Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Challenger 2E  Gate Guard - RBSL



Challenger 2 Turret lift


Standard turret weight: 18t~
W/ add-on: 20t~


Challenger 2 Hit by 14 RPGs - Iraq



Challenger 2 Experimental Autoloaders



Challenger 2 ROSY Demonstration


Challenger 2 Engine @ 2000bhp?

Seems there were multiple tests running the CV12 at 1500bhp and even 2000bhp but engine was limited by TN54 transmission:


With more power the vibrations will affect the rest of the tank, I drove Megatron with 2000 HP everything else suffered including bore sighting. It’s a stupid idea

Yep it was a trial to see what would fail with more power as Megatron got heavier, and everything suffered. We did get 8 gallons to the mile 😮 armour support arms fell off and/ or cracked even the armour packs suffered. Then it was run on Avgas rather than diesel. All bad


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Challenger 1 Maintenance Schedule

Written by Vickers?



Challenger 1 Structural Test




We did this on CTT (CR1 Training Tank) after a rollover test, to confirm for MOD the strength of the cab roof. MOD had taken academic advice, which assumed that the vehicle rolled over onto an infinitely stiff ground plane (the ground absorbed zero energy), but were happy with the rollover test. The CTT was recovered end-over-end like this to minimise damage (only real damage was broken cab front window as the vehicle initially slid inverted against some stones). (former Chief Engineer for CTT at Royal Ordnance, Leeds).



Project Chaser



 A project for a remotely operated turret to be fitted to tanks. designed as part of the later FMBT studies done by Royal Ordnance and Vickers who submitted 6 designs, Chaser was used on Future tank Concept 6 and B 1983. Chaser is the type of auto-loader, like cat and mouse, bar type etc. themselves follow on work from such projects as Comres or STT Vulcan and Cassandra.


Although they were using Chieftain, the crews operated on exercise as normal, but the auto functions were conducted by a team. So for example, auto track tensioner were simulated by the team carrying out track adjustments.

One of the guys involved, when asked, pointed out that an auto loader couldn't help with bombing up or cover radio stags. The concept of a 3 man crew on MBT wasn't popular.



Challenger Improvement Program (CHIP)


 deficiencies that the CHIP programme was supposed to fix. I don't know how many of the fixes actually saw service?




Link to comment
Share on other sites


The Legend of Wolfgang The Fast-Food Man

During the Cold War Wolfgang Meier became a legend to the BAOR (British Army on the Rhine).He owned a fast-food van and made a living following around British units on exercise.
No matter how distant or hidden a unit was Wolfgang managed to find them.

Soldiers thought he must have been a Soviet spy but turns out he was just bribing other soldiers with packs of Beer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, chihab said:

what's the story about this "Experimental Autoloaders"  plz ? 

the second one it's similar to the Russian AZ autoloade for T72/90 MBTs 

There's not much info.



Some years ago FHL (then Fairey Hydraulics) was awarded a contract by what is now the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency for the design, development and construction of a prototype 120 mm automatic loader.

The FHL design was of the bustle-mounted electromechanical type and held a total of 20 complete Explosive Squash Head (HESH) and Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS).

The 120 mm ammunition could be replenished from the front (internal) or from the rear (external) with ammunition selection being automatic on command with the selected round then being transported to the load position using a bidirectional conveyor mechanism.

The ammunition was clamped in position in its tube to prevent damage and a tubular sleeve supports the round between the tube and the breech for reliable ramming on the move, the rammer being of the ribbon.

Provision was also made for full emergency manual reversion with control being by microprocessor for ease of use and principal actuation by rare earth brushless DC motors.

Cycle time for a single round was 8 seconds while cycle time for a three-round burst was 21 seconds.

This system successfully completed its static trials but was never fitted into a vehicle for firing trials.


I think it was made mid-90's as a possible upgrade to Challenger 2 and to learn more about autoloaders as the NATO 140mm gun would need one.

The carousel type uses a "Cat & mouse" two-piece ammo rammer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any further information on the RARDE APFSDS round that the UK used during the 1970s tri-lateral gun evaluation and then later displayed at the 1976 BAEE for the Iranian Chieftains? All I've got are some rather poor scans of a JDW. I'm curious how Britain had 120mm APFSDS in '76 but then did nothing to get any into service before ordering L23 in '78 (and not getting it until ~'83). Is there anything known about these rounds? Names even?







I know there is a better image of the rounds in one of the Hanyes books of all the ammo on display for Iran, including the HEAT-FS and a sharp-nosed HESH (wtf?), any of the archive diggers have anymore about these things?

Link to comment
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...