Jump to content

The new Challenger


M3talpig
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Scimitar F1 said:

Great post @BringUpThePIAT


I am interested to see how they will be employed. While the Cold War IGB situation has gone I am not sure that the post 9/11 wars of choice situ will hold going forward.


Bottom line is that you need a protected, highly mobile platform to be able to operate on the battlefield to be able to project force. If an MBT cannot survive then how can any other vehicle!
 

 

Thanks a lot mate, appreciated. 

 

I think in this day and age you could make an argument that no armour is survivable, and the same Kornet/Konkurs/Chinese copy that will do for a Boxer or Ajax will also likely do for a C2 or C3. 

 

Armour can only get you so far. After that its all about APS, mobility, stealth and targeted lethality. A real step change in how armoured warfare is conducted. 

Edited by BringUpThePIAT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things, no more L30A1 120 mm rifled gun, seems Britain has joined the rest of NATO and adopted the big ol' German smoothbore, shame really, why not develop our own, Britain has a rich history in heavy engineering, and is well capable of creating a world beater

 

and. . . 60mph for a seventy odd ton tank! wow!!

 

Miko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Miko said:

Two things, no more L30A1 120 mm rifled gun, seems Britain has joined the rest of NATO and adopted the big ol' German smoothbore, shame really, why not develop our own, Britain has a rich history in heavy engineering, and is well capable of creating a world beater

 

and. . . 60mph for a seventy odd ton tank! wow!!

 

Miko

There's a huge difference between developing a world-beater and actually being to sell it in large enough numbers to make it commercially viable. That's what it comes down to. A 'guaranteed' market of less than 200 guns with the possibility that you can sell a new and untried gun in a global market that knows and understands the german equivalent (and probably already has it in service) - and which is backed up by a well established supply chain.

 

The finances involved in developing a new gun from scratch don't make this a viable proposition (I wish it did, but the world is a different place to what it was when the 120mm rifled cannons were developed).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all this 60mph chatter I would not like to be in the tank or in the way if a track was to let go at that kind of speed!

Sounds good though but not realistic I would bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, John Tapsell said:

There's a huge difference between developing a world-beater and actually being to sell it in large enough numbers to make it commercially viable. That's what it comes down to. A 'guaranteed' market of less than 200 guns with the possibility that you can sell a new and untried gun in a global market that knows and understands the german equivalent (and probably already has it in service) - and which is backed up by a well established supply chain.

 

The finances involved in developing a new gun from scratch don't make this a viable proposition (I wish it did, but the world is a different place to what it was when the 120mm rifled cannons were developed).

 

Add to that if it has to fit into an existing turret design, then the physical location of the mount, loading systems, targeting systems etc would result in a weapon that would be a virtual duplication of the main gun already fitted. There's no need to waste time & money on re-inventing the wheel, it does the job needed and does it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, John Tapsell said:

There's a huge difference between developing a world-beater and actually being to sell it in large enough numbers to make it commercially viable. That's what it comes down to. A 'guaranteed' market of less than 200 guns with the possibility that you can sell a new and untried gun in a global market that knows and understands the german equivalent (and probably already has it in service) - and which is backed up by a well established supply chain.

 

The finances involved in developing a new gun from scratch don't make this a viable proposition (I wish it did, but the world is a different place to what it was when the 120mm rifled cannons were developed).

 

 

Hey John

Yep, I understand economies of scale, but, why does it have to be 'commercially viable', wouldn't it be nice to have things built to a standard and not a price, to develop a gun regardless of cost but as a technical exercise in order to remain at the top table this this field of engineering. Countries like Japan would develop military hardware not for export, and also Sweden formally would manufacture for it's own specification.

 

Britain historically would do this, it's why we have two new super expensive aircraft carriers, tank guns would be a drop in the ocean by comparison, built them for operational requirement and let export sales be a bonus and not a prerequisite

 

EDIT

 

As I understand it, the reason the L30A1 is being retired isn't because it's not an effective weapon, clearly it is, but the British Army tank regiments are out of ammo?? they got used up in the wars in the gulf??

Edited by Miko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/05/2021 at 02:30, Das Abteilung said:

What has been done has been done.  What has not been done has not been done.  We can all sit in our armchairs and pontificate and it will be interesting, possibly venomous, and entirely irrelevant.  CR3 will leverage a lot of current Leopard systems and will now have the smoothbore 120mm gun.  It remains an excellent stable gun platform with very good mobility because of the Hydragas suspension.  AFAIK there will be powertrain upgrades.  It is still extrememly survivable and is one of a very small number of tanks (Type 10? K2?) designed from the ground up to incorporate "Chobham"-type armour, rather than having it scabbed on later.  The Leopard's super-hard armour incorporating tungsten has not been as successful and was a key reason for its original rejection in favour of CR2.  With the add-on "Chobham" type armour packs the Leopard turret has become huge.

 

Having spent 3 decades working in defence procurement in MOD, one should not underestimate the logistic support cost implications of a complete change.  Much of CR2 will remain compatible with CR3, especially the mechanical parts that wear out most often and need most maintenance.  The tank will remain compatible with our various transport systems, ARVs, garaging etc.  However the turret systems and armament changes will still have fundamental impacts on supportability, the industrial supply chain and crew training and re-training.  Especially since the ill-conceived and poorly-implemented contractorisation of the repair and supply chains, where changes are opportunities for those contractors to demand more money because we couldn't afford the true cost of a contractorised service fully equivalent to the former in-house service under direct command and control.  If you want to question a doctrine, question the one that says that industry can do defence support better.  Because it sure isn't working out that way and is utterly fundamental to sustaining defence capability.

 

It seems that whenever Russian tanks are upgraded we all fear them yet when Western tanks are upgraded we all laugh at them, unless they're called Leopard.  From the comfort of our armchairs with a pint and packet of nuts.  Which I fail to understand.  T90 is to T72 what CR3 is to CR2.  Same with T84 and T80.  Although these were new builds rather than re-works, but T72s and T80s have been upgraded with compatible elements of T90 and T84.  Very many progressively upgraded T54s, 55s and 62s as well as earlier T72s are still out there in front-line service, including their Chinese clones and equivalents.  These are far more likely adversaries than the likes of T90 or T84, and are not to be underestimated. 

 

And we don't really know how good CR2/3 is against the Russian 125mm gun and its clones.  Look what happened when we examined Iranian Chieftain casualties in the Iran-Iraq war and discovered that the supposedly-invulnerable Chieftain had in fact been vulnerable to the T62's 115mm gun for 20 years since the mid-60's, but we just didn't know it.  That gun could penetrate 35% more armour with HEAT than the thickest part of Chieftain.  And by then the 125mm gun was around.  Hence Stillbrew.  The blue-on-blue hit referenced above did not strike the vehicle itself, just an open hatch cover, so that isn't a valid reference point.

 

As for keeping CR2s for later upgrades, that's another armchair idea.  They would need to be kept maintained in operable condition, at considerable expense.  Too many surplus and spare vehicles have been parked up without preparation or maintenance and converted to scrap.  Elements of the CR2 supply chain will need to be retained for this.  Some CR3 upgrades may need to be incorporated in order to prevent obsolescence beyond economic redemption.  We have had this problem with other vehicles kept untouched in War Reserve.  The unit cost of a second round of conversions will inevitably be higher, noting that most of the non-recurring costs are already sunk.  However it is unlikely that these can be identical several years down the line because of parts obsolescence: CR3A.  I imagine the unconverted older higher-mileage tanks may be stripped for spares, especially powerpacks, the composite armour removed and then scrapped or expended as targets.  Donating or selling them is unlikely, especially with just a single source of ammunition supply which now has an uncertain future as we expect to purchase smoothbore ammunition overseas rather than making it in the UK.  Cheaper ammunition was sold to HM Treasury as an offset for the capital gun change cost.  And we will have taken the best ones for conversion.

 

 

Truth.

 

Reminds me there was a time almost the complete Western World carried 105mm... not because we all had one single bandwagon nato tank. But because it was the best choice. Even now, when such a situation is reoccurring, some think it is the first ever big mistake. People are making choices for over thousands of years. No, it wasn't all perfect and no today we don't just make bad ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miko,

The ammo for the gun is in short supply yes but the real reason is the sabot dart is no longer able to penetrate the latest armour as it is not long enough! Moving to smoothbore ensures that ammo of the right quality is available throughout NATO and in plentiful supply.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan-o said:

Miko,

The ammo for the gun is in short supply yes but the real reason is the sabot dart is no longer able to penetrate the latest armour as it is not long enough! Moving to smoothbore ensures that ammo of the right quality is available throughout NATO and in plentiful supply.


translated for the brave: it is better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...