Jump to content

Playable Challenger 2?


Iceman

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I wouldn't break into maniacal laughter but just point out that while most decisions made in the process are rational from each individual's point of view, the actors in the game do not necessarily have identical goals. The manufacturer is in to make a profit. The MoD wants to spend as little as possible. This creates an opportunity for a talented sales guy to follow MoD orders to the letter where he knows that in doing so the MoD will paint itself into a corner where they will be forced to spend more on a retrofit at a later point. There may even be collusion between civil servants and industry to make a certain project more palatable to the political leaders by lowballing the price and "fixing it" after the project funds have been approved.

Like... You want it cheap? How about No Thermals? Saves half a million per tank right away!

But wouldn't it be irresponsible to give a tank without thermals to the squaddies?

It would be irresponsible to not give them a new tank as soon as possible! And it will be fitted for but not with a thermal camera. Besides, where in the specs does it say that it must be a TI? It reads "night combat capable" here. That could be anything!

Oh, I see where you're getting at... Let's say that we haven't decided this particular item yet. But let's assume that we WOULD want a TI later, you COULD fit it, right?

Sure can do. We have the greatest engineers in our company. They'll figure out something.

Lunch?

You paying? Let's go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

so true...

our leclerc have cables and support for reverse camera. But they are not monted, it's just in case of war... So we damage the tank more often when we reverse into trees or Urban training. They save 2000€ per tank... but we spend much more with damage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ought to add something to the Thermal debate. Its true that the sight is in a strange place. The commander has an image intensifier (if memory serves) a Thales 580 sight that when built does actually have an option for fitting a thermal viewer. Im not sure why it doesnt have one already, and certainly the Desert Challenger (or C2E as its otherwise known) did indeed have a Leclerc thermal sight available to the commander.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/33024-challenger-2-challenger-2e-enhanced-export.html

Which is presumably why they dont mount a gunners thermal sight at all on the mantlet in this version.

So yeah, its an awkward solution. But bear in mind you are for the most part going to be engaging static targets with hesh at long range. In those circumstances you probably wouldnt need a thermal viewer and get away with an image intensifier to observe fall of shot. I think you end up with another thermal viewer for the loader when they mount the Independent weapons system anyway, so he could probably use that to figure out fall of shot depending on what system got mounted.

Any other time (Using hesh at short range, using APFSDS), the gun is going to be in a fairly horizontal plain allowing observation of the target. I get the impression (im not certain of this) HESH even now isnt the prefered round for engaging moving targets, so most engagements if thats true are going to be pretty flat.

As for why they mounted it where they did, its a good question. Im not convinced its quite the problem its stated to be, but there is at least 2 good reasons why its there. Firstly the TOGs in Challlenger1 was mounted externally, so maybe they got used to servicing it without having to enter the tank at all. And secondly there is the armour and gas seal to think of. Maybe they figured, better go large on the armour and mount the viewer on the mantlet. If you mount it in the armour, there is always the potential for a cavity. As they were apparently considering the possibility of top attack in the design, just bolting it onto the turret roof clearly wouldnt really do.

It was always intended to fit a thermal viewer in Challenger2. It wasnt initially in Challenger1 (or at least Shir2) which is why the mounting position on it was rather bodged. Indeed the export model of Challenger1 when offered specified TOGS as an option.

The layout is certainly different. But ive not read of it actually proving a problem in Iraq. The only incident ive found where the sight placement is an issue was when a friendly fire occured in Iraq, and a Challenger2 crewman outside the vehicle got hit by the COAX, when the gunner had the sight directly on an insurgent. But thats a problem most tanks might have at close range I expect.

Incidentally, just remembered. They did mount a sight in the turret front armour on one of the turrets just before they started on designing Challenger2 (the one on Valiant and Mk7 is widely regarded as a design ancestor). That they did not do so in this case suggests to me they had a specific reason for not continuing with it. I must ask a friend about this.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vickers_mk7.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ought to add something to the Thermal debate. Its true that the sight is in a strange place. The commander has an image intensifier (if memory serves) a Thales 580 sight that when built does actually have an option for fitting a thermal viewer. Im not sure why it doesnt have one already, and certainly the Desert Challenger (or C2E as its otherwise known) did indeed have a Leclerc thermal sight available to the commander.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/33024-challenger-2-challenger-2e-enhanced-export.html

Which is presumably why they dont mount a gunners thermal sight at all on the mantlet in this version.

So yeah, its an awkward solution. But bear in mind you are for the most part going to be engaging static targets with hesh at long range. In those circumstances you probably wouldnt need a thermal viewer and get away with an image intensifier to observe fall of shot. I think you end up with another thermal viewer for the loader when they mount the Independent weapons system anyway, so he could probably use that to figure out fall of shot depending on what system got mounted.

Any other time (Using hesh at short range, using APFSDS), the gun is going to be in a fairly horizontal plain allowing observation of the target. I get the impression (im not certain of this) HESH even now isnt the prefered round for engaging moving targets, so most engagements if thats true are going to be pretty flat.

As for why they mounted it where they did, its a good question. Im not convinced its quite the problem its stated to be, but there is at least 2 good reasons why its there. Firstly the TOGs in Challlenger1 was mounted externally, so maybe they got used to servicing it without having to enter the tank at all. And secondly there is the armour and gas seal to think of. Maybe they figured, better go large on the armour and mount the viewer on the mantlet. If you mount it in the armour, there is always the potential for a cavity. As they were apparently considering the possibility of top attack in the design, just bolting it onto the turret roof clearly wouldnt really do.

well, there's already cavities in the armour, both for the daysight and the loaders periscope.

and the cutout on the loaders side is fairly large too. the problem with the daysight is that

it's in a cast steel housing with a maximum thickness of ~400mm, and right behind that

housing sits the commander in a raised portion of the roof.

Challenger2protection.jpg

it's marked in yellow in this picture here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But its still not mounted in the turret front, which is the point im making. Yeah you could have mounted it on the turret top, but as you point out, the would make the whole area very crowded and untidy. A hit on the GPS would very likely take out the TOGs as well if it was sat there. You could of course mount it on the turret side. But that looked a bit of a dogs breakfast in Challenger 1 and I cant blame them for wanting to move it. It would in any case mean that mounting uparmour on the turret side would be very difficult. Where it is is not a great place, but Im not sure there is anywhere else that would be massively better.

The loaders sight is actually very small. In photos with all the armour boxes off, you barely notice it at all. Mind you, I cant recall seeing one for the GPS either. I assumed most of the cavity for that would have been under the base of the CV580 sight.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...