Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Rico said:

Quite a difference compared to the old Wegmann 76mm Smoke System. 

 

The Challenger 2 never used a Wegmann smoke grenade discharging system.

Share this post


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

The Challenger 2 never used a Wegmann smoke grenade discharging system.

He means that the new system is german. And the old one Wegmann was mounted on Leopard 2 mbt's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

@Laviduce could you post the full report?

 

On the other hand, what is the "pip"?

I do not have the full report. I have contacted a person that might have more "direct" information (turret data) on it.  If he responds I will post it here. Also, i have no idea what the product improvement program (PIP) is about concerning this document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

A PIP for the Challenger started around 1983.
1987 is when the Chieftain replacement program started. 
The image used for PIP looks like a MBT-80.

Looks quite short, wasn't MBT-80 roughly the same length as CR1?
Driver position matches though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, David Moyes said:

The image used for PIP looks like a MBT-80.

 

It is not the MBT 80. Three concepts were apparently considered at different times for the Challenger PIP - turretless tank (achieving maximum armor protection), low-profile tank with autoloader ("British T-72") and conventional tank (with the lowest protection level). The drawing shows the "British T-72" concept with 55 metric tons weight, carousel style autoloader, three men crew and transversely mounted powerpack (1,250 to 1,500 hp desired output).

HQZRby0SYyk.jpg

24krwQo.jpg

 

Autoloader:

DSCF0021.JPG

 

15 hours ago, Scav said:

Driver position matches though.

 

MBT 80 had central position for driver.

Share this post


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

It is not the MBT 80. Three concepts were apparently considered at different times for the Challenger PIP - turretless tank (achieving maximum armor protection), low-profile tank with autoloader ("British T-72") and conventional tank (with the lowest protection level). The drawing shows the "British T-72" concept with 55 metric tons weight, carousel style autoloader, three men crew and transversely mounted powerpack (1,250 to 1,500 hp desired output).

Yeah, that's quite interesting, was the turretless tank supposed to have an autoloader as well?

 

55 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

MBT 80 had central position for driver.

Some drawings have it, some don't, as @David Moyes pointed out, the concept drawings recently posted by Molota have the driver off to the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1ApLscE.jpg
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/armys-tank-upgrade-plans-unachievable-says-official-report-wdfm3w6wv


 

Quote

The army’s plan to overhaul its Warrior tracked vehicles and Challenger tanks is “unachievable”, a damning official report has revealed.
 

Defence chiefs are wrestling with a plan to repair and modernise its two main armoured fighting vehicles, which date back to the 1980s.
 

A £1.6bn contract for American defence giant Lockheed Martin to overhaul about half of its 769-strong fleet of Warriors is years late and hundreds of millions of pounds over budget. The Sunday Times recently revealed the upgrade of the old hulls was so problematic that officials were considering buying new ones.
 

A report by the Infrastructure Projects Authority, which oversees big government schemes, put the Armoured Infantry 2026 programme on a red warning for a second successive year.
 

The authority uses a traffic light scheme to assess the viability of projects. Red means that “successful delivery appears to be unachievable”. The report says: “There are major issues, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
 

Defence minister Stuart Andrew recently said that a decision on upgrading the army’s main battle tank, the Challenger 2, will not be made until 2021.
 

The upgraded Warriors were due to enter service next March, but last year Ministry of Defence (MoD) permanent secretary Stephen Lovegrove said the project was 3½ years late. The upgrade has been dogged by problems.
 

The MoD said: “This report reflects the complexity and scale of delivering the most advanced and complex government procurement programmes, with the Warrior programme upgrading a capability that is crucial to how the British Army fights.


“Although progress of the programme has not been as straightforward as we would have wanted, we are working with manufacturer Lockheed Martin to ensure the army’s requirements are met.”


Next day:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...