Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
For me, sloped armour of any composition has to perform better than the basically upright slabs on the M1...
|
Sounds like you're thinking of the Leopard II.
The Challenger II's armor has more of a slope than the Abrams' but it's not that great of a difference. Also- and this may be outdated info- AFAIK, the M1's "Chobham" armor was based on a British design also used in the Challenger I. Although the "recipe" of the composite armor on the M1 may have changed somewhat over the years, aren't the armors of both the M1 and the Challenger II more or less the same? More slope helps, but it's not like the II's armor is fundamentally different than the M1's. For all we know, it could be the exact same stuff.
As Paul pointed out, more M1s were engaged in Iraq at any given time than Challenger IIs and the M1s have been there a lot longer. So, yeah, there are going to be more M1 losses for those two reasons alone.
AFAIK, most of the M1 combat losses were due to engine fires and IEDs. Several M1s sustained multiple RPG hits without succumbing. Very few had their turret armor penetrated by AT shells or other ATWs. Most of the Challenger IIs were gone by the time really big IEDs started to make an appearance on the battlefield.
Using M1 losses in Iraq to crown the Challenger II a "better" tank is not fair. It may well be a better tank, but this is a misuse of statistics.