Page 43 of 93

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 06 Jun 2018, 12:33
by benny14


Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 06 Jun 2018, 14:36
by RetroSicotte
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 07 Jun 2018, 11:42
by The Armchair Soldier

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 10:17
by RetroSicotte
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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 11:33
by Gabriele
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 22:50
by RunningStrong
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 08 Jun 2018, 23:40
by Gabriele
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 09:22
by Cooper
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 10:13
by Timmymagic
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 10:49
by Gabriele
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 15:12
by RetroSicotte
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 16:40
by RetroSicotte
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 17:08
by Gabriele
I've spent the morning trying to determine the positions after the first 3, but with zero luck.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 21:49
by Zealot
The US won the "Most Lethal" Shoot Off - 1st Place

Skip to 7:15

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 09 Jun 2018, 23:42
by RetroSicotte
To be fully expected. The SEPv2s FCS is on another level compared to anything else in tanks right now.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 10 Jun 2018, 05:37
by ArmChairCivvy
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)?

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 10 Jun 2018, 13:19
by RetroSicotte
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 10 Jun 2018, 19:25
by ArmChairCivvy
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!

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 11 Jun 2018, 18:33
by Gabriele
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 11 Jun 2018, 19:13
by RetroSicotte
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.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 13:10
by SKB

(Forces TV) 11th June 2018
It’s the first year that the British Army was invited to compete against seven other NATO and partner nations, with Austria, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine and the US. The Queen’s Royal Hussars was heading up the British team.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 14:22
by RetroSicotte
For those wondering about "joining" France and Germany on replacement MBTs...maybe be a little uncertain.

Their first "project" turned out to just be a Leclerc turret on a Leopard 2A7 hull. Essentially pairing the worst of the pairing together. Leopard 2's turret is better protected than Leclerc's (which honestly has the worst turret layout in NATO protection wise), and possesses a superior gun, while Leclercs hull is superior to Leopard's thanks to its better suspension and engine.

They also had a flimsy bit of metal covering the enormous turret ring weakspot this created in such a joining.

Goodness knows why they went this direction. I can only hope it's just a "because future will have an autoloader" promotional hype to show willing and thus were forced to do it this way. Or because the Leopard's turret is so iconic that everyone would just go "Oh it's a Leopard" and not think it's new.

Very unusual demonstration, it won't be an actual tank, but it's a very bizarre choice even just as a marketing stunt.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 15:24
by Pongoglo
RetroSicotte wrote:
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.
How come Forces News were adamant we came 4th - they ran a good piece on the competition immediately after their F35 arrivals piece. They are usually pretty unbiased, cant have got it that far wrong?

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 12 Jun 2018, 15:26
by RetroSicotte
Pongoglo wrote:How come Forces News were adamant we came 4th - they ran a good piece on the competition immediately after their F35 arrivals piece. They are usually pretty unbiased, cant have got it that far wrong?
Link to this report?

They were talking about how the UK came first for one of the obstacle courses (presuming I didn't mishear) in the video SKB posted above. Potentially some misunderstanding has emerged similar, but I've still to see anything from BFN on 4th.

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Posted: 20 Jun 2018, 09:44
by Gabriele
QRH Facebook page says 4th place after last day's tests.