FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7949
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by SKB »

Heard it mentioned on the tv this week that the tank is 100 years old this weekend. Happy Birthday "tank" ! ;)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by arfah »

"................."
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

GastonGlocker
Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
United States of America

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by GastonGlocker »

arfah wrote:British Army Cribs.

Featuring Argonaut.
Nice summary of the lineage


arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by arfah »

...................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by arfah »

...................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, a big gun needed (a new turret, with a 130 mm cum an autoloader?):

the Military Balance 2016. The report adds:

“When it enters service Armata will be the first tank designed for an unmanned turret and APS. Successful fielding of APS will reduce the effectiveness of anti-tank guided missiles and shoulder-fired weapons such as rocket propelled grenades. This will change battlefield dynamics by increasing the importance of cannon, anti-tank guns and tanks.”

Hmm... what have I been saying all along (anti-tank guns being of course mounted on... tanks).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

judging by the standard of their aircraft defensive aid suites we have little to worry about
@LandSharkUK


arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by arfah »

...................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The 130 mm needs a new turret design anyway
... why not make it Ch2 compatible
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by LordJim »

Count we live with having all a Tanks ready ammunition on the rear of the turret? As has been frequently pointed out the hull of the CA2 is too shallow to have ready one piece rounds stored vertically. Yes they could be stored horizontally but ease of access would be an issue. I suppose a few could be stored to the left of the Driver with easy access but how would the driver feel about that.

In reality I strongly believe we are going to keep the CA2 going for as long as possible, tinkering around the edges. We will have to wait until the 2030s to get a new tank, so we will do what we always do and get by until then.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Most tanks store ready in the turret bustle.

The trick is whether you can get blowout panels and sealed doors in there.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

have seen footage of a fire in an Abrhams ammo locker very interesting still wouldn't have wanted to be in the turret.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

From the article.
Currently, young men in the US aged between 18 and 25 are required to register to be potential draftees, in case of a war requiring an expansion of the armed forces.
Wow, I did not know this.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7323
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Ron5 »

arfah wrote:I assume there's a department at Qinetiq who are working on armoured sanitary bins?

http://forces.tv/57054620
Seriously? I sure hope you are not in the military.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7323
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Ron5 »

You're the boor old chap.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1480
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Flippancy aside, it's actually a fairly good point, though there is probably a bunch of different ways of solving the problem, starting with the existing method of dealing with solid waste.


mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1480
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:Most tanks store ready in the turret bustle.

The trick is whether you can get blowout panels and sealed doors in there.
Blowout panels are pretty easy. If nothing else you want the the cover to be easily removable for maintenance and it's pretty basic to make a panel harder to push in than push out. The trick would be to make the rounds accessible and the door sufficiently stronger than the round stowage and the roof panel that any explosion definitely goes that way. Easier with an autoloader as the door needs only be the size of one round.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by dmereifield »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... go-abroad/

Rheinmetall considered the favourites

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Zero surprises there. If i had to bet on which two offers would be picked up for final evaluation, i would always put my money on BAE-GD and Rheinmetall. The latter, just because it includes a smoothbore solution, ought to gain the Army's attention big time. Maybe it won't win in the end, but the RAC sure will want to find out what it is all about.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Shouldn't care if this one goes abroad, Rheinmetall has the technically superior offering.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

such a shame we have to go down this route but lack of a coordinated industrial and defence strategy have led us to this point!

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Rheinmetall is clearly offering the more ambitious and more capable bid. If they don’t get it, it will be a travesty.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Rheinmetall is clearly offering the more ambitious and more capable bid. If they don’t get it, it will be a travesty.
would agree but the fallout if they do will be interesting as BaE throws a tantrum

Post Reply