of the welcome committee for any incoming TAMs.
Just checked - the TAM has a ground pressure of 0.79kg/cm2, so it’s not all that much lighter on it’s feet than the Chally 2.
Irish duck isn’t in the army,but he investigates of malvinas,and also reads a lot.
and it’s a very cult person.
There is a slight spelling mistake in this sentence Erwin.
Back to the Nahuel. Are you sure the suspension is of Argentinian design? It does look very much like that from the US M3 (forerunner of the SHERMAN).
Was it sold overseas at all?
As to the TAM. Based on the MARDER, it should be a fine pice of kit. However, the range of the 105 mm gun (a development of the British L7, modified by Rheinmetall and made in Argentina. Don’t say we never give you anything :-)) firing APDS is about 1800 m whereas the range of the 120mm is 3000m plus with APDS. I tend to think it would be like the SHERMAN vs TIGER in WW2 (mods pls note - see how I keep dragging this thread back on topic). If you flood the battlespace with enough TAM and there is only one CR2, and you can get close enough, you might knock the CR2 out. I think you’d lose a lot of TAM doing it, especially at night.
However, Janes Armour & Artillery does point out the major benefit of TAM is its light weight (about 30t) which does give it a mobility advantage in a continent where the bridges are not all that strong.
Erwin - do you mind if I make a suggestion? Have a little think before you post something contentious like
We also have the TAM,who is great for the argentine battlefield,since it wastes less oil than a heavy tank,shots at good range,and can defeat a challenger 2(in our territory,because taking factors of geography,speed,range,and resistance of the slugs,and capacity to do not stop when it’s on the mud,etc.)
the tam is computarized and much more modern,it has been constantly renewed,there are some with missile launchers and with 12.7 mgs
Unrealistic claims don’t really help, no matter how proud you are of your country’s products and forces. Interestingly, it looks like we will be heading towards a TAM style solution to our FRES requirement, having realised that heavy armour is fine, but it’s very difficult to move it long distances.
Perhaps next time a Junta fancies it’s chances over the Falklands, it will be TAM v2.07 vs FRES
Unrealistic claims don’t really help
they aren’t unrealistic.
the tam has computer.
we didn’t use tams in the malvinas.
Sorry Erwin, having spent some time with the RAC gunnery training wing here in the British Army, and being amongst the first tranches of trainees to be trained on the CR2 with the SDGs, I can catorgarly state that the CR2 would tear your TAMs off the face of the Earth!!!
Lets not forget the incident in the Gulf where CR3s met T-72 or T-80s in a one on one.
And the result.
No CR2 was lost. Every Iraqi tank was lost.
As for your claim that speed is in any way relevant to the contest.
No, it is not.
Once a CR2 has you…you are going to die.
Unless you can put one in him first, which the TAM would be unable to do with its puny weapon. Rate of fire wouldn’t help either.
Speed is only usefull for outflanking the enemy and getting to places quicker. Once contact is initiated then it boils down to biggest shell wins, weakest armour loses.
Please bring on your next “expert”.
ScottishGrouse by any chance?
Edit to add. Both CR and CR2 are fitted with computers. The CR2 one is one of the best fitted to any tank, includin gthe M1 Abrams.
Night Vision aids are outstanding, and with the Cdr/Gnr relationship targets can be taken on almost without pause, providing the loader can slam rounds in quick enough.
the tank attacks as un as de manga.
it’s the final hit.
the important is to attack from flanks
we get you from behind,we blow up your head.
rac?,wtf is that?.
if you were canoneer,you are cannonmeat.
the anti tank weapons will defeat the enemy tanks first.
a tube of 100$ dollars with a shitty misile can destroy a tank of millions of dollars.
and you waste a lot of oil,stupidly
RAC = Royal Armoured Corps
Attacking from the flanks would make no difference for the TAM - they would have to cover 1500m under fire from a tank with a 99% chance of a first round hit before they could even hit the Challenger, never mind hurt it.
Also - Challenger 2 is completely impervious to RPGs - even the Warrior stops them. Most ATGW are no good against the Challenger 2, except the most modern types, which cost far more than $100.
[quote=“BDL”]
RAC = Royal Armoured Corps
Attacking from the flanks would make no difference for the TAM - they would have to cover 1500m under fire from a tank with a 99% chance of a first round hit before they could even hit the Challenger, never mind hurt it.
Also - Challenger 2 is completely impervious to RPGs - even the Warrior stops them. Most ATGW are no good against the Challenger 2, except the most modern types, which cost far more than $100.[/quote]
rpgs?
i said a tube of 100 because a panzershreck can blow up it.
also a comanche helicopter
they can hurt the challenger,they also have missile launchers and we are researching guided misiles for the tam in CITEFA.
also,the tam is faster,and your tank will lose the fuel first.
the tanks is as de manga,it is only as a shot of thanks (excuse the bad translation im offering you).
RAC could mean two things - Royal Armoured Corps or Royal Automobile Club - only one of them is likely to be training with big guns.
Don’t rely too much on Anti-Tank missiles or getting close with cannon either - I’ve seen accounts of T-55s hitting Challenger tanks (not even CR-2s) at point blank range and the shells bouncing off, and of a Challenger 2 getting hit by 70 RPG-7s and still working. Not entirely sure how true these incidents are, but they are at least plausible.
Incidentally, exactly how likely to you think it is that you would be able to outflank and surround tanks with better optics and (probably) better trained crews? This is turning into a bit of a “my dad can beat up your dad” arguament, and it’s downright irritating.
Edit: dammit, BDL got there first!
i replied before
A panzerschrek against a Challenger 2? Now that is one contest I’d love to see.
Comanche helicopters cost far more than $100 each and aren’t in service yet.
Being faster doesn’t matter - you’ll just get to a position where you can get shot faster.
RPG = RPG-7, Soviet anti-tank rocket launcher. Rather more advanced and with better penetrating power than the Panzershrek (if you’re talking about the WW2 missile I think you are), yet the UK has lots of experience in Iraq with PRG-7s doing nothing to Challenger 2s. The only way a Panzershrek would destroy a CR2 is if you were sitting inside it when you fired it!
Comanche helicopter could probably destroy it if it used a big enough missile, but being as the Comanche recently got cancelled by the US and Argentina hasn’t got a prayer of being allowed to buy it (let alone afford it) it’s kind of an irrelevant arguament.
Running out of fuel depends on what the total fuel tankage is, what the fuel consumption is and how well the logistics system supports the tanks. One statistic alone is meaningless.
yes,also,in the geography of the pampa,you will find the challenger will have a difficult,like in the mud.
Yeah your speed and fuel capacity will come in handy for all the routing your crews will be doing.
yes,also,in the geography of the pampa,you will find the challenger will have a difficult,like in the mud.[/quote]
Ummm… where exactly did you get the idea we intend to invade Argentina from? Tinfoil had for Erwin here please!
[quote=“King_Nothing”]
Yeah your speed and fuel capacity will come in handy for all the routing your crews will be doing.[/quote]
explain me please,i don’t understand.
im sorry about my english
yes,also,in the geography of the pampa,you will find the challenger will have a difficult,like in the mud.[/quote]
But not much more difficulty than the TAM - it only has 0.1kg/cm2 more ground pressure under it. Don’t just look at the weight of the tank, look at the ground pressure.