Well, the first Challenger wasn't that great, lets get a new tank entirely!
I see the Americans are offering their latest version of the M1 and the Germans are offering their newest version of the Leopard 2. But y'know, they just don't weigh enough and their engines are good enough to produce a higher than 18hp/ton power to weight ratio, they also have those disgusting smoothbores that allow them to use the same ammunition as the rest of NATO. That simply won't do.
Lets make a slightly better version of the Challenger 1, but still markedly inferior to what the rest of NATO uses, and lets make fewer than 500 of them!
They are gonna buy the German-Franco next-gen tank.
Michael Price
Also the biggest joke about British tanks is that shilling about chobham armour.
Shit was evaluated by the Germans and it was indeed shit. Shit was evaluated by the French and it was indeed shit.
Landon Perry
>They are gonna buy the Turk-Nigger next-gen tank. nope we won't. Challenger 3 is coming and will be the best tank same as the Challenger 2 stfu
Lucas Green
Don't forget the 80mm thick LFP that needs applique to survive ww2 era guns and probably can't withstand modern AP with it on either.
David Lewis
UK doesn't even have any tank building know how anymore.
Christopher Adams
And then it was evaluated by the US who put it on the M1.
Juan Hernandez
> and probably cant withstand modern AP either And yet when people mention the Abrams getting rekt by modern AT weapons left right and centre, americans screech about how thats expected and not the Abrams fault.
Jackson Lewis
And now they are gonna buy Big-Boy-Boxers from the germans and will probably choose Rheinmetall for their Challenger 2 LEP. Toppest of keks, the absolute state of bong military procurement.
Lucas Johnson
>And yet when people mention the Abrams getting rekt by modern AT weapons left right and centre, americans screech about how thats expected and not the Abrams fault They were getting hit by ATGM's from the sides and rear, which no tank can be expected to escape unscathed.
Asher Ramirez
Fair one, although ive never heard of the lower frontal plate of a Chally 2 being penned by anything other than a ridiculously lucky RPG shot. So whoever is saying 'hurr can be penned by ww2 era guns' is talking shit.
Liam Evans
Which was rated as a mistake. They added latter DU to improve the armour against kinetic threats but Chobham was totally to HE focused and didn't provide any weight advantage against KE projectiles.
Charles Walker
>comparing modern AT weapons to 100+ year old cannons that can easily punch through 80mm of armor
wew lad.
wew.
Blake Howard
Well, the lower frontal plate is definitely a weak-spot, hence the additional add-on armor. The enormous weight of the vehicle only gets more immense with every additional armor package it gets to keep it up to date.
Adam Sanders
It's already 10 tons heavier than the Leopard 2 and Abrahams
Benjamin King
>Fair one, although ive never heard of the lower frontal plate of a Chally 2 being penned by anything other than a ridiculously lucky RPG shot. So whoever is saying 'hurr can be penned by ww2 era guns' is talking shit. It's legitimately only 80mm RHA on every british tank LFP from the chieftain to the challenger 2. I have no idea what the logic was behind the design.
Carter Young
>I have no idea what the logic was behind the design Their purpose was being hull down in the Fulda Gap, holding off T-72s until the rest of NATO arrived
Mason Gomez
Many T-72s near fulda gap in 1998? The design phase didn't even start until 1990.
Justin Garcia
UK had never a workable tank doctrine.
The idea of maneuver warfare is still some crazy shit for them.
Nolan Carter
And yet the person I was citing in my post compared 100 year old anti tank weapons to relatively modern RPGs.
Zachary Flores
ww2 cannons were more than capable of punching through 80mm of rha at less than 30 degree slopes that is the lfp of the challenger2
Nathaniel Wright
And the US buys its M119 howitzer from the British, its Abrams main gun from Germany and its armored strikers from Canada.
Almost, like, there's an international market for these things, no?
Aaron Hall
Just like the Americans, the UK 1st Armoured Division used their Cold War operational training to implement the large left hook which threatened to encircle the Iraqis in Kuwait, including playing a significant role in the Battle of Norfolk, lead by their own command structure while supported by their own logistics system. How would they have been able to do that if they had no knowledge of "maneuver warfare"?
Because meme spewing basement dwellers know more about british military knowledge than british generals do apparently
Christopher Sanchez
>became part of the US VII Corps and followed orders
Adorable
Ryder Wright
To be fair outside of Germany no one had a fucking idea about armoured warfare in the NATO first. USA slowly adapted to the reality and was proven right with the success in the Guld War.
William Morales
The logic is pretty simple. They concluded that, without explicit design similar to the Abrams, the lower plate wouldn't resist modern APFSDS anyway. Leopard 2 and Leclerc for example, both likely couldn't resist such rounds on the similar area on the bottom half of the LFP regardless of composite or not.
As such, they decided to not bother wasting the weight there, invested it elsewhere (The Abrams and Challenger do not have the same sights weakspots or large mantlet holes as the Leo and Leclerc for example), and gave the LFP defense via modules instead.
It's a moot point anyway. It has a composite block over there these days anyway.
As a note, people overexaggerate the area that is without composite anyway. Pic related, it's only the lower portion. With the composite block on there now, the upper section of the LFP where it overlaps with the upper glacis unit is very thick now.
>The logic is pretty simple. They concluded that, without explicit design similar to the Abrams, the lower plate wouldn't resist modern APFSDS anyway. Leopard 2 and Leclerc for example, both likely couldn't resist such rounds on the similar area on the bottom half of the LFP regardless of composite or not. I don't get why everyone doesn't use the same layout as the abrams though, it seems objectively better.
Benjamin Ward
Lot of subtle nuance in designing tanks. It's never as simple as just going "Okay we'll do that."
Whether there's unknown priorities elsewise, or whether there's some element of it means the US keeps some secrets on how they manage it close to their chest, we simply don't know.
There is some concern over the Abrams' upper front plate vs bomblets/top down strikes from small charges (think sensor fuzed), but I highly doubt that was the reason the others went with other directions. Challenger for example clearly designed it around maximising hull down armor.
As for the others, beats me.
Liam Reyes
It was part of their cold war doctrine. British tanks were meant to adopt hull-down positions and conduct a delaying action, which would have resulted in them coming under some hefty artillery and air bombardment.
That layout of armor on the Abrams results in the upper hull plate being composed of RHA with an extreme angle from a frontal aspect, but not so good when you are getting showered with fragmentation and shape-charge submunitions coming from a near vertical aspect.
Camden Hughes
>It was part of their cold war doctrine. British tanks were meant to adopt hull-down positions and conduct a delaying action, which would have resulted in them coming under some hefty artillery and air bombardment. You would think they would have changed it as the challenger 2 was post USSR and after the first gulf war where they had to cover the challenger 1 LFP. I still think the Abrams layout is superior despite it trading protection from above, the driver will probably die if the UFP is hit, while the challenger will likely be completely destroyed if anything hits the LFP, it's particularly bad if its coming over a ridge, it can go right into the turret with the right angle.
Christopher Morris
By that time the British were probably studying the Grozny tank engagements and concluding that there was still merit in having protection from the upper arc. Not a bad assessment; they had been using add-on armor kits for the LFP since KFOR whereas you can't really up-armor the UFP if you find yourself needing to.
Keep in mind that Challenger's seen in 'clean' configuration are not on active deployment. Theater entry standard for the CR2 required the LFP to be protected by at least ERA, which was then upgraded to full composite when tandem charge HEAT rounds started to cause issues.
Cooper Evans
Army wanted to buy Abrams, especially after the first plan to have Chally 2 only replace the Cheiftains was scrapped; the Leopard 2 was deemed worringly flawed in its frontal armour design and was pretty much immediately dismissed. The Abrams won the tankies’ vote but Vickers won the politicians’... need I say more?... The Army didn’t even’t want the fucking name! Government forced the break with tradition - a new name starting with C - to help Vickers’ PR department to sell the tank abroad (even though the CR2 shares only a slither of the original’s DNA! but with that tank’s Granby rep, etc...). Trying to find photo of all the tanks lined up from testing.
Isaiah Bell
>Leopard 2 was deemed worringly flawed in its frontal armour design How so?
Slab-front turret was an easy and sizeable area to pen.
Ian Long
It appears you have no idea what you are talking about.
Caleb Gutierrez
> completely destroyed if anything hits the LFP > one gets hit in the LFP by an RPG and the only thing that happens is the drivers foot gets a close shave
Adam Powell
>Slab-front turret was an easy and sizeable area to pen ?
>Slab-front turret was an easy and sizeable area to pen.
wow, you must play so much war thunder to be THIS knowledgeable about physics!
Brayden Murphy
Lemme find my notes.
Xavier Adams
Army never wanted to buy anything.
Carson Harris
I eagerly await your citation.
Adam Murphy
‘Leopard 2 rejected on account of fundamental design flaw in armour integrity of turrent front.’ You’ll have to find the deets of SR(L)4026 related stuff for the exact info. Will do some searching.
John Murphy
They wanted a replacement for *just* the Cheiftain post-CHIP or a big leap upgrade for the Challenger and then more purchases of it. All before designing something new post-2000 - this is mid-80s remember.
Lucas Gray
Leo 2 Improved was offered as COMING SOON - it became the A5 for the Bundeswehr.
Jose Foster
Here we are - remember this is all taking place from like 87 to 91/2 with Granby and fall of the Berlin Wall between.
This is from an OP book - better written than me. :-) Reccomended.
All this impotent rage against the best MBT ever to see major combat. In Gulf War 2 it was heavily engaged and killed hundreds of tanks and IFVs with no losses. None lost except a blue-on-blue from behind when the tank was at rest with hatches open, basically unkillable. Scored the longest range tank kill ever. Shrugs off blizzards of RPGs, never lost. Built-in boiler for tea. Doesn't break down or stop for maintenance one hour in three like the Abrams. It's the best tank proven by combat.
Eli Flores
lol, even mutts and vatniks aren't this desperate.
Jason Roberts
not him but can't improve shit. the perforated aluminum shit that the leo 2 uses was a garbage idea in 1960 it's still garbage. german marketers can lie as much as they want and refuse to let buyers test their armor as much as they want the myth of german armor is long vaporized by now
