Challenger2 Questions

[Iceman]

What are the best modes of using the CH2:

Ambush

Defence

Offence

Survivablity

Put together a scene with the CH2 and T80's. They can certainly kill each other. The T80's seem to be able to take a pounding on the front...not so for the CH2. I'd say the majority of the kill shots to the CH2 are under the barrel area. If it's in there your dead. Is this anyone else's CH2 kill spot?

Munitions:

The munitions the CH2 fires in SBPro PE don't seem to be as potent as American, German, or Red (T80). Is this anyone else's perception? To get a T80 to drop it's barrel...black smoke, fire could take 6-7 direct hits to the front.

Seems slow compared to other main battletanks in SB.

You guys have been great on my Challenger questions so I know there are seasoned CH2 drivers out there.

Any answers would be greatly appreciated.

Iceman

[Gibsonm]

Well I don't really want to re-type the pages that have already been written on employment of CR2, its automotive capability, survivability and relative merits of its ammunition.

As you crave the information, can I politely request that you use the search feature and find out for yourself, as opposed to asking others to do the work for you?

[Iceman]

Sorry about that, your perfectly right. Will use "search" feature.

[Gibsonm]

This thread from 20 February wanders a bit in the middle but I think answers all/most of your questions:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=18881

[Hedgehog]

T-80s can shrug off hellfire hits....

The T series tanks typically have a very thick front turret armour (Depending on type) However that Turret Armour does account for a higher proportion of presented frontal area, than the equivalent Warsaw Pact vehicle (T-80s are much smaller than an M1A1/Challenger/Leopard etc.).

So taking into account the various shot dispersion calculations, unless you are close enough to pick out ERA tiles on the T-80, your shot will stand a good chance of dispersing onto the well armoured portions of the T-80, and therefore bounce off.

I think even a DM53 round over 1500m will struggle with the T-80 frontal armour.

Generally all of the tanks in SB tend to have a weaker centre portion of armour, due to design limitations of having an independently moveable section/face of a smaller cross sectional area, this is less area for the impact/deformation forces to be spread over, thus it is inherently weaker.

However all tank gunners in SB go for the centre of mass when they are firing. (and what's in the centre?)

The challenger as far as I can see was designed to fight in terrain not much unlike Korea.

I.E. A nice big Hill where it can use its 10 degrees of gun depression to full effect.

[Stuart666]

Well, arguably the US Army AFV were more optimized for that kind of fight. I recall on tanknet them talking of engagements of 1500 metres of less in some areas. You only have to look at Fulda gap to realise their fights were going to be in far hillier terrain than up north. Perhaps not really appropriate to compare Korea to Fulda gap though. South Korea is still rather more boggy.

UK armour (well since Centurion anyway) was optimised to fight on the North German plain, which is long visibility intersected with good defensive positions, either villages, forests of valleys. Its much more open than what you would find down south. Which rather fits its traditional role as part of the classic invasion route into Northern Europe. For that you didnt need high speed, just good armour and a good gun, preferably one with a good long range on it. When you get down to it, every British tank that made it into service was an elaboration of Chieftain. Mosts of the ones that did not (high mobility, lighter armour, 105mm gun) were invariably developed for export.

Challenger2 is a puzzling mix of bits. Yes it was designed as the cold war was ending (I think the first tech demonstrator came out in 1991) but it clearly did have a similar mindset in tank design, ie, moderate mobility, heavy armour, long range gun and sights. But bear in mind it did have quite a bit of thought of the Persian army in it. The engine and drivetrain were to an extent a result of shir1 and and 2, so you can make a case that its ideally designed to fight in Iran. Assuming MOD remembered to buy some filters for it...

One other thing to thow into the mix is an evolution in British strategy. Prior to 1981, the idea was to be the thin red line on the Rhine, ie walk backwards very slowly and hope the Soviets give up before we throw buckets of sunshine at them. Chieftain and Challenger1 are tailor made for this, with the fire contol and stab being really for fighting from static positions. Challenger2 was developed after a sea change in doctrine in NORTHAG, which was to be increasingly (and cohesively) a mobile counteroffensive doctrine. Which basically means AFVs with a capablity to fight on the move. Warrior didnt have this (and still doesnt till it has the update). Challenger2 however did, which fits because Warrior was largely laid down in design in 1980, before we started to think about doing things differently.

So basically you have a tank with its armour and mobility optimised for standing up and fighting, and a fire control sophisticated to fight on the move. At least in the real thing anyway. Whether tactical doctrine really made change to emphaise the increased accuracy on the move I dont know, but the last RAC manual I saw emphased fire and overwatch rather than a cohesive mobile plan as in the US Army tank platoon manual. But as I say, my copy is rather old (1986). RAC doctrine would be rather limited by the Inablity of warrior to fire on the move I would think, but you would have to ask someone who was fortunate enough to do this for a living.

I would be careful not to assume what will work for challenger in the game would work in real life though, and vice versa.

Just my view. God I miss Tanknet.

[Captain_Colossus]

Politics enter into Soviet doctrine with no equivalent NATO counterpart at the time, that is to say, the Soviet invasion route is at least as much concerned with a political solution as military success- in reality, politics is the ultimate aim. The synergy of Soviet tactics, equipment and political theory is the underlying mechanism. The military is a tool used to achieve political success, politics is the ultimate aim.

What makes the North German Plain attractive from the Soviet standpoint is the possibility of attacking at NATO's joint command structure- according to this assumption, you would attack the nexus where these commands overlap and meet, isolate and cut off weaker NATO partners, the momentum carries as one by one the government of each country may sue for their own separate treaty with the Soviets rather than see their home territories destroyed.

The Soviets may view the democratic institutions of NATO as a weakness in wartime (while no direct analog, likewise would have put less trust into less capable WarPact members), contrary to its own more homogenized political and military structure organized under a Soviet Front commander.

Since US forces have no direct interest to gain or lose fighting in Europe (in that the US homeland isn't at stake), the idea is that you could conceivably convince the Americans that there is no real point in staying in the war when the rest of NATO have been knocked over like dominoes and are no longer interested in it.

[Grenny]

My experiences a SIRA showed me one thing, a "slowly walk back" fight against the russian "deep battle" style will end very bitter for you. "Steamrolled" is what you get.

What helped in some situations: Get a delay-task force in place IOT to find ENY point of main effort. Continue to delay and in a good terrain, concentrate all arty tubes you've got on them...and as soon as the smoke clears, counterattack with all you've got.

In 5 of 10 cases we were able to completely smash up a Enemy division with our brigade.

Staying in defense/delay too long, had a 0:10 quota of getting our butts kicked.

Of course this was only a training SIM, but I think the idea of "slow moving defence tank" is a non starter, and I don't think any tank is designed with that in mind. At one point you HAVE TO counterattack IOT to get the initative and conclude the battle...and the tank is the main tool for it.

[Stuart666]

My experiences a SIRA showed me one thing, a "slowly walk back" fight against the russian "deep battle" style will end very bitter for you. "Steamrolled" is what you get.

What helped in some situations: Get a delay-task force in place IOT to find ENY point of main effort. Continue to delay and in a good terrain, concentrate all arty tubes you've got on them...and as soon as the smoke clears, counterattack with all you've got.

In 5 of 10 cases we were able to completely smash up a Enemy division with our brigade.

Staying in defense/delay too long, had a 0:10 quota of getting our butts kicked.

Of course this was only a training SIM, but I think the idea of "slow moving defence tank" is a non starter, and I don't think any tank is designed with that in mind. At one point you HAVE TO counterattack IOT to get the initative and conclude the battle...and the tank is the main tool for it.

Even prior to the new strategy emerging in the 1980s, of course BAOR did practice counteroffensive doctrine. But one must not get carried away and assume you are talking about hail mary style offensives. They were relatively short range counteroffensives to retake vital ground, or eliminate limited Soviet offensive salients. There would appear to be nothing compared to what 1 UK Div practiced (and did) in Iraq in 1991 before the mid 80s. One British tank commander told me they even had the defensive positions already sorted out. It was just a matter of deploying there.

That all changed with Bagnall with a vastly more ambitious counter offensive strategy that developed through the 1980s, and Im convinced (others may disagree) that this had an effect on the ultimate design of challenger 2. Certainly I cant think of a British weapon system prior to the late 80s that specified fire on the move. Perhaps cheapness played a role, but more likely it was pragmatism. Why would they need a fire on the move capability? It would hardly be necessary when operating in a defensive or offensive overwatch.

Yeah, slow moving defence tank sounds a dumb idea. Then you remember Centurion. Proved tailor made for defensive action on the Golan, which most commentators at the time judged was more likely to be the kind of action in West Germany in WW3 than the war in the Sinai. Its also worth pointing out that virtually unmodified Centurions took part in the offensive in the Sinai in 67, with a 30 mile range and (if I remember right) max speed of 24mph. The same mindset even persists in Challenger2, to an extent. I still dont think its a bad idea to go large on protection. What the hell, the Israelis seem to agree.

[Hedgehog]

Yeah, slow moving defence tank sounds a dumb idea. Then you remember Centurion. Proved tailor made for defensive action on the Golan, which most commentators at the time judged was more likely to be the kind of action in West Germany in WW3 than the war in the Sinai. Its also worth pointing out that virtually unmodified Centurions took part in the offensive in the Sinai in 67, with a 30 mile range and (if I remember right) max speed of 24mph. The same mindset even persists in Challenger2, to an extent. I still dont think its a bad idea to go large on protection. What the hell, the Israelis seem to agree.

Er, As I recall the Centurion was designed to take on the Panther on more or less equal terms, and other Wehrmacht Vehicles, using mainly COTS gear (At the time) with minimal modifications.

(We were, at the time fighting off a megalomaniac's bid to conquer the world with the wonders of National Socialism.)

Centurion was designed in an era where the main focus of tank warfare was on set piece actions, not as in the Cold war where lower levels were expected to fight actions more or less independently.

It was only really with the Chieftain that the whole "Stand and Die like Guardsmen" philosophy came into tank design.

[Stuart666]

Er, As I recall the Centurion was designed to take on the Panther on more or less equal terms, and other Wehrmacht Vehicles, using mainly COTS gear (At the time) with minimal modifications.

(We were, at the time fighting off a megalomaniac's bid to conquer the world with the wonders of National Socialism.)

Centurion was designed in an era where the main focus of tank warfare was on set piece actions, not as in the Cold war where lower levels were expected to fight actions more or less independently.

It was only really with the Chieftain that the whole "Stand and Die like Guardsmen" philosophy came into tank design.

Nope. Its a common misnomer, but Centurion was actually laid down in specs and significant design months before the British Army encountered Panther. Someone proved that on Tanknet. If you look at it, it seems more inspired by Tiger, with a fusion of 'Cruiser' tank elements and Heavy tanks like Churchill. It was closest to Montys concept of a 'universal' tank, but thats only because A45, a heavier cousin based on Conqueror rolling gear, never got beyond the prototype.

Even that version was very different from Mk2, in that it had thinner side armour and a totally different turret. Mk2 had the familiar Centurion turret, but it still didnt get the 20pounder till 1949 making the Mk3 we know and love. So very clearly the tank that fought on the Golan was the Cold war tank as envisaged, not the one to fight the 3rd Reich.

The version that fought on the Golan was either built as, or was close to in modifications, the British Mk5/2. And that if I remember rightly didnt come out till somewhere around 1959.

Ultimately Centurion is a Cold war Tank. There wasnt an awful lot left from the WW2 design if you look over the Mk1 in Bovington, other than basic layout and running gear design. its a bit like comparing the M48 to a T26. I mean yeah you can, but its stretching the point.

That said, it would be fair to say there was a change in doctrine even between Centurion and Chieftain coming out. The WW2 influence didnt really die out till the late 50s, not until the inevitability of nuclear release made large forces rather unnecessary. For example, I think the British Army bought something like 1000-1500 Centurions of all marks. With Chieftain they only bought 900, and something like half of those ended up in war stocks in short order.

Chieftain was just an elaboration of tenets of design that had been laid down in Centurion when you get down to it. Even the suspension has great similarities.

[Hedgehog]

Its a common misnomer, but Centurion was actually laid down in specs and significant design months before the British Army encountered Panther. Someone proved that on Tanknet. If you look at it, it seems more inspired by Tiger, with a fusion of 'Cruiser' tank elements and Heavy tanks like Churchill. It was closest to Montys concept of a 'universal' tank, but thats only because A45, a heavier cousin based on Conqueror rolling gear, never got beyond the prototype.

So, Centurion was initially designed to take on Nazi vehicles, which is (Pedantically) my point.

(Its lack of mobility was affected by what engines were production available at the time in the quantities required.)

It was then modified accordingly during the closing stages/after that conflict was resolved, to deal with the new Soviet threats.

(However the Israeli's finally changed the engine.)

The Chieftain however, was designed from the ground up as a "Stand and Die/Fight" tank.

Again with an under powered engine, but then it was a Leyland power plant, Typical.

GB seems to have a recurring theme of Mobility a distant third, behind

Protection and Firepower.

[Stuart666]

So, Centurion was initially designed to take on Nazi vehicles, which is (Pedantically) my point.

(Its lack of mobility was affected by what engines were production available at the time in the quantities required.)

It was then modified accordingly during the closing stages/after that conflict was resolved, to deal with the new Soviet threats.

(However the Israeli's finally changed the engine.)

The Chieftain however, was designed from the ground up as a "Stand and Die/Fight" tank.

Again with an under powered engine, but then it was a Leyland power plant, Typical.

GB seems to have a recurring theme of Mobility a distant third, behind

Protection and Firepower.

It depends who you talk to. Yeah, the initial versions were a bit underpowered, but the later versions were rather better, and actually fairly reliable when they ditched the multifuel mode (which Britain had stuck with, long after Nato gave up on the idea). In fact even some of the earlier models seem to have been quite good. A friend of mine swears that when he was using a Mk3 (in theory one of the more unreliable versions) and never had any problems with it, because he maintained it properly.

Ultimately the Israeli Army wanted to buy Chieftain with the existing power-plant. That pretty much says all really. It worked fine, when it was properly maintained. Ironically I gather it was actually based upon a WW2 Junkers engine if I remember rightly.

Chieftain has always had a very bad press, im not quite sure why. It was even cleaning the clocks of T72s when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait in 1990. And that was with the old L15 APDS rounds I strongly suspect.

[Hedgehog]

Indeed,

However, Leyland has always had bit of a reputation, for producing worthless tat type cars that suffered from pandemic levels of tin worm.

This is probably due too the fact galvanising wasn't very common in the 60s-70s and cars rotted literally before your eyes.

(There were good examples too, The Mini?)

But as you say with Chieftain the L60 Mk13A "Sundance" engine finally squashed those power and reliability bugs,

20(?) odd years too late, but hey ho. :cul:

If the Cold War had gone hot in the 70s Chieftain is the ride I'd want.

370mm Front Armour, 120mm bruiser, happy days.

[Wardog]

Indeed,

However, Leyland has always had bit of a reputation, for producing worthless tat type cars that suffered from pandemic levels of tin worm.

LOL but spot on there.

The Chieftain was well ahead of its time in many ways and paved the way for our modern Chally, with good armour and large gun once her engines were sorted she was good to go, its easy to see from her deseign that many modern day tanks emerged... would make a good adversary i think.

[Stuart666]

Best Chieftain (automotively anyway) was Shir1/Khalid. When the Iranian order fell through there was something like 200 vehicles without a home. MOD would have been wise to have bought them, if only to have bailed out the manufacturers. Jordan got them instead. Also had a pretty good image intensifier sight on it for the commander.

On the positive side Challenger1 was rather better than its press describes. Fire on the move was pretty much a joke (mainly due to the poor stab) but it was no less accurate than Chieftain from a static position, and the armour was pretty good. The thermal optical gunnery system on it was reputed to be actually better than mounted on the early Abrams, something its not really given credit for.

A friend tells me they actually devised a way to mount a German MTU engine into Chieftain, supposedly someone suggested it as an option as an alternative to buying Titan. Supposedly it was impossible, but they managed to squeeze it into the original engine compartment. Amazing what you can do when you set your mind to it....

Got a video from Iranian TV showing their reengined and refurbished Chieftains somewhere. I really must up that on youtube one of these days. Still looks far inferior to Chieftain Mk11 Imho. That really was a good bit of kit considering how old it was.