~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.
The actual results from the Greek trials state otherwise, and the specification sheet regarding the Challenger 2's requires resistance levels in the design also make such statements that match up. They actually compared all tanks with full technical specifications on their layouts and capability to resist from a given angle of attack with KE, CE, and non-direct attacks. They rated the Challenger came out notable poorer than the M1A2 Export, or 2A5.
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.
The only way for this statement to be true is for ammunition to not have advanced in quality since 1988. That is clearly not the case.
Dorchester was good, but there is this "myth" about it being some sort of "decades ahead of its time" armour of the gods that honestly has no real basis in documented numbers to back up. It's pretty much just an alternate means to create something similar to the first upgrade to the Americam HAP, both being bnased on Burlington. It's pretty much just over-exaggerated achievements like the "70 RPGs" and "MILAN to the turret" which were impressive...but not anything that states it's that much higher than anything else. There wasn't a single penetrating hit on an Abrams in its entire service history in Iraq that wouldn't have penetrated a Challenger in exactly the same spot, for example, while nothing that was recorded to the spots the Challengers were hit would have had any better luck against an Abrams, with the sole exception of one acknowledged side strike that hit the Challenger's WRAP2 Dorchester side-skirts, which are an external module outwith the scope of the point about the baseline armour anyway. (And wouldn't resist anything larger anyway, not enough LOS.)
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.
Hardly, the M1, Leo2, Leclerc, T-72/90 have all had complete armour package reneweals since then. Thats under the skin upgrades, not just modular packages.
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.
I didn't say super tanks, I said that underestimating what they have is a dire mistake to make. Russia relying on "loads of crap tanks overwhelming with numbers" was, even in its most appropriate day, a bit of a myth, at at least a very inaccurate statement. Their modern tanks have good resistance, good firepower, and have closed much of the gap in terms of systems.
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.
T-72B3s have been in service and
in combat for some time now. It's definitely not just parade concepts like Armata. The T-14 is actually one of the least concerning things from them compared to the continued upgrades on the later T-72/90s, especially to the M designation where they receive the Relikt plates.
[/quote]The Dorchester armour fitted to the CR2 was superior to the version fitted to the M1 and it was only with the additional armour packages that the M1 gained superiority.[/quote]
The M1 was from the 70's. Of course a tank made in the 90's is better. Those added packs tghe Abrams got already entered service at basically the same time as the Challenger 2, if not before. The Greek trials identified the M1A2 as having stronger armour, and that was the export weakened version. (The 2E had the same Dorchester as the British one).
The sloping and configuration of the Armour on the CR is better and the tank has a smaller profile in height and width.
Sloping does not work in the same way as it used to. KEPs will shatter or embed before they bounce. Both the Challenger and the M1 have the same issues around the turret ring/driver area. And the only reason they have it, is because
every tank has it there. The differences in size are very very small, really. The overall config of the armour is definitely not superior though. While I won't talk where openly, I'm sure you know the Challenger has a gigantic unprotected area of just RHA alone on its frontal arc.