Skybird03 Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 If you look at this video of an engagement, when they engage the APC, the Gunner doesn't loose sight of the target after fireing. Completely unrelated, from the video site that crusty linked to: This made my day :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Just read the Chally 1 turret manual, wow, that thing is archaic! the gunner has two separate handles, the right one for aiming, the left one for firing and lasing. To engage a stationary target, the gunner must hold his MBS on target, select whatever armament he wants to use, lase, and within 1.3 seconds depress and hold down the autolay button, watch his sight elevate properly, and shoot. He needs to do all of this for each target he engages! For moving targets, the only difference is that he must wait 1.3 seconds to depress ( and hold LOL ) the autolay button. The daysight is stabilized, but follows the gun, separate from the TOGS, which moves independent of the daysight and gun. It's not as bad as I thought it would be, but the process can seem to be a bit confusing and lengthy, you know what I mean? I wonder how the Chally 2's process simplifies the Chally 1's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 24, 2011 Members Share Posted August 24, 2011 A LOT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Its easy to laugh at the Challenger1 fire control, but one must remember the the context it was introduced. MBT80 was going nowhere, and with recent evidence about the efficacy of Soviet tanks, it was felt very urgently Chieftain needed replacing, at least in part. That and there was an urgent requirement to buy tanks or watch the entire British tank production facilities go down the pan. In the recession we were then in, this was felt to be a bad idea.I still dont feel it was a bad tank. Armour wise it was among the best in its generation, and had a thermal imaging sight that as far as I can tell was rather better than the first generation Abrams. The engine was pretty solid, and although it was not fast, with the supension it had was good cross country. The fire control DID let it down, but that was partly due to the requirement ot rush it into service. To get it available quickly, it was decided to digitize the Chieftains IFCS which was itself an addon to its original system and used that. This clearly was a mistake. Added to a stabilization system that was not as good as its contemporaries, and you really ended up with what was really the worlds best Tank Destroyer. Not so much a problem as perhaps perceived since British Army doctrine was to fire from the short halt, which is probably why Warrior lacks a stab at all.There are a couple of threads on ARRSE with comments by the chap who scored the 5000 odd metre kill in Operation Granby. Admittedly it was not typical circumstances, but it does point to the fact that when it came down to it, however awkward and ill considered the fire control was, it did seem to work effectively enough.There is no denying, the system fitted to Challenger2 is a very considerable advance on what there was, but its not like the Challenger1 was incapable of any good work. I think to be honest it was a mistake to get rid of them and buy more challenger2s. They were ripe for updating with a new fire control and gun. As seen by what Jordan has got up to, we may well have been better off doing that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishHussar Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 You must also remember that whilst they, Cheiftan and CR1, may have had "1st Generation FCS" they also were some of the first NATO tanks to be fielding a 120mm gun when they were first brought into service.Irish 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 You must also remember that whilst they, Cheiftan and CR1, may have had "1st Generation FCS" they also were some of the first NATO tanks to be fielding a 120mm gun when they were first brought into service.Irish Quite so. The L11 seems to have been a very accurate gun as well. It had to be, with the RMG you have no other aids for accuracy other than manual lay, and seems to have been good for 2000-2500 metres without any. Incidentally, reading on Arrse, the same gunner I refered to claimed to have got a hit on a moving T62 at 1500 metres with HESH. Now thats shooting. He claimed he was prouder of that than the 5000 metre kill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishHussar Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 It is not that hard to do, either using full systems or reversionary modes. IFCS was as good as most modern FCS untill you required 1st round hits from a Moving Own Vehicle (MOV) shoots.The engagement sequence described by JazJar is not that much different from modern systems when you realise ammo selection by default is set to fin.Irish 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 So going back to the Chally 2's TOGS 2/TI, when the gunner fires with this, the operator reloads the gun from the shooting position, not the elevated loading position, correct? Also, the TOGS 2/TI is stabilized in the vertical, and follows the gun's stabilization in the horizontal planes ( reason for moving reticle in the sight ), right? And is the reticle always moving, or just moving after a lase? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RICH12ACE Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 hi why not do the chally 1 there must be some pics of the inside in books now it is no longer used any more by the uk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Well CR2 isn’t finished yet. Personally on the UK side I’d love to see Warrior and Scimitar (happy for them to be “unplayable”) in next to provide a context for CR2, then happy to go with CR1, FV432, Scorpion, ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazjar Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Yeah, Chally 1 would make sense, The manual I found, ( on this website, richACE ), has lots of detailed info on the interior and the IFCS ( It has ALL of them ). But then again, it's all about the military contracts :shocked: ) , so seeing the M1A2 SEP playable is about as likely as seeing even a non-playable Chally 1 ingame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Yeah, Chally 1 would make sense, The manual I found, ( on this website, richACE ), has lots of detailed info on the interior and the IFCS ( It has ALL of them ). But then again, it's all about the military contracts :shocked: ) , so seeing the M1A2 SEP playable is about as likely as seeing even a non-playable Chally 1 ingame.Well since neither the UK (yet) or the US doesn't have a contract then I guess both are just as likely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Im certainly not going to suggest what Esim should do. I CAN understand why Challenger1 or late Chieftain would look awkward for them. IFCS whilst accurate enough, wasnt that easy to use and translating it into what would be largely an entertainment only product (unless by some miracle they can get a Jordanian contract) would look a not particularly straightforward matter. You would perhaps have to simplify it to some extent, at which point you ask is it better just to make them as AI vehiclesIf they do intend to move in the pure entertainment direction (and I have the impression they want to keep pushing in the military contract direction for the moment for understandable reasons) then I think Centurion is a much better bet. Not only is it almost entirely documented (you can even buy gunnery training videos) but there are dozens around the world for reference. Along with the T55 and the T62 and M60 (already modelled as AI) with subtle variations you would then be able to replicate almost any engagement in the middle east between 1967 and 1983. Not saying thats the direction they could or should move in. Just that massive Challenger1 fan of it that I am, it doesnt really look worthwhile until they simulate ancillery kit like FV432, Scorpion and Scimitar and probably warrior too. Thats a big ask really, and I wonder if they could possibly make their money back on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted September 6, 2011 Members Share Posted September 6, 2011 Probably not... yet we still implemented the Challenger 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Probably not... yet we still implemented the Challenger 2. Does that also include the WW1 MkIV? Im kidding, Im kidding! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.