ground vehicles The Challenger 1

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

The Challenger 1

 

 

As a replacement for the Chieftain, the Challenger arrived almost as an accident. Although it was planned already in the 1970s, the Export versions of the Chieftain really gave the impetus to develop the new main battle tank, not in all directions as the main armament and protection of the latter was unsurpassed at the time, but in the field of mobility, which was indeed its main critic. Iran noticeably, prior to the 1979 revolution acquired the Chieftain and was quite happy with it, but ordered a mobility improvement which gave birth to the 4030/3 Shir 2 by Military Vehicles and Engineering Establishment (MVEE) near Chobham in Surrey. It also came with a brand new armour package which was even far superior. After the fall of the Shah and the order cancellation, all this development work was passed into the Cheviot, later known in the final phase, the Challenger, in remembrance of the ww2, 17-pdr armed first version.

 

 

Specifications:

 

Service history
In service	1983 – 2001 (UK)
Production history
Manufacturer	Royal Ordnance Factory
Unit cost	$1.5 million (1987)[1]
No. built	420
Specifications
Weight	62 tonnes. (Combat weight of 70 tonnes with additional armour modules)
Length	11.5 metres (37 ft 9 in) (Gun forward)
Width	3.51 metres (11 ft 6 in)
Height	2.95 metres (9 ft 8 in)
Crew	4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Armour	Chobham, classified
Main armament	Royal Ordnance L11A5 120 mm rifled gun 64 rounds
Secondary armament	7.62 mm L8A2, 7.62 mm L37A2 machine guns 4,000 rounds
Engine	Rolls-Royce CV12 26 litre diesel 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Power/weight	14.4 kW / tonne
Suspension	Hydropneumatic (hydrogas)
Operational range	450 kilometres (280 mi) (on road)
Speed	56 kilometres per hour (35 mph)

 

 

The engine compartment is home of the new Perkins Condor CV12 26 liter diesel 1,200 hp (895 kW) fitted with two Garrett-AiResearch turbochargers, to compare to the previous Chieftain’s initial Leyland L60 multifuel 2-stroke opposed-piston giving 750 hp (560 kW) 6 Cylinders, 19 liters. The latter was 55 tonnes, while the Challenger is 62 tonnes, but the raw power almost doubled, allowing a much better power-to-weight ratio. Compared to other MBT which engine output is 1500 hp, but the powerplant can be changed in 45 minutes in the field and also have an auxiliary unit (APU). The engine is driven by a David Brown Defence Equipment Limited TN37 transmission. The torque converter is a Borg-Warner with lock-up clutch. The gearbox have four forward and three reverse gears, and steering is a Commercial Hydraulics STN37 double differential with hydrostatic and infinitely variable control.

The powerplant was only part of the package, which came also with a brand new set of hydropneumatic (Hydrogas) suspension units designed by MVEE in conjunction with Air-Log Limited, and assembled by Vickers. The tracks are travelling with six aluminium roadwheels and two return rollers per sides. This active system is much more advanced than the old Horstmann system used on the Chieftain and Centurion, allowing for greater weight and higher speed, at 56 kilometres per hour (35 mph) instead of 48 km/h (30 mph) on flat, but for the Chieftain this figure fall far beyond cross country which the hydrogas suspensions allowed to maintain an excellent off road cruise speed. The drivetrain is protected, like the Chieftain, by conventional aluminium skirts. Field performances show this MBT could climb a gradient 58% high, stay stable on a side slope inclined to 40%, climb a vertical step of 0.9 m, cross a trench 2.8 m, and ford 1.07 m without preparation or 4-5 m with preparation (snorkel).

 

The L11A5

 

The heart of the Challenger resides in its Royal Ordnance L11A5 120 mm rifled gun. This is the very same version used in the Chieftain, and a proven, accurate long range weapon which contrary to most contemporary main guns of the same caliber, is not smoothbore. This choice slightly reduce the range and velocity of the projectiles, but to the gain of a far greater accuracy. Other reasons given were that the slipping driving band allowed employment of a widest range of ammunition, and in general that a rifled barrel is more economical to produce and to maintain. It was conceived for ranges up to 2000 m, and saw eight production versions since its introduction in 1957.  The A5 distinguished itself from previous versions by its integral muzzle reference system, smaller and lighter fume extractor (with a 7.7 kg balance weight to the breech). It will be replaced by the L30 on the Challenger 2. However the Challenger 1 will score the longest operational kill against another tank in history (4,000 m). Secondary armament comprised a coaxial 7.62 mm L8A2, and a roof-mounted (TC cupola) 7.62 mm L37A2 LMG, with 4,000 7.62 mm rounds in storage. The main gun was manually loaded, and the maximum rate of fire was around 10 rounds/minute in the best conditions, however 6/minute was more realistic in combat conditions, even with a trained crew. Normal elevation/depression was round +20/-10, more with the addition of the suspensions.

Maximum range (tested) was 3,000 metres (3,300 yd), at 4,495 ft/s (1,370 m/s) for an APDS and 8,000 metres (8,700 yd), 2,198 ft/s (670 m/s) for a HESH round. In action, the FCS proved able to engaged enemy target at a range of 5 100 m. In all, 64 (52 for other sources) separate loading type rounds were stored between the hull and turret. Ammunitions comprised:

• L31 High Explosive Squash Head (HESH)
• L15 Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot-Tracer (APDS-T)
• L20 Discarding Sabot-Tracer (DS-T)
• L23 Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS)
• L26 "Jericho" Depleted Uranium Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS)
• L34 Smoke round
• L32 Squash Head-Practice (SH-P)
• L35A1 canister shot

 

 

 

 

 

sources:

http://fighting-vehicles.com/challenger-1-tank/

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-challenger-1-main-battle-tank/

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/UK/FV-4030_Challenger-I.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1#History

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by *swanseasean96

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

 

For those who might inquire about the armor or other features, here is a statement from Anton Yudintsev, CEO of Gaijin Entertainment:

Quote

 

Question: Will there be the Abrams/T-90/Leo 2 etc?

Answer: We are not excluding any modern tanks at some point provided that we can recreate them with a sufficient level of detail and depending on their combat capabilities.

 

https://warthunder.com/en/news/4927-development-a-new-era-in-war-thunder-early-details-en

 

So this suggestion is approved for discussion.

Edited November 13, 2017 by SAUBER_KH7

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

YESSSS!!!! 

Also could you add a poll please.

+1.

[Nell_Lucifer 927]

Sure

[iFigure 325]

Effective thickness of armor?

"don't know"

Penetration values for ammunition?

"don't know"

[Mo_guy96 245]

Well since this seems to be the theme lately.

+1

 

Also, do you mind adding a poll?

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

8 minutes ago, iFigure said:

Effective thickness of armor?

"don't know"

Penetration values for ammunition?

"don't know"

 

Just like the Abrams and Leo 2 threads. Nobody can provide actual data, just "Gib now!"

[TheLastYouSee__@psn 281]

without actual data id have to say no

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

1 hour ago, SAUBER_KH7 said:

Open for Discussion.

 

For those who might inquire about the armor or other features, here is a statement from Anton Yudintsev, CEO of Gaijin Entertainment:

https://warthunder.com/en/news/4927-development-a-new-era-in-war-thunder-early-details-en

 

So this suggestion is approved for discussion.

 

You're nice Sauber, and I’d hate to argue, but: 

Quote

With a sufficient level of detail

Is the operative phrase, and I have yet to see a “sufficient level of detail” on any of the M1 Abrams or Leopard II threads. Same for the majority of modern and semi-modern vehicle suggestions. 

 

An arbitrary number from a secondary or tertiary source and (apparent) LoS thickness don’t count as a credible source for heterogeneous armor arrays, which is the typical limiting factor when trying to model these tanks. 

 

The problem is that you can’t assign a single number to a heterogeneous array that also contains reactive layers (NERA), which includes the Challenger I, M1, T-72B, etc. as it causes different projectiles to behave differently. 

 

I dont mean to “challenge moderation” (and I hope you don’t take this as such), but many of us would prefer Gaijin to worry more on getting the physics, the foundation of their game, correctly rather than turning a greater profit. If the physics are working (mostly) correct, then I would be in full support of moving forwards, but I have yet to see that, and I will remain against these powerful MBTs, that people so desire. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by xX_Lord_James_Xx

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

3 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

You're nice Sauber, and I’d hate to argue, but: 

Is the operative phrase, and I have yet to see a “sufficient level of detail” on any of the M1 Abrams or Leopard II threads. Same for the majority of modern and semi-modern vehicle suggestions. 

 

An arbitrary number from a secondary or tertiary source and (apparent) LoS thickness don’t count as a credible source for heterogeneous armor arrays, which is the typical limiting factor when trying to model these tanks. 

 

The problem is that you can’t assign a single number to a heterogeneous array that also contains reactive layers (NERA), which includes the Challenger I, M1, T-72B, etc. as it causes different projectiles to behave differently. 

 

I dont mean to “challenge moderation” (and I hope you don’t take this as such), but many of us would prefer Gaijin to worry more on getting the physics, the foundation of their game, correctly rather than turning a larger profit. If the physics are working (mostly) correct, then I would be in full support of moving forwards, but I have yet to see that, and I will remain against these powerful MBTs, that people so desire. 

Don't worry. I don't see your comment as "challenging moderation". On the contrary, your comment is valid and makes sense.

 

However, if the devs felt this would be too major of an issue, that is, to not develop such tanks and/or to not allow suggestions like this, we would have been instructed to do so, and topics like this would not be open for discussion. Nevertheless, I understand and agree with the concerns mentioned. But if the devs are confident they can do it, I will admit I would like to see how they do in accomplishing this.

Edited November 13, 2017 by SAUBER_KH7

[Laviduce 1,779]

+1 , a poll would be nice too.

[Nope 10,634]

Hold on, there's a few nitpicks that are not in the realm of my usual "there be no armor values son" and "ammo ain't modeled properly m80".

 

- The CR 1 was never intended to be named after the A30 Challenger of WWII. Robert Griffin stated that the name was chosen during a competition with army personnel choosing the name. The winner was the name Challenger, and the MoD overlooked that such a tank name has already been given to what is essentially a Cromwell hull with a fat turret housing what was possibly the best AT weapon in terms of penetration available to the British in WWII. Should you doubt that, then do remember that the British MoD has this reputation for making weird military procurement decisions.

 

- The L11A5 is not more accurate because it is rifled because its APFSDS does not benefit from the rifling at all. All APFSDS for the L11A5 and the L30 that came after have slip bands that lower rotation speed down to smoothbore levels, as the APFSDS would otherwise be very inaccurate. For the APFSDS to benefit from spin stabilization would mean disintegration of the HESH shells inside the barrel. HESH is the only reason the British bother using rifled guns as it is dirt cheap and has been in production since the Chieftain entered service. The record shot was a one off incident, which is the opposite of accuracy that is a measure of consistency. Remember that a Sharps rifle with irons secured the longest range sniper kill for a long time, yet the SVD isn't even on the list. It would be very stupid to argue that a Sharps with irons is more accurate than an SVD with a PSO-1 and match ammunition merely because of this though. It's also worth noting that in part due to the rifled design, the L11A5 was possibly the worst gun in its category when it came to AT performance since its ammo was weaker. I shall not talk about FCS at this point, but at least it's better than Russian FCS.

 

- The L11A5 is actually notorious for its horrible barrel life when firing APFSDS. The barrel can only handle 120 full charges (presumably APFSDS) before needing replacement, while Russian smoothbores can handle 500 full charges. Russian smoothbores are known for being rock bottom in terms of barrel life in the smoothbore category, as the Rh120 can resist far more full charges before replacement (1500). This means for 2 120mm smoothbore barrels that need replacement, 25 L11A5 barrels need to be replaced. Any potential complications with making smoothbores is thus completely irrelevant with how much the L11A5's barrel needs to be replaced. The gun is garbage in terms of maintenance at this point, but thankfully the L30 was a massive leap in durability. It now handles 400 full charges. Yay, now getting close to Russian smoothbore standard! No wonder the 120mm smoothbore was tried on the following CR 2 as it is superior in every aspect but slinging HESH.

 

oh btw since its not a nope post without armor layouts i will say that the cr 1's composite modules aren't that much better in terms of los nor even armor composition

 

also lfp is complete garbage made out of 70mm rha and thus the cr 1's advantage being armor is because that's the thing about it that sucks the least rather than being the best

 

That being said, the CR 1 would not really be a good choice for WT because there's not enough information about it and Gaijin still cannot be trusted to find information about composite themselves.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Considering all the other threads I've seen on similar tanks, I suppose this one was inevitable. Still has all the issues that the threads on similar vehicles had, so I'm not going to support this one either.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

Dont forget that weak lower glacis.

combat fitted challengers always have ERA slapped on the lower glacis and additional chobham on the side hull.

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by RefrigerRaider

[Laviduce 1,779]

9 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

Dont forget that weak lower glacis.

combat fitted challengers always have ERA slapped on the lower glacis and additional chobham on the side hull.

 

The lower front hull is only 70 mm thick. The hull seems to follow the basic design principles of the Chieftain hull.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Laviduce

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

18 hours ago, Mo_guy1996 said:

Well since this seems to be the theme lately.

+1

 

Also, do you mind adding a poll?

 

16 hours ago, Laviduce said:

+1 , a poll would be nice too.

 

added 

[Nope 10,634]

18 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

added 

 

why is the second part required even if one said no in the first part

[WulfPack 1,693]

What are the equals to this? Is it on par with the Leopard 2/M1/T-80B or would it necessitate the Leopard 2A4/M1A1/T-80U?

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

11 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

What are the equals to this? Is it on par with the Leopard 2/M1/T-80B or would it necessitate the Leopard 2A4/M1A1/T-80U?

 

Theres one problem: we have no (good) idea how strong the Challenger’s armor is. 

[Pyro_4 64]

While I'm not on board due to the standard poor sources on ammo and armour arguments, I suspect the Challenger and M1 and such are somewhat inevitable. Iconic vehicles like these would draw a lot of attention and possibly new players to WT, probably too much to ignore.

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, WulfPack said:

What are the equals to this? Is it on par with the Leopard 2/M1/T-80B or would it necessitate the Leopard 2A4/M1A1/T-80U?

 

I'd say the former bunch. The CR 2 is what's equivalent to the latter bunch. Besides, I'd say that the actual composite is pretty average for its time.

[Laviduce 1,779]

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

What are the equals to this? Is it on par with the Leopard 2/M1/T-80B or would it necessitate the Leopard 2A4/M1A1/T-80U?

 

 

My opinion for Challenger 1 , Leopard 2(A0/A1) and M1 Abrams:

 

 

Mobility:

 

Road mobility: M1 > Leopard 2 > Challenger 1

 

Cross-country mobility  M1 >= Leopard 2, Challenger 1

 

Firepower:

 

Firecontrol and stabilization: Leopard 2 > M1 > Challenger 1

 

KE ammunition: Leopard 2 >= M1 = Challenger 1

 

CE ammuntion: Leopard 2 > M1 > Challenger 1

 

Protection:

 

Turret protection: Challenger 1 > M1 > Leopard 2

 

Hull protection: M1 > Leopard 2 >= Challenger 1

 

Post penetration hull survivability: M1 > Challenger 1 >= Leopard 2

 

Post penetartion turret survivability: Challenger 1 > M1 = Leopard 2

 

 

 

Concerning the mobility of Challenger 1:

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Laviduce

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

17 hours ago, RefrigerRaider said:

Dont forget that weak lower glacis.

combat fitted challengers always have ERA slapped on the lower glacis and additional chobham on the side hull.

 

 

didn't they change that after Iraq?

i remember reading something about a Challenger 1 getting stuck or something and peppered with RPGs, with the only damage coming from a penetration on the lower glacis that mangled the driver's foot.

or was is the friendly fire incident where one challenger shot another out of confusion?

 

because i know i remember reading about how one of those two caused engineers to put chobham armor on the lower glacis. because blatantly obvious weakspot is obvious.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

14 minutes ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

didn't they change that after Iraq?

i remember reading something about a Challenger 1 getting stuck or something and peppered with RPGs, with the only damage coming from a penetration on the lower glacis that mangled the driver's foot.

or was is the friendly fire incident where one challenger shot another out of confusion?

 

because i know i remember reading about how one of those two caused engineers to put chobham armor on the lower glacis. because blatantly obvious weakspot is obvious.

 

It was when a Challenger was cresting a hill or something and some guy with an RPG shot the well exposed lower front plate. I believe the incident is mentioned in the Challenger I wiki page. 

[swpixy 1,220]

33 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

It was when a Challenger was cresting a hill or something and some guy with an RPG shot the well exposed lower front plate. I believe the incident is mentioned in the Challenger I wiki page. 

Chally 2,actually:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html