Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

M1A2 vs Challenger 2 (intelligent debate)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gentlemen lets clarify this, refer back to my original post on this subject it was "one of the old recognitions about being a great Centurion crewman" NOT about the cyclic rate of fire of the weapons system, further my original example was the use of HESH in the semi indirect fire mode, when I tried this the time started from the original aquasition of the target by commander and fire order therefore the full 3 drills would be carried out, and the 3rd round had to be in the air before the 1st had landed.This I achieved on more than one occasion

    Going back to the APFDS when I tried it, again timed from the aquasition of target by the commander, and I assure you carrying out all 3drills complete NOT pre loading and cradleing the second round in your arm before the time has started, no way can you do it in under 7 seconds. I forget my best time but I am sure it was between 15 to 20 seconds
    Last edited by T_igger_cs_30; 26 Feb 07,, 05:25.
    sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

    Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
      Not really the 105 with steel cased ammo was very easy to speed/vacume load while stationary. Pre-load round one, loader is holding round 2, as soon as the gun fires loaders dropping the second round into the tray (supposedly if you do it fast enough the bore evacuator will suck the round the in hence the vacume load). Once round two is loaded the loader is grabbing round three from the floor (the Pattons bustle storage would slow this down not sure but didn't cents have hull storage) and is ready to drop it in place as soon as round two goes out the tube.

      I wouldn't want to try it on the move or with combustable cartridges incase of flash back, but with steel cased ammo on a stationary tank where the crew can prep for the drill it is very doable.
      Quite right. The Mark 5 Centurion had a 20 pounder gun so the ammo was even lighter than the 105mm jobbie. Ammo was stored under the floor which was a pig to get to, and in a compartment alongside the driver which was a little more accessable, but we also had ready bins. Cant remember what they held but possibly 4 rounds each - so there were 8 rounds immediately available. The loader had to guess what type of round was likely to be used, so the bins held APDS and HE. I don't remember ever using Cannister shot. The trick was to keep the ready bins stocked - not all that easy stationary and bloody dangerous on the move. The basket had to be cleared of empty cases through the pistol port. Fun, fun, fun! 1RTR was range Regt at Hohne at the time and we did more firing than anyone else, as we were using up 20 pr stocks of ammo and most of the other Regts had the 105. All our main armament firing was in direct mode, so can't comment on semi-indirect. The Conqueror with it's split ammo fired at a more stately rate, and they had an automatic ejector system for the empty cases. Luxury!
      Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by urmomma158 View Post
        alrite lets compare stats m. Lets amke this quick and easy
        Ok. This weekend I watched a program on the Abrams. From the documentary one things stands out very unique to the Abrams:

        All or supposedly 99.5% of armies worldwide that use tanks run diesel fuel engines in them.

        The Abrams can run on everything from jet fuel (JP-5 or distilatte) to diesel fuel to Channel' #5. If it is combustable liquid it can be used as the Abrams turbine superheats the fuel while burning it. So even dads backyard moonshine will run in her. She dont get the greatest gas millage mind you but atleast you can fuel her from numerous sources of flammable liquids.
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • When one of the Chieftain trials vehicles appeared in our Regiment (ours was W4) the multi-fuel system was much trumpeted. Great, it was thought, it can run on any liquid fuel ( Army custard?), but it was not without its problems. 40 years is a long time in automotive design so the Abrams engine should be first rate.
          Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
            [

            Going back to the APFDS when I tried it, again timed from the aquasition of target by the commander, and I assure you carrying out all 3drills complete NOT pre loading and cradleing the second round in your arm before the time has started, no way can you do it in under 7 seconds. I forget my best time but I am sure it was between 15 to 20 seconds[/B]
            there was no chance of getting 3 Sabot in the air because it was so fast. Hesh took some doing ,and that was with it sight clino off the scale:)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
              there was no chance of getting 3 Sabot in the air because it was so fast. Hesh took some doing ,and that was with it sight clino off the scale:)
              No I agree Dave APDS being a KINETIC energy round(super velocity) and HESH being a CHEMICAL energy round (medium velocity),re APDS I dont think thats what Glyn was saying , I know I was not, Glyn was saying 3 rounds fired (APDS) in under 7 seconds, I question that, but then we were both working and thinking under different guidelines.....and yes your right about HESH
              Last edited by T_igger_cs_30; 26 Feb 07,, 23:51.
              sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

              Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                Ok. This weekend I watched a program on the Abrams. From the documentary one things stands out very unique to the Abrams:

                All or supposedly 99.5% of armies worldwide that use tanks run diesel fuel engines in them.

                The Abrams can run on everything from jet fuel (JP-5 or distilatte) to diesel fuel to Channel' #5. If it is combustable liquid it can be used as the Abrams turbine superheats the fuel while burning it. So even dads backyard moonshine will run in her. She dont get the greatest gas millage mind you but atleast you can fuel her from numerous sources of flammable liquids.
                But aren't those diesel engines everyone else uses also multi-fuel? Just not to the same extent as the turbine. Anyone?
                In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
                The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stan187 View Post
                  But aren't those diesel engines everyone else uses also multi-fuel? Just not to the same extent as the turbine. Anyone?
                  Stan,
                  I believe that the diesel engines currently in use cannot produce the pre-heat temperature to bring normally unflammabe or less flammable liquids to the point of ignition such as superheating in a jet turbine can. They may be able to use some multi fuels but it may keep the choices very limited as to what liquids they may use. Im sure somebody here may be able to answer this. Any qualified personel?
                  Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Feb 07,, 19:08.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                    Stan,
                    I believe that the diesel engines currently in use cannot produce the pre-heat temperature to bring normally unflammabe or less flammable liquids to the point of ignition such as superheating in a jet turbine can. They may be able to use some multi fuels but it may keep the choices very limited as to what liquids they may use.
                    Two problems here. The first is the fuel injectors - these are very finely ground to insanely tiny tolerances, and rely on the oiliness of diesel fuel to work. That's why diesel engines can be severely damaged if you fill your car up with Petrol by mistake. That places a limit on how light a fraction you can use - it has to be heavy enough to work as a lubricant with your particular injector design.
                    The second problem is ignition. That's a relatively easy one - diesel engines work by compressing the air until it gets hot enough to ignite the fuel, then injecting the fuel a whisker before the piston reaches top dead centre. It immediately ignites, and the cylinder fires. If you need hotter ignition temperatures, just increase the compression ratio. This causes the engine to be more fuel-efficient, but also (IIRC - been a while since I looked at piston engines) to have a lower specific power making the engine heavier.

                    There are some other problems that I can think of - mainly relating to ignition timings - but nothing that should give modern electronics any problem at all.
                    Rule 1: Never trust a Frenchman
                    Rule 2: Treat all members of the press as French

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                      Stan,
                      I believe that the diesel engines currently in use cannot produce the pre-heat temperature to bring normally unflammabe or less flammable liquids to the point of ignition such as superheating in a jet turbine can. They may be able to use some multi fuels but it may keep the choices very limited as to what liquids they may use. Im sure somebody here may be able to answer this. Any qualified personel?
                      But do US tankers use anything but normal gas and diesel anyway? I mean the opportunity in a pinch sounds nice, but how often are you ever put in that situation. If you're cut off from all normal sources of fuel, you prolly are pretty screwed either way.

                      The pros need to weigh in here.
                      In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
                      The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stan187 View Post
                        But do US tankers use anything but normal gas and diesel anyway? I mean the opportunity in a pinch sounds nice, but how often are you ever put in that situation. If you're cut off from all normal sources of fuel, you prolly are pretty screwed either way.

                        The pros need to weigh in here.
                        Diesel is used for logistical ease, but M1's in the Gulf used JP-8 when near helo refuel depots.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • Which is the Best Tank in the World

                          ;) This is always a good way to start an arguement. I have served on Cheiftain, Challenger 1 and Challeneger 2, I have operated M60, M1, Leopard 1 & 2, Leclerc, and Centurion, all of these vehicles have something special about them. I could be biased and say that Challenger 2 is the more superior vehicle, but you have to look at History. Tank Design is based on the following factors; Mobility, Fire Power and Protection. The British Army, in order of priority is Protection, Fire Power and Mobility = Fightability, this has always been the British Army ethos. Other Countries like Germany, France and the US go for; Mobility, Fire Power, Protection, hence the differences in design. However the vast majority of these vehicles share the same atributes or have the same equipment i.e. The Main Armament on the M1, Leopard and Leclerc etc are all German, the Armour is indeed British (Chobam, however the British use the later version of Dorchester). The Smoke Grenade Dischargers on the MI and Leopard are British, The Fire Control Systems on all vehicles are Canadian and I believe they are the same systems! The Challenger 2 uses a Diesel Engine, it does however have an auxillary engine, which most vehicles do not! The Challenger 2 has a Boiling vessel, therefore the crew are self sustaining. The Challenger 2 has the ability to withdraw fuel from another source by utilising its own suction pumps. Challeneger 2 has an Air Conditioning System, Challeneger 2 can still fight if the Computer systems become inactive, there are several modes of degradation before the vehicle becomes unfightable, with Leopard and M1 this is not possible! Challenger 2 has Hydrogas Suspension whereas all other vehicles use Torsion bar, making Challenger 2 a far more stable Gun Platform. The MIA1 and MIA2 are not new vehicles, they are infact M1s' with enhancements, and on that subject, Challenger 2 is at present going through a mid-life crisis and enhancements are being made to the vehicle already i.e. Moving from rifled to smooth-bore (shame really then they will not be able to Fire HESH, wonderful round), the engine will be upgraded and several other enhancements (CLIP). The down side I suppose to the M1 whatever model is the Heat Signature that it gives off (Massive, great for Target Acquisition), also the Gas turbine in desert conditions just hates the sand, hence the reliability problems, other than that they are all pretty much the same beast. Hope this settles the arguement.

                          Comment


                          • When the first Challenger 2 MBT rolls out of the Bowman integration sheds in Jan 04, General Dynamics UK Ltd (GD UK) the Bowman Communications Systems and Infrastructure Prime contractor and Alvis Vickers Ltd (AVL) the tank's Platform Design Authority will together have created a 'first' for an armoured vehicle.

                            DRS Tactical Systems (DRS TS) with manufacturing facilities at Palm Bay, Florida USA and Farnham, near London in the UK is the Bowman vehicle computer hardware sub-contractor to both GD (UK) and AVL. This specialist rugged hardware manufacturer will provide four 'digitization’ hardware components for Challenger 2.

                            The ‘roll out’ comes at a time when focus is intense on the design and configuration of future armoured vehicles, in particular FCS and FRES. This Challenger 2 configuration fuses digital radio technology with on board ‘real time’ platform systems. This will no doubt become the baseline for development of a digital turret design for these new vehicle requirements.

                            The GD (UK) core Bowman programme brings not only new secure High Capacity Data Radios but also the vehicle mounted rugged computers and displays to all radio equipped UK Army (and some Air Force and Navy) vehicles and many of the dismounted troops. The system (radios and computers) will be ‘overlaid’ over existing equipment, vehicles and dismounted soldiers.

                            UK combat brigades will be taken out of service in turn for over six months to achieve ‘digitization’. This new Army (and Joint) digital command and control system (C2) will show friendly vehicle and dismounted forces locations and confirmed enemy locations in near real time in each vehicle and hand held computer display.

                            This displayed Situational Awareness (SA) will replace the paper map in nearly all respects. It will also enable the rapid and secure passage of all types of C2 information up and down the chain of command.

                            The implications of ‘digitization’ for an army are great particularly in the tempo of operations now possible. At the lower levels there is far less need for rigid tactical control measures, lengthy orders and late night map marking sessions at HQs. The US Army FBCB2 system software and the DRS TS vehicle computer hardware (RVS330) are deployed in several US Army brigades and divisions including those in the Gulf. Reports state that the high tempo of operations of 3rd US Infantry Division was enabled by ‘digitization’.

                            The $3B Bowman programme enhancement to the British Army will make field formation commanders far more effective on the battlefield through the timeliness, accuracy and volume of data to hand regarding the state and location of own forces, at a glance. This is the ‘top down’ and perhaps highest priority aspect of digitization.

                            In addition to the core UK Bowman programme there are seventeen Battlefield Information System Applications (BISAs) each individually funded. One of these being fielded simultaneously with the radio systems is that for the battle management system software (ComBat) and the black box Platform BISA Processor Unit.

                            The PBPU processes and provides SA and C2 data to armoured vehicle commanders displays - including in each Challenger tank where PBPU will be fitted alongside the radios.

                            Through the BISAs, Bowman will also address the unique and ‘bottom up' digitization requirements of all Arms and Branches. Challenger 2 has it‚s own funded BISA (CR2 Platform BISA) which will be fielded at the same time as the Bowman radios and computers. Integrated by Alvis Vickers Ltd, this is the tank platform level systems digitization programme unique to Challenger 2.

                            In this programme each Challenger 2 will be provided with an additional computer the Platform Digitization Processor Unit (PDPU) will be mounted in the hull of the vehicle and a display known as the Commanders Crew Station (CCS) display beside the commander's gunnery and observation sight.

                            The PDPU is the firewall between the ‘real time’ high-speed weapon system environment of Challenger 2 and the non or near-real time world of Bowman. Working with a new Inertial Navigation System (Smiths Aerospace) and Drivers Display Panel, the PDPU allows accurate positional and heading data to be fused with weapon system sensor information and passed electronically over an embedded MilCAN bus.

                            The combination of GPS and inertial navigation provides unprecedented systems accuracy. The CCS will display information from both the PBPU and PDPU battle management data and vehicle level systems data. It is this fusion of ‘top down’ with ‘bottom up’ that is a ‘first’. This level of integration has yet to be in general service elsewhere including the US Army.

                            Though in separate boxes the fusion of these systems will allow tactical commanders and logisticians automatic and real time access to the detail available in any Challenger with minimum crew involvement (ammunition state, BIT etc). At the vehicle command level, this fusion will give tank commanders a similar collective fire direction and control capability (through secure digital radio) as the WAH64 UK Apache.

                            Tank commanders will be able to use the LRF as a ‘finger’ to indicate targets, initiate Contact/Spot Reports, indicate a point on the ground or as an aid to orders to other tanks. The indicated location will appear as an icon on the CCS map display in all or selected tanks. The commander’s sight is directed to the received location (assisted lay). Route planning and following can now be carried out digitally and waypoints automatically passed to the new Drivers Display, without need for continual instructions from the commander.

                            This collective gunnery and tactical use of the system will require training. There will be a need to upgrade the tank gunnery simulators, particularly those used for troop/platoon gunnery early in the Bowman delivery. As units become fielded the British Army Force on Force(DFWES/AWES) and CAT virtual training systems will also need similar attention.

                            The only Challenger lost in the Gulf was to fratricide. The Situational Awareness (SA) feature of the Bowman system, though not specifically designed to answer this real world wartime problem will greatly help to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. The CR2 Platform BISA programme will further reduce this tragic but easy mistake in combat. P BISA will display the gun and panoramic sight direction on the icon.

                            Thus when a tank commander looks away from his gunnery sight and into the CCS display he will see a small line extending from his own icon. This is his direction of view/gun and a quick check in that direction will determine if a ‘friendly’ is in line of sight. Even a ‘quick check’ is a long time in combat and commanders are loathe to take eyes away from the gunnery sight in combat so automated solutions to IFF are still needed and fusion of gun sight and digital map display may be a future ambition of FCS and FRES.

                            DRS Tactical Systems under contract to Alvis Vickers Ltd has developed the Challenger 2 PDPU and CCS. The first production quality units will be fitted with other new devices procured under the P BISA programme for trials at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU) at Bovington in Dorset UK this July.

                            DRS TS is also under contract to supply GD UK and the UK Army with over 13,000 Bowman vehicle User Data Terminals (UDTs). One or more will be fitted to nearly all UK combat vehicles by 2008. There are four types of UDT and all are based on the DRS TS Scorpion computer much reducing the logistic overhead.

                            The PBPU is a shrunk ‘black box’ version of Scorpion without the keyboard and display. Its role (discussed earlier) is to bring Bowman data management and display facilities to armoured vehicles. About 1100 will be delivered, each with detachable keyboard. They will be fitted to all armoured vehicles including one per Challenger 2.

                            The Bowman Management Data Terminal (BMDT) is the Signals and Staff Officers network management tool, there will be over 4000 of these rugged and sealed laptops with a high resolution 13 inch diagonal, non touch screen, transmissive display.

                            The Dismountable User Data Terminals (DUDT) is identical in size and outline shape to the BMDT but will have internal heaters to enable low temperature operation and a 12 inch transflective (sunlight readable) touch screen display. The quick release shock mount allows for rapid dismounting from the vehicle. It can operate from vehicle or battery power and has a ‘hot swappable’ battery capability. Nearly 4000 are required.

                            The Vehicle User Data Terminal (VUDT) is a tablet version of the DUDT but will be fixed inside many types of vehicles. It has a detachable keyboard. Approximately 4000 are required.

                            In addition to PDPU, CCS and PBPU, Challenger 2 will be provided with a VUDT on the loaders side of the turret. Thus the tanks rolling out from Bowman modification sheds will have four major computer components designed and manufactured by DRS TS. These will make Challenger 2 a ‘first’ for this level of ‘digitization’ and provide an unprecedented leap in capability and effectiveness for future formation and tank commanders in future conflicts.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cornishchunky View Post
                              ;) This is always a good way to start an arguement. I have served on Cheiftain, Challenger 1 and Challeneger 2, I have operated M60, M1, Leopard 1 & 2, Leclerc, and Centurion, all of these vehicles have something special about them. I could be biased and say that Challenger 2 is the more superior vehicle, but you have to look at History. Tank Design is based on the following factors; Mobility, Fire Power and Protection. The British Army, in order of priority is Protection, Fire Power and Mobility = Fightability, this has always been the British Army ethos. Other Countries like Germany, France and the US go for; Mobility, Fire Power, Protection, hence the differences in design. However the vast majority of these vehicles share the same atributes or have the same equipment i.e. The Main Armament on the M1, Leopard and Leclerc etc are all German, the Armour is indeed British (Chobam, however the British use the later version of Dorchester). The Smoke Grenade Dischargers on the MI and Leopard are British, The Fire Control Systems on all vehicles are Canadian and I believe they are the same systems! The Challenger 2 uses a Diesel Engine, it does however have an auxillary engine, which most vehicles do not! The Challenger 2 has a Boiling vessel, therefore the crew are self sustaining. The Challenger 2 has the ability to withdraw fuel from another source by utilising its own suction pumps. Challeneger 2 has an Air Conditioning System, Challeneger 2 can still fight if the Computer systems become inactive, there are several modes of degradation before the vehicle becomes unfightable, with Leopard and M1 this is not possible! Challenger 2 has Hydrogas Suspension whereas all other vehicles use Torsion bar, making Challenger 2 a far more stable Gun Platform. The MIA1 and MIA2 are not new vehicles, they are infact M1s' with enhancements, and on that subject, Challenger 2 is at present going through a mid-life crisis and enhancements are being made to the vehicle already i.e. Moving from rifled to smooth-bore (shame really then they will not be able to Fire HESH, wonderful round), the engine will be upgraded and several other enhancements (CLIP). The down side I suppose to the M1 whatever model is the Heat Signature that it gives off (Massive, great for Target Acquisition), also the Gas turbine in desert conditions just hates the sand, hence the reliability problems, other than that they are all pretty much the same beast. Hope this settles the arguement.

                              Your off your rocker

                              1- The Abrams has a manual travese and master-blaster. Thus even if the tank is a completely mobility kill and has zero power the gunner can via the aux daysight still traverse and fire.

                              2- The Leo and Leclerc do not use Chobbam, never have never will. They do not use ceramics at all in fact. But a mixture of spaced armor and appligue backed in certai areas by ERA.

                              3- they do not sue the same fire control system. 120mm smmothbore and 120mm rifled have much different charateristics. What they (Chally/Abrams) do have is the same company making the FCS.

                              4- the gun on the Leclerc is a French design in 53 caliber. The Rheinmetall gun comes in either 44 or 55. The British gun is likewise not German either the L11A5 or the newer longer L30.

                              5- the US did not place an emphasis on any one factor but instead demanded equal parts mobility/protection/firepower*. They achieve this war winning combo by going outside the box and using the new Chobbham Armor to give world class protection while using a turbine to provide mobility. The sacrafice was range.

                              6- Two wars alsting 5 years, and 25 years of NTC rotatiosna dn Kuwaiti deployments so far and people still think the Abrams has issues in the desert. Just how many drives across desert doe sit take to kill that urban legend? As long as you do your daily maintece the Abrams does fine in almsot any enviroment. Becuase the US physically has every type of climate in the world our equipment is multi-enviroment capable.

                              7- The Smoke grenades on the Leo are german mortar style, not British.

                              8- Abrams has AC, APU, and NBC overpressure.

                              9- Abrans uses a pnuematic-torsion bar system making it a very stable gun platform from 0-45kph. Only 3 tanks in the world even make claims or demonstrate a higher ability. SK-2, Arjun, Leclerc.

                              10- The effective thermal signature on the abrams is not nearly as great as some people think, or nealry as important. The Turbine has much less radiated heat venting most out the rear. Deisels with large amounts of radiated heat warm up the entire rear of the tank. No tank is IR freindly, metal heats and cools differently form good old fashioned dirt and excpet for two breif periods every 24 hours when the tank matches the surronding terrian either as it cools or heats all tanks stand out like sore thumbs on a decent thermal viewer.

                              11- The Challenger CLIP (Challenger Leathaility Improvement Program) is not much different than the new TUSK upgrades being put on the Abrams. They both add ERA to weak spots, SLAT armor to the rear sides and rear and upgrade the cermaics to the 2nd generation level. However the Abrams has superior thermal systems, a better battle management and vastly superior frontal armor on a level plane via DU rods.

                              12- ad finally its not a gas turbine (gasoline) but a mutli-fuel turbine.

                              If I had to go into combat in one I'd pick the Abrams its the beast I know. However familarity aside it has several distinct advantages over the Chally that my training can make use of. I'd probalby get slaughtered in a Chally using Abrams tactics, and vice versa. The emphaiss in the Abrams is much more offnesive move and shoot and fight from concealment(smoke/night/inclement weather) than the very defensive minded Challenger where fighting from cover and all around protection took precedence.

                              Comment


                              • Challenger 2 is the most advanced tank. Why? I don't know. M1 tank isn't a bad tank at all, but isn't meant to support troops. The exhaust from the turbine engine can cook infantry alive. My vote goes to Challenger 2.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X