FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Gabriele wrote:Hopefully it will not be a humiliating disaster like CAT 1987 for the Chally 1, but there can be little doubt about the Challenger 2 being the underdog there...
Strong Europe Tank has very very little to do with the tank itself. Almost all its scoring is based on crew skills. Up to and including things like tank identification, medical evac and pistol marksmanship.

Case in point, Austria dominated it recently, despite using very old Leopard 2A4s, while the M1A2 Abrams SEPv2 came middle ground, despite its potency as probably the best in service tank in the world.

I wouldn't expect much other than the driving course to show anything. Almost a pity, in a very unfortunate way. A direct comparison to other nations' tank technology would have been excellent to perhaps shove deep enough into the sand to reach the Government's heads about the need for better upgrades.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

More or less. Offensive and defensive maneuver and shooting seem to carry the most weight:

The Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016 consisted of a number of tasks which alltogether had a maximum score of 1,000 points.

For offensive and defensive trials including firing and maneuvering up to 700 points were awarded (350 points for offensive actions, 350 points for defensive actions).

For "mounted orienteering" (MO in the further text) up to 300 points evenly distributed in six sub-tasks (each 50 points) were awarded

MO included a "mystery physical challenge" were teamwork was important
There was an obstacle course with thirteen minor challenges
Soldiers from each platoon fired 10 rounds with their service weapons from three locations in the combat shooting lane
A total of 25 firendly and threatening targets had to be identified while the tanks were on the course at the vehicle idenfication lane
During a simulated NBC attack, crews had to recover and tow one of their tanks while wearing NBC protection gear
Multinational teams reacted to an IED attack, assessed and evacuated the casualities
One task was to walk as many laps as possible along a track located at a hillside while carrying a 20 kilogram (44 lbs) training round
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

Gabriele wrote: Hopefully it will not be a humiliating disaster like CAT 1987 for the Chally 1
..and yet just 4yrs later, in actual combat, the Chally 1 was the most successful allied tank in theatre.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Cooper wrote:..and yet just 4yrs later, in actual combat, the Chally 1 was the most successful allied tank in theatre.
I have yet to see any real statement on "most successful in theatre". It performed well, but it must always be remembered that it wasn't exactly up against much. Challenger 1 was decent, if flawed (its fire control was essentially the Chieftain's), but it's a mistake to make overly grandiose statements to dismiss real problems.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Cooper wrote:..and yet just 4yrs later, in actual combat, the Chally 1 was the most successful allied tank in theatre.
I have yet to see any real statement on "most successful in theatre". It performed well, but it must always be remembered that it wasn't exactly up against much. Challenger 1 was decent, if flawed (its fire control was essentially the Chieftain's), but it's a mistake to make overly grandiose statements to dismiss real problems.
Even the Russians, in their post war battle assessment of Allied tank performance declared the C1 as the best tank in theatre, which led to much sulking from the Americans.

Image

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Cooper wrote:Even the Russians, in their post war battle assessment of Allied tank performance declared the C1 as the best tank in theatre, which led to much sulking from the Americans.
Can you link to said assessment?

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Cooper wrote:Even the Russians, in their post war battle assessment of Allied tank performance declared the C1 as the best tank in theatre, which led to much sulking from the Americans.
Can you link to said assessment?
Updated my post.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Cooper wrote:Updated my post.
Thanks. Where is that cutting from? Quotes like that are useful to possess.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

Cooper wrote:Updated my post.
Sorry, can't see the cutting, where is it?

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote:
Cooper wrote:Updated my post.
Sorry, can't see the cutting, where is it?
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=37&start=1020#p67653

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Wasn't one of the reasons the CA1 did so poorly in in that completion the fact that the format stressed shooting on the move etc. which was not what the BOAR trained for. They were trained as long range snipers not brawlers like the users of the Abrams and Leopard 2.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

The rules for CAT 87 state :-

Stationary Firing Tanks: Five main gun engagements including
(1) two engagements with both static and moving targets, and (2) one engagement with six/eight targets depending on platoon size.

Moving Firing Tanks: Two main gun engagements must be
while on the move against both moving and static targets.

So not a disproportionate amount of firing on the move. It is worth pointing out that previous to the introduction of Leopard 2 and the M1 their was no firing of main armament rounds on the move. I wonder why that was? While Challenger 1 and indeed Chieftain could successfully engage targets on the move, having a mechanical linkage between the gun and the gunners sight was a disadvantage compared to having an independently stabilised sight. For CAT 87 some modifications were developed for the FCS on Challenger 1. I think they were incorporated on the tanks taking part but am not 100% sure, this would have meant the crews taking part would have had little experience of the new system. Another problem could have been that the British Army used 3 tank Troops while the others taking part used 4 tank Troops. Whether any of the above made any difference is impossible to say, but at least it meant we got the Challenger 2.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Much of the issues of CAT 87 came down to that it was a new Mk of Challenger, crewed by ex-Chieftain personnel who had only swapped to the Challenger months before.

The crew who had actually been training for the event had been rotated off to something else.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

The Royal Hussars where I believe the first Regiment in BAOR to receive Challenger, though they did originally lack TOGS. The FCS on Challenger 1 was essentially the same as that on Chieftain, though they changed its name! Their were many reasons that led to the poor performance with the lack of familiarity with TOGS and the modifications made to how the FCS worked probably being important. But fundamentally it came down to a failure to adopt a more modern FCS and sighting system rather than carry on with what was in Chieftain, (TOGS excepted, which was excellent). Exactly the problems that were addressed with Challenger 2.
Incidentally though the Army claims otherwise the only things "new" about Challenger 2 were the Fire Control and sighting systems otherwise virtually everything was already under development for Challenger 1 or came from the Vickers Mk 7.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

For CAT 87 some modifications were developed for the FCS on Challenger 1. I think they were incorporated on the tanks taking part but am not 100% sure, this would have meant the crews taking part would have had little experience of the new system. Another problem could have been that the British Army used 3 tank Troops while the others taking part used 4 tank Troops.
The Challenger 1 book by Osprey says that 22 Challenger 1s were prepared specifically for CAT 87 adding Improved Computerised Sighting System, laser sight, and an alternative 15X Commander's sight in the cupola. All tanks modified were delivered by the end of October 1986. The rules had been revisited since the 85 edition and the contestants were to be chosen from one of two regiments per country. The UK put forward Badger Sqn from 2 RTR and B Sqn, Royal Hussars, the latter being eventually picked out of the hat.
The Royal Hussars in 1986 had had to revert to Chieftain being BATUS bound, and that didn't help; nor did the fact that other committments prevented the british team from making use of the 2-days window for reconnaissance of the CAT 87's circuit.

1.9 million was expended for ammunition to be used in training pre CAT-87. 6585 rounds of 120mm were expended, over 500 per crew. That was almost 5 times the allowed amount of 134. While every country played around the rules, and it is well know that some of the other contending regiments trained for 7 months specifically for the CAT, the crews did get good training.

The 3-tank troop was also accounted for in the rules: the 4-tank troops had to hit 32 targets and 80 failing plates; versus 24 and 60 for 3-tank troops, so i'd say that should not have been a factor.

The best score achieved was 16,606, the worst 13,673. The winners scored 20,490.

The RAC Gunnery Wing ran an inquiry into the failure. The use of "prototype" upgrades was deemed to have been a mistake and the quality of training for the competition was called into question, but according to the same book the fundamental causes were identified as:

- 3 piece ammo loading cycle
- complexity, poor ergonomics and unreliability of turret systems


I'm very curious to see how Challenger 2 will do at the Strong Europe, but sadly i would think that the 2-piece ammunition and mobility of Chally will not exactly help the crews achieve great scores.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Gabriele wrote: - 3 piece ammo loading cycle
- complexity, poor ergonomics and unreliability of turret systems

I'm very curious to see how Challenger 2 will do at the Strong Europe, but sadly i would think that the 2-piece ammunition and mobility of Chally will not exactly help the crews achieve great scores.
The Challenger 2 is also 3-piece ammo in the same manner as the Challenger 1's. Just the third piece is automatic until X many rounds have been fired, at which point a magazine needs to be refilled.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Cross country the mobility of the CA2 shouldn't be an issue.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Gabriele wrote:The 3-tank troop was also accounted for in the rules: the 4-tank troops had to hit 32 targets and 80 failing plates; versus 24 and 60 for 3-tank troops, so i'd say that should not have been a factor.
The number of targets would not have been the only change required, a change to the arcs would also have been needed as well as ensuring the difficulty of the target arrays matched for both 3 & 4 tank troops not necessarily an easy thing to do.
Gabriele wrote:The RAC Gunnery Wing ran an inquiry into the failure. The use of "prototype" upgrades was deemed to have been a mistake and the quality of training for the competition was called into question, but according to the same book the fundamental causes were identified as:-

3 piece ammo loading cycle-
complexity, poor ergonomics and unreliability of turret systems
Although I wouldn't disagree with any of the above it does boil down to a failure to modernise the Fire Control and the sighting systems from Chieftain and while TOGS was excellent for the time, it was essentially a separate system to CSS.
Lord Jim wrote:The Challenger 2 is also 3-piece ammo in the same manner as the Challenger 1's. Just the third piece is automatic until X many rounds have been fired, at which point a magazine needs to be refilled.
As per the L11.
Gabriele wrote:I'm very curious to see how Challenger 2 will do at the Strong Europe, but sadly i would think that the 2-piece ammunition and mobility of Chally will not exactly help the crews achieve great scores.
It will be interesting to see, while I don't think mobility will be a major issue, unlike its predecessors it hasn't gone through a continuous process of updates since its introduction, so I fear the worst. But hey you never know!

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I wonder; of all the teams competing, how many will have the latest versions of their particular tank? Last year’s winners were running Leopard 2A4s.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:I wonder; of all the teams competing, how many will have the latest versions of their particular tank?
Germany, France and the US would be the only such ones.

I guess in a sheer technical sense the UK counts too, but that's not saying much when it's not been upgraded even once in that regard since entering service in the 90's!

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

I bet you lot want the C2 to finish last, don't you. Just so you can keep on griping about it.

I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place :lol:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Caribbean »

Cooper wrote:I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place
Too horrible to contemplate - the psychological damage would be immense :wtf: :shock: :crazy:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Cooper wrote:I bet you lot want the C2 to finish last, don't you. Just so you can keep on griping about it.

I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place :lol:
Caribbean wrote:
Cooper wrote:I mean, what on earth would you do if it came in first place
Too horrible to contemplate - the psychological damage would be immense :wtf: :shock: :crazy:
Strawmanning much?

If it comes first, then we know why. Because the crew performed well. After all, a 2A4 won it last year. Quality of the tank outside some element of FCS and mobility is not a thing in this competition, unlike in war.

However, if it comes last, then it could be a very nice thing to hold up to those who constantly refuse to put up the money to actually fix the vehicle's several problems. If the tabloids got a grip of it, then they could very easily become a 'thing' in the known media in front of the politicians.

To some, this could be a good thing, as it might finally bring to attention issues that people have been warning of for years.

That, and many of the things to critique it over are not covered in this competition, such as protection, penetration, gun wear, and crew survivability.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Speaking to the tank knowhows on Discord who have some contacts, looks like the Challenger is getting absolutely humped. Picture tells a portion of the story.

Image

Given its archaic FCS by comparison to the others, no surprise. Allegedly the Swedish Leopard 2 put five rounds within inches of one another.

Ukraine's one has always been a bit of a joke entry.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

That would perhaps explain why the QRH facebook page has suddenly gone silent on the day of the live shooting phase, posting instead a short video from yesterday's driving phase...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Post Reply