A history of excellence: British tanks

Well Howlrunner, I am going to be even more pedantic. The difference is basically another EU v US 'thingy'.

We Brits used Imperial Measures tables whilst our somewhat wayward brothers and sisters in the US used the same measurements albeit on a smaller scale which later became loosely known as the US Standard.

Thus a Brit TON is equivalent to a EU Metric TONNE whereas the US TON or TONNE weighs slightly less than either.

Similarly, a Brit Imperial Gallon is approximately 20% more than it's American counterpart.

Here are some links:

www.onlineconversion.com... or

sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov... or

www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

Hope these are of use to you. Now please, back on topic.

I used to be in one of the royal tank regiments im not going to say exactly the one. And all i can say is i had the joy of Driving then learning to gun and load the challenger 2 main battle tank ohh those were the days.

One of the reasons i left was due to my regiment changing roles and keeping only 1 squadron of these babys.

Originally posted by h3akalee
I used to be in one of the royal tank regiments im not going to say exactly the one. And all i can say is i had the joy of Driving then learning to gun and load the challenger 2 main battle tank ohh those were the days.

One of the reasons i left was due to my regiment changing roles and keeping only 1 squadron of these babys.

Ah Ha! Do I smell an ex NBC Recce/Decontamination/Bathtub and Mobile Laundry Punka Wallah?

My previous unit, the RWxY was offered the chance of doing the NBC Recce task but I'm afraid our then commanding officer, Lt Col Selby-Bennett (Selwyn-Frogget or Bumbling-Bufoon) did not think that NBC Recce went well with fox hunting!

Now all my friends are on Chally 2 and loving it. Swanning all over BATUS every 2 years, shooting their rocks off at Castle-Martin and Lulworth. Bastards the lot of 'em

[edit on 20-4-2007 by fritz]

Yep thats the one mate muhahahahaha.

Castle martin and the famous paddles night club. OHH MY DAYS many a dock girl i have had in my time at Castle Martin.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by h3akalee]

Originally posted by Lonestar24

How have your L2 tanks performed when fighting enemy tanks? We can talk after your tanks fight.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by INeedHelp]

No, when can talk once you have made a coherent and relevant contribution. Stop hijacking threads for your silly personal agenda, zibi!

[edit on 24/4/2007 by Lonestar24]

Hey guys, which of these tanks would be most effective in taking out (ripping them all to bits) a house with a full complement of innocent people, say a family of 5 sleeping in their beds at the time of attack?

It’s so mind boggling, the detachment that’s expressed in the glorification of these killing machines. Clearly history (albeit skewed, corrupted and sanitised by the ‘victors’) has did nothing to educate the futility of ALL WARS.

reply to post by planeman


You started with a very informative post on British tanks during the WW2 time frame. I always think of 2 tanks for the allies when dwelling on WW2, the Sherman and Matilda. Did you list the Matilda under a different designation?

Anyway, great thread, as a whole NATO based weapons seems a little better than their designated counterparts when actually engaged in war, over the years.

Well, now that this old thread has been resurrected anyway, I´d just like to hijack the thread and give a little heads-up on something I´ve recently became aware of: usually the Brits are credited with the invention of the tank. But there have actually been earlier designs that were truly inventive and, in the latter case, even more advanced in thinking than what we saw years later in the MkI or A7V.

First, as an honorable mention, the Austro-Daimler AG armored car, the first practical armored vehicle. It was developed under Paul Daimler (oldest son of Gottlieb daimler, Mr Car himself) from 1903-06. Though only a wheeled vehicle, it has to be noted that at that time there wasn´t a practical caterpillar solution invented yet anyway.



And now the great grandfather of tanks, the "Landtorpedoboot" of 1911, developed nearly alone by the "lowly" austrian 1st Lieutenant G. Burstyn. The name comes from an experience Mr Burstyn had earlier while traveling on a Torpedo Boat, as he was impressed with its maneuverability and offensive firepower while sporting a sufficient self-protection. "Something like that is needed on land", he might have thought, and over the years he finetuned his concept. He actually studied the aforementioned Daimler armored car, and developed his own caterpillar track system.

Furthermore, he also envisioned the modern role of the tank quite clearly, as heavy fire support for infantry and deep strikes; while the first humonguous war tanks were only supposed to break the trench war stalemate. He also pioneered features that were picked up only much later but nowadays are considered integral parts of the tank concept, for example an emphasis on mobility and speed, one central heavy weapons tower, a strict division of engine and crew space.

Sadly, both Vienna and later Berlin rejected his proposal.

A model of the vehicle

Technical drawing

A few points to correct from previous posters:

1) Rifling is absolutely essential for HESH to realise its full potential. The spin imparted by the lands and grooves causes the plastic explosive charge to "pancake" consistently on the enemy veh's armour, greatly enhancing the scabbing/spalling effect on AFVs and the shock effect on concrete structures. It is still THE general purpose munition. Last I knew, British MBTs still carried kit to deliver indirect fire with HESH. Additionally, APFSDS (known in UK use as "Fin") decreases in accuracy dramatically at longer ranges from smoothbores - hence the L/55 to up muzzle velocity and a longer "proj" to increase sectional density for greater penetration.

AFAIK, there are no plans to fit L/55 to the 350-odd CR2 fleet...that's considerable more than the supposed "100" tanks somebody alleged we have.

2) CR2s cross-country mobility and ride is excellent - certainly better than any of the M1 series. Britain has been in the hydrogas suspension field for 50 years, beginning with civilian transport applications. Chally is as fast as it needs to be over CC. Track and suspension maintenance/access is also much easier than on the M1s.

3) The new armour pack (upgrading the old ROMOR package from Chally 1) has been in Iraq for the last year and is apparently the dog's nads. And no, it does not affect speed/performance. The suspension is adjustable and the engine is remapped to take the extra weight into account. Armour pack/drive train/suspension were designed concurrent and were factored into final maximum weight figures for CR2. No overloading is experienced and it looks extra warry.

reply to post by Lonestar24


Thats because the sighting systems were not the best, out of the rounds it actually fired it would've come top, it just didn't fire enough in the time limits. But as one of the few modern wetsern tanks to see real combat, it was proved to best one of the most reliable and toughest tanks out there

I only read the first page, and i wanna say some thing here; whatta-heck are u people talking about?!!!!
the armour the abrams first used was british, the gun almost every single western tank used at a time -the L7- is british, the tank the made the first attempt to the MBT concept is british....the british are the ones who actually invented tanks for god's sake, and by the way the "angled deck" concept is a british innovation that allowed old american aircraft carriesr to get upgraded to serve jet aircrafts; without it perhapt the US navy would have been forced to replace it's carriers fleet.
In the other hand, the germans are the ones who invented the very widely used Rhinmantal 120mm gun, and the abrams is the successor of the MBT-70 their joint program with the americans that never reached mass production.
That's the point here, all of the western tanks share the main characters, and concepts, and many times share each other components; but each one of them serves a certain concept in a better way, some times in the expense of neglecting other concepts.
the germans choose what can be called "the perfect tank", but they are not even close to the american mass production capability. I mean...the Leo is some how better than the Abrams, but count how many abrams are there, and compare them to the leos numbers , and u get the point.
The Challenger is "The Big Boy", massive armour protection, god-damn huge hull, long gun that can be called "the multi-purpose tank gun"
The Leopard is the "State-of-Art". Besides it's many innovative components, most notably is it's gun which i think is the best anti-tank gun in the world.
The Abrams in taking the best of all. vital parts heavily armored like the Challenger, the same horse power as the Leopard, main gun that was proved to be very efficient, and it's own advantages; lowest western tank profile, excellent mobility, best acceleration amongst perhaps all the tanks in the world.
So, in short words;
If u want perfectness, cooperate with the germans.
If u want Innovations, steal if from the british.
And, if u want the best of every thing, buy it from the americans.

reply to post by planeman


The Challanger2 has over 90 differences to the challanger1. it can be considered to be a totally new tank. The M1A2 Abrams came about due, in part to lessons learned in the 1st Gulf War

reply to post by planeman


The concept, design, development as well as choice or main gun, auto loader etc for the crew-less turreted Challenger as pictured above, is actually a South African company who designed it for Jordan.