# Challenger II versus Abrams M1 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 29, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044 "2003-03-29T17:01:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![G.Cornelius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@G.Cornelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G.Cornelius)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/1 "2003-03-29T17:01:41Z")
How do these two tanks compare? AFAIK the Challenger II is newer, is it better? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/2 "2003-03-29T18:51:15Z")
No idea as to comparisons, but the BBC has a couple nifty “facts” pages. Challenger II. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2519005.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2519005.stm) Abrams. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2516691.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2516691.stm) And as long as I’m here and the Beeb is being so obliging, the Iraqi Lion of Babylon, which gets my vote as “Coolest Tank Name”. 😃 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle\_east/2843367.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2843367.stm) ---
**Author:** ![Danimal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Danimal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danimal)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/3 "2003-03-29T19:00:28Z")
Well “better” is more of an IMHO than a GQ, but here’s some factual data. Challenger 2 Crew: 4 Armament: 120mm gun, 7.62mm coaxial MG, 1 7.62mm AA MG, 10 smoke dischargers. Ammo: 52 120mm rounds, 4,000 7.62mm rounds Length (over gun): 11.55 m. Hull length: 8.327 m. Width 3.52 m. Height: 2.49 m. Ground clearance: 0.5 m. Combat weight: 62,500 kg. Power-to-weight ratio: 19.2hp/tonne Ground pressure: 0.9 kg per square cm. Engine: Perkins Engines Condor V-12 diesel, 1,200 bhp at 2300 rpm. Max road speed: 56 km/hr Range: 400 km. Fuel capacity: 1797 liters Fording: 1.07 m. Gradient: 60% Side slope: 30% Vertical obstacle: 0.9 m Trench: 2.34 m. Armor thickness: ??? Armor type: Chobham/steel NBC system: Yes. Night vision: Passive, for commander, gunner and driver. M1A2 Abrams Crew: 4 Armament: 120mm gun, 7.62mm coaxial MG, 7.62mm AA MG, 1 12.7mm AA MG, 12 smoke dischargers. Ammo: ? (original M1 had 55 105mm rounds, dunno how many 120mm the new one has). 1,000 12.7mm rounds, 11,400 7.62mm rounds. Length (over gun): 9.8 m. Hull length: 7.9 m. Width: 3.65 m. Height: 2.38 m. Ground clearance: 0.482 m Combat weight: 54,545 kg Power-to-weight ratio: 27 hp/tonne. Engine: Textron Lycoming AGT 1500 turbine, 1500 hp at 3,000 rpm. Max road speed: 72.4 km/hr. Range: 498 km. Fuel capacity: 1,907 liters. Fording: 1.219 m. Vertical obstacle: 1.244 m. Trench: 2.743 m. Gradient: 60% Side slope: 40% Armor thickness: ??? Armor type: Laminate/steel NBC system: Yes. Night vision: Passive, for commander, gunner, and driver. For my money, if I were in Iraq right now, I’d rather be in the Abrams. Better speed and horsepower=weight ratio when it’s time to get the hell out of Dodge, lower frontal profile, more smoke to hide behind, more machine gun ammo. It’s hard to be sure without knowing the armor thickness, though. That extra 7,000 kilograms the Challenger is carrying might represent a lot more protection, or it might just represent bad design. I don’t know. I’d rather be in a Merkava than any of them. So nice to have a big, thick engine between me and the enemy. ---
**Author:** ![G.Cornelius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@G.Cornelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G.Cornelius)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/4 "2003-03-29T19:14:38Z")
Thanks, they sound pretty similar to me. Maybe the M1 has the edge, I guess it all depends upon how good that secret Chobam armour really is. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/5 "2003-03-29T19:24:17Z")
This bit about the Iraqi tank from **DDG** ’s link: > [@](#): > > A T-72 has an effective range of about 1,800 metres… is either a.) in error, or b.) explains why they seem to like to use them in dug-in positions. ---
**Author:** ![Incubus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@Incubus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Incubus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/6 "2003-03-29T21:30:07Z")
Talk about bad gas mileage! Lemme guess, 1,800 meters is the maximum range the Iraqis can PUSH the the tank (to make it go) before they get too tired 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/7 "2003-03-29T21:31:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ringo \* > \*\*This bit about the Iraqi tank from **DDG** ’s link: > > is either a.) in error, or b.) explains why they seem to like to use them in dug-in positions. \*\* Ringo - I believe that 1800 meters is the effective range of the main gun, not the distance that the vehicle can travel on a full load of fuel 🙂 IIRC the longest tank-tank “kill” in Desert Storm was a British Challenger destroying an Iraqi tank at a distance of about 5km. I’ll dig up the cite if anyone wants it. ---
**Author:** ![ChalkPit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e4f/32.png) [@ChalkPit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChalkPit)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/8 "2003-03-29T21:43:11Z")
The Challenger 2 has **second generation** Chobham Armour, making it the best protected tank in the world, which I think may be a plus point over the Abrams (unless that has been upgraded to 2nd gen as well). ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/9 "2003-03-29T22:47:06Z")
IIRC, Chobham armour has a distinct advantage for protection against HEAT anti-tank weapons,or anything that uses a hot core. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/10 "2003-03-29T22:50:00Z")
What? Are you afraid the USicans and the UKians might get into a disagreement over the spoils of war? 😉 Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/11 "2003-03-29T22:59:13Z")
Well, the 120mm gun on the Abrams is smoothbore, firing finned projetiles, while the Challenger II has a rifled barrel. In tank-to-tank fights, the smoothbore allows for higher velocity projectiles, and is more effective when fireing armor piercing rounds and HEAT rounds; the rifled barrel is better for HE rounds, which are typically not used on tanks, but other targets. Also, accourding to this site, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/m1.html](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/m1.html) the armor on the Abrams is a ceramic/steel plate that is very similar to the Chobham you see on the Challenger II. ---
**Author:** ![samarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@samarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samarm)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/12 "2003-03-29T22:59:32Z")
I read somewhere that the exact specs of the Chobham armour is classified, so it’s difficult to predict exactly much protection is offers. ---
**Author:** ![ChalkPit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e4f/32.png) [@ChalkPit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChalkPit)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/13 "2003-03-30T07:25:47Z")
> [@](#): > > What? Are you afraid the USicans and the UKians might get into a disagreement over the spoils of war? No, but when you consider the current rate of friendly fire accidents, it may only be a matter of time before we see which is best at knocking out the other. ☹ As for Chobham armour, I have a **20 year old** magazine article here explaining in simple terms (perhaps obvious even) what its effect is on different rounds. The diagrams show the Chobham armour as an outer skin, on top of the tanks hull. APDS: Laminated armour resists penetration to a much greater extent, so the sabot is less likely to reach the hull of the vehicle. HEAP: The explosion is directed outwards by its failure to penetrate the armour (although you still get a mighty shockwave according to the picture here). HESH: The shockwaves are re-directed along the armour and dissipated in the laminate construction. HEAT: The laminated armour conducts heat away from the site of detonation. (the accompanying diagram shows limited damage to the tank hull, but there is some) ---
**Author:** ![Barks\_dog\_food](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c68b51/32.png) [@Barks\_dog\_food](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barks_dog_food)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/14 "2003-03-30T18:30:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danimal \* > \*\* That extra 7,000 kilograms the Challenger is carrying might represent a lot more protection, or it might just represent bad design. I don’t know. > > \*\* I think the Challenger II is designed to be better protected from missiles hitting from above(where the armor is thinnest on most tanks). That might explain some or all of the weight. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/15 "2003-03-30T18:39:41Z")
Heh. Rusty gearbox, and that’s _not_ the T-72 I’m referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/challenger-ii-versus-abrams-m1/165044/16 "2003-03-30T22:20:09Z")
There’s a huge thread at Fark on this from yesterday,[click here](http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=483952)