challenger front armour layout

[dejawolf]

this is what i believe the front hull layout of the challenger 2 looks like, based on a tamiya plastic model of the challenger, some pictures from a documentary the challenger 1 manual, and the size of a human being:

 

this is a side cutaway of the challenger hull.

 

basically there's no room for the legs of the driver if the lower front hull was thicker, which is why i believe its only a thin RHA steel plate which protects against 30mm max, without addon armour.

Edited November 1, 2009 by dejawolf

[Przezdzieblo]

Compare with one ot the uparmour variant for Chieftain Mk 5/2 --> click

("Burlington files", thanks to jakec)

[dejawolf]

Compare with one ot the uparmour variant for Chieftain Mk 5/2 --> click

("Burlington files", thanks to jakec)

yes, there's definitely a similarity.

[Guest JamesG123]

That jells with reports of Challengers being penetrated by RPG and IEDs on the lower front hull.

[Damian]

There were more than 5-6 FV4034's attacked in Iraq and damaged + one destroyed by F-F.

 

But IED's attacking lower front hull? You mean belly, then yes.

 

Such lower front hull armor layout is because of defensive doctrine in tank vs. tank fight in British Army? I mean, fighting from prepared positions or hull down positions right?

 

BTW now after adding this Dorchester armor bolt on module protection should be similiar to newer M1's lower front hull protection right? Well, for the first look module have similiar thickness to lower front hull armor cavietie in M1, something about 550mm LOS.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Damian

[Vasiliy Fofanov]

Such lower front hull armor layout is because of defensive doctrine in tank vs. tank fight in British Army? I mean, fighting from prepared positions or hull down positions right?

 

It's just a compromise so that you can allocate more armor to statistically more significant portions of the profile, hoping the terrain screen will protect from low hits. You can see the same compromise on Soviet tanks.

[Guest JamesG123]

But IED's attacking lower front hull? You mean belly, then yes.

 

No, there was a case a couple of years ago where a Challenger was hit by an IED where the driver lost his legs, which implies that the hit was at the very front of the hull or the lower glacsis.

[philgollin]

Could you PM the TNA:PRO number to me, I'm doing two or three days there in about two weeks time (mainly ships).

 

.

[Przezdzieblo]

There is a very good document on the national archive that discusses the various AFV formats that were looked at pre Challenger1

I would be interested in it, too

[Lampshade111]

I think this setup provides a good explanation, but I highly doubt that RHA plate is only 30mm thick.

 

Regarding that Chieftain Mark 5/2, I am presuming that was a concept to up-armor the Chieftain with Burlington (or Chobham) armor? Any relation to the Chieftain 900?

Edited November 2, 2009 by Lampshade111

[Lieste]

Dunno, I read the original comment as protected against 30mm, rather than 30mm of protection, but either way it is 'barely there' - the tank equivalent of lingerie.

[dejawolf]

Its worth reminding you, the Reactive armour block is now obsolescent. The latest version have a block of what appears to be composite armour on the bow front. It was introduced after the IED, which suggests that yes, that was a vulnerable area. I know, ive measured it. Looking at the hull front, its likely been resolved now. I think you can probably take it to the bank it wont deploy without it fitted.

 

Its unclear why this happened. Certainly its a leftover from Challenger1, but British army doctrine apparently wasnt always to fight hull down. I can only assume that this was due to the Shir2 being speced that way, and the Challenger1 being rushed into service, they never got around to addressing it till 1991. The armour on MBT80 in the hull front I think was going to be as thick as that on the turret front, certainly on the hull glacis anyway. it suggest the layout on that may have been similar to that drawing of the Chobham Chieftain.

 

There is a very good document on the national archive that discusses the various AFV formats that were looked at pre Challenger1. Ive the document number if anyone is interested in looking it up. Suffice to say its not the optimum layout, which supports the MODs claim that Challenger1 was an interim design.

 

DW, you may want to have a word with Commander, he is writing a book on Challenger2 at the moment. Suffice to say if you want a baseline, Challenger1 (without uparmour) is quoted as 315-370mm on the hull glacis. (that is also before you include the glacis uparmour plate, which Challenger2 has also had fitted) The hull power plug socket of the Challenger2 I measured (which really was a Challenger1 hull) was about 30mm, though it remains unclear how representive it was of the surrounding plate.

 

ok. who is Commander?

[Harkonnen]

It's just a compromise so that you can allocate more armor to statistically more significant portions of the profile, hoping the terrain screen will protect from low hits. You can see the same compromise on Soviet tanks.

 

Eevery tank may be a compromisse, but may be you can support " same compromise on Soviet tanks" with more details like size of lower detail weekened area? Is it "same"&

[Harkonnen]

this is what i believe the front hull layout of the challenger 2 looks like, based on a tamiya plastic model of the challenger, some pictures from a documentary the challenger 1 manual, and the size of a human being:

 

this is a side cutaway of the challenger hull.

 

basically there's no room for the legs of the driver if the lower front hull was thicker, which is why i believe its only a thin RHA steel plate which protects against 30mm max, without addon armour.

 

front armour layout on the picture does not have no similiarities to challenger 2/1. It is rather insane picture.

[DKTanker]

front armour layout on the picture does not have no similiarities to challenger 2/1. It is rather insane picture.

You must be the life of the party.

[Lieste]

You must be the life of the party.

 

He is famous comedienne.

[dejawolf]

He is famous comedienne.

too much vodka make bear dizzy.

Edited November 5, 2009 by dejawolf

[dejawolf]

i think this is what fofanov meant about the similarity between the designs. a thick composite glacis, with a thin RHA lower hull.

 

by comparison, the abrams and leclerc has a thin but heavily sloped glacis, with a thick composite/spaced lower hull.

[Przezdzieblo]

Harkonnen, what is wrong with dejawolf`s drawing?

[DKTanker]

Harkonnen, what is wrong with dejawolf`s drawing?

Good luck with that.

[Harkonnen]

Harkonnen, what is wrong with dejawolf`s drawing?

 

It does not similiar to the Chellenge1/2r hull. Maybe to some "chobhaim" pictures, but not the tank, it is clearly evident.

[Harkonnen]

He is famous comedienne.

 

?

[Lampshade111]

On that Chieftain Mark 5/2 sketch, why is the glacis plate protruding forward and overlapping the lower hull plate like that?

 

Anybody have some more information on that concept BTW?

[Przezdzieblo]

Modest input in early British special tank armour development story:

part 1, pages 111-128 (1942-1964; spaced, ribbed, etc.)

part 2, pages 105-130 (1964-1976; yes, "Chobham").

Articles are written in Polish, but with simple ilustrations and references to English-language literature given. Based on unclassified sources only.

It is NOT about Challenger tanks, but about earlier projects, maybe someone find it interesting.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Przezdzieblo