Jump to content

Challenger 2 Speeds, Armour and penetration.


Guest Killjoy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think its slow and very weak compared to what I was taught in the military. From what I understand it was suppose to be on par with the top tanks in the world and on here its to weak to take on t-80 or anything better

When I served in tanks back in the early 70's we were taught that the M-60A1 tanks I served on were the match of any tank in the world. They told us that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe that we had to take out 5 of their tanks before we were allowed to get knocked out ourselves, that it would be easy because we were the best trained and equiped tankers in the world and of course as the crew we would survive the eventual destruction of our vehicle, retire to the rear to pick up another M-60A1 and continue the fight.

I was in Co C, 4/64A 3d Bgd/3ID and we believed every word we were taught. I know now that the T-72's we would have been put up against were every bit as good as we were, maybe better. Taking out 5 of them before we went down? Maybe but IMO based on what I know now about armor capabilities extant then - probably not.

It was necessary then that armor crews be instilled with the vision that they were the best. It is necessary now that armor crews be instilled with the vision that they are best.

Seems like based on your post re: the Challenger that nothing has changed - what gets taught to armor crews is more a function of elan, exageration and you've got the best equipment there is go out and use it - kick the enemy's butts and take names. No different now than 40 years ago or even what Roman Centurions taught their new legionaires.

What gets taught to young soldiers is designed to give them the confidence they need to go out and do the job. Reality has minimal bearing on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmm...

Does not sound promising... Just as a ballistic idea of the pure power we had at our fingertips in '03 with the Chally 2 without giving away any OPSEC...

We stopped using our (DU) FIN rounds and could fire the DST (FIN Training rounds) straight through Iraqi T-72's... Through the front armour, through the turret systems, through the power pack, out the back... We had to stop using them too because they were continuing to travel after hitting our targets in built-up areas, it started to get messy...

I have seen DST rounds travel through 100m hills and still hit the center of the observed mass down in Lulworth when I was training...

I can't tell you how fast these rounds travel (OPSEC), but just as an idea the FIN round on the CR2 does not use a trace element because it travels too fast for the human eye to see... Some 3x-4x faster then the German or American 120...

Anyways... If it is in the game now, once I'm on leave in 10 days I'll have to order the upgrade and see...

Ssnake, mate if you need info let me know... Obviously keeping in mind OPSEC... My emails still the same... Hope all is well, it's been a while... My internet in this area of the world leaves much to be desired...

PS: Our USA m865 training sabot flies approx 1700 m/s. :shocked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I served in tanks back in the early 70's we were taught that the M-60A1 tanks I served on were the match of any tank in the world. They told us that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe that we had to take out 5 of their tanks before we were allowed to get knocked out ourselves, that it would be easy because we were the best trained and equiped tankers in the world and of course as the crew we would survive the eventual destruction of our vehicle, retire to the rear to pick up another M-60A1 and continue the fight.

I was in Co C, 4/64A 3d Bgd/3ID and we believed every word we were taught. I know now that the T-72's we would have been put up against were every bit as good as we were, maybe better. Taking out 5 of them before we went down? Maybe but IMO based on what I know now about armor capabilities extant then - probably not.

It was necessary then that armor crews be instilled with the vision that they were the best. It is necessary now that armor crews be instilled with the vision that they are best.

Seems like based on your post re: the Challenger that nothing has changed - what gets taught to armor crews is more a function of elan, exageration and you've got the best equipment there is go out and use it - kick the enemy's butts and take names. No different now than 40 years ago or even what Roman Centurions taught their new legionaires.

What gets taught to young soldiers is designed to give them the confidence they need to go out and do the job. Reality has minimal bearing on that.

Thats what I think too. Imagine this speech to the soldiers:

"Men, we are equiped with the 3rd best tank in the world and our training nearly puts us on the same level as the enemy. I'd say we stand a 50/50 chance of kicking their butt. Now go out and get them..."

Guess the cheers won't be that loud ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what I think too. Imagine this speech to the soldiers:

"Men, we are equiped with the 3rd best tank in the world and our training nearly puts us on the same level as the enemy. I'd say we stand a 50/50 chance of kicking their butt. Now go out and get them..."

Guess the cheers won't be that loud ;-)

Remind me when I was on AMX30 in 1995 with conscripts:

"You are only protected against BMP2 autocanon. So:

-Be fast during the move

-Be fast to find the ennemy

-Be fast to engage him and hit him with the first round

-Be fast to change position, reload and repeat the previous action...

... or you are dead."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the marines never had trouble driving outdated tanks, in fact, they took great pride in kicking their enemy's ass with their motorized tin-cans.

This isn't to start trouble with present company Marines here, but the Marine armored units typically didn't draw the toughest opponents like the US Army did insofar as armored warfare is concerned. That probably explains why their losses with M60A1 tanks in ODS were light to non-existent compared to M1A1 Army units- the former confronted the demoralized conscripts on the Saddam line, whereas the Army was tasked to destroy Iraq's professional armed forces and the Republican Guard armored units. The Marines are by tradition a small cadre of naval infantry- it's not a heavy branch, it just so happens to be the case that US missions have expanded their use beyond what they were conceived as; however, I believe that the Commandant of the USMC has indicated that the Marines need to return to their roots as an amphibious assault force.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...