I hope you don’t mind me joining in your Best Battle Tank discussion, I found this site while trying to answer this very question following a UK Channel 5 documentary about the ultimate top 10 Battle Tanks, in which the Challenger 2 didn’t even get a mention.
This surprised me as I always thought the Challenger 1/2 family were in the top 3 best Tanks in the world. I will try not to repeat anything I have already read in your discussion, so I will only mention the facts as I remember them, together with TV documentary information
Last year a UK TV documentary told of the renovation of a Centurion Mk5 AVRE 165 MBT, which was actually the very first tank into Iraq during the original Gulf War. It was fitted out with fascine carrier and dozer blade, its purpose was to clear and level a path for the following Abrams M1A1 MBTs. The original Centurion crew recounted being teased by the Abrams crews, about where did they find the old scrap Centurion, and why was it spearheading them into the Iraqi desert.
As the Tank column advanced, the teasing stopped as several Abrams became stuck and had to be recovered from the Desert sand, even though they were driving in the cleared, levelled and partially compacted sand behind the Centurion, which didn’t get stuck even though it was driving through virgin sand dunes.
Then when the US and UK MBTs advanced deep into the Iraq Desert, the following differences between the Abrams and Challenger 1 Tanks became clear.
Fuel Consumption. Abrams around 8 to 9 gallons per mile. Challenger around 1 to 2 gallons per mile. During the recent Channel 5 documentary a US Tank commander explained the Abrams takes 8 gallons of fuel just to start the Lycoming Textron AGT1500 Gas Turbine Engine. UK Tanks had to wait for Abrams to be refuelled during the push through Iraq.
Comforts. The Abrams had their own armoured Mcdonalds style food/drink vehicles, whereas the Challengers had their own internal rations and cooking facilities.
Camouflage. Once the Tanks gug in, the Abrams had to keep their Gas Turbine running, whereas the Challengers cut their Main Diesel, and ran the Tank on Servo power, leaving their position secret, whereas the hot exhaust from the Abrams was clearly apparent for miles.
Reliability. Both UK and US Tanks were affected by sand ingress, but the Abrams proved more reliable than the Challenger overall.
Fire Control. The Abrams state ot the art gun control could track more targets at once than the Challenger, although the Challenger riffled 120mm gun was slightly more accurate than the smooth bore Abrams, once locked onto target.
Protection. Both Tanks have the Chobham armour, (The German Leopard does not).
So there you have it, any way you look at it, the Abrams M1A1/2 and Challenger1/2 Main Battle Tanks are extremely potent and closely rated, which makes the Challenger’s ommission from the recent UK TV Channel 5 documentary somewhat confusing.
Information. All the above information came from TV/Newspapers, so if you know anything different, please post it here, as I want as much accurate information as possible. Thanks for reading this my fellow enthusiasts.
