Jump to content
lavictoireestlavie

Challenger 1 and 2 Lower Glacis

Recommended Posts

Is there any valid information out there concerning whether or not the large lower glacis of the un uparmored challenger 1 and 2 offers any protection anything beyond autocannon fire ? Does the lower glacis have any composites at all in it ?

13240761575_7c90c6a33d.jpg

13611861094_114157e13d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any valid information out there concerning whether or not the large lower glacis of the un uparmored challenger 1 and 2 offers any protection anything beyond autocannon fire ? Does the lower glacis have any composites at all in it ?

13240761575_7c90c6a33d.jpg

13611861094_114157e13d.jpg

not really, although a thicker lower glacis doesn't seem plausible, since the driver then would not have any legspace to speak of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any valid information out there concerning whether or not the large lower glacis of the un uparmored challenger 1 and 2 offers any protection anything beyond autocannon fire ? Does the lower glacis have any composites at all in it ?

On Saturday 6 April 2003 in Basra, a seemingly abandoned T-55 fired a 100 mm round that struck the central ROMOR-A ERA panel protecting the nose of the FV4034 Challenger 2.

After a spectacular explosion, there was no penetration of the tank.

Unfortunatly, it is not specified which kind of 100mm round was used against the british tank (probably a HEAT round). :neutral:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but that does state it hit a ERA panel. What the original question asked was about the armour protection provided by the hull itself without any add-on armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean the incident in Maysan where Trooper Chance lost his toes, despite media speculation I understood that was probably the result of the round skipping into the (then less protected than now) underside of the driver's cab. In other words quite an unlucky occurrence, and out of the normal run of things. Given EFP-IED threat it was strange that it was left vulnerable for so long, but I guess this shows that tank design is always a compromise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... that was probably the result of the round skipping into the (then less protected than now) underside of the driver's cab...

How can an RPG HEAT round skip and still be effective ? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rumour says that the rocket dropped short, exploding on the ground, sending shrapnel and blast up under the tank, penetrating the steel belly of the tank, the driver; Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes in that attack.

Apparently, two more of the crew were also injured : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

Others claim that the PG-29V warhead still has triggered the ERA-reinforced lower front hull. :heu:

This one has a composite-reinforced floor and Dorchester composite add-on armor on the lower glacis. I wonder how much it weighs with all these upgrades...

1384208506-1384205625687.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rumour says that the rocket dropped short, exploding on the ground, sending shrapnel and blast up under the tank, penetrating the steel belly of the tank, the driver; Trooper Sean Chance, lost three of his toes in that attack.

it's just a rumour. there's no way shrapnel from an RPG-29 could penetrate the belly of even a centurion, and most definitely not a challenger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is just lame excuse created by fanboys that just can accept the fact that lower front hull plate of Challenger 2 is made from simple homogeneus steel armor.:heu:

I wonder how much it weighs with all these upgrades...

AFAIK Challenger 2 with latest addon armor kit have combat weight of 74 metric tons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Streetfighter (TES) is 75 tons. The version modelled in SB is 65 tons, and I wonder if this may actually make the horsepower/weight calculation a bit off in the sim, as IIRC on another thread it mentioned the 75t figure against the 1,200 horses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Streetfighter (TES) is 75 tons. The version modelled in SB is 65 tons, and I wonder if this may actually make the horsepower/weight calculation a bit off in the sim, as IIRC on another thread it mentioned the 75t figure against the 1,200 horses...

With the DL2E* armor configuration, the FV4034 Challenger 2 weighs 64,95 tons (metric).

AFAIK, the Street Fighter has the DL2F armor configuration : http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Challenger2/Chally_OPT/c2.jpg

I wonder if Steel Beasts takes into account the net horsepower instead of the gross horsepower. :???:

*Dorchester Level 2 E, nose-mounted ROMOR-A ERA and ROMOR-C ballistic side skirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A round can skip off the ground and still function, i.e., the PG-29V landed short and bounced up and struck low.

Not that it'd matter.

I reckon the ERA did work to some extent, cutting down the amount of penetration of the main charge, but still not enough to stop it getting through the 150mm or so of RHA of the lower hull.

I'm surprised at how little damage was actually done after penetration, which probably jives with the ERA working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all the AAR says:

CORDON/SEARCH BY CFIN MAYSAAN; 1 AIF DET, 4 CF WIA/VEH DAMAGED

2006-08-21 19:30:00

Expand acronyms:

AT 22 0130D AUG 06, MND(SE) LAUNCHED OP WELLINGTON TO DETAIN SPECIFIC MILITIA LEADERS. BETWEEN 0130D AND 0142D 3 HOUSES WERE SEARCHED AND 6 SUSPECTS DETAINED. THROUGHOUT THE OP CF CAME UNDER RPG AND SAF ATTACK WITH 1 X WIA (ROUTINE) BEING SUSTAINED. 1 WIA/0 DAM.

AT 0245D CF TROOPS BEGAN TO EXTRACT WITH HELICOPTER SUPPORT.

BY 0345D ALLL TROOPS WERE EXTRACTED AND DEATINEES AT THE DETENTION FACILITY. DURING THE EXTRACTION RPG, SAF AND HMG ATTACKS TOOK PLACE DAMAGING 1 CF VEHICLE. DURING RECOVERY OF DAMAGED VEHICLE ANOTHER ROUTINE CASUALTY WAS SUSTAINED. RECOVERY TAKING PLACE UNDER SUSTAINED SAF, RPG AND MORTAR FIRE. FAST AIR SUPPORT TASKED.

UPDATE: CR2 TANK RECOVERED TO CAN, 5 X DETAINED RELEASED AT 221200D AUG 06. CF CASUALTIES ARE: 1 X BROKEN HAND, 1 X LOSS OF TOES DUE TO RPG HEAT CASUALTY AND 1 X GSW.

It appears that the wounded in the fighting compartment were due to the blast itself rather than penetration (the commander appeared to be unbuttoned). A number of M1 crew members suffered concussions and bumps/bruises from non-penetrating PG-29V hits. I guess when you get to 105mm and up, the explosive power is quite a bit more pronounced than your typical 70mm/85mm warhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all the AAR says:

It appears that the wounded in the fighting compartment were due to the blast itself rather than penetration (the commander appeared to be unbuttoned). A number of M1 crew members suffered concussions and bumps/bruises from non-penetrating PG-29V hits. I guess when you get to 105mm and up, the explosive power is quite a bit more pronounced than your typical 70mm/85mm warhead.

Do you have the whole After Action Review document ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Killjoy
No, it is just lame excuse created by fanboys that just can accept the fact that lower front hull plate of Challenger 2 is made from simple homogeneus armour

You really need to choose your words better..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, that's the only AAR that was released. They're a hit or miss, really. Some provide detailed information, whereas others are scarce (like this one). All you can get is that a HEAT round took off the toes of the driver.

Proper BDA would have been done at a higher up level and later on, like with the official RPG-29 versus M1 BDAs.

Somewhat related, it appears that the ATGM that hit the CR2 in 2003 had some form of behind armor effect, albeit quite limited (sparks and such, which could be spalling, which can happen even without penetration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the DL2E* armor configuration, the FV4034 Challenger 2 weighs 64,95 tons (metric).

AFAIK, the Street Fighter has the DL2F armor configuration : http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Challenger2/Chally_OPT/c2.jpg

I wonder if Steel Beasts takes into account the net horsepower instead of the gross horsepower. :???:

When you say gross , do you mean horsepower measured at the sprocket or the old american SAE standard of engine power rating ?

As far as i know gross horsepower ratings have never been used in europe, at least not in the last 40 years . The standard here is called DIN rating and is approximately the same as the later US Net rating. This means power/torque is measured at the crankshaft(flywheel) on an engine with all "equipment" attached ie: stock airfilter, exhaustpipes/mufflers, alternators, power steering and AC pumps etc etc...basically simulating how the engine performs when in the vehicle. This gives a lower, but more realistic rating, than the old gross horsepower method.

I dont know about the perkins cv12 engine in the chally, but in the MTU 873 in the Leo 2 at least, the qouted rating of 1100 kw is very much a nominal figure and the actual horsepower may vary as much as 100kw or more from tank to tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you say gross , do you mean horsepower measured at the sprocket or the old american SAE standard of engine power rating ?

I based myself on this data sheet.

1404055639-m1a1-technical-data.jpg

Source : Hunnicutt, R.P, Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Volume 2, Armored fighting vehicle books, Presidio Press (February 1991).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...interesting....if this is accurate then the comparable ratings for the AGT/ MTU would be ~1250 vs ~1475 Net/DIN horsepower and ~5100 vs ~4700 Nm .

I havent been able to find any other source mentioning gross or net horsepower for the turbine though , honeywell just says 1500 shaft horsepower / 1120kw , but doesn't specify the rating method. Very frustrating:confused:...

Perhaps one of the resident M1 guru's can clear things up ?

In the 60's when the AGT was buildt, the SAE gross rating was still the most common rating method in the US though, so perhaps a 1500 gross rating isnt totally far fetched.

By the way, here is a pretty interesting write-up on the AGT-1500 :

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/propulsion/agt1500

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×