Challenger 2 feedback

[Charlie0A]

Hello all - first time poster, long time reader here...

I've been playing with SB Pro PE for a while now focusing almost exclusively on the British kit. I have to say that the CR2 is a very faithful rendition - and by far the best simulator of the vehicle out there, bar none, especially for the budget. It kicks stripes off VBS2, for starters.

That said I thought I'd list some feedback that may be interest to afficionados/SSnake and team:

- I know this might disappoint some people, but speed/power-to-weight is spot on. It's slow to get going up hills, but that's rarely a tactical disadvantage in real life. On modern battlefields, racing around is generally a good way to get dead, even though it's fun in a sim. That said CR2 is a fast beast cross country due to the suspension, which is better than almost anything out there.Therefore the maxim is to choose routes and ground well before moving, and maintain momentum.

- Hunter/killer is great and well modelled. I'm using a handle from AFVSim (thanks, Don - I can't recommend enough). Gunner and commander are similar enough that it's good practice. Press up arrow from Commander's view to align the gun - simples.

- It is great to have found UK verbals (changing them in the options menu). However, there are a few dubious ones - driven by the underlying logic, so no real complaint there.

- Battlefield performance is probably sub-par. I think the firepower model is below where the L30 really is in terms of perforamce, although I concede it is probably lower than the latest smoothbores.

- Armour similarly is over-vulnerable due to the driver's hatch weakness being too large, compounded by the AI gunners'ability to hit centre of mass. This is of course good for forcing one to practice hull-down positions (more on which below), and "train hard, fight easy"! My issue though is that although the hatch might be a weaker element, it's horizontal and well sheltered, so won't really be impacted by anything (in the KE category) except a shot when the tank is on a severe forward slope. In which case the commander deserves whatever he gets...seriously, the area is much better armoured than is modelled here, and I think this should be improved to give a better balance, especially against the AI.

Other things I'd like to see modelled should time and funds ever allow:

- The addition of Aided Lay. As mentioned on other threads here, this is a switch that maintains the track and de-sensitizes the controller. It's a real help.

- The ability to map the "up" arrow align function to the controller - it replaces Aided Lay for the commander, with the function being replaced by the align switch (hit once to align and take control of the gun, and again for Aided, although this is bad target management of course).

- GAS graticules for Fin/Hesh.

- Ability to track fast-moving targets with multiple laser bursts (press and hold). HESH engagements against rapidly withdrawing/closing targets are too difficult at present.

These are minor quibbles though and overall this is a fantastic assessment of the vehicle. Again, certainly the best out there by miles, and well done to the team for such a great job. I've had a few spine-tingling engagements that have felt entirely "right"!

All feedback, questions and comments gratefully received...

[MDF]

Welcome!

- The addition of Aided Lay. As mentioned on other threads here, this is a switch that maintains the track and de-sensitizes the controller. It's a real help.

If you look at the control/keyboard command configuration file (ALT+c), there is, tantalizingly, an entry for aided lay, but I believe it's not implemented yet.

[Charlie0A]

Thanks MDF. Yes, it's been teasing me nightly. Along with trying to map the align function from the up arrow...

[MDF]

(I should also add that the aided-lay key may be used by one or more other vehicles -- the CV-90 is a prime suspect -- and not intended for Challenger 2 anytime soon).

[dejawolf]

- Armour similarly is over-vulnerable due to the driver's hatch weakness being too large, compounded by the AI gunners'ability to hit centre of mass. This is of course good for forcing one to practice hull-down positions (more on which below), and "train hard, fight easy"! My issue though is that although the hatch might be a weaker element, it's horizontal and well sheltered, so won't really be impacted by anything (in the KE category) except a shot when the tank is on a severe forward slope. In which case the commander deserves whatever he gets...seriously, the area is much better armoured than is modelled here, and I think this should be improved to give a better balance, especially against the AI.

i'll agree with you that the best ammunition for the challenger is under-modeled.

armour however:

there just isn't a lot of armour between the crew and threat.

there's the 40-80mm lump of steel behind the drivers vision block, an air gap, and then there's the turret ring. the amount of armour the drivers hatch cuts away from the front armour is terrifying. just look at the tamiya kit. armour of the drivers vision block is barely 1/10 of the rest of the front hull.

lets say the mistake was 40mm too little. instead of overmatch for soviet rounds

of 600-160 = 440mm overmatch you have 600-200 = 400mm overmatch.

in both instances, you have molten spray of steel and depleted uranium crashing through your tank at high velocity, killing everything in it's path.

[Charlie0A]

Thanks for the feedback, Dejawolf. Interesting work on the model kit - someone's been going to town on the non-slip coating! while I'm not sure that there isn't more around the turret ring than meets the eye, I get your point on overmatch. Mind you I think hitting that point in real life would be pretty difficult - and of course it's the job of the tank commander to make it more so...

Not sure it's fair to put up the 2003 QRL image, as that had a totally different cause. HESH detonating inside the turret is something no tank could survive, despite innovative armour storage designed to stop the turret-on-the-back-decks look (which we'll reserve for the artillery). That reminds me though - I do also think it would be good from an aesthetics point of view if the CR2s in game did occasionally brew up more spectacularly/visibly - but again as a small business owner myself I really appreciate the time/effort lack of payoff on this. Again, best model and sim out there bar none, so I'm not complaining!

The thread has prompted me to compare the models and I've just noticed how weak CR2 frontal hull armour is rated vs M1A1 etc. I'm guessing that may be a slope equation, but notwithstanding the hatch issue I'd quibble about some of the rest. I may be reading this wrong, but CR2 605mm KE vs MIAI(HA) 907mm seems off to me? Not to second guess the amount of work that's gone into the models, though - which I seriously appreciate as I get to drive them around the place shooting stuff...

[Volcano]

Not sure it's fair to put up the 2003 QRL image, as that had a totally different cause. HESH detonating inside the turret is something no tank could survive, despite innovative armour storage designed to stop the turret-on-the-back-decks look (which we'll reserve for the artillery). That reminds me though - I do also think it would be good from an aesthetics point of view if the CR2s in game did occasionally brew up more spectacularly/visibly - but again as a small business owner myself I really appreciate the time/effort lack of payoff on this. Again, best model and sim out there bar none, so I'm not complaining!

The image is showing that there is nothing behind that area, it just proceeds right into turret ring, and then into the crew area. Unless there is some super-secret angled block of unobtanium behind that driver's vision block, then there really isn't any way it can be different. It could be a little thicker there in SB sure, but in the end it will not make a difference because the increased thickness wouldn't be sufficient enough to protect it from maingun rounds.

That said, I think you hit the nail on the head -- the vulnerability of that area is directly due to the tank commander's decision to expose it to the enemy. The AI gunners in SB are not aiming for that area, they are aiming center mass on target and the driver's hatch area happens to be conveniently located in dead center of vehicle, just right to catch rounds. If only they would have offset the driver's position then it would have inherently been more difficult to hit.

Case in point: T-62. The driver's area is weak and is the best place to hit from the front for a kill, because a fuel tank protects the other frontal area on the hull. However, the driver is offset to the side so this makes it much more difficult to hit, most rounds will naturally hit center mass on hull, just below the gun and into its protected area. Just trying to aim to the side and hit the driver at longer range is nearly impossible - it makes a huge difference. I think if the CR2 had an offset driver, and of course they went with an M1 style drivers hatch then the entire issue would have been avoided.

As for the ammunition quality issue, Ssnake has said that if some detailed information can be found and submitted to him then he will re-evalute.

[dejawolf]

Thanks for the feedback, Dejawolf. Interesting work on the model kit - someone's been going to town on the non-slip coating! while I'm not sure that there isn't more around the turret ring than meets the eye, I get your point on overmatch. Mind you I think hitting that point in real life would be pretty difficult - and of course it's the job of the tank commander to make it more so...

Not sure it's fair to put up the 2003 QRL image, as that had a totally different cause. HESH detonating inside the turret is something no tank could survive, despite innovative armour storage designed to stop the turret-on-the-back-decks look (which we'll reserve for the artillery). That reminds me though - I do also think it would be good from an aesthetics point of view if the CR2s in game did occasionally brew up more spectacularly/visibly - but again as a small business owner myself I really appreciate the time/effort lack of payoff on this. Again, best model and sim out there bar none, so I'm not complaining!

The thread has prompted me to compare the models and I've just noticed how weak CR2 frontal hull armour is rated vs M1A1 etc. I'm guessing that may be a slope equation, but notwithstanding the hatch issue I'd quibble about some of the rest. I may be reading this wrong, but CR2 605mm KE vs MIAI(HA) 907mm seems off to me? Not to second guess the amount of work that's gone into the models, though - which I seriously appreciate as I get to drive them around the place shooting stuff...

the QRL picture is one of the few i could find which shows what the area under the turret actually looked like, and it shows the tamiya model is pretty much spot on.

as for the 605mm vs 907mm... 907mm is because of the massive fuel tanks on the left and right side of the driver on the abrams. they're on the left and right sponsons on the challenger.

[Charlie0A]

Thanks all for responses - interesting stuff.

I think that detail on L30 performance will not be released in the public domain, so we should probably accept it being - we suspect - underpowered. It makes for some fun battles against the AI, I know that much - pumping rounds into an oncoming rush of T-90s can be rather exciting! Certainly tests gunnery under pressure.

:gun:

(On which note I can thoroughly recommend the classic Hasty Defence scenario with CR2. A most enjoyable challenge even after playing many times).

[Hedgehog]

Diesel Fuel as an incompressible liquid makes excellent armour.

Are the M1 fuel tanks made of heavy gauge steel to contain any potential hydrostatic shock from a round hitting it?

Or are they a stamped item like you'd find in a normal road car?

[Damian90]

Are the M1 fuel tanks made of heavy gauge steel to contain any potential hydrostatic shock from a round hitting it?

Or are they a stamped item like you'd find in a normal road car?

In M1 front fuel tanks are encased in their own, isolated compartments, so even if they are not made from better material, it should not matter much thanks to encasement.

On the other hand it is interesting that only Americans fully used conclusions of British experiments with fuel tanks as additional protection for front armor.:heu:

[Tjay]

Diesel Fuel as an incompressible liquid makes excellent armour.

Are the M1 fuel tanks made of heavy gauge steel to contain any potential hydrostatic shock from a round hitting it?

Or are they a stamped item like you'd find in a normal road car?

IMHO fuel tanks are only good for armour when they are full. Diesel/Kerosine may be incompressible but air is not. It was hydrostatic shock caused by debris from a blown tyre impacting the bottom of a partially full fuel tank that blew the inspection hatches off one of the fuel tanks in the Concorde that caught fire on take off (from Orly, IIRC)and subsequently crashed. Had the tank been full (as it was normally) it would have probably remained intact.

[DarkLabor]

IMHO fuel tanks are only good for armour when they are full.

Wich is why we got two fuel tanks groups on the Leclerc.

One main group is located relatively low and the other (located in the sponson).

Logic wants to empty the main group BEFORE attacking the secondary group.

Diesel/Kerosine may be incompressible but air is not. It was hydrostatic shock caused by debris from a blown tyre impacting the bottom of a partially full fuel tank that blew the inspection hatches off one of the fuel tanks in the Concorde that caught fire on take off (from Roissy)and subsequently crashed. Had the tank been full (as it was normally) it would have probably remained intact.

Well flight 4590's crash was due to a blown up tire.

The metalic strip on the ground made the tire burst into pieces.

One of approximately 5kg damaged the fuel tank making it leak (The effect that you were refering to was the hydrodynamic ram effect.).

An other piece of tire damaged some electric components of the landing gear.

Fire could had been set by the engine and/or the damaged electric components.

[hoggydog]

I'm guessing the loss of armour effect by an empty fuel tank is not being modelled in SB currently?

[Damian90]

Remember that empty fuel tank still creates a sort of spaced armor that can stop remnants of projectile that perforated main armor. Especially if fuel tanks are encased in their own compartments that creates more spaced armor.

[hoggydog]

Also be aware that an 'empty' fuel tank is not empty, it is full of fuel vapour that in most cases has a much lower flashpoint than the liquid fuel itself thus (I would have thought) making it much more volatile.

[dejawolf]

the front fuel tanks on the abrams is the last to be depleted, and the US army seems to strive to ensure the front fuel tanks are full at all times.

[Rotareneg]

I can only assume they use fuel cells, not just plain tanks. Fuel cells are filled with open cell foam to reduce fuel sloshing, provide more reliable fuel delivery, and help reduce the chance that the fumes could explode if ruptured (it'll obviously still burn.)

[Charlie0A]

I wouldn't have thought that anyone would now not use fuel cells - they particularly help keep engines working at some of the more unusual angles tanks end up at. And goodness knows that keeping tanks' tanks (hah) full is not easy...

Drifted away from CR2 but an interesting conversation.

[Ssnake]

I know that not everybody is happy with our model of the L30 round, and it's difficult for me to defend our decisions here because I cannot disclose our sources. What I can say is that both are "high caliber" sources NOT from Britain, and that our estimate is based on more than pure conjecture and blurry images. It's still an estimate of course, and there's a small but distinctly non-zero chance that we simply are in error.

But believe me when I say that we did our due diligence beyond studying the obvious open sources (there aren't many). We triple- and quadruple checked our estimates, they were independently derived, and came to similarly disappointing results. I know that our results do not appear overly plausible in comparison to contemporary designs and performances elsewhere, but I can't help it. As engineers, we stick to the facts as best as we know them.

IMO, the British MoD made a fatal mistake when it settled on the rifled 120mm gun design for the Challengers. In the short run it may have appeared as a smart decision because of the existing ammo stockpile that was acquired for the Conqueror (which already had a 120mm rifled gun). And it was probably done in the expectation that the Challenger would be exported, and based on higher (projected) numbers of vehicles in use the greater demand for training (live) rounds would finance ongoing ammunition development. Alas, that's not what happened, and as a consequence Royal Ordnance was disbanded and ammo research and development atrophied. In return, the overall design simply fell behind and the performance of APFSDS for 120mm rifled gun barrels stagnated at a time where the greatest advancements were made elsewhere in the 1990s (M829A2+, DM43/53).

I understand why the path was chosen, but 120mm rifled has turned out to be a dead end, period - not because it is inherently inferior, but simply as a consequence of insufficient demand to upkeep a relevant part of the industrial production capacity and the corresponding development capability.

[Ssnake]

Diesel/Kerosine may be incompressible...

When it comes to impact and detonation dynamics, they are decidedly NOT incompressible. Water can be compressed as well, at sufficient pressures. These conditions exist in the vicinity of a penetrator contact zone.

Not that Steel Beasts would perform an analytically correct hydrocode/FEM calculation on each impact.

[GSprocket]

Challenger followed on from Chieftain, which presumably was the donor project for ammunition stockpiles.

Conqueror was a much earlier and less numerous project (Heavy tank, alongside Centurion "Medium"), while Chieftain was the main battle tank of the 1970s/1980s.

[Tjay]

An other piece of tire damaged some electric components of the landing gear.

Fire could had been set by the engine and/or the damaged electric components.

Well, the official accident report says the fire was caused by leaking fuel being ignited by the engine exhaust. This was initially aft of the wing in free air, and there were no fire warning lights as fire the was purely external. But the low airspeed allowed the flame front to move forward in the leaking fuel flow causing hot air to be ingested by the engines on that side via the auxiliary 'blow in' air intake doors in the bottom of the nacelles. This caused at least one engine (IIRC) to automatically shut down. It (they?) then auto-restarted, but as soon as it did, it ingested more hot air and again shut down. The resulting lack of thrust, plus the crews' inability to retract the damaged undercarriage to reduce drag eventually caused the aircraft to stall and crash.

[Charlie0A]

IMO, the British MoD made a fatal mistake when it settled on the rifled 120mm gun design for the Challengers. In the short run it may have appeared as a smart decision because of the existing ammo stockpile that was acquired for the Conqueror (which already had a 120mm rifled gun). And it was probably done in the expectation that the Challenger would be exported, and based on higher (projected) numbers of vehicles in use the greater demand for training (live) rounds would finance ongoing ammunition development. Alas, that's not what happened, and as a consequence Royal Ordnance was disbanded and ammo research and development atrophied. In return, the overall design simply fell behind and the performance of APFSDS for 120mm rifled gun barrels stagnated at a time where the greatest advancements were made elsewhere in the 1990s (M829A2+, DM43/53).

I understand why the path was chosen, but 120mm rifled has turned out to be a dead end, period - not because it is inherently inferior, but simply as a consequence of insufficient demand to upkeep a relevant part of the industrial production capacity and the corresponding development capability.

Thanks Ssnake...I understand the main reason was that HESH requires spin to arm, and was considered more effective than HEAT due to increased use against bunkers, infantry, structures etc. Plus the stockpiles and RO export success (think 105 - very well taken up worldwide and so on). Of course this all changed and UK ended up on the end of a different branch of (solo) development.

I did note though on one thread that someone was quoting a length of 30mm or so for the L27/28/29. Also quoting a gun of 30 calibres, I think confused by the L("Land")30 designation. It is of course 55 calibres long (which more than offsets the minor rifling pressure loss when compared to the 30 calibre long smoothbore on Leo 2A4 and M1A1 IIRC?) and the penetrator goes the full length of the round, so about 650mm.

However happy to stand corrected! What I'm currently enjoying are scenarios where I fight through ammo quite fast and end up firing Smoke at T-90s, which on a few occasions has still ruined the little AI crew's day in terms of tracks and sights...plus it looks darn good. Congrats again on building the leading platform-based sim bar none (which came up in a business meeting today too - but I'll email you about that).

[Damian90]

compared to the 30 calibre long smoothbore on Leo 2A4 and M1A1

Both Rh120 (Leopard 2) and M256 (M1A1/A2) are 44 calliber long.