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.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4659
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby SKB » 12 Jun 2018, 13:10


(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.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 12 Jun 2018, 14:22

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.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Pongoglo » 12 Jun 2018, 15:24

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?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 12 Jun 2018, 15:26

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.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1880
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 20 Jun 2018, 09:44

QRH Facebook page says 4th place after last day's tests.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jun 2018, 10:19

I think this shows the core strength of the British Army, the men and women who serve and seem to be able to get the job done even with kit that isn't what it could be. Well done to them all.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 20 Jun 2018, 10:57

Glad to finally see confirmation from a more official source.

Well done to the fitness of those involved. I've seen some details of the obstacle course, and it looked pretty monstrous carrying 120mm rounds around it.

As I hear, the Hussars came first in it too.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Location: Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Cooper » 20 Jun 2018, 13:00

I told you they finished 4th.

Sorry that you didn't want to believe me or BFTV.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Jun 2018, 14:27

RetroSicotte wrote:it looked pretty monstrous carrying 120mm rounds around it.


Put it/ them in the back of a Stalwart, and flatten the course :D Why did we ever retire them (as resupply that can keep up) :(

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 20 Jun 2018, 14:51

Cooper wrote:I told you they finished 4th.

Sorry that you didn't want to believe me or BFTV.

I rarely believe anything without a source, to be clear.

And for the fact of the matter, the moment you posted, I took that post to those in the know with tanks and reported it to them as "Britain positioned 4th, guy on a forum I help run let me know third hand, waiting to get a source for confirmation." So don't go on the whole me just passing you over bit.

Then when a separate second hand source turned up, that took precedence, as it was an actual source containing specific details from somewhere that has contained accurate data in previous years.

Now, when a second source emerges from a 1st hand perspective from the QRH, that takes precedence.

It's not about ego, 'wanting' or who is 'right'. It's about basic fact checking when hearing something, and updating the current knowledge based on the information available.

These days, especially in defence reporting, such a thing is not only advised, but I find to be mandatory.

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 361
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby whitelancer » 20 Jun 2018, 18:34

It would be interesting to see the scores for each of the different challenges. Surprised their is not an official website where they are published.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Jun 2018, 15:14

Surprised this has been missed, but it did come in amongst a flurry of other news.
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/3615 ... right.html

It would be interesting to see what they’ve done with ammunition stowage.

Also, I think I should address the M1A2 FCS description from earlier: the 25x and 50x zoom on the thermals will be digital zoom, not optical. It’s taking the central section of the display and expanding it to fill the screen. It can be inherent to the sight or can be applied by the display (or approximated by moving your head closer to the screen)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Jun 2018, 15:39

So, first deliveries in 2025?
" In early 2019, the UK MoD will select the recipient of the program’s DMI and Series Phases, which are expected to run through 2024."
- or, what exactly is a Series Phase?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Jun 2018, 15:41

Series production, perhaps? With DMI being Design, Manufacture and.... I-something?

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 23 Jun 2018, 18:54

mr.fred wrote:Surprised this has been missed, but it did come in amongst a flurry of other news.
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/3615 ... right.html

It would be interesting to see what they’ve done with ammunition stowage.


Extremely interesting, an excellent find, Mr.fred.

Under the contract, Curtiss-Wright’s Drive Technology business unit, located in Neuhausen am Rheinfall, Switzerland, will provide a prototype of its state-of-the-art Turret Drive Servo System (TDSS) for use with Rheinmetall’s 120mm smooth bore gun.


I think we can safely say then, that team Rheinmetall appear to be offering their 120mm L55 as a cornerstone of their bid.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 23 Jun 2018, 19:37

mr.fred wrote:Also, I think I should address the M1A2 FCS description from earlier: the 25x and 50x zoom on the thermals will be digital zoom, not optical. It’s taking the central section of the display and expanding it to fill the screen. It can be inherent to the sight or can be applied by the display (or approximated by moving your head closer to the screen)

There is a HUGE difference in operational clarity, identification and use with a x50 FLIR. It's digital zoom, but it is not much different from optical quality, due to the new sight system's resolution.

Thinking that its just the same as wedging ones eyeball to the screen is a gross oversimplification and underrating of the capability and technology. The US Army didn't make it one of their most important and expensive upgrades for no reason.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Jun 2018, 23:28

A digital zoom can only match an optical zoom if:
1) the display is unable to display the full resolution of the imaging array.
2) the optical zoom at high magnification is very poor.

Other than those two conditions being true, moving your head closer to the displayis a pretty accurate analogy.

Now the proposed upgrade for the Abrams (which, last I checked, was under development not implemented) did include a higher definition sensor and display, which would be desirable and advantageous, but far from a “quantum leap” as it would only make a difference to the DRI ranges. If the targets are already within Identification range then it won’t make tinkers cuss worth of difference.

As I see it, the two competing companies represent a low risk/low reward and a high risk/high reward approach to the upgrade.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 24 Jun 2018, 01:48

mr.fred wrote:A digital zoom can only match an optical zoom if:

That is not what I said. I said that it not much different, owing to the increased resolution on the FLIR from the SEPv2 upgrade, which has been around for a while. The new one is the SEPv3, which features the additional power generation for the next upgrade expected in the SEPv4.

Other than those two conditions being true, moving your head closer to the displayis a pretty accurate analogy.

If you could just push your eye closer to the screen to get the same results as a purpose designed x50 FLIR, then they wouldn't have made it.

The ability to identify people at vastly greater rangers through that can never be underestimated. Especially since every single sight they have is boresighted now, it's a universal sighting system tied into every function of the tank. As per Abrams tanker testimony, they have the same level of resolotution accuracy at x50 as the standard x13. (ie - If a terrain feature filled the screen on x13, and they could hit exactly what they wanted, they currently feel they can do exactly the same using the x50 with the same equivilent 'view' on their sights.

As an advantage of easily laying shot on target, that is monumentally advantageous.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 24 Jun 2018, 12:21

SEP v3 also includes sight upgrades, so the current ones can’t be that amazing.

Digital zoom is a fairly common thing, despite its limitations, so it may bring advantages (actually bringing your head closer might not be possible with some displays) but that doesn’t mean it actually provides any more detail.

Having a more magnified view of a target doesn’t help accuracy. If two different magnifications can both see the target in sufficient detail to lay the gun on it then the higher magnification doesn’t gain an advantage.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Jun 2018, 13:35

mr.fred wrote:If two different magnifications can both see the target in sufficient detail to lay the gun on it then the higher magnification doesn’t gain an advantage.

... except knowing whether to fire or not. I am leaving aside these BMSs that of course are good for close coordination, but never fail-safe for Blue-on-blue (esp. if we are talking about alliances fielding the forces)

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 24 Jun 2018, 16:17

ArmChairCivvy wrote:... except knowing whether to fire or not.

That wouldn’t apply to the tank competition. Also if you are both within identification range of both, the higher magnification yields no advantage, and the effect of digital zoom does not necessarily improve your identification range.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Jun 2018, 16:50

Competitions are just that, competitions or in other words team building games. What matters is how a platform handles in combat, Challenger 1 being the classic example. As for magnification and resolution, being a regular shooter I usually stick to x8 mag but if I want to check exactly where I am hitting I move the scope to x24 then back to x8 to carry on. Being able to clearly see a possible target is vital these days, yes you might see a possible target and be able to shoot it on x13 but if you cannot be sure it is a legitimate target current and future ROE will probably mean you cannot fire. Having the ability to do so using higher mag, even if only on the commander's site is going to be essential and the higher the resolution the better chance he or she will have of correctly identifying the target.

Another go at this, older sights lose resolution with magnification even true magnification has this problem. Modern digital sights are able to solve this issue whether using Day, TI, IR or II. I even have a Day night site on my rifle that cost less than £1000 yet allows me to shoot whenever at x50 if needed with a crystal clear image,, plus I can shift he view the sight has to ny smartphone and stream it live to other if needed. It even adjust for wind, ammo weight and does basically everything a Tank sight does. How times have changes from when iron sights were prevelent.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 24 Jun 2018, 17:29

Lord Jim wrote:
Another go at this, older sights lose resolution with magnification even true magnification has this problem. Modern digital sights are able to solve this issue whether using Day, TI, IR or II. .

Do you think you could explain how that is possible?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Jun 2018, 17:55

I'm afraid it just is. One of my older sights when you go to maximum magnification the image loses resolution as the magnification increases starting at the edges and moving inwards. More modern lenses reduce this but with my Digital sight there is no problem at all. How it works is beyond me but it does, I was sceptical when a friend told me he had bought one but when I tries it on his rifle I was amazed and ordered one the same day. So basically modern lenses and digital technology have radically improves sights of all types over the last decade or so and are evolving as a very fast pace. Another example would be the gains in capability of Digital cameras. Who would have though in the 1990s that film cameras would all but be extinct by 2020, replaced by digital cameras?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 24 Jun 2018, 19:33

Losing the image at the edges under high magnification is indicative of bad optics. It’s particularly common with cheap variable magnification optics

At very high magnifications and certain lighting conditions on some optics you can also get chromatic aberrations (I think that’s what they’re called) where the different wavelengths (colours) refract different amounts and edges tend to blur out. But again this is most common with cheap optics.

For a digital camera to match the capacity of a human eye, it needs to have at least 1 pixel per arc minute. If you have more than that then the digital zoom effect becomes effective. Few cameras and very few, if any, thermal imagers, have that kind of pixel density*. Getting the zoom relies on optics, and modern optics are very good indeed, if you are willing to pay for them.

On a related note, talking about “times whatever” zoom is a poor comparator. A better number is the field of view and the resolution of the sensor.

* for an example, an 8MP camera (4K UHD video) will get 1 arc minute at a 60 degree included angle, which is kind of narrow. A 2m object 2m away would fill the screen.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests