UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Location: Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Cooper » 15 May 2018, 12:07

I bet you lot want the C2 to finish last, don't you. Just so you can keep on griping about it.

I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place :lol:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1748
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Caribbean » 15 May 2018, 12:53

Cooper wrote:I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place

Too horrible to contemplate - the psychological damage would be immense :wtf: :shock: :crazy:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 15 May 2018, 14:12

Cooper wrote:I bet you lot want the C2 to finish last, don't you. Just so you can keep on griping about it.

I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place :lol:

Caribbean wrote:
Cooper wrote:I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place

Too horrible to contemplate - the psychological damage would be immense :wtf: :shock: :crazy:


Strawmanning much?

If it comes first, then we know why. Because the crew performed well. After all, a 2A4 won it last year. Quality of the tank outside some element of FCS and mobility is not a thing in this competition, unlike in war.

However, if it comes last, then it could be a very nice thing to hold up to those who constantly refuse to put up the money to actually fix the vehicle's several problems. If the tabloids got a grip of it, then they could very easily become a 'thing' in the known media in front of the politicians.

To some, this could be a good thing, as it might finally bring to attention issues that people have been warning of for years.

That, and many of the things to critique it over are not covered in this competition, such as protection, penetration, gun wear, and crew survivability.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 06 Jun 2018, 00:05

Speaking to the tank knowhows on Discord who have some contacts, looks like the Challenger is getting absolutely humped. Picture tells a portion of the story.

Image

Given its archaic FCS by comparison to the others, no surprise. Allegedly the Swedish Leopard 2 put five rounds within inches of one another.

Ukraine's one has always been a bit of a joke entry.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 06 Jun 2018, 00:15

That would perhaps explain why the QRH facebook page has suddenly gone silent on the day of the live shooting phase, posting instead a short video from yesterday's driving phase...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby benny14 » 06 Jun 2018, 12:33



RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 06 Jun 2018, 14:36

I would be very interested to know the recognition requirements.

As in, what level it focuses on. Is it "Target identified as MBT/IFV/SPAA", or "Target identified, T-72/BDRM-2/BMP-2", or as far as "Target Identified, T-72B3/BMP-3M"

Each has tactical consideration. In reality, anything past the second level above would be excessive for combat operations; but information gathering and intelligence in an era when current foes are using versions of their tank (T-72B3 for example) in combat, then claiming it was a "rebel captured Ukranian one" when Ukraine doesn't have any B3 variants is a valuable skill for determining whats really going on.

ie - Is it quick reaction enemy type, absolute ID of incoming foe, or ISTAR recognition that's being tested?

Very open category to think about how far it could go.


RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Jun 2018, 10:17

Further update, looks like Sweden is tipped to win. Challenger hasn't had its defensive score revealed yet, but right now they're only ahead of Poland's Leopard 2A5 (who came dead last in 2017. and Ukraine's T-84 Oplot (which is sort of a joke entry in terms of the tanks ability to function at the pace of western designs), and not too far behind France's Leclerc.

(Yes I am fully aware this is more a crew exercise, but its simply easier to refer via the tanks than via difficult to remember specific regiments here.)

Image

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 08 Jun 2018, 11:33

The final position of the british team might well be better due to the hundreds more points assigned by crew activities, but these are the two "purely tank" trials and Challenger, as fully expected, did not shine.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Jun 2018, 22:50

RetroSicotte wrote:I would be very interested to know the recognition requirements.

As in, what level it focuses on. Is it "Target identified as MBT/IFV/SPAA", or "Target identified, T-72/BDRM-2/BMP-2", or as far as "Target Identified, T-72B3/BMP-3M"

You just single handedly butchered the Johnson's criteria out of that.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 08 Jun 2018, 23:40

So, Germany won, Sweden second, Austria third. Not sure how France, Poland and US ranked. I've seen both a claim that the UK placed fourth and one that it is second last, with Ukraine at the bottom.
Would be even worse than expected if the latter claim was true.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Online
User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Location: Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Cooper » 09 Jun 2018, 09:22

UK finished fourth overall, according to British Forces TV.

Not bad at all.

Sorry, I know most of you in here wanted them to finish last in order to affirm your views that the C2 is now an obsolete pile of junk, better luck next time.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Timmymagic » 09 Jun 2018, 10:13

Cooper wrote:UK finished fourth overall, according to British Forces TV.


And that's an incredibly creditable performance.

It's like the old Canadian Army competition, the UK might have struggled, but if you'd asked anyone who they would have wanted on their flanks in the event of a real shooting war and they'd have all plumped for the BAOR who were rightly viewed as the masters of defensive tank warfare.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 09 Jun 2018, 10:49

That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. Nobody wanted the QRH team humiliated, but those with a tiny bit of honesty knew that the offensive and defensive shoots, the two tests that regard the tank and not crew fitness, cbrn drills and other basic training, would go horribly. And they did, with only Ukraine doing worse. That's because if you are the heaviest tank of all and also the one with less installed power, you are not going to match the others. If your sights are so obsolete that the army tried to get them replaced before CSP even starts, you are going to struggle. Because loading ammunition in two pieces will be slower, and so along. It would really help if a sane injection of realism was taken by everyone. British crews did well. British tanks not really.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Jun 2018, 15:12

Cooper wrote:Sorry, I know most of you in here wanted them to finish last in order to affirm your views that the C2 is now an obsolete pile of junk, better luck next time.


What kind of strawmanning is this?

Not a single person has claimed they wanted this at all.

You're protesting an imaginary person.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Jun 2018, 16:40

Does anybody actually have a link to those report on the final results? Everyone I'm asking connected to it has no awareness of such a report, and are inquiring about where it is on BFN.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 09 Jun 2018, 17:08

I've spent the morning trying to determine the positions after the first 3, but with zero luck.
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
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Zealot » 09 Jun 2018, 21:49

The US won the "Most Lethal" Shoot Off - 1st Place

Skip to 7:15

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Jun 2018, 23:42

To be fully expected. The SEPv2s FCS is on another level compared to anything else in tanks right now.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Jun 2018, 05:37

RetroSicotte wrote:The SEPv2s FCS is on another level compared to anything else in tanks right now.


What's behind that statement? Leo2 claims first shot kill out to 4 km (whether that is also on the move... the claim does not say) and the anecdotal evidence
RetroSicotte wrote:Allegedly the Swedish Leopard 2 put five rounds within inches of one another.

supports the claim.
- is it the target acquisition (which includes the handover speed - and numbers, if more than one - between the commander and the gunner)?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 10 Jun 2018, 13:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What's behind that statement? Leo2 claims first shot kill out to 4 km (whether that is also on the move... the claim does not say) and the anecdotal evidence


Rather than just attempt to generalise things from what I know, I decided it would be better to go to someone I know is a direct expert for direct quote. A friend of mine from the Polish Army, who has been inside both Leopard and Abrams tanks on familiarisation, and works as a reporter for military technology. I've never met anybody as deeply embedded into tank technology as him.

He's offered some notes on the modern Abrams FCS, but will bring some more later on why it sets it apart, that I can carry across into here once he's back from his shift. I think he slightly misinterpreted my question at first, but hopefully some of this information is interesting for the moment until I can get the more full answer later. :)

New FCS/Sights for M1A1SA, M1A1FEP, M1A2SEPv1, M1A2SEPv2, have such functions.

1. Day sight have 3x and 10x zoom.
2. Thermal sight have 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom. Same for M1A2SEPv1/v2 commander CITV. M1A1SA/M1A1FEP SCWS cupola have day and thermal sights comparable to panoramic sights of european tanks.
3. Due to new laser range finder and FCS software, FCS allows to fire all main gun conventional rounds up to 5000m, LRF can lase distance to targets much further, around 10000m.
4. Thanks to new LRF, a far target location system was integrated in to vehicle FCS and BMS. It means that by using LRF range + azimuth data + own vehicle position thanks to GPS, FTL system can calculate precise coordinations of targets, these can be then distributed by BMS to other friendly units, higher echelon command, or used for artillery or air strikes.

FTL capability will be further enhanced in M1A2SEPv4.

Because commander CITV will be upgraded in to CIV, with new thermal sight, new day sight, laser range finder and laser pointer

Thus tank commander will be also able to use laser pointer for guided missiles, bombs and munitions.

Later when i return from work i can write more



EDIT- He also dropped this just before he left there

Leopard 2 FCS did not changed much from time it was inducted in to service. It is US design by Hughes. However its old design, gunner still uses old WBG-X thermal sight which is 1970 tech.

Modern M1's uses now 2nd generation FLIR which is XXI century tech

Also Leopard 2 sight is kinda meh. Day sight have only fixed 12x zoom narrow field of view. Thermal sight have 3x and 12x zoom compared with 50x on the Abrams. On Leopard 2A5 and newer commander optics improved tough with new PERI. AFAIK Swedish, Spanish and perhaps Greek Leopard 2A5/A6 variants have redesigned day sight for gunner with 3x and 12x zoom. Thermal sights stay the same old, obsolete WBG-X.

Again, more when I get home. Got my detailed docs there.



In effect, as he surmised quickly, the Abrams' FCS involves more connected systems that reduce time to engage, higher resolution sights, VASTLY higher magnification, and more tools available, while the Leopard 2's have some individually interesting systems like the new daysight, but altogether are a bit of a mishmash that aren't as cohesively upgraded and integrated together on any single variant in service.

What he's heard was that while any tank can be that accurate, SE is judged on time to engage as well, which the Abrams is monstrously effective at. ROF isn't constrained by the loader/autoloader any more, but by the crew interface.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Jun 2018, 19:25

RetroSicotte wrote:Thus tank commander will be also able to use laser pointer for guided missiles, bombs and munitions.


A BIG HAND for that kind of handover!

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 11 Jun 2018, 18:33

It seems like Poland is saying they arrived 4th. Challenger is 7th, just ahead of the Ukrainians, at least according to Wikipedia.
And QRH social media conveniently fell silent on the matter.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Jun 2018, 19:13

Gabriele wrote:It seems like Poland is saying they arrived 4th. Challenger is 7th, just ahead of the Ukrainians, at least according to Wikipedia.
And QRH social media conveniently fell silent on the matter.


Don't listen to Wikipedia, there's been people shifting places on it all day, mostly to put the US team higher.

Here's the source I've seen bandying around. Can't confirm anything outside of, but certainly better than that nonsense edit war going on wikipedia right now.

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/867874.html

1st place - Germany, The 3rd Panzer Battalion (Leopard 2A6) 1450 points
2nd place - Sweden, Wartofta Tank Company, Skaraborg Regiment (Stridsvagn 122) 1411 points
3rd place - Austria, 6th Tank Company, 14th Panzer Battalion (Leopard 2A4) 1321 points
4th place - France, 1er Régiment de Chasseurs, 1st Hunter Regiment (AMX-56 Leclerc) 1186 points
5th place - Poland, 34th Armoured Cavalry Brigade (Leopard 2A5) 1151 points
6th place - United Kingdom, Queen’s Royal Hussars (Challenger II) 1140 points
7th place - USA, 2nd Battalion, 70th Armored Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division (M1A2 SEP) 1100 points
8th place - Ukraine, 1st Tank Company, 14th Mechanized Brigade (T-84U) 950 points

1st plase in the shootout - USA, 2nd Battalion, 70th Armored Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division (M1A2 SEP)



Abrams essentially proved the best technical thing there, other than mobility (which is to be expected against things like Leo 2 and Leclerc) as mobility wasn't considered part of the scoring for the first place they took in the direct shootout.

As has been said ad nauseum, Strong Europe is not about tanks. It's about crews. The vast majority of points are earned for out of tank tasks like repairs, CBRN, medevac, small arms, target recognition, navigation, fitness courses, obstacle courses etc etc etc.

There's people all over British Forces News news videos trying to push this "UK came fourth" thing with basically no source and are just weakly saying "lol go google it" when pushed for their source. ie - They don't have one.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArmChairCivvy and 3 guests