A Challenger-2 was penetrated by RPG-29

[Ssnake]

...I would suggest that before assuming Challenger2 is terribly vulnerable, the insurgents have clearly made it a priority 1 target for the last 4 years to knock one out. In all that time (and despite Irans assistance) so far they have only managed 3 damaged, which strikes me as particularly impressive, and hopefully it will remain that way. Lets keep it in perspective.

 

Exactly. It reminds me of the hysteria that ensued in Greece after the recent trials where two out of 30 tank gun shots against the Leo 2A6 GR turret front managed to penetrate (and even then I recall that they were partial penetrations only). I'd never imagined that 30 freakin' round could be stopped so I would rather have rated the test an impressive success, and not as the failure as it was reported.

 

The Challenger crew survived. I'm very sorry for the driver, but he just lost a foot not the whole leg or both or his life. There's hundreds of motorcycle drivers worldwide who lose a foot and more every year in traffic accidents. I think the Challenger crews still have every reason to feel well protected. I don't think that any tank crew expects more than "pretty good" protection, at least I didn't during my active time.

[QOHC32]

Exactly. It reminds me of the hysteria that ensued in Greece after the recent trials where two out of 30 tank gun shots against the Leo 2A6 GR turret front managed to penetrate (and even then I recall that they were partial penetrations only). I'd never imagined that 30 freakin' round could be stopped so I would rather have rated the test an impressive success, and not as the failure as it was reported.

 

As a genuine Greek tank lover, i'd like to thank you for your statement

[D Simcock]

Did the ERA fail, or was it instead defeated by a tandem warhead?

What are the penetration figures for an RPG-7 and and RPG-29? Maybe these can now provide some clues as to how thick Challenger 2's bow armour is (or isn't).

If it was a tandem charge and this defeated the ERA, is there a better package to add? Maybe armoured plate akin to that on Leopard 2 A5's and A6's which give a degree of standoff between the detonating warhead and the main armour array. That might get a bit heavy though...

 

Does any tank have bow armour that can reliably hold out heavy shoulder launched AT rockets? I'd contest whether the M1A2 or the Leopard 2A6 can do this, unless their bows have composite armour. Did either get bow armour upgrades over the original versions? It's contestable whether even turret armour was upgraded on the M1A2 I think, from reading the Jane's Armour and Arttillery entry on it at least, but that's another story.

[Burncycle360]

Did the ERA fail, or was it instead defeated by a tandem warhead?

 

That's what I'm wondering.

 

The warhead is definitely tandem. I'm thinking the precursor charge did it's job and set off the ERA

Edited May 16, 2007 by Burncycle360

[Guest pfcem]

Did the ERA fail, or was it instead defeated by a tandem warhead?

That perhaps lies at the heart of the situation. Did the ERA fail to function properly & thus "allowing" the warhead to penetrate when it otherwise should not have or did the RPG-26's dual charge warhead actually defeat the ERA & have sufficient penetration to defeat the bow armor of the tank?

 

I wonder if this situation could be similar to that Abrams which was penetrated from the side when the warhead happend to hit right at a "weak spot" in between two skirts...if THIS warhead hit right at a "weak spot" in between the ERA blocks...

 

 

 

What are the penetration figures for an RPG-7 and and RPG-29?

Most sources credit the RPG-7VR & RPG-29 (which use the same 105mm dual charge warhead) with being able to penetrate 750mm of RHAe after defeating ERA.

 

 

 

Maybe these can now provide some clues as to how thick Challenger 2's bow armour is (or isn't).

Other than to say that it probably is not more than 750mm RHAe at the exact spot of this hit...

 

 

 

If it was a tandem charge and this defeated the ERA, is there a better package to add?

Reguardless, yes there are packages available which would provide better protection.

 

 

 

Maybe armoured plate akin to that on Leopard 2 A5's and A6's which give a degree of standoff between the detonating warhead and the main armour array. That might get a bit heavy though...

To get the required angle for "wedge" armor to be effective would add considerable length to an already rather long tank.

 

 

 

Does any tank have bow armour that can reliably hold out heavy shoulder launched AT rockets? I'd contest whether the M1A2 or the Leopard 2A6 can do this, unless their bows have composite armour. Did either get bow armour upgrades over the original versions?

Yes the M1A2 bow armor is upgraded/increased (not a lot) over the original M1. I would assume that the Leopard 2A6 bow armor is upgraded/increased over the original Leopard 2.

 

 

 

It's contestable whether even turret armour was upgraded on the M1A2 I think, from reading the Jane's Armour and Arttillery entry on it at least, but that's another story.

My understanding is that the M1A2 turret armor is the same as that which was introduced on the M1A1(HA)+ which was a significant increase over the "original" M1A1(HA).

[DemolitionMan]

Sorry for asking, but I found very few sources about that incident in 2003 where a CR2 was immobilized (?) and then received multiple hits of all kinds of weapons, including a MILAN before being assisted or recovered. Does anyone have more information about that? When I first heard about that it reminded me of some stories about the Tiger tank.

[mcantu]

Holy mackerel. I never knew the C2's had that much ERA strapped to them, surprising.

 

Anyone have piccies of the rear flank? Does the add-on ERA kit extend to the back of the turret/hull?

 

 

The ERA is only on the hull front. The turret and hull sides have add-on composite armor (Dorchester?) and the rear hull and turret have slat armor...

 

[Catalan]

Hmm, the Osprey book claims those side hull panels are Dorchester Level 2 protection (ERA).

[Yish]

RPG-29s were used widely against Merkavas of various models in Lebanon. Would be quite interesting to see the penetration figures, which probably would not be released for a while.

[m4a1]

RPG-29s were used widely against Merkavas of various models in Lebanon. Would be quite interesting to see the penetration figures, which probably would not be released for a while.

BTW, do you know if frontal turret/upper front hull of merkava-4 were penetrated by rpg-29?

[Yish]

BTW, do you know if frontal turret/upper front hull of merkava-4 were penetrated by rpg-29?

No, and it would probably be a bad idea for me to post it if I did....

As it is I'm free to speculate with the rest of you.

[richard_lin]

RPG-29 sure can penetrate MK4 on frontal armor, cause the upper frontal glacis is not very thick. The forward warhead can penetrate nearly 400mm RHA, and the later one is 750mm RHA. You may estimate the real penetration of RPG-29.

[gorf]

RPG-29s were used widely against Merkavas of various models in Lebanon. Would be quite interesting to see the penetration figures, which probably would not be released for a while.

No, unlike the ATGMs, RPGs were not used widely.

 

RPG-29 sure can penetrate MK4 on frontal armor, cause the upper frontal glacis is not very thick. The forward warhead can penetrate nearly 400mm RHA, and the later one is 750mm RHA. You may estimate the real penetration of RPG-29.

Its penetration is 600 mm behind ERA.

[zakk]

RPG-29 sure can penetrate MK4 on frontal armor

Since you are such an expert on the armour of the Merkava 4, would you care to give us a run-down on the armour composition and consequent estimation of the RHAe of the Merkava 4s frontal armour?

 

cause the upper frontal glacis is not very thick.

Compared to what?

[richard_lin]

Since you are such an expert on the armour of the Merkava 4, would you care to give us a run-down on the armour composition and consequent estimation of the RHAe of the Merkava 4s frontal armour?

 

Compared to what?

 

 

well, MK4 is angry.

 

I mean upper front glacis...it's not thicker than 500mm(horizen).

[zakk]

I mean upper front glacis...it's not thicker than 500mm(horizen).

And what is the RHAe of the upper front glacis?

 

You know, 500mm of RHA is not the same against HEAT as 500mm RHA/ceramic/whatever/NERA-mix...

[richard_lin]

And what is the RHAe of the upper front glacis?

 

You know, 500mm of RHA is not the same against HEAT as 500mm RHA/ceramic/whatever/NERA-mix...

 

the top of engine. but given the liner is W, ceramics, glassfiber or whatever is not effactive as to copper.

 

Well, zakk, come on you may use ERA, ha?

Edited May 20, 2007 by richard_lin

[zakk]

the top of engine. but given the liner is W, ceramics, glassfiber or whatever is not effactive as to copper.

 

Well, zakk, come on you may use ERA, ha?

?