Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Doesn't the British army have any system similar to IDZ-ES or GLADIUS 2? 

 

For years the British Army had a program called “FIST” (future infantry soldier technology or similar). Having used the FIST BMS software back in the day, all I can say is “no thank you” - real gen zero stuff. Putting it on was like falling into a pit of snakes (lots of cables)...just one problem amongst many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I hope that isn't the mortar because it looks like you have to exit the tank to use it.

 

It also doesn't look like the most practical place to add a mortar (if it were me I'd have it set on the turret roof behind the two hatches, where you could at least manually reload it) as its implies you have to traverse the entire turret to get it to bear onto its target. As for elevation, I'm not sure that wire sticking out at the bottom of the mount is meant to pull the tube towards the desired angle or if it's a data cable (in which case, I have to wonder whether the mortar barrel isn't actually some sort of antenna like a mini-CREW Duke, but then again...it's still a weird place to put such a device, since you could put that on the back of the turret).

 

And besides, what is that mortar supposed to shoot? A large smokescreen canister? Chaff? Don't tell me it's just an HE shell, leave that stuff to the infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is such an incredibly retarded location to place the mortar, just leave it off if it’s that big a problem, or place it in the external storage bins. I guess tank design has never been a strong suite of the British, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That mortar is completely useless. Impossible to aim, impossible to reload in combat conditions. Even ancient WW2 german Nahverteidigungswaffe would be 1000% more useful.

All in all, this "upgrade" is quite disappointing, looks like if somebody without any expertise with tanks would have thrown it together. I agree with Looser, the T-72B urban upgrade was far better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Less competition for the Challenger 2 refresh?

Honestly, I'd completely support the UK MoD at this point if they'd just pit the CEOs of Leonardo and Rheinmetall against each other for a rock-paper-scissors game and have the winner do the work as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Less competition for the Challenger 2 refresh?

 

No, BAE Systems just want to get a bit of the Boxer money. They're willing to trade 55% of their UK-based land vehicle division for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Is it too early to take this as a guarentee the Challenger 2 is getting a new gun?

Sadly... yes. Much too early. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Is it too early to take this as a guarentee the Challenger 2 is getting a new gun?

Even if Rheinmetall wins the chances of it getting a new gun is 50/50.

Peter Hardisty, managing director of Rheinmetall Defence UK, talked in the following video about the LEP:

 

Go to 3:00 for stuff about the Challenger 2. Notice he still talks mostly about electronics, not so much about a gun. Actually I haven't noticed any mention of a gun, so it seems they're either not going that way anymore and are perhaps trying to strike this deal at a low price, and try to capitalize on their know-how on the vehicle to later push for a gun upgrade as a separate program.

 

 

 

Also at 2:58 my boy Vago Muradian says:

Spoiler

You have the Merkava, obviously... very Israeli.

.

.

.

Is that because of the short barrel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Go to 3:00 for stuff about the Challenger 2. Notice he still talks mostly about electronics, not so much about a gun. Actually I haven't noticed any mention of a gun, so it seems they're either not going that way anymore and are perhaps trying to strike this deal at a low price, and try to capitalize on their know-how on the vehicle to later push for a gun upgrade as a separate program.

 

Gun is being considered a key factor for Rheinmetall's offer in their slides for the investors' conference in January 2019.

jOTnG57.png

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Also at 2:58 my boy Vago Muradian says:

 

Always find it ridiculous how people decide to speak about "the three best Western tank" (or four in this case) and then include the Challenger 2 over the Leclerc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Always find it ridiculous how people decide to speak about "the three best Western tank" (or four in this case) and then include the Challenger 2 over the Leclerc...

 

At least nobody puts the C1 in that competition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

Gun is being considered a key factor for Rheinmetall's offer in their slides for the investors' conference in January 2019.

jOTnG57.png

 

 

Always find it ridiculous how people decide to speak about "the three best Western tank" (or four in this case) and then include the Challenger 2 over the Leclerc...

 

Is the program budget set for approximately 800 million euro, or are Rheinmetall saying they can do the LEP including switching a gun for that amount?

 

Thanks btw.

 

53 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

At least nobody puts the C1 in that competition!

Still better than the CR2.

#ChangeMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Still better than the CR2.

#ChangeMyMind

Atleast it uses a modern gun.... and isn't 75 tonnes fully upgraded....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Rheinmetall has dropped the SAS and MSSA in favor for putting new armor on the turret (or a brand new turret, that looks extremely similar to the original Challenger 2 turret and mounts the same components in the same locations... :rolleyes:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am skeptical that Rheinmetall would want to make a Leopard 2 competitor, it sounds more like a scheme to sell whole tanks to the UK instead of new turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I am skeptical that Rheinmetall would want to make a Leopard 2 competitor, it sounds more like a scheme to sell whole tanks to the UK instead of new turrets.

It's not really a competitor if none makes Challenger 2 hulls anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×