Fireball
Contributing Members-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Fireball
-
hmm?
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
perhaps this is only the front piece shown in that declad challenger
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
ideally we need a photo like this but facing forwards looking at the breach
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
yeah nah if we look at the old photo's this appears to show the rotor is constructed of two parts, the rear side is missing, the front should be solid around the gun but isnt here..
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Indeed, but strecth trials were not completed by 1990
-
Your mistake here, that document is only in reference to Challenger 1 and its upgrades. This refers to CR1-110/220. With improved chobham armour. This offered up to 540/900.
-
Challenger 2’s studies were not complete by 1993, so this is incorrect.
-
40° arc, M1A1 is 460 +-20
-
Not sure where you got that from, in 1992 a configuration with improved CA was demonstrated at 600/1000.
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
As for the 500mm, yeah thats probably wrong, its most likely around 400-450mm KE if it used the improved CA recipe.
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
As far as we know thats actually referring to the gulf war fit with the 25mm ish plate ontop
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Yep Jericho 1(L23A1 + L14) and then Jericho 2(L26A1 + L14) CHARM 1(L26A1 + L12) is 585 at the same range(2km)
-
No, it was a seperate proposal well past CR2's introduction to the world, it used a full spec CR2 turret ontop of a modified Challenger 1 hull.
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Do note the side armour is just the basic non uparmoured for the 60/300. presumably referring to the sponson area and the area covered by the dust cover.
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Do note this was because the requirement for 500mm +-20 arc used the same basic chobham as Challenger 1, hence no improvement over Challenger 1 is seen on the hull. An improved chobham recipe was found to provide 600mm +-20 and 1000mm CE. That kind of improvement can be extrapolated to a hull we can assume also received the improved chobham.
- 1,043 replies
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with: