What is the US version of the Challenger II tank ?

1st Earl Jellicoe

The US main battle tank is the Abrams. Of course all the yanks are going to say that it's better, and of course they are wrong. Remember these are the people that think they single handedly won both world wars.
The Challenger 1 outperformed the Abrams during Desert Storm and the Challenger 2 outperformed it during Iraqi Freedom. No Challenger has ever been destroyed in combat and it holds the record for the longest ever tank on tank kill. British is always best.

Mark F

The U.S. doesn't use any version of the Challenger 2. In fact the Challenger 2 was only exported in small numbers to Oman and is no longer being marketed.

The United States uses the highly successful M1 Abrams series main battle tank.

Given the number of export sale competitions where the M1 outperformed the Chally one would have to say the M1 is the better tank, but then it all depends on what one is looking for in a tank. Not every nation has the same requirements which is why both vehicles exist.

Tyro

Mark Fulton is right... hes a top contributor
ask him about Thailand he knows lots about that too

raviet31

The United States uses the M1A1 and M1A2 tank as their main battle tank. They do not use any other tank, except perhaps a few soviet tanks for training purposes. Both tanks are similar.

They both use Chobham Armour. Although the M1A2 uses depleted uranium mesh in its armour. The M1A2 has better body armour, but the Challenger has better turret armour. (tied)

They both have 120 mm gun. The Challenger has a rifled barrel, the M1A2 has a smoothbore gun. The M1A2 wins this, as the smoothbore gun enables the M1 to fire more types of shells, in particular the kinetic energy penetrator (thus improving anti tank abilities) + M1A2.

The Challenger has two machine guns that fire 7.62mm rounds, the M1A2 has 1, 50 cal machine gun, and two 7.62mm machine guns. The M1A2 wins in this category, as the 50 cal can destroy many light armoured vehicles. + M1A2

The Challenger can carry 52 rounds and the M1A2 can carry 42 rounds. The Challenger wins this. + Challenger II

The M1A2 can run on both diesel, petrol, kerosene and avgas, whereas the Challenger runs on diesel and avgas. M1A2 wins this since the M1A2 can run on multiple fuel sources, a plus in times of limited supplies. + M1A2

Range, the Challenger II has a greater range that the M1A2. +1 Challenger II.

Finally, there's just around 450 Challenger's built and something along the lines of 8,000 M1A1's and M1A2's. + M1A2.

So, I've got 3 for the M1A2 and 2 for the Challenger II. It should be noted that the Challenger II is being upgraded to a 120 mm smoothbore gun. Hence they would be essentially tied.

There has been 1 Challenger II lost in combat, to friendly fire and 2 significantly damaged.

This is a bit deceiving though, as there are only 425 or so Challenger II's built. Thus making the the loss ratio of 3/425 or 0.75%. The M1 Abrams has lost 101 in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom that's roughly 101/8200 or 1.2 %

The longest tank kill is impressive, but that was against an stationary dug in Iraqi T-62.

Personally, I'm partial to the german Leopard II.

And I take issue with EVERYTHING British is better ... I've owned a Rover 216!

Jason L

We only use the M1A2 Abrams.

Troll Hunter

The USA doesn't use British Tanks. The USA uses the MI Abram tank. I'm sure they are about equal since we are allies and we share technology. I think the Abrams uses the same size gun and engine.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: