BEST TANK IN THE WORLD

Sorry I meant knocked out.
The Challenger is refitting with a smooth-bore for economical reasons and no-other, it is costly to keep to different types of ammo, as you cannot use the same ammo on the same gun.
Both vehicles use the same type of fire control( made in Canada) but the similarity ends there.
The M1A2 does not fire first, due to its auto-loader its rate of fire is slower, and it does not have the accurate range, during the conflict Challengers were destroying Iraq armour past 5000mtrs, the M1A2 3500mtrs, as for cushy assignments, every one agrees that the US has superior technology and economics which is why they have the largest area however their squaddie discipline is a joke, everyone hates fighting alongside of them, the UK forces are lucky as they have been training in Northern Island for many years and in other conflicts I cannot mention. ( Even the M16 is going to be replaced due to the jam rate (49%) luckely the Canadian weapon was Germanised before issue, so does not have the same problem.
Most countries that have purchased (M1A1) do so because of the age old American doctrine, you buy an F16 and get two tanks free.
Please don't mention Le-Clerc, every one knows it is a joke.
The Leopard uses the same fire control as M1A2 and Challenger, the electro armour is some years from general  fitting, the Russians fitted it first to T80, but nobody yet can carry the generator required for the electro magnetic pulse required, we have the technology however the wiring and the computers require some very exotic materials that have not been invented yet. PS, why do Canuks require Tanks, I thought they were all pacifistic gays now due to the large french population?(Joke) I know, the wales are fighting back.

So far, Leopard II is the best. But there are new Leclerc, Black Eagles are coming, we dont have to forget.

over 100 M1A2 have been nocked out in Iraq by RPG fire! American doctrine has always been for a lite tank that is manuverable, that equals rubish.

All tanks cannot go over 40MPH  accross country, the M1A2 is very fast on the open road only.

1 Chalanger in Iraq received 9 RPG HITS + 1 Antitank missile, all the sights were shot out and it lost a track, not only did the crew servive, it was repaired and back in action 2 days later.

Only 1 Chalanger was nocked out, this was a blue on blue, at night, while hunting a 72, the APFSD round went through the 72 and hit a Chalanger 3000 Meters away.

Only warrior vehicles have been nocked out by molotove cocktails.

The rifled gun is the best in the world but is un-economical to produce, this will however remain in use untill 2015 as the UK will not stoop to the smooth bore rubish fielded by the USA.

As for Lepard, well, its a poodle, looks nice on the mantle piece but untried.

T72, mass produced rubbishbuilt for 2nd world war scenario, Leclerc,its French, built for a country with a dead language, remind me, how many wars have they wone since 1809.

Originally posted by Cezar   Laser aquisition is an active system. Classical optics are also used and they're not active.   Recon forces screening the tank advance?! Tanks in ambush are not supposed to have their engines working. Air superiority is an issue but you don't think the flyboys could really find everything. While no match for an Abrams armor, a few hits by the 100mm gun will damage some equipment.

Every armed force sends recon teams deep in the area before offensive actions.
"Flyboys" could also be unmaned aircrafts like the US Predator doing recon for tanks.
Your 100mm is definetly good enough to knock out some sistems if direct hit is made on Abrams, but question si what would happen when the ambush is discovered. Most of the ambusing tank wouldn't get the chance to retreat if all the ambushed tanks are not out of action.

Originally posted by Cezar The purpose of an ambush is to stall the advance especially when enemy forces are superior. Zapping them would be OK but the tactical purpose is to not let the enemy exploit the breakthrough, therefore forcing him to a slow an costly rate of advance. That's the standard military doctrine we had.

Infantry is better choice to ambushe tanks, specialy  in  citys. I doubt that TR85 would be all that efective against any modern eastern or western tanks.

I agree that ambush is key element of defensive military doctrines but you can't relay on them alone to achive victory if attacked.

Originally posted by Cezar I'm diverting a little from yhe topic here but you must understand that while Hungary, Bulgaria or Yougoslavia where considered equal or inferior the might of the former USSR (Ucraine now, if you like) is no match for our country. Heroic charges is not our style, we prefer to lay low, do as much damage as possible and hope for the best.

Romania was meber of Warsaw packt, wasn't it? So there was litle chance of conflict with Soviets or other pact members.

Originally posted by Cezar The Abrams (and not just it) is an open country tank. We didn't feel like having much use for such a machine. Now that we're in NATO we might switch some baselines of our military doctrine to a more agressive degree. I hope not.

Well, the tank is offensive weapon...
The NATO  doctrines are a good thing for your military, trust me.

Originally posted by Cezar   I was misindicating the tank, as a matter of fact. It's the TR-85-800. In 2000 it was supposed to be upgraded to TR-85M1, which might be considered some knd of mixture between the T-72 and the Leclerc.

Duke C's posts are correct. However, the loss of optics is a big setback to the tank crew and typically mans a trip back to the repair depot, since the main gun is slaved to it and its range finders.

Originally posted by Alt Gr Originally posted by DukeC I Keep in mind that many M1s have been rebuilt throughout their lifetime and sending 80 back to the U.S. to repair damaged armor packages is nothing major. Can't armour packages be repaired in Iraq? What is considered repairable damage? Is there any standard procedure to determine is the tank lost or can it be repaired? At least are the tanks so badly damaged that repairs (including shipping) cost more than new tank considered lost? I thing all M1's are being repared regardless of level of damage and eaven the price of repairs so that the real number of tanks lost is reduced (at least on paper) and the terorist propagand efforts minimised.

Originally posted by DukeC I Keep in mind that many M1s have been rebuilt throughout their lifetime and sending 80 back to the U.S. to repair damaged armor packages is nothing major.

Can't armour packages be repaired in Iraq?
What is considered repairable damage? Is there any standard procedure to determine is the tank lost or can it be repaired? At least are the tanks so badly damaged that repairs (including shipping) cost more than new tank considered lost?

I thing all M1's are being repared regardless of level of damage and eaven the price of repairs so that the real number of tanks lost is reduced (at least on paper) and the terorist propagand efforts minimised.

IIRC the U.S. Army writes off all it's equipment when it's deployed to a combat theatre. It's considered lost until returned home.