Facts are facts though. Numbers don't lie. Every other modern tank has higher top speed, higher hp/t, better suspension liftspace, faster acceleration, sharper braking, better driver control method, better driver visibility and most also have better range.I've never been able to find those results, other than anecdotes that the Challenger was not disadvantaged in any meaningful way and was able to cross ground the others could not.
You're trying to be overly specific to avoid the harsh reality, I'm afraid.It's the only instance of a catastrophic destruction of a CR2 I am aware of. I haven't gone back over the service record of all British tanks since the Centurion which all have similar ammunition stowage layout but was not of the impression that it was much of a problem.
Are there any battlefield assessments of the Iranian Chieftains from the first Gulf War?
Getting back to the specific incident, it shows that it takes one hell of an effort to achieve in the first place, so is it a real problem or only a theoretical one? If the crew are all killed by the threat required to spark a catastrophic explosion, then, callous as it sounds, who cares?
Challenger stored explodable munitions in with the crew.
Modern tanks almost all avoid this. Calling into "well there's not been..." is a worthless arguement, because it's ignoring the core fact here. If a Challenger takes a hit to the ammo, the entire tank erupts and blows its turret clean off, killing the entire crew and wrecking it beyond use.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the Abrams proved that if it took a hit to the ammo then the blow out panels do their job, the tank remains intact and the crew escape. The tank is then recovered and re-crewed. This is because it doesn't have the lunacy to store the ammunition combustables inside the crew compartment. That is a fact. There is no word twisting around this that it is an enormous fault in the design for a tank in 2015.
What are you talking about?If he runs away, you don't chase him.
Chasing is not simply a case of "he's running, let's go after him." It's about "this tank is outmaneuvering us". The fact remains that because it is so hopelessly immobile by comparison to its competitors, the Challenger is the one that will struggle. It needs to get side on to penetrate reliably with its outdated FIN ammo on other modern tanks. It needs to get closer because it has a lower velocity gun that has a much shorter range that it can output a penetrating shot at. So it needs to close range and outflank tanks that are not only pumping out more powerful shots but are easily more mobile in a given battlefield space.
That is the crucial problem here. It's the one that needs to get closer and to favourable angles and yet it's the worst at doing that. Watching a Challenger trying to catch something like a Leclerc, Abrams or Leopard would be like watching a toddler trying to catch a greyhound.
No they don't. They were retired a long time ago to reserve fleets. The Russian Ground Forces focus on the later model T-72's (with ERA that Challenger can't penetrate, I might remind...), T-90's and later this year, T-14. (They laso have T-80's, but they're being retired soon, if not already)Look at proper combined arms tank use. The Russians still use T55s because they understand that no part of an army acts in isolation.
They really aren't. Given Challenger must use its modular plates in order to match their protection, its weight immediately jumps to the high 60's, while the Abrams and Leo can happily use their 'standard' configs and still retain all around composite protection. A fully armoured CR2 comes to 75 tons for goodness sake. Even the fully TUSKed out Abrams doesn't even top 70.Base platform weight between Leo 2A6, Abrams M1A2SEP and CR2 are very similar.
Greek trials. Challenger showed it could do 450km on road. The British Army themselves quote it as 550km, but thats with the external modules. (As the internals have no-where near enough space for that and they haven't been upgraded since.) Meanwhile, Leopard 2 can do 550km on internal only. So can Leclerc. Altay is 600km, allegedly. Only the Abrams does less, at 426km, however it's an anomoly given its gas turbine engine and the US knowing they can keep up with it logistically in a major action. They can afford to be less efficient.Sources for the relative ranges? What I find shows them to be quite similar. Do other NATO armies have logistics support to make the range count? Does it make sense to compare outright road range when normal military movement involves lots of stopping and waiting, which disadvantages other tanks (Thinking Abrams with its gas turbine here)
No there isn't. Sorry if this is blunt but thats just speculative straw grasping. They had to put so much on because they realised how vulnerable the lower glacis, belly were. Funny how you never see any Abrams, Leopards, Leclercs, Ariete's or anything else needing such a massively heavy lower glacis block...because they don't have nothing more than a little RHA protecting it.Maybe there is something going for the basic design and level of mobility if it is possible to stack so much appliqué armour on it.
A moot point. They are OPSECed to not give out the tank's weaknesses.Did you ask a Challenger commander? Check with operational analysts?
End of the day, there are major things and arguing over individual tiny points doesn't matter.
It is a fact that it is the least mobile modern MBT.
It is a fact that its gun is incapable of penetrating many forms of modern armour and is restricted to only tiny FINs and HESH.
It is a fact that it has a huge internals problem that leaves trhe entire crew in danger from ammunition ignition.
It is a fact that it relies on enormously heavy modules to protect its inherantly flawed basic design that leaves areas of the tank hopelessly vulnerable to modern weapons.
Those cannot be argued. They are proven facts in all respects. Whether we just buy a "short time cover" or go for something bigger, that decision needed to be made 10 years ago. Not in 2030. The idea that we will be driving a tank who's penetrative power maxes out at late 80's tanks 50 years on from its limit is absolutely abhorrant and a prime example of Cameron's "check box military" mentality.