Havent heard anything about that. Would be cool if you could get the article and make some quotes from it. Well from planes to TV’s to Cars to tanks …what a company. :lol:
More accurate than smoothbore, but it looses pressure IIRC.
That tank up there isn’t a T-95, T-95 is still computer concepts as far as I know, that is the Object 640.
I beleive the japanese tank you are talking about is the Type 90. Started in 1977, in service in 1990. 120mm gun w/ smoothbore barrel.
max speed: 70kmh
engine: 1,500 horsepower
more information here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/type-90.htm
i can notice most modern tank are not sloped armour
mmm interesting point. I suppose modern armour does not need sloped armour as much as it did during WW2. Now we do not rely on the thickness of the armour but the kind of armour. There are many types:
Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) where as the object hits the tank, the outside plates explode and that lessens the damage of the tank. I do not
think we use that exact method today.
Chobham armour, made by a British tank research center, is basically ceramic between armour steel plating, the exact configuration is left a secret. It is similar to ERA, as when the object hits the tank, the ceramic layer shatters forming a dust under high pressure, this again lessens the damage.
The Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armour(it is similar to Chobham armour, but I do not know anything about it)
Those are the main types of armour, however the German Leopard 2 uses perforated armour, anyone care to give us info on that?
The answer to this question is not as simplistic as the members of the forum seem to think. The answer to what is the best tank is not a simple “willy waving exercise” about range, speed etc but is subjective based on the environment that it is used in and the role it is carrying out.
For example, the current role in Iraq has proved that the Abrams is very susceptible to low velocity shaped charge weapons such as the RPG. Reports I have seen have mentioned 15 Abrams being declared beyond economic repair including 3 fatalities to crew whilst within the vehicle. Conversely, a vehicle that would stand no chance against an Abrams, the UK’s main APC Warrior, has had one vehicle declared beyond economic repair and two declared beyond recovery due to the situation in which they were damaged.
Within the Iraq environment the Warrior seems superior to an MBT against the weapons being used yet nobody could sensibly take a Warrior out against an Abrams.
Perhaps jingoism is not the best basis for a discussion.
Maninblack has hit the nail It’s about job and working environment. Both Abrams and Challenger were prototyped during the cold war with a European theatre in mind. During Granby both had major sand issues.
During Granby UK tankies deployed their last Centurion, which was a 1950’s vintage.
The crew got ripped by a collum of M1A’s steaming for the start line and and where able to return the compliment to the same sand clogged collum a few klm,s further on off road as they sailed past.
The Centurion was developed during WW2 with all theatres in mind and performed well for ANZAC forces in Vietnam and for the IDF right up to Yom Kippur, two totall’y different enviroments
The mistake in developing the next generation of MBT’s would be to look at the last conflict . Yes look at partiularly mobility kill’s in the sand box but the boffins need to be projecting future hot spots for AT capability.
Challenger 2 probably has the edge over the M1A2. The Abrams’s engine is more powerful but it is so thirsty! This is an M1A3 Abrams which is better still but it is not in service. Also there is an export version of the Challenger 2 which has a number of improvements.
Also I think experience in Iraq will prove the utility of the rifled gun firing HESH rather than the smooth bore firing HEAT.
K we will get this issue sorted. You Brits go dig up Monty and bring him back to life and stick him in a Challenger. Ill go get Patton and stick him in an Abrams. Then we will see which tank is better. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Monty would win of course, after all he’s british! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
“He’s British” that just tells me nothing besides he has bad teeth.
:mrgreen: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just Kidding 
you obviously haven’t heard the famous line ‘you were born english and consequently have won first prize in life’ or something like that. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ooh look i made sergeant! Does that mean i get to tell young officers that they’re wrong and make everyone’s life hell?
Cecil Rhodes :
“Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.” :lol:
Here’s the data on the Abrams, Leapard 2 and Challenger 2 for comparison:
Designation: M1A1/M1A2 Abrams
Manufacturer: Chrysler
Country: United States
Type: Main Battle Tank (MBT)
Service Date: 1980
Crew: 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader and Driver)
Length: 25.9 ft (7.9 m)
Width: 11.9 ft (3.7 m)
Height: 9.5 ft (2.9 m)
Weight: 125,890 lbs (57,154 kg)
Powerplant: Textron Lycoming AGT-1500 gas-turbine; 1,500 bhp at 30,000 rpm.
Max Speed: 41 mph (67 kmh)
Max Range: 480 km
Armament: 1 x M256 Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore gun 1 x M240 7.62mm co-axial machine gun 1 x M2 12.7mm 1 x M240 7.62mm anti-aircraft machinegun
Designation: Leopard 2
Manufacturer: Krauss-Maffei
Country: Germany
Type: Main Battle Tank
Service Date: 1979
Crew: 4
Length: 9.67 m
Width: 3.70 m
Height: 2.48 m
Weight: 55,150 kg
Powerplant: 1 x MTU MB-873 Ka-501 12-Cylinder liquid-cooled diesel; output 1,500 hp.
Max Speed: 72 km/h
Max Range: 550 km
Armament: 1 x 120 mm main gun 1 x 7.62 mm co-axial machine gun 1 x 7.62 mm AA machine gun
Designation: Challenger 2
Manufacturer: Vickers Defense Systems
Country: Britain
Type: Main Battle Tank
Service Date: 1994
Crew: 4
Length: 8.3 m
Width: 3.5 m
Height: 2.49 m
Weight: 62,500 kg
Powerplant: 1 x Perkins CV-12 Condor V12 12-cylinder diesel engine delivering 1,200 hp of power.
Max Speed: 56 km/h
Max Range: 450 km
Armament: 1 x 120mm L30 CHARM Gun (CHallenger main ARmament) 1 x Co-axial 7.62mm chain gun 1 x 7.62mm GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence
It appears that the Challenger 2 is considerably heavier than the other two, hence the slow speed. That knocks it out of the running IMO. A difference of 10km in an hour can make an important difference in getting to where you are needed quickly, especially when you are driving one over existing roads for 100km or more. While tanks are not driven at maximum speed for long distances, this is where wight becomes an important factor, because it effects the acceptable cuising speed at which it can be driven for an extended period of time without a mechanical failure. The Abrams and Leopard seem pretty evenly matched. However, the Leopard has better range.
I don’t know the fuel consumption rate or fuel tank size, but the Abrams does have greater range than the Challenger 2. If you have any info on that, it would be interewsting to know. However, since the range is greater, I personally do not think that the fuel consumption rate is a big deal, regardless of which gets better “mileage”. However, the Abrams does consume more fuel at slow and crawling speeds, and that is not a good thing if supply were somehow short.
M1A1/M1A2 Abrams
Max Range: 480 km
Challenger 2
Max Range: 450 km
Here’s some interesting thought on power/fuel/weight aspects of modern tanks:
“For instance, a given design may be able to support the weight of a certain amount of armour; however, a heavier design could be made with more armour and a larger engine, giving the same performance. What may be overlooked, however, is that unless fuel capacity is increased, the latter would also have shorter range. This comparison is useful for understanding why tank designs of a given class tend to become heavier and heavier, and why lighter classes then need to be introduced. Monetary cost can also be an important factor. For example, more armour and a bigger engine would be heavier, but would also normally cost more. It may be more cost effective to use a combination of higher quality armour and a more efficient drive train.”
Although there have been some very informative posts about the specs and capabilities of MBTs and some quibbling over who is better based on ranges and fuel consumption etc… I think its fairly safe to say that most of the tanks mentioned Leopard, Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc are fairly even matched on specs alone. The real test would be in pitting them against each other in combat and this would heavily rely on situation (terrain, weather etc) and the crew, I’m sure a very good T-90 crew could make mincemeat of a Abrams or an experienced Leopard crew could defeat a challenger. lets not forget that in war, as the wehrmacht found out in WW2, you can have all the gucci kit in the world (i.e. Tigers) but that won’t achieve sh*t if you can’t resupply or effectively maintain your armoured force in the field.
Just my humble opinion.
Totally agreed Student Scaley, those mbts are just too evenly matched that it would be practically useless arguing over which one is generally better. Well just have to wait and see which one will win when battling eachother on the front line. 
Weights are out of date, the combat weight is about 70tons. The fuel consumption of the M1 is horrendous it has a gas turbine and drinks and drinks fuel. Max speed is another red herring. If on road and travelling distance then they go my transporters, if its across country then its down to suspension and crew fatigue. Unlike on road, when cross country you are continually slowing down and speeding up depending on the ground, or you will get a boot in the back of the head.
A quote from a US tanker at Bovy.
If the decision to go forward with smooth bore is made for CR2, I hate to see the loss of the HESH round. Good peice of ammunition.
The main advantage that C2 has over the rest is that it fires HESH a point tht the US now realise was a drawback in smooth bore guns. Very good for mouse holes.
The Americans wish to develop lighter more mobile armoured vehicles to replace the MBTs. I think that the UK is investigating the same misguided proposal! This is crazy after the experiences of Somalia (where Pakistani armoured vehicles had to rescue Humvee crews) and of Iraq!