70 RPG's?!!

[Faram]

Sorry forgot da link...

http://www.saab.se/node4596.asp?exhibitionid=16

[Darth PhysBod]

BTW why would Chobham shatter? Isn’t it analogous to a large bail of straw in that it absorbs the rounds rather than trying to deflect them?

Chobham, IIRC is still ceramic. And as you all know, ceramics are
brittle and shatter easily, compared to metal, which is malleable

I doubt its that simple, from what i understand its supposed to have all sorts of bits in it, ceramics, plastics e.t.c, sandwiched between thick steel plates, all of which inflict varying yaw on an incoming round to basically absorb it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

BTW why would Chobham shatter? Isn’t it analogous to a large bail of straw in that it absorbs the rounds rather than trying to deflect them?

Chobham, IIRC is still ceramic. And as you all know, ceramics are
brittle and shatter easily, compared to metal, which is malleable

Well, no one knows what it's exactly made from, but I hear a special mono-crystalline armour plate or exotic material like foamed ceramics interspersed with lots of tiny tungsten granules. Though really, all I know is that it's damn good stuff against HEAT while other properties of the armour deal with APFSDS rounds.

[Vympel]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 57,00.html

M1A1 knocked out seconds before Greg Kelly starts reporting. Video of burning tank. Damn.

[Admiral Valdemar]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 57,00.html

M1A1 knocked out seconds before Greg Kelly starts reporting. Video of burning tank. Damn.

Ouch!

[Col. Crackpot]

doesn't look too bad. i mean it's obviously disabled, but the crew compartment doesn't look like it has been penetrated. if so, the ammo stores would have gone up.

[Vympel]

doesn't look too bad. i mean it's obviously disabled, but the crew compartment doesn't look like it has been penetrated. if so, the ammo stores would have gone up.

Actually, the ammo stores wouldn't go up if the crew compartment had been penetrated. The two are seperated by an armored bulkhead.

[Sea Skimmer]

BTW why would Chobham shatter? Isn’t it analogous to a large bail of straw in that it absorbs the rounds rather than trying to deflect them?

Its more like hitting a multi layer brick wall with a small wrecking ball. The ball likely wont go through, but whats left isn't very strong.


Cobham is made out of composites and ceramic blocks. They can absorb heat very well but there material strength is quite low. When hit with a long rod penetration, while it may be stopped the blocks are smashed. That makes the armor shit if the same general area is hit again. This is made worse by the fact that a tank with Cobham often had a lot less RHA protecting it because of weight and thickness restrictions.

That’s why Tungsten rods and or DU got added on to many vehicles, they offer very good protection against sabots, while taking up little space. Though they are quite heavy.

[Sea Skimmer]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 57,00.html

M1A1 knocked out seconds before Greg Kelly starts reporting. Video of burning tank. Damn.

Looks like the fire is in the crews external equipment, and with no smoke coming outo f the top the ammo is likely fine. Crew may be fine, and its possibul it can still drive though not fight.

[Darth PhysBod]

Its more like hitting a multi layer brick wall with a small wrecking ball. The ball likely wont go through, but whats left isn't very strong.


Cobham is made out of composites and ceramic blocks. They can absorb heat very well but there material strength is quite low. When hit with a long rod penetration, while it may be stopped the blocks are smashed. That makes the armor shit if the same general area is hit again. This is made worse by the fact that a tank with Cobham often had a lot less RHA protecting it because of weight and thickness restrictions.

That’s why Tungsten rods and or DU got added on to many vehicles, they offer very good protection against sabots, while taking up little space. Though they are quite heavy.

Well we probably wont know the exact consrtction of it for another 20 years or so.

Something to note though, the Challenger II is only 500Kg heavier than Challenger I, and has almost identical profile, the armour density can't be much different. Although I gather the latest armour is more effective against repeated impacts, I think it was Rob Wilson who once mentioned the Challenger II turret used for ballistic tests being covered in 'quills' from failed sabot penetrations and shallow craters from TOW 3 impacts

[Darth PhysBod]

Looks like the fire is in the crews external equipment, and with no smoke coming outo f the top the ammo is likely fine. Crew may be fine, and its possibul it can still drive though not fight.

The crew are fine. Saw an interview on skynews, apparently they kept on driving it until it would not go another further, then burned through all their remaning co-ax and 50.cal ammunition before bailing out. IIRC the driver was shot but his vest saved him, the tank itself is apparently undergoing repairs after the crew put the fire out.

[SirNitram]

It seems a beautiful contrast in design philosophies, this incident. An Abrams, from what I understand, is built ground up to dominate tank battles: Night sights, anti-SABOT armour, a 120mm cannon, and extreme speed. It seems to be the logical extension of what was learned in WWII, that you need speed and hitting power, not armour.

Yet the Challenger sits on the other end. Not as fast, primarily anti-HEAT armour(And truly effective anti-HEAT armour, as we've seen), smaller gun, slower. It's made for engaging supported infantry, the ones with HEAT based weaponry, and blowing away their vehicles and overrunning the infantry. Given the type of fighting we keep seeing, the heavier C-II is looking more and more like the ideal choice for today's battlefields.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It seems a beautiful contrast in design philosophies, this incident. An Abrams, from what I understand, is built ground up to dominate tank battles: Night sights, anti-SABOT armour, a 120mm cannon, and extreme speed. It seems to be the logical extension of what was learned in WWII, that you need speed and hitting power, not armour.

Yet the Challenger sits on the other end. Not as fast, primarily anti-HEAT armour(And truly effective anti-HEAT armour, as we've seen), smaller gun, slower. It's made for engaging supported infantry, the ones with HEAT based weaponry, and blowing away their vehicles and overrunning the infantry. Given the type of fighting we keep seeing, the heavier C-II is looking more and more like the ideal choice for today's battlefields.

The Royal Arms LS30 gun on the C-II is not rifled, but it is not smaller than the Abrams, it is still 120mm, though the original M1A1 Abrams had a 105.

[SirNitram]

It seems a beautiful contrast in design philosophies, this incident. An Abrams, from what I understand, is built ground up to dominate tank battles: Night sights, anti-SABOT armour, a 120mm cannon, and extreme speed. It seems to be the logical extension of what was learned in WWII, that you need speed and hitting power, not armour.

Yet the Challenger sits on the other end. Not as fast, primarily anti-HEAT armour(And truly effective anti-HEAT armour, as we've seen), smaller gun, slower. It's made for engaging supported infantry, the ones with HEAT based weaponry, and blowing away their vehicles and overrunning the infantry. Given the type of fighting we keep seeing, the heavier C-II is looking more and more like the ideal choice for today's battlefields.

The Royal Arms LS30 gun on the C-II is not rifled, but it is not smaller than the Abrams, it is still 120mm, though the original M1A1 Abrams had a 105.

Really? I had heard it was smaller. My apologies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It seems a beautiful contrast in design philosophies, this incident. An Abrams, from what I understand, is built ground up to dominate tank battles: Night sights, anti-SABOT armour, a 120mm cannon, and extreme speed. It seems to be the logical extension of what was learned in WWII, that you need speed and hitting power, not armour.

Yet the Challenger sits on the other end. Not as fast, primarily anti-HEAT armour(And truly effective anti-HEAT armour, as we've seen), smaller gun, slower. It's made for engaging supported infantry, the ones with HEAT based weaponry, and blowing away their vehicles and overrunning the infantry. Given the type of fighting we keep seeing, the heavier C-II is looking more and more like the ideal choice for today's battlefields.

The Royal Arms LS30 gun on the C-II is not rifled, but it is not smaller than the Abrams, it is still 120mm, though the original M1A1 Abrams had a 105.

Really? I had heard it was smaller. My apologies.

Nope, you may be thinking of the older Abrams or Leopard or even some Russian models. The Challengers have always had 120mm which is the norm nowadays. There have been rumours of 125 or even 150mm rifles being made for future tanks in Russia at least, but missiles or railguns of smaller calibre are the way forward it seems.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Royal Arms LS30 gun on the C-II is not rifled, but it is not smaller than the Abrams, it is still 120mm, though the original M1A1 Abrams had a 105.

Incorrect. The L30 is a rifled weapon, and the M1A1 mounts a 120mm smoothbore . It was the M1 and XM-1, which mounted a 105mm rifled gun, and the US Army had intended to upgrade all production M1's to have the 120mm when it was ready. Though this never happened.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The Royal Arms LS30 gun on the C-II is not rifled, but it is not smaller than the Abrams, it is still 120mm, though the original M1A1 Abrams had a 105.

Incorrect. The L30 is a rifled weapon, and the M1A1 mounts a 120mm smoothbore . It was the M1 and XM-1, which mounted a 105mm rifled gun, and the US Army had intended to upgrade all production M1's to have the 120mm when it was ready. Though this never happened.

Ah that's it, the other way around, I always do that. Yeah, meant the C2 had a rifled whereas the Abrams had smoothbore.

[SirNitram]

The Royal Arms LS30 gun on the C-II is not rifled, but it is not smaller than the Abrams, it is still 120mm, though the original M1A1 Abrams had a 105.

Incorrect. The L30 is a rifled weapon, and the M1A1 mounts a 120mm smoothbore . It was the M1 and XM-1, which mounted a 105mm rifled gun, and the US Army had intended to upgrade all production M1's to have the 120mm when it was ready. Though this never happened.

Ah, I see. But I must ask, which is superior for what job? I have heard some modern rounds don't work as well on a rifled barrel.

[Sea Skimmer]

It seems a beautiful contrast in design philosophies, this incident. An Abrams, from what I understand, is built ground up to dominate tank battles: Night sights, anti-SABOT armour, a 120mm cannon, and extreme speed. It seems to be the logical extension of what was learned in WWII, that you need speed and hitting power, not armour.

Yet the Challenger sits on the other end. Not as fast, primarily anti-HEAT armour(And truly effective anti-HEAT armour, as we've seen), smaller gun, slower. It's made for engaging supported infantry, the ones with HEAT based weaponry, and blowing away their vehicles and overrunning the infantry. Given the type of fighting we keep seeing, the heavier C-II is looking more and more like the ideal choice for today's battlefields.

You've basically got it.

The Challenger II was a private program to design a replacement for the Chieftain. The British Army liked the idea and adapted the design in 1991. While they look similar and are in many ways, the Challenger I and II have little in common in terms of components and design.

The Challenger was a development of the Shir 2, which was a heavily upgraded Chieftain being designed for Iran in 1979. There was also the Shir 1, which was a more basic Chieftain upgrade that made it into production, but then the nation had its revolution and the tanks went to Jordan as the Khalid.

The Chieftain in turn was a replacement for the Centurion, which dates to 1945, and represents something of a merging of the British ideas of cruiser and infantry tanks. Though the infantry tank lived on until the Centurion got the 105 L7 in the form of the Conqueror.

The British have held armor and firepower above mobility, especially speed for quite some time, and even with the types merged this continued. The expected battlefield for armor was the North German Plain. Multi kilometer engagements would be the norm, but maneuvering room was actually fairly restricted. That made a big gun and armor that would take multiple hits without repairs very valuable. The expectation of prolonged fights against a couple corps worth of Soviet armor was also why British tanks have large ammo loads compared to most tanks.

The end result was tanks that are somewhat defensive, but very fucking good at it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah, I see. But I must ask, which is superior for what job? I have heard some modern rounds don't work as well on a rifled barrel.

HESH has only ever been made to work with rifled guns, and the UK has used it as its primary anti tank shell for some time. Supposedly that was there biggest reason for not adapting a common 120mm smoothbore with the US and Germany.

However HEAT doesn't work when its spinning, so to fire it out of a rifled gun the shell has to have a complex sleeve on rings of ball bearings. That why little spin is imparted on the actually warhead section, and pop out fins take care of the rest. That leaves you with a smaller warhead among other things, and a much more expensive shell.

Rifled guns need barrel liner replacements considerable more often then smoothbores. But on the other hand rifled guns have proven more effective at very long ranges, but by the time that becomes apparent you've reach the point where your highly unlikely to ever have clear shot at anything.

Which is better could be argued about for quite some time. Personally I'd use a smoothbore by my heavy armor.

[Darth PhysBod]

It seems a beautiful contrast in design philosophies, this incident. An Abrams, from what I understand, is built ground up to dominate tank battles: Night sights, anti-SABOT armour, a 120mm cannon, and extreme speed. It seems to be the logical extension of what was learned in WWII, that you need speed and hitting power, not armour.

Yet the Challenger sits on the other end. Not as fast, primarily anti-HEAT armour(And truly effective anti-HEAT armour, as we've seen), smaller gun, slower. It's made for engaging supported infantry, the ones with HEAT based weaponry, and blowing away their vehicles and overrunning the infantry. Given the type of fighting we keep seeing, the heavier C-II is looking more and more like the ideal choice for today's battlefields.

I dont think there really is much difference, M1A2 SEP was rumoured to have been upgraded with the same armour as Challenger II (though I have heard otherwise from guys in the REME). Both have up to date Thermal sights, digital computers, indepent commanders sights for hunter/killer operation.
Challenger II has a neat mode using a seperate laser range finder for the commander, basically allowing it to enage two targets at once. The commader finds a target for the gunner, auto-aligns the gun to the target, the finds another target, lase's it with his own rangefinder. The computer can store both sets of target data, and once the gunner finishes the first target, it auto aligns the gun on the second taret and alsoautomatically fires the gun.

Without a doubt the armour on both is much more effective against HEAT warheads, to the point where frontal penetration basically isn't going to happen. The armour is probably a bit better than straight RHA per cm against K.E impacts, the difference being you can't mount 80-90cm of RHA on an MBT, but you can put that much Chobham-type armour up front. The only difference at the moment is the British army puts more emphasis on protection than the US, challenger II has a Chobham applique pack to uparmour the tank for wartime (note the chunky sideskirts compared to the M1, and the extra armour on the nose (ERA)). Maybe the US has one in development for use on the M1 or will do in light of this conflict, it would help against those RPG ambushes. Upgrading more M1's to the M1A2 SEP would probably help a lot, the stuff out there at the moment is all Gulf war era kit (M1A1 HA) isnt it?

Challenger isn't as fast on roads, IIRC Abrams and Challenger have similar Cross country speeds. Raw engine power isn't everything, look how well the 60 tonne Merkava Mk I races across rugged ground with a 'only' a 900 hp engine. For good mobilty its the suspension and transmission as much as the engine.

The only really noticable contrast in design philiosphies would be the use rifled 120mm or smoothbore 120mm. The British army still prefers HESH rounds as secondary ammuntion to APFSDS, it isn't as good against heavy armour (still enough to smash T55's) as HEAT, but is supposed to be great against concrete fortifications and the like.

[Vympel]

(note the chunky sideskirts compared to the M1, and the extra armour on the nose (ERA)).

I am positive that the Challenger 2 does not have Explosive Reactive Armor of any sort.

[Ted]

(note the chunky sideskirts compared to the M1, and the extra armour on the nose (ERA)).

I am positive that the Challenger 2 does not have Explosive Reactive Armor of any sort.

Only Challenger 1 has ERA, CHallenger has not as yet been fitted with ERA.