Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2 A6 vs M1A1 M1A2 Abrams

Learn More Here http://www.tanknutdave.com/home/50-main-battle-tanks

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• best
• tank
• in
• the
• world
• British
• Army
• Leopard
• A5DK
• US
• USMC
• America
• German
• Germany
• RPG
• 29
• IED
• Explosive
• HESH
• rifled
• smoothbore
• L55
• L44
• L30
• Gulf
• War
• Iraq
• operation
• Telic
• Battle
• 2003
• Iraqi
• Freedom
• Merkava
• IDF
• Australian
• 2RTR
• military
• vehicle
• MBT
• main
• battle
• A6M
• gpmp
• 7.62mm
• 120mm
• hydrogas
• suspension
• Chobham
• armour
• Dorchester
• composite
• sights
• infa
• red
• thermal
• gun
• Afghanistan

[TankNutDave]

@blueatchley What a fantastic childish comment. Clearly your IQ is low you cant tell the diffence between mp/h and km/h lol

[TankNutDave]

@APedroSanchez Interesting comment lol I think I might make a video about the IFV's/APC's soon :)

[ludocrat]

There's only one way to sort this out. FIGHT!

[TankNutDave]

@nick74178ify L55 stands for calibre Length 55. The British Army does not name its guns after their calibre Length like Germany. The British L30 is a calibre Length 55, so yes it is a L55. As for inferior lol the L11 on Challenger 1 scored a kill in 1991 at 5300m’s & the L30 replaced the L11. ATK who manufacturer the Abrams M829A3 rate the m/v as 1555 & target range as 3000m. You need a higher m/v to increase range which gives the FIN round more punch = increased lethality you troll lol.

[nick74178ify]

@TankNutDave the challenger has a L-30 gun not the l-55 on the leopard 2a6. The L-30 gun on the chalenger 2 is inferior to the l-44 on abrams and l-55 on leo 2. they where going to put L-55 on the challenger 2 but never put it on.

[FletchRDG]

but the US:GAO - Op Desert Storm Report Jan 92 only states 34 tanks were destroyed, 2 intentionally destroyed, 9 from 'Blue on Blue' fire and 23 destroyed or damaged by enemy fire. The document also says others were damaged by enemy fire, landmines and on-board fires. Also Abrams crews struggled to find spare parts, being that the Abrams were deployed in massive numbers, in the thousands. Also it took two M88A1s to pull a single Abrams M1A1. Doesn't look good for the Abrams.

[TankNutDave]

@FletchRDG well its nice to see someone taking the time to research some facts, makes a change lol. You should check out my site, we have over 800 military vehicles on the site, you should enjoy it. The link is in the discription of the video :)

[FletchRDG]

@TankNutDave Well the Kuwaits were using the Chieftain Mk5K2 at the time, the UK still had a fleet of Chieftains (Mk11 being the final model) but your right they were never sent, only Chieftain ARRVs were sent. the CRARRV (Challenger ARRV) was rushed in 7 months before its due date, 12 actually seeing action. Chieftains were being rapidly phased out. 17 Armoured Regiments were down to 16 when the Challenger 2 came in.

[TankNutDave]

@ahmadov You said "Challenger" I corrected you. The Leopard 2A6 is not the only model to use a L55.

[TankNutDave]

PART 3 As far as the German L55, I am sorry, but you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge about tanks and that you use incorrect/out of date information by your comment on the RPG29 attack saying that it penetrated the frontal armour. The RPG29 dropped short, exploding on the ground sending shrapnel and blast up under the tank penetrating the steel belly of the tank which doesn’t have armour. I write about tanks for a living, which has included the BBC and my mates were there.

[TankNutDave]

PART 2 They had the same RPG’s, the same artillery shells to build IED daisy chains which were used to attack Challenger 2’s left over from the former Iraqi Army. 1 got hit by 14 RPG variants and a MILAN. The Challenger 2 survived as the crew did as well. You have said it yourself, that the Challenger 2 has better protection, that is what this video is about, survivability.

[TankNutDave]

@ahmadov PART 1 So that’s a no then. You live in another country and saw footage of Americans being attacked aired by a tv channel that has been accused of being bias to Americans. Your totally missing the point. If there were more attacks against Americans by insurgents that’s because there were more Americans. It doesn’t mean that the attacks inflicted upon them had a higher level of lethality than those inflicted upon the British.