Challenger 2 Speeds, Armour and penetration.

[stormrider_sp]

The point is that the Challenger in this simulation is nothing like the Challenger in reality.

Isnt that the point of a Simulation? To be as close to reality as possible?

whats reality when it is classified. youre either exposing classified data or know exactly what every civiling knows about it: wiki, janes, nial, youtube, rumors; propaganda. so whats reality then? rumors? its like lying to yourself, you might even believe!

[Grenny]

Ah well, a heated debate again.

I admit I'm a bit dissapoinbted by the CHARM 3 performance as well :-(.

But given the available info(approx weight and length of the round) the current numbers are esims best guess.

There are also the knows issues of f.e. HESH accuracy and the GAS sight that will hopefully be adressed in as short time as possible :-)

For the armour values: The CR2 modell is damn hard nut to crack!! I ocne spent all my ready rack DM 53 of the Turret front of the CR2 to no effect! (the chally was set on blind, so he did not disturb me ;-) )

Shure, the vision blocks are a week spot...but which tank has none?

And this does not lock weak to me:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Image:Challenger2protection.jpg

As for the speeds? There I have another question: has anyone checked how much the speed values of the Leo 2 models differ? the A5 and A6 should a good bit slower then the A4?

[Alicatt]

The challenger 2 is not a slow tank, I have been with a few and we were doing between 70-80km/h, it was a little scary having 60 tonnes of Chally sitting on the tail of my little 4x4

[Ssnake]

Top speed and acceleration are two different pairs of shoes.

[Marko]

Documentaries on the discovery channel and military channel, while entertaining, are not great sources of reliable material....

I Agree with your statement.some of there information is incorrect and even propagandist

But i still enjoy them.

But in this case they had a interview with the tank commander in question.

As regards the Challenger having a glass jaw.its well known i has a week spot by the drivers hatch the rest of the tank has superb armour.and with the addition of reactive armour it would be a match for any Tank currently fielded.the British developed Chobam armour.

[Ssnake]

Firstly, it is a waste of time debating that video.

I disagree. As I could show, the bits in it that are factual may be wrong, but there's a plausible explanation how the figures were mangled. I don't see malevolent intent, just mild incompetence. I think I could also show that no statement in that video is directly contradicted by SB Pro. The video may be guilty of simplification, it may omit crucial details, and present opinions as facts. But if you scrutinize the statements in those four minutes, you realize that they weren't really saying much.

It's just a piece of milporn entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that - it just doesn't contain any information that would be useful for us to create a better representation of the Challenger in SB Pro.

I'm sure, if we looked at the other clips of that top ten list, we'd find similar errors, omissions, and distortions about all the other tanks. We could debate all day whether it's a useful idea to make up a top ten list of main battle tanks in the first place. I understand why some people like these "chart" lists. As (software) engineers however we must base our work on other sources.

[Alicatt]

Top speed and acceleration are two different pairs of shoes.

well my vehicle was 5.2 tonnes with 148bhp/450Nm and had the aerodynamics of a large brick, it was not noted for it's acceleration or braking for that matter, my top speed was limmited to 55mph.

[j2222]

This may be a bit simplistic, but given that the Challenger's power/weight ratio is 14.5 rather than say 17.5 compared with the Leopardo, I would expect it to be a fair bit more sluggish.

For me, the biggest disappointment is that the HESH round seems so inaccurate, especially against a moving target - but again, it has a significantly lower mv, so it seems to make sense

Also, the whole different sighting systems for day/night seem bonkers ... typical British MOD procurement!

DISCLAIMER: Those figures are from Wikipedia, so apologies for using potentially poor source.

[TankHunter]

About the famous Chally 1 kill.

There seems to be some confusion about what happened and what shot etc. the range was just over 5100m. we had finished moving forward and had gone firm. i was scanning the horizon when picked up what i thought to be T62's across the valley. we had been shooting at whatever targets presented. i lased the target and was surprised by the range that came back, we started talking about having a go at the target amongst ourselves and The Colonel ok'ed the shot. it was a normal fin round, and after lasing again i fine laid the elipse onto the target and fired. it was central hit just below the turret, as to whether the target was manned, i don't know.

however the shot i was really proud of is mentioned by Mad Pierre by mistake,which was a T62 mover reversing up and out of a hull down position at about 1500m, and was hit with a HESH first round through the top of the turret, again fine laid without autolay, never did like it much. hope this helps. i was always a lucky gunner.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/rac/155024-silly-questions-about-famous-long-range-cr1-shot.html#post3716695

[Grenny]

Some playing around:

like in all tank models in SB, you have a reasonable chance to kill T-72 at even 3100m.

CR2_test_010812RONIN_21822.rar

[Volcano]

But in this case they had a interview with the tank commander in question.

That really doesn't mean a lot. Interviews with gunners and/or commanders are nice, but in reality they do not know all the non-automotive technical details about their vehicle (like armor thicknesses and ammunition capability). I know that when I was on the M1A1(HA) for 8 years I didn't know details like how much RHA protection the armor had, how much RHA penetration power the M829A1 had and so on; all I knew was to trust my own equipment and believe the rhetoric that I was in the best tank in the world. Every tank crew member is told that their tank in the best in the world I am sure, even the T-72 tankers, and when they are interviewed they will say this.

Some playing around:

like in all tank models in SB, you have a reasonable chance to kill T-72 at even 3100m.

Ah yes. We played a scenario last night with T-72M1s (me) versus Challenger 2 (they), I just couldn't kill those Challys -- they had no problem killing me though. :shocked: Does it outclass the T tanks of the 80s - 90s? Most definitely. Can it go toe to toe with the M1A1/A2 and Leopard 2A5? Probably not. It is still one of the best tanks in the world though.

Actually, the T-72 versus Challenger 2 is a pretty good matchup for scenarios, we will have to make a TGIF scenario with those two facing off... hmmm...

[Tacbat]

I read on the internet that the Challenger series were basically POS when compared to the capabilities of other modern western tanks. However, when compared to the T-72 series and earlier T-xx versions it was clearly on top of the dung heap. I guess it just a case of relativity, i.e., to what you are comparing it to in the first place.

[Gibsonm]

Actually, the T-72 versus Challenger 2 is a pretty good matchup for scenarios, we will have to make a TGIF scenario with those two facing off.

Lets get the HESH engagement "issues" sorted out first though (or give it mostly "fin").

[Gibsonm]

I read on the internet that the Challenger series were basically POS when compared to the capabilities of other modern western tanks. However, when compared to the T-72 series and earlier T-xx versions it was clearly on top of the dung heap. I guess it just a case of relativity, i.e., to what you are comparing it to in the first place.

Well Challenger 1 was pretty average esp in the FCS area (just ask the guys at the first CAT it participated in).

Luckily that was one of the things "fixed" for Challenger 2.

[Volcano]

Lets get the HESH engagement "issues" sorted out first though (or give it mostly "fin").

Certainly, we will give them 2/3 KE for the time being; the HESH still comes in handy up close (I don't want to remove it entirely).

[Gibsonm]

Certainly, we will give them 2/3 KE for the time being; the HESH still comes in handy up close (I don't want to remove it entirely).

Absolutely - hence “mostly” not “all”.

[Marko]

That really doesn't mean a lot. Interviews with gunners and/or commanders are nice, but in reality they do not know all the non-automotive technical details about their vehicle (like armor thicknesses and ammunition capability). I know that when I was on the M1A1(HA) for 8 years I didn't know details like how much RHA protection the armor had, how much RHA penetration power the M829A1 had and so on; all I knew was to trust my own equipment and believe the rhetoric that I was in the best tank in the world. Every tank crew member is told that their tank in the best in the world I am sure, even the T-72 tankers, and when they are interviewed they will say this.

I was referring to the incident were the tank took multiple hits from RPG,s

The commander of that tank was interviewed.I do agree with you that soldiers from every Nation believe they have the best kit.i remember talking to a Irish soldier who thought his AML 90 could take on any tank.Ii do not fall for all the propaganda you see on TV. yes i watch such channels as discovery and History.But i also have a very good collection of Books.the shows are enjoyable the dog fight collection was Excellent with very good CGI

And interviews with the pilots. If i wont to find out something about a particular tank i will Do my research Via the net or my books.my personal opinion is the challenger is on par in Terms of Armour protection slightly under powered but with excellent suspension. but as Stated in previous posts the main gun although very accurate has substandard ammunition.

Compared with other western MBT. I also remember reading the British acquired a T80u

And a Tunguska on the black market.so one has to assume The charm-3 can penetrate a T80 at-least

A short video about the Hesh round

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bZf3HkT-1XA

A Russian view of the challenger.English subtitles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sKnrdeQqcqg

Edited January 8, 2012 by Marko

[Ssnake]

When we started with Steel Beasts more than a decade ago (sheesh... I'm getting old...) we didn't understand as much as we do now. We started with uniform protection levels over the entire front of a turret, hull, their sides, rear, belly, and roof protection.

Which is an acceptable compromise for a low resolution model, and which typically represents the values that are given in a rather broad stroke for simplicity reasons in many sources. This typically leads to inflated protection levels simply because you usually get to see the thickest value, or some averaged value for the entire surface when in reality it's technically impossible to have that (e.g. the gun tube alone is a ballistic hole by necessity, so are sights, hatches, and other openings - and the area around them can't offer the same resistance due to shockwave refelctions at material edges during the penetration process).

With SB Pro we learned step by step to give our tank models a much better spatial resolution. This revealed to me much better than any book or army manual could what it means to have a weak spot in a certain area, that "luck" plays a significant role still simply because you can't give uniform protection to every spot.

If you're unlucky, the consequences are brutal.

As tank designers usually are clever engineers, they try to shape chances in the user's favor by minimizing these weak spots. But no matter what, they are there, and given enough shots, one of them will find the weak spot.

Of course, whether the resistance values of these specific areas are accurate, is a different matter still. Whether our models of terminal ballistic behavior are giving accurate results, is an open question. So you still can't use SB Pro to determine the solution to the "Round X at range Y for target Z" equation. But at least it gives you a clue where your chances are better (or worse). Whether it is actually possible to hit these weak spots with precision is, again, a different question. Typically it means that you have to be pretty close (e.g. if the standarddeviation of a round is 15 mil, a weak spot of 60 x 30 cm like the driver's hatch can be hit at 2000m even with perfect aiming in only about 25% of all cases; at 1000m your chances are 50%, at 500m they are about 96%, etc.).

But of course, the necessity to get as close as these ranges suggest puts an attacker at a serious disadvantage. Either you need much better armor to overmatch the Challenger's firepower in a brute force approach, or you need to mask your approach (usually that's nearly impossible), or wait until the Challenger comes to you (at which point you cede your freedom of maneuver to the other side).

[dejawolf]

the challenger 2 is more or less the best protected tank in SB as well. no other tank in SB has such complete RPG protection in it's side armour, or as thick front turret armour as the challenger 2. the sloped turret in front of the gunner TC and loader is impervous to everything in SB. against the base model RPG-7(which penetrates around 300mm RHAe) the challenger in SB will survive multiple hits, even from the side, and might even drive away unscathed if the engine isn't hit.

however, there was an event in iraq, where the challenger 2's front armour was penetrated by an RPG-29 with tandem warhead. it was a pretty massive scandal in the UK, because the newspapers were posting pictures and all sorts of detailed information about the tanks armour.

they even had a picture of the exact spot where the tank was penetrated. after this incident, the challenger 2 had the ERA on the front hull swapped out with a thick slab of dorchester instead.

a quick google image search for challenger 2 penetrated, will reveal most of this.

[Tank guy]

And what experience do you have 12Alfa just wondering:confused:

And what experience does someone in West Virginia have, just wondering? If i had to guess i would say that 12 Alpha is on the beta team so he may have been part of discussions and testing of the C2 during the beta test. I believe hes in the Canadian Army and has worked with Challenger 2s so it sounds like he may be familiar to what is reality.

Im sure none of that compares to crewing Chally2s in the West Virginia national guard or watching top ten tanks on youtube.

[mpow66m]

i belive he has 30 yrs in the Military......or i could be mistaken.

[dejawolf]

yeah 12Alpha is some big shot in the canadian army, crewing the cougar LAV thingy.

[Guest Killjoy]

And what experience does someone in West Virginia have, just wondering?

Tanker was an Abrams gunner.

To be honest, I dont think that any of us can pass judgement on the Chally, whether you're military or not, because none of us have crewed it. (as far as I know)

Just think it's rather sad to see what SB has made the Chally

[12Alfa]

yeah 12Alpha is some big shot in the canadian army, crewing the cougar LAV thingy.

One of many AFV's I have crewed/Commanded, in my forty years.

From the Centurion to what we have now and a few in between.

There are many here who have the same time in and on various equipment.

However the fact remains as so many have said, we need hard data to fix what you see as a fault in and SB afv, it's a simple request really.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest, just as others have said more data is required for ESim to make it right if required.

[Tacbat]

To be honest, I dont think that any of us can pass judgement on the Chally, whether you're military or not, because none of us have crewed it.

To bad you didn't realise this befoe starting this thread.

Just think it's rather sad to see what SB has made the Chally

Maybe you need to accept the possible fact that the "Chally" is a sad tank.