Jump to content
silent-one

Challenger 2 any good?

Recommended Posts

That would seem to bear out UKA's experience with trying to push a single CR2 up to a hull down position facing 4 Leos. The tank was disabled/destroyed BEFORE the TOGS line of sight cleared the grass. So it was probably due to a hit on the top of the turret.

What was interesting is that when we pushed 12 tanks up simultaneously, the Leo AI seemed to be intimidated or confused by the plethora of targets. Their accuracy decreased markedly to the extent that the Challies could get into their firing positions, fire two rounds each and back down without suffering any casualties. I didn't realise that AI behaviour was that sophisticated. But it's definitely worth knowing. :)

Re top of turret, I can entirely believe a round could go through the top left (the GPS). Top right, well im not certain of that. I did read when they built Challenger2 they visually sculpted it with tinware (Im not joking!) to make it better looking, as before they did it it looked a bit angular. Not sure that part of the turret was just a piece of metal to make it look better, but its possibility worth considering. Challenger2 with the armour off looked fairly flush on the top as far as I can remember.

Got your email by the way TJ, Ill pass it on tomorrow if I can sort out what one it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The firecontrol for example is a lot more accurate than is modelled on steel beasts. Not an easy thing to model when its controlled by an upgraded games console controller I guess. Suffice to say when you put the crosshair over the target, laze and select aided lay, it should be no more inaccurate than a Leopard2s fire control.

Not had a problem with the CR2 FCS - but then I have nothing to compare it too. But I would obviously be happy if it was made more accurate (as in closer to the real thing) in the same way that the gross weight has recently been corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, the misunderstanding is yours I think. I dont believe I suggested Esim GOT the acceleration wrong, or at least it wasnt evident in the last version I had. The basic mobility of it I was happy with. It was more a comment based on earlier on the thread (which I may have misread) which seemed to be that the real thing wasn't very mobile. I see you agree with me on this point.

Yes, I realized I may have misunderstood your post after I posted it, and I went back and reworded it a bit before you replied. :shocked: Apologies, I just wanted to throw that out there and clarify a few things regarding the topic, before the discussion inevitably devolves into the CR2's mobility, or lack there of (relatively speaking of course).

The ammo issues you raise are important though, I do hope you pass it along to Ssnake. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I realized I may have misunderstood your post after I posted it, and I went back and reworded it a bit before you replied. :shocked: Apologies, I just wanted to throw that out there and clarify a few things regarding the topic, before the discussion inevitably devolves into the CR2's lack of mobility.

The ammo issues you raise are important though, I do hope you pass it along to Ssnake. :)

No problem mate, I know how much unfounded criticism irritates from my present job, so I sympathise. I think Esim did a pretty good job on the mobility and the armour side.

Re Ammunition, I will pass that on. Just got to finish work first. Damn my wandering concentration :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobility isnt the same as speed of course. For example, a Centurion, hard though it is to believe, is actually more mobile over soft ground than an Abrams. The reason being the Abrams has an automatic transmission which means it can bog down, whereas the Centurion has a manual box and just go to low gear. That was demonstrated many times in DS1. Not having tried the sim for a while, Im not sure if simulating different drivetrains on different terrain has been achieved or not, but it would be interesting to put on the list at some point I would think.

I do find this hard to believe. As we know, the Israelis hated everything mobility wise with the Centurion, which is one of the main reasons why they redesigned it with the Shot Kal variants. I agree that mobility is not related to speed, but we have to be talking about it solely on the basic level of: vehicle A can go where vehicle B cannot go, in very low gear. If this is what you mean by the Centurion having better mobility than the Abrams then, OK possibly so - it is certainly a complicated subject. Otherwise I think the latter literally blows away the former in general comparisons of cross country mobility. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not had a problem with the CR2 FCS - but then I have nothing to compare it too. But I would obviously be happy if it was made more accurate (as in closer to the real thing) in the same way that the gross weight has recently been corrected.

Ive got a VDS trade stand video SOMEWHERE in my collection. Not sure how happy my contact would be to pass that on though. Not sure it adds an awful lot of imagery to whats already up on youtube anyway though. Suffice to say from my understanding, all the control for the gunner is via thumbstick. I cant remember the exact details, all I do recall is when you have the crosshair on the target and are tracking a target, you can take hands off it if you want to and the system will maintain the track. So a system that continuously requires your manual input to track the target isnt correct. Im sure thats more complicated than it meant to sound. :D

That said, im not sure how you could accurately model the controller input, short of plugging in a sony playstation controller. No im not joking, thats what it looks like. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do find this hard to believe. As we know, the Israelis hated everything mobility wise with the Centurion, which is one of the main reasons why they redesigned it with the Shot Kal variants. I agree that mobility is not related to speed, but we have to be talking about it solely on the basic level of: vehicle A can go where vehicle B cannot go, in very low gear. If this is what you mean by the Centurion having better mobility than the Abrams then, OK. Otherwise I think the latter literally blows away the former in general comparisons of cross country mobility. ;)

Thing is, the ground the Israelis most operated the Centurion on was hard compacted ground with lots of rocks, ie the Golan. In that kind of environment the Centurion was hard as nails, and it was only the track links that seem to have given trouble. When they 'bent' at the ends, it was impossible to remove track pins, which is why every so many track links they snipped the end off. I think ALL the units slated for the Golan were Centurion and Isherman equipped units, equipped with HVSS supension. They dont seem to have sent M48 or M60 (more advanced with the optical rangefinder). Which supports the idea over rough terrain the Horstman suspension was near ideal.

The main thing that drove Centurion rebuild was reliability. There were no more spares coming from the UK because we had fallen out. The centurions they had were in no small part Mk3s which were very old (some must have dated back to Mk2s of the late 40s) and may have been thrashed in Korea and Suez. Its true it was a swine to drive, but I think that may have been less a motivation than reliability and extended range. Its still worth pointing out that pretty much all of them in the 6day war were automotively as they were built.

Look at it like this, although Merkava was based upon the M48 and M60s engine and transmission, the suspension was based entirely upon Centurion. The test best was a Cent based testbed driven via a rear mounted drivers position. There is no doubt that Torsion bar suspension probably gives better speed, yet they were putting a suspension system built on their tank of a tank considerably older age. That bears some consideration.

As for the manual transmission, there is a good UK tv show called 'Salvage squad' where the incident of a Centurion AVRE operating in the Gulf could operate over terrain an Abrams could not. he put it down to the Abrams having automatic transmission. Its probably not weight, ive my doubts whether a fully kitted out Cent AVRE with uparmour would have weigh much less than early Abrams. Similarly a Churchill displayed an ability to climb mountains in Korea, simply because it was so low geared, so its not an isolated occurrence. As pointed out earlier, Conqueror had remarkable mobility cross country compared to Centurion, simply because the wider tracks gave more floatation. Even Chieftain was more mobile over boggy ground than Centurion, despite being 6-7 tons heavier.

We are talking about exceptional locations though, I dont think there is much doubt 9 times out of 10 something like an Abrams is going to beat the pant off everything in the mobility stakes just because of the power to weight ratio. Even the British MOD acknowledged that when they trialed the engine. They just hated the fuel consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suffice to say from my understanding, all the control for the gunner is via thumbstick.
Yup, Same as the Leo 2 cmdr's pressure switch thingy.
I cant remember the exact details, all I do recall is when you have the crosshair on the target and are tracking a target, you can take hands off it if you want to and the system will maintain the track.
Nope, Dog Clutch aka Palm Switch, zero's out the FCS.

(So technically it would be "Thumbs Off" but I forgot to try out the aided lay, I was too much like a kid in a sweet shop. :biggrin:)

That said, im not sure how you could accurately model the controller input, short of plugging in a sony playstation controller. No im not joking, thats what it looks like. :D

Indeed, Different Button layout though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, Same as the Leo 2 cmdr's pressure switch thingy.

Nope, Dog Clutch aka Palm Switch, zero's out the FCS.

(So technically it would be "Thumbs Off" but I forgot to try out the aided lay, I was too much like a kid in a sweet shop. :biggrin:)

Indeed, Different Button layout though.

Dog clutch, thats a classy term is that, I shall have to remember it. :) Thanks for the clarification.

I think aided lay locked your track. But its donkeys years since I read up on this stuff and Im damned if I can recall exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct. The top speed has remained the same, it is now that it has a little slower acceleration. I compared both though and it isn't that drastic of a difference really. Slow is slow. ;) It probably takes just a few more seconds to achieve comparable speeds now.

Speaking of which, this does bring up the issue that it is worth modeling the CR1 or pre addon armored CR2 to have a slightly faster version in SB to choose from. :)

Personally i would prefer the Chieftain.

Although having the CR_1 would be great for recreating Desert storm based scenarios.

Ref the CR2_E

Basically that's the version the British army should have got.

But like most things in the British army they have to make do with what they get.

The MOD is penny wise pound stupid.

The same with the warrior They made a version for the Kuwaiti army.

That was better armed and armoured then the version issued to the British Army.

Most nations supply there best equipment for there own army. not the Brits . unfortunately

26022011451.jpg.b20fe4e821eac94fcc27fc15

26022011451.jpg.b20fe4e821eac94fcc27fc15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most nations supply there best equipment for there own army. not the Brits . unfortunately

Yes, the Desert Warrior (with Milan ATGM) comes to mind, which was an export variant to the UAE I think (I could be wrong). Also the Scimitar has an upgrade option for powered turret traverse (rather than manual controls only) but that wasn't adopted either. Et cetera.

But, one thing you can compliment the British Army on is that they sure do know how to save money and operate within a limited budget. Look at the US Army, we spend money like it is going out of style. :shocked:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, one thing you can compliment the British Army on is that they sure do know how to save money and operate within a limited budget.

As in patrolling with unarmoured 'Snatch Landrovers' in Afghanistan resulting in the unnecessary loss of so many lives? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in patrolling with unarmoured 'Snatch Landrovers' in Afghanistan resulting in the unnecessary loss of so many lives? :(

Yeah, I guess it isn't such a good thing in that perspective. We had a similar issue in the early years of Iraq with HMMWVs. :frown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I guess it isn't such a good thing in that perspective. We had a similar issue in the early years of Iraq with HMMWVs. :frown:

Mod Policy is that they purchase the "Base Model"

So very much fitted for, but not with....

Can't work out how a dog clutch, which is very crude mechanical device (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_clutch) would be used to zero out what I understand to be an electronic device. :confused:

Well its the Brit Army term for Palm switch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mod Policy is that they purchase the "Base Model"

So very much fitted for, but not with....

Well its the Brit Army term for Palm switch

As seen in this picture, the "palm switch" is on the right, under the paddle, there's a small button you press but it was later modified so you just press the paddle to operate it. under the paddle on the left is the firing button.

56e83cd90ff21_AFVsimcontrols020.jpg.39ad

56e83cd90ff21_AFVsimcontrols020.jpg.39ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nils, I lost your email a couple of hard drive crashes back, Ill send you mine via message.

I responded. Hope you got it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally i would prefer the Chieftain.

Although having the CR_1 would be great for recreating Desert storm based scenarios.

Ref the CR2_E

Basically that's the version the British army should have got.

But like most things in the British army they have to make do with what they get.

The MOD is penny wise pound stupid.

The same with the warrior They made a version for the Kuwaiti army.

That was better armed and armoured then the version issued to the British Army.

Most nations supply there best equipment for there own army. not the Brits . unfortunately

There is a case for saying that tank we SHOULD have got was Vickers Mk7, basically a Challenger2 turret on a Leopard2 Hull. Unfortunately that got prototyped 3 years after we bought Challenger1....

Not that Challenger1 was a disaster by any means. But it was a quick lashup of existing technologies, and whilst it worked reasonably well, there is no reason why we couldnt have fielded something better. Well there is, its called MOD.:)

C2 is a good tank, though I wouldnt say its exceptional compared to any of its competitors of that period. Its real tragedy is it came along at a time when the Army fell out of love with the whole Cold War style mission, and funding for its updating, not least new rounds, suffered because of it. Its probably just as well Iraq came along when it did, the Army could have chopped them a whole 10 years earlier.

And yes, C2E would have been the best option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the Desert Warrior (with Milan ATGM) comes to mind, which was an export variant to the UAE I think (I could be wrong). Also the Scimitar has an upgrade option for powered turret traverse (rather than manual controls only) but that wasn't adopted either. Et cetera.

But, one thing you can compliment the British Army on is that they sure do know how to save money and operate within a limited budget. Look at the US Army, we spend money like it is going out of style. :shocked:

Yep. And its not a problem thats going to get any better with this drive towards making the Army primarily a reserve one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a case for saying that tank we SHOULD have got was Vickers Mk7, basically a Challenger2 turret on a Leopard2 Hull. Unfortunately that got prototyped 3 years after we bought Challenger1....

Not that Challenger1 was a disaster by any means. But it was a quick lashup of existing technologies, and whilst it worked reasonably well, there is no reason why we couldnt have fielded something better. Well there is, its called MOD.:)

C2 is a good tank, though I wouldnt say its exceptional compared to any of its competitors of that period. Its real tragedy is it came along at a time when the Army fell out of love with the whole Cold War style mission, and funding for its updating, not least new rounds, suffered because of it. Its probably just as well Iraq came along when it did, the Army could have chopped them a whole 10 years earlier.

And yes, C2E would have been the best option.

Agreed.

The CR2 is a good tank.

The CR1 was never meant to be in service with the British army.

It was ordered and built for the Iranians. The British army got it by default.

After the arms embargo.I remember seeing the gold plated model they built for the shah

In bovington tank museum. if i remember correctly the chieftain was suppose to soldier on.

Personally I think if Vickers and Krauss-Maffei had co_ operated the end result would have

Been a world beater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed.

The CR2 is a good tank.

The CR1 was never meant to be in service with the British army.

It was ordered and built for the Iranians. The British army got it by default.

After the arms embargo.I remember seeing the gold plated model they built for the shah

In bovington tank museum. if i remember correctly the chieftain was suppose to soldier on.

Personally I think if Vickers and Krauss-Maffei had co_ operated the end result would have

Been a world beater.

I think it was a brass one, albeit high polished but yes, there is a model that is in Bovington of whats either Shir2 or a very early Challenger prototype. The early prototypes lacked the togs box, so its not always easy to tell.

Ive a vickers defence systems brochure for Challenger1 somewhere, I really must scan that and put it up on Tanknet one day. I think it illustrates that early prototype quite well. I think for export the TOGS was just an option. Some nations might have plumped with the condor II sight as on Shir1/Khalid I guess.

Challenger1 was never a worldbeater, but Im constantly surprised how good it actually was considering it was rushed into service and was just a kitbash of a lot of parts they had developed for other projects, and can be regarded really as an interim type. What is more surprising is that MOD thought they had a tank that directly compared to Abrams and Leopard 2. Well they learned differently as we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was a brass one, albeit high polished but yes, there is a model that is in Bovington of whats either Shir2 or a very early Challenger prototype. The early prototypes lacked the togs box, so its not always easy to tell.

Ive a vickers defence systems brochure for Challenger1 somewhere, I really must scan that and put it up on Tanknet one day. I think it illustrates that early prototype quite well. I think for export the TOGS was just an option. Some nations might have plumped with the condor II sight as on Shir1/Khalid I guess.

Challenger1 was never a worldbeater, but Im constantly surprised how good it actually was considering it was rushed into service and was just a kitbash of a lot of parts they had developed for other projects, and can be regarded really as an interim type. What is more surprising is that MOD thought they had a tank that directly compared to Abrams and Leopard 2. Well they learned differently as we know.

I think CAT 87 opened a lot of eyes in the British army

If what i heard is correct some senior officers tendered there resignations after The event.

After giving the mater some thought.

If i had to choose between mobility or heaver Armour i would pick Armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that Challenger1 was a disaster by any means. But it was a quick lashup of existing technologies, and whilst it worked reasonably well, there is no reason why we couldnt have fielded something better. Well there is, its called MOD.:)

So right. Two of my RAF colleagues in the 1970s were very bright, dynamic young men, one of whom was the youngest officer ever to be promoted to Squadron Leader (Major). They both went off to the MOD as bright young bunnies and came back as cautious, totally institutionalised bores. Any indications of rebellion or initiative had been beaten out of them. I think the MOD gets hold of people like this and tells them, 'Look, you could make it to the very top if you play your cards right - which means never, ever rocking the boat, always supporting the establishment, and doing exactly what you're told'.

One reached Air Marshall rank. The other left the service shortly after his MOD tour.

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...