Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 690
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Vickers Valiant on a muddy track :       Barr & Stroud LF 11 gunner sight and the Pilkington PE  Condor commander day/night sight :       Hull amm

What would your Abrahams be without British armour?  Hiw many Abrahams have been list? How many Chally's have been lost. Answer 1 to another Chally.  End of argument. 

General Dynamics UK have created a virtual expo complete with a 3D model viewer for Ajax and Foxhound: https://gdgoesvirtual.com/ls/event.html Password = GD2021 Interesting things like an electro

On 1/24/2019 at 2:17 PM, Willy Brandt said:

And what T-72s are there in the UK?
Or which T-72s does Rheinmetall own?


I would assume that Rheinmetall shipped the Challenger 2s to Germany and developed the upgrade there. While the company has multiple subsidiaries in the UK, the one that seems to be most fitting for the development of the Challenger 2 LEP prototype would be Rheinmetall Defence UK Ltd. (the other ones are focused on producing parts for various projects and maintenance for MAN trucks). According to Rheinmetall's website this subsidiary has only 45 employees, of which likely not all are factory workers. The company also has still to produce turret shells for the British AJAX (unless they have finished this task), so it seems likely that the upgrade was developed in Germany, where the gun is also made.


There used to be quite a few T-72 tanks available in Germany, but this might have changed in the past years. Still it would be possible to buy used T-72(M1s) from the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland without paying too much for shipping.


On 1/24/2019 at 2:17 PM, Willy Brandt said:

Also whats up with your Blog? Any new Articles in the future?
Or where can someone follow you except here?


It is in a state of limbo: it is practically dead, but I don't want to fully kill it yet. I would like to revive it in another form (maybe with more writers than just me), but this is a rather complex matter in many points. Not happy with blogspot, local copyright laws (no fair use) and available time (I started writing twice as many articles than I managed to publish, because time was an issue and I didn't want to turn a hobby into work). Changes in my actual job (was assigned to a project in Spring of 2018, which required me sometimes to keep working until the evening) and the fact that I've probably got too many hobbies meant that I didn't have enough time for much work on the blog.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...


@ 2:56
Perkins working on upgrading CV12 with common rail and new electronics rated at 1500hp.
Answer seems to imply this is for Challenger 2, which would make sense as BAE has a contract to explore powerpack upgrades.
We know that there was interest from Turkey for Altay and Nimda for India's FRCV is offering something that looks similar to their Czech T-72 upgrade (CV12@1000hp + Allsion XTG 411-6-N).

In negations with collaborators for a hybrid powerpack. 
BAE and Qinetiq?
Qinetiq used Challenger 2 as an example for their E-X-Drive at IAV 2019:

There was a report (https://www.janes.com/article/85620/uk-mod-kicks-off-electric-vehicle-drive-study) that the British Army wants to hybridise their fleet of vehicles.
All of the above points to a 1500hp modernised CV12 + E-X-Drive powerpack for Challenger 2 as a real possibility. MTU has recently gained a foothold in the UK market with Ajax & Boxer and would most likely offer to upgrade CR2, this seems to be Perkins/Caterpillar's response.



Link to post
Share on other sites


It's a research initiative to find out the feasibility and effectiveness of a soft-kill system based on MUSS by Hensoldt. Rheinmetall's ROSY was also being looked at.

The companion programme is Icarus, which is focusing on a "sovereign" hard-kill system by Leonardo UK.

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

Is there any meat to the claim the AFV budget is getting cut by a similar amount to the cost of the Warrior upgrade?

£1.5bn is missing from the scheduled AFV budget according to reports and a Journalist has confirmed this with the MoD. However the MoD are quoted as saying that it isn't cut but "re-prioritised".
WCSP is speculated at £1.4-1.6bn and the final decision date should be this year. Hence why many think that WCSP has finally been cut.

The other possibility is L-ATV for MRV-P (Multi-Role Vehicle - Protected) Group 1 has been rejected by the Treasury.
L-ATV was selected by the Army without a competition on the belief that its $250,000 base price and massive US purchase meant that even with required modifications it would still be cheaper to buy and run than any other competitor.
However after some testing its rumoured to be too cramped for needed equipment. The modifications to make it UK road legal (right-hand drive) and desired protection levels have dramatically risen the average price to buy and run. Nearly all the work would be done in the US leaving little for UK industry.
Previously the Treasury wouldn't fund Piranha V for FRES UV in 2008 because for such a large deal the MoD hadn't negotiated export or IP rights. So the Army went to GD and demanded exclusive rights to Piranha V. Got told no and collapsed the deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 6:27 AM, David Moyes said:

Nice to see a reasonable number of antenna mounts but very unusual to see them on the glacis?  It will put them out of the way to the extent they can be standardized in that location across non-turreted versions.  But it does place them in harms way and must compromise frontal protection?  Then again, they are over track - I wonder how they are routed - at some point they must penetrate the hull.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DIADES said:

Nice to see a reasonable number of antenna mounts but very unusual to see them on the glacis?  It will put them out of the way to the extent they can be standardized in that location across non-turreted versions.  But it does place them in harms way and must compromise frontal protection?  Then again, they are over track - I wonder how they are routed - at some point they must penetrate the hull.

Not just antenna mounts but data+power access points to quickly add equipment (IED detectors & jammers etc...)
Another 4 on the turret version and maybe 3 on raised-hull variant:


Not sure how they penetrate hull:

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.

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 delfosisyu
      SH_MM once uploaed this piece of image on this thread
      and I want to know where this is from.
      Is there anyone who can tell me the name of the book?

    • 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...