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.
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tankeries
While the Chally 2 seems to be the premire tank, it was born of an export. Thr Iranian spec Chally 1. Yes thats right Iran, the Brits couldn't afford the expensice Chobham armor but the Iraian's could, but the Iranian Army found a more suitable tank for themselve's and left the 500 or so Chally's for the British Army's taking.
[edit on 19-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]
Originally posted by Harlequin
You must consider theat the M1A23 SEP is a VERY expensive tank , and as such not that many (in comparrison to the amount of M1A1`s) will actually be upgraded.
The `majority` tank is still , and will be the M1A1
Originally posted by Popeye
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tankeries
While the Chally 2 seems to be the premire tank, it was born of an export. Thr Iranian spec Chally 1. Yes thats right Iran, the Brits couldn't afford the expensice Chobham armor but the Iraian's could, but the Iranian Army found a more suitable tank for themselve's and left the 500 or so Chally's for the British Army's taking.
[edit on 19-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]
A few inaccuracies here the Challanger I was a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces. After the Iranian Revolution the Shir Iran 2 project was taken over by the British Army and the end result was Challenger later redesignated as Challenger 1. The main differences between Challenger 1 and its predecessor Chieftain are the Challenger engine, and the Chobham Armour.
Challenger 1 took part in Operation Desert Storm where the Iraqi forces failed to take a single vehicle out of combat while Challenger destroyed roughly 300 Iraqi tanks.
Challenger 2 has an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour called Dorchester.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
The US has about 300 M1A2 SEP, while Britain has bout 386 Challenger 2. The MOD plans to reduce the Challenger 2 force by several armored squadrons (about 100 Tanks) through 2007. It also plans to change the role of one Challenger 2 regiment to an armored reconnaissance regiment.
[edit on 20-12-2005 by WestPoint23]
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
I don't know. After reading "TANK" "The Royal Tank Regiment Journal" I have to go with them.
Now if the Chobham is upgraded it must be because of the US adding DU. I also might point out that not one M1 was lost in ODS.
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
Not so. Most M1A2's are reconfigured M1IP's and older M1A1's.
And in actuality the M1A1HC now has upgradeds to match the M1A2. The M1A1HC-D and M1A1HC-AIM.
Originally posted by Harlequin
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
Not so. Most M1A2's are reconfigured M1IP's and older M1A1's.
And in actuality the M1A1HC now has upgradeds to match the M1A2. The M1A1HC-D and M1A1HC-AIM.
I disagree - the M1A2 TUSK is much more than an M1A1HC with the aim rebuild , especially since the AIM rebuild (refurb) is so seriously underfunded that they can only manage 135 tanks a year - which means a 12 year cycle just to refurb the present fleet!
The M1A2 SEP has 960mm RHAe(kinetic) - which is 100mm MORE than the refurb`d tanks - so explain how they can match the TUSK`s and the M1A1P`s are in the AIM prgramme - the SEP and TUSK are new builds!
Originally posted by Popeye
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
I don't know. After reading "TANK" "The Royal Tank Regiment Journal" I have to go with them.
Now if the Chobham is upgraded it must be because of the US adding DU. I also might point out that not one M1 was lost in ODS.
I can only stress that if you do some research you will find that the Iranian did not reject the Challenger I, but it was not sold because of the arms embargo placed on Iran after the 1979 coming to power of the Khomeni and the US embassey hostage crisis.
The British army was not originally looking for a replacement tank, with the Challenger being a ready made replacement (no great development costs) it was too good to turn down.
As to the upgraded armour this was developed at the same time as the US was addind DU the the original Chobham (the original M1 did not have the DU was introduced with the M1A1 in 1985). Also not many people know that 12 Challenger II were fielded in GW1 as part of the 90 million demonstration phase (also referred to as the proof of principle phase) which lasted until September 1990.
Finally it is well known that during the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...
Prime Contractor is Vickers Defence Systems plc. Vickers Defence systems started work on the Challenger 2 in November 1986 as a private venture and shortly afterwards, in March 1987, made its first presentation of the vehicle to the British Ministry of Defence. In February 1988, Vickers submitted a formal proposal regarding the tank to the MOD following the issue of the staff requirement. In December 1988 it was announced that Vickers Defence Systems was to be awarded a £90 million contract to undertake a demonstration phase (also referred to as the proof of principle phase) which lasted until September 1990.[quote/]
I just quoted both www.fas.org... and globalsecurity.org. It states nothing in either sites paragraphs about 11 CH2's going into GW1 as testing systems in 1990. I know full well that the ground war didn't start until late 1991.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I am going to quote www.fas.org... again on the orgin of the CH1.
Challenger is a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces. After the Iranian Revolution the Shir Iran 2 project was taken over by the British Army and the end result was Challenger later redesignated as Challenger 1. [quote/]
.
[edit on 21-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
Actually the U.S. Army is nolong using the M1IP and hasn't since Aguast 1996.
Actually the 100mm's is the Glasis Plates A.K.A. ERA added for the Tank Urban Survival Kit.
TUSK isn't a tank, is a kit that can be added to any M1A1 or M1A2.
Also I would like to point out that the M1A2 AEP is on hold due to the fact it has no funds, currently the U.S. Army field 500 SEP's.
Also going to point out that the SEP concept has been around since 1985.
Originally posted by Harlequin
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
Actually the U.S. Army is nolong using the M1IP and hasn't since Aguast 1996.
thats right because they are now M1A1-D`s as per the AIM programme.
Actually the 100mm's is the Glasis Plates A.K.A. ERA added for the Tank Urban Survival Kit.
no , the extra 100mm is from the turret NOT the front glacis
TUSK isn't a tank, is a kit that can be added to any M1A1 or M1A2.
TUSK is really for the M1A2 tanks as thy lost the remote controlled turret gun earlier
Also I would like to point out that the M1A2 AEP is on hold due to the fact it has no funds, currently the U.S. Army field 500 SEP's.
Also going to point out that the SEP concept has been around since 1985.
AEP? thats a new one - as its the the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP) for the USMC M1A1 tanks.
And the US Army fields 240 (or there abouts) M1A2 SEP`s . production was cancelled in 2004 short of the 1,150 they wanted.
Are you aware that the M1A2 SEP enter the AIM prgramme in 2012?
The current Army plan allows for a fleet of 588 M1A2 SEP, 586 M1A2 and 4,393 M1A1 tanks. The potential exits for a retrofit program of 129 M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration between 2004 and 2005. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was complete by August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado ended in 2000. Fielding of the M1A2 (SEP) began in spring 2000 with the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, and continues. Rolling over of the 1st Cavalry Division's M1A2 tanks to new M1A2 (SEP) tank began in 2001 and continues.
Except , that in 2004 funding was stopped (all bar a one off order for 60 SEP`s in 2005) , so what you see now is what you get - the M1A1-D is the majority tank in the fleet.
Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
While there are amny great MBT's out there, IMO the M1 was the real pioneer for the MBT. Sporting a seprate ammo stowage compartment, new APFSDS rounds, CHobham and later added DU mesh, all the gizmo's and gadet's a tank can hold.
Also being one of the first powered by a Turbine (No not the first air plane eninge, the Sherman had that). Also having the turret bustle attached to the turret instead of setting the turret in a turtle shell type configeration over the chassis.
Originally posted by Raideur
...
I'd be interested to see what the US/German/UK militaries are planning for their "future" designs. Simply tweaking their big turrent designs and adding the latest composites, or something else?...