Between the Challenger 2 or Abrams M1A2 which is better?

Answer 1

It's highly unlikely they'll ever meet each other in battle, so there probably will never be a definite means of determining this. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, such as:

M1 Abrams advantages:

• Lighter weight leaves it more suitable for transport by air. This is critical for any expeditionary military -> This is completely irrelevant, the same number of Challanger2 tanks can be carried by any air transport as the M1.
• *Smoothbore gun is more accommodating of various types of projectiles -> and also less accommodating with other various types of ammunition.
• Mobility - it's a much faster vehicle than the Challenger, and speed is critical in the modern battlefield -> The Challenger2 has a considerably more advanced suspension system than the M1 and will outperform over extreme terrain, it also means the Gyro-stabilizer doesn't have to work as hard to pull off an accurate shot while moving
• Turbine motor uses less moving parts than a traditional diesel motor, making maintenance and repair easier -> The turbine motor is no where near as reliable as the Diesel, this is a no-brainer!

M1 Abrams disadvantages:

• Less armoured than the Challenger 2, although add-on armour can be installed
• Turbine motor has a considerably higher rate of fuel consumption, thus reducing the combat range of the vehicle. This is the reason why the Germans rejected this for the Leopard 2, also is not as reliable as the Challenger2 diesel engine
• Turbine motor produces high heat signature
• Less manoeuvrable over extreme terrain
• Smoothbore gun means less accuracy for HE and HEAT rounds, also means HESH rounds cannot be fired

Challenger 2 advantages:

• Diesel motor has a lower rate of fuel consumption
• Diesel motor is also more reliable
• Better armoured vehicle
• More maneuverable over extreme terrain
• Rifled gun means better accuracy and range with non FS rounds
• Higher average 1st hit kill rate, this of course is dependant on the skill of the tank crew, but having slightly better HK and IR targeting systems does help

Challenger 2 disadvantages:

• Slower speed increases vulnerability -> The Challenger2 uses Hydropneumatic and as a result is actually faster and considerably more manoeuvrable over extreme terrain
• *120mm rifled gun is proprietary, and not compatible with standard NATO munitions -> The British army does not use NATO standard rounds. The British army trialled a Challenger2 a few years back with a 120mm L55 smoothbore and decided to keep the rifled gun mainly because of the advantages in using HESH

* In todays battlefield a tank will kill another tank using what is called an "APFSDS round", these rounds do NOT spin when in flight, they instead use a fin to stabilise the projectile much like an arrow does, this is more effective than a spinning round. An APFSDS round uses Kenetic Energy to defeat armour, NOT explosive used in HEAT, HE, HESH, etc, as a result the effectivness of the round relies on 2 things; accuracy and velocity. This means a rifled gun is pointless when used for this type of ammunition and creates a few problems:

1) The spin MUST me stopped on the APFSDR round - The challenger achieves this by adding ball bearings to the Sabot used on the APFSDS rounds the Chally uses.

2) What "pushes" the round out of the barrel of a gun, is the gas which builds up behind the projectile after the charge (explosive) is ignighted, a small ammount of this gas is lost through the grooves (rifling) when using a rifled gun. However 3rd generation APFSDS rounds are completely overkill and so the Challenger2 is still able to defeat any MBT armour in existance.

3) Overtime the rifling will wear down from excessive use, this means a rifled gun requires more maintanance than a smoothbore.

4) NATO standard ammunition is not compatble with a rifled gun, so whats the advantage of using NATO standard ammunition? - a lot of countries use it, this means it is cheaper (supply and demand). However, it does have the advantage of requiring other countries that make use of the main gun have to be supplied by the British manufacturers, as other tank round manufacturers are less likely to stock non-standard rounds.

Just a quick run-through... time constraints prevent me from getting detailed. As you can see, each advantage the tanks have over the other comes at a trade-off. The only real way of determining which one is better would've required the Cold War scenario of a push at Fulda Gap to occur.

But we could however look at the kill death ratio of the Challenger 1 and 2 and compare it to the M1 series.

It should be noted that these tanks are designed according to different doctrine.

Addendum:

>1) The spin MUST me stopped on the APFSDR round - The challenger achieves this by adding ball bearings to the Sabot used on the APFSDS rounds the Chally uses.

This part is incorrect (probably the author was thinking of HEAT rounds, and the French OBUS G ammunition). Challenger has no problem firing APFSDS round, nor is it necessary for them not to spin, although it is desirable. In the Challenger slip-rings are used to reduce the amount of spin imparted (but it still rotates at about 1200 rpm, which helps give a cleaner sabot separation).