challenger 2

[IrishHussar]

With ref to ITEC KOELN 2011

Its confirmed my holidays are authorized, ferry booked and I'm just looking for a cheap hotel near the city centre or even a camping platz will do. I will be arriving on my motorcycle Tues midday and leaving midday Thur, anybody fancy a beer??

So who will be at the ITEC.

ME, Ssnake, Grenny sound off.

Perhaps we could even arrange a social beverage tgether??

Irish

[Gibsonm]

I'll be there 07 - 14 May.

[Crusty]

I'll be there all week

[hawes]

Going to be there 11-13th.

[Quagmire]

Having seen the gunsight screens for the Challenger 2 from ITEC, will any other photos or demo videos be made available?

Cheers,

Q

[Retro]

I would imagine only as part of Ssnake's marketing campaing leading up to the PE release..

[Stuart666]

Looks pretty good. Does it have the authentic L30 graticule pattern on the aux gunners sight, or did they have to use the L11 one?

Is the commanders independant view functional?

[Retro]

I was shocked to see that there was no wiki page for this one, so I started one

[mp96]

Challenger 2 v T72M4

What is a Challenger 2 armor is weak, Chobham armour not modeled? In T72M4 armor better, a lot of hits stands.

Pizzaro kill T-72M4 in the side.

[Mogwa]

unintelligible

The Challenger is well protected, as shown in this pic:

The real problem may be in the assumptions the user is making about the penetration of the English gun rounds compared with what most users are accustomed to. In SB, the L23A1 CHARM penetrates 360mm KE, while the L27 CHARM3 penetrates 500mm KE. Compare this to a round that is found in most scenarios the M-829A1 at 700mm KE.

While this isn't a T-72M4, it does show the difficulty a round with 360mm of penetration would have in getting through the armor. More to the point, a recent thread indicated that armor thickness values were doubled in areas where ERA was present, and the T-72M4 is covered in ERA.

Now put that ammo into the typical SB head to head scenario, against the typical opponents, and poor Challenger starts to really look like its in for a rough time. Dont forget that Leo 2a5 and above and M-1A2 have even greater armor thickness. Dont get me wrong here fellas. Im looking forward to a playable Challenger as much as the next guy but I just thought the numbers as they currently stand should be brought into the discussion, especially in light of our friend claiming the T-72M4 is difficult to kill with a Challenger. Perhaps there is another round that could be added, I don't know.

Weak ammo and thick armor explain a lot in this situation. As for the Bizzarro penetrating the side of a T-72, Im sure that is viable. Tanks cant be thick everywhere, and if the bad guys are shooting you in the flanks, you've probably done something wrong to start with...

Mog

Edited May 19, 2011 by Mogwa
Added Challenger armor values image

[Stuart666]

I think the figures for ammunition are down a bit. Ive been taking with a chap who is writing a book on Challenger2 and latterly did one on Chieftain, and his figures suggest that penetration figures for L23 are actually a lot closer to L15 as fired out the L11A5. L23 has been discussed on tanknet as being in the 420-450mm range fired out of L11, and Im not entirely sure that wouldnt increase fired out of L30. Im not sure how compatible it is with bagged charges for the later APFSDS rounds.

There is also officially a 25 percent increase in penetration between L26 Charm1 and L27, which if the figures in the sim are correct would have to mean there is only a 40mm increase in penetration between L23 and L26 Charm1. Which would be hardly worth fielding. Its also a shame the L28 isnt modelled, because thats reputedly the most powerful of the lot.

Not that im worried. Im more in to Hesh flinging anyway.

[Ssnake]

Any performance figures of British APFSDS rounds floating the internet are of dubious quality. It may well be that one of the numbers is actually correct, but it is difficult to tell which one it is.

That being said, I am pretty confident that we did good work in this case. Unfortunately this is just another unsubstantiated claim; I can't back up my statement with convincing evidence or even just a plausible story. What's more, I can't say why I can't say it.

You either believe our figures or not - either is fine with me. Yet if someone wanted us to change the figures, he should be prepared to deliver source material of highest quality.

[Volcano]

I have no doubt that the British keep the CHARM info quite secretive because they simply don't want anyone to know how mediocre it actually is. It does make sense given how abundant the information is on say, RU, GE, and US ammunition. CHARM does well against Soviet tanks for which it was designed to kill (provided you hit them in the right place), but is less than stellar against "western" tanks, including T-72M4 and more modern Russian tanks I would imagine, but then again, they heavily rely on HESH too.

No doubt that Challenger 2 lovers will say the ammo data is wrong, but the British might have been much better off if they kept producing/developing KE ammo beyond the CHARM3 (mid 1990 development). The consolation is that the gun is quite accurate.

...all of that is my opinion of course.

[dejawolf]

challenger 2 has 2-piece ammunition, which would make it suffer from the same problems russian ammunition suffers from, which is penetrator length.

[Volcano]

Challenger 2 v T72M4

What is a Challenger 2 armor is weak, Chobham armour not modeled? In T72M4 armor better, a lot of hits stands.

Pizzaro kill T-72M4 in the side.

Here is a suggestion:

Match the Challenger 2 against say... a T-72B, not against a T-72M4. If you do the latter, then you will have to do like everything else: get into a position of dominance to achieve a high probability kill on the enemy (flank/rear). The same is true if you take an M1A1 against a Leo 2E unless you can get a good shot in hull front, and the same is true here.

[Stuart666]

Im not rubbishing anyones figures. I know how difficult it is to get data because I looked for it some time ago when doing the prep documents for Challenger1 and 2. However for the figures to work, you have to accept the premise that MOD introduced a main service round for L30 thats uncertain to penetrate the turret armour of T72B introduced 10 years earlier than Challenger2 entered service (and lets remember the MOD acquired at least one T80B and sectioned it so they had a good idea of how Soviet era armour peformed).it also means that the emergency round introduced to penetrate T72M1 in Operation Granby could not reliably do so. This I personally believe is not very likely.

All I will advise is to look in the Osprey Challenger2 book and examine the quote by Simon Dunstan suggesting there is a 25 percent increase in penetration between L26 and L27. Dont take my word for it, take his. Despite having an improved round and an increased charge, there is only a jump by 40mm penetration between L23 and what L26Charm1 would have to be? Indeed L27Charm3 performance doesnt even match the US Du penetrator for the 105mm introduced 20 years earlier which implies the Centurions 105mm AVREs that went across the border into Iraq in 1991 had a better round than the L30 currently has. Well it was certainly better than L23 because a Colonel who worked in British AFV development told me so. But better than L27?

Ill be the first to admit Im not an ammunition expert, and Im not in a position to pass on the figures ive acquired because they are subject to my friends ongoing work. Im also sure im not going to convince anyone here which is why im not going to bang on about it. But I do hope you will keep looking at this, because when more data becomes available I think its going to be a surprise. I will also hope you will include the L28 round in the sim because that in the near future may become the main service round due to distrust of DU ammunition. It also would appear to have the best performance.

I often hear this 'secret because its mediocre' comment, but does anyone really have any evidence its so? Maybe they just kept it secret because of the MOD penchant for secrecy. When my father signed the Offical secrets act it was technically treason to discuss the colour of toilet paper in the toilet. seriously.Its the way MOD works. its even technically illegal to post manuals of Chieftain or newer up on websites because they are still subject to supply to foreign Governments. its the way they work. My friend had difficulty getting any official released data for 20 Pdr Ammunition and that went out of British service in 1959...

All said and done though, congratulations on getting the Challenger2 in the sim. I hope you have a very great deal of success with it. Truly.

[Tacbat]

I'm rather surprised that the Challenger 2 would use any KE round below a 600 rating. I mean really, why bother?

[Volcano]

All I will advise is to look in the Osprey Challenger2 book and examine the quote by Simon Dunstan...

Well, there is the first problem: Osprey. Amazing that the Challenger 2 has been in SB for almost a year now, as it is, but the talk of a playable one now brings people out to criticize the ammunition values? So what do we do, go with Osprey data or our professional estimates? Do we throw in a hypothetical CHARM4 round? If so, then were does that stop, do we also add in the US STAFF round as well? I would like to see the latter (a maingun round that behaves like the TOW-2B so maybe the answer is yes). :wink:

However for the figures to work, you have to accept the premise that MOD introduced a main service round for L30 thats uncertain to penetrate the turret armour of T72B introduced 10 years earlier than Challenger2 entered service (and lets remember the MOD acquired at least one T80B and sectioned it so they had a good idea of how Soviet era armour peformed).

Well, you will be hard pressed to find anything that will penetrate most of the T-72B's turret front armor. The CHARM3 can penetrate the turret front (mantlet area, 280mm LOS) and driver area glacis of the T-72B (306mm LOS), as well as (obviously) the sides and rear. So I don't see the argument that you have to willing to accept that, basically, the KE round would be unable to kill the T-72B in your example.

My rationale for accepting the figures? Say the round data is off a bit, but I would doubt that it is off by a large margin. Can someone tell me why the British would be so secretive about their KE ammunition? Does someone think that this is because it is so awesome or because it is so terrible? What makes more sense in a world where armor and ammunition data is easy to find? I was under the impression that the MOD doesn't even manufacture the ammunition any more, and they actively looked into swapping the gun out with the smoothbore because of the whole weaker caseless ammunition problem amongst other things (which fell flat when they realized that it would require a total tank redesign because of ammo storage problems). When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together -- you get a terrible round, kept secret to keep its limitations under wraps, an active mission to change the gun, and the heavy reliance of the HESH round, and you end up with an ugly picture painted, by their own actions, where something is terribly lacking with the KE round - a debacle perhaps. This jives with the values. To be the opposite, you have to accept the premise that the MOD developed a KE round in the mid 90s, which is apparently kept super secret even to this day because it is so effective, and they looked into the idea of swapping out the gun just out of a matter of convenience for NATO ammo. Plausible I guess, but not likely IMO given the circumstances and the estimates that provided the current data.

In any case, the estimates on everything has been the best you will ever find and the same is true about the Challenger 2 unless someone has some more concrete data that can back it up. I personally am not involved in the ammunition estimates, but I am just trying to shed some light here. That said, I am also not saying that anyone is above making mistakes either; the door is open for substantial and detailed information to be provided.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Volcano

[Stuart666]

Well, there is the first problem: Osprey. Amazing that the Challenger 2 has been in SB for almost a year now, as it is, but the talk of a playable one now brings people out to criticize the ammunition values? So what do we do, go with Osprey data or our professional estimates? Do we throw in a hypothetical CHARM4 round? If so, then were does that stop, do we also add in the US STAFF round as well? I would like to see the latter (a maingun round that behaves like the TOW-2B so maybe the answer is yes). :wink:

Well, you will be hard pressed to find anything that will penetrate most of the T-72B's turret front armor. The CHARM3 can penetrate the turret front (mantlet area, 280mm LOS) and driver area glacis of the T-72B (306mm LOS), as well as (obviously) the sides and rear. So I don't see the argument that you have to willing to accept that, basically, the KE round would be unable to kill the T-72B in your example.

My rationale for accepting the figures? Say the round data is off a bit, but I would doubt that it is off by a large margin. I always knew that once the Challenger 2 lovers found out about the quality of the KE ammo then they would cry bloody murder. And so it begins. Can someone tell me why the British would be so secretive about their KE ammunition? Does someone think that this is because it is so awesome or because it is so terrible? What makes more sense in a world where armor and ammunition data is easy to find? I was under the impression that the MOD doesn't even manufacture the ammunition any more, and they actively looked into swapping the gun out with the smoothbore because of the whole weaker caseless ammunition problem amongst other things (which fell flat when they realized that it would require a total tank redesign because of ammo storage problems). When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together -- you get a terrible round, kept secret to keep its limitations under wraps, an active mission to change the gun, and the heavy reliance of the HESH round, and you end up with an ugly picture painted, by their own actions, where something is terribly lacking with the KE round - a debacle perhaps. This jives with the values. To be the opposite, you have to accept the premise that the MOD developed a KE round in the mid 90s, which is apparently kept super secret even to this day because it is so effective, and they looked into the idea of swapping out the gun just out of a matter of convenience for NATO ammo. Plausible I guess, but not likely IMO given the circumstances and the estimates that provided the current data.

In any case, the estimates on everything has been the best you will ever find and the same is true about the Challenger 2 unless someone has some more concrete data that can back it up. I personally am not involved in the ammunition estimates, but I am just trying to shed some light here. That said, I am also not saying that anyone is above making mistakes either; the door is open for substantial and detailed information to be provided.

Firstly, the L27A1 round. Ive tried this in the game against T72B, and whilst it gives an overmatch, it clearly isnt a reliable round for doing so. maybe others have found differently but at 2500 metres you really are going to have a job killing one. In fact at long range, the advantage is very much with the T72B firing Svir, which im not altogether convinced is reality.

Secondly Im not going with Osprey figures. Im going with a quote by Simon Dunstan who you presumably dont know is one of the foremost writers on British tanks out there. It may serve to claim its questionable because its in an Osprey book, but lets consider the other works he has written, some of of it for Janes, and you have to put it in context. It would also serve to read the foreward with the credits in it, and note that one of the individuals listed there happened to have posted on Tanknet in the past and clearly know what they are talking about.

Alright, lets leave that aside for a moment and consider L23. L23A1 was introduced, ive read elsewhere as an emergency measure, to deal with T64A. T64A to the surprise of British intelligence turned out to be rather better than expected armourwise according to a document found on a Soviet rubbish dump in Neustralitz East Germany. They launched a crash program to develop an APFSDS round, and I understand the first one introduced was L23A1, sometime in 1984 If I remember right.

To defeat T64, you are going to need a baseline of 400mmRHA. In actual fact the armour is rather better than that, and ive seen estimates as high as 450mm. But lets assume they underperformed and there is no overmatch, or that after leaving the muzzle its a draggy round, and loses a lot of energy. Lets call it 400mm penetration at 2Km. Not really enough overmatch, so I think on the low side here. Its not even much higher than Esims own estimate for the round.

The problem here is that for Dunstans claim to be correct (and ive no evidence it is not) the L26A1Charm1 (not in the game) has to be capable only of a penetration of 400mm, which is rather odd when you remember that in 1991 under Project Jericho, a modification was made to Challenger1 to be able to fire L26A1 to make it easier to kill T72M1. Now why make the modification if there was absolutely no advance over L23A1? If L23A1 has a baseline of 400 RHA, L27Charm3 therefore has to be higher, and L28 has to be higher still. Not massively higher, but IF im right (and its a big If ill grant you) L27 at its lowest cannot defeat less than 600mm RHA. In fact if the figures I have are right (another big if) its rather higher than that.

As for why they are secretive, I can think of two reasons. Number 1, instituitional intertia. Any organization that can classify information on rounds for 20pdr or the 120mm in Conqueror is clearly guilty of this.

2 There was a plan to put a smoothbore in Challenger2, which I believe was to get nice cheap ammunition from abroad, and because some idiot in the MOD decided it was a good idea to shut the only factory to make ammunition for Challenger2. Kind of hard to justify to the treasury if the ammunition and performance of the gun was better than generally perceived.

Ultimately its making an assumption based on lack of information, that the rounds are no good. I suggest that this is not a particularly safe assumption to make.

As I say, Im not slagging off esim, and I know how hard it is to get the data. Been there done that. But when you compare the date the rounds were introduced with the tanks they were designed to defeat it doesnt add up. L23 has only the ability to defeat 50 more milimetres than BM8 fired out of a T55. Can this really be plausible? DM53 (a tungsten round) nearly 80 percent more effective than a DU round fired out a gun of a similar barrel length?

Ill fully admit Im not an expert on ammunition. But looked at the historical context for this figures to be right you have to accept the premise British tank ammunition has massively underperformed as far back as 1984. Unimpressive, well quite possibly I can quite agree. But unable to reliably defeat the tanks they were specifically designed to defeat? On balance, how likely is that really? I could understand it if it had been demonstrated to be so in combat. But it hasnt.

As I say, Im not going to keep banging this drum. But I think on balance there is enough evidence to suggest the estimates are rather on the low side.

[Stuart666]

I'm rather surprised that the Challenger 2 would use any KE round below a 600 rating. I mean really, why bother?

Indeed. If that were the case they would have been better off fitting a 105mm in the turret, which I gather might have been an option with the turrets ancester, the Vickers Mk7.

[Ssnake]

I'm not sure how useful this debate is. There are good reasons for either position, and no way to figure out who is right. Stuart has a plausible position if one accepts the implicit premise that MoD decisions are usually rational and dictated my military requirements; unfortunately there are many examples where this was not the case, and that's not limited to one specific country. On the other hand, I can't make a plausible case except "trust me". I'm not sure I would believe me either.

I have no beef with the Challenger. I will work with plausibility where I must, but prefer models that can be backed up by evidence whenever I can, even if the result isn't liked. I was a bit shocked too with what turned out to be our best guess - still, it's our best guess, so we'll go with it until we see facts that are at odds with our current model.

[Retro]

Getting a bit off-track here, what would the typical cold-war-gone-hot scenario involving Challenger units look like? Rather flat terrain, with Challengers in prepared positions, trying to fend off hordes of T-62s attacking head-on? Or something more intricate? Any idea about force ratios?

I guess nowaday's scenarios are bit less spectacular.. the Challenger crews are crewing a jeep and told to patrol a village

[Ssnake]

BAOR was part of NORTHAG, so the assigned battle sectors were around Hildesheim and Fallingbostel (all the way from the GDR border back to the Rhine), interlocked with German, Dutch, and Belgian forces.

Stuart has probably better details as he's been studing the operational picture much closer than I did.

[Volcano]

As I say, Im not going to keep banging this drum. But I think on balance there is enough evidence to suggest the estimates are rather on the low side.

Well, I didn't mean to sound like I was shutting you down; I can see what you are saying and it is worth you saying it. I was only offering my take on how the current values can be justified by the evaluating the known information available, which is all a matter of interpretation of course.

The best thing that can be done is anyone with "special contacts" can try to dig up some substantial information on the round to provide the team with better estimates. The current values were made based on the known information available. Personally, I would love to see the CHARM3 round be rated to around 600 RHA or so for the next Top Tank Platoon (2011) tournament. :biggrin:

[Stuart666]

I'm not sure how useful this debate is. There are good reasons for either position, and no way to figure out who is right. Stuart has a plausible position if one accepts the implicit premise that MoD decisions are usually rational and dictated my military requirements; unfortunately there are many examples where this was not the case, and that's not limited to one specific country. On the other hand, I can't make a plausible case except "trust me". I'm not sure I would believe me either.

I have no beef with the Challenger. I will work with plausibility where I must, but prefer models that can be backed up by evidence whenever I can, even if the result isn't liked. I was a bit shocked too with what turned out to be our best guess - still, it's our best guess, so we'll go with it until we see facts that are at odds with our current model.

Yes well thats quite a big if as well I have to admit. In fairness I get the impression MOD had relatively little to do with the development of the vehicle, and it largely came down to private initiative on the part of VDS, and they had to fight tooth and nail for MOD not to buy Leopard2 off the peg.

Indeed, MOD laid down very stringent guidlines in the early 90s during the development of the vehicle bearing in mind the problems encountered with Challenger1. I believe it was known as the '12 Commandments', and nearly resulted in Challenger2 becoming a cropper when faults were found in the fire control system. It would be very odd indeed if it didnt do the same with the main service rounds, particularly as at least one of them was already introduced for Challenger1. Indeed, directly competing with Leopard2 in that timeframe, it makes you wonder why VDS didnt bin the L30 there and then if the ammunition was that bad so they could compete on an equal footing with Leo2. Particularly as the turret for Challenger2 was developed from one to fit 120mm smoothbore, 105mm and the L30. At the early design stage it clearly was possible to do it that way. It was only shoehoring it in on the cheap after all the design work was done that it got complicated and ultimately cancelled.

Ultimately you have found a position and are happy with it, and I dont criticize. I cant provide the hard numbers to contradict your conclusions. I wouldnt necessarily buy my premise either. But I felt I ought to bring this point up because who knows, it may come up in the future.

I find it a bit awkward discussing how the vehicles would have been used, because clearly the cold war ended before even the prototypes rolled out. But IF the cold war would have continued they were on the North Germany, around the Hildesheim-Wolfsburg area if memory serves. Regiments with Challenger1 were Class 50s, meaning 50 tanks. 2 Battalions of tanks and a mech infantry battalion (somewhere around 70-80 IFVs or APCs if memory serves) with an SP Artillery regiment making a Brigade, facing off against Divisions in the region of 320 tanks and maybe 200 IFVs. You can find some evidence of the force structure of BAOR by looking up 7th Armoured Brigade at the time of Operation Granby, or War in the Big Sandy place part1 as its otherwise known.

Ive stayed out the loop a while, but last I looked they were now Class 38s, with is roughly the same layout as the Type50 but one less Squadron. As for force ratio, its hard to estimate what they were facing in telic, but in the Al Faw peninsular it appears they defeated an enemy force of T55s of quite some number, perhaps even Division strength. This being a single Squadron of 12-14 vehicles if memory serves.

Re in landrovers, its a bit better than that. A Little better. 2RTR completed a deployment to Afghanistan recently in a Hagglunds clone built in Malaysia. This despite having the Canadians demonstrating the utility of tanks in Afghanistan, and a considerable stockpile of Challenger2s in the UK reportedly being cut up rather than put in mothballs.