Challenger 1 and 2 lower glacis (Part 2?)

According to Robert Griffin's Book Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank Vol. II:

"The ROMOR reactive armor upgrade added to the challenger's lower front plate consisted of a carrier fixed to the toe plate of the tank, into which ERA blocks were fitted. This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armour only 70 mm thick, for the Challenger's armour layout had been optimized to fight hull-down"

And your point is?

And your point is?

My point is that there has been a lot of speculation about the lower glacis of Challenger 1 and 2 , whether or not it has composite inserts. This is just another nail in the coffin of the theory that it has composite inserts.

the glacis is composite, but lower front hull is just a steel plate.

the glacis is composite, but lower front hull is just a steel plate.

Which raises the question: 'Is it correct to refer to the 'lower front hull plate' as the 'lower glacis'? (Genuine question btw.)

Genuine answer.

The glacis refers only to the single upwards facing plate.

The term "upper" is superfluous as there is only one (except perhaps on something like an IS-III where you might refer to the left or right, due to the centre spine).

There is no such thing as a "lower glacis".

Lower front plate is fine, but its not a glacis (upper or lower).

The term itself derives from a slope given to fortifications to deflect the impact of missiles and other things fired from trebuchets, cannon, etc.

you can refer to the lower/forward part of the glacis, as the lower glacis.

on the abrams, this would be the area inbetween the headlights and drivers hatch.

it would NOT be the lower front hull.

Yes, so the the bit sloping up is the glacis.

The bit sloping down towards the ground, usually between the tracks - isn't.

This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armour only 70 mm thick

70 mm but with what angle of inclination ?

70 mm but with what angle of inclination ?

30 degrees..

Which raises the question: 'Is it correct to refer to the 'lower front hull plate' as the 'lower glacis'? (Genuine question btw.)

Tjay,

Generally I, personally refer to the front hull plates as Glacis (upwards facing portions) and Toe (downwards facing).

Toe is a quicker reference than "Lower Front Hull", and most older Tankies/Tankers will know what you're talking about.

So, using Deja's Abrams analogy:

Using the hull plate joint just under the headlights, everything above this line is termed the Glacis plate, everything below is termed the Toe plate or Lower Front Hull.

Thanks to all who contributed to clearing up this question.

Now I know something I didn't know before. But overall I know less, because for every one thing learned I forget two. :clin:

What are the differences between the hull of the challenger 1 and challenger 2 ?

What are the differences between the hull of the challenger 1 and challenger 2 ?

Well, the MoD bumpf says that only 5% of parts are interchangeable between the two.

Challenger 2 is totally different from Challenger 1.

About the only thing you could readily swap between the two is the engine and then you'd have to fit a different gearbox to it.

Ask CR2_Commander, he's used both types.

Challenger 1:

Challenger 2

So.

As you can see by comapering the two images above, although the hulls share the same basic profile.

The amount of small improvements the C2 has over the C1 such as new suspension system, headlight layout, new track and final drive sprocket essentially means it is a different hull.

If you were to take a CR2 turret and put it onto a CR1 hull you'd need to change a few things to get them to work properly.

You would have similar problems trying to mate an M1A2 turet with an M1A0 hull, or a Leo 2A6 turret with a Leo 2A4 hull.

The relentless march of technology.