Jump to content
tanker6742@hotmail.com

challenger 2

Recommended Posts

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:

No I realize that, and I apologize if I sounded grumpier than usual.:) All I will suggest Is that I dont think it is cut and dried as it initially appears. Esim are keeping an open mind on it and I think ultimately thats the important thing.

Nah, lets have L28. Then I can Kill Leopard2s and be enviromentally concious at the same time.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys

it doesnt really matter to me what side of the debate you believe in, it is after all only a simulation. "Heresy I know"

More important is to me is reading the structured arguments to back each opinion.

The fact that we have a playable CR2 is still awesome.

If it matters, having served on Cheiftan during the 70s and 80s, the 120mm rifled tank cannon was believed to be a substantial improvement over the 105mm. During the late 80s and early 90s we saw further improvement on ammunition being used for challenger 1 which was, as most already know, the same gun as used on Cheiftan.

The "Super Powered" bag charges and Depleted Uranium fin rounds brought into service during Gulf war 1, in my opinion, must have been enhanced when used with the L30.

Just my thoughts.

As a side issue for Stuart welcome back please dont leave it too long before your next valuable contribution.

Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys

it doesnt really matter to me what side of the debate you believe in, it is after all only a simulation. "Heresy I know"

More important is to me is reading the structured arguments to back each opinion.

The fact that we have a playable CR2 is still awesome.

If it matters, having served on Cheiftan during the 70s and 80s, the 120mm rifled tank cannon was believed to be a substantial improvement over the 105mm. During the late 80s and early 90s we saw further improvement on ammunition being used for challenger 1 which was, as most already know, the same gun as used on Cheiftan.

The "Super Powered" bag charges and Depleted Uranium fin rounds brought into service during Gulf war 1, in my opinion, must have been enhanced when used with the L30.

Just my thoughts.

As a side issue for Stuart welcome back please dont leave it too long before your next valuable contribution.

Irish

TBH, im having a blast just using it as an AI model. Its almost like playing a realtime 3d version of Steel Panthers Modern Battles.:luxhello:

You are of course right, its not getting worked up about. I just caution against assuming that because it works that way in the sim then it MUST be like that in real life. That esim have to simulate their own views on how something works is entirely natural, and I dont criticize it.

Thanks Irish, thats very kind of you. I probably wont spend as much time round here as I used to as I spend a lot of time mapmaking for a trainsim Ive been working with. But Ill certainly drop in from time to time to see how things are going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stu, like Irish says good to have you back on board mate :)

Edited by Crusty
Fat finger spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that we could finally make good on an old promise.

One reason why the tank gun was accepted at the time may not have been similar performance in the APFSDS sector, but rather the existing large stocks of 120mm HESH ordnance. It is then a question of what is considered the prime purpose of the tank, and if the British answer was that the MBT's role isn't primarily to kill others of its kind but rather engage mechanized and other "inferior" combat arms, one can accept the idea that the tradeoff was still considered to be positive. After all, the M830/DM12 HEAT is a relatively poor performer when it comes to killing infantry. Being a low spin round by design and principle, it never had growth potential to become a great infantry killer anyway; by the same token HESH from a rifled barrel with the inherent high spin rate would always have a big advantage in the role as a tool to kill soft and semi-hard targets.

It could just as well be a matter of perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad that we could finally make good on an old promise.

One reason why the tank gun was accepted at the time may not have been similar performance in the APFSDS sector, but rather the existing large stocks of 120mm HESH ordnance. It is then a question of what is considered the prime purpose of the tank, and if the British answer was that the MBT's role isn't primarily to kill others of its kind but rather engage mechanized and other "inferior" combat arms, one can accept the idea that the tradeoff was still considered to be positive. After all, the M830/DM12 HEAT is a relatively poor performer when it comes to killing infantry. Being a low spin round by design and principle, it never had growth potential to become a great infantry killer anyway; by the same token HESH from a rifled barrel with the inherent high spin rate would always have a big advantage in the role as a tool to kill soft and semi-hard targets.

It could just as well be a matter of perspective.

Yes indeed you have, credit where its due.

Reading up on the development (its surprising how my mind gets stale unless it keeps reading this stuff) there was a desire to keep Challenger1 and 2 in service. That I knew, but it apparently was a desire to save money keeping it compatible with Challenger1 ammunition and make them interoperable (that last they clearly failed at because they had few parts in common) Certainly HESH had to be the main motivator here because it was impossible to fire L15 out the L30, and not much point doing so with L23 when the Charm rounds became available. Of course having made said decision they then decide to bin Challenger1 anyway. Then they shut the factory that makes the charges for the gun. So good decision making there clearly.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pattern that I see from this is on the one hand the attempt of the RAC to keep their options open and be prepared for eventualities (like that the 1990 declaration of the end of the Cold War might be premature) and maintaining parts commonality. On the other hand the government faction that tries to curb costs wherever possible. Let's not forget that in comparison to the rather static global politics of the 1970...1990 era with two antagonistic superpowers the years 1989...1995 were actually pretty volatile to the extent that nobody could be too certain about the path that the collapsing Soviet Union would take.

The observed meandering of MoD decision making may reflect that uncertainty. The seemingly dumb end results simply may be the costs of hedging risks and, not the least, different priorities of different administrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time (and reflecting on it since) there seemed to be a complete lack of strategic direction, that hampered the armies ability to redeploy from the cold war to this day. There was a lot of effort to try to maintain the cold war capablity but with lower numbers and saving as much money as possible. There was no study of alternative ways of channelling defence money, such as the recreation of the airportable division from the 1970s which would be very useful today.

For example they scrapped several hundred Scorpions whose only flaw was having a 76mm gun that supposedly exceeded health and safety laws (despite being in service since the 1970s, and canada using exactly the same gun and turret on an 6wheel armoured car chassis and continued to use for a number of years). The net result was putting more strain on the rest of the fleet.

Today they are creating scimitar 2 based on a Spartan hull, to replace hulls that had to be scrapped due to fatigue. All because someone thought they save money by not mothballing equipment. In the interim they probably wasted more money creating Sabre and Scimitar 2 which are a net result of the poor decision made in 1994. Added to the lack of direction and drive in FRES, It begining to look as if we would have been well advised to have built the recce version of Stormer in the 90s. But there was no money for that either at the time.

I think the large buy of Challenger2 by contrast was a mistake. Ironically it was to help the British tank industry out of a hole by creating a requirement by scrapping Challenger1. Very laudible, and at that point in time hard to see that with all the surplus leopard 2s on the market and a lack of an none DU round for L30, that nobody was going to want any new Challenger2s.

Looking back on it, I think 120-150 tanks would have been quite sufficient (the original plan), and we could have thrashed the guts out of reduced numbers of Challenger1 in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Thats a problem with an expensive investment like Challenger2. They cost so much everyone is leery of deploying and potentially losing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys.

i remember reading a article.stating the brits were concidering refiting the gun with the 120

Used on the leopard2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Guys.

i remember reading a article.stating the brits were concidering refiting the gun with the 120

Used on the leopard2.

Thats right. They had actually got as far as fitting one in the L30s cradle in a Challenger2 and test fired it. It worked fine, but they never got as far as sorting out the ammunition storage, which was reckoned to be the most expensive problem to sort out. OTOH, they have a creative solution in Jordan of fitting a smoothbore into Challenger1 by stripping out the NBC pack and creating an ammunition locker. An even more dramatic solution was creating a external weapon mount with the smoothbore in it, and mouting it on a Challenger hull (possibly an M60 one as well). Im not sure how that project has progressed.

In the event Smoothbore in Challenger2 in the UK has now been cancelled. I last I heard they were putting emphasis on procuring L28 (though whether it is actually in service or not im not clear on) and disposing of any surplus vehicles. Whether they can remain operationally viable till 2030 when the replacement is to come on stream Im not entirely clear on. Indeed last I heard they were having exceptional difficulty finding alternative suppliers for bagged charges. One experimental sourcing from Germany I gather resulted in damage by melting the rifling in the barrel. Probably too much chili powder in the mix.....

The only good new is that as Oman still use Challenger2, the British Government probably signed a contract to supply ammunition for those vehicles, so the capacity to make new rounds probably hasnt entirely gone away. How viable the current rounds will be in 2030 is another matter. All said though, the most likely target for Challenger 2 at present and the future is going to be T55, so we must keep things in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jordanians got pretty far on their new turret for the challenger:

picture.php?albumid=1250&pictureid=18132

they call it the falcon turret.

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, thats the one. I dont know how many they converted though, I did read somewhere it had all kinds of accuracy issues. At least Challenger 1, at least when it was sitting still, was accurate enough. Im not certain if they fixed those problems, or how serious they are about deploying it.

There was also an article in an issue of Military Modelling about 6 years ago showing what looked like a standard version of Challenger1 with a smoothbore gun, and an interesting wedge of armour fitted to the front of the turret. I had assumed it was uparmour, but thinking on it, it may also there to counteract the weight the ammunition would have made to the balance of the turret.

Both looked neat conversions it has to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inclusion of a playable C2 before of the bouncing wheels will be as laughing in our faces.

Just kidding. Looking forward to this addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, Id much prefer getting a Warrior in the game before bouncing wheels. Ive always thought wheels were eye candy, nice, but hardly something to be a priority.

Not to worry, Pizarro with a killed stab makes a reasonable stand in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing a little bit of reading about the CHARM3 projectile (as I said, I have nothing to do with ammunition data, I am just fascinated by it and I like the read), :) sources state that the biggest weakness of the round is with the limited length of the projectile in comparison to say, the M829A1/A2. The caseless ammunition is such that the projectile can only be so long, as it cannot bury half of the projectile in with the propellant as is the case with non-caseless ammunition. However, it is true that the length to diameter ratio was altered to help.

I only mention this because lets say the current CHARM3 penetration data is off. No one should be under the impression that the penetration power should be directly comparable to the M829A1/A2 (700 - 770). I suppose anything is possible, but the length of the projectile is very different between the two. However, could the CHARM3 be something more like 550 - 650 (instead of 500)? Perhaps; that might be likely if more data can be gathered. Perhaps a simple mistake was made somewhere too. However, we can rest assured that it will be reviewed however. ;)

I just wanted to bring a little closure to the issue.

Edited by Volcano
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I think the british MOD needs a kick in tha ass.

the challenger has state of the art fire control good armour.

Every thing any of its compeditors has.and they fit a out of date loading system.

thats what happens when cival servants who dont have a clue. control the money

Had they fitted the 120 smoothbore.i think they would have exported a lot more tanks Thus Reduceing the prodution cost.and with all the different nations.making ammo they Would have saved money on that as well.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the data I im supicious of towards the L27 and L28, simply because if correct the L27 displays rather more of an increase from L26 than 25 percent as suggested by Simon Dunstan. That might be a baseline sales claim, to misslead others perhaps how good it is. But that I am very suspicious of. If it IS right, it suggests its only slightly less capable than M829A1, which clearly I doubt for the excellent reasons you give. OTOH, perhaps there some technical reason why round length doesnt not necessarily translate into performance. Im sure I read something on tanknet about internal dynamics of Fin rounds, an area Im so utterly unfamilar with that IM going to leave it there!

L28 is entirely an unknown quantity. I am told however is that its rather better than L27 so I keep an open mind on it.

I DO however give the chaps figures for L23 credence however, simply because that an area he is very familar with, and also because I recall seeing quotes on the L23 figures before on Tanknet. That doesnt make them right of course, but when weighed against what it was required to defeat (and the good evidence they had to form an opinion on T64A's armour package) it does seem to make it more likely that it was somewhere in the 400-450RHA region. Perhaps it leans towards the top figure when fired from L30, im dont know.

Indeed it would be hard to understand why they accepted a round with only the ability to defeat 360mm of armour for the next 6 years, particularly after T64b and T80b were rolled out (indeed, why field a Fin round at all that so minimal an increase on cheaper APDS?)

Entirely possible of course. But considering the director of the RAC at that time had the capacity to make urgent operatonal requirements to the head of the Army (as happened with Thermal imaging in Chieftain the very early 80s) im not entirely convinced they would stand for it.

In short, if you accept ONLY this figure is wrong, L26 has to be higher than its assumed to be, or Project Jericho makes no sense at all.

Lets assume L23 could do 400mm RHA. Say MOD rush in L26 with only a 30mm RHA increase due to there being a war on and a vague suspicion L23 might not be up to it. That would mean that L27 is able to penetrate 530-40 RHA. Low for a DU APFSDS round, but it doesnt look a stretch to me.

Or let us say its at the upper range of my estimate. L23 can do 450 RHA at 2000 metres (stretching things a bit, but lets assume). Assuming a minimum increase in L26 (I suspect it must be rather higher, but we have overdone things enough) by 30mm to 480RHA, then under Dunstans claim the L27 would have to be capable of 600mm. If L26 is any more than that (and if the figures I got hold of correct then it is) you are going to start seeing it leaping into the mid 600s. Im not nailing my colours to my mast on that one, but I find it an interesting claim.

I would entirely agree, Im pretty sure we are not going to see a replication of the better smoothbore rounds in the L30. Its a question of degree. I cant see a Challenger2 having massive difficulty offing a T72B, but it clearly is going to start having problems against M1A2s and Leopard2A5. Fortunately we seem to be reasonably friendly with nations that use those.:)

None of this is solid enough evidence to warrant changing things. But it is suggestive of keeping an eye on it till something comes up. Ill certainly have a root through the books and talk to my sources about Brixmis and the Neustraliz document. That clearly is a large part of the key to all this, in that it sets the baseline of what L26 can possibly be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote.

I would entirely agree, Im pretty sure we are not going to see a replication of the better smoothbore rounds in the L30. Its a question of degree. I cant see a Challenger2 having massive difficulty offing a T72B, but it clearly is going to start having problems against M1A2s and Leopard2A5. Fortunately we seem to be reasonably friendly with nations that use those.

I agree i very much dought the challanger will meet any of the modern western tanks in a Conflict.But lets not forget tanks like the T90 type 99.and many upgraded versions of older MBTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote.

I agree i very much dought the challanger will meet any of the modern western tanks in a Conflict.But lets not forget tanks like the T90 type 99.and many upgraded versions of older MBTs.

Unlikely any nation we are going to face in combat in the near future is going to have many of them. Besides, the premier antitank weapon in the British army is no longer the Main Battle Tank, its the Westland Apache. Not that Im wholly convinced that we have enough of them, but at least the production line for them is still open In America, and they still are introducing new rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlikely any nation we are going to face in combat in the near future is going to have many of them. Besides, the premier antitank weapon in the British army is no longer the Main Battle Tank, its the Westland Apache. Not that Im wholly convinced that we have enough of them, but at least the production line for them is still open In America, and they still are introducing new rounds.

i dont know about that saddam was not conciderd a threat before he attacked kuwait.

the russians will sell to any nation.as for the apache.yes it is a great pieace of kit but in Limited numbers in the british army.and a limited time in a combat zone due to its vunerability to ground fire.dont know for sure but i read a few American birds have been brought down by heavey ground fire in afganistan.i am not trying to disagree with your comments you seem to know your stuff.i watched a docomentry once about how unprepared The UK was at the start off WW2.while i dont think we are on the verge of any world wars.{thank god }

My point is as a brit my self we should be ready for any thing.and with the recent cuts i realy dont think we are remember the Falklands.a victory but only just.not due to are fighting forces but due to a wowfull lack of conventional Arms.due to defence cuts the para reg. was nearly out of ammo when they accepted the argintine surrender.

THe british army is one of the best in the world.but the MOD are a bunch of morons they spent millions on helicopters that were grounded i also read they refused to fit dust filters on a major exercise just before GW2 witch resulted in Them having to spend million on new engines.there has also been reports that a number of senior offices have resigned In protest becase of equipment shortages in Afganistan.i am no expert and i have been out of the loop for the last Couple of years.but it seems to me they are penny wise and pound stupid.thats why challanger will be handicaped in the future if it ever has to face a T90 or type99.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont know about that saddam was not conciderd a threat before he attacked kuwait.

the russians will sell to any nation.as for the apache.yes it is a great pieace of kit but in Limited numbers in the british army.and a limited time in a combat zone due to its vunerability to ground fire.dont know for sure but i read a few American birds have been brought down by heavey ground fire in afganistan.i am not trying to disagree with your comments you seem to know your stuff.i watched a docomentry once about how unprepaid The UK was at the stat off WW2.while i dont think we are on the verge of any world wars.

My point is as a brit my self we should be ready for any thing.and with the recent cuts i realy dont think we are remember the Falklands.a victory but only just.not due to are fighting forces but due to a wowfull lack of conventional arms.due to defence cuts the para reg. was nearly out of ammo when i accepted the argintine surrender.

The problem with the Apache or any heavy attack helo is not its vulnerability to enemy fire. It crawls as low as 20ft and can engage at ranges in excess of 8km. Also, modern AHs are equipped with state-of-art defensive suites, designed to operate in a coventional warfare scenario. The thing is that they are maintenance hungry machines. If I remember it right for every flying hour there is an 8 hour maintanence rate.

Apaches were brought down in Afghanistan and Iraq because they´re fighting a war they werent meant to. "One should never drive a tank into a city!" They were supposed to operate as stated before, in the conventional warfare scenario, seeking and hunting tanks. Its notable to mention that they´re main weapon is obviously ATGMs.

British Apaches had to operate in Helmand under heavy restriction due to the threat of working shoulder launched sams. The same is not true to the Americans who are very familiarized and have many to spare. The british army, also, in order to comply with the heavy demand on replacement parts, had to canninbalize other aircrafts back home during some time. In Iraq, its well known that Iran, since the beginning, have been supplying and training rebels on the use of these shoulder launched sams, which can be devastating even to modern fast movers.

How many Apaches were brought down during the first Gulf War? Its also well known that they were the first platform in, hitting the first targets of the war: Radars, openning a safe route for F117A and other Attack Jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with the Apache or any heavy attack helo is not its vulnerability to enemy fire. It crawls as low as 20ft and can engage at ranges in excess of 8km. Also, modern AHs are equipped with state-of-art defensive suites, designed to operate in a coventional warfare scenario. The thing is that they are maintenance hungry machines. If I remember it right for every flying hour there is an 8 hour maintanence rate.

Apaches were brought down in Afghanistan and Iraq because they´re fighting a war they werent meant to. "One should never drive a tank into a city!" They were supposed to operate as stated before, in the conventional warfare scenario, seeking and hunting tanks. Its notable to mention that they´re main weapon is obviously ATGMs.

British Apaches had to operate in Helmand under heavy restriction due to the threat of working shoulder launched sams. The same is not true to the Americans who are very familiarized and have many to spare. The british army, also, in order to comply with the heavy demand on replacement parts, had to canninbalize other aircrafts back home during some time. In Iraq, its well known that Iran, since the beginning, have been supplying and training rebels on the use of these shoulder launched sams, which can be devastating even to modern fast movers.

How many Apaches were brought down during the first Gulf War? Its also well known that they were the first platform in, hitting the first targets of the war: Radars, openning a safe route for F117A and other Attack Jets.

Its not quite that simple. The British Apaches have a defence aide suite that (lord knows how this happened) turned out to be more advanced than that in the US version. If it detects anything flying towards the aircraft that has a thermal signature, it lets the pilot know and fires off a load of flares. That allows British Apaches to fly at medium altitude, whereas US ones are often restricted to very low altitude. Flying higher actually makes it easier to use the aircraft optics to pick up targets.

OTOH, I dont doubt you are right about availability. We have only 67 airframes, and only 48 were supposed to be deployed at any time, the rest in training or being refurbed. I gather that all things considered, its only possible to deploy between 8 and 16 Apaches in Afghanistan at any one time. Which clearly ought to be a lot better.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think Challenger2 should be sidelined. I think it does have a very useful role to play, even in insurgencies in places like Afghanistan. Ultimately what is the real problem here is that its perceived that the MBT is too heavy and on the back foot of technology. Which is absurd when replacement programs like the direct fire version of FRES are indefinitely delayed.

So Apache WILL have to suffice. Even if it is not, I quite agree, a truly adequate replacement for the reasons already stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...due to the threat of working shoulder launched sams.

What threat? I recall being able to count on one hand the number of confirmed SAM engagements since the beginning of the war (10+ years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What threat? I recall being able to count on one hand the number of confirmed SAM engagements since the beginning of the war (10+ years).

it believed by int sources via radio intercepts and humint that top tier taliban operates them. as stated before the threat of a working manpad is indeed bery high specially in afghanistan or any c. insurgency ops when cas mean intimate support. flying "high" (1000ft) just to avoid small arms fire puts u right into manpads optimun envelope. that in my view ia a high threat.

Share this post


Link to post
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...