Question regarding Challenger II's L30 gun

[madmax88]

Interesting to see how the challenger has a completly different sight lay-out and gun compared to other NATO mbt's. How did they come op to fit the thermal sight above to main gun. That means it can't shoot on the move during night. Furthermore, they don't have blowout panels and the lower hull armour is pretty weak.

And they still adopted the rifled gun eventhough the smoothbore one proved it's effectiveness in combat in 1991.

[happyslapper]

Interesting to see how the challenger has a completly different sight lay-out and gun compared to other NATO mbt's. How did they come op to fit the thermal sight above to main gun. That means it can't shoot on the move during night. Furthermore, they don't have blowout panels and the lower hull armour is pretty weak.

And they still adopted the rifled gun eventhough the smoothbore one proved it's effectiveness in combat in 1991.

You make it sound sh;t.

That being despite the fact that in the same war in which you say the smoothbore 120mm ''proved it's combat effectiveness'' (which I don't disagree with), the L30 achieved the longest ranged tank kill in history, and smashed the buggery out of Sadam's 'elite'. It returned to do the same thing in 2003.

Dorchester is the upgraded version of Chobham. The armour is highly classified, though through it's ability to stand up to multiple hits in a variety of operational environments, and always bring the crew home... I would suspect you're wrong.

[Dave242]

I would suspect you're wrong.

On a few other things as well.

Dave

[madmax88]

On a few other things as well.

Dave

Care to elaborate, I might learn something.

[Scorchio]

How did they come op to fit the thermal sight above to main gun. That means it can't shoot on the move during night.

How the heck did you come to that conclusion? The sights are stabilised in the same way whether they're fitted to the mantle, the glacis or the roof, and have no impact on the gun's stablisation. I can't see where it creates a deficiency.

Furthermore, they don't have blowout panels

Can't really fit blowout panels to a vehicle that doesn't have ammunition stored in the turret.

Protection of ammunition in CR2 is based on the concept of completely minimising exposure of ammunition stowage to incoming fire. Having the charges separate to the rounds allows for more flexibility in how the ammunition is stored.

The lack of blowout panels is more of a concern when you look at re-fitting the tank with a smootbore gun and the cased rounds associated with it. Its probably the optimal option for a tank with cased ammunition but doesn't necessarily work as well with two-piece ammunition.

and the lower hull armour is pretty weak.

Compared to...? Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2 have all had improvements to hull armour and mine-plates as a direct result of operational experience of tank losses in Iraq, and many less formidable weapons than RPG-29, and EFPs of that size, accounted for losses amongst armoured vehicles in that conflict (including Abrams). The only real difference is that Leopard's wasn't around to learn first-hand from it all.

Would a Leo of a similar production year to our CR2s shrug off an attack under those exact circumstances? We'll never know.

And they still adopted the rifled gun eventhough the smoothbore one proved it's effectiveness in combat in 1991.

You mean that war where Challenger 1 scored a kill in the longest tank-to-tank engagement in history with its rifled gun, and the associated HESH rounds proved to be a valuable commodity against fortified emplacements? Sure the smoothbore gun proved an ample weapon, but it didn't necessarily prove to be any better than a rifled gun - the UK didn't go through Op. Granby with its eyes closed.

The only reason the UK even looked at smoothbore guns for CR2 was for particular economic concerns regarding domestic ammunition production - concerns that didn't exist when the vehicle was developed because subsequent governments were yet to realise that actually, you need to re-stock ammunition from time to time, and periodicity make improved ones, because the situation in the early 1990s wouldn't last forever.

Fact is now that the UK's economy is worse to the point where the initial cost of re-arming the vehicles eclipses the potential financial benefits of using common NATO rounds in future (in political terms at least). So we've kind of missed the opportunity to do it. We had enough problems making a case for re-arming our ISVs with a 40mm gun, never mind MBTs; a type of vehicle that some people all across NATO think are difficult to justify having in such numbers amongst their armies, to make rearming Challenger in the UK worthwhile.

[Dave242]

Care to elaborate, I might learn something.

I don't have to. Read Scorchio's post, he has got it right.

And do yourself a favour, read up about the Chally 2 you will find that only 1 have been taken out. This was due to a blue on blue. Due to the hatch being left open. And one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs. And in one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 RPG's and a Milan anti-tank missile The crew survived, and the tank was recovered for repairs Can you say that about the Leo/Abrams or any other tank?

Dave

[madmax88]

How the heck did you come to that conclusion? The sights are stabilised in the same way whether they're fitted to the mantle, the glacis or the roof, and have no impact on the gun's stablisation. I can't see where it creates a deficiency.

When you fit a sight to the gun, it moves always with the gun. I can't be gyro stabilised, otherwise the gun would get in the LOS. The challenger 2E solves this by fitting the thermals with the gunners sight in a gyro stabilised head. (Savan-15)

Can't really fit blowout panels to a vehicle that doesn't have ammunition stored in the turret.

Protection of ammunition in CR2 is based on the concept of completely minimising exposure of ammunition stowage to incoming fire. Having the charges separate to the rounds allows for more flexibility in how the ammunition is stored.

The lack of blowout panels is more of a concern when you look at re-fitting the tank with a smootbore gun and the cased rounds associated with it. Its probably the optimal option for a tank with cased ammunition but doesn't necessarily work as well with two-piece ammunition.

Why would you want to expose the ordnance to the tank crew. Any tanks armour can be defeated, so putting your ammo with the crew exposed, is dangerous. IMO the only tank that solves this problem is the abrams.

The principles of tank engagement relies on some basic rules:

1. Dont get noticed ( thermal insulation stealthe techniques etc.)
2. If noticed, dont get hit ( small- crossection, manouvrebility, speed etc.)
3. If hit, don't get penetrated ( good armour)
4. If penetrated, survive ( storing ammo in save places, spall liners, fire extiguishers etc.)

So I don't see how putting your ammo with the crew is smart even if your ammo is as litle as exposed to threaths. Also having two piece munition lowers the loading time.

Compared to...? Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2 have all had improvements to hull armour and mine-plates as a direct result of operational experience of tank losses in Iraq, and many less formidable weapons than RPG-29, and EFPs of that size, accounted for losses amongst armoured vehicles in that conflict (including Abrams). The only real difference is that Leopard's wasn't around to learn first-hand from it all.

The britisch tank doctrine was to fight from prepared positions without the need to move. The CH1 is a good example. It didn't have stablised sigths, The TOGS was fixed in place, it did had a strong turret and glasic armour, but relativly weak lower hull armour. In the gulf war, they put era on the lower hull because they knew it wouldn't withstand HEAT attacks from modern ATGM's otherwise.

Would a Leo of a similar production year to our CR2s shrug off an attack under those exact circumstances? We'll never know.

IDK, the Chally's dorchester is currently the best.

You mean that war where Challenger 1 scored a kill in the longest tank-to-tank engagement in history with its rifled gun, and the associated HESH rounds proved to be a valuable commodity against fortified emplacements? Sure the smoothbore gun proved an ample weapon, but it didn't necessarily prove to be any better than a rifled gun - the UK didn't go through Op. Granby with its eyes closed.

The only reason the UK even looked at smoothbore guns for CR2 was for particular economic concerns regarding domestic ammunition production - concerns that didn't exist when the vehicle was developed because subsequent governments were yet to realise that actually, you need to re-stock ammunition from time to time, and periodicity make improved ones, because the situation in the early 1990s wouldn't last forever.

Fact is now that the UK's economy is worse to the point where the initial cost of re-arming the vehicles eclipses the potential financial benefits of using common NATO rounds in future (in political terms at least). So we've kind of missed the opportunity to do it. We had enough problems making a case for re-arming our ISVs with a 40mm gun, never mind MBTs; a type of vehicle that some people all across NATO think are difficult to justify having in such numbers amongst their armies, to make rearming Challenger in the UK worthwhile.

Yeah the CH1 did hit a tank from 5.1 km. Rifled guns are more accurate than smoothbore ones. But, rifled guns degrade the effectiveness of APFSDS rounds by putting drivebands on the sabot. This lowers the muzzle velocity of the round, meaning less penetration.

Fitting the CH2 with a rifled gun was a matter of nationalistic pride. All other modern NATO MBT's opted the 120mm smoothbore. Even the vickers MK7 could be ordered with a 120mm smoothbore gun. Having rifled guns in the NATO doens't improve the inter-operability of ammo and such.

It seems that politics has too much influance in tank aquisition. Don't let pride get in the way of making an effective MBT. The CH2 is a very good MBT, if the flaws are reconsidered, it is the best MBT in the world.

[Dave242]

When you fit a sight to the gun, it moves always with the gun. I can't be gyro stabilised, otherwise the gun would get in the LOS. The challenger 2E solves this by fitting the thermals with the gunners sight in a gyro stabilised head.

With what you have said above show's you either lack understanding or you have been lead up the garden path? With what the Chally is armed with, fire control and sights wise.

Dave

[flanker7]

2 pages of a thread about tanks and no post by Damian90! The world is coming to an end!

[comoford]

Smoothbore upgrade for Chally2 got scraped.

The Rheinmetall 120 smoothbore uses single piece rounds, Chally2 currently is designed for two-piece ammo = not enough space for the smoothbore and single piece ammo. It would've mean a total redesign and so was deemed not worth the cost to change.

[Dave242]

Smoothbore upgrade for Chally2 got scraped.

Back on? due to start in the time frame 2015/2020.
My Money on some thing like the Falcon turret used on the Al Hussein (Chally 1)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm

Dave

[welshmann]

Back on? due to start in the time frame 2015/2020.
My Money on some thing like the Falcon turret used on the Al Hussein (Chally 1)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm

Dave

wow,a 2 man crew!

[Corrupt]

It seems that politics has too much influance in tank aquisition. Don't let pride get in the way of making an effective MBT. The CH2 is a very good MBT, if the flaws are reconsidered, it is the best MBT in the world.

Could you summarise these flaws succinctly. None of them seem to have significantly affected it operationally.

[Dave242]

Back on? due to start in the time frame 2015/2020.
Dave

UK Armed Forces Commentary is reporting that the C2 CSP (Challenger II Capability Sustainment Programme) is due to start around 2016. So some good news.

Dave