Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 635
  • 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

Some historical curiosity, probably not known to you guys. After WW2 Czechoslovak army had a wild mix of tanks of Soviet, German, British, American and own origins. The western machinery didn't have a long service due to a lack of spares after the communist power takeover however some Cromwells ended being rebuilt as electric excavators in mines (with cables instead of batteries) and serving for another decades in this role. To this day some 5-6 such chassis exist owned by various museums or collectors and some of them are being rebuilt back to the tank form (Smržovka muzeum piece at least, the one was once probably a Centaur). This is how the strange excavator looked like. The photos are roughly 20 years old when it was still posasible to find the vehicles in some mines (unserviceable). 

https://www.valka.cz/CZK-THV-01-tankovy-haldovy-vykopnik-t84828 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beer said:

some Cromwells ended being rebuilt as electric excavators in mines (with cables instead of batteries) and serving for another decades in this role.

I bet they werent too successful. Probably there wasnt anything better. Military vehicles are totally unsuitable for conversion to excavators, wheel loaders, dozers, etc. Main problem: the presence of suspension. (also the lack of durability)

Btw, if Im not mistaken, some Jagdpanzer 38ts were also converted to some auxiliary mining vehicles or light tractors, I saw some photos about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenger 2(E) Promotional Posters

s20VfuJ.jpg
iFTAXmQ.jpg
 

Quote

That vehicle, as the title says, is Challenger 2E. Only existed as a single example. This is the first Challenger 2 prototype vehicle, V1. From my book - V1. Registration number 06SP87 was used as a general trial’s vehicle. Environmental and other areas of performance were tested. V1 was sold back to Vickers Defence Systems to enable development work to commence on Project Copenhagen, the tank eventually to be the Challenger 2 that was built for Oman. V1, much modified as Challenger 2E, still exists as a Gate Guardian at the BAE facility in Telford.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/chally/permalink/3827327810631274/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CV12 Remanufacture 

WGaTXdH.jpg

 

Quote

Challenger 1 Rolls Royce / Perkins CV12 (4A) after completion of its remanufacture and awaiting packaging to 'Level J' standard and another one during engine assembly back in the 1990's.


https://www.facebook.com/groups/chally/permalink/3796493567048032/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Figured it out. It's a regular turret on a E hull. 

I didn't notice the different rear and then thought it was a re-painted Omani version as they have different cooling exhausts:

kZf8ozb.jpg

I had also forgotten that the version used in Greek trials had a mantle-mounted optic but used the updated periscope:

IhBr7X8.jpg

I wonder why it was changed? Previously the regular CR2E was the one being advertised to Greece:

kHpX3GU.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the one at Greek trials still had TOGs installed but the CR2E spec at that point was to remove it, it just hadn't been done yet - I think the one on display was later on.

 

The strange CR2E pictured above is for the South African proposal, idk much about it but it appears to be a slightly more austere version compared to full CR2E spec - euro powerpack but standard optics. In any case I believe it lost out to the Leclerc but neither went ahead.

 

Source: Simon Dunstan,

unknown.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 4:18 PM, BaronTibere said:

AFAIK the one at Greek trials still had TOGs installed but the CR2E spec at that point was to remove it, it just hadn't been done yet - I think the one on display was later on.

 

The strange CR2E pictured above is for the South African proposal, idk much about it but it appears to be a slightly more austere version compared to full CR2E spec - euro powerpack but standard optics. In any case I believe it lost out to the Leclerc but neither went ahead.

 

Source: Simon Dunstan,

unknown.png

So the Leclerc wont the South African competition ? How did it win it ? I never heard of that competition until now. Is there any more information floating around out there ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few other mentions. Army Guide's article on the Olifant (which is literally stolen from Jane's Armour and Artillery) for example mentions:

Quote
Future South African MBT

 

It was expected that the current Olifant Mk 1 series of MBT would have been replaced by a new MBT in the early part of the 21 st century.

There were two contenders to meet this requirement, the French Giat Industries Tropicalised Leclerc and the British Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2E.

The requirement was for 96 new MBTs, six armoured recovery vehicles and four armoured vehicle launched bridges on a similar chassis.

Late in 1998 South Africa announced that it was to order a major package of new defence equipment but MBTs were not part of this package.

 

Global Security's article on the TTD mentions:

Quote

South Africa has a requirement for between 95 and 108 MBTs, and as of 1998 had short listed Vickers and the French GIAT concern as final bidders. Vickers Defence Systems campaign proposedr the Challenger 2E MBT in the later phase of South Africa's Defence spending program. This order would represent new business worth approximately £600 million for the company GIAT is offering its Leclerc MBT, is the first Western MBT to be deployed with an automatic loader, and a crew of only three.

 

Apparently there were also plans to allow Denel to manufacture propellant for the British Challenger 2 tanks as part of the proposal:

Quote

THE planned closure of the Bishopton munitions plant on the outskirts of Glasgow late next year could cost British Aerospace two contracts worth an initial #200m and prove fatal to the long-term survival of ammunition production in the UK.

The site near Glasgow produces two tank shell propellants so technologically advanced that they are kept secret even from the United States, Britain's closest ally.

 

[...]

 

One propellant is also a key element in the sales pitch now under way to persuade a number of overseas customers to buy the Challenger 2E, the export version of the British Army's fleet of main battle tanks, in a package which includes shells and training.

 

[...]

 

The analysis says that the quest for a foreign partner with a cheaper cost-base than Bishopton had been narrowed to the United States and South Africa, but that only low-tech contracts could be given to Pretoria, since it was regarded as a security risk by the UK's Ministry of Defence.

Senior management visiting South Africa to discuss the sale of Challenger 2 tanks were ''prevented from discussing any aspect of CHARM 3 (state-of-the-art tank ammunition) with either Denel or the South African government by the UK Ministry of Defence.'' Denel is South Africa's biggest arms manufacturer.

The analysis adds: ''One significant problem which exists with South Africa is that they are considered to be a security risk by the UK MoD.''

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/12/2018 at 5:16 PM, Xlucine said:

 

That'd be a whole new level of effort - you'd need to design the shortened gun, test it, work out ballistic data for all natures of ammunition, and reprogram the FCS.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Steve said:

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. 

   Everybody knows that Abrahamanus is the worst tank in the world, but Challenged 2 is best because it have rifled gun and fire HESH! Very Strong! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2021 at 9:31 AM, DIADES said:

Including not making it to the fight cos made in England?


Challenger 1 had 98% availability during the Gulf War. Only attrition being two CR1s driving into each other and breaking their guns at the very beginning.

Challenger 2 had a similar availability during the Iraq invasion and only downtime was due to a massive sandstorm.

CR line has it's share of problems but reliability generally isn't one.

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.

Guest
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...