Talk:Challenger 2 tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Weaponry task force

Contents 1 Copyright Problem 2 Rate of Fire 3 Slew Rate 4 Challenger 2E 5 Ton or 1000 kg 6 Compare to the M1 Abrams? 7 Safe Cracking. 8 Armament 9 off-road speed 10 "Most heavily armoured" 11 CRARRV / CHARRV

[edit] Copyright Problem

The basis for this article was originally [1] Some sentences are still directly or neerly completely copied from the article. I almost listed this as a copyright problem but thought best of it since it has changed so much. Rewrite this article or it will have to deleted. BrokenSegue 14:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Things are happening GraemeLeggett 13:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rate of Fire

If possible, please include the initial and sustained rates of fire. I'd help, but most of my sources here are badly outdated. I imagine rates of fire with the separate/semifixed ammo aren't the greatest? -L 4 April 2005

The bagged charge system is not at an disadvantage here. Rates of fire are in the region of 10/12 rounds per minute.

It is often the case that tanks using loaders (manual loading) can fire more quickly and sustain that rate for longer than tanks with auto-loaders. Rob cowie 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked around and some suggest that russian autoloaders are capable of about 8 rounds per minute.Rob cowie 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that the operational limit on rate of fire is accurate laying of the gun, and it is rare for the loading to cause delay. Having been a commmander of one of these, I doubt that a rate of fire of much over 6 rounds a minute could be achieved even on a range Busted Flush 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slew Rate

It would be great to see slew rates listed for the main turret on all of the MBT articles in wikipedia. Elevation/depression rates would be icing on the cake. -L 4 April 2005

[edit] Challenger 2E

The article seems to say the 2E is superior (fire control and power pack) to the original. It also says it's an export-only version? Is the armor the same, worse, or better?

Better.--MWAK 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's my U.S. bias to be surprised at the export version possibly being better (in the U.S., the government almost never allows export of a version that's superior to what the U.S. military has). Call us paranoid. We may want to reconsider that policy in order to keep important and expensive weapons systems in continued factory production for longer periods, in these days of rising weapons systems costs and harder to find money in defense budgets. Still, it would be terribly galling to one day get shot at by people with stuff better than our own, and stuff that we sold to them. In short, it would be a boon to the defense industry, a political nightmare domestically, and at the minimum infuriating for the troops. -L 4 April 2005

Remember that the original Shir-2 was developed for Iran and that the British would have been unable to fit any tanks with Chobham if development and production of the ceramic modules hadn't been funded by the Shah :o). Also remember that the Americans didn't develop Chobham. :>}--MWAK 14:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I read anywhere (including the Alvis Vickers site) mentioned that the 2E was "export only". Indeed, everything I read said that the 2E is superior to the 2, although I would think the armour is probably the same. I have therefore altered the article to reflect this. If anyone (e.g. a Vickers employee!) can confirm the facts it would be great. As a side note, I suspect if the British Army could afford to replace all the Challenger 2s they just got to the 2E, then they would. Bobbis 17:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the armour on the 2E is identical to that of the 2. Of course, if the customer is willing to pay, applique armour kits could be fitted as standard to the 2E, but the underlying armour is Chobham. Rob cowie 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. New forms of ceramic composites are developed constantly. But the British army obviously can't afford completely refitting their existing tanks constantly; they slowly use up available stock, replacing the modules when on major overhauls they are discovered to be fractured beyond an acceptable limit. That stock is then replenished with new types. So it can take a while before new armour reaches the tanks themselves. A completely new export version would however be offered with the best armour. This doesn't mean that the actual prototype of the 2E is fitted with it, but that is immaterial. It is the virtual 2E that matters. :o)--MWAK 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ton or 1000 kg

This is a very minor point, but I notice GraemeLeggett changed 62,500 kg to 62.5 t. The reason I changed this in the first place was because the ton/tonne is a bit ambigious (see the Ton entry and this page). The metric ton is not a true SI unit, although I appreciate it is widely treated as such. Just thought I would explain my reasoning, but I am perfectly happy to go with the majority opinion on this. Bobbis 18:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its not an SI unit, but it is the common use unit, and worthy if only for ease of readability. The diferrence between the Imperial ton and metric makes little difference when dealing with a large vehicle, especially in this case as the actual weight could vary depending on loading with stores, ammunition, fuel, crew etc. GraemeLeggett 08:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compare to the M1 Abrams?

How does it compare to the M1 Abrams? Which is better?

It lost several competitions agains M1(AFAIK M1A2) and some more against Leopard 2 (AFAIK Leo2 A6). --Denniss 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A brief conversation with a few friends of mine who operate these things yielded only surprise at this statement. Any details would be appreciated as we cannot think of any competition ever lost by British Army tank crews. Rob cowie 12:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly lost out in several competitions for various NATO and foreign armies looking to buy new tanks. The usual reason was the 120mm rifled gun - NATO standard is a smoothbore - and not any inferiority of the tank in terms of reliability or battleworthyness. As for which is better the M1 or the Challenger then there's no question that the Challenger is more survivable, its gun is more versatile (though not quite as good at firing APFSDS as the smoothbore on the M1) and its diesel engine has some advantages over the M1's too (uses less fuel and doesn't fry any infantryman who gets too close not to mention shining like a beacon to anyone with a thermal imager). Of course the M1 is probably cheaper because the yanks have turned out many more of them and when you're looking for a new tank for your army price is always important.

True: there are many who think that the use of a gas turbine in the M1 was a mistake. The point about the gun is an interesting one; there has always been disagreement amongst experts about the smoothbore/rifled question. The British Army chose it primarily (I think) to allow accurate firing of HESH rounds. Rob cowie 14:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So far as I have been able to work out it is substantially tougher than an Abrams, easier to support logistically due to eating less fuel, shows up less on IR and the rifled gun with HESH rounds is much better for breaking up fortifications or blowing apart Russian tanks at long range. On the other hand the Abrams is subsantially cheaper, its smoothbore gun has better armour penetration at short to medium ranges, and it goes a LOT faster. Different design philosophies, if you have the logistics (and American does) then for taking on an equivelent technology enemy in large scale manouver warfare Abrams are no doubt wonderful, for taking on lower tech enemies while supplied with less extravagent support and smaller numbers Challenger II's seem better suited. Of course for situations like Iraq I would -definitely- prefer Challengers. They seem to be immune to older man portable anti tank weapons and speed is not so important for urban warfare.

Problem is you really can't look at two tanks and say "which one is better", its rather like looking at two different plates of food and saying "that one is better". Its really down to personal taste and individual requirements. Whilst one may have more technical equiptment and higher performance from a tank - it may as a result be much heavier than ones operational requirements allow and so a lighter more reduced model is needed. However I think one can say that the Challenger 2 MBT can be considered to be either 'the' or one of 'the best' tanks in the world taking into account things such as its weight, NBC, speed and weaponry performance. NATO tests are not conclusive of which tank is 'better' because they themselves look for specific features, one of which is price - and of course the challenger 2 is immensley expensive as tanks go. Its safe to say its also one of the most expensive tanks available. But it fits in with the british design philiosophy of a small but elite group of units rather than massed numbers of cheaper inferior models.

[edit] Safe Cracking.

As far as the story about blowing open a safe is concerned it is eiter false or falsely reported. The British army does not field a HEAT round for the challenger - as far as I'm aware there isn't a 120mm HEAT round available for the 120mm rifled gun. The British Army uses the more versatile HESH round.

The story is from the Brainac series on SkyOne, I believe it was a sabot round, or at least reported as such.

I agree, the ammunition was a discarding sabot round of unidentified warhead. Likely a dud if I remember correctly. A highly dubious source either way for accurate information.

[edit] Armament

The article mentions that the Challenger 2 fires; "Around 50 rounds can be carried from a selection of APFSDS, HESH or smoke." - I was under the impression that APFSDS stood for Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Discarding Sabot - with the main gun being rifled, what exactly is the point of fin stabilising your shell? I thought the whole point of rifling the barrel was to increase the accuracy especially at range? Please forgive my ignorance. 58.7.210.43 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

APFSDS is correct. Spin is actually bad for APFSDS rounds (for fairly complex reasons), which is why most other tanks use smoothbore guns. Additionally friction from the rifling reduces the muzzle velocity of the round to 1530 m/s compared with 1700 m/s for most other smoothbore 120 mm APFSDS rounds. The British continue to use rifled guns because HESH rounds won't work nearly as well without them. The rifled APFSDS rounds features some kind of anti-rifling jacket that stops the rounds spinning with the rifling in the barrel - so the rounds leave the barrel with either no spin, or a relatively low rate of spin. Google "APFSDS and Rifled" for more information. Megapixie 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to fire a HEAT round through a rifled barrel as the spinning of the round prevents the penetrative jet from forming when it impacts the target.

It has a negative effect on penetration; nevertheless all postwar rifled tank guns had HEAT-rounds developed for them.--MWAK 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] off-road speed

the article mentions the on road speed of the challenger 2, but it does not mention the off road speed which in many ways is more important. i was under the impression the over rough terrain the challenger 2 was the fastest MBT in the world, but i could be wrong.

Pratj 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell what the offspeed road is - but I would have thought it unlikely that the Challenger 2 is the fastest simply because it weighs 62 tons - there are a lot of 40 to 50 ton tanks with similar powerpacks - see T-80, T-90 or 50 to 60 tons tanks with more power Leclerc, and 60 ish ton tanks with the same or greater power - i.e. M1 Abrams, Merkava (III).

The lighter tanks with similar or better hp/ton are probably going to be the fastest over true rough ground simply because they weigh less and are less likely to bog down (lower ground pressure). Megapixie 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted figures of "off-road speed" don't mean much anyway. There isn't a single kind of off-road terrain, and I've seen no published standards on how to measure it consistently.

Power-to-weight ratio and ground pressure help determine an AFV's off-road performance, as well as the strength of its components. I think most modern MBTs have their top speed governed, to prevent excessive wear or failure of the drivetrain, suspension, and track. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 00:20 Z

i know this is a crap source but i was watching re runs of the TV show top Gear in which he was being chased by a challenger 2 in a range rover sport. and he said that the challenger 2 was the fastest tank in the world over rough terrain.

Pratj 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

over some terrain yes, soft mud/grass i believe. but judging off-road performance from speeds taken at different tests in different countries is hopelessly inacurate. - steve

[edit] "Most heavily armoured"

Can somebody please provide a citation for this:

The Challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured western made tank

It's becoming slightly onerous to keep reverting rather questionable edits to a rather contentious assertion that has no supporting evidence when I can't tempt user 68.66.105.9, who seems to have the biggest problem with it, to discuss his/her changes.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a postscript, I've tracked down the initial assertion to an undocumented change made by an unregistered AOL user, so my inclination is that it probably should be removed...
—Chris (blather • contribs) 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You see, I don't want someones elses opinion on whether or not someone thinks it's the most heavily armored tank. According to this site:

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

The M1a2 sep is slighty better protected.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.105.9 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately, someone's personal website isn't a reliable enough source ("Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources"). However, since the original claim seems to have been rather arbitrary, I'm going to change it back to the original wording until some further evidence materialises.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 08:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see some proof that the challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured western tank.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.105.9 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

As have I, which is why the article no longer claims that it is. I would be quite interested to find out one way or the other, though, if anybody knows anything more.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That claim probably comes from the fact alot of online articles claim it is the best protected tank fielded by a NATO member. I dont know if this is true but going by its performance in Gulf war 2 (3 if you say iran/iraq war was gulf war 1) I would say it is likely to be true. It is much more durable than the abrahms variant the yanks are using there. There was a case of one being mobility killed, and then barraged by 30 something RPG-7VLs, a considerable number of RPG-22 warheads (cant remember which varient though) and 1 Russkie made ATGM and surviving (they were stuck for a while). It was then relieved by another platoon of challengers. I would have a look around the internet for more accurate info (The weapons that were fired on it I have remembered properly, just possibly not the amounts of them fired on it. I do know it was a bizzarely large amount though. When I saw about it on tv I was surprised it survived it all) but I cant be bothered.

I remember seeing a similar claims made during the Challenger 2 episode of the TV series "Mean Machines of War" shown on Channel 5 in the UK. Certainly the Challie 2 is widely credited as being the best protected tank in NATO, not least upon account of it's alledged use of the highly Classified "Dorchester" armour. Apparently this is an improved form of Chobham armour which has not (yet) been adopted by other nations. Getztashida 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A contact in Scots DG, who shall remain nameless, informed me that the ATGM in question was a 3rd generation MILAN obtained from a WMIK vehicle captured from 3 Commando Brigade in southern Iraq. The "mobility kill" was in fact result of the driver reversing into a ditch/trench causing the tank to get thoroughly stuck. First assertion is unconfirmed fact (and not likely to be confirmed by MoD anytime soon), the second is made by crewmember in question from the abovementioned CR2 documentary. See Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqaVIcUafgE (Part 1) - and subsequent parts.

Perhaps I can give some rough impression of the situation as regards the relative protection values. The early Challenger 1 was at the moment of its introduction certainly the best protected tank. After all it was basically still a Chieftain, complete with the Chieftain's cast armour; and added to this a very fat layer of Chobham. The M1 at the time had only a cheap alumina version of the Chobham, Burlington, as basically its only armour. So the Challenger was far better protected against KE-ammunition and considerably better against hollow charge attack. Now the original Leopard 2 equalled the Challenger 1 in KE-protection — but the Challenger 1 had inherited the old Chieftain trick of reclining the armour in a hull-down position giving it an extra 140mm and of course even without this its HEAT-protection was much better as the Leopard had no real Chobham.

Now today things have changed a lot. The M1A2 is far better protected than its forefather. However it is according to official sources equipped with a relatively cheap uranium mesh, which would have a mass equivalency of about two, whereas the Dorchester armour of the Challenger 2 is widely assumed to consist of an expensive titanium-tungsten system, which should have a mass equivalency of over three. The inevitable conclusion seems to be that the Challenger 2 is the better protected tank. Now the Leopard 2A5 also has a tungsten system, but instead of a Chobham outer layer it uses a spaced armour appliqué, which to the British mind is simply cheating — why, it is nothing more than air isn't it? So the Brit might well feel justified in thinking he has the best protected tank. Alas, an unexpected contender has in the meantime arrived: the French Leclerc. As its armour modules are a third thicker than those of the other tanks, its titanium system is superior to both Challenger and Leopard 2 against KE; so thick in fact it needs neither Chobham nor spaced armour to be safe against hollow charges.--MWAK 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately these things are difficult to quantify without getting varuiuos interesting guns and missiles to hand and actually testing them against tanks. the term "heavily armoured" doesn't really do modern armour systems justice - it presumably dates from the time when you could measure the armour proteciton on a ship or vehicle by how much it weighs. GraemeLeggett 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and even then it would not be easy to give an exact number with real meaning, as most weapons simply do not penetrate. So, as the joke goes, the protection equivalence value is "impenetrable" :o). In any case not less than 1400 mm against KE for the European types.--MWAK 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CRARRV / CHARRV

I have edited the article to reflect the proper terminology for the Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (CRARRV). This is as the official abbreviation for the Challenger 2 is CR2. The CHARRV was the Chieftan ARRV, which still remains in use by some Specialist and Territorial Army Units, but is being gradually phased out. REME_Bod