Stuart666 Posted November 8, 2005 Author Share Posted November 8, 2005 I feel sorry for all gunners who used this akward FCS.One more question of this 50's tech FCS.. could you use it for moving targets at all?Well its actually mid 70s tech. We brits were advanced, but not up to putting computer fire control systems in our tanks in the 50s. :wink: Good and bad news. It could NOT generate fire solutions while on the move. The problem was the stab was crap (Im told by a Chieftain commander, Challenger commanders feel free to disagree) and due to the slow speed of generating solutions, the main gun (and sight) bouncing around would foul up the solution. So they developed an inhibitor to stop it generating lead while on the move, though I think it would still give you range. In short, you could hit stationary targets on the move, but only hit moving targets while sitting still.Secondly, the fire control would not generate HESH solutions for moving targets (I gather, the IFCS manual is bloody complex). However, im told by a chieftain commander that didnt stop them trying, and accurate hits could be obtained by the fact you had a rifle insteady of a poxy smoothbore. 8) The good news was, the system would show accurately if you had a mislaze (since the elipse would close around a soviet style tank target if you got the range right) and for firing Fin (alright sabot) was quite accurate indeed. In fact, it may have scored the longest range kill of Desert storm when it killed a target over 5000 yards away. Due to a field quadrant on the side of the gun, you could also accurate drop HESH onto targets as far as 8 or 9 thousand yards away! The main flaw of the system was the speed it operated, and there may have been some system upgrades to this by the time of desert storm anyway. Im not sure.In short, id admit it was not the worlds greatest fire control system by a long chalk. But it worked, and got good results with a well trained crew. Which fortunately most British tank crews were. :wink: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayT Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I cant find the fine on there can someone e-mail it me? JamesThackray@AOL.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vati Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Stuart666, Thank you for your reply! WRT tech, that's what I had said.. when others were in mid 70's, brits were still in 50's (j/k) Judging from the WW2 british sights, I can only say for certain, you guys were(are) nuts on stadia lines cluttered sights One more question though, if you would be so kind. For aiming moving target. Was there any extra switches to turn on.. or did it do automatically depending on the turret speed? Did sight lag like in M1 or did only the elipse? Cheers, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted November 9, 2005 Author Share Posted November 9, 2005 Stuart666,Thank you for your reply! WRT tech, that's what I had said.. when others were in mid 70's, brits were still in 50's (j/k) Judging from the WW2 british sights, I can only say for certain, you guys were(are) nuts on stadia lines cluttered sights One more question though, if you would be so kind. For aiming moving target. Was there any extra switches to turn on.. or did it do automatically depending on the turret speed? Did sight lag like in M1 or did only the elipse? Cheers, Looking at the inside of the Chieftain (much as I love the beast) Its hard to say you are wrong about 50s tech. Even Challenger1 was exceptionally cluttered (one British officer say it looked like a cats brekfast, and he was not wrong). None of it was neatly laid out like on the Leopards, though thats the result of building a tank round the Boiling Vessel. :lol: Less said about mounting the thermal imager 90 degrees from the gunners facing, the better. Many challenger gunners must have endedup like quasimodo. :roll: As I understand the manual (and I never used the system so I may be wrong) you tracked the target for about 1.3 seconds after lasing, then depressed autolay. The eplipse then displaced to the calculated aimpoint, and you could either continue to apply autolay (in which case you had to maintain the same pressure on the thumbstick, and let the computer lay the aimpoint over the target) or you could then lay the aimpoint on the target yourself. Its similar to the abrams but not identical. The gun jumps ahead to give lead, and the gunners sight moves with it, leaving the aimpoint off centre. (unlike the leopards which continues to track the target) Unlike the abrams however, there is no moving of the aimpoint (which frankly in the Abrams is not particularly useful anyway) after it has been generated. The Aimpoint (or elipse) when generated stays put and wont move. Thats my imperfect understanding of the system anyway. it strikes me as much more similar to the abrams than the Leopards fire control otherwise, though not nearly identical. Cluttered sights I agree, though one advantage would be that if the system went down (which I gather was quite likely at least with IFCS) you are already in the backup system! I suspect It also makes it easier to judge when you need to recalibrate. Interestingly, for the CAT87 trophy, they used some sights with less symbology to improve the view, though judging by results, it evidently didnt work.... For aiming at moving targets, I gather that the system judges whether it is moving from the fact that if you press autolay BEFORE 1.3 seconds has elapsed, then it assumes 'Right, static target'. If you press autolay AFTER 1.3 seconds then it assumes 'Right moving target'. Whilst annoying, it probably needed that time to come up with an adequate fire solution anyway, due to the fact the system was slow. Im not entirely sure of the mods made for desert storm, but ive got a sneaking suspcion that the CSS (the challengers version of IFCS) may have been upgraded in this area to be faster. So in a sense, this is like the leopards button to tell it that its a moving target, but less neatly done. Bear in mind, with a rifle they were going for long range shots, so the lengh of time to take a solution may not have mattered. All this was going on though a x10 scope. Hope all this was of interest, and please dont take it as authoratative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShotMagnet Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Boy does that sound clunky. Not that it doesn't work, it obviously does, but boy does it sound clunky. On the other hand, train someone hard enough for long enough and anything becomes second-nature. I'm assuming British tank crews get lots and lots of hard training.Shot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vati Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Stuart666, thank you very much for sharing this with us! 8)I guess Brits build tanks from an interesting point of view -> in case of it falling into enemy hands, enemy would not be able to comprehend the complexity of the handling :wink: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted November 9, 2005 Author Share Posted November 9, 2005 Stuart666, thank you very much for sharing this with us! 8)I guess Brits build tanks from an interesting point of view -> in case of it falling into enemy hands, enemy would not be able to comprehend the complexity of the handling :wink:Theres some truth in that. To drive Centurion was so hard with the old transmission, that you needed biceps like a female Bulgarian shotputter. :lol: The problem with CSS is that it was esentially the old IFCS made a bit more up to date. The old IFCS was meant to be an upgrade system for the old Chieftain, rather than a totally new system. When Iran ordered Shir2 (esentially Challenger1 as it turned out) the obvious system to fit was IFCS. And when the development work was complete (and Iran was taken over by religious zealots who didnt like British tanks) the MOD ordered a lightly modified version of that tank due to panic over how good T80 was. The result was they got an interim tank into service quickly, the bad news (and it was realised by the Army board at the time apparently) is that the fire control wasnt up to early 80s standards. For a mid 70s tank it was not bad, but the lack of a convincing fire on the move was a real handycap. The moral is, you get what you pay for, though truth be told the Challenger1 was rather better than the MOD had a right to expect. If nothing else the armour and the thermal kit was probably among the best in Nato at the time. Its also the best sounding diesel engine in the world. :wink: SM, I agree it is clunky. Fortunately at the time it was in service British crews seemed to get enough training to stay proficent on it. (im uncertain if thats true today, though Challenger2s system, developed fromt he abrams computer, looks a LOT easier to pick up) Funnily enough IFCS (and I gather CSS) had their own simulator system to say proficent on it. It projected a (space invaders style) tank up onto the gunners sight, which allowed him to practice engagement techniques, even giving a nice little percentage score for him when he was finished. I gather that all this was loaded in with a tape drive, not unfamiliar to those of us who had to suffer with early 80s microcomputers. 8) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Theres some truth in that. To drive Centurion was so hard with the old transmission, that you needed biceps like a female Bulgarian shotputter. Forget the biceps, how about your massively overdeveloped leg from the clutch?Also what is wrong about designing a AFV around the brew vessel?If you made the system simple, think of all those Gunnery WO's with nothing left to do.Lastly from my brief time with QDG, if they were captured you wouldn't understand anything anyway because they would be answering you in Welsh.All the above tounge in cheek of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted November 9, 2005 Author Share Posted November 9, 2005 Theres some truth in that. To drive Centurion was so hard with the old transmission, that you needed biceps like a female Bulgarian shotputter. Forget the biceps, how about your massively overdeveloped leg from the clutch? Also what is wrong about designing a AFV around the brew vessel? If you made the system simple, think of all those Gunnery WO's with nothing left to do. Lastly from my brief time with QDG, if they were captured you wouldn't understand anything anyway because they would be answering you in Welsh. All the above tounge in cheek of course. Yes, I always thought they could use some of the welsh regiments like those indians in 'windtalkers'. I had a friend of mine who was welsh, and god bless him, even when he spoke English it was hard work keeping up with him. :wink: Nothing wrong with designing the entire tank as a tracked BV. In fact I gather that was one of the definitions of Challenger2 to be found on the ARRSE website. Very probably true what you say about IFCS. Frankly Im amazed that if the fire control was that bad, how did the thermal system turn out to be so good? Im told you could pick up a dog pissing on a car tyre over a mile away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecceDG Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Is this availible anywhere else? Links seem dead.DG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart666 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 Is this availible anywhere else? Links seem dead.DGRemind me at the weekend and ill try and post it up again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecceDG Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 REMIND(I'm not going to be near a computer over the weekend... off to AOC Part 1)Tanks,DG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jens198 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Would be interessted too. Jens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jens198 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hi stuart666,any chance you can post it somethere this weekend (wanna try it before I get my Pro PE) ;-)Jens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hackworth Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 also reminding you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jens198 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 reminder 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscar19681 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 yeah i would love to see a link to . I,m curious to find out about this challenger sim . I could not find a link when doing a google search . What in earth was this sim called? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapman Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I played it when it came out and found it....very....basic. Kind of like playing a DOS game.....it required....alot of imagination....but if you love Challangers...then...well....it was a bit...challanging.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jens198 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 *bump* can anyone upload it somewhere?ThanksJens 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 You all owe me beer....http://rapidshare.de/files/15534996/PGTS_Challenger_Gunnery.zip.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Holy thread necromancy, Batman.... :biggrin: Anyone still have this floating about? All the links seem dead (well no surprises there ) I remember this one from ages ago, well before my SB days, and fancied giving it another go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 PM me your email address. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Doh! I uploaded it the file downloads section years ago. Get it here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/270/p13_fileid/1471 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Sweet, I shall have to check this one out, Cheiftain fire control.....(drools) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Ah yes... terrible user interface, limited functionality... Makes me feel like I'm back at ITEC 2009.I kid you not. There were some really shocking looking (and probably huuuugely expensive) procedural trainers tucked away. You have no idea how spoilt you are with Arma/VBS2 and SB ProPE. :biggrin:Also some weird 'second-life' avatar stuff for classroom training which leaves me equally cold. It might have something to do with a few measures of spirits and a couple of glasses of wine, but I'm still not sure what the supposed advantage of that one was? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.