Britain's manpower has been showcased at the Defence Vehicles Dynamics event in Millbrook - amongst them was the British Army's main battle tank. The Challenger 2 entered service in 1998 and its life is being extended to 2035. The prototype Challenger 2, Mark 2 Demonstrator, nicknamed the 'Black Knight', has been developed within the last year, with the focus on enhancing its sensor systems.
RetroSicotte wrote: problems needing solved. Chief among them the gun, and further purchases of modular armour
ArmChairCivvy wrote:On those two the "other" update design may prove interesting
- Streetfighter kits are unlikely to be procured in quantity (is it 22 that we have?)
Lord Jim wrote:On the plus side the armour package the CR2 started with, even 20 years ago was the best there was, and although Russia has greatly improved the protection on its MBTs I have read much in regards to its kinetic penetrators, given that even the T-90 is using a gun almost as old as the CR2.
Lord Jim wrote: I know we have a big budget but with the overheads and imposed expenditure on areas that should not be the responsibility of Defence we are where we are
RetroSicotte wrote: The comparatives to the British Army standard on the 2E were tested in Greece and found to be considered lower protection than the M1A2 Export variant, and the 2A5.
Quite right; the Germans gave up their edge by deciding to go for a "green" alternative in the 90's... let's follow the Yanks (who also know about the dangers of dpeleted uranium)RetroSicotte wrote:the ammunition it fires now exceeds the CHARM3 in both weight of submunition, and velocity at combat ranges. Russia hasn't sat idle. To say the 2A46M is "the same gun" is to equally admit that the L30A1 is just the L11A1 from the 60's. If anything, guns like the Rh120 prove that the age isn't an indicator. It's compatibility and ammunition that do, and in that the L30A1 struggles enormously due to its limitations in the submunition size.
Lord Jim wrote: we would do better to concentrate on formations we can and should. Leave the War in central Europe to those who have invested in heavy armoured warfare
RetroSicotte wrote:Even in 1998 it was regarded as no longer being the top. The comparatives to the British Army standard on the 2E were tested in Greece and found to be considered lower protection than the M1A2 Export variant, and the 2A5.
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Err...? What gave you this idea? It pretty much runs contrary to every piece of "accepted" wisdom regarding the Challenger that there is.
A: was an unprecedented step change in passive armour protection at the time of its introduction and
B: is any less effective today than it was 20 years ago.
Personally, i also think you are heavily overestimating just how much development has gone on in terms of passive armour solutions in that intervening period.
Lord Jim wrote:Mind you everyone said the CR1 was a piece of crap until GW1 and then everybody changed their minds. We have this idea that the Russians have super tanks, well yes the latest version of the T-90 and so on are far more effective than back in the 1990s but we have always over estimated the capabilities of Russian equipment.
Also what we see at eh shows are often little more than concepts and often few if any get to the front line units, instead parade formations receive them.
The sloping and configuration of the Armour on the CR is better and the tank has a smaller profile in height and width.
jimthelad wrote:Not anymore
RetroSicotte wrote:Sloping does not work in the same way as it used to. KEPs will shatter or embed before they bounce.
mr.fred wrote:RetroSicotte wrote:Sloping does not work in the same way as it used to. KEPs will shatter or embed before they bounce.
While there is some truth in that, if it were entirely true it wouldn’t explain the Abrams’ glacis.
Lord Jim wrote:WE have differing view here but we also agree that the current CR2 is not up to the job. The current upgrade is a small step forward but even then there are areas that need improvement but are not affordable with current funding. So do we keep them? If the worst happens is it right to send our troops into combat in such vehicles? Should we leave the "heavy" combat to others in NATO? Should we use the funds we have to ensure other formations are better equipped that they are now or are planned to be?
Little J wrote:So is replacement a better option than upgrade?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:"There are significant drawbacks to a longer cannon—which is one of the reasons the U.S. Army retains the shorter L44 120mm cannon for its Abrams."
Little J wrote:So is replacement a better option than upgrade? Not a tank person, but was just reading on wiki (no laughing in the back) that the Septic's have looked at putting MTU 883's in the M1. As much as my national pride wants to keep CR2 (with every upgrade it needs), would it be better just to replace it (like the E-7 appears to be replacing E-3)?
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests