FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote: rather than sticking to the (mostly US based) mass produced standards.
How many US rounds do the Germans use on the 120 mm as they veered away from depleted uranium starting end of the 80's (how did they know the Wall was going to fall) and only started a serious catch-up effort in this decade (due to the upgrades in Russian tank protection plus rumours of Armata)?
- so all the meanwhile, their rounds have been at a penetration disadvantage... the advertising of course says nothing about this

Artillery, sure, uses interchangeable rounds, but the again the nature of it is to chew the stuff by ton and very quickly, so replen needs to come from whoever is closest
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)

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:How many US rounds do the Germans use on the 120 mm as they veered away from depleted uranium starting end of the 80's (how did they know the Wall was going to fall) and only started a serious catch-up effort in this decade (due to the upgrades in Russian tank protection plus rumours of Armata)?
- so all the meanwhile, their rounds have been at a penetration disadvantage... the advertising of course says nothing about this
The Germans themselves, none. However they are compatible, with the exception of the M829A3/E4 as it requires the higher pressure limit of the M256. The standard allows manufacturing that is shared between countries to stick to known levels, and just overall makes the thing cheaper, while allowing for wartime stockpile sharing (mostly).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Against my better judgement I will remain a "Glass half full" on this subject. Rheinmetall will have developed their proposal against the MoD's list of requirements and obviously think they can install the new gun within the programmes budget.
Not necessarily. It’s more likely they’ve offered it on top of the MoD’s list of requirements, in the same way that BAE has offered APS. If the MoD likes what they see and can stump up the extra cash, then they can have it. Otherwise they can’t.


Primary role of tanks is killing other tanks? Nonsense. The primary role of tanks is providing protected, mobile firepower. In this role, they are the most likely to come into contact with enemy tanks doing the same thing, so being able to kill your likely adversary is advisable, but it’s not their primary role.
Post 1990 and the end of the Cold War I would agree that the role of Main Battle Tanks has been mobile protected firepower, mainly because they slotted into such a role as a reason to justify their existence. In this role hey have proved their worth in Iraq and Afghanistan. However this was because it was believed their was no contemporary armoured threat, which was true. Now however such a threat has re-emerged and we are having to relearn the lessons and tactics of the Cold War all over again.

In a modern peer battle you need MBTs to take on an opponent's MBTs as they are the best tool for the job. The airspace above the battle is likely to be contested and so air support cannot be guaranteed, and Infantry with their ATGW are vulnerable to artillery and missiles are vulnerable to both active and passive countermeasures. So like in the Cold War we would likely be fighting, at least at the start, on the defensive and the primary role of the MBTs would be to engage enemy armour.

If simple fire support was required, then there would be no discussion about the effectiveness of the current 120mm gun on the CR2, as its HESH round is one of the best options for that role. So I would argue that now and in the future, killing enemy AFVs will be the primary role of the CR2 with mobile fire support second.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: In a modern peer battle you need MBTs to take on an opponent's MBTs as they are the best tool for the job. The airspace above the battle is likely to be contested and so air support cannot be guaranteed, and Infantry with their ATGW are vulnerable to artillery and missiles are vulnerable to both active and passive countermeasures.
Good points there; Infantry including AI (whom we, for some reason, do not like giving turret-mounted ATGWs) played a big role, scouting (so it was Cavalry, really, carrying reloads mainly and only a couple of dismounts) ahead, in the last big tank battle of 73 Easting, but since then the biggest equalizer to emerge has been APS (likely to bring 'the big gun' to the fore, once again).

The previous battle to 73 Easting was on a much larger scale, but does not really count as the geography favoured one participating side:
" on the fourth day of the fighting [on the Golan Heights], Israeli reinforcements arrived, and the Syrians were forced to withdraw. Almost all of Israel's [100] tanks were destroyed, but they gave far more than they got — Syrian armored vehicle losses were around 500, around 250 of which were tanks.

So, Battle of 73 Easting it is: February 26 – 27, 1991.

The main part of the battle was fought between the U.S. 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and Iraq's 18th Mechanized Brigade and 37th Armored Brigade.

The ensuing battle saw the Iraqi forces be completely decimated. Over 160 tanks and armored personnel carriers were destroyed, damaged, or captured by U.S. forces. Up to 1,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed or wounded, and over 1,000 more were taken prisoner.

U.S. losses: one Bradley infantry fighting vehicle destroyed. Historian and author Rick Atkinson described the battle:

"Here could be seen, with almost flawless precision, the lethality of modern American weapons; the hegemony offered by AirLand Battle doctrine
- which' of course is utter BS, as visibility was so poor that it took a while before even the MBTs could come to the fore, and take over from the scouting screen... which was doing a good job while "the stocks" lasted
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)

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Very difficult to use tank wars lately as comparisons of needs, since they have been either crushingly lopsided due to technological/training difference, or just complete fusterclucks of "Are they, aren't they?" fighting like in Syria and Ukraine with only sporadic armour encounters.

Not to mention there's been a technological quantum leap since then. The biggest advantage for the US and British in 91 was Thermals. They used to be "one side only", not so any more. APS became a mature technology, gun launched ATGMs became actually viable for once, networking C4I dropped in, tandem charges became commonplace, long rods became more of a standard, sights and fire control updated relentlessly, KEP resistant ERA is now standard issue in the East.

The tanks may be the same hull, but how exactly full on armour clashes might go now is pretty much into the strict theoretical at this point.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Absolutely
RetroSicotte wrote: is pretty much into the strict theoretical at this point.
... until it happens.

The force with most experience (IDF) seems to have changed tack (from heavy & protected) to everything, mixed in according to the situation - and: to be able to muster the numbers!
- who can afford an all-heavy force?
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: Post 1990 and the end of the Cold War I would agree that the role of Main Battle Tanks has been mobile protected firepower, mainly because they slotted into such a role as a reason to justify their existence. In this role hey have proved their worth in Iraq and Afghanistan. However this was because it was believed their was no contemporary armoured threat, which was true. Now however such a threat has re-emerged and we are having to relearn the lessons and tactics of the Cold War all over again.
The role of the tank has always been mobile protected firepower. From its inception to the present day.
In a modern peer battle you need MBTs to take on an opponent's MBTs as they are the best tool for the job.
No they aren't. In order to defeat the enemy's tanks with yours, you need to put yours at risk from theirs. Artillery and air are both better counters, even if they aren't always available and even if they aren't 100% effective.
The airspace above the battle is likely to be contested and so air support cannot be guaranteed, and Infantry with their ATGW are vulnerable to artillery and missiles are vulnerable to both active and passive countermeasures.
So like in the Cold War we would likely be fighting, at least at the start, on the defensive and the primary role of the MBTs would be to engage enemy armour.
Now there's a distinction here between what a system is intended to do and what it ends up doing dependant on circumstances. In the posited scenario, the job of infantry, artillery and air is also anti-tank. That does't mean that it is their primary role.
If simple fire support was required, then there would be no discussion about the effectiveness of the current 120mm gun on the CR2, as its HESH round is one of the best options for that role. So I would argue that now and in the future, killing enemy AFVs will be the primary role of the CR2 with mobile fire support second.
If there are enemy AFVs about, then tanks are the most likely to meet them and, since enemy AFVs carry the most firepower and are consequently the highest threat, the enemy tanks will be priority targets for the mobile, protect fire support that tanks provide. If your manoeuvre pays off, your tanks will be crunching up the enemy's supply lines and rear areas while artillery and air degrades his armoured formations, rather than engaging in nose-to-nose matches between armour.

HESH isn't the best secondary round out there anymore. It's probably still up there for engaging light vehicle and fortifications, but multi-function fuse HE probably has it these days, since that can engage light vehicles and fortifications tolerably well, while vastly outperforming HESH against targets in relatively open ground or in defilade.

The need for an effective anti-armour round is based on the likelihood of meeting enemy armour. Providing mobile protected fire support to your leading formations increases the chance of meeting your opposite number, as he moves his mobile protected firepower to stop you crunching through his rear areas or the other way around. All while air and artillery on both sides try to destroy these formations.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote:Worth recalling that the DM53 and DM63 are very similar, the DM63 being essentially a reworked DM53 to perform more consistently, rather than as an explicitly new round. They are often mistaken and used as overlapping terms in some outlets and by some people (as inaccurate as that is).
Surely that would be the DM55A1, as per Rheinmetall's own description? I've always been under the impression that the DM63 was an entirely new generation of APFSDS?

Either way, i think serious questions must be asked of German KE rounds. If the various bits of criticism are to be believed, they may well fail to offer us much of an improvement over CHARM3 in terms of performance. I think we need to consider long and hard about what would we like to arm any potential, L55A1 toting Challenger with.

Is the M829A4 compatible with the L55???

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Surely that would be the DM55A1, as per Rheinmetall's own description? I've always been under the impression that the DM63 was an entirely new generation of APFSDS?
I've never heard of DM55. You mean DM53A1?

On DM63:
"A further development, called the DM63, improved upon the round by introducing a new temperature-independent propellant, which allows the propellant to have a constant pattern of expansion between ambient temperatures inside the gun barrel from −47 °C (−53 °F) to +71 °C (160 °F). The new propellant powders, known as surface-coated double-base (SCDB) propellants, allow the DM63 to be used in many climates with consistent results."
It's not a huge difference, as it seems.
Either way, i think serious questions must be asked of German KE rounds. If the various bits of criticism are to be believed, they may well fail to offer us much of an improvement over CHARM3 in terms of performance. I think we need to consider long and hard about what would we like to arm any potential, L55A1 toting Challenger with.

Is the M829A4 compatible with the L55???
DM53 is notably more powerful than L27. The "test" used very vague terminology, but any look at the muzzle velocity range, the size of DM53's penetrator, and the weight of the KJ at impact to whatever distance makes it very clear. L27 is more somewhere between DM33 and DM53.

So if it is getting DM53A1 or DM63, from the L55A1, then it will be significantly more powerful. DM53 being better as is, DM53A1/DM63 being even better than that, and then RHMs own statement that the L55A1 is 20% more powerful than the L55...well, you can see where it goes.

M829A4 isn't compatible with the L55. The L55A1, no-one knows yet, since we haven't seen the pressure limit on the A1a breech. (Which is what stops the L55 using it)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Mr Fred.
Artillery may be good at neutralising armour is it has the tools at its disposal, ours doesn't anymore.

Air support is very effective, but will it be available? Most would be engaged prosecuting target behind the Enemy's front line and not providing CAS for the troops. As for helicopters, well whether they will as yet they have not operated in a truly hostile environment as would exist in a conflict against a peer opponent.

Yes a fused HE round is a better round but again we don't have one.

You keep saying IF when talking about meeting enemy armour, as if their job would not be to break through our positions at the weakest point, but rather bump into them whilst doing other tasks.

Initially NATO would not be going forward, but fighting a mobile defence, giving ground whist reinforcements arrive. This was the case in the Cold War and will be the case in any future conflict. If the enemy is stopped, and/or sufficient NATO forces are available then yes we could begin to conduct offensive manoeuvre operations.

So we need a MBT with the best Tank killing power we can afford. We will have far more tank rounds than we will have ATGWs. Any conflict against a peer opponent will be as far removed form GW1 and GW2 as WWI was from WWII. We will be fighting an opponent with equipment nearly comparable with our own and face a force at least three times larger than ours at the start. So the priority of out MBTs will be to engage the opponents heavy armour, whilst our other assets deal with their lighter units and infantry.

We do not have the assets to conduct armoured warfare in the same way the US Army's doctrine dictates.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote: I've never heard of DM55. You mean DM53A1?
Yep, a typo.
On DM63:
"A further development, called the DM63, improved upon the round by introducing a new temperature-independent propellant, which allows the propellant to have a constant pattern of expansion between ambient temperatures inside the gun barrel from −47 °C (−53 °F) to +71 °C (160 °F). The new propellant powders, known as surface-coated double-base (SCDB) propellants, allow the DM63 to be used in many climates with consistent results."
It's not a huge difference, as it seems.
But what of the body of the sabot? I've heard some mention that it might make use of segmented technology and that the formula of the tungsten itself may have been changed from the DM53? Is there any indication as to differences in mass also?

Just on the propellant side of things. Its no bad thing after all if the only difference is propellant stability. I believe the US has placed considerable emphasis on the development of better propellants in order to achieve greater kinetic effect.
DM53 is notably more powerful than L27. The "test" used very vague terminology, but any look at the muzzle velocity range, the size of DM53's penetrator, and the weight of the KJ at impact to whatever distance makes it very clear. L27 is more somewhere between DM33 and DM53.

So if it is getting DM53A1 or DM63, from the L55A1, then it will be significantly more powerful. DM53 being better as is, DM53A1/DM63 being even better than that, and then RHMs own statement that the L55A1 is 20% more powerful than the L55...well, you can see where it goes.
Thanks. I really hope so. My concern is the reservation that others have expressed regarding tungsten. Die Welt ran an article a few years ago (i know, i know, mass media) claiming that tests with the DM53 had horrified the Bundeswehr because it had proven so ineffective relative to what they were hoping for. If there is even a smattering of truth to the claim, then it is worrying.

In CHARMs favour it was at least DU based and had the novel tip design to further aid things. Tungsten just seems like a bit of a backward step. There is almost nothing in its favour save for the fact that it assuages the concerns of environmentalists it would seem. Happy to be educated otherwise though.
M829A4 isn't compatible with the L55. The L55A1, no-one knows yet, since we haven't seen the pressure limit on the A1a breech. (Which is what stops the L55 using it)
Shame. Looks like a very promising piece of technology, designed explicitly to deal with the types of threats we are seeing now. Hopefully it is L55A1 compatible instead. Then of course, the other hurdle is finding the money to pay for them...

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Thanks. I really hope so. My concern is the reservation that others have expressed regarding tungsten. Die Welt ran an article a few years ago (i know, i know, mass media) claiming that tests with the DM53 had horrified the Bundeswehr because it had proven so ineffective relative to what they were hoping for. If there is even a smattering of truth to the claim, then it is worrying.

In CHARMs favour it was at least DU based and had the novel tip design to further aid things. Tungsten just seems like a bit of a backward step. There is almost nothing in its favour save for the fact that it assuages the concerns of environmentalists it would seem. Happy to be educated otherwise though.

Shame. Looks like a very promising piece of technology, designed explicitly to deal with the types of threats we are seeing now. Hopefully it is L55A1 compatible instead. Then of course, the other hurdle is finding the money to pay for them...
Either way it's a lot better than what we have now. I'd love the M829A4 as well, it's by a mile the best (practical) FIN round on the planet.

If it's any consolation, it's not that the L55 can't fire it. It can. It's just that the wear on the cannon on account of its pressure is too large to consider it a standard round for consistent regular use.

If SHTF against things you'd direly need the A4 for, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few handed out to allies as "break glass in case of emergency" type rounds.

I doubt DM63 from an L55A1 would have a problem with stuff like the T-72B3M, which is pretty much the defacto "one to watch" as the next global standard on Russian designs. I know everyone focuses on the T-14, but the latest T-72, alongside the T-80UM and T-90AM, are the ones to really be wary of due to their numbers.

The general rule is "if it has an M in its name AFTER another letter than it's a very scary tank. If it has an M in the name after the tank number, then it's a crappy tank" when it comes to Russian ones.

M after letter "T-72B3M = Modern update, Relikt, new rounds.
M after first number "T-72M1" = Export monkey model.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:I doubt DM63 from an L55A1 would have a problem with stuff like the T-72B3M, which is pretty much the defacto "one to watch" as the next global standard on Russian designs. I know everyone focuses on the T-14, but the latest T-72, alongside the T-80UM and T-90AM, are the ones to really be wary of due to their numbers.
That is the key point, and the 20% improvement with the new gun was contingent on being used with "new" rounds
- which makes the combo very rare indeed (as of today)
- and getting to that std may also explain why Germany's tank modernisation prgrm is taking so long
- hoping that we can put a couple of hundred up to the same level!
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Mr Fred.
Artillery may be good at neutralising armour is it has the tools at its disposal, ours doesn't anymore.
That sounds like a problem that needs fixing.
Air support is very effective, but will it be available? Most would be engaged prosecuting target behind the Enemy's front line and not providing CAS for the troops. As for helicopters, well whether they will as yet they have not operated in a truly hostile environment as would exist in a conflict against a peer opponent.
Targets behind the enemy's front line? like armoured formations?
Yes a fused HE round is a better round but again we don't have one.
So that would be a reason to seek a new cannon if HE support was your main thing
You keep saying IF when talking about meeting enemy armour, as if their job would not be to break through our positions at the weakest point, but rather bump into them whilst doing other tasks.
And why would the role of our armoured formations not be breaking through their positions at the weakest point. The mobile bit of mobile protected firepower means you could well deploy your armoured formation to delay and/or destroy the enemy armoured formations. It's one role among many. You could also deploy other assets to form an Anti-tank screen that would delay the enemy formation long enough to get artillery and air onto it.
Initially NATO would not be going forward, but fighting a mobile defence, giving ground whist reinforcements arrive. This was the case in the Cold War and will be the case in any future conflict. If the enemy is stopped, and/or sufficient NATO forces are available then yes we could begin to conduct offensive manoeuvre operations.

So we need a MBT with the best Tank killing power we can afford. We will have far more tank rounds than we will have ATGWs. Any conflict against a peer opponent will be as far removed form GW1 and GW2 as WWI was from WWII. We will be fighting an opponent with equipment nearly comparable with our own and face a force at least three times larger than ours at the start. So the priority of out MBTs will be to engage the opponents heavy armour, whilst our other assets deal with their lighter units and infantry.

We do not have the assets to conduct armoured warfare in the same way the US Army's doctrine dictates.
So our MBT tend to be optimised to a more defensive role with a strong bias to anti-tank firepower, that doesn't hold true for everyone elses' tanks. You confuse a specific example with a general rule.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Of course our MBTs need to be capable of acting in an offensive role, and I agree they are part of a team and do not act alone, but if the ability to kill an opponents MBTs was not such a crucial role, why would everyone be looking at increasing the ability of their to do just that. The British Army has historically listed firepower, protection and mobility in that order when developing its MBTs. The Leo 2 put mobility above protection and well the US threw money at the issue and developed an MBT that puts all three almost on a equal footing, but still has invested heavily in ensuring its MBTs can kill any opponents.

All I have been trying to get across is that the UK should do everything it can to adopt the L55A1 for the CR2 SEP, even if it means other programmes are delayed or reduced to pay for it.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Shame. Looks like a very promising piece of technology, designed explicitly to deal with the types of threats we are seeing now. Hopefully it is L55A1 compatible instead. Then of course, the other hurdle is finding the money to pay for them...
Well, I have good news for you, some information has been found on the L55A1s limits.

http://rusjev.net/2019/01/25/eksperimen ... -navyilet/

Not fully official, but it mentions this:
Rh120L55A1 has a permissible pressure in the barrel bore up to 700 MPa, against 670 MPa in standard Rh120L55
This would put it in range to safely use the M829A4. Whether it's acquired is of course unlikely, but it means it is possible!

Of note, the same article also mentions:
It is reported that the entire ammunition of this tank will be placed in isolated compartments.
This would make it only the second Western tank in service with such a crucial system, the first being the Abrams. HUGE survivability upgrade.

And a very exciting little tidbit...
Germanization will also affect the power plant of the tank. Instead of the Perkins “Condor” CV12 diesel, with a capacity of 1,200 hp, which is clearly not enough for a 60-ton colossus, a unified MTO with the German diesel MTU MT-883 Ka-501 with a power of 1,630 hp will be installed. and automatic transmission Renk.
HP isn't everything, but that would be the most powerful tank engine in NATO in sheer grunt. The M1s turbine and the Leclercs unique supercharger may give them edges in acceleration still, but that is a LOT of power.

It's pipe dream thinking to imagine every upgrade, but if all this was taken up it would mean:

1. The Challenger would gain the most powerful gun in NATO.
2. The Challenger would have the newest turret in NATO, with the newest armour.
3. The Challenger would be one of only two western tanks with completely protected crew compartments from ammo detonations.
4. The Challenger would have the highest rated engine in NATO.
5. The Challenger would be one of only two with APS (since the M1 will get APS before this enters service)
6. The Challenger would be using one of the best APFSDS rounds in the world.
7. The Challenger would finally have the same hunter-killer as everyone else.

Talk about rags to riches.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

RetroSicotte wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Shame. Looks like a very promising piece of technology, designed explicitly to deal with the types of threats we are seeing now. Hopefully it is L55A1 compatible instead. Then of course, the other hurdle is finding the money to pay for them...
Well, I have good news for you, some information has been found on the L55A1s limits.

http://rusjev.net/2019/01/25/eksperimen ... -navyilet/

Not fully official, but it mentions this:
Rh120L55A1 has a permissible pressure in the barrel bore up to 700 MPa, against 670 MPa in standard Rh120L55
This would put it in range to safely use the M829A4. Whether it's acquired is of course unlikely, but it means it is possible!

Of note, the same article also mentions:
It is reported that the entire ammunition of this tank will be placed in isolated compartments.
This would make it only the second Western tank in service with such a crucial system, the first being the Abrams. HUGE survivability upgrade.

And a very exciting little tidbit...
Germanization will also affect the power plant of the tank. Instead of the Perkins “Condor” CV12 diesel, with a capacity of 1,200 hp, which is clearly not enough for a 60-ton colossus, a unified MTO with the German diesel MTU MT-883 Ka-501 with a power of 1,630 hp will be installed. and automatic transmission Renk.
HP isn't everything, but that would be the most powerful tank engine in NATO in sheer grunt. The M1s turbine and the Leclercs unique supercharger may give them edges in acceleration still, but that is a LOT of power.

It's pipe dream thinking to imagine every upgrade, but if all this was taken up it would mean:

1. The Challenger would gain the most powerful gun in NATO.
2. The Challenger would have the newest turret in NATO, with the newest armour.
3. The Challenger would be one of only two western tanks with completely protected crew compartments from ammo detonations.
4. The Challenger would have the highest rated engine in NATO.
5. The Challenger would be one of only two with APS (since the M1 will get APS before this enters service)
6. The Challenger would be using one of the best APFSDS rounds in the world.
7. The Challenger would finally have the same hunter-killer as everyone else.

Talk about rags to riches.
Are there any rumours about cost?
Would be fantastic to see this come about.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Rumours? No.

Guesses? Way too much! :D

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Would such a programme, if implemented in full, allow the OSD of the CR2 to be pushed further back? The other issue is how much cheaper would such a programme be compared to purchasing new MBTs.

Monty1985
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 27 Jan 2019, 13:42
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Monty1985 »

Lord Jim wrote:Would such a programme, if implemented in full, allow the OSD of the CR2 to be pushed further back? The other issue is how much cheaper would such a programme be compared to purchasing new MBTs.
I don't see why not, the Americans seem to be content with continued development with the M1 tank (I admit partially because of the sheer numbers manufactured), if they do select the Rheinmetall option all that will remain of the CR2 is the hull so as long as that it's armour is still up to the task (I've heard nothing to suggest that Dorchester is facing obsolescence problems) then there is no reason why Challenger 2 may stay in service for longer than anticipated. Let's be honest, any 'new tank' we may develop in the future is probably going to be heavily influenced by German and American practice because of the BAE/Rheinmetall joint venture.

Speaking personally I was very impressed by what Rheinmetall have come up with, it addresses almost every issue that people had raised about CR2 and it could form the basis of a tank platform that could see another 20 plus years of service. Coupled with a potential powertrain replacement I dare say we should probably call it a new tank anyway.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote: Well, I have good news for you, some information has been found on the L55A1s limits.

http://rusjev.net/2019/01/25/eksperimen ... -navyilet/

Not fully official, but it mentions this:
Rh120L55A1 has a permissible pressure in the barrel bore up to 700 MPa, against 670 MPa in standard Rh120L55
This would put it in range to safely use the M829A4. Whether it's acquired is of course unlikely, but it means it is possible!
Great stuff. So at the very least it will be there in case of emergency. Heartening to know.

And a very exciting little tidbit...
Germanization will also affect the power plant of the tank. Instead of the Perkins “Condor” CV12 diesel, with a capacity of 1,200 hp, which is clearly not enough for a 60-ton colossus, a unified MTO with the German diesel MTU MT-883 Ka-501 with a power of 1,630 hp will be installed. and automatic transmission Renk.
HP isn't everything, but that would be the most powerful tank engine in NATO in sheer grunt. The M1s turbine and the Leclercs unique supercharger may give them edges in acceleration still, but that is a LOT of power.
Though i am likely oversimplifying, to put this into perspective, a powerpack like this would provide a fully Streetfighter configured Challenger with a power to weight ratio of over 20hp per ton! That's at least as much as the tank had when new!
It's pipe dream thinking to imagine every upgrade, but if all this was taken up it would mean:

1. The Challenger would gain the most powerful gun in NATO.
2. The Challenger would have the newest turret in NATO, with the newest armour.
3. The Challenger would be one of only two western tanks with completely protected crew compartments from ammo detonations.
4. The Challenger would have the highest rated engine in NATO.
5. The Challenger would be one of only two with APS (since the M1 will get APS before this enters service)
6. The Challenger would be using one of the best APFSDS rounds in the world.
7. The Challenger would finally have the same hunter-killer as everyone else.

Talk about rags to riches.
It's a tantalising prospect for sure. Though just on the point of armour, i believe i am right in stating that the "new" armour mentioned refers explicitly to the steel backing onto which the composite armour is mounted - the turret shell if you will.

For me this is hardly an issue as i'm still very much a proponent of Dorchester.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Little J »

I'll put this here (because I'm not really sure where to put it :lol: )
Not suited to a CR2 upgrade, but looking to the future - a CR2 replacement...


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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

The chat of armour I believe is referring to a new composite. It'd have to. Dorchester is over 20 years old now, and based on a line of armour that has long since been moved past in concepts. The original spec requirements for it put it up to countering KEPs of the types we saw in the early to mid-2000's. KEPs have come a looong way since. The Vacuum-1 APFSDS is over 900mm long, after all, fires at much higer velocities than the old ones used to be with a projected penetration out to just below 1,000 RHAe. That is a 60% improvement over Dorchester's original spec requirements, and actually exceeds LOS on the Challenger's armour. If it exceeds LOS, then there is no way the armour can handle it, since an armour's RHAe resistance is always lower than its LOS.

For example, the Challenger 1 had around 500mm RHAe to KEPs (non-long rod). Challenger 2 was estimated by several sources ahead of Swedish trials (that the Challenger pulled from) to be around about the M1A2's RHAe against KEPs, maybe a bit higher, maybe a bit lower, depending on shell.

The M1A2 is two armour packages behind in the US development, its original matching Challenger 2's oiwn armour development. Since HAP2 it's been quite different.

Dorchester having "nothing said against it" is because no-one talks about it, period. They aren't going to publically talk about it, but it would be very naive to let patriotism carry rather than logic and analysis.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:It's pipe dream thinking to imagine every upgrade, but if all this was taken up it would mean:

1. The Challenger would gain the most powerful gun in NATO.
2. The Challenger would have the newest turret in NATO, with the newest armour.
3. The Challenger would be one of only two western tanks with completely protected crew compartments from ammo detonations.
4. The Challenger would have the highest rated engine in NATO.
5. The Challenger would be one of only two with APS (since the M1 will get APS before this enters service)
6. The Challenger would be using one of the best APFSDS rounds in the world.
7. The Challenger would finally have the same hunter-killer as everyone else.
As Descartes once said; you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Germany

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Qwerty »

mr.fred wrote:As Descartes once said; you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
FYI: It was Abraham Lincoln

Post Reply