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)

[SH_MM]

The "perceptions" (of a member?) of the US delegation regarding the Greek trank trials via @Andrei_bt's telegram channel. As these are only perceptions, there might be some level of subjectivity or small inaccuracies are the author(s) couldn't tell exact rankings regarding some categories and there are also some conflicts with other sources.

Supposedly, 30% of the score was awarded for the categories overall technology, mobility and optics, while 70% of the score was awarded for fire control and survivability.

 

First of all, the US presentation claims that the Leopard 2 and M1A2 reached 95%+ scores while the Challenger and Leclerc ended up with 85%+ scores. This stands in direct conflict with multiple other sources, including an article written by members of the Greek military on the tank program claiming that the highest score achieved was just 78.3% and contemporary public coverage of the program. Given that the US source lists several shortcomings for every tank, reaching a score of above 95% seems really unlikely.

 

Interestingly, the US sourve also suggests that the M1A2 scored highest in terms of survivability in front of the Leopard 2, followed by the Challenger and Leclerc. This makes me wonder whether survivability included armor protection or was solely focused on post-penetration measures, given that Greek sources directly state that in terms of armor protection the M1A2 Abrams (SEP) ended on second place behind the Leopard 2:

 

Another curiosity is that neither the T-80U nor the T-84 supposedly managed to even reach the top four in either category, especially in terms of protection they should be competitive with Challenger 2E and Leclerc Tropicalized based on the British reports and Swedish trials. Armor penetration also wasn't a factor according to the US slide, as it lists "fire control" rather than "firepower" as a ranking category. Seems quite questionable given the large gap between the different competitors (3BM42 & L23 vs OFL F1 and KEW-A1...).

 

The Leclerc supposedly performed the best in the first (30%) section of categories, being the lightest tank and having the lowest fuel consumption. The optics - in particular the second generation driver's sight - and the thermal sights were praised, just like the C2 system with color displays. However the tank had several shortcomings in terms of firepower (problems with autoloader, stabilizer and main gun) and could not demonstrate the deep water fording capability. There were several open questions regarding the Leclerc due to the behaviour of the French delegation; they caught jamming GPS, showed bad behaviour towards the evaluation committee, some incidents with the hotel & telephones (maybe they were wire-tapping?)... The US slides also repeat the German accusation of the Leclerc tested in Greek having (parts of) the armor removed to be lighter during trials.

 

Regarding the Abrams, the US slides have mostly good things to say, though some of it might be the result of rose-tinted glasses. Note e.g. that according to the slide's own colouring scheme, already starting with the second place, things should be coloured in blue yet there are at least two green lines that were not first places according to the same document!

According to the US, the M1A2 Abrams was ranke/rated first in various categories, including "stabilization checks" (yet the hydraulic stabilizer is in the later section mention as being worse than the Leopard 2's electro-hydraulic system), driving (yet it performed poor on the slalom course, when driving down a slope) and the suspension system. I find the latter statements rather confusing, given that it only placed second in terms of mobility in Swedne and third in Greece (overall). The Abrams' suspension offers less shock absorbers and suspension travel than some competitors. So what exactly was the category "suspension system and driving" about?

 

The Leopard 2A5 "held up well" and was claimed to be second behind M1A2 yet at the end of trials it was in the first place before the Abrams? Weird. Either way, the Leopard 2A5 performed best in gunnery and deep water fording, while its optics also were highly rated. Apparently the LRF didn't work correctly during the first week of trials, but after it was fixed performance was stellar. The FCS' hard limit of 4,000 meters was an issue during tests, but it hit all targets at 3,840 meters distance.

 

Weirdly enough the US slides state that Leopard 2A5 was claimed to have 70% commonality with the Leopard 1A5 - this has to be a misunderstanding. Either they claimed that the FCS has 70% commonality (with the EMES 18 of the Leopard 1A5 being derived from the Leopard 2's EMES 15) or they mixed up the Leopard 1A5 with the Leopard 2A4...

 

Also the claim that the Leopard 2 was rated last in cruising range is odd given that it is in a direct conflict with the observations of a member of the Russian delegation who noted a cruising range of 375 km for the Leopard 2A5, 365 km for the M1A2 Abrams and 340 km for the T-80U.

 

 

The Challenger 2E performed well in the aspects where it was improved over the baseline model, i.e. in cruising range & fuel consumption (more efficient engine & larger fuel tanks compared to Leopard 2), optics (but behind Leclerc and Leopard 2) and maneuverability (in particular it accelerated better than the M1A2 Abrams). Weirdly enough, the Challenger 2E is claimed to be rated third in gunnery, which is again a point conflicting with other sources, unless the US counted the trials in which the Leclerc couldn't participate as misses.

The hastly adaption of the Challenger 2E to the EuroPowerPack however resulted in a number of problems during the mobility trials.

 

The Ukrainian T-84 was rated high in mobility and cruising range/fuel consumption (again a case of text being colored green despite the table noting that blue should be used starting with being second) and performed the best during MG trials. It performed suprisingly well during gunnery trials, but had a lot technical probelms with the engine and transmission.

 

The T-80U was rated high in mobility, probably even rank 1 (which according to the other slide was held by the Leclerc)... this doesn't really match the experiences of the Swedish evaluation team. It suffered from poor ergonomics (albeit those should be more or less identical to T-84), a low cruising range and several technical issues that negatively affected the performance. When crewed by a Russian crew ("contractors"), it performed well during the gunnery trials but could not complete all trials due to transmission problems.

 

At the start of the trials, the US brought DU ammunition with them but weren't allowed to use it, so they had to use training ammo for some early tests. KEW (IIRC the KEW-A1, but it only states KEW) ammunition was quickly delivered (from Egypt) which helped improving the gunnery scores. During the VIP demo, the M1A2 Abrams performed extremely well in the eyes of the US delegation.

 

When not including the rapid fire tests (there was at least one tests in which the tanks had to fire 25 rounds at two different targets as quickly as possible), the M1A2 Abrams was nearly as accurate as the Leopard 2A5, but its electric turret drives and optics were not on par with the Leopard 2A5. The Leopard 2A5's "autotracker" (IIRC they mean the automatic application of dynamic lead after the gunner presses the button for that) works unsuprisingly only against moving targets.

 

The US perceived the M1A2's FCS as being quicker and "better", but that doesn't directly match the other sources... but maybe those include the "rapid-fire" excluded by the US delegation?