Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

[arakami]

@Scav 

"They have their own requirements... Nations tend to use their own ammunition to test their tanks, unless they use STANAG testing procedures."

 

In ballistic tests they typically use their own rounds to measure the rounds effectiveness or to estimate theoretical armour effectiveness, when designing their tanks level of protection they like to take into consideration current and future penetrators from other powers. Yes, every tank has their own requirements - that wouldn't quite explain how the Leopard 2A5 or M1A2 Abrams, tanks with comparably advanced and thick composite arrays, tanks with comparably heavy weights - could be significantly better armoured than the Challenger 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scav]

15 minutes ago, arakami said:

@Scav 

"They have their own requirements... Nations tend to use their own ammunition to test their tanks, unless they use STANAG testing procedures."

 

In ballistic tests they typically use their own rounds to measure the rounds effectiveness or to estimate theoretical armour effectiveness, when designing their tanks level of protection they like to take into consideration current and future penetrators from other powers. Yes, every tank has their own requirements - that wouldn't quite explain how the Leopard 2A5 or M1A2 Abrams, tanks with comparably advanced and thick composite arrays, tanks with comparably heavy weights - could be significantly better armoured than the Challenger 2.

More advanced and thicker (in some cases).
CR2 hull and turret designs are inefficient.

[arakami]

Does anyone know the title of this document or the full page? I believe its of a British evaluation of said tanks.

 

[BaronTibere]

2 hours ago, arakami said:

Regarding the armour of the Challenger 1 Mk.2, there is this document that was made between entry into service of the Challenger 1 Mk.1 and Challenger 1 Mk.2, that proposed as with the TOGS upgrade, the Mk.2 would receive upgraded armour as well as an upgraded gun, the latter prospect not bearing fruit. I'm sure you've seen it and would have a bone to pick with it, though that does seem to be proof that up-armouring of the CR1 Mk.2 was at least thought of. Anyway, I have gotten some rough estimates for the Challengers if anyone wants to know: the hull seems to be about 700mm thick LOS for both the CR1 and CR2, whilst the Challenger 2s turret appears to be about 900-1000mm thick LOS. I'm still missing a measurement of the Challenger 1 turret array, which I very much need.

 

This document really needs to die. It is not talking about the Mk.2. It is talking about potential major upgrades to the challenger program. Some of these ideas eventually found their way into the CR2 but none were applied to the CR1. 

[arakami]

@BaronTibere Except the Challenger 1 Mk.2 was given TOGS as predicted by the document, and the quoted expected in-service dates were accurate. I think it also predicted the CHARM 1/L26s in-service date and DU material rather accurately.

 

Criticism for it lies in the fact it was written between entry into service of the Mk.1 and Mk.2, therefore it cannot be taken as definitive proof that the Challenger Mk.2 and Mk.3 received said upgrades. That is rather plain to see considering the Mk.2 did not receive a better gun.

[BaronTibere]

This is attributing things to this document that it cannot say, while ignoring what it does say. This document was rather popular on the war thunder forums among people looking for sources for buffs they wanted, instead of evaluating the document for what it is.

 

"In this quick study"

Not a roadmap of planned changes, a study of potential improvements to the platform. That there is a II and III and that the dates are similar does not really prove anything except that they spaced them out in roughly 3 year intervals. I cannot remember if there are additional pages but this makes no mention of TOGS. The Glacis protection could not be improved to that degree without obvious visual changes (i.e.: thicker, way thicker) and we have later documents that peg it at ~300mm KE (350mm with the gulf war applique). The new gun would not happen until Challenger 2, same with the free gunner's sight and transmission improvements.

 

I'm not entirely sure on the date of the document but it predates Mk.1 service (1983). You can infer this based on the wording regarding the OE ammo (L23A1) being in service in 1982, meaning the document is likely 1981 or earlier. Note L23A1 and L26A1 were already in development at this point, so predicting their service dates really just means that they managed to stay on schedule (though L26A1 would not be fielded until the gulf war).  This document is a fun read, and points to how early back they were aware of Challenger 1 short comings that would be remedied on Challenger 2, but it has zero bearing on what actually did happen.

 

 

 

[RoflSeal]

On 1/23/2024 at 8:54 PM, BaronTibere said:

This is attributing things to this document that it cannot say, while ignoring what it does say. This document was rather popular on the war thunder forums among people looking for sources for buffs they wanted, instead of evaluating the document for what it is.

 

"In this quick study"

Not a roadmap of planned changes, a study of potential improvements to the platform. That there is a II and III and that the dates are similar does not really prove anything except that they spaced them out in roughly 3 year intervals. I cannot remember if there are additional pages but this makes no mention of TOGS. The Glacis protection could not be improved to that degree without obvious visual changes (i.e.: thicker, way thicker) and we have later documents that peg it at ~300mm KE (350mm with the gulf war applique). The new gun would not happen until Challenger 2, same with the free gunner's sight and transmission improvements.

 

I'm not entirely sure on the date of the document but it predates Mk.1 service (1983). You can infer this based on the wording regarding the OE ammo (L23A1) being in service in 1982, meaning the document is likely 1981 or earlier. Note L23A1 and L26A1 were already in development at this point, so predicting their service dates really just means that they managed to stay on schedule (though L26A1 would not be fielded until the gulf war).  This document is a fun read, and points to how early back they were aware of Challenger 1 short comings that would be remedied on Challenger 2, but it has zero bearing on what actually did happen.

 

 

 

It's from DEFE 25/576 in 1981, before CR1 entered service

[Fireball]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:19 AM, SH_MM said:

So over a 60° frontal arc,

40° arc, M1A1 is 460 +-20

[Fireball]

On 1/20/2024 at 3:05 PM, FORMATOSE said:

Challenger 2 ballistic protection trials were completed by Vickers Defence Systems in July 1990 and at that time

Challenger 2’s studies were not complete by 1993, so this is incorrect. 

[Fireball]

On 1/22/2024 at 5:48 PM, FORMATOSE said:

The latest proposal made by Vickers Defence Systems to the MoD was 540 mm vs KE and 900 mm CE for the turret front.

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.

[FORMATOSE]

On 2/20/2024 at 7:01 PM, Fireball said:

Challenger 2’s studies were not complete by 1993, so this is incorrect. 

 

 

[Fireball]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:17 PM, FORMATOSE said:

 

 

Indeed, but strecth trials were not completed by 1990

[SH_MM]

 

[SH_MM]

Since twitter only embeds the first post of a thread for non-registered users, here's something from the Swiss evaluation of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 (1981):

 

Quote

Leopard 2 first round hit probability during trials in Switzerland: 83.4 to 86.3% percent with APFSDS ammunition (2.3 × 2.3 and 4.6 × 2.3 m targets in 1,500 metres distance) when moving and remaining static. For HEAT-MP ammunition, the first round hit probability was only 58.6 to 63.1%.

 

 

Quote

Compared to the M1 Abrams (tested with 105 mm gun in Switzerland), the Leopard 2 had a 10% higher first round hit probability and allowed spotting & targeting enemy tanks more quickly. For every duel that the M1 against an enemy tank, the Leopard 2 was calculated to win 2.6 to 3.8.

 

 

Quote

In terms of mobility, the Leopard 2 was deemed easier to handle, had independently acting brake systems and consumed only 5.2 litres (compared to 10.1 litres) per driven kilometre.

 

 

Quote

During the evaluation, the Leopard 2 required 55 repairs accounting for 43 hours. The M1 Abrams required 179 repairs, taking a total of 229 hours. The M1 Abrams was deemed to require higher concentration/skills due to non user-friendly workflows.

 

 

[Wiedzmin]

 

Pz58 firing trials

 

https://www.recherche.bar.admin.ch/recherche/#/en/archive/unit/29378223

 

and a lot of others in swiss archives 

[FIMMCH98]

So, first time here, just wanted to ask something that was bodering me:

 

The PT-91M2 A2 has the better FCS option, yet the PASEO commander sight sits right behind the wind mast.

 

Wouldn't the commnader sight be blocked whenever looking at the front?

 

Which I also found a very odd position considering where the original commander sight of the SAVAN 15 is located

 

(Identical post that I Made in the Polish vehicles thread. Did so to ensure views and replys)