Challenger 1

[scavenjer 1,892]

1 minute ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

I'm not saying that if T-72 gets added that we must get L26 what I am saying though is that it it should be considered should T-72 or other tanks ect be added.

T-72A/M were the tanks that L23A1 was designed to defeat at 3.5km, L26A1 was for tanks like T-72B which was rumoured to have been given to Iraq.

Unless we see a T-72B there's no need for L26A1, especially if armour and shells get fixed behaviour.

 

1 minute ago, RonDnn said:

Now what?

Different shelltype, composite armour modelling in general needs an update.

[SkyRAY 446]

8 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Source?

If CHARM on that means L26A1 that's bogus as CHARM is BD26 or the final version of it, CHARM 3 could reach these numbers, but without source this really isn't useful.

DB26 was tungsten, CHARM is the uranium version DB26.(actually there is a difference between them)

I have already posted a source here, too lazy to look for the cover.

Edited December 1, 2018 by SkyRAY

[Я русский 58]

Just now, scavenjer said:

Different shelltype, composite armour modelling in general needs an update.

They why doesn't 275mm of protection work against this type of shell but against the more modern one?
How could it be predicted?

[scavenjer 1,892]

Just now, SkyRAY said:

DB26 was tungsten, CHARM is the uranium version DB26.

Will not increase penetration by 100mm+.

 

Just now, SkyRAY said:

I have already posted a source here, too lazy to look for the cover.

Please do look for it.

Just now, RonDnn said:

They why doesn't 275mm of protection work against this type of shell but against the more modern one?
How could it be predicted?

Because the more modern ones (3BM12-22) all use a different penetrator design, they use a small tungsten slug in the front section of a steel penetrator, this has as a consequence that they penetrate less steel (line of sight thickness) than 3BM9 which is in-fact a monobloc steel penetrator and thus penetrates the armour in a different manner.

3BM12-22 are all more like APDS such as found on the qonqueror than APFSDS like most NATO tanks have.

[SkyRAY 446]

1 minute ago, scavenjer said:

Will not increase penetration by 100mm+.

 

Please do look for it.

In general, for example, look at the difference between the uranium and tungsten versions of M833 and M829. On this in advance, I will not say anything)
I could analyze if I had a little more information about the physical properties of DU.
The same source was used by the developers in the historical information on the Challenger.

[Я русский 58]

6 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Because the more modern ones (3BM12-22) all use a different penetrator design, they use a small tungsten slug in the front section of a steel penetrator, this has as a consequence that they penetrate less steel (line of sight thickness) than 3BM9 which is in-fact a monobloc steel penetrator and thus penetrates the armour in a different manner.

3BM12-22 are all more like APDS such as found on the qonqueror than APFSDS like most NATO tanks have. 

I know a bit about this, but still I ask, why the British devs declare the protection against THIS kind of shells?
The only type of shell (which Englishmen could have) that needs 275mm of pen is L23. Even L15 needs less!!! Why do you think the British used L23 to learn the protection?

Spoiler

 

[duckmartin 1,889]

13 minutes ago, RonDnn said:

They why doesn't 275mm of protection work against this type of shell but against the more modern one?
How could it be predicted?

Currently challenger MK2 doesn't even have 275mm it has around 230mm but IRL it had 500mm on the UFP.

[Я русский 58]

1 minute ago, duckmartin said:

Currently challenger MK2 doesn't even have 275mm it has around 230mm but IRL it had 500mm on the UFP.

We cant know IRL figures for sure, but still 275 is just unreal... for me

[SkyRAY 446]

16 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Because the more modern ones (3BM12-22) all use a different penetrator design, they use a small tungsten slug in the front section of a steel penetrator, this has as a consequence that they penetrate less steel (line of sight thickness) than 3BM9 which is in-fact a monobloc steel penetrator and thus penetrates the armour in a different manner.

3BM12-22 are all more like APDS such as found on the qonqueror than APFSDS like most NATO tanks have.

You have already been told many times why the British were not defending themselves against 3BM22 or 3BM15. They did not even know that the Soviets used APFSDS such as 3БМ22

[scavenjer 1,892]

Challenger 1 (all marks) were only rated to stop T-72 tank rounds at above around 1km based on this document:

Spoiler

That means the turret protection is only rated at around 470mm like intially modelled, as we can deduce from several "sources":

Spoiler

^This document estimates 460mm of penetration at 1km at normal.

The first document then goes on about plans for future MBTs, none of which seem to relate to Challenger marks because later one this appears:

Spoiler

This in-fact pretty much points out the requirements of (and what was eventually fitted to) Challenger 2.

Spoiler

So, it doesn't talk about marks of Challenger 1.

 

4 minutes ago, RonDnn said:

know a bit about this, but still I ask, why the British devs declare the protection against THIS kind of shells?
The only type of shell (which Englishmen could have) that needs 275mm of pen is L23. Even L15 needs less!!! Why do you think the British used L23 to learn the protection?

Because of the poor modelling of composite L15 can indeed penetrate the UFP like that, the enemy this tank was supposed to face was USSR tanks, they didn't use shells like NATO did.

 

1 minute ago, RonDnn said:

We cant know IRL figures for sure, but still 275 is just unreal... for me

We sort of do have real figures: the Shir 2 was rated at 325mm for the hull, between the Shir 2 and CR1 the armour wasn't changed much if at all:

Spoiler

So, 325mm against WP APFSDS would be correct, which is pretty much exactly what it had in-game.

 

9 minutes ago, SkyRAY said:

In general, for example, look at the difference between the uranium and tungsten versions of M833 and M829.

Poor example, different density alloys were used.

 

1 minute ago, SkyRAY said:

You have already been told many times why the British were not defending themselves against 3BM22 or 3BM15. They did not even know that the Soviets used APFSDS such as 3БМ22

Yet you've not shown a source despite the only source that can actually be used specifically stating WP ammo.

[Я русский 58]

8 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

they didn't use shells like NATO did

Then what shell did they use? Do you have sources?

 

8 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

So, 325mm against WP APFSDS would be correct, which is pretty much exactly what it had in-game.

50mm difference! That's a lot actually, don't you think the British would like to make the upper plate thicker?

[duckmartin 1,889]

Just now, RonDnn said:

Then what shell did they use? Do you have sources?

 

50mm difference! That's a lot actually, don't you think the British would like to make the upper plate thicker?

When challenger MK2 came out the UFP was increased from 275mm to 500mm. 

[scavenjer 1,892]

Just now, RonDnn said:

Then what shell did they use? Do you have sources?

Spoiler

They used APFSDS that had a steel body with a small tungsten carbide core measuring 70x20mm, way smaller than what NATO was using and substantially worse against both sloped targets and composite targets (CR1 has both of those).

 

2 minutes ago, RonDnn said:

50mm difference! That's a lot actually, don't you think the British would like to make the upper plate thicker?

And make it even heavier?

Yes, I think the UFP should probably be around 280mm give or take against most APFSDS except the WP ones which should be around 325mm.

[Я русский 58]

1 minute ago, duckmartin said:

When challenger MK2 came out the UFP was increased from 275mm to 500mm. 

You should rove this to the devs! I would like to have Chally with this

[scavenjer 1,892]

1 minute ago, duckmartin said:

When challenger MK2 came out the UFP was increased from 275mm to 500mm. 

No evidence of such an upgrade and it's physically impossible with the way composite armour works, that would make the UFP better in terms of LoS effectiveness than practically all modern MBTs (excluding the Russian ones because they use completely different composite which is mostly steel + heavy ERA).

[Я русский 58]

1 minute ago, scavenjer said:

They used APFSDS that had a steel body with a small tungsten carbide core measuring 70x20mm, way smaller than what NATO was using and substantially worse against both sloped targets and composite targets (CR1 has both of those).

Isn't it strange at least? Why this shell?

 

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

And make it even heavier?

Yes, I think the UFP should probably be around 280mm give or take against most APFSDS except the WP ones which should be around 325mm.

This thing has 62 tonnes of weight!!! It's 1.5 heavier than T-series and even heavier than the Abrams. How cant it have better armour?

[scavenjer 1,892]

Just now, RonDnn said:

Isn't it strange at least? Why this shell?

Because this is the shelltype that the USSR used and had massive stockpiles of, this type of shell was the only thing they had up to 1985 when they introduced 3BM32.

 

1 minute ago, RonDnn said:

This thing has 62 tonnes of weight!!! It's 1.5 heavier than T-series and even heavier than the Abrams. How cant it have better armour?

Because the internal volume is way higher than all of those which means it needs even more weight to cover the same volume with the same armour protection, therefore, the larger internal volume you have, the more weight you need for the same armour.
The T-Series has purely KE focussed armour and very little internal space, allowing less weight to be used for the same armour protection.

For all of these reasons the armour is good against KE but bad against CE (in comparison).

[duckmartin 1,889]

3 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

No evidence of such an upgrade and it's physically impossible with the way composite armour works, that would make the UFP better in terms of LoS effectiveness than practically all modern MBTs (excluding the Russian ones because they use completely different composite which is mostly steel + heavy ERA).

There plenty of evidence in all the challenger 1 bug reports and even in the CIA report they confirmed this. You have seen them but still you state other wises 

[SkyRAY 446]

3 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Challenger 1 (all marks) were only rated to stop T-72 tank rounds at above around 1km based on this document:

  Hide contents

That means the turret protection is only rated at around 470mm like intially modelled, as we can deduce from several "sources":

  Hide contents

^This document estimates 460mm of penetration at 1km at normal.

The first document then goes on about plans for future MBTs, none of which seem to relate to Challenger marks because later one this appears:

  Hide contents

This in-fact pretty much points out the requirements of (and what was eventually fitted to) Challenger 2.

  Reveal hidden contents

So, it doesn't talk about marks of Challenger 1.

 

Because of the poor modelling of composite L15 can indeed penetrate the UFP like that, the enemy this tank was supposed to face was USSR tanks, they didn't use shells like NATO did.

 

We sort of do have real figures: the Shir 2 was rated at 325mm for the hull, between the Shir 2 and CR1 the armour wasn't changed much if at all:

  Reveal hidden contents

So, 325mm against WP APFSDS would be correct, which is pretty much exactly what it had in-game.

 

Poor example, different density alloys were used.

 

Yet you've not shown a source despite the only source that can actually be used specifically stating WP ammo.

Obviously in 3BM22 was DU?)

Defended from promising ammunition. Stop this farce already, the opportunity to test the Soviet 125 mm APFSDS appeared only after "The collapse of the USSR"

nothing, that uranium and tungsten in principle have different density?
Once again, I repeat to you, the British defended themselves from their own APFSDS , which played the role of the Soviet, but not as if not from the Soviet type 3BM22. Of course you can continue to generate this nonsense.

[Я русский 58]

1 minute ago, scavenjer said:

Because this is the shelltype that the USSR used and had massive stockpiles of, this type of shell was the only thing they had up to 1985 when they introduced 3BM32

How did they know about this?

 

2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Because the internal volume is way higher than all of those which means it needs even more weight to cover the same volume with the same armour protection, therefore, the larger internal volume you have, the more weight you need for the same armour.
The T-Series has purely KE focussed armour and very little internal space, allowing less weight to be used for the same armour protection.

For all of these reasons the armour is good against KE but bad against CE (in comparison).

Its not THAT bigger. And Chally doesn't have its armour anywhere except its turret and upper glacis (and you want to say just in turret).

[SkyRAY 446]

11 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

  Reveal hidden contents

They used APFSDS that had a steel body with a small tungsten carbide core measuring 70x20mm, way smaller than what NATO was using and substantially worse against both sloped targets and composite targets (CR1 has both of those).

 

And make it even heavier?

Yes, I think the UFP should probably be around 280mm give or take against most APFSDS except the WP ones which should be around 325mm.

And now show me at least one source in which the British are talking about ammunition with a tungsten carbide core. They do not exist?

[Shrike142 1,682]

2 minutes ago, RonDnn said:

This thing has 62 tonnes of weight!!! It's 1.5 heavier than T-series and even heavier than the Abrams. How cant it have better armour?

Because it should have much better armour, not only is the composite far superior than the US derivative, most of the array is steel. 

The turret LOS is also insane, being thicker than both the Abrams and Leopard 2

[Zer0_Tru7h 1,207]

3 minutes ago, Shrike142 said:

Because it should have much better armour, not only is the composite far superior than the US derivative, most of the array is steel. 

The turret LOS is also insane, being thicker than both the Abrams and Leopard 2

 

DELTACLUSTER also provided sources stating that burlington was more than worth its weight in RHA against kinetic munitions.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Durandle_X

[scavenjer 1,892]

1 minute ago, duckmartin said:

There plenty of evidence in all the challenger 1 bug reports and even in the CIA report they confirmed this. You have seen them but still you state other wises 

Nope they did not, the source you're talking about refers to a different (PROPOSED)  tank entirely.

 

1 minute ago, SkyRAY said:

Obviously in 3BM22 was DU?)

Both the US and UK were developing DU ammo, thus it makes complete sense to assume the USSR was going to try to use it as well.
And they did! 3BM29 and 32 were DU.

 

2 minutes ago, SkyRAY said:

Defended from promising ammunition. Stop this farce already, the opportunity to test the Soviet 125 mm APFSDS appeared only after "The collapse of the USSR"

nothing,

Yet they knew about USSR ammunition due to the Clash between Iranian Chieftains and Iraqi T-62s and T-72s.

Not only that but if you look at the Chieftain Mk5/2 study, they even assumed 115mm APFSDS was probably not much better than 105mm APDS!

 

4 minutes ago, SkyRAY said:

that uranium and tungsten in principle have different density?

Yes, tungsten actually has a higher density than depleted uranium, both being pure.

Tungsten: 19300kg/m³

Depleted uranium: 19050kg/m³

 

5 minutes ago, SkyRAY said:

Once again, I repeat to you, the British defended themselves from their own APFSDS , which played the role of the Soviet, but not as if not from the Soviet type 3BM22. Of course you can continue to generate this nonsense.

You should probably re-read that line that clearly states "WP ammunition".

 

2 minutes ago, RonDnn said:

How did they know about this?

Every country has spies and the USSR exported such ammunition to other countries, specifically in the middle east where Israel was capturing a lot of it.

 

3 minutes ago, RonDnn said:

Its not THAT bigger. And Chally doesn't have its armour anywhere except its turret and upper glacis (and you want to say just in turret).

It carries more ammunition, all around the tank, carries a lot of fuel (1400l or something) and is mostly based of the Chieftain, thus doesn't have the benefit of being a new design where things can be more optimally placed.

Both hull front and turret front have composite.

 

3 minutes ago, SkyRAY said:

And now show me at least one source in which the British are talking about ammunition with a tungsten carbide core. They do not exist?

Wether they knew exactly what type of tungsten it was is irrelevant, the design is what matters.

 

3 minutes ago, Shrike142 said:

Because it should have much better armour, not only is the composite far superior than the US derivative, most of the array is steel. 

Actually, having more steel would be better for KE and worse for CE.

It shouldn't have "much more armour" because we know exactly how thick it is and how effective it was with these documents.

 

2 minutes ago, Durandle_X said:

DELTACLUSTER also provided sources stating that burlington was more than worth its weight in RHA.

Which is pretty normal for basically all composite armour types in use for frontal armour on MBTs.

[SkyRAY 446]

1 minute ago, Durandle_X said:

 

DELTACLUSTER also provided sources stating that burlington was more than worth its weight in RHA.

There we are talking about early Burlington, which was done in the middle 60s. The later ones were somewhat more efficient, possibly up to 1.25 by mass (for more details, see Chebham's Polish studies)