It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Since the introduction of the Centurion, the UK has led tank design. At every step.
THE tank of WW2 was the Centurion.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Introduction of range-finding that didn't involve navy-style shot correction, ie with range-finding co-axial?
Smoothe-bore?
Soviet composite amour? When, what composition, which tanks?
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Introduction of range-finding that didn't involve navy-style shot correction, ie with range-finding co-axial?
I believe the M47 was the first tank to be equipped with a range finder.
Having one example of a "range finder" does not equate to "led[ing] tank design".
As shown by my examples, they soviets led design which other countries implemented such as smoothbore cannons, composite amour, cast/welded turrets which include armor cavities
Smoothe-bore?
Yes, they did start the trend which every MBT thereafter has adopted, apart from the British. I also believe they will also be adopting a smoothbore in the next generation tank. And the armament is the most essential item in a tank which the British did not adopt. They led the world in the design of the main armaments by this development which was followed by the adoption worldwide
Soviet composite amour? When, what composition, which tanks?
The T-64 was the first tank to have composite amour and they were on their new version/s before chobham amour was even introduced. Just because the British gave theirs a fancy code name does not mean they were first to deploy it
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Since the introduction of the Centurion, the UK has led tank design. At every step.
[...]
Since WW2 the British have consistently produced the world's top-performing tanks. Always with indigenous innovations.
[...]
As I said, the British were producing the best tanks in the world. Therefore they were leading tank design.
Look at the MBT70 project. So many innovations. And yet how many problems did the tank have? How many of those innovations made it into the M1 or the Leo 2?
You aren't "leading" tank design if your products are inferior to your competitors or enemies.
...I was saying "Smoothe-bore? So what"[...] I don't think either are an "innovation" worth following. I was pointing out that the British chose not to go down this road because they didn't see it as a "leading" innovation. Australia's Leo 1s (just retired) mounted Royal Ordnance L7 105mm guns, as fitted by the Germans (so did everyone else's Leo 1s.) The M60 mounted a US version of the same 105mm, because the Brits had already proven it, and the M1 Abrams mounted the same gun on introduction in 1978. When the Brits had already put the 120mm on Chieftain 11 years earlier.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Since the introduction of the Centurion, the UK has led tank design. At every step.
How so?
Introduction of cast turrets = Soviets
Introduction of large caliber smooth bore cannons = Soviets
Introduction of Composite amour = Soviets
THE tank of WW2 was the Centurion.
There were other tanks which had superior characteristics compared to the Centurion which would be comparable to "heavy tanks" of the era because of its weight and lack of speed.
Compare it to the IS-3 as a example which was also a tanked produced in WW2 but to late to see combat
So I ask, where has "the UK led" tank design? The exceptional Centurion was ahead of its time. The Chieftain already sacrificed too much for its heavy armor and armament. CR1 and CR2 carried on many legacy deficiencies. There is a reason why the british tank industry has lost every single european customer, and most of their traditional Middle Eastern customers as well.
MoD kept failure of best tank quiet
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:37pm BST 12/05/2007
One of the British Army's Challenger 2 tanks was pierced by an Iraqi insurgent missile more than eight months earlier than the Government has previously admitted.
Sean Chance before being wounded inside a Challenger
The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier's foot and injured several others.
The injured soldier's family has accused the Government of a cover-up and demanded to know why soldiers manning Challenger 2 tanks had not been warned of the failings with the tank's armour.
Protection
The Abrams tank armor system was not really put to the test during military operations in Iraq. There were virtually no reported hits on the highly protected frontal arc or on the “heavy” ballistic skirts; all tank losses to enemy fire were defeated from the top, side and rear. Iraqi soldiers had clearly familiarized themselves with the capabilities of American tanks during operation Desert Storm and avoided engaging them in direct battle. For example, there were no reported cases of anti-tank guide missiles (ATGM) being fired at any US army vehicle. At the same time, Iraqi resistance fighters, whose ranks were bolstered by scores of trained Iraqi soldiers, have clearly learned to exploit the vulnerabilities of the US systems. They managed to destroy up to 20 enemy tanks even with their antiquated light anti-tank weapons, mostly Soviet rocket-propelled grenades such as the RPG-7 or its Chinese and Egyptian variants, with rounds developed in the 1970s-early 1980s. The results of combat operations show that the side armor of the Abrams tank is completely inadequate to fire from light anti-tank weapons, including older generation weapons, making these tanks unsuitable for operations in built-up areas.
For example, in a widely-discussed incident, an M1 tank from the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division was hit and disabled during a routine patrol on 28 August 2003. The American press, deluded by its own reports of the “invulnerability” of the Abrams, claimed that some kind of “secret weapon” was responsible for the damage. In fact, published photographs clearly show that the offending weapon was none other than a simple RPG. The hollow-charged jet penetrated the side skirt and turret ring and continued into the crew compartment as it disintegrated before finally coming to rest after boring a cluster of craters 30-50 mm deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. The crew was lucky to have suffered only minor shrapnel wounds as the projectile passed through the gunner’s seatback and grazed his flak jacket. On April 2, 2003 an RPG attack from the side disabled another tank by penetrating the turret’s hydraulic drive.
The side protection of the M1 turret is also inadequate. On 7 April 2004 an anti-tank RPG penetrated the side of the turret resulting in serious wounds to two crew members. The top of the tank is equally vulnerable, and even the glacis was easily defeated by anti-tank weapons. For example, on April 10, 2004 a tank was hit on the right side of the glacis by an RPG fired from an overpass and destroyed. Additional measures designed to increase protection for the Abrams tank have showed mixed results. Halon firefighting gear has proven largely ineffective. Practically all secondary fires resulting from enemy fire, engine breakdown or overheating destroyed the tank completely. For example, the 7 April attack noted above ignited the tanker’s personal effects attached to the outside of the turret, and since the crew had abandoned the vehicle, the fire was left unchecked, while on 10 April, fuel leaked out of a damaged fuel tank and ignited. Externally stored items, including on one occasion an external auxiliary power unit (EAPU), caught fire on several occasions and led to catastrophic losses. On the other hand, the vulnerability caused by externally stored items only underlined the wisdom of storing ammunition in a separate compartment protected by blast doors, which contained fires and saved the crew when the main rounds ignited.
Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq
Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire.
Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.