Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Britons are in trouble


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Sovngard said:


This could have been worse without the lessons learned from Saif Sareea 2 exercise.

Although the lesson should've been learnt when CR1s had the same issues whilst mustering in Saudi Arabia. Vickers had to rush a team out to desertify them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Although the lesson should've been learnt when CR1s had the same issues whilst mustering in Saudi Arabia. Vickers had to rush a team out to desertify them.


It's ironic knowing that the Challenger 1 was derived from a tank designed for operating in the desert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telford Armour




In brief, @RH_BAES_Land has developed Telford Enhanced Spaced Armour (TESA), a perforated armour offering protection up to STANAG 5 at 50% of the weight of equivalent RHA. It utilises a unique geometry to increase effects on projectiles.



The second is Telford Enhanced Ceramic Armour, which is slightly behind the development of TESA but utilises sealed ceramic armour packs to offer protection at STANAG 6+.


Might be related to the Porton Down armour mentioned in "CR3" upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...



Looks like the defense review will be out on tuesday and the theme will be RIP warrior and "Boxers for everyone".


Edit: annnnnddd no details, there is a more specific defense report coming on monday that might have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Rheinmetall confirmed Challenger 2 LEP awarded, official details TBC but 148 tanks looks good
  • Headline change is swap from L30A1 rifled gun to Rheinmetall L55A1 smoothbore
  • US has also provisionally confirmed M829A4 depleted uranium (DU) penetrator APFSDS round could be qualified rapidly for use from IOC.
  • Rounds stored in now industry-standard isolated bustle compartment with blow-out panels in event of penetration. Compartment holds 15 rds with a further 16 in hull storage, for total of 31. Compares with 49 in the CR2
  • LEP will use the same sights as AJAX, the Thales ORION and DNGS T3 (comamder/gunner)
  • Upgrade introduces new modular armour (nMA) package that raises baseline protection. Damaged modules can be replaced and can more easily accept future upgrades.
  • It will include new appliqué hull side and belly armour package for enhancing protection against mines, IEDs, and other underbody blast threats. The existing packs are relatively heavy, and dstl is working to develop lighter solutions for LEP as an optional additional module.
  • APS is required to meet survivability targets
  • I hear Trophy has been selected and 60 sets will be bought
  • Army is approaching mobility enhancement of Challenger 2 as a whole fleet concept, including CR2 driver training tank, TITAN AVBL and TROJAN AEV.
  • HAAIP will see a common engine and suspension standard applied to all CR2 variants, comprising an engine rebuild to the CV12-8a standard, new third-generation hydrogas (3GH) suspension, a new hydraulic track tensioner, an electric cold start system, and an improved cooling system
  • Once upgraded and fitted with nMA and APS, CR2 will be MLC100 class
  • ALTERNATIVES: The army considered alternatives that could provide a comparable capability but at a more compelling price. Those included leasing, buying second hand, or locally manufacturing the Leopard 2A7V and M1A2 SEPv2, as well as potential new vehicle offerings......including baseline Korean K2 and the larger K2PL specification designed for Poland. However, in all instances these alternatives were assessed to be unaffordable or politically incompatible compared with the preferred option of the RBSL proposal and the LEP+ requirements set


Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Moyes said:

CR2 will be MLC100 class

At what point do you give up on an existing platform and start over from scratch? If there has been anything I've learned from tanks, the key to weight savings isn't armor, it isn't the size of the gun, it isn't the size of the engine. It's the frame it's built on, and that's the single thing you can't change with these upgrade programs. The best weight tables available online are for the Type 10 and CR1, so my comparisons will be for the two of them. To put it into perspective, the Type 10's structural hull is 7 tons lighter than the CR1 and the turret is 3.8 tons lighter. I feel like with such a small upgrade fleet and a price per unit larger than the original cost per tank, they could cut back on a few units and put that towards R&D costs. With an MLC100 class, the hit to any strategic mobility raises the question of how they can possibly get their money's worth out of this program. With this new info it really just seems like they spend over a billion USD to have their tanks sit in home country with 0 risk of a land invasion.

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...