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.

 

British Challenger 2

page: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
HowlrunnerIV, I've just given you a widdle, bwight star - only because of what you said about the HUMVEE.

Just kidding. I would agree with most of what you said about tanks and their design but, there are a few things that people don't know about the Mk IV and Tiger 1s.

The Mk IV boasted the world's first powered turret and also the main gun - a 75 mm KwK L/34.5 [short barrelled] fired the new 'Triebspiegelgeschoss' or discarding sabot round.

For reasons best known only to the Waffenampt, only about 20 of these fine tanks were ever produced and they spent the rest of the war as testbeds whilst the 'Triebspiegelgeschoss' round was never fully developed.

(Imagine what would have happened if the APDS round had become the main tank ammunition throughout all calibres!)

My 2nd point is that Tiger 1s could be fired on the move - very much like the Panthers.

That was the whole point of the complicated torsion bar suspension system, to allow the gunner to fire the main armament whilst on the move - albeit at speeds of up to 5 kph on 'flat ground', something the allied tanks were believed unable to do.




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
eh tanks in WW2 all were kind of useless when firing on the move.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Wrong post...

[edit on 2/1/2008 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chinawhite
 


Introduction of range-finding that didn't involve navy-style shot correction, ie with range-finding co-axial?

Smoothe-bore? So what. UK has specifically not introduced or used smoothe-bore and Chieftain's 120mm rifled gun was the then most-powerful in the world.

Soviet composite armour? When, what composition, which tanks?

Cast turrets...and? Let's look at the tank as a whole. Plus, cast turrets were before the Centurion.

JS3 (T10), yes, again, so what. I have compared it. Centurion still beats it. Smaller, more useful, higher velocity gun (17, then 20 pounder, finally 105mm), similar armour, greater range, stabilised gun.

Centurion: 152mm front armour. 17/20 pounder then 105mm gun. 52 tonnes. 34kph, 450 km.
Iosef Stalin 3: 160mm front armour. 122mm gun. 46 tonnes. 37kph, 240km.

Fritz: thanks, I'll put on the front of my exercise book!

Trunnion pull on a Tiger made firing on the move a bad idea if you wanted to take another shot relatively quickly. A bit like the idiots who play snipers in movies and then "unshoulder" their weapon to work the bolt and then re-shoulder and take aim again. First-shot accuracy wasn't that great to begin with, rocking your tank around on its tracks really didn't help matters.

Pzkpfw IV had a powered turret, yes. And sabot. While the Brits were working with tungsten-carbide cores and hardened caps and God-knows what other innovations to try and make the 6lb-er (57mm) useful. British Sabot being issued for 6lb ATGs for use in Normandy and 17lb getting theirs in time for a trip up the Lower Rhine.

I suspect the German "boot" was under-developed because the Germans already understood (and used so very well) shaped-charges. Although given the number of expensive dead-ends they pursued in other areas, that argument looks a little leaky...Of course, the Germans were also using the highly successful, but only slightly wearing, "squeeze-pak" anti-tank guns to give normal rounds higher velocity and busy having fun inventing the recoilless rifle...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

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

I have compared it. Centurion still beats it. Smaller, more useful, higher velocity gun (17, then 20 pounder, finally 105mm), similar amour, greater range, stabilized gun.

The IS-3 is a MUCH SMALLER tank. It is 6.67 x 3.20 x 2.44 which is a lot shorter, thiner and is a FULL half a meter shorter than the centurion

How many roles was the Centurion developed into during WW2?

Higher velocity? A 122mm shell does not need a lot of velocity and would had whatever the 85mm 20 pounder had in weight


The IS-3 had A LOT more amour than the centurion. It had 200mm as a maximum while the centurion had 152mm as a maximum which i assume was on the gun mantle. It also was MUCH MORE sloped which equates to more amour.

Stabilized gun?. You think either tank could fire on the move on anything but pristine road conditions

The IS-3 was also faster and had a MUCH lower profile which allows less of it self to be shown when firing its weapon



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
The british Royal Ordnance L7 is still in use today and the basica design will be 50 years old next year! -the US army still use on the stryker mobile gun system and the german leo 1 uses it.

But the brits are testing the L55 (as used on the lero 2a6) and tungsten load - there are rumours that the brits want to get rid of DU rounds - but ofc still love HESH - which is so effective


one question:

does this chally 2 have ERA on it?

www.combat-diaries.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin[/url]

No my friend, I'm afraid not. Chobham is now outdated and although there are not many atgw or rpg warheads that can penetrate it, we Brits fealt it was time to move on.

Chally 2 has the 'new' composite armour Dorchester.

If you care to trawl through this link from the beginning, you'll find my post about Dorchester armour.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
i know about dorchester


i have heard that dorchester + ERA is called Dorchester L3 , and after a bit of research , that picture i posted IS of a challenger 2 with ERA.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Okay, CW, this isn't all criticising you. Simply pointing out where you haven't fully understood my meaning.


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.


It *may* have been. I specifically used the example of the calibrated co-axial ranging machine-gun. Which was a far more accurate method than artillery-style prisms. And therefore gave a far higher first-shot accuracy.


Having one example of a "range finder" does not equate to "led[ing] tank design".


No. It is just one example among others that could be quoted.


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


Examples which can be disputed. And which are disputed by me. As shown. Armour cavities are nothing more than spaced/applique armour fitted in the factory from the design. The Brits were the first to use applique armour, improvising it in North Africa. Everybody cast their turrets by the end of WW2. I specifically said "since the introduction of the Centurion." That means AFTER WW2. Since WW2 the British have consistently produced the world's top-performing tanks. Always with indigenous innovations.



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


I wasn't aksing if it's true that the Soviets started "the trend". I was saying "Smoothe-bore? So what" The same as I would about Abrams and turbines. "Gas turbine? 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 the M1 Abrams mounted the same gun on introduction in 1978. When the Brits had already put the 120mm on Chieftain 11 years earlier.

1968. Cheiftain: 120mm rifled tank gun with combustible ammo and human loader.
T64: 125mm smoothe-bore with auto loader and solid-case ammo.

The Brits have never gone the smoothe-bore or auto-loading route, because both "innovations" give lesser performance. These innovations therefore do not "lead" tank design. Especially when the tanks that use them are less-capable than the British tanks.



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


Care to give a reference to this? Perhaps the biggest problem is that every time Soviet tanks have seen combat against western tanks they have been destroyed en masse. It could be that it's down to crew skills, but it doesn't look too good. Again, reference?

-> It may, indeed, be that the Soviets introduced composite armour first. But air-spaces don't really make armour composite, just spaced. Plus, if what you're talking about is fibreglass, then I wouldn't call it much of an innovation. As in, not a massive increase in protection. Ceramics-based composites (al a Chobham) have been the world-standard since introduced by the Brits.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
eh the IS tank series were breakthrough tanks. Not designed with AT combat primairly in mind but being able to shatter and breakthrough heavy infantry defences aswell.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

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 applaud for your honest national pride. Alas, these statements are not entirely true. While without a doubt one of the leading figures of tank technology, the UK has lost its edge 30 years ago.

The MBT70 had very little "problems". The main conflict arose from the far too high and conflicting expectations, resulting cost overruns and rivalries between the german and american design team. And actually there were many design aspects, and newfound testing data, from the MBT70 that flew over into the Leopard 2 (and to a lesser extend the M1), namely the hull construction, the weight distribution, the engine and drive system, electronics etc. ...



...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.


Well, you may not see the smoothbore as an "innovation", though your own MoD seems to think the smoothbore is worth following. Yes, the L7 was an excellent gun in its day and still has its role, but the Leo1 mounted it as a cost- and time savings measure, while the M1 Abrams from the start only had it as a stopgap filler.

Yes, when Rheinmetall first developed the L44 gun it had little advantages over the existing british L11 - due to a completely new line of ammunition that still had to mature - which has happened since then. Fact is that every single western tank has adopted a smoothbore since the Leo2 pioneered the new gun. Fact is also that the rifled 120mm has unbearable deficiencies in operating pressure,barrel life and a slow shooting cycle thanks to the two-part ammunition, while the HESH is largely obsolete compared with newer multipurpose rounds - it is an anachronism for modern main battle tanks.

When the Challenger 1 appeared, years after the Leo2 and around the time of the M1A1 upgrade program (which finally made that tank useful), it already had large deficiencies in fire control and its propulsion. After all it took less than a decade until it was decided that a WHOLE NEW tank was needed, and the Challenger 2 still played catch with the other two premier western designs, as can also be seen in the Greek trials.

What are the CR2s features? Obviously the armor. Still, the credentials of the Dorchester stuff are mostly from hearsay, and even IF it has a decisive edge over other armor, thats about it, and there are enough new products in the work by others to assume that it won´t be the premier passive defence for long.
The tank´s other main improvements over the mediocre CR1 are a FCS which is a slightly improved version of that mounted on the M1A1 (which back then was already not quite as capable as the FCS on the Leo2), and improvements in sensory equipment which mainly came - TaDaa - from Thales and Sagem. The CR2E and the proposed midlife updates are even more reliant on foreign technology to enhance the electronics, the engine, drivetrain and armament.

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.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
leo2 was 1979 , challenger 1 was 1983 , abrams M1A1 was 1985



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

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



Wrong^^^^^^^


Introduction of cast turrets = (GERMAN)
Introduction of large caliber smooth bore cannons = (GERMAN)
Introduction of Composite amour = (GERMAN)

The most powerfull tank of ww2 was "King Tiger"

The Tiger was a heavy tank (55 tons) with a crew of five. It carried 84 rounds for its killer 88mm gun, and was also armed with two machine guns, one coaxial and one above the front hull, with almost 6000 rounds. It was slower than other tanks and had a road range of just 100km, which was an increasing problem as Germany's fuel supply was decimated towards the end of the war, but in the battlefield its firepower and protection were unmatched.
if germany built just a few more of these things may have been totaly diffrent,



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR[/url]

The 8 most powerful tanks or assault guns in the Second World War were:

1. From a German standpoint, it is a toss-up between the Sd Kfz 173 Jagdpanther armed with either an 8.8 cm Pak 43/3 or 43/4, or the Sd Kfz. 186 Jagdtiger with its 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/55 gun.

2. From the American viewpoint, I would guess that 'their' best tank would have to be the M26 Pershing. Although deemed a heavy tank by the US Army standards [some 42 tonnes] it still packed a respectable punch with its 90 mm gun.

3. The Russian tank forces had the best assault guns and infantry support tanks in the business. This is illustrated by ISU-152, so called because of its 152 mm gun-howitzer ML-20S and the IS-2s with their D25-T 122 mm main gun.

4. We Brits had the 17 Pdr armed Comet and about 120 Churchill Mk IVs with Sherman turrets mounting a 7.5 cm gun and not forgetting the Valentine Mk XI with its 75mm gun.

The Jagdpanther could hold its own against any of the above AFVs as could the Jagdtiger but the latter spent more times disabled through mechanical faults than enemy action.

I guess that I would favour the Jagdpanther - if only because it looks wierd.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The normal tiger was not that great of a Tank. The IS2 outmatched it in every area except rate of fire and optics. However when it was introduced it was indeed the 2nd most powerfull german tank and even the world. Number 1 being the panther. The panther continued to be the most powerfull german tank up till the koningstiger came which imho was the last thing the germans needed.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


The MOD is going to fit roughly 100 C2's with the smooth bore, simply for the reason of logistics(same ammunition as every one else).
HESH shells are devasting against against soft targets and buildings, they can aslo be fired further than sabots, they are out-dated though.
British army C2's were upgraded to at least the spec of the C2E at least 3 years ago, the C2's recieved improved sights, engine management system etc...
Dorchester armour is at the moment the best armour a tank could get, although active defences will be the next thing, have you also heard of "electric armour"???
Also the trials that Challengers entered, where people claim the C1,2 to be a failure!! The C1,2 only lost out by a few seconds on each trial.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the C2 used to use the same FCS as M1a2, and the fact that the FCS was Canadian.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


I thought the Chieftain looked a more modern generation of tank when compared to it's western rivals of the time and looks like the parent of current western tanks.

The UK has always seen the tank as a multi-purpose weapon and not just a tank killer which is one of the reasons why it has stayed with the rifled gun.

The reason the uk has lost out in europe has been it not going with NATO standard, the larger countries want there own tank programmes while the smaller countries want standard NATO.

As for the middles east the US give so much $$ for military aid to middle east contries which can only be spent on US equipment it makes it hard to sell there, and of course some of the former buyers stopped be friendly nations.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Lonestar24, hi there, how are you.


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.


Nicely put.

Even better, here’s a historical FACT.

During WWII joint ally victory parade in Berlin, Stalin reserved the very last place for previously unseen IS3.

Stalin planned the unveiling this way, and when the IS3s were rumbling past the tribune, Roosevelt said to stunned Churchill, “Don’t worry, we’re still your allies”.

This is what they saw;

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

IS-3 web site, lots of pics;

www.peachmountain.com...

Actually, I’ve seem to remembered a BBC program which showed a few good English lads restoring a Comet tank, or what they called the best British tank of the WWII, and they were actually the ones that mentioned that Berlin military parade and how IS-3 made all other tanks obsolete in one day.

They did a bang up job restoring that Comet, it was an absolute beaute!

Cheers!

p.s.


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.


www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml

Some more right here;


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.


mdb.cast.ru...

Yes, naturally, since its “Moscow Defense Brief” it HAS to be a pack of lies, so here’s another source, something like “Janes Intelligence Briefs”;


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.


Wow, what a way to describe a “vulnerability”, it’s something of an itch, not a big deal at all, it’s just RPG-7s breach A1 and A2s, that’s all, and some “medium caliber” fire destroy and set APUs on fire. Not a big deal.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
They were not rpg 7`s they were rpg-29`s - the same ones that are / were busting open merk 4`s in west bank/gaza



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join