UK Defence Forum

The best MBT will be the one that provides the best situational awareness and allows that to be turned into effective action.

Ron5 wrote:Based on what? The MoD are playing that one close to the chest. As they should.

Well given that the FCS in the Leopard 2A7V is pretty highly rated as is the improved FCS on the Abrams A2C, and as they are both the same generation we have the best of Europe and the best the USA can offer so my opinion is that they are going to be comparable to cay the least. We haven't got the nut and bolt details of wither system for good reason so there is no real point in arguing which is better because we do not know. Your opinion most likely is different from mine which is fair enough.

Lord Jim wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Based on what? The MoD are playing that one close to the chest. As they should.

Well given that the FCS in the Leopard 2A7V is pretty highly rated as is the improved FCS on the Abrams A2C, and as they are both the same generation we have the best of Europe and the best the USA can offer so my opinion is that they are going to be comparable to cay the least. We haven't got the nut and bolt details of wither system for good reason so there is no real point in arguing which is better because we do not know. Your opinion most likely is different from mine which is fair enough.

Yep fair enough. I was just thinking that knowing the capabilities of the US & Germans systems, the CH3 FCS designers would be aiming to surpass both. Be a tad slow not to

I'm guessing it's not the metric to be judged on really Abrams or leo but more what the Russian or Chinese offering going to be ,can it outperform them or the most likely opposition tanks whatever they going to be ? fingers crossed but yes generally things tent to get more advanced than what's around ATM ,well I'd like to think so lol

Currently 3 piece ammo?

Jdam wrote:Currently 3 piece ammo?

Projectile, propellant and primer, so yes.

Has anyone found any further information on the new Power Pack? Is it an upgrade or new?

Lord Jim wrote:Has anyone found any further information on the new Power Pack? Is it an upgrade or new?

The engines will be upgraded to CV12-8A level before they go to Telford for the full Challenger 3 upgrade. That means a complete overhaul with install of a electronically controlled common rail fuel injection and engine health monitoring system. The resulting engine should be more reliable and easier to maintain.

My understanding is that these changes enable a power increase to up to 1500 bhp but right now the plan is to leave the power as is (1200 bhp).

Engine improvements are funded out of a different budget than the overall tank improvements and seems to be an ongoing program. Some parts, like a better air filters, have already been fielded. It's therefore entirely possible the extra power will be enabled after the Ch3's are in service, and fitted by the maintainers rather than factory. I'm sure corresponding changes to the power train would also be needed.

Is there any information about breaking it down for deployment for a smaller profile to fit in the platform carrying it ?

Well they would most likely be shipped by one of the Points so they may take the skirt armour off but little else. for the Gulf there was a fitting out workshop near the dock's to bring the Challenger 2s up to TES, prior to them moving out to staging areas. I believe it was a mix of Contractors and Service Personnel. A similar set up would probably be put in place on future deployments, they aren't going to go straight into battle off the boat, or at least I hope not.

seaspear wrote:Is there any information about breaking it down for deployment for a smaller profile to fit in the platform carrying it ?

The turret is moving to appliqué, so that could be removed. I assume the commander's 360 sight could be removed if there was a height restriction, most likely on railway.

Are there any plans to be able to deliver this tank by aircraft, A U.S.A.F Galaxy C-5 may carry 2 Abrams tanks

What's happening with the gearbox? I read somewhere (possibly here), that the gearbox was more in need of replacing than the engine...

seaspear wrote:Are there any plans to be able to deliver this tank by aircraft, A U.S.A.F Galaxy C-5 may carry 2 Abrams tanks

Not really except for possibly singleton replacements.

RunningStrong wrote:

seaspear wrote:Is there any information about breaking it down for deployment for a smaller profile to fit in the platform carrying it ?

The turret is moving to appliqué, so that could be removed. I assume the commander's 360 sight could be removed if there was a height restriction, most likely on railway.

Presumably the turret still has the underlying Chobham armour, no?

Rentaghost wrote:the underlying Chobham armour,

Which one? In the days - way back! - of Leo2 and Abrams emerging they tested three different kinds on them.
- The Yankees, never short of a Bob, even built an Abrams with uranium plates covering the most exposed zones; for another test

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Rentaghost wrote:the underlying Chobham armour,

Which one? In the days - way back! - of Leo2 and Abrams emerging they tested three different kinds on them.
- The Yankees, never short of a Bob, even built an Abrams with uranium plates covering the most exposed zones; for another test

I guess I just mean, that the Challenger 3 will have at least the same armour as Challenger 2 before the application of the new dtsl blocks?

Technically Chobham/Dorchester is an appliqué, but it’s welded in place.

mr.fred wrote:Technically Chobham/Dorchester is an appliqué, but it’s welded in place.

How is that appliqué!?

Rentaghost wrote:

RunningStrong wrote:

seaspear wrote:Is there any information about breaking it down for deployment for a smaller profile to fit in the platform carrying it ?

The turret is moving to appliqué, so that could be removed. I assume the commander's 360 sight could be removed if there was a height restriction, most likely on railway.

Presumably the turret still has the underlying Chobham armour, no?

That's not how I interpret it, but it's only an interpretation nonetheless.

RunningStrong wrote:How is that appliqué!?

It’s not part of the underlying structure. With an angle grinder and a bit of effort you could remove it and still drive the tank away.

I have always taken Applique to means bolt on like on the Merkava 3 and 4. If panels are welded on they have for all intents and purposes become part of the Tank's structure. Yes you can cut away damaged bits that hinder the vehicles operation, but that is not the same. It has always been possible to do that since the first Tanks rolled across the battlefield. In my opinion then Applique means you can simply unbolt and armour panel and install a new one.

We should use plain English; our military has inherited a fancy for loans words - how many can pronounce the noun and the verb for 'recce'
- a bad example as the meaning is clear in all three variations, anyway (add 'recon' for good measure)

ArmChairCivvy wrote:We should use plain English; our military has inherited a fancy for loans words

ArmChairCivvy wrote:'recce'

ArmChairCivvy wrote:'recon'

To paraphrase George Dubya, it's a shame French doesn't have a word for "Reconnoitre"

Lord Jim wrote:I have always taken Applique to means bolt on like on the Merkava 3 and 4. If panels are welded on they have for all intents and purposes become part of the Tank's structure. Yes you can cut away damaged bits that hinder the vehicles operation, but that is not the same. It has always been possible to do that since the first Tanks rolled across the battlefield. In my opinion then Applique means you can simply unbolt and armour panel and install a new one.

I take my definitions from commonly used standards like http://www.armorspecs.com/wp-content/up ... td_662.pdf

3.1 Applique armor. Armor that can be easily installed or removed from a weapon system in kit form without adversely affecting its structural integrity or operation.

You may take issue with “easily” but the rest absolutely applies.