FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

there was a Challey 2 Immobilized on a Bridge into Basrah and sustained prolonged assualt with anti armour weapons before the area was secure enough to get it and the crew all recovered. It certainly seamed a more robust vehicle than M1.
Accuracy wise the gun is outstanding compared to the 120mm smoothbore, But initally Challey 2 suffered by being sent to extreme enviroments without modification.
The MBT is still the best system to engage tanks and the age of the tank is not over despite the cack people in maroon berets spout.

User avatar
CarrierFan2006
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 01 May 2015, 06:11

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by CarrierFan2006 »

marktigger wrote:there was a Challey 2 Immobilized on a Bridge into Basrah and sustained prolonged assualt with anti armour weapons before the area was secure enough to get it and the crew all recovered. It certainly seamed a more robust vehicle than M1.
Accuracy wise the gun is outstanding compared to the 120mm smoothbore, But initally Challey 2 suffered by being sent to extreme enviroments without modification.
The MBT is still the best system to engage tanks and the age of the tank is not over despite the cack people in maroon berets spout.
That vehicle was hit by 7 RPGs of various types and a Milan ATM. A shed load of rifle and MG fire was also opened up on it. The optics and tracks were trashed. The tank continued to shoot over open sights with auxiliary and the main gun until recovery and other support arrived. The vehicle was towed out of the kill box, new tracks fitted and driven back to base where it was repaired. As I recall it was back in the fight within 48 hours.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

thats the one

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Saw this tweeted recently by the DIO and couldn't help but post it here.

Image

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

CarrierFan2006 wrote: Ch2 is actually well protected but it's not invincible. The blue on blue was another Ch2, hitting the turret with a CHARM3 gun. !
The BoB kill was not with CHARM3, it was with a HESH round that essentially went in the driver's hatch! Nasty bit of luck, that hit. Had that round landed anywhere else, that tank wouldn't have been damaged in the slightest, given HESH is effectively useless against Gen3 MBTs.

If it had been CHARM3 it'd actually have been fine too, given CHARM3 would have just punched through the hatch and kept going, it's just an inert dart after all. Wrong round in the wrong place at the wrong time, unthinkably bad luck to an almost mathematically impossible degree.

The logistics of the turret internals are perfectly fine for rate of fire. Challenger 2 can whop off 3 shots in 12 seconds if it had a mind to and a few minutes to prepare. Gun is perfectly accurate too. The only real issue is penetrator length and muzzle velocity, both of which are hilariously impotent and 10 years behind the curve. It'd be comical if it wasn't so potentially morbid for our crewmen.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

RetroSicotte wrote:
CarrierFan2006 wrote: The only real issue is penetrator length and muzzle velocity, both of which are hilariously impotent and 10 years behind the curve. It'd be comical if it wasn't so potentially morbid for our crewmen.
But it wouldn't be the British Army we know and love if it weren't going into battle with outdated tanks, would it... :roll:

As usual, we'll rely on superior numbers, outflanking the enemy, hitting them multiple times to overcome the deficit...oh, wait a minute :roll:

I guess that's what Tridents for...go big or go home. :D

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote: The BoB kill was not with CHARM3, it was with a HESH round that essentially went in the driver's hatch! Nasty bit of luck, that hit. Had that round landed anywhere else, that tank wouldn't have been damaged in the slightest, given HESH is effectively useless against Gen3 MBTs.
It hit the Commander's hatch rather than going in the driver's, but yes, it was unlucky. A hit on the armour wouldn't have destroyed it, but damage would have occurred. A track hit would have taken that track (and probably running gear) off. Anywhere on the main armour would take pretty much everything on the surface off as well, including optics if they were nearby. There are always weak points and vulnerable equipment

The logistics of the turret internals are perfectly fine for rate of fire. Challenger 2 can whop off 3 shots in 12 seconds if it had a mind to and a few minutes to prepare. Gun is perfectly accurate too. The only real issue is penetrator length and muzzle velocity, both of which are hilariously impotent and 10 years behind the curve. It'd be comical if it wasn't so potentially morbid for our crewmen.
"Hilariously Impotent" is laying it on a bit thick. It's behind the curve but will still kill 80%+ of the worlds MBTs. Of the <20% it might not kill, 80% belong to us or our allies. Considering that 80% of the role of a tank isn't being a tank-destroyer it's a pretty small window of opportunity that might be a problem. It would be ideal if that window didn't exist, but it is hardly cause for such ridiculous redundant hyperbole.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Wait, I said drivers?

So I did.

Huh. Not sure why I typed that when I knew full well which hatch it hit. Ta for grabbing that mistake.
It's behind the curve but will still kill 80%+ of the worlds MBTs.
Which is a very "politician" way of saying "It's only effective against outdated Soviet Cold War trash that still have big numbers out there." :p

But as I've always said, it's not today that's the issue. It's tomorrow. There is not a single project to improve the gun, its ammo or anything about its lethality laid out at all. Even if they did decide on anything in another 5 years, it'll be another decade before it arrives and will be entirely too late. 10 year lead ins are the death of "well it's kinda all right at the moment..."

It only takes you a day to be left behind, but it takes you a decade to get ahead, so they say.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:
It's behind the curve but will still kill 80%+ of the worlds MBTs.
Which is a very "politician" way of saying "It's only effective against outdated Soviet Cold War trash that still have big numbers out there." :p
Either that or you've a very political interpretation and the intended meaning was "it will kill anything bar the latest and most upgraded tanks out there, of which most are owned by our allies and the likelihood of bumping into the others is very, very small and will be for some years yet"
But as I've always said, it's not today that's the issue. It's tomorrow. There is not a single project to improve the gun, its ammo or anything about its lethality laid out at all. Even if they did decide on anything in another 5 years, it'll be another decade before it arrives and will be entirely too late. 10 year lead ins are the death of "well it's kinda all right at the moment..."

It only takes you a day to be left behind, but it takes you a decade to get ahead, so they say.
A little different from "hilariously impotent", even so. There isn't a wholesale re-armament going on anywhere else either. The main threats who have the 4% of tanks we might actually be worried about are Russia and China - if we're tangling with them a lacklustre gun on our MBT will be the least of our worries.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote:Wait, I said drivers?

So I did.

Huh. Not sure why I typed that when I knew full well which hatch it hit. Ta for grabbing that mistake.
It's behind the curve but will still kill 80%+ of the worlds MBTs.
Which is a very "politician" way of saying "It's only effective against outdated Soviet Cold War trash that still have big numbers out there." :p

But as I've always said, it's not today that's the issue. It's tomorrow. There is not a single project to improve the gun, its ammo or anything about its lethality laid out at all. Even if they did decide on anything in another 5 years, it'll be another decade before it arrives and will be entirely too late. 10 year lead ins are the death of "well it's kinda all right at the moment..."

It only takes you a day to be left behind, but it takes you a decade to get ahead, so they say.
I had a recent conversation with some of the fine people from one of our armoured Regiments - forgot to note which one - and whilst it was very informal and anecdotal (literally a brief yes/no type of thing - it was at a public event so hardly the time or place for in depth capability discussions) they were not in the least bit worried by developments occurring in the East. I was quite indirect about the way i posed the question but i hinted towards as to if whether or not the Armata (not mentioned specifically, but they got what i was gesturing to) changed the status quo in any way. Even to my surprise they were rather unperturbed - in fact, they were as confident as ever in their machine.

Of course, like i said they didn't know me from Adam and this was a public event so they were hardly going to get in to detailed discussion nor had any reason to take my question as academically as it might be here, and in some respects you might expect them not to say any different to a member of the public; but even so it chimes with those who have had such discussions with friends and colleagues in the service had reported back to the likes of us. The two separate crewmen i spoke to, independently of one another, both registered their eagerness to have the Chally's electronic equipment refreshed - in fact they openly admitted that it was lagging behind many of our peers, but it was the only area in which they conceded the Chally was off its game. From the suspension to the gun they felt they were at the very least, at a peer level with everyone else and naturally in terms of protection they were glowing in their reviews, however brief.

Now i can't discount that they might have had a brief for PR at the event just in case people like us, or anyone else with an above average (considering average is that you know of the Challenger 2's existence) knowledge of the tank came along and asked semi-informed questions, but again much of it chimes with what has been said between colleagues and reported back here - a more trusting environment and more conducive to proper, academic discussion with people they know who can keep up, so to speak. Had i had the chance to make the depth of my interest better known to the crew i had the chance to talk to they may well have supplied a little greater depth in their own responses to my queries, but i came away reasonably satisfied with what they had said all the same.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

that's because defence spending wa afghan centris if it wan't in afghanistan it was irrelevant

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Had a big post there, but it was a bit OPSEC for my tastes from my digging. Removed.

Suffice to say the numbers weren't pretty, but I don't think it'd have been a very popular revelation to those who haven't seen the real flaws undermining the vehicle that we have heard nothing about fixing.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Nothing to share at all? I always like hearing your thoughts - even if this is one matter where we, unusually, don't agree on. Can't quite imagine where OPSEC sensitive stuff might have come from, unless i have underestimated the extent of your connections, mate ;)

90inFIRST
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:00
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by 90inFIRST »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Nothing to share at all? I always like hearing your thoughts - even if this is one matter where we, unusually, don't agree on. Can't quite imagine where OPSEC sensitive stuff might have come from, unless i have underestimated the extent of your connections, mate ;)
Agree, can you share anything would be very interested

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

I wouldn't get overly excited! I'm not going to reveal a super secret hidden master bedroom with en-suite in place of the armour plate or anything! :p

Numbers involving the mathematical penetration of the L27 CHARM3 (which is actually bigger than I had realised, thanks to an inaccurate source. Penetrator I thought was 300mm long, it's actually more like 500mm. Still tiny and fired at low velocity but...not as hilariously "50's"), a particular weak point of the armour, the suspension limits, sights range limitations in "certain" conditions and driver position problems.

Some things I would feel have to be changed in this CLEP that are more "obviously known" are things to do with the driver's position. Only having one periscope in 2015 is quite distinct as a problem (driver can only see directly forward) while it still using steering levers astounds me when the world moved onto steering wheels. I would be astonished if both these things were changed in CLEP, given its goal is to remove obselecence...but I've been disappointed enough times to expect it won't be.

After all, regardless of anyone's opinion, it's undeniable what CLEP's brief is. "What is the absolute barest minimum we can get away with doing to still claim we have an "upgraded tank" in soundbytes when questioned?"

Pymes75
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:17
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Pymes75 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Only having one periscope in 2015 is quite distinct as a problem (driver can only see directly forward) while it still using steering levers astounds me when the world moved onto steering wheels."
The Army was offered a steering wheel or T-bar as alternatives but they wanted tillers for commonality with Chieftain (originally) and then Chally 1! :roll: The driver's controls make little difference to the steering system as it's a Hydro-Static Unit (STN-37/STN-54) built into the gearbox and with simple lever inputs that can be coupled to whatever the customer wants.... Trust me, I know because I used to work in the Engineering Dept that designed the bloody things!

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote: Some things I would feel have to be changed in this CLEP that are more "obviously known" are things to do with the driver's position. Only having one periscope in 2015 is quite distinct as a problem (driver can only see directly forward) while it still using steering levers astounds me when the world moved onto steering wheels. I would be astonished if both these things were changed in CLEP, given its goal is to remove obselecence...but I've been disappointed enough times to expect it won't be.
Since both driver's position issues are to do with design decisions rather than component obsolescence, I fail to see why it should surprise anyone that a programme addressing obsolescence would not "fix" these. The single driver's periscope has survived since the 1960's on Chieftain, so I wonder if it is such a problem. Likewise the steering.
Suspension travel is a poor measure if you are comparing suspension systems which work differently.
After all, regardless of anyone's opinion, it's undeniable what CLEP's brief is. "What is the absolute barest minimum we can get away with doing to still claim we have an "upgraded tank" in soundbytes when questioned?"
You could also pose it as "what can we afford to spend on an obsolescent platform that we rarely deploy anyway, in order to keep it a viable platform in all the vast majority of situations where it would be deployed, until it gets replaced" What gets replaced will tell which is closest.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:Suspension travel is a poor measure if you are comparing suspension systems which work differently.
It's one of the most critical though. Once your vertical limit hits, you effectively have no suspension dampening anymore. Anything past that limit is going to buck the vehicle, harming accuracy on the move and on general mobility levels. It's an absolute of design. It can be made as good as it can be across things within that limit, but the upper bar before there's no room left to go is the absolutely crucial value. Anything past that is into serious "the entire hull is going to start taking the impact" territory.
and with simple lever inputs that can be coupled to whatever the customer wants...
But entirely lacks the modern driver's controls that can be found on wheels. Look at the Leclerc's it's full of controls that the driver doesn't have to remove their hands from to work, and even if so a wheel can work with a single hand. Not so with levers, where two hands are required for full control. There is a reason that every country is updating to or designing with a wheel now.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Thanks for your thoughts RS - i think i now know which bits of data you are referring to in some cases, though i must say i am utterly downtrodden over the lack of en-suite facilities ;)

I have to agree with Pymes in regards to comments on the tiller steering. It is an older method certainly and you may have a point when it comes to perhaps being less efficient in terms of easing the driver's workload; but i am not sure if it is fair to label it obsolete - at least not in the sense that would suggest that it is a critical design flaw or present impediment to continued capability. At any rate, if this were to be one of the primary concerns confronting the Chally in to the future then i'd say we had little to concern ourselves over!

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:
mr.fred wrote:Suspension travel is a poor measure if you are comparing suspension systems which work differently.
It's one of the most critical though. Once your vertical limit hits, you effectively have no suspension dampening anymore. Anything past that limit is going to buck the vehicle, harming accuracy on the move and on general mobility levels. It's an absolute of design. It can be made as good as it can be across things within that limit, but the upper bar before there's no room left to go is the absolutely crucial value. Anything past that is into serious "the entire hull is going to start taking the impact" territory.
But you can only compare it directly if the spring behaviour on the suspension is the same between what you compare. More travel on a linear spring doesn't necessarily mean a better ride than less travel on a non-linear spring.
and with simple lever inputs that can be coupled to whatever the customer wants...
But entirely lacks the modern driver's controls that can be found on wheels. Look at the Leclerc's it's full of controls that the driver doesn't have to remove their hands from to work, and even if so a wheel can work with a single hand. Not so with levers, where two hands are required for full control. There is a reason that every country is updating to or designing with a wheel now.
I don't see why that should be an issue. I could put half a dozen controls onto the top of a stick just as easily as you put them on a wheel or a tiller, with the added benefit that it isn't blocking your access/egress route, which a wheel would do.
http://www.daco.co.uk/custom-built-cont ... trollers-2
Added to that, two hands are not required for adequate control, even with really old-fashioned braking levers. I'm pretty sure that modern stick controls don't require two hands all the time. Perhaps Pymes75 could comment.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:But you can only compare it directly if the spring behaviour on the suspension is the same between what you compare. More travel on a linear spring doesn't necessarily mean a better ride than less travel on a non-linear spring.
Not quite what I meant. I mean that if a suspension hits an obstacle, then the suspension has to rise. The sharper/larger the object, the higher it has to rise. When it gets to the maximum rise limit, then it has no further to rise and the vehicle bumps. Thats a non-permutable fact of all suspensions, and it's something the Challenger isn't particularly great at. Heavy terrain gives it serious problems. Its suspension is world beating on light terrain and general offroad, but put it in rocky conditions or rubbled areas for example? That suspension will falter long before comparable tanks do.
I don't see why that should be an issue. I could put half a dozen controls onto the top of a stick just as easily as you put them on a wheel or a tiller, with the added benefit that it isn't blocking your access/egress route, which a wheel would do.
The issue is the Challenger doesn't have those features. It's just two blank, 60's era sticks.

And once again, there is no special reason to stick with them. It's not defensible when literally every other nation in the world making tanks has chose to go in another direction. That doesn't happen for no reason. We cannot be so egotistical to think we're making the right choice here.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:
mr.fred wrote:But you can only compare it directly if the spring behaviour on the suspension is the same between what you compare. More travel on a linear spring doesn't necessarily mean a better ride than less travel on a non-linear spring.
Not quite what I meant. I mean that if a suspension hits an obstacle, then the suspension has to rise. The sharper/larger the object, the higher it has to rise. When it gets to the maximum rise limit, then it has no further to rise and the vehicle bumps. Thats a non-permutable fact of all suspensions, and it's something the Challenger isn't particularly great at. Heavy terrain gives it serious problems. Its suspension is world beating on light terrain and general offroad, but put it in rocky conditions or rubbled areas for example? That suspension will falter long before comparable tanks do.
The impact will have an amount of energy associated with it, which the suspension will have to absorb. On a linear spring, like most tanks have, that's a pretty easy calculation and you can compare directly. On the hydrogas suspension the spring is not linear so you cannot compare directly.
I don't see why that should be an issue. I could put half a dozen controls onto the top of a stick just as easily as you put them on a wheel or a tiller, with the added benefit that it isn't blocking your access/egress route, which a wheel would do.
The issue is the Challenger doesn't have those features. It's just two blank, 60's era sticks.

And once again, there is no special reason to stick with them. It's not defensible when literally every other nation in the world making tanks has chose to go in another direction. That doesn't happen for no reason. We cannot be so egotistical to think we're making the right choice here.
1) if it were important to have stick mounted controls, you could have them, just like you could have wheel or tiller mounted controls. Having sticks does not preclude having controls on them.
2) sticks, being mounted to the side of the driver, do not impede his entry or exit route, where a wheel or tiller would.
3) We cannot be so pessimistic to think that we cannot make a valid choice

Pymes75
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:17
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Pymes75 »

Without going into detail, the STN-37 has an unsual (and more complicated) hydraulic arrangement for a HSU than other western systems which allows for separate input controls. The result is that some degree of control is possible using a single tiller * but naturally you would normally drive with both hands on them when not operating other controls and IIRC, neutral turns (i.e. turns on the spot) are only possible by operating both tillers in opposite directions.

I'm not saying whether tillers are a better solution or not - they all have pros and cons. However, I'm not sure how easy it would now be to retrofit a T-bar or steering wheel in the drivers compartment and therefore whether this would be a worthwhile upgrade cost. Let's face, as with any engineering solution, decisions made at the early design stage are felt years (or decades) down the line as it becomes prohibitively expensive to change.

* One of the obvious benefits being the ability to retain some control of the vehicle in the event of damage/failure to one of the tillers

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Nothing to contribute myself by way of discussion only that it is good to see this level of informative exchange between everyone again - it is a credit to the forum :)

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

It's not pessimism to that the world has moved on.

It's just taking our head out the sand. There is no country worse than the UK for stubbornly refusing to accept that we've been left behind on something. If there was no advantage, then other countries wouldn't have swapped. And when I say every, I mean pretty much every nation. It is overwhelming, unassailably enormous proof.

For the UK to stand and say "Our sticks are still as good as that!" decades after the world moved on and blindly ignore that it's the only one still touting that is not "optimism", it's lunacy born of ego and unwillingness to confront the hard questions. This goes for so much more than just "driver mechanism", as I'm touching onto how thats affected much much larger things in history, hence the florid language.

Why, it was just a couple months back that the UK Government finally admitted that maybe, just maybe they were going about this whole "export business" the completely wrong way that had lost us numerous massive contracts to the French.

Y'know, that same problem that insisted didn't exist for years while everyone was screaming about it to them and getting ignored?

Same thing.

Post Reply