The Challenger does not used fixed main gun ammunition which slows down the ROF in a significant way. A average Abrams crew can hit 3 times as many targets as the average Challenger crew in a 5 minute span of time. This is entirely due to the ammunition involved. Crew survivability(and honestly how much is a crews life worth, an awful lot to me!) is also superior to all other MBT’s with the possible exception of the Merkava. Not enough Merkava’s have been hit by KE rounds to really know for sure, but we do know that the Abrams armor performance is superior when HEAT rounds are involved. The armor suite of the Abrams is also upgradeable on the later mods. As far as maintenance goes, there are a lot of parts that make up a tank and very few are interchangeable from a LEO to an Abrams. Fuel consumption is higher on the Abrams but tactically the turbine engine is much quieter than the diesel. There are many reports of Abrams tanks sneaking up on enemy OP’s. Also the acceleration is much better witht the turbine so the Abrams can get the heck out of the way and it has a higher maximum speed then all other MBT’s. The governors are there to keep the speed down for a reason!
Cheers
Gary
What tank force ?? 59 M1s … you cant be really thinking that 59 tanks would make anything but token contribution to any involvement which would mandate “US support” in logistics.
If the purpose of 59 M1s is to mantain our Tank force and capability (i still think we don’t need MBTs at all ) old leos were more than enough. If you are of the argument that if you are going to have such small amount, and might as well get the best there is, Challanger 2 would have made better option.. and talk about crew protection.. id like to see M1 take hit from MILAN and keep fighting… and … IT DOES NOT NEED GAS PIPELINE TO RUN. Turbines are meant for things that fly, or sail at best… not things that roll on ground. :p
Sign In
