FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[Lord Jim]

People are quoting penetration against RHA and ERA when talking about the CA2. Dorchester is neither of these and when the CA2 is fitted with TES applique armour it is still one of the best protected MBTs out there. CA2s main problem is when it wants to hit and kill the opposition and desperately needs its FCS and main gun updating if it wants to be able to confront pier MBTs. On the plus side with the exception of a small number of Russian formations, there are few of these around that we are likely to actually face.

Much seems to be made of the effectiveness of current Russian ATGWs, mainly based on the experience of the Israelis in recent years. yes they have suffered losses but it would be interesting to see how many ATGWs were fired against the number of Israeli MBTs destroyed or classed as mission kills. How much of this was down to the Israelis under estimating the capabilities of the opposition and using poor tactics initially as a result.

If the CA2 is fitted with an APS it will only make the platform even more survivable. Regarding the effectiveness of APS against KEPs the Israelis have done many test regarding this and though is not the main role of a APS it was shown they can have a positive effect.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Why do you keep saying about KEP for APS? That is not their role, their purpose or their intention. Half of the reason tests were conducted against KEP was speculative, and the other half was to make sure it didn't do anything horrific to them (ala when the Wehrmacht implemented buster plates that actually made hollow charges more effective). The worry was if APS would shatter them and thus shotgun the APS system itself, rendering it useless. Thankfully that was not the case.

It's like complaining that the tank can't hit fast jets. It's not its purpose. APS is for ATGMs and low velocity rounds only. Anything more is speculative future technology. The real reason APS is so critical now-a-days is because the latest ATGMS have exceeded modern passive tank armour. The Kornet-EM can penetrate up to 1300mm of RHA after ERA from the tandem charge. Without stating numbers or location, there is only one panel section on the front of a Challenger 2 (or any modern tank for that matter) that can withstand that sort of hit. And even then only just.

And Kornet isn't even the most advanced ATGM in service.

That's why APS is important. Whether it hits 30%, 50% or 90% success rate is essentially irrelevant, no-one here is saying its a magic shield. It's that you need the chance to not get hit at all. Remember that composite armour on modern tanks loses its protection dramatically after the first hit. Passive panels aren't a constant. You need to prevent as much as you can being taken by it.

And of course, it only takes one ATGM on some of the front, or ALL of the sides and rear to completely destroy the tank these days. APS is more about prevention from those angles. (Hence why they are situated facing there by default.)

The US has already started a huge move to equip the Abrams fleet with it. They don't throw that much weight around without good reason.

Sorry, but you are wrong on that. Iron Fist, Afghanit, whatever the most recent Ukrainian system is, all emergent developments in APS technology have recently been geared towards offering protection against KEPs. To say it is not their purpose is simply not true of the latest generation of systems. The problem is, whilst they have been marketed as such, their ability to live up to their advertised capability has proven limited in the extreme.

APS will have some utility in future, conventional conflict between peer nations, but i suspect, as do many others, that their impact will be marginal. A contribution is a contribution of course, and it's likely their operational value is still enough that it is worth investing in the technology, though let's not lose sight of perspective.

[ArmChairCivvy]

recently been geared towards offering protection against KEPs. To say it is not their purpose is simply not true of the latest generation of systems. The problem is, whilst they have been marketed as such, their ability to live up to their advertised capability has proven limited in the extreme.

So The Big Gun is/ will be back
- simply going from 120 to 130 you get 50% more kinetic energy
... try to stop that (it is like a CIWS hitting a missile 50m before it hits the ship)

[Lord Jim]

If I remember rightly, the effect that an APS can have on KEPs is to deflect their trajectory so that they do not hit straight on. This can have quite an effect on the performance of the penetrator, and may cause it the "Bounce" on contact.

[RetroSicotte]

If I remember rightly, the effect that an APS can have on KEPs is to deflect their trajectory so that they do not hit straight on. This can have quite an effect on the performance of the penetrator, and may cause it the "Bounce" on contact.

That was mostly Ukranian claims.

It's never been demonstrated, as getting modern KEPs to bounce is nigh on impossible. They need something like a >80 degree angle to even have a chance at it. (Hence the slope design on the upper glacis of the M1.)

[Lord Jim]

Relate it to the flight path of an arrow. If it flies straight and parallel to the flight path it will go into the target. If it continues on the same path buy is no longer horizontal to said flight path it will find it far harder to penetrate. That is what the Israelis discovered during their tests. it does destroy or change the direction of the KEP. It is difficult to explain without graphics but it does appear to work.

[RetroSicotte]

People are quoting penetration against RHA and ERA when talking about the CA2. Dorchester is neither of these and when the CA2 is fitted with TES applique armour it is still one of the best protected MBTs out there.

People aren't actually talking about RHA and ERA. (Although the CR2 does use both in its modules as applique)

Modern armour is still judged in RHA equivilent against KEP and against Chemical rounds. Both generally have different equivilents. The frontal turret of the CR2 will be "Xmm RHAe" against KEP for example, but it will be "Ymm RHAe" against chemical rounds like HEAT shells or ATGMs. The latter is generally much higher, especially on the Challenger which still uses a deritive of the original Burlington Wrap 2 armour. (The one that is so often misquoted as being called "Chobham")

The issue with the Challenger's is that there are notable areas where that composite does not cover it, which are generally covered on most modern tanks. Some of the new kits fix this, however there are not that many 'kits' around. As such it is still a notable problem to consider in the fleet. The other is that the armour hasn't been updated ever. Since the CR2 entered service, its baseline armour has not been changed at all. That's 80's tech.

To give a denotion, the Abrams has upgraded its armour perhaps three times since then. The Russian a similar quantity. The Leopard's later variants have also changed their mixture, and new mixtures have been used by others like South Korea, Turkey, China and France.

I think it would be incredible naive to look at the CR2's composite and not be concerned. There's not a single tank producing company in the world, bar Italy's Ariete, who has not changed their armour many times since to upgrade with modern materials and new techniques. Thats why I saw the passive armour is so badly in need of an upgrade program.

[ArmChairCivvy]

That was mostly Ukranian claims.

Hence I askedearlier, just to clarify, whether you were referring also the The Knife (Noz? different spellings in Russian and Ukrainian) system, on the side of Afghanit.

new kits fix this, however there are not that many 'kits' around.

Kits as in?
- several types
- or the 22 of the Streetfighter, which quantity means that if you deploy a bde, you can send half of it (or rather, of its tanks) into urban battle

[ArmChairCivvy]

Leopard's later variants have also changed their mixture, and new mixtures have been used by others like [...] Turkey

- interestingly, when Turkey moved faster with new AMAP armour than Germany, they could offer Leo upgrade packages that actually made the tank lighter

[Lord Jim]

I agree like all MBTs it is a trade off as to where and how much armour is fitted verses weight etc.. Isn't that why the bulk of the TES package increases the protection to the sides. Mind you the CA2 has some of he thickest top turret armour as standard, able to withstand those top attack ATGW around when it was developed. I also agree there is certainly room for improvement in the protection of the CA2, but anything other than add on packages will be far too expensive. And this is the crux of CA2 SLEP. All we seem to be able to consider due to funding limitation are upgrades to its electronics and some of its automotive parts. We will end up with a more reliable platform and one that is more aware and linked in but minimal if any improvement to its offensive and defensive capabilities. Saying that we are talking about fighting against pier opponents. Against all others it will still dominate. One possible cheap fix for the former would be the development of a new HESH round maybe with a programmable fuse. An alternative would be to adopt the Israeli 105mm APAMS and use the 120mm sabot developed. I am pretty sure they worked on both rifled and smoothbore versions.

An alternative would be to can the CA2 altogether, purchase enough M1A2s for the two remaining Armoured Regiments, close BATUS and use the US Army's training facilities instead. Station a number of Warriors etc. there and work with the US Army to see if it is possible to load up the profiles of some UK vehicles into their sim net (The AH-64 is already loaded obviously). We could also build a smaller version say at Bovington networked with the UK sites. I know BATUS has been invaluable to the Army, but given the planned size of out Armoured and Mechanised force, seeing if the US is willing to share might be a good idea. If we adopted an improved "Striker" as out MIV it would also improve things especially if we built out Strike Brigades along similar lines to the one being fielded by the US Army in Europe. Maybe we could establish a joint maintenance facility as a trade off to using facilities in the USA.

In a nutshell what is planned for the CA2 will keep it going but not enable it to regain its true competitive edge. I would prefer to see it replaced by the M1A2 and funding found by reducing the Ajax programme and scrapping the Warrior CIP and support vehicle programmes. Priority should go to the MIV, followed by the purchase of the M1A2 and then MRV(P) phases I and II.

[RetroSicotte]

An alternative would be to adopt the Israeli 105mm APAMS and use the 120mm sabot developed. I am pretty sure they worked on both rifled and smoothbore versions

It wouldn't fit, unfortunately. The turret isn't designed to accept rounds of that length. Even single piece 105mm is too large for it.

In a nutshell what is planned for the CA2 will keep it going but not enable it to regain its true competitive edge. I would prefer to see it replaced by the M1A2 and funding found by reducing the Ajax programme and scrapping the Warrior CIP and support vehicle programmes. Priority should go to the MIV, followed by the purchase of the M1A2 and then MRV(P) phases I and II.

That's what I find most gutting. The Challenger 2 had so much potential in its design. With a 1,500hp engine, regular updates to the baseline armour, covering of a notable weakspot, a turret designed for the Rm120 L55, the 2E's sights system and the frontal glacis redesigned to remove the driver viewport issue it would have been an absolutely exceptional tank that could have kept pace with the Abrams in terms of upgrades to remain at the top end.

It's like having a mansion but only the money to have walls and furniture for some of the rooms.

[Lord Jim]

My bad I forgot the limitation regarding the size of rounds. I wonder if a two piece version could be developed in conjunction with Jordan for example? It seems to me that if we cannot improve the KEP used by the CA2 maybe we should look at alternative ammunition types. Alternatively, how much ammo do the Leopard 2 and M1A2 carry in the turrets? I note the stupid amount of single piece 120mm the CA2 could carry if it received a 120mm RM smoothbore so would a turret transplant be a possible cheaper alternative to new tanks. Saying that I still think going begging to the USA and saying you know we backed you up over the past few decades, could we have 120 odd used M1s for silly money.

[ArmChairCivvy]

With a 1,500hp engine, regular updates to the baseline armour, covering of a notable weakspot, a turret designed for the Rm120 L55, the 2E's sights system and the frontal glacis redesigned to remove the driver viewport issue

would a turret transplant be a possible cheaper alternative to new tanks.

A good job... to give Rheinmetall the chance to present "an alternative view"
- are we only half-way to it by now?

[RetroSicotte]

My bad I forgot the limitation regarding the size of rounds. I wonder if a two piece version could be developed in conjunction with Jordan for example? It seems to me that if we cannot improve the KEP used by the CA2 maybe we should look at alternative ammunition types. Alternatively, how much ammo do the Leopard 2 and M1A2 carry in the turrets? I note the stupid amount of single piece 120mm the CA2 could carry if it received a 120mm RM smoothbore so would a turret transplant be a possible cheaper alternative to new tanks. Saying that I still think going begging to the USA and saying you know we backed you up over the past few decades, could we have 120 odd used M1s for silly money.

The issue is that it is two piece ammo in the first place. Unless you can get single piece, then the Challenger is going to lag behind other rounds by some distance. The standard has sharply changed ever since longrod ammunition became a thing. Rm120 and M256 guns are firing a whole world of distance from those barrels, they might be the same calibre, but their ammunition is nearly doubled in impact weight. The penetrator itself goes from the tip to the very back of the round in the breach now, twice as long as the Challengers, and in several cases thicker on that whole length as well, with several breakaway sections for ERA. Heck the M829E4 and the 120 OFLE F2 (Leclerc) have datalinks in their KEPs now, since they can connect to the base of the enabled breach.

Leopard 2 can store 15 rounds in their turrets, but they have a marginally inefficient design that permits few turret rounds and forces them to keep a huge swathe of complete ammo in an unprotectioned frontal hull section. The Leclerc is similar, but has 22 rounds ready. They aren't the best example of it, but it would make anyone wary about "just use a Leopard turret". Especially as they have a very shakey reputation on what they sell, look at the logistical nightmare Poland is in with their Leopards right now. They are almost all different, impossible to get a full fleet package, even ones that had the same batch have small differences because Germany's 2nd hand fleet is a mishmash of random assortments they don't keep track of. Be wary to buy them.

The Abrams though, keeps almost all of its ammo in the turret in an entirely separated container. It is the only Western tank in the world with this kind of protection to keep the crew safe in the event of an ammo detonation. If we were buying anything other than upgrades for the Challenger, then the Abrams is the only option if we want to protect the crews properly and have the right ammo available in the turret.

However, one must also be wary of the "old" ones. The latest SEPv3 has a lot of step changes to confront high end peers, and the ones before it are going to hit the same problem every other main NATO tank (even the upgraded CR2) will run into soon. The designs are so old they don't have the electrical generation for new sights, fire control, radars, APS, datalinks, C4I and the like. SEPv3 fixes that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The designs are so old they don't have the electrical generation for new sights, fire control, radars, APS, datalinks, C4I and the like. SEPv3 fixes that.

The APU must be growing in size quite a bit, to achieve that? Surely you can't keep the turbine running for very long, when you are not expecting to move/ fight?

[RetroSicotte]

The designs are so old they don't have the electrical generation for new sights, fire control, radars, APS, datalinks, C4I and the like. SEPv3 fixes that.

The APU must be growing in size quite a bit, to achieve that? Surely you can't keep the turbine running for very long, when you are not expecting to move/ fight?

Definitely more capable, but no real change in size. Technology miniturisation. It's a decades old system after all.

[Lord Jim]

So would it be possible to retain the CA2 hull, with its planned improvements and purchase new or refurbished M1A2 SEPv3 turrets to produce a hybrid platform as a cheaper alternative to acquiring whole new vehicles. At least the powers that be could still say the army's MBT is partly british.

[mr.fred]

So would it be possible to retain the CA2 hull, with its planned improvements and purchase new or refurbished M1A2 SEPv3 turrets to produce a hybrid platform as a cheaper alternative to acquiring whole new vehicles. At least the powers that be could still say the army's MBT is partly british.

No

[Lord Jim]

Oh well, as long as Mr Putin keeps his powder dry, we can keep bumbling along with the CA2 or rather have to.

[mr.fred]

Challenger 2, even if we accept that the gun has limited utility against T90 and T14, still has value in that it maintains an advantage against anything that isn’t those two, i.e. the majority of the Russian armoured force and similarly across the rest of the world. At the moment. Rather than buy another tank of similar (or greater) age it makes more sense, to me, to maintain what we have, keep an eye on Rheinmetall’s concept for upgunning it, and make sure that we start investing in the next generation for the armoured units.

[Ron5]

we start investing in the next generation for the armoured units

Seems unlikely.

[ArmChairCivvy]

maintain what we have, keep an eye on Rheinmetall’s concept for upgunning it, and make sure that we start investing in the next generation for the armoured units

2025 with what has been set in train (money forthcoming?) and 2030 for the above mentioned new things
- 2025-30 sitting still
- or, if money not forth coming, filling in the gap .... ten years from now, still filling in??

[RetroSicotte]

Challenger 2, even if we accept that the gun has limited utility against T90 and T14, still has value in that it maintains an advantage against anything that isn’t those two, i.e. the majority of the Russian armoured force and similarly across the rest of the world. At the moment. Rather than buy another tank of similar (or greater) age it makes more sense, to me, to maintain what we have, keep an eye on Rheinmetall’s concept for upgunning it, and make sure that we start investing in the next generation for the armoured units.

Replacement needed in 2035 at latest. It's already too late to design the next one here with how behind the times the UK is at tank engineering.

As a note, 40% of Russia's forces are T-14, T-90 or T-72B3 (which is basically a T-90 in all but origination from the factory), which are all ones the Challenger will struggle mightily with. The remaining 60% are being upgraded to utilise T-14 technology and armour.

Challenger 2 is effective against older models, yes. The likes of 2003 Iraq.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As a note, 40% of Russia's forces are T-14, T-90 or T-72B3 (which is basically a T-90 in all but origination from the factory), which are all ones the Challenger will struggle mightily with. The remaining 60% are being upgraded to utilise T-14 technology and armour.

Challenger 2 is effective against older models, yes.

So, we are doomed!
- I have not noticed any veritable sources quoted for these "facts"?

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

As a note, 40% of Russia's forces are T-14, T-90 or T-72B3 (which is basically a T-90 in all but origination from the factory), which are all ones the Challenger will struggle mightily with. The remaining 60% are being upgraded to utilise T-14 technology and armour.

Challenger 2 is effective against older models, yes. The likes of 2003 Iraq.

I'd like to see some sources for those figures as from what i have seen and heard, they are wildly optimistic, especially in regards to Armata. Put it this way, the removal of the T-80s from service has been delayed (again!) as far as i know and the T-90 line has earned yet another reprieve. As for the T-14s technologies, as we alluded to a few pages back, much of it entirely unproven beyond the glossy world of marketing.