ground vehicles The Challenger 1

[Laviduce 1,779]

38 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.

 

I seriously doubt that the quality/effectiveness of a Challenger 2 armor package will be much better than an M1A2 SEP armor package if at all.  Ever since those 14+ and 70 RPG stories were published the rumor of Challenger 2 being near invincible and having the best armor spread like wildfire, making people believe that a Challenger 2 can just shrug off RPGs (including RPG 27s,28s,29s) left and right.

 

I am not surprised the initial Abrams faired worse in Iraq when attacked from the side: Even with the heavy ballistic side skirts i would expect the Abrams to fair worse. Looking at the actual constructive depth (thickness) that is being offered by the Abrams and Challenger design , one can see that the Challenger design, just simply put, has more space to work with.

 

The Americans rectified their mistake with the TUSK I and II upgrade.

 

This picture of an RPG hit says a lot:

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

4 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

 

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:

 

 

 

the M1 only had a 105mm so it is inferior in firepower to the Chally 1 but otherwise all of the other aspects id agree with.

[Laviduce 1,779]

3 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

the M1 only had a 105mm so it is inferior in firepower to the Chally 1 but otherwise all of the other aspects id agree with.

 

The 105 mm KE ammunition , particularly the M774 and M833 rounds seem to comparable and/or marginally superior to the 120 mm L23A1 round.  There is a good chance that the L26 CHARM1 round will give the Challenger 1 an advantage over the Leopard 2 and the M1 in terms of KE killing power.

 

The 120 mm HESH ammunition is good against soft skinned vehicles, bunkers, and infantry but it is incapable of killing any semi-modern armored target from the front. HEAT rounds (i.e. DM12, M456A2) seem to be a bit more versatile when it comes to destroying tanks.

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

2 hours 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.

Also that shot from the Chally that hit the other Chally ddidn't penetrate and it was a shot to the side of the turret.

[Nope 10,634]

3 hours 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.

 

That's a CR 2 cresting a hill. The LFP was still the same garbage as the CR 1, but the angle when cresting the hill saved the driver from much worse than a punctured foot. The friendly fire incident is more curious because the killing blow was made by HESH, not APFSDS. The commander's hatch was open and the ammo layout on the CR 2 is among the worst.

 

It is as Laviduce stated. The CR 2's reputation for armor protection has been overblown. It's most likely outdated until the LEP program is complete, including with composites.

[Laviduce 1,779]

52 minutes ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

Also that shot from the Chally that hit the other Chally ddidn't penetrate and it was a shot to the side of the turret.

A HESH round hit the commander cupola and exploded spraying the insides with fragments which set off the propellant charges in the hull. A HESH  round is not a tank killing round.  Either way, the CR2 (or pretty much almost any composite tank) would have survived the HESH to the side turret. 

[Nope 10,634]

28 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

A HESH round hit the commander cupola and exploded spraying the insides with fragments which set off the propellant charges in the hull. A HESH  round is not a tank killing round.  Either way, the CR2 (or pretty much almost any composite tank) would have survived the HESH to the side turret. 

 

Don't know about the rear portion of the side turret armor since it's RHA, but the other portion is pretty much immune to HESH.

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

33 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

A HESH round hit the commander cupola and exploded spraying the insides with fragments which set off the propellant charges in the hull. A HESH  round is not a tank killing round.  Either way, the CR2 (or pretty much almost any composite tank) would have survived the HESH to the side turret. 

 

And yet that shot did actually kill a tank in real life......  recorded as "destroyed" ...   not bad for a round that doesn't kill tanks!

Edited November 15, 2017 by Josephs_Piano

[Laviduce 1,779]

38 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

That's a CR 2 cresting a hill. The LFP was still the same garbage as the CR 1, but the angle when cresting the hill saved the driver from much worse than a punctured foot. The friendly fire incident is more curious because the killing blow was made by HESH, not APFSDS. The commander's hatch was open and the ammo layout on the CR 2 is among the worst.

 

It is as Laviduce stated. The CR 2's reputation for armor protection has been overblown. It's most likely outdated until the LEP program is complete, including with composites.

Challenger 2 did not do so well when it came to armor protection. According to some recently released report challenger was more or less equal to the Leclerc in terms of rotection despite being 5 tons heavier. M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2A5s , took second and firstvplace respectively when it came to protection.

 

I will look if i can find the report.

[Nope 10,634]

7 minutes ago, Josephs_Piano said:

 

And yet that shot did actually kill a tank in real life......  recorded as "destroyed" ...   not bad for a round that doesn't kill tanks!

 

That's still from an extreme example, just like Mad Jack Churchill killed a man in WWII using an English longbow.

 

3 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Challenger 2 did not do so well when it came to armor protection. According to some recently released report challenger was more or less equal to the Leclerc in terms of rotection despite being 5 tons heavier. M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2A5s , took second and firstvplace respectively when it came to protection.

 

I will look if i can find the report.

 

Is it about composite effectiveness or does armor layout have a role? The Leclerc's LFP is also bad, but I thought the more consistent turret of the CR series would be worth something.

[Laviduce 1,779]

7 minutes ago, Josephs_Piano said:

 

And yet that shot did actually kill a tank in real life......  recorded as "destroyed" ...   not bad for a round that doesn't kill tanks!

So you would rather have your challenger 1 or 2 be equipped with HESH rounds than KE rounds like the L23A1 or L26 in order to destroy tanks?

 

 

[Laviduce 1,779]

5 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

That's still from an extreme example, just like Mad Jack Churchill killed a man in WWII using an English longbow.

 

 

Is it about composite effectiveness or does armor layout have a role? The Leclerc's LFP is also bad, but I thought the more consistent turret of the CR series would be worth something.

As far as i understood it , it did not go into details, it just mentioned that its protection was similar to the Leclerc's , even a little bit inferior despite being the heavier vehicle. 

[Laviduce 1,779]

Here is the Greek source on Challenger 2 E and its armor:

 

Georgian Blog Entry:

http://scout-thedeaddistrict.blogspot.de/2017/06/blog-post_17.html

 

Translated text:

 

The Chronology of the New Army Program of the Greek Army looks as follows:

• 1996: Launched and completed in the Greek Army "Research of the need for a new technology of modern technology"
• December 1996: Approval of the need for a new tank by the High Military Council.
• January 1998: Establishment of technical-tactical requirements of the modern tank of the Greek Army.
• February 26, 1998: Approval of technical-tactical requirements of the new tank by the High Military Council.
• August 3, 1998: European Ariete, British Challenger-2E, French Leclerc, German Leopard-2A5S, Jewish Merkava Mk-III, American M1A2 Abrams, Russian T-80U and Ukrainian T-84) Two out of eight, Italian and Jews have refused to participate in the competition due to reasons.
• From 14 October to 18 December 1998: Six tanks of six tanks were carried out at the Lyothoro firing ground in Greece.
• February 15, 1999: The Commission headed the General Staff of the Defense Ministry of Greece.
• October 5, 1999: Presentation of "RFI: Request for Information" to purchase 24 evacuation vehicles, 12 carpets, 12 training corps, 12 training towers, 246 pieces of new technology and other training facilities.
• November 15, 1999: Six participating companies have submitted a technological proposal and economic discount in response to the Greek RFI.
• January 4, 2001: The General Department of the Armed Forces of the Greek Army requested BAOF (Best and Final Offer).
• 19 January 2001: Six companies presented BAOF.
• The end of January 2001: The Greek side demanded producers the most modern modifications of their tanks, their prices and final economic indicators. At the third turnover, the total cost of the program was significantly reduced.
• March 1, 2002: The Greek side decided to purchase 170 pieces of Leo-2.
• March 1, 2003: Greece and KMW signed a contract to buy tanks.
• March 30, 2008: Leo-2HEL officially adopted the army of the country's army at the XXV Tank Brigade in Xanthi Petrocoros, Greece.

 

For the launch of the program (in 1996), the 1735 acting tanks were included in the Greek Army. This was the maximum allowed by the CEF. The entire tank park structure was as follows:

 

• M-60A3 - 312
• M-60A1 - 357
• M-48A5MOLF - 395
• M-48A3MOLF - 400
• M-48A5 - 304
• M-48A3 - 11
• Leo-1GR - 105
• Leo-1V - 170
• Leo-1A5 - 77

 

The Turkish army had the following tank park:

 

• M-60A3 - 658
• M-60A1 - 164
• M-48A5T2 - 760
• M-48A5T1 (lightly improved M-48A5) - 1560
• M-48A5T5 - 183
• Leo-1T1 (ie improved Leo-1A3, which was the Greek Leo-1GR counter strike) - 227
• Leo-1T2 (ie Leo-1A1A4) - 170

 

PS Totally Turkey had 2795 tanks in the CEF Agreement Zone (ATTU Zone). Outside of this zone, or in any of the tanks, in South-East Turkey could have.

 

The Greek procurement tank cost 1 959 824 581 (almost two billion euros). From this the producer was given 1 659 000 000 euros for the cost of arrangement of equipment and manufacturing lines, and the rest went to various taxes and financial operations. The Greek side purchased 183 pieces of Leo-2A4 (50,000 euros) in addition to 170 Leo-2A6, and received 150 pieces of Leo-1A5.

 

What happened in the fall of 1998 at the Lyothoro firing range

 

- The six best tanks in the world first compete with each other. In addition, the Eastern and Western schools of tank construction have been challenged for the first time.

The purpose of the exams was to examine the technical data in real-time conditions. Which usually does not match the manufacturer's advertisements often. It should measure the data such as acceleration, maximum speed, stroke supplies, stabilization quality and more.

 

Storage reserve - accessed to a large distance, from Lyothoro to Poliskaustro on the road and covered a mixed passage (asvalust and ground). All tanks were equipped with Greek fuel simultaneously, put in the column and paved the way. The aim was to move the tanks up to the fuel. As a result of which the tanks came up, their assessment took place. After the fuel generation, the M1A2 has been on the first track, it is clear that its gas turbine burns a lot of fuel compared to classical diesel. The distance that the tank has passed or is relatively small compared to the others, but the manufacturer has more than ever been declared. The best indicator was the French Leclerc, who was "not going to stop". This is the smallest weight (10 tons light compared to other western tanks), and by the time of the mid-range 1500 hp diesel engine MTU MB-883, the engine is low-voltage compared to the MTU MB-873 installed on the Leo-2. The French tank's similar engine was also on the British Challenger-2E, but its heavier weight reduction in stock.

 

60% surprise was a terrible test for all participants. The tanks should be safe on the elevator and come down, and in addition to stop in the middle of the road, engage the engine, then lie down and drive back or forward without hitting. The resistance was ideally passed by Leclerc, with good results showing M1A2 and Leo-2A5S, while the remaining three participants had problems with overcoming resistance.

 

Absolute test was a day and night shoot. The uneven ground of the lycourt polygon was a great problem for the stabilizer. The tanks have to move more speed than the speed allowed at motion relief. In this test, the eastern tanks showed a marked lag. The best German West was the Leo-2A5S, which showed the ideal result in the shooting, which is the perfect work of stabilizer and fire management system. Leopard was very close to M1A2, third and fourth places respectively, according to Leclerc and Challenger-2E.

 

Inspection of the carriage was the following: - The representatives warned that the tanks were in perfect condition and prepared for the test. On the horizontal aspiration path, the tanks were to be stopped only after braking with the help of brake. These extreme braking machines should be replicated ten times. The Ukrainian and Russian tanks did not complete the test, the first, second and third places from the western tanks were respectively Leclerc, Leo-2A5S and M1A2.

 

 

Final assessment of tanks

 

The tanks participating in the competition were as follows:

Compared with others, Leopard-2A5S was the best protector and was the only one to think that the manufacturer was serious about protecting the upper side of the tower. Excellent results in firing tests showed that it was quite reliable and convenient and ergonomic for crew.
M1A2 Abrams was the second best of armor. The Americans offered the Greeks the tank without the "Depleted Uranium" armor (DU reservation is still prohibited). The tank was superb enough and was a special ergonomic for the crew. The car was reliable and there was only one major disadvantage on the tests - it was a gas turbine engine that flattened the fuel.
Leclerc, which was a few years earlier by the French, differed from the variant offered for the United Arab Emirates, dual impression: the ideal building and the power machine (ie German firms, RENK and MTU, the last generation diesel engine and speed gear, Called Europack), an excellent hydro-pneumatic suspension and weight of participants The best ratio of A-power. All of this made it particularly fast and flexible, and with all of this, the fuel was low. In terms of armor, compared to the previous two western tanks, Leo-2A5S and M1A2 have always been distinguished in this regard, although its protection was probably too high. The tower, with a fully automated charger, offered the innovative innovation to the customers, however, in practice, the automatic expectation did not justify the expectations and was constantly crippled and spoiled. On the other hand, the tank was not distinguished by the creativity of the crew (mainly due to the lack of existing space), for the same reason was the use of armaments, for example, pulverized machine guns. In the precision of the hand, well, but not the best.
Challenger-2E was one of the disadvantages. Despite the fact that the version presented in the competition was equipped with a similar type of Europack-type machine with the French tanks, it was often spoiled when switching to high speeds, which was the fault of the passing of the motorway on the motorway. The 1200-horsepower engine at Challenger-2 was replaced with a 1500 horsepower engine and did not adapt to the kinetic scheme and adjusted to the engine that caused frequent outflow of the carriageway. It was also a negative surprise with its annexed armor. The car was distinguished by a relatively weak armor compared to Leo-2A5S and M1A2, even with 10 tons of light Leclerc, almost never behind British tank protection.
The car was not very precise, it was the only one that was equipped with a 120 millimeter angle and used three shots (shells, sparkle and insulating capsules), while Ukrainians and Russians used both the shells and the rifles, and the British Doing this with automatic charging). However, the car had a positive side: he served in the army with long military experience and was the only one who had a toilet in the tower and traditional British tea makers.
The Russian T-80U was the classical representative of the Soviet tank construction. Its main problem was the semiconductor speed of the prototype at the moment, which was often out of order. The machine showed the lowest results in accuracy, as well as the crew's ergonomics. In addition, the two systems, which the manufacturer claims, compared with Western counterparts, the electric-optical flaw system and a 6-kilometer-long laser-guided tank missile in practice failed to demonstrate and did not show any possible results.
The Ukrainian T-84 was characterized by the Russian tank as a whole, but with another important minus, it was a two-ton diesel engine that was literally burned with oil and mechanical speed booths, and unlike the steering wheel of the Russian car. That's why the Greeks were saying jokingly "I need three hands for his control" (to turn the driver-mechanic into a curve, let alone the third hand). It is also worth mentioning that the car crew suffered the crew - the Greek crew was replaced by Ukrainian crew due to fatigue in checking stock.
In January 1999, the General Staff of the Greek Army presented the results of the competition, according to points according to the following scores:

1. Leopard-2A5S - 78.3 %
2. M1A2 Abrams - 72.95 %
3. Leclerc - 71,92 %
4. Challenger-2E - 69,89 %
5. Т-80U - 59,2 %
6. Т-84 - 56,3 %

 

Original Source:

https://www.ptisidiastima.com/panorama-372/

[TasteTheTea 3,203]

3 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

The car was distinguished by a relatively weak armor compared to Leo-2A5S and M1A2, even with 10 tons of light Leclerc, almost never behind British tank protection.

But wasn't this the Challenger 2E, An export version? Is it possible that it didn't carry the same armour package as the original Challenger 2?

[TasteTheTea 3,203]

23 hours ago, Laviduce said:

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

Didn't that number come from an "Al-Hussein", the export variant of the Challenger 1 for Jordan?

 

Also, for the OP, I'm still not fully in support of this due to the obvious problems with classified armour details and what-not but I found something that might be of interest to you:

 

Spoiler

 

This is an estimation of the armour on the Challenger 1, the letters are for each area of the tank as displayed in this exampled diagram:

 

Spoiler

 

Taken from here which I believe is a document from the tank simulator "Steel Beasts". I thought I'd post it as I have seen some talk about going down the armour estimation route for new vehicles in War Thunder.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Time4Tea

[Nope 10,634]

40 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

Didn't that number come from an "Al-Hussein", the export variant of the Challenger 1 for Jordan?

 

Also, for the OP, I'm still not fully in support of this due to the obvious problems with classified armour details and what-not but I found something that might be of interest to you:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This is an estimation of the armour on the Challenger 1, the letters are for each area of the tank as displayed in this exampled diagram:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Taken from here which I believe is a document from the tank simulator "Steel Beasts". I thought I'd post it as I have seen some talk about going down the armour estimation route for new vehicles in War Thunder.

 

 

 

No, it's not just export CR 1s. All CR 1s had this according to Robert Griffin. It would have been impossible and a waste of resources to completely redesign the LFP just for export. Changing the composite yes, but never redesigning the entire armor layout itself.

 

Also do not use Armor Basics as it's a very dated source that even the people at SB and Lakowski himself no longer use said values. Not to mention Griffin's book is more up to date than Armor Basics. It's more likely that the whole CR series have average armor relative to contemporaries and everything else is rather mediocre.

[Laviduce 1,779]

38 minutes ago, Time4Tea said:

Didn't that number come from an "Al-Hussein", the export variant of the Challenger 1 for Jordan?

 

I got this from Robert Griffin's book: Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank Vol. II:

 

Page 17-18:   "The ROMOR reactive armor upgrade added to the Challenger's lower front plate consisted of a carrier fixed to the toe plate of the tank, into which ERA blocks were fitted. This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armor only 70 mm thick, for the Challenger's armour layout had been optimised to fight hull-down."

 

1 hour ago, Time4Tea said:

But wasn't this the Challenger 2E, An export version? Is it possible that it didn't carry the same armour package as the original Challenger 2?

 

Yes, it was the Challenger 2E. I am not sure if it uses a different armor package compared to the British Challenger 2.

[Laviduce 1,779]

Here are the protection estimates for the frontal 60 degree arc for various tanks (turrets?)  from the Armed Forces Journal (1989). It includes a Challenger 1 estimate as well:

 

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

14 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 

The 105 mm KE ammunition , particularly the M774 and M833 rounds seem to comparable and/or marginally superior to the 120 mm L23A1 round.  There is a good chance that the L26 CHARM1 round will give the Challenger 1 an advantage over the Leopard 2 and the M1 in terms of KE killing power.

 

The 120 mm HESH ammunition is good against soft skinned vehicles, bunkers, and infantry but it is incapable of killing any semi-modern armored target from the front. HEAT rounds (i.e. DM12, M456A2) seem to be a bit more versatile when it comes to destroying tanks.

 

comparable in penetration but the difference in damage is noticeable as to the larger penetrator of the 120mm also heat is equally crummy against composites not to mention heats problems with angling.  HESH and HEAT are both only used against soft skin since 2nd gen MBTs.

 

The lethality issue can be seen the M1A1 upgrade as the 105mm was deemed inferior. "However, it proved to be inadequate; a cannon with lethality beyond the 1.9-mile (3 km) range was needed to combat newer armor technologies. To attain that lethality, the projectile diameter needed to be increased."

 

If the M1 was superior in firepower to the challenger 1 as you claim why did the Abrams need a new gun and challenger 1 could retain the one it used successful until its retirement? After all it did successfully engage and destroy T72s in the gulf war.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by *swanseasean96

[Nope 10,634]

8 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

comparable in penetration but the difference in damage is noticeable as to the larger penetrator of the 120mm also heat is equally crummy against composites not to mention heats problems with angling.  HESH and HEAT are both only used against soft skin since 2nd gen MBTs.

 

The lethality issue can be seen the M1A1 upgrade as the 105mm was deemed inferior. "However, it proved to be inadequate; a cannon with lethality beyond the 1.9-mile (3 km) range was needed to combat newer armor technologies. To attain that lethality, the projectile diameter needed to be increased."

 

If the M1 was superior in firepower to the challenger 1 as you claim why did the Abrams need a new gun and challenger 1 could retain the one it used successful until its retirement? After all it did successfully engage and destroy T72s in the gulf war.

 

M833 is actually worse in penetration than L23 due to a lower L/D ratio, but both have the same penetrator diameter. Damage is quite irrelevant since most tank crews are going to bail the moment shrapnel bounces around inside the crew compartment. It is worth noting however that the CR 1 did not face T-72s in the Gulf War. Oh, and the CR 1 uses CHARM-1 and L26A1 Jericho. CHARM-1 is equivalent to M829 to some vague extent but there's absolutely nothing on L26A1.

 

Of course this matters less when considering that the M1 Abrams is way faster than the CR 1. Makes a firepower advantage less apparent in some way. Kind of why I say they're a more even match than CR 1 vs M1A1, as the CR 1 at that point loses out on firepower immensely.

[Laviduce 1,779]

35 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

comparable in penetration but the difference in damage is noticeable as to the larger penetrator of the 120mm also heat is equally crummy against composites not to mention heats problems with angling.  HESH and HEAT are both only used against soft skin since 2nd gen MBTs.

 

The lethality issue can be seen the M1A1 upgrade as the 105mm was deemed inferior. "However, it proved to be inadequate; a cannon with lethality beyond the 1.9-mile (3 km) range was needed to combat newer armor technologies. To attain that lethality, the projectile diameter needed to be increased."

 

If the M1 was superior in firepower to the challenger 1 as you claim why did the Abrams need a new gun and challenger 1 could retain the one it used successful until its retirement? After all it did successfully engage and destroy T72s in the gulf war.

 

 

Against modern armor , i would rather like to use a HEAT round than a HESH round.   In terms of Firepower, M1 has a superior FCS coupled with rounds that either match (I.e. M774, M833 ) the performance or potentially even exceed (i.e. M900) the performance of the L23A1 and L26A1 (CHARM1) rounds. The reason they went with the  license copy of the Rheinmetall L44 was a) Superior  KE killing ability. b) Superior future growth potential,  c) Standartization of the main gun and its rounds and their usage.  Also, no Iraqi T-72s were engaged by Challenger 1 during the first gulf war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Laviduce

[Laviduce 1,779]

26 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

M833 is actually worse in penetration than L23 due to a lower L/D ratio, but both have the same penetrator diameter. Damage is quite irrelevant since most tank crews are going to bail the moment shrapnel bounces around inside the crew compartment. It is worth noting however that the CR 1 did not face T-72s in the Gulf War. Oh, and the CR 1 uses CHARM-1 and L26A1 Jericho. CHARM-1 is equivalent to M829 to some vague extent but there's absolutely nothing on L26A1.

 

Of course this matters less when considering that the M1 Abrams is way faster than the CR 1. Makes a firepower advantage less apparent in some way. Kind of why I say they're a more even match than CR 1 vs M1A1, as the CR 1 at that point loses out on firepower immensely.

 

Are you sure that the penetrator of the M833 is shorter than that of the L23A1 ?   The projectiles seems to be about  540 mm and 515 mm in length respectively.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

M833 is actually worse in penetration than L23 due to a lower L/D ratio, but both have the same penetrator diameter. Damage is quite irrelevant since most tank crews are going to bail the moment shrapnel bounces around inside the crew compartment. It is worth noting however that the CR 1 did not face T-72s in the Gulf War. Oh, and the CR 1 uses CHARM-1 and L26A1 Jericho. CHARM-1 is equivalent to M829 to some vague extent but there's absolutely nothing on L26A1.

 

Of course this matters less when considering that the M1 Abrams is way faster than the CR 1. Makes a firepower advantage less apparent in some way. Kind of why I say they're a more even match than CR 1 vs M1A1, as the CR 1 at that point loses out on firepower immensely.

 

51 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

 

Against modern armor , i would rather like to use a HEAT round than a HESH round.   In terms of Firepower, M1 has a superior FCS coupled with rounds that either match (I.e. M774, M833 ) the performance or potentially even exceed (i.e. M900) the performance of the L23A1 and L26A1 (CHARM1) rounds. The reason they went with the  license copy of the Rheinmetall L44 was a) Superior  KE killing ability. b) Superior future growth potential,  c) Standartization of the main gun and its rounds and their usage.  Also, no Iraqi T-72s were engaged by Challenger 1 during the first gulf war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Battle of 73 Easting... British and American coalition forces destroyed 37 T-72Ms ofcourse most people assume Britain wasnt involved in any battles in the gulf...

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by *swanseasean96

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

15 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

 

Battle of 73 Easting... British and American coalition forces destroyed 37 T-72Ms ofcourse most people assume Britain wasnt involved in any battles in the gulf...

 

 

Are you sure you’re not thinking of the “Battle of Norfolk”? 

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Are you sure that the penetrator of the M833 is shorter than that of the L23A1 ?   The projectiles seems to be about  540 mm and 515 mm in length respectively.

 

Rough scale measurement places L23 at 420mm penetration, while L23A1 has 490mm. M833 is closer to 380-400mm.

 

1 hour ago, *swanseasean96 said:

Battle of 73 Easting... British and American coalition forces destroyed 37 T-72Ms ofcourse most people assume Britain wasnt involved in any battles in the gulf...

 

No one said that in the thread. There's only parts involving the British never once killing a T-72 as they were unable to encounter them, possibly due to making up a smaller portion of Coalition forces stationed in Iraq. So far, 1st Armoured didn't seem to have destroyed any T-72 tanks at all, with all the T-72Ms facing Abrams tanks instead. The CR 1s might as well have used a 100% HESH loadout at this point.

 

Unless of course, you have a list of 1st Armoured's tank kills in the Gulf War.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Nope