British Challenger 2

Originally posted by Lucretius

Originally posted by rogue1

The Abrams also clocked several kills over 4 km. I'm sure it was only a question that they were closer when they decided to blow away the tanks.
\

The challenger 1 regularly engaged iraqi t-72's at ranges in excess of 5.1km

Well, it must have only scored 1 hit as 5.1km was the longest kill, therefore every other shot missed, I'd hardly call that superior gunnery

Originally posted by Harlequin
`rouge 1` - unforunately your wrong - the armour employed on the M1A1/2 is a variant of the british chobham , but with added plates , its not `interwoven` as you put it.

BUT , there is concern over the use of DU in the armour - attempts are being made to try and get chobham 2.

I stand corrected, however the DU plates are encased within the steel armour not bolted on as Lucretius said.
I came across another intersting article where it staes that early Abrams used Clobham but this was discarded for the steel encased DU.

It seems that US armour R&D is mostly concentrated in areas such as nanotechnology and ceramics. No doubt there will be some type of breakthrough in the next few years, considering the current climate.

FRITZ quoted.....

Spacemonkey - APFSDS-T = Tracer or Training round. Not tungsten.

Actually its not a training round it is Tungsten. Why would you equip a tank in a warzone with a training round.......???

[edit on 24-3-2005 by spacemunkey]

Originally posted by rogue1


Well, it must have only scored 1 hit as 5.1km was the longest kill, therefore every other shot missed, I'd hardly call that superior gunnery

Nice comeback ... your right that would be the longest recorded kill ever, but than again the L30 is a very nice gun.

Shame it is incompatible with standard NATO rounds

Originally posted by rogue1


I stand corrected, however the DU plates are encased within the steel armour not bolted on as Lucretius said.
I came across another intersting article where it staes that early Abrams used Clobham but this was discarded for the steel encased DU.

It seems that US armour R&D is mostly concentrated in areas such as nanotechnology and ceramics. No doubt there will be some type of breakthrough in the next few years, considering the current climate.

It's hard to explain... the DU plates are not bolted onto the exterior... but function as "add-on" plates within the armour... They are fitted internally to protect the crew from ammunition explosions and rear penetration.

They actually do not guard the tanks sensitive systems... and they are indeed solid plates of DU... not "interwoven"

The Army made the decision for a new tank series in 1972 and awarded developmental contracts in 1973. The first prototypes of the M1, known as the XM1, reached the testing stage in 1976, and the tank began to arrive in battalions in February 1980. The M1 enjoyed a low silhouette and a very high speed, thanks to an unfortunately voracious gas turbine engine. Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor) resolved the problem of protection versus mobility. A sophisticated fire control system provided main gun stabilization for shooting on the move and a precise laser range finder, thermal-imaging night sights, and a digital ballistic computer solved the gunnery problem, thus maximizing the utility of the 105-mm. main gun.

DU plates were added afterwards

www.globalsecurity.org...

I would have to add that in terms of Nano-technology, the chinese are currently the world leaders as it formed the backbone of their government funded scientific reasearch for the past 2 decades.

Chobham armour is ceramic... so maybe the US is looking into developing it's own variant of chobham?... i'm not sure how much of the tech Britain sold the US

[edit on 24-3-2005 by Lucretius]

Chobam dorchester armour is reactive(C4 inside detonates to deflect blast upon penetration) ceramic armour.

Originally posted by spacemunkey
FRITZ quoted.....

Spacemonkey - APFSDS-T = Tracer or Training round. Not tungsten.

Actually its not a training round it is Tungsten. Why would you equip a tank in a warzone with a training round.......???

Actually it is Tracer. Stop thinking logically and look it up.

APFSDS-T = Armour Piercing, Fin-Stabilised, Discarding Sabot - Tracer

And in Saudi the commanders probably thought it was a good idea if their gunners got a little practice in before they crossed the line. And practice is achieved with inexpensive training rounds, not expensive warshots.

Logistics departments don't classify equipment by its chemical composition. They classify it by what it does.

Why else would the Americans have coined the phrase "Rotary-Wing Air Assets"?

Originally posted by spacemunkey
FRITZ quoted.....

Spacemonkey - APFSDS-T = Tracer or Training round. Not tungsten.

Actually its not a training round it is Tungsten. Why would you equip a tank in a warzone with a training round.......???

[edit on 24-3-2005 by spacemunkey]

My original post was, and is correct, as other posters have said.

However, you need to understand the difference between warshots and training rounds.

APFSDS(T) warshots are superior rounds, produced to the highest possible specs and I can only illustrate this by drawing your attention to the difference between standard rifle ammunition and that issued to snipers. One is superior to others.

The APFSDS(T) rounds used by Chally 2, according to my friends who crew them, are rounds that have a DU tipped dart that in turn, has a Tracer element on them, giving the gunner a fall of shot reference.

APFSDS(T) Training rounds are Tungsten rounds with the same trace element. These will penetrate the static rusting hulks or moving target plates found on Battle Runs on the gunnery ranges at Lulworth Cove, Dorset; SPTA and Castle Martin Ranges in Wales.

If you reside in the UK, I respectfully suggest you go there and have a look during the open days when members of the public are encouraged to view battle runs.

as far as i'm aware the challenger2 is the best tank availible...that is what was said when it first came into service in 1998.

Originally posted by Sepiroth
as far as i'm aware the challenger2 is the best tank availible...that is what was said when it first came into service in 1998.

I would agree, but I'm biased

Basically, it's a toss up between the Chally 2, the Leopard 2 and the M1A2.. You might be able to include the new Russian Black Eagle, but I don't know enough about that one to comment to be honest.

Originally posted by Sepiroth
as far as i'm aware the challenger2 is the best tank availible...that is what was said when it first came into service in 1998.

In terms of armor yes but in armnament no.They still use rifled guns which are obsolete for tanks and can only stabalize rounds of a certain size.But soon that problem will be solved once the Chally gets its new smoothbore gun.

The US is already replacing the M1A1 and we have a working prototype already. Its a 2 manned stealth tank which auto loads and you sit in it on the front of the tank, not in the turret.

Originally posted by wildcat
The US is already replacing the M1A1

Yes, it's called the M1A2...

Originally posted by wildcat
we have a working prototype already. Its a 2 manned stealth tank which auto loads and you sit in it on the front of the tank, not in the turret.

An autoloader? Have fun...

[edit on 27/10/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by wildcat
The US is already replacing the M1A1 and we have a working prototype already. Its a 2 manned stealth tank which auto loads and you sit in it on the front of the tank, not in the turret.

Never heard of it. Link up where you heard or seen of it.

I'm sorry to say but I heard it from a friend who does not have a membership on this site. I don't know where he got the information. We were talking about what's going to be the future weapons of the USA and it carried on to that tank. I don't know the name of it sorry.

Heres some more info on the Challenger 2
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 27-10-2006 by wildcat]

@ wildcat

no offence dude, but if my mate says he's been kidnapped by aliens before..doesn't mean he as

(summary) EVIDENCE,

i have no doubts the US is always looking at ways to improve on its military equipment, but so are other nations.


[edit on 27-10-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
@ wildcat

no offence dude, but if my mate says he's been kidnapped by aliens before..doesn't mean he as

(summary) EVIDENCE,

i have no doubts the US is always looking at ways to improve on its military equipment, but so are other nations.


[edit on 27-10-2006 by st3ve_o]

We talked about that in 2003 right after graduation. Now we go to different colleges. No offence also but do you think it's easy to contact someone who spends his day studying and does sports? Also he does not have a cell phone so I can't get him by that either.

Originally posted by stumason
Basically, it's a toss up between the Chally 2, the Leopard 2 and the M1A2.

I agree, basically with similar trained crews and technology one on one it would be 50/50. But that's ok in order to fix that the US has more A2's and SEP's combined than Challenger II's and Lepoard 2's, that's without counting the M1A1's.

Originally posted by wildcat
The US is already replacing the M1A1 and we have a working prototype already. Its a 2 manned stealth tank which auto loads and you sit in it on the front of the tank, not in the turret.

According to all the websites I have seen, and a couple of Forums like this site, the US/UK joint venture has been dead for over a year, with the US leaving about $4.5M for the research to be continued by the UK.

I did see a short film of a futuristic polycarbonate 135mm armed tank, whilst on a course at the Royal Armoured Corps Training Centre at Bovington in Dorset. But whether it is this vehicle you refer to, I have no idea.

It was indeed a two man tank that sat very low on the ground, giving it a silhouette similar to, or lower than modern Russian MBTs, looked to be quite wide, was manufactured with sloping sides to the turret and gun barrel too, was of a diamond sleeved construction, with the fume extractor and MRS at the muzzle.

It was manufactured in a very dark green/black camouflage pattern, with the green highlighting the naturally darkened areas such as road wheels, underneath the turret and bustle.

I'm not too sure what the powerpack was, but this tank was very, very quiet. The exhaust vents were [surprisingly] on top of what appeared to be the engine deck, rather than being mounted on the side and rear of the fuselage.

That's all I can remember about this vehicle and to be honest, I cannot even remember it's name.