Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

The guns not shortened either? That L55 is gonna be a pain in a real street fight. 

 

That'd be a whole new level of effort - you'd need to design the shortened gun, test it, work out ballistic data for all natures of ammunition, and reprogram the FCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   That "Streetfighter" is rather sad, no side armor, no equipment to go through baricades/ruins, MG positions have no protection. Even crappy T-72B urban kit is somewhat better in that regards.

Share this post


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

 That "Streetfighter" is rather sad, no side armor, no equipment to go through baricades/ruins, MG positions have no protection. Even crappy T-72B urban kit is somewhat better in that regards.

It's British, they'll just use teabags as side armour.

Share this post


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

   That "Streetfighter" is rather sad, no side armor, no equipment to go through baricades/ruins, MG positions have no protection. Even crappy T-72B urban kit is somewhat better in that regards.

"Streetfighter" has everything he needs to work in town. Everything else is already on this tank. Tanks_Challenger_2_Camouflage_British_52

Spoiler

Tanki-CHellendzher-2-uchastvovali-v-Irak

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   That "Streetfighter" is rather sad, no side armor, no equipment to go through baricades/ruins, MG positions have no protection. Even crappy T-72B urban kit is somewhat better in that regards.


It's just a demonstrator created by Ultra Electronics, mainly to test their UltraLynx system.
https://www.ultra-electronics.com/uploads/business-documents/media-brochures/Ultra_Land_Bro_A4_Nov_17_Spreads.pdf
RTR's Ajax Squadron are experimenting in Urban Tank combat:
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalTankRegt/posts/urban-tanks-ajax-have-just-taken-delivery-of-their-latest-tanks-these-have-been-/697637010435834/

It is by no means a finished article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   That "Streetfighter" is rather sad, no side armor, no equipment to go through baricades/ruins, MG positions have no protection. Even crappy T-72B urban kit is somewhat better in that regards.

 

I thought that at first too, but I came to the conclusion that they just didn’t mount the heavy armor around the tank. The British aren’t that stupid... I hope. 

Share this post


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

 

I thought that at first too, but I came to the conclusion that they just didn’t mount the heavy armor around the tank. The British aren’t that stupid... I hope. 

   Still, MG positions are unprotected and vehicle isn't better suited for actual urban combat (lack of gear/tools to go through barricades, ruins, etc) than normal Chally 2. More like "anti-insurgency operations in villages" kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you horrible lot please stop mocking our magnificent, if archaic, tanks. I will have you know that British tanks have boiling vessels on board.  Our crews can make tea whenever they like! I bet the T-14 doesn't carry a samovar, so no mocking until it does!  :)

 

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/british-army-demos-new-challenger-2-urban-operatio/

 

Spoiler

The British Army’s Royal Tank Regiment (RTR) has developed a new Challenger 2 MBT demonstrator to highlight modifications that could be made to the platform for urban operations.

The RTR will be demonstrating the vehicle during the Army Warfighting Experiment held in December 2018.

Speaking to Shephard, 2nd Lt Nicholas Warren-Miller, 3 Tp Ldr RTR, said that the team has worked over the past two months to add ‘low-level...low-cost modifications that can be done very quickly’ on the tank.

One of the key areas of modification was to enhance situational awareness in urban environments which Warren-Miller said was particularly limited in the Challenger 2 during urban operations when in close-down and inside the tank.

Infantry-tank cooperation is another key area of focus for the RTR, which will make the Challenger 2 'more effective' in the urban environment, according to Warren-Miller.

‘We’ve essentially increased the firepower of the tank and we have created a local area network into the tank which streams camera feeds. So in theory the infantry can use an Android tablet or phone and actually view what we are seeing and what our cameras are seeing,’ Warren-Miller explained.

This has been achieved through the use of fixed cameras and panoramic 360˚ thermal imagers, barrel cameras to see left and right at junctions without exposing the platform and camera feeds streamed to dismounted soldier systems.

The RTR has worked with an industry team, led by Ultra Precision Control System (PCS), to carry out the improvements. Warren-Miller emphasised that this project has been completed completely outside of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme which is currently being competed between BAE Systems and Rheinmetall.

‘It comes from the Hobart committee…when everyone in the regiment gets to make recommendations for Challenger 2. And we’ve been given as a squadron the urban environment to adapt our vehicle to,’ Warren-Miller explained.

Through the Hobart committee the team has been given funding to carry out the work. Ultra PCS lead a team that includes FN Herstal UK, Mildef, Esterline, Istec and Ultra Lynx.

Other modifications include external storage for breaching tools and dismounted equipment; turret mounted mortar; commanders GPMG and loaders HMG.

Warren-Miller suggested that this will be an ongoing project as the RTR has more ideas for long-lasting modifications. For now though these technologies will only be demonstrated on the one experimental platform.

 

Share this post


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

LGuY6QK.jpg

 

  1. I'm glad they got rid of the manually operated .50 on top
  2. The ladder stowage position isn't ideal if they're planning to fit the usual proper side armour
  3. Is that an EO sight on a stick I see, behind the RWS?
  4. The UGV in berlin camo is a nice touch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of this Challenger 2 "urbanization", but that is probably related to the fact that it probably was created with very tight budget and mostly for showcasing the solutions of the British industry offered to the UK MoD.

 

Streaming video feeds to infantry is a nice capability, is this new for the British army? It has been around in different other militaries. Also the videos are meant to be displayed on "Android tablets and smartphones" according to Shephard Media, which sounds like a pretty bad solution given that those likely aren't hardened for electronic warfare or for operations in harsh conditions. Doesn't the British army have any system similar to IDZ-ES or GLADIUS 2? That the rear monitor runs Windows 7 isn't optimal too, but I guess that is a result of the vehicle serving as a demonstrator and probably would be fixed on any real application.

 

The mortar is an odd choice, but there obviously is no space in the turret. I think an add-on system mounted on the rear of the hull might be a better option, but that would be more expensive. I'm thiinking of something similar to the Puma's TSWA, but as detachable component that is only attached for urban operations.

 

ZlS2K.jpgJSofU.jpg

 

The hull mounted cameras also seem to have a very limited FOV. There are none at the rear.

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...