British Challenger 2

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
HEAT is acceptable, HESH is better.

That is why all major demolition rockets are HEAT?.

Demolition rockets? Don't you mean AT rockets used in demolition? As in RPG7-type weapons (and Milans etc)...

Hellfire, RPG etc.

Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT (shaped charges with a copper sheet etc)

HESH might be good for a few purposes

Such as anti-tank/AFV, anti-blockhouse/bunker/building etc.

but its mostly outdated and abandoned by most militaries except for the British.

Define outdated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These new ammo types you're referencing do not necessarily give superior performance in these situations.

Even countries still with L7s have HEAT warheads instead of HESH simply because it offers better performance

Not exaclty, no. Where are they buying their ammo?

Of the three Arab/Israeli wars, the Arabs were the agressors in two.

So they should have accepted the artificial creation of a state they did not recognise? I would more or less call it re-occupying area that they owned. I wouldn't call it aggression, it was western countries medaling with their business.

Suggest you read the history of the creation of Israel much more carefully. It was not "Western countries".

(Israel is not "battle-hardened" and "warlike", it is professional.)

Each world is interchangeable for this definition

No, it isn't. The Soviet Union (and the Red Army) was "battle hardened", didn't do the Sovs much good in Afghanistan, or the Russians in Chechnya. Professionalism is a very different thing. Many Egyptian troops in Sinai were veterans of Yemen. The meanings are very different.

And their surprise attack had nothing to do with it?. How about no air cover while the israeli air force bombards tanks in the open desert?

Ah, now then, certain "specifics". On this point I have to go off-topic and ask how stupid Nasser was for first picking the fight and then turning around and bending over with his pants down. I again return your eyes to the fact that I was talking about "suggestions". As in "the evidence suggests".

You said the 20 pounder was more versatile gun

No. I did not.

"Smaller, more useful, higher velocity gun"
"Smaller is in reference to the gun. Smaller gun. More useful gun. Higher velocity gun."

I did not use the word "versatile". "versatile" and "useful" CAN mean the same thing. They do not always mean the same thing. "useful" can also refer to "usability", among other things.

Did the 20 pounder play the role as a troop carrier...guess not

No, the Brits (and Yanks) had APCs for that. So, now you want the troops to ride around on all that "safe" deisel you were talking about? I specifically didn't mention this before, instead placing the troops in proximity to the tank. (or did that post get lost? I'm sure I've typed this and versatile/useful twice today) If it did, what I typed was this: deisel may not explode, but it does burn. Nasty to the accompanying infantry (which we both know often rode into battle on the tank). Plus: deisel produces more, darker smoke than petrol. Meaning that if it's burning on the back of your tank you have less visibility of your opponent. He, on the other hand, can see just fine where you are.

All it proves is the British proved more "adaptable" to circumstances.

If the Soviets were put in the same situation, they wouldn't have had similar solutions?. Maybe the Soviets didn't adapt because they didn't need to

If, if, if. But they weren't. The Brits were. They rose to the occasion (the Yanks did not, but they did give the Marines a heck of an amphibious APC, which they didn't use in D-Day ). But that doesn't change the fact that "variants" were your argument, not mine. Variants do not make the tank.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You never, EVER leave an enemy formation behind and simply go around it.

Blitzkrieg

I meant the armoured would cut the enemy off and the infantry will mop up. My sentence was in reference to armoured forces going into a wooded area

Plus, what where the Soviets going to completely destroy them with.

I wanted to make this point earlier but it was irrelevant to the tank vs tank discussion.

The Soviets used their armoured forces as modern day caverly. Firstly, they would send their mechanized diversions try break through the frontline and cut their forces into little pockets which they would encircle by using their greater mobility to cut off the escape. Call the artillery in to bombard the pockets of resistance until it is deemed ready and then finally send their armour in.

Soviet tanks wont meant to engage in tank vs tank until the opposition had been weakened

However, what I have visions of is masses of Soviet armour effectively bottle-necking and giving the combined airforces of NATO wonderful target practice.

If your talking about anywhere from 1945-1960, I believe the Soviets would have lost any war in europe. I reckon that from 1960-85 was the real time the Soviets had the upper hand in europe. By that time it recovered from WW2 and established a firm logistic base for war. The airforces would be roughly comparable and the Americans had no such organization and forces stationed to counter them

(Say, there's a nice thread, want to start it?)

I dont have the time, but i recommend Key Forum Aviation perhaps

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT

They might have begun development as AT weapons but the purpose they share in the military is basically a demolition rocket which is what I call them. How much more times has the RPG-7 been used on buildings and people instead of tanks. How much tanks does the hell-fire have to its name compared to people and buildings like what israel does.

Though they started off as AT weapons they are more useful elsewhere

Suggest you read the history of the creation of Israel much more carefully. It was not "Western countries".

I know it was the UN but look at this list of nations which were either western in nature or whos government was being fed by the "arsenal of democracy"


There is a map on the bottom which is in my book is the western world or at that time western influenced as colonies and charities
en.wikipedia.org...

If, if, if. But they weren't.

What do you mean thy wont. If they were put in the same position they would have. They were panning their own amphibious invasion of Japan

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT

They might have begun development as AT weapons but the purpose they share in the military is basically a demolition rocket which is what I call them. How much more times has the RPG-7 been used on buildings and people instead of tanks. How much tanks does the hell-fire have to its name compared to people and buildings like what israel does.

Though they started off as AT weapons they are more useful elsewhere

Have they changed the warhead? Or is it still a shaped charge with a copper sheet? If so then it is HEAT, not demolition. Doesn't matter if it has been used against buildings, that's not "demolition". Demolition is the "bringing down" of a building/structure (even in the military! But not always). "Busting it open" is a different matter. "Demolition charges" destroy whole buildings, they don't put nice little holes in them.

On that subject, the "spalling" caused by HESH is what makes it more effective than HEAT when used against concrete/rock/masonry. Heat will punch a hole in it (and cause a certain amount of blast/shrapnel), but HESH will create more widespread damage inside. Simple HE will spread the structure over the whole area. Military combat demolition charges are HESH.

(on that note, I love how Taliban/insurgents etc everywhere love posing with RPG tubes. Personally I'm more afraid of the man with an assault rifle, because he can kill men in a wide area quickly, his mate with the one-shot shaped-charge rocket projectile grenade cannot.)

I'd like to point out that Centurion and Chieftan were both the best tanks of their days, although the Chieftan was prone to engine failure.
I'd like to point out another fact, to the person who said the British military is third rate, China i think. If the British military is third rate??? Why do they spend the 2nd most amount of on their miliatry in the world???
Another fact is the Challenger2 is the best tank in the world, the only thing that has let it down is the price of the thing!!! A whopping £5 million, an abrams cost $4million.
I'd like to point out that an Abrams isn't capable of KO'ing a tank at the range of a Challenger due not being able to fire HESH rounds, which can be fired significantly further than HEAT/Sabot.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
HEAT is acceptable, HESH is better.

That is why all major demolition rockets are HEAT?.

Demolition rockets? Don't you mean AT rockets used in demolition? As in RPG7-type weapons (and Milans etc)...

Hellfire, RPG etc.

Exactly. These are not demolition rockets. They are AT weapons. Which is why they are HEAT (shaped charges with a copper sheet etc)

There are a number of demolition weapons that use the HEAT principle or one of its many derivatives to combat fortifications. For example the "Bunkerfaust" warhead for the popular Panzerfaust 3.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by chinawhiteHESH might be good for a few purposes

Such as anti-tank/AFV, anti-blockhouse/bunker/building etc.

but its mostly outdated and abandoned by most militaries except for the British.

Define outdated. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. These new ammo types you're referencing do not necessarily give superior performance in these situations.

Sorry, but for anti armor work the HESH is certainly outdated. Every halfway modern armored vehicle (that means 1975+) has spaced armour or spall liners. Additionally the HESH effect can be erased by even the simplest ERA, or even a layer of backpacks on the outside of a vehicle.

Modern multipurpose HEAT warheads also offer a lot of different applications for the shaped charge principle, there is a multitude of possibilities in fuzing, size, construction, material choice etc. Also many multi purpose warheads, especially for tanks, offer increased antipersonnel/area effect capabilities ...especially the advances in fuzing can even change the characteristics of the warhead "on the fly".

The HESH however can only be one thing - a lump of explosives that may be able to bring a house down. Well, sometimes you don´t want to bring the whole building down, just one or two wellplaced hits.

And now we´re coming to the question of it being outdated. The basic principle of the HESH is, of course, still sound, in being sort of a shaped explosive. The problem is that you can´t use it against serious armored threats anymore, its antipersonnel capability is lacking, its technological growth potential nearly maximized. That means its not a satisfying companion to the KE penetrators with their extremely limited scope of use.

reply to post by Lonestar24


The quote strings are starting to get pretty long and we're definitely off the topic of the Challenger 2 v Abrams...

Not all armoured vehicles have spaced armour and/or spall liners. Yes, these two simple things make HESH far less effective (and in combination can virtually stop it dead), but against any non-4th Gen (counting from WW2) tank it is still effective enough to remain in the arsenal. Against these targets, well, that's why you have boots and spikes for the big tracks and tandem charge HEAT for the grunts. I think we all know that.
But the spacing that defeats HESH was designed to combat HEAT and the ERA that defeats HESH was designed for HEAT. In fact, except for the kevlar, most of the things that defeat HESH were specifically designed as a response to shoulder-launched shaped charges.

Kevlar is specifically anti-spalling. Whether caused by HEAT, HESH or 20/30mm interior ricochets.

But if you're facing off against a second or third world armoured force driving "clean" AFVs (such as Saladin, M113, BMP etc for the infantry and CW's "monkey tanks" or even Western models of RHA), then HESH is still just fine and certainly more "cost-effective" than firing off penetrators or fancy new tandem charge HEAT rounds.

Weapons are expensive toys, I seem to recall some minor controversy when US lawmakers complained about the uses Hellfire was put to in '91 against targets that were cheaper than the rocket used to destroy them.

As I said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I wouldn't choose HESH for anti-personnel operations, unless they were behind something. I wouldn't immediately go for HEAT, either. For that purpose I'd want canister shot.

When it comes to bang for the buck, HESH is way cheaper and still comparably effective in enough applications to remain on the books.

(sidebar - as the laser rangefinder, targeting and fire-control systems of major AFVs improve, how much do they raise the effectiveness of "outdated" munitions? Before a hit was a hit, you were happy if you got the target, now you can virtually choose where that hit goes. Turret, tracks, turret ring etc...)

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

The quote strings are starting to get pretty long and we're definitely off the topic of the Challenger 2 v Abrams...

Is this including our discussion?

reply to post by MAVERICK05


When comparing the 3 best tanks (CR2, Abrams and Leo 2) You have to consider different factors mainly armour, main weapons and mobility in that order. While all 3 are comparable in all areas there are in fact some differences. CR2 is well know to be the best armoured tank in NATO followed closely by the Abrams and then Leo. The L55 on the Leo is the most lethal gun out of the 3 though it is not the most accurate. That is the L30 CR2s gun. The 2nd most lethal is the L44 on the Abrams.

They all use the 120mm caliber round and the differences between the guns are ammo lethality, projectile muzzle velocity and rifling with the CR2.
The Abrams is fastest off road followed by the Leo and then CR2 but the CR2 is the quickest off road due to its advanced hydro-gas suspension. Of road the 2nd quickest is the Leo and then the Abrams in 3rd. Both have older torsion bar suspension. In current capabilities they are very similar so we need another way to determine the best 1 on 1 beast.

The CR2 is about 15 years newer than both the others and is almost a newer generation of MBT. It has never been significantly upgraded like the others but CLIP will change that.
Only the Abrams and CR2 have seen extensive combat and both have performed better than any tank in history. We'll never know about the Leo on till the Germans remember how to fight war again. There are lots of other factors too but based on all that, I'll rank the CR2 1st with the Leo and Abrams tied in a very close 2nd.

When I think about Challenger 2, first thing I think of is this:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

single RPG-29 penetrated Challenger 2 frontally, and MoD tried to cover it up.

There were some speculation about Challenger 2 frontal armor on hull. The figure that usually surfaced was 1000 mm against HEAT, at the same time, RPG-29 has been estimated as 750 mm. This shows how much all those estimates are worth.

For Kornet, estimate is 1200 mm after ERA. What does it mean? How much does it really have against western tanks? Where will Kornet achieve penetration? front hull? front turret? how could we know after what RPG-29 did?

That civi rag report is wrong on nearly all levels.
The only parts that are correct are the witness statements from the incident report.
The CR2 was damaged because the old ERA only protected the front of the tank. The new passive armour has a lip that extends under neath the tank to increase mine/ied protection.
The 2 incidents of CR2 being breached were kept secret because both times the damage came through the belly of the tank(RPG bounced of the floor and exploded under CR2, and a 250lb bomb), it's not very safe reporting out to the world saying "CR2 HAS BEEN BREACHED THROUGH THE BELLY TWICE", you never ever tell your enemy your weaknesses..

Here is a pic of the armour that replaced the old 90's ERA package.
img142.imageshack.us...

Here is a pic of a RPG-7VL hit on a CR2, these RPG's are supposed to do 450-500mm of damage to steal.
profile.imageshack.us.../chall2rpger8.jpg

reply to post by Anonymous ATS[/url

I don't care what the Daily Telegraph, the radio or TV have said about this incident because, basically, the report is b*llocks!

The WOII who I worked with, was in the Battlegroup OPs Room on stag, when the reports came in.

The RPG 29 was indeed fired at a Chally II and it did indeed, penetrate the
tank.

The warhead struck the road directly in front of the advancing tank and 'bounced' off the road penetrating the underside of the tank -
IMMEDIATELY BELOW & TO THE REAR OF THE ARMOUR BELOW THE GLACIS PLATE!

In other words, the warhead penetrated the Chally II, in the less protected and less armoured area forward of the belly.

I have questioned my friend closely about this because he had to arrange recovery to the secure workshop at the BG's base, and saw at first hand, the damage done.