Forums of the Megaverse®

the Terrain - Mixed... Some swamp/mud/sand, forest, hills, rocky terrain
weather - humid. warm days, cool nights. scattered rains.

The combatants...

British Challenger 2 tank

Israeli Merkava

M1 Abrams

Straight up tank battle.

Kinda a weighted question

Those chalengers are designed for defesne they are huge compared to an M1 so if they are attacking then the Abrams

ifg they are defensding a position then they problay would.

Isareli tank crews are better at Mout and are inexperienced at that style of fighting so the Brits and us would both beat them.

The real decdeing factor is whether they sent in 4th Tks Bt or some other unit

Too close to call without additional information.

I voted. I watched the Top 10 vehicles and I think that they exactly correct where they put all three of these tanks in their ratings. (Military Channel show)

Aramanthus wrote:I voted. I watched the Top 10 vehicles and I think that they exactly correct where they put all three of these tanks in their ratings. (Military Channel show)

That is what inspired this poll. That and I was bored.
Personally, I think the Merkava and Challenger should have been hire. And I dont buy the BS reason they gave for the Abrams not being #1

Jefffar wrote:Too close to call without additional information.

What additional info do you need?

Terrain
Rules of Engagement
Availability of support
Relative level of crew experence
Specific sub varients of the tanks (note that origional Merkava and M1 are far less well armed and armoured than current versions and are decidedly inferior to the Challenger II which developed 20 years later)

Those are some interesting points. That could make a serious amount of difference in the conflict.

whipped4073 wrote:

Mr. Deific NMI wrote:

Aramanthus wrote:I voted. I watched the Top 10 vehicles and I think that they exactly correct where they put all three of these tanks in their ratings. (Military Channel show)

That is what inspired this poll. That and I was bored.
Personally, I think the Merkava and Challenger should have been hire. And I dont buy the BS reason they gave for the Abrams not being #1

Crap, don't get that channel.

What was their reason for another tank being higher (& which tank was it)...and what tanks did they say the M1 beat but the Challenger/Merkava couldn't?

They did not compare the tanks against each other but how effective they were in their time. The tanks were then rated on a number of factors and that is how they got their order. The number one spot went to the T-34 for its effectiveness in WWII.

Who would win?

The answer's clear.

The Invid.


I vote for the Challenger. Just because it's new and more resistant to the previous tanks weapons.

The best thing to do is to run a Steel Panthers: Modern Combat involving those three tanks on each side and consistently which tank survives.

In reality, the M1 Abrams would come out on top, because the USAF can win air superiority over the nations of the other two.

hte ahbrams is much more mobile though

I went with Challenger.

I've heard some stories about it and that's the main reason.

But there's so many other factors in a tank battle as in any battle scenario.

They gave five factors for each tanks rating. One of those factors was that over 50,000 T-34's were built. It was inovative. It had a fear factor that went off the chart. It's firepower at the time was very impresive. I don't remember the last factor. I'd have to watch my tape of the episode to find the other factor. They have down other top 10 list.

Top 10 Ships #1 Iowa class BB
Top 10 Combat Rifles #1 AK-47
Top 10 Fighters #1 P-51 Mustang
Top 10 Snipers #1 Carlos Hathcock
Top 10 Infintry Fighting Vehicles #1 M113 APC
Top 10 Bombers #1 Boeing B-52 Bomber

Top 10 Helicopters: #1 - AH-64 Apache Longbow

Argh...



Insanity...reigns....supreme!!!

Deep breath...and here we go...

How can a T-34 be #1? If that is the case, why isn't the sword the #1 weapon of ALL TIME, or the rock....

Also, you can't compare a Challenger IIE to an M1E2 and then toss in "battlefield effects"...if that's the case, I'll compare Hannible's elephants versus the INVID, but...um, my Elephants have powered armor and...um...they have Nuclear weapons, and are undead...

ahem

A comparison of two pieces of equipment must be done ONLY on the equipment being compared, nothing else, or else the comparison is pointless...

ergo:

The Challenger IIE and the M1E2 SEP are outstanding weapons systems...they are easily within 5% of each other as far as weapon ranges, optics, penetration, etc.

The difference is in cost (Chally's are almost twice as expensive due to the smaller number purchased), mass (the M1 is a big beast, and gets bigger with each mod, and the reactive armor....), speed (they both accelerate great, but the M1 is faster...silly turbine).

The Chally carries more rounds (52) BUT they are seperate (round and charge) thus they it is slightly slower in the reload than the M1...so, slower ROF or more rounds... The Chally has a fantastic coax 7.62mm...but the M1 has more rounds for it's coax, and a slower ROF, AND it has a .50 caliber...the Chally doesn't.

Thus if we are going to simply compare one item to another, the M1 will beat the Challenger II on the smallest of margins:
Costs less
Larger mass (slightly heavier armor)
Slightly higher top speed (on road)
Slightly faster ROF
more coax ammo
and a Big Fifty

BUT one tank that I have truly come to appreciate that doesn't get the respect it deserves...the Leopard 2A6...it is a good tank and should get a bit more notice. They are cleaning house down south of me Small bands of rural insurgents really dont like have an MBT show up.

Sorry for the ranting...

-STS

I'd say the T-34 and it's derivatives and descendants have had a greater effecton the course of world history and on the course of armoured vehicle development than any tank before or since, that would be the qualification for the number one of all time.

Of course it would loose in a fight with an M1 . . . but then again, without the T-34 we wouldn't have any of the modern MBTs, including the M1 . . . at least not in the shape we recognize it now.

Um....

I suppose that if we were to say "of all time (with regard to importance)" then wouldn't we have to say...um...the first of anything would, by definition, be the most important?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Willie

Thus, is this a question of "importance" or "capability - overall" or "capability versus peers"?

This is like the Tank vs Mecha (and Power Armor too!) argument...

As for the question originally posed...The M1...barely, and I have to say that I have quite the respect for the beastly machine...I had 7 of those beautiful monsters save me from certain death once upon a time....I guess that's why old WWII pilots swear the P-38/P-51/P-47/Spitfire/FW190 etc was the BEST fighter ever...

It is hard to remove that emotional connection

-STS

Willie is imprtant, but the tanks that evolved form Little Willie and were present in the late 1930s and early 1940s are radically different than the tanks we have today. Arguably the T-34 is the first tank to put together the combination of mobility, protection and firepower that modern MBTs have. The T-34 is the first mass produced tank that we could consider a modern tank and the basic design features of the T-34 can be find in every successful tank produced since.

Little Willie has as much in common with the M1 as a Flintlock does with an M16.

Thanks for that NMI I missed that one! Even though I did see it.

I haveta admit, I like the fact that the Merkava can carry an infantry squad in it! Be interesting if they carried an anti-tank team inside!

The merkava occationally does carry an Anti-Tank team inside it. Still those infanry are usually used as scouts.

Makes for a nice surprise to your enemies when you can unload a couple squads of infintry. Including anti-tank infintry.

Yup!

Especially if they have some of the newer types of Anti-tank missiles. I don't feel sorry for their enemies.

Carrying an anti tank squad would kind of be redundant seeming as the Merkava is itself and anti tank weapon

It seams to me the better goal would be to carry an infantry squad that would help prevent the tank from being ambushed by the opposing anti-tank squads.

That works too. Since it is nice to have infintry advancing as quick as your armor.

OK a couple things. First off the top ten show on Military channel. There ratings are crazy, wrong. The one I watch today was on IFV's. They rated the M113 as the #1 IFV. Really? The even gave it high mark for its "innovation" Its a flipping aluminum box with tracks. Not exactly cutting edge. These people may have read a stat, and propaganda sheet from the government/manufacture. But ask my friends father about his experiences with the M-113 in Nam. He'll paint a far different picture of this vehicle than what the government and manufacturer would.

Then lets look at the challengers that you have put against one another. True the Challenger is a more defensive unit, and the Abrams is great all round MTB. But so is the Merkava. But I think you guys are overlooking a simple fact. The Israeli Defense Force has repeatedly defeated larger and far better equipped military forces. They successfully used M-50, and M-51 Sheman tank variants (slightly uparmored, and up gunned 75mm, and 105mm french guns)to fight T-54,55, T-62, and M48 Pattons (A tank I might add we fielded from 1952 till they were completely phased out in the early 90's) So if they can be successful with these refurbished WWII surplus. What do you think they are capable of doing with a tank on or almost on the same level? My moneys on the IDF.

I know the IDF are an awesome Military units. The experts are the ones who made the descisions. Although on the Ships they made the correct call. I also agree with you that not everything they do agrees with our opinions. Personally I think my favorite plane should have been in the top 10 fighters. (I mean Americas two top fighter pilots of WW2 both flew them. P-38 Lightnings that is.)

I dont think it nessisarily has to do with my opinion. I dont think the "experts" we see are the ones compiling the list either. I think they are just brought in to speak about them. I think these lists are the opinion of the producers/ or who ever playing their favorites. They gave the M-113 (Sorry dont mean to beat a dead horse, but here we are) high marks for innovation! They listed the MK series british tanks from WWI as #4 in their poll. While granted they score high for innovation for being the first. They really stunk at everything else. They were underarmored, slow, and unreliable. For the time they were armed satifactorily, but that was out classed shortly after the war. Heck they dont even mention the T-72. Which at the time of its introduction completely outclassed all western designs. It even included a comprehensive NBC system. Including a lining to help resist radiation.
Anyways the point to my ranting is, I dont think these are a poll compiled by experts. I think someone just as biased as you or I, put this together. Not to mention comparing tanks of different time periods is a difficult task. But I dont think the top10 programs ratings are close to what they should be.

Grey Death wrote:OK a couple things. First off the top ten show on Military channel. There ratings are crazy, wrong. The one I watch today was on IFV's. They rated the M113 as the #1 IFV. Really? The even gave it high mark for its "innovation" Its a flipping aluminum box with tracks. Not exactly cutting edge. These people may have read a stat, and propaganda sheet from the government/manufacture. But ask my friends father about his experiences with the M-113 in Nam. He'll paint a far different picture of this vehicle than what the government and manufacturer would.

Then lets look at the challengers that you have put against one another. True the Challenger is a more defensive unit, and the Abrams is great all round MTB. But so is the Merkava. But I think you guys are overlooking a simple fact. The Israeli Defense Force has repeatedly defeated larger and far better equipped military forces. They successfully used M-50, and M-51 Sheman tank variants (slightly uparmored, and up gunned 75mm, and 105mm french guns)to fight T-54,55, T-62, and M48 Pattons (A tank I might add we fielded from 1952 till they were completely phased out in the early 90's) So if they can be successful with these refurbished WWII surplus. What do you think they are capable of doing with a tank on or almost on the same level? My moneys on the IDF.

That was the IDF of the past, not right now. Remember HAMAS with a few anti-tank weapons back in '06. Secondly, you're ignoring the effect of Israeli air power. Also, I doubt the Merkava would be firing DPU rounds, which certainly M1 Abrams would be using and probably blow through the Merkava tank.

I agree with you on the M113. It's nothing more than an armored bread box that can move. It's no better than the Soviet BMP series vehicles. The M113 would have been victims to anti-tank weapons like RPGs and Soviet 12.7mm AP rounds.

And I also agree with you both on the M113, since it is constructed from spun aluminium. Just thought I'd find the link.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113

Peacebringer wrote:

Grey Death wrote:OK a couple things. First off the top ten show on Military channel. There ratings are crazy, wrong. The one I watch today was on IFV's. They rated the M113 as the #1 IFV. Really? The even gave it high mark for its "innovation" Its a flipping aluminum box with tracks. Not exactly cutting edge. These people may have read a stat, and propaganda sheet from the government/manufacture. But ask my friends father about his experiences with the M-113 in Nam. He'll paint a far different picture of this vehicle than what the government and manufacturer would.

Then lets look at the challengers that you have put against one another. True the Challenger is a more defensive unit, and the Abrams is great all round MTB. But so is the Merkava. But I think you guys are overlooking a simple fact. The Israeli Defense Force has repeatedly defeated larger and far better equipped military forces. They successfully used M-50, and M-51 Sheman tank variants (slightly uparmored, and up gunned 75mm, and 105mm french guns)to fight T-54,55, T-62, and M48 Pattons (A tank I might add we fielded from 1952 till they were completely phased out in the early 90's) So if they can be successful with these refurbished WWII surplus. What do you think they are capable of doing with a tank on or almost on the same level? My moneys on the IDF.

That was the IDF of the past, not right now. Remember HAMAS with a few anti-tank weapons back in '06. Secondly, you're ignoring the effect of Israeli air power. Also, I doubt the Merkava would be firing DPU rounds, which certainly M1 Abrams would be using and probably blow through the Merkava tank.

I agree with you on the M113. It's nothing more than an armored bread box that can move. It's no better than the Soviet BMP series vehicles. The M113 would have been victims to anti-tank weapons like RPGs and Soviet 12.7mm AP rounds.

I dont totally agree with that. I dont think the IDF have had a challenge like that in a while so it is hard to judge the current Armies capability. On at that it has diminished from its former skill level. As for the ammo load. I think it would be mission specific. In the current situatuions they encounter DPU would not be nessisary. But if knowingly facing M-1 Abrams, I think they would be prepared. I may be over looking their use of airpower. As I think they do make good use of combined forces.

As for in 06 I also remember them running rough shod over everything in their path. Forget about a hot knife through butter. It was more like a broad sword. As for HAMAS use of AT weapons. We are facing the same thing in Iraq. We havent faired that great against it either.

Man the M113 is a piece of trash eh? At least the BMP has a lower profile. Course on the other hand ever look at the rear exit doors on a BMP. They look real thick. Its not extra amor, there fuel tanks. Hit it in the rear with an AT rocket and watch it cook. Nasty.

Grey Death wrote:
Man the M113 is a piece of trash eh? At least the BMP has a lower profile. Course on the other hand ever look at the rear exit doors on a BMP. They look real thick. Its not extra amor, there fuel tanks. Hit it in the rear with an AT rocket and watch it cook. Nasty.

Since the Soviets designed their armor for offensive operations, maybe they thought if they got hit from the rear, maybe they deserved it, those cowards.

I wouldn't want to ride in a BMP. The thought of flaming fuel filling the compartment is a very nasty thought.

I called for the M1 based upon service length, the new lists of training and equipment upgrades, combat experience for most of the crews, and the fact that it's widely recognized as being superior to the other two tanks overall. Yes, the other two tanks have superior attributes in one place or another but the whole package of these other tanks still doesn't add up to the newest M1s in a combination of mobility, firepower, and survivability.

Grey Death wrote:OK a couple things. First off the top ten show on Military channel. There ratings are crazy, wrong. The one I watch today was on IFV's. They rated the M113 as the #1 IFV. Really? The even gave it high mark for its "innovation" Its a flipping aluminum box with tracks. Not exactly cutting edge. These people may have read a stat, and propaganda sheet from the government/manufacture. But ask my friends father about his experiences with the M-113 in Nam. He'll paint a far different picture of this vehicle than what the government and manufacturer would.

Then lets look at the challengers that you have put against one another. True the Challenger is a more defensive unit, and the Abrams is great all round MTB. But so is the Merkava. But I think you guys are overlooking a simple fact. The Israeli Defense Force has repeatedly defeated larger and far better equipped military forces. They successfully used M-50, and M-51 Sheman tank variants (slightly uparmored, and up gunned 75mm, and 105mm french guns)to fight T-54,55, T-62, and M48 Pattons (A tank I might add we fielded from 1952 till they were completely phased out in the early 90's) So if they can be successful with these refurbished WWII surplus. What do you think they are capable of doing with a tank on or almost on the same level? My moneys on the IDF.

Well, you also need to consider the timeframes involved. back when the M113 first came out it was pretty radical in design as the nearest competitor had magnesium as part of it's armor, for crying out loud. Add that there are a mad grip of M113s still being used, and quite effectively, out there and you can easily see where the #1 slot came from.

The IDF has won it's battles largely through far better training (using the US model rather than the Eastern Bloc model), far better Officer/NCO corps, and the difference in attitude caused by "I'm fighting because I'm mad" and "I'm fighting because if I lose, everyone and everything I love is going to get dead". It's the difference between a 300lbs strongman lifting a car for competition and a 120lbs woman lifting that car to save her child. Who really fights harder in this case?

That makes a lot of sense! I can see where they use the US method. And I understand about their reasoning.

psychophipps wrote:Well, you also need to consider the timeframes involved. back when the M113 first came out it was pretty radical in design as the nearest competitor had magnesium as part of it's armor, for crying out loud. Add that there are a mad grip of M113s still being used, and quite effectively, out there and you can easily see where the #1 slot came from.

Remember the American Half-Track APCs. It's not THAT radical to use all tracks and put on a metal roof.

There was the M59 etc.

The IDF has won it's battles largely through far better training (using the US model rather than the Eastern Bloc model), far better Officer/NCO corps, and the difference in attitude caused by "I'm fighting because I'm mad" and "I'm fighting because if I lose, everyone and everything I love is going to get dead". It's the difference between a 300lbs strongman lifting a car for competition and a 120lbs woman lifting that car to save her child. Who really fights harder in this case?

"I'm fighting because if I lose, everyone and everything I love is going to get dead", I think that's total propaganda, but anyways, another factor was the resupply from the West. I think in '73, all the destroyed Israeli tanks and aircraft were rapidly replaced by America.

Peacebringer wrote:

psychophipps wrote:"I'm fighting because if I lose, everyone and everything I love is going to get dead", I think that's total propaganda, but anyways, another factor was the resupply from the West. I think in '73, all the destroyed Israeli tanks and aircraft were rapidly replaced by America.

Yes, it was propaganda but it worked didn't it? Add that the Arab nations don't typically have a good human rights record with their own citizens, let alone their sworn religious enemies, and I would say that this propaganda might be a bit closer to home than most people care to contemplate.

And yes, the US resupplied them in a fairly rapid manner...after the fighting was over and done with.

psychophipps wrote:

Peacebringer wrote:

psychophipps wrote:"I'm fighting because if I lose, everyone and everything I love is going to get dead", I think that's total propaganda, but anyways, another factor was the resupply from the West. I think in '73, all the destroyed Israeli tanks and aircraft were rapidly replaced by America.

Yes, it was propaganda but it worked didn't it? Add that the Arab nations don't typically have a good human rights record with their own citizens, let alone their sworn religious enemies, and I would say that this propaganda might be a bit closer to home than most people care to contemplate.

And yes, the US resupplied them in a fairly rapid manner...after the fighting was over and done with.

Resupplied yes. But the Israelis fought against larger, better equipped fighting forces.
M48s were used with mixed results during the 1967 Six-Day War. On the Sinai front, Israeli M48s were used with stunning success against Egyptian T-54s and T-34s supplied by the Soviet Union. However, on the West Bank front, Jordanian M48s were often defeated by Israeli WWII-era M4 Shermans (upgunned with 105mm guns). In pure technical terms the Jordanian Pattons were far superior to the Israeli Shermans, with Israeli shots at more than 1,000 meters simply glancing off the M48s' armor. Other reasons for the Jordanian Pattons' failure on the West Bank were Israeli air superiority and a distinct lack of aggressive handling by the Jordanian crews. (agian showing the superior training and use of combined arms) The Israeli Army captured about 100 Jordanian M48 and M48A1 tanks and pressed them into service in their own units after the war. So they basically resupplied themselves. Plus were already buying equipment from the us. So it was easy to get replacement parts.

psychophipps wrote:Well, you also need to consider the timeframes involved. back when the M113 first came out it was pretty radical in design as the nearest competitor had magnesium as part of it's armor, for crying out loud. Add that there are a mad grip of M113s still being used, and quite effectively, out there and you can easily see where the #1 slot came from.

I am taking the time frames involved. The M113 was a replacement for the M59, and the M75 APC's. Have you seen a M59, or M75? The M113 looks an awful lot like them. Theirs nothing radical about it or them. At the time of its introduction in 1960 the M-113, was on par with or maybe surpassing the Soviet BTR-50. But it was totally outclassed by the BMP-1 the Soviets put into service in 1966. Not to mention all the BMP/BMD serie that came after that. To which we didnt have answer to till the Bradley was put in service in 1981. (The Bradley I might add had to prove its self. As the first ones were trash.) As for them still beng used. Cant argue that. But it not because of their high qulaity. But because of the high cost of replacing them. Its cheaper to retrofit and upgrade them. The same reason the Marine corps still fielded them in 1991 during desert storm. They got all the surplus ones. Making it a lower cost to phase in the abrams.

wulf-nine wrote:Equipment means nothing... the will is everything.

Give me a .50 caliber recoilless rifle and I will turn your tank into an expensive roadblock.

Really? Ok normally I wouldnt do this, but I'm feeling a little catty. 50 cals were used on some recoilless rifle as spotting rifles. But there are not 50 cal recoillless rifles. If your refering to a 50cal Anti-material/sniper rifle. They are not powerful enough stop a modern tank. Period. It takes a large caliber cannon, or rocket/missile. Typically of at least 80mm, with a HEAT round to do jack to modern armor.

voted for the challenger..... which is basically the same tank as the abrams

wulf-nine wrote:When firing directly against the armour... yes 50cal is wasting your time. But when you target specific weak points ie. tracks ,optics etc. its a whole different ball game. It's a dangerous game to be sure but if you have the stones and the hardware...

All it takes is an extremely determined individual willing to step up to the plate, with a healthy dose of creativity.

This is why Tank operators are wary of battling in urban environments without serious infantry support. All I need is a can of spraypaint and I could give any tanker a serious headache and end up making said tank waste enormous amounts of time dealing with the situation. All that is needed is a hardware store to take a tank out of commision, that and a big pair of brass ones

.50 vs optics and tracks I supposse is possible in therory. In practice I think it would be close to impossible. Especially if the tank is moving. The Croatians use an anti-material rifle called RT-20. Its chambered for 20x110mmm Hispano, which is a powerful anti-aircraft round. They used it to target the night sights on tanks. Why use that larger round if you could use a smaller, less recoiling (in comparison), more accurate, and more plentiful 12.7x108. That is used in the DShK and other various soviet/warsaw pact MG's? It would seem to me that it required extra punch to guarentee its optics got knocked out.
Now your correct, determined infantry are the bane of tankers everywhere. I cant argue that.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:voted for the challenger..... which is basically the same tank as the abrams

Actually the Challengers armor is supposed to be heavier, than an Abrams.

Isn't that because they have the original chobham armor?

Possibly, they wont release the actual spec on the either tanks armor. Its TOP SECRET, double hush, hush. So compisitions may be very similar. Hard to say, need more info they wont give us.

wulf-nine wrote:This is why Tank operators are wary of battling in urban environments without serious infantry support. All I need is a can of spraypaint and I could give any tanker a serious headache and end up making said tank waste enormous amounts of time dealing with the situation. All that is needed is a hardware store to take a tank out of commision, that and a big pair of brass ones

So basically a paint ball gun could stop a tank.