Jump to content

History of British Tanks


Damian90

Recommended Posts

So, yeah, why not to discuss this extremely interesting subject. I will start with Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, and with their armor protection, as it's very unusual design and very interesting one.

 

Let's start with Challenger 1 composite armor distribution.

 

CR1wie17C0a_zps63d43b3c.jpg

CHLTRRT.jpg

 

The composite armor thickness of turret is actually very good, and armor is also well sloped. However in this case I see one weakness, turret itself is modified Chieftain design made from cast steel, as we know, cast armor steel offer from 5 to 15 % less protection than rolled armor steel.

 

bP0mK2yUtEQ.jpg

UNtpH9QE7rU.jpg

W_yrCXKoN-M.jpg

rjlqH68Z0u4.jpg

25A1AGsVpew.jpg

JebrX7uXCfU.jpg

KgBvE9r4I28.jpg

5qT1UUafdWk.jpg

VGa23N_o1pE.jpg

 

Challenger 1 interior.

 

challycombo_zpsa896e5ea.jpg

CR1kad1420ub2_zps30721a34.jpg

NMKDsvPMioY.jpg

 

Hull protection is different than in Leopard 2 and M1. In Challenger 1 composite armor is placed on the UFP, not the LFP, thus the LFP itself is a weak zone protected only by 80-100mm rolled homogeneus armor.

 

1403946464-fk0dj.jpg

 

What is important to note, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 front armor design is direct descendant of various Burlington armor upgrades for the Chieftain, for example Chieftain 800/900 had similiar front hull armor distribution.

 

Now let's move to Challenger 2 turret, it's a new design however it's made from cast components to which later a rolled steel plates are bolted on.

 

8498517840_e74cdf1a13_b.jpg

fb

 

We can see part of the turret and hull manufacturing process on this video.

 

 

 

One other interesting subject is the vehicle weight. Challenger 1 is rated to weight around 62 metric tons, and Challenger 2 is rated to weight 62.5 metric tons, but this seems wrong. Challenger 2 is slightly larger (taller turret) and also uses more advanced "Dorchester" armor, which should be heavier than "Burlington" armor used in Challenger 1, and in all other MBT's in general, more modern armor is heavier. However nowhere I am able to find reliable data about Challenger 1 weight to make this clear. Of course it is possible that "Dorchester" uses more weight efficent materials like Titanium to keep the weight on the same level, while increasing protection levels.

 

Anyway, hope everyone finds this interesting, perhaps it will help ESim to make further improvements to SB, and hopefully we gonna discuss this fascinating subject further. :)

 

Edited by Damian90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you're trying to do, you Polish Pyromaniac! You're trying to re-start the Challenger Flamewar that occurred at AW! :D

 

BTW, if the Challenger 2 inherited its LFP from the Chieftain, I wonder why they never tried anything as radical as the proposed Type 1 Chobham hull extension that was toyed with (for a hypothetical Chieftain Mk.5/2) circa 1974.

 

u2oIk7o.png

 

At least it offered a slightly better protected LFP. But then again, the above scan is of an old version of Chobham, so it's possible that the newer Dorchester has architectural/layout prerequisites of its own that nixed the aforementioned armor configuration.

 

I guess they now have TES to take care of that weakness, but it still required an ATGM pen (and the loss of a driver's foot) in Iraq for them to find and apply a fix (a Dorchester slab).

Edited by Renegade334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Also, weight distribution, particularly the load on the first roadwheel pair. Which can be countered by stiffer/stronger torsion bars, but that in turn has effects on vehicle handling in the terrain... which may all be justifiable, but in the end it means that upgrading the fleet costs more, and if the assumption is that 80% or more of all combat time is from hull-down positions - well, here come the budget conflicts with countless other branches and services that want the same money for things that they claim are just as important, or more urgent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Damian90 said:

We can see part of the turret and hull manufacturing process on this video.

 

One other interesting subject is the vehicle weight. Challenger 1 is rated to weight around 62 metric tons, and Challenger 2 is rated to weight 62.5 metric tons, but this seems wrong. Challenger 2 is slightly larger (taller turret) and also uses more advanced "Dorchester" armor, which should be heavier than "Burlington" armor used in Challenger 1, and in all other MBT's in general, more modern armor is heavier. However nowhere I am able to find reliable data about Challenger 1 weight to make this clear. Of course it is possible that "Dorchester" uses more weight efficent materials like Titanium to keep the weight on the same level, while increasing protection levels.

 

 

weight given in challenger 1 manual is 62 tonne (61 ton) for combat weight loaded. (c/w ammo, fuel, CES items, crew stowage, but not crew)

there also training weigh (combat loaded weight less ammo) 60.9 tonne (59.9 ton)

as for why the weight didnt't change much.. could be the weight was simply redistributed. from what i see, internal crew compartment bustle on chally 1 is larger than on chally 2. 

so could be chally 1 had more armour weight in the bustle. 

on chally 2 crew compartment ends around 20cm behind  TC hatch ring, while on chally 1 it extends all the way back to turret rear. 

this would force the chally 1 to at least autocannon proof the entire bustle, while chally 2 can afford to barely 7.62 proof this area. 

another factor is challenger 2s turret electronics are lighter and more compact. 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always found it interesting the role the Israelis' played in the chieftain design.

They gathered a wealth of information from knocked out tanks and passed the info to the UK government.

With the intention of sharing data.

And working on a joint design.

 

 

Edited by Marko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes BV is standard but it was not unknown to break one open and wire the elements to an old ammo box to create a toaster. Nothing beats drinking and eating tea and toast while pitying the poor guys in a trench. They always got their payback by shooting out our rear sights and putting holes in our sleeping bags on the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CR2_Commander said:

Yes BV is standard but it was not unknown to break one open and wire the elements to an old ammo box to create a toaster. Nothing beats drinking and eating tea and toast while pitying the poor guys in a trench. They always got their payback by shooting out our rear sights and putting holes in our sleeping bags on the range.

 

 

Eh, what do you expect from grunts?

:D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Marko said:

I have always found it interesting the role the Israelis' played in the chieftain design.

They gathered a wealth of information from knocked out tanks and passed the info to the UK government.

With the intention of sharing data.

And working on a joint design.

 

 

The main effort of the trials in Israel was to improve the Chieftain's mechanical reliability and performance. Air filters, engine, brakes, etc. But also firing, NBC protection and other stuff.

Indeed the British were also very interested in the Soviet-made vehicles Israel captured in 1967 (not just the knocked-out ones).  

Edited by Iarmor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Iarmor said:

The main effort of the trials in Israel was to improve the Chieftain's mechanical reliability and performance. Air filters, engine, brakes, etc. But also firing, NBC protection and other stuff.

Indeed the British were also very interested in the Soviet-made vehicles Israel captured in 1967 (not just the knocked-out ones).  

Interestingly the chieftain engine was notoriously unreliable

The engine was not powerful enough for the weight seemingly the Tank ended up ten tens heavier then originally envisaged

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2017 at 5:59 PM, Marko said:

Interestingly the chieftain engine was notoriously unreliable

The engine was not powerful enough for the weight seemingly the Tank ended up ten tens heavier then originally envisaged

 

 

 

Common theme in tank design

Weight increases are almost never passed onto the engine designers

Also there was an idea bouncing around NATO at the time for the idea of multi-fuel capability, everyone apparently signed up

But the Germans went "Pfffthahahahaha that's crazy talk. Nein we use Diesel instead, ist German name, must be gut, ja?" - paraphrased.

 

Anyway NATO had Chieftain, USSR had the T-64.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

 

Common theme in tank design

Weight increases are almost never passed onto the engine designers

Also there was an idea bouncing around NATO at the time for the idea of multi-fuel capability, everyone apparently signed up

But the Germans went "Pfffthahahahaha that's crazy talk. Nein we use Diesel instead, ist German name, must be gut, ja?" - paraphrased.

 

Anyway NATO had Chieftain, USSR had the T-64.

 

I quote:

 

MTU MB 838 CaM 500, 10-cylinder, 37.4 litres, multi-fuel engine
830 PS (819 hp, 610 kW) at 2,200 RPM

 

in use at the time in Leo 1

MD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Major duck said:

I quote:

 

MTU MB 838 CaM 500, 10-cylinder, 37.4 litres, multi-fuel engine
830 PS (819 hp, 610 kW) at 2,200 RPM

 

in use at the time in Leo 1

MD

All vehicles I had contact with during my active time where multi-fuel. (Tanks, Trucks, IFV etc etc)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...however,

a) the multi-fuel Diesel engines run most efficient with diesel fuel (surprise!)

b) they usually don't run on PURE other fuels (or if so, only for rather short times). Rather, up to 40% of the volume may be replaced by alcohol, gasoline, or second hand deep-fry oil. A gas turbine is the only "true" multi-fuel engine that will burn pretty much anything, pure, as long as it can be vaporized when injected into the burn chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

main difference is that the russians eventually fixed the issues they had with the T-64, but the british never got the chieftain to work quite right.

Didn't the Iranians and Jordanians fit better engines  the Rolls-Royce CV12 engine producing 1200 BHP

That would have given the chieftain decent mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...