Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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

 

Well, the Tweet said "mate to a new hull". But designing a Leopard 2 competitor when work on the Leopard 2 replacement is under way really seems like a scheme to sell the new turret to the UK. "You finally have a tank to compete against last gen's MBT."

Share this post


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

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

 

Read the second tweet from Turnbull about what his sources say.

Share this post


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

Is a completely new turret or a new rear half welded on?


Completely new citadel. The old one was cast.

Qinetiq using CR2 as an example for their EX-Drive.
A new powerpack is being investigated in a separate programme.

Spoiler

N37ZGoU.jpg

 

Share this post


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

Since the ammo storage was moved, it would have to be completely new if they wanted to carry a reasonable amount of rounds.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the L30 projectiles stored in the turret were in the bustle, the extreme similarity of the new turret is what leads me to suspect they upsizing the bustle to carry single piece ammunition instead of creating a whole new turret.

Share this post


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

upsizing the bustle

You'd also have to make it a blowoff compartment, which requires significant cutting and welding work. Much less than a new turret would require but still not a small job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger, armoured bustle would add weight, no? And rolled plates (especially modern rolled plate) is more mass efficient than cast armour? So the new welded turret could be to free up some weight margin for the bustle stowage, if they have it for the new gun.

 

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

keC8NZs.jpg

 

"brand new welded turret" :anticipation:

 

Given the lack of step, they're either proposing a massive reduction in roof armour thickness or a new turret.

 

The positions of the turret crew are unlikely to have changed, why would the loaders periscope or gunners sight show up in a different location?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does this new turret feature additional armour?
That's either a shitty fit and finish, or a roof add-on module.

Spoiler

unknown.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scav said:

Is it just me or does this new turret feature additional armour?

 

The roof armor is always thicker on some places of the Challenger 2. Most likely they added some sheet metal plates to make it look "flush and aerodynamic".

 

CA_5602_C2_CA1_0587.jpg

 

 

Share this post


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

The roof armor is always thicker on some places of the Challenger 2. Most likely they added some sheet metal plates to make it look "flush and aerodynamic".

Could be, doesn't appear to be a final design, though it's no PL-01.

If they did rework parts of the turret, they could've done away with the toilet and other unnecessary items, possibly lowering the profile and having extra room on-top, though I would question the location of the optics then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components.

 

The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.

Share this post


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

T-80U and T-90 share FCS elements and ERA, what a wonder that they look similar. Tanks designed with the same technology mounting exactly the same components and featuring the same internal crew layout happen to look similar! The M1 Abrams uses different variants of the same turret design, again mounting the same components.

 

The Challenger 2's "brand new" turret keeps re-using the same (outdated) components, effectively not making it a brand new turret. It is a deep modification with new steel structure and some armor changes along the turret bustle.

What are these "outdated" elements shown in this render?.

Different gunner's sight that is clearly a dual-mode day/FLIR sight. The current outdated sight is a day sight only.

Red and dark blue boxes are 1x periscopes. The loader's periscope sometimes seen replaced with a RWS on the current Challenger 2s.

How are the commander's copula periscopes out dated? These things are clearly present in modern manned turreted vehicles such as the Leo 2A7V and M1A2C in the same capacity; i.e. 1x wide angle view periscopes.

The yellow box. A coaxial machine gun, clearly an outdated concept according to you.

A wind/temperature sensor, clearly an archaic device, fit only for obsolete tanks such as the T-14 Armata.

You can clearly see a change in the commanders periscope, it has been moved aft, and it is dual-mode day/FLIR. This is not the "same (outdated) component(s)" as on the current Challenger 2 in service with the British Army. This is the biggest difference along with the removal of the TOGS, clearly though they haven't been marked by you for probably some nefarious reason.

 

43 minutes ago, Scav said:

@SH_MM
Don't bother with him, he just likes trolling for the sake of trolling.

No, lovey I just don't stand complete and utter bullshit.

Share this post


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

No, lovey I just don't stand complete and utter bullshit.

Ha, right, so that should include things you say.

 

There's a good reason to point out what if anything changed on the new turret, noone said it was the same turret, people just pointed out how despite the claim of a "brand new turret", not a lot actually changed on the turret, the layout is still the same, very relevant to point out.

That's not called "bullshit", but an astute remark which could indicate how much actually changed.

 

 

Also, since when is pointing out typical marketing quotes "utter bullshit"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scav said:

Ha, right, so that should include things you say.

 

There's a good reason to point out what if anything changed on the new turret, noone said it was the same turret, people just pointed out how despite the claim of a "brand new turret", not a lot actually changed on the turret, the layout is still the same, very relevant to point out.

That's not called "bullshit", but an astute remark which could indicate how much actually changed.

So from the M46 to the M1 Abrams, nothing has changed with the turrets, the layout of the crew and periscopes is still very much the same, just with "deep modifications"

T-90A's welded turret is not a brand new turret. Not a lot has actually changed from it's previous iterations.

 

 

If we go to a welded turret (as Rhm say) from a, presumably, cast turret previously when the Challenger 2 was first produced 2 decades ago or so, that is new manufacture, by definition it is a brand new turret. Even if the original Challenger 2 turret was welded, doesn't matter, it is new manufacture, it uses new (modern) steels (as Rhm have said). It's weight is different (Rhm say the turret will be lighter so other equipment can be mounted for no overall weight gain). Layout of the certain periscopes doesn't matter, if it works, don't change it stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoflSeal said:

So from the M46 to the M1 Abrams, nothing has changed with the turrets, the layout of the crew and periscopes is still very much the same, just with "deep modifications"

T-90A's welded turret is not a brand new turret. Not a lot has actually changed from it's previous iterations.

If we go to a welded turret (as Rhm say) from a, presumably, cast turret previously when the Challenger 2 was first produced 2 decades ago or so, that is new manufacture, by definition it is a brand new turret.

Strawman argument.....

As has been pointed out, much of the turret looks the same, this could very well be a modified turret and not the final "brand new turret".

 

So you might call it "brand new", but in reality it's like the difference between the M1 and IPM1 turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scav said:

Strawman argument.....

As has been pointed out, much of the turret looks the same, this could very well be a modified turret and not the final "brand new turret".

 

 So you might call it "brand new", but in reality it's like the difference between the M1 and IPM1 turret.

I don't know what you smoke, but the IPM1 had a brand new turret compared to the M1.

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.
×