I generally use a mix of 4 a1's supported by 2 chall's and some bradelys which always works pretty well but i was wondering how you all felt about the abrams and challenger

i personally prefer the abrams because it is more accurate and much better for anti infantry and in turn aa i respect that the chally has more armor but from a moving position abrams just always seem to dominate the battlefield whereas chally's are slower and very vulnerable to the sudden inf surprise

the third leopard imo is not worth it for while it is fast it lacks armor and accuracy that both the chally and abrams provide

I prefer the Challenger to the M1A1, but the Abrams line allows you to take the cheaper Abrams varients, the M1IP being my favourite.

deffers the chally, supported by cheiftan mk5s and rardens

_________________
"A good compromise is one where nobody is happy."

More Challengers will solve any issue.

Your dumping about 700-800 points into heavy MBTs there, along with the 55 point Brads. After you get reconed, your going to face a hell of a lot of ATGMs.

I'd say the M1A1 if you actually plan on moving, Challengers if you don't think you'll be advancing much (although they still very well can, they just can't run from anything that surprises them). A Challenger group out in the middle a field is a real pain in the ass to deal with if you can't get a concentrated volley off against it.

Leopards have their use as well, they have much better fuel range and speed, they are just more susceptible to flanking at the same time. But if you want to attach some heavy armor into a moderately speedy supported push, that is the way to go.

_________________

While I think that the Leo 2 is too costy for what it do, its speed is really good for mobile warfare (70km/h). On a emotionnal side, I love the Bundeswehr so I often take it as a mobile reserve for stopping an ennemy spearhead.
The Challenger is a very good defensive MBT, while the Abraham is better for offensive warfare (strong side armor and very good stabilisers).

Leo 2: Mobile good armor and gun. Also I like it since it's the MBT in my country
Abrams: Slow but good stabilizer, gun and armor are good also
Challenger: very very very very thick armor. But as every British tank slooooooow (Remember WWII matildas and churchills)

_________________
"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."
- George S. Patton

ya the part about how much this cost's i could really care less because i rarely lose and i do use them on the move and even while standing still the abrams seam to get shit done had a game not to long ago where 3 of the abrams killed 30+ each cuz my average game lasts about 50min and the abrams just don't seem to die

One very important difference with 10 armour vs 9 is the amount of damage you take from most Pact ATGMs. With 9 armour the majority of Pact ATGMs will do 2 damage (4 if crit) on your front. With 10 armour it's only 1 damage (2 if crit). One point of armour counts for a lot against some weapons!

I don't much like the Leos as side armour seems very important in this game. Perhaps too important. It seems that unless you're facing directly at the enemy then chances are they're going to be hitting your side armour quite often. Even rather small angles make a big difference. If I was to take a Leo I'd concentrate on the 2A1. The armour is well worth five points, while the upgunning of the 2A4 isn't really worth 20 points unless you're fighting other very large tanks.

Killed 4-5 Abrams yesterday, using 2 T-64B and a bunch of Zhalos on the flanks.

Seems to me, which heavy tank you take is totally up to your preference.

For me, Leos are the only way to go. I tried Abrams, but the fact that they do not penetrate the T80U frontally (from max range) was a big nono. Challies are just way too slow (imo NATO is at a big disadvantage when defending) and the AMX32 is way too squishy.

_________________
W:EE multiplayer commentary on SI Games TV.