British Challenger 2

Originally posted by Harlequin
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

Sorry mate that the Abrams isn't as good as you thought.
Abrams are vulnerable to RPG-7, thats why the US developed t.u.s.k.
If an Abrams got hit by a RPG-29 i would feel very sorry for the crew, even C2 has recieved penetration by RPG-29, the bloody grenade bounced of the floor and hit underneath the glacis and penetrated the belly of the vehicle.

the whole thing about the chally 2 penetration was it had the 2 armour increases fitted

www.geocities.com...

the side and lower front armour boxes were fitted around 2002/2003 and the slat armour to the rear was fitted around 2006 ; now i`ve been told the lower front `boxes` are in fact ERA - but fritz does tell me otherwise.

and it wasn`t an RPG-7 it was an RPG-29


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


www.dailymail.co.uk...


even the very latest RPG-7V2 will only penetrate 500mm after ERA and since the chally has 1200mm RHA vs heat it won`t happen - but the RPG-29 has broken merk 4`s

www.defense-update.com...

thats a turret hit by an RPG-29.

reply to post by Harlequin

I think i may have mis-understood your post!!!
But any way the RPG-29(vampire) that hit the C2 didn't hit the armour.
It bounced of the ground about 10m away from the tank and hit the belly, penetrating the hull injuring the drivers leg.

reply to post by Harlequin

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

While PRG-29 tubes were found in bank/gaza, not a single tube has been recovered in Iraq.

Not a ONE, no pictures, no records, nothing to suggest that RPG-29s have been used by Iraqis.

If you have info I’m not aware of, please let me know, I’d like to see it.

erm the 2 links i have provided report that it was an rpg-29 that penetrated the challeneger 2, with testimonies from serving british soldiers.

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, made the most spectacular claim of Iranian culpability in arming the militias so far when he declared in an interview with USA Today on Wednesday, “We have weapons that we know through serial numbers…that trace back to Iran.” He referred specifically to RPG-29s -- armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades -- and truck-mounted Katyusha rockets captured in Iraq.

www.usatoday.com...

The number 2 in Iraq for the US forces stating there are RPG-29`s there - is that enough for you?

reply to post by Harlequin


Do you have problems reading???
No one has stated that the C2 didn't get penetrated by a RPG-29.
All i have done is stated how it happened.

reply to post by SKUNK2


apparantly you have a lack of basic english skills in comprehension - i was NOT replying to you so why did you jump in and stick both feet in your ovesized gob.

isknder wrote:

While PRG-29 tubes were found in bank/gaza, not a single tube has been recovered in Iraq.

Not a ONE, no pictures, no records, nothing to suggest that RPG-29s have been used by Iraqis.

he was wrong which is why i replied to him , with evidence that rpg29`s have been used in iraq.

reply to post by Harlequin

A new armor-busting rocket-propelled grenade believed to be of Iranian origin has shown up in Iraq in what may be "a hint about things to come," the commander of US forces in the Middle East said Tuesday. General John Abizaid said the weapon, an RPG-29, has a dual warhead and has proved effective against most types of armored vehicles.

"The first time we saw it was not in Iraq. We saw it in Lebanon. So to me it indicates, number one, an Iranian connection," he told defense reporters here.

"It's hard to say in our part of the world that we operate in as to whether or not people have given us a hint about things to come," he said.

He said only a single RPG-29 has turned up in Iraq so far, and it was unclear how it was smuggled into the country.

www.iraq-war.ru...

"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers … that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA TODAY.

Really, what are they?

On Tuesday, President Bush vowed to crack down on those who supply Iraqi insurgents with arms, though he denied any plans to invade Iran.

"We'll deal with it by finding their supply chains and their agents and … arresting them. … In other words, we're going to protect our troops," Bush told ABC News.

Most weapons supplied by Iran end up in the hands of Shiite extremists, Odierno said.

He said the weapons include:

•The RPG-29, a rocket-propelled grenade that can fire armor-piercing rounds. It is larger and more sophisticated than the RPG-7 more commonly found in Iraq.

www.usatoday.com...


So for all this time, the best accusation against Iran has been available to support Bushes war mongering, and to this day US media has been keeping silent about it?

I seem to recall “irrefutable” evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and was ready to attack America with them, and we all know how that bunch of blatant lies tuned out to play out.

Sorry, but until RPG-29 actually makes an APPERANCE on the Iraqi front, just “talk” about it being there is just that, talk.

I do see a LOT of video of Iraqis shooting of the same old 7s, while to this day not a single IMAGE exists which shows them firing a 29.

When serial numbers and hard evidence is produced or a see one fired on CNN, all this talk of Iran supplied “Vampires” is unsubstantiated propaganda, BY DEFAULT.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by iskander]

Originally posted by Lonestar24

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.

That's great. AGAIN I SAY I AM NOT BRITISH. in virtually every thread where I mention the UK people automatically assume I'm a Brit. Not a Pom, not a Jock, not a Paddy and not a Taff. NOT BRITISH.

As for 30 years ago...

The MBT70 had very little "problems".

Unless you think upchucking drivers are a good thing...gun tubes fouling are a good thing...

The main conflict arose from the far too high and conflicting expectations, resulting cost overruns and rivalries between the german and american design team.

Subsitute the word "requirements" for rivalries and you're getting there. None of which negates my point about overall packages produced.

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...

Erm, M1 runs Chobham armour, borrowed from UK. Except for Merkava, all MBTs run the same hull to engine layout. As I said, only Bofors went the turbine route and they've since stopped that.

...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.

Well of course mine does. They've just bought surplus M1s to replace the Leo 1s. They have their reasons (mostly cost), but there was quite a debate about whether it would be C1s, L2s or M1s.

Which doesn't change the fact that (as far as I'm aware) there are no plans to give the British cavalry shotguns.

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.

What you mean is Shillilagh-style gun/launchers were such a failure that you had to run back to the old gun because it was better. Not seeing much repudiation there...

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.

Again, doesn't undo my point.

Fact is that every single western tank has adopted a smoothbore since the Leo2 pioneered the new gun.

So. Dealt with smoothebore already.

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

Not fact. British tanks with human loaders and two-part ammo have consistenly fired faster than auto-loaders. British turrets do not get crowded with spent shells and British tanks do not need ejection ports.

while the HESH is largely obsolete compared with newer multipurpose rounds - it is an anachronism for modern main battle tanks.

Again, not true. Hesh is still the most versatile round available. Works against steel and concrete. Sabot doesn't do much against bunkers, except keep going out the other side. Again, the rest of the world needing years (or decades) to create a better round.

When the Challenger 1 appeared, years after the Leo2 and around the time of the M1A1 upgrade program (which finally made that tank useful)

First, your dates are wrong. Second, you've just admitted that M1 was not the be-all and end-all of design on introduction. Third, M1 was catching up with Chieftain and as seen M1's gun was from Centurion.

it already had large deficiencies in fire control and its propulsion.

Yes, because they went the NATO decided route of multi-fuel, while the US decided Lycoming was best. I wonder who would have had an easier time procuring fuel on the battlefields of Germany/Western Europe?...

After all it took less than a decade until it was decided that a WHOLE NEW tank was needed

You mean offered. There was no design requirement published.

and the Challenger 2 still played catch with the other two premier western designs, as can also be seen in the Greek trials.

Really, despite winning the gunnery competitions...Which ignores the fact that C1 advanced further with zero battle casualties in Desert Storm than M1 did and that the mechanical failures were returned to service in the field.

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.

That's the future...Which just proves my point about who got there first.

The tank´s other main improvements over the mediocre CR1

See combat service record

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),

Erm, already talked about that...

and improvements in sensory equipment which mainly came - TaDaa - from Thales and Sagem.

Ooh, Thales. They're French! So the French are leading Tank design then, because Thales Group are providing the Brits with some contract work...through Thales UK. Or maybe France can claim the credit for smokeles gunpowder and the Bushmaster APC because they just bought ADI...

So I ask, where has "the UK led" tank design? The exceptional Centurion was ahead of its time.

Thank you.

The Chieftain already sacrificed too much for its heavy armor and armament.

Only if you think surviving enemy rounds and hitting back are low on your list of requirements. See, there's my point right there, the Brits have created the best all-round packages since 1945. They've hit the hardest and could take the most punishment. Who cares about top speed? Nigel Mansell isn't going to be doing the driving (Mario Andretti for the Norte Americanos). If I want speed I'll drive a Scorpion. If I want to kill Soviet armour, I'll take a Cheiftain or Challenger.

CR1 and CR2 carried on many legacy deficiencies.

Like superior armour and gun?

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.

Yes, it's called economy of scale. They can't produce for the same low cost as the US because they aren't producing as many of them and they can't afford to specially discount them to sweeten other deals.

edits: quotes.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 8-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

reply to post by iskander


there has never ever been a `show of tv serial numbers` for anything so please dismiss that notion as quite frankly its very poor of you; the links you added are showing multiple officers stating the rpg-29 is being used - so why are you ignoring them? clear evidence provided by yourself!

deny ignorance.


you quite clearly put

`unsubstantiated propaganda, BY DEFAULT`

except that the evidence has been provided, and by yourself - the rpg7 videos more often than not are `stock footage` , no military on the planet will give out inteligence regarding weapon serial numbers.ever, and maybe you need to ask the insurgents about inviting CNN to film them blowing up an M1 with and rpg-29 so you get your footage

there are alot of rpg7`s - and by all the reports not a huge amount of rpg-29`s as most in the ME are being used against israel.

Originally posted by iskander
Lonestar24, hi there, how are you.

So I ask, where has "the UK led" tank design?

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”.

Why would that reassure Churchill? "Wow, the US, with weaker tanks than ours, are still our allies, yay!"

I guess Churchill was given to seeing the spirits of the departed...

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.

Alright! A group of blokes referred to their project as the best tank of WW2. Say, how often do people say "I'm restoring the second-best [insert item here]"?

So, it was they who said that IS3 was the best and instantly made all others obsolete in one day. So why did the western world use Centurions for decades to come and why weren't those Centurions positively destroyed by the T-series tanks? Tanks which had to be better because they were the replacements for the tank that had already made Centurion obsolete?

p.s.

It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[8]

There have been only three Challenger 2s damaged in combat

And one of them required a shot from another C2 to do it. The other two were hits to the floor. Neither of which destroyed the tank.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Harlequin

there has never ever been a `show of tv serial numbers` for anything so please dismiss that notion as quite frankly its very poor of you;

Serial number cataloguing is a practice which precedes TV technology, and was posted in newspapers.

Just of the top of my head, WWII confirmed fighter kills, sniper dog tag kills, U2 Spy Plane serial, Korea serials, Vietnam serial, the list is endless.

In every conflict any nation which is supposed to be neutral and is accused of illegally supplying arms to a third part has traditionally been met with the very weapons they exported presented with their serial numbers recorded for evidence.

I’m sorry that American (Western) news media is based on entertainment “check this out” “dazzle me” show quality, but this is not how it worked in the real world.

the links you added are showing multiple officers stating the rpg-29 is being used - so why are you ignoring them? clear evidence provided by yourself!

Quote me. General John Abizaid is retired by the way, thus the liability level is not the same as active personnel, and he can say what ever he wants with out getting US Army in hot water.

Again, as it stands, not a single RPG-29 has been recovered in Iraq, and until it happenes, its sheer rumors, speculations, etc.

whilst in ww2 and up to vietnam there might well have been daily updates - todays wars are fought not only on the battlefields but also on tv with teh control of information - so any `serial` numbers would be used for inteligence pruposes - have you noticed how little information about the events in iraq there really is? found a video of a graveyard full of dead M1 tanks - in numbers that haven`t been reported.

www.youtube.com...

snippets like this slip through to give a clearrt picture of what is going on.


in multiple threads you`ve given links , whilst you might not have extracted the quote yourself, the information has allready been presented by yourself - citing multiple sources over the use of the rpg-29 in iraq!


therefore using your very own information , the rpg-20 is being used in iraq in clear evidence - again supplied by you.


edit:

jane`s defence weekly did an op/ed piece again citing sources as to the extent that the rpg-29 has arrived in iraq -jane`s is quite probably the most respected publication in the industry, and i am a subscriber - its a hardcopy - none internet work.

[edit on 8/1/08 by Harlequin]

reply to post by Harlequin

in multiple threads you`ve given links , whilst you might not have extracted the quote yourself, the information has allready been presented by yourself - citing multiple sources over the use of the rpg-29 in iraq!

None of which were on the record, all unfertile speculations.

As I said earlier, please quote from the sources which I listed a single proof positive instance of RPG-29 use in Iraq.

therefore using your very own information , the rpg-20 is being used in iraq in clear evidence - again supplied by you.

Same as above, speculative assertions at best, not “clear evidence”.

jane`s defence weekly did an op/ed piece again citing sources as to the extent that the rpg-29 has arrived in iraq -jane`s is quite probably the most respected publication in the industry, and i am a subscriber - its a hardcopy - none internet work.

Harlequin, that’s a great idea! Scanner+photobucket=great ATS post! Let us have it!

If you don’t have a scanner, a digital camera set on “text” mode will be just as great and appreciated!

I’d like to read it a much as other ATS members!

Thanks in advance!

General John Abizaid was in command of US central command until March 16, 2007 and then retired.

And here is a link dated 6 months before he retired, where he says they found an RPG-29

www.spacewar.com...
Sep 19, 2006

And you reuse the launch tube so your not going find them lying around discarded.

And a link where they say 1 has been used.

Among American officials, concern over the purported Iranian, Syrian or Hezbollah role grew recently when an advanced antitank weapon, an RPG-29, was used against an American M-1 tank in Iraq.

www.nytimes.com...
Nov 28, 2006

And of course the 1 used on the Challenger II which has already been linked.

Edit:link was broke

[edit on 10-1-2008 by deckard83]

reply to post by deckard83


OK, let’s see;

He said only a single RPG-29 has turned up in Iraq so far, and it was unclear how it was smuggled into the country.

www.spacewar.com...

If they found one, where is it?

I remember then showing of sniper rifles that were taken from KIA Iraqis to lift troop morale, so where are the 29s?

And you reuse the launch tube so your not going find them lying around discarded.

Weapons are recovered from the field or weapon caches which are regularly discovered, because a LOT of people work specifically to find them.

And a link where they say 1 has been used.

It’s the same one, the one that so far no one actually seen;

“The first time we saw it was not in Iraq,” Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, told reporters in September. “We saw it in Lebanon. So to me, No. 1, it indicates an Iranian connection.”

www.nytimes.com... epage&adxnnlx=1200097432-gjjl0lCpvdJHWjs4FxxShQ

So once again, until there is a picture of a 29s launch tube (two parts) or a projectile is shown and proved to have been used by Iraqis, its just propaganda.

That’s what fact less statements are just that propaganda. ATS board established that in its infancy.

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by deckard83

 

And you reuse the launch tube so your not going find them lying around discarded.

Weapons are recovered from the field or weapon caches which are regularly discovered, because a LOT of people work specifically to find them.

Of course, but the chances of finding them is going to be a lot less than finding some of the thousands of RPG-7 since there are going to be a lot less RPG-29 there.

Even if the US/UK do release a photo of a RPG-29 tube and the remains of a shell it's not going to be proof enough. We'll have to wait until the iraq insurgents make a promo video of them shooting one at a M1

reply to post by deckard83

Even if the US/UK do release a photo of a RPG-29 tube and the remains of a shell it's not going to be proof enough.

Oh yes it will, because it will confirm that somebody in the chain is violating arms trade agreements, and that’s a big time Ace in the pocket, because it’s MONEY!

Current Russian arms contracts can be officially frozen pending investigation, etc and so on.

We'll have to wait until the iraq insurgents make a promo video of them shooting one at a M1

Getting RPG-29s to Iraq will be EXPENSIVE, and that means that 29 attacks will be video taped as proof of contract, just like they have been doing for years with IEDs, and if 29s were in Iraq, we would have seen the videos already when they are recycled as propaganda.

Originally posted by MAVERICK05
im not sure what to believe. is the british challenger 2 better than m1 a2 abrams that the us has? DO YOU REALLY THINK THE US WOULD LET ANOTHER COUNTRY HAVE THE MORE SUPERIOR VEHICLES? my answer is hell no.

We have the better army , what makes you think we dont have the better tanks?.............the British ( god bless em') have been in the war business for centuries along with the romans ..................Americans ...not so long ...but f@£$%^ me they catching up fast..........over powered and over fed.......... i LOVE the USA

but i can arguee all day

point is ............2 tanks on the same side?

Was busy and didn't have time to answer your post, hopefully will have enough time later

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
It *may* have been. I specifically used the example of the calibrated co-axial ranging machine-gun.

A machine gun range finder?

How does that equate to have increased capability in a tank engagement. I have no on-line source on this material but I believe that Germans first used on of those devices on a small caliber cannon. But it stands that the British did not first introduce range finders for their cannons and possibly not the first country to introduce range finder.

* The Ausf. F Panther had a stereoscopic rangefinder installed sometime in 1943-44 which I believe was the first stereoscopic rangefinder installed in a major vehicle

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

I would like some other examples instead of if and maybes

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.