Uk Surges Ahead With Challenger 2 Upgrade

[Stuart Galbraith]

52 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said:

  It's more of an international tank as most of the British companies were bought out.

The sights and fire control were originally made by Pilkerton bought out by Thales. The engine was originally Rolls Royce. The one component it shared with the Abrams was a commanders viewer made general dynamics Canada. All the good component companies have changed hands due to the big defence contractor mergers in the 1990's 2000's.

Yes, thats exactly what happened.

There was something out of the fire control that was common to the Abrams, but I cant for the life of me remember who made it.

Basically, the British Government dumped tank production in much the way they dumped battleship production capacity, because they judged there was no further need for it. And once again they were found utterly wanting in their ability to predict the future.

[Wiedzmin]

some chobham targets backplates

 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Fv4211 hull (I think) without the Chobham armour.

 

[Harkonnen]

looks like 4211

[Stuart Galbraith]

What annoys me, this is a better armour layout than Challenger got.

[QOHC32]

16 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

some chobham targets backplates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just one penetration. What's the 127x60mm?

[Ssnake]

There's the OTO 127/64 VULCANO naval gun, but that didn't exist in 1981.

Usually 127mm x 60 suggests a case length of 60mm, which sounds really weird. So, yeah, it's a weird entry.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So, unless its refering to 60mm mortar (which I think we can probably rule out), the only one I can think of would appear to be the USN 5 In Naval gun. Which sounds absurd, except the RN did take delivery of a number of them in the rebuilding of HMS Dehli and were going to buy some more when the war ended. Its conceivable we might have held onto at least one for trials work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Delhi_(D47)

Why would I think they would use a 127mm gun? Perhaps it was the only gun available that came close to the Soviet 125mm gun, and with a round that would approximate a HE round. The nearest British guns are all either 113mm, 120mm or 140mm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-inch/38-caliber_gun

 

The 60? Might be a reference to the size of bagged charge used. I think a full charge was 7.3kg, the half charge 3.6kg. Maybe they used a special charge to approximate what performance they expected out of a Soviet gun?

 

No, Im not mad about the suggestion either, but I cant think of another one.

 

Edited October 27, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[methos]

3 hours ago, QOHC32 said:

Just one penetration. What's the 127x60mm?

It is a 127 mm shaped charge warhead with 60° cone angle used to simulate (future) Soviet missiles.

[Wiedzmin]

3 hours ago, QOHC32 said:

What's the 127x60mm?

 

standard 5in 60° cone HC(hollow charge) for armor trials 

there was also 5in 45°, 6in 45° , 6in 60° , 7in and 8in 40° etc

 

 

MBT80 Automative Test Rig

 

 

some CR1 or Shir proto's fuel tanks

Edited October 27, 2024 by Wiedzmin

[Stuart Galbraith]

Note to myself, never guess.

Thanks for clearing that up though.

 

As for the photos, I still think this is more related to FV4211 than MBT80, for the following reason.

https://tanknutdave.com/the-fv4211-main-battle-tank/

'It was decided to build a new tank, but use a lot of  the automotive components of the existing Chieftain. The new tank was to be called Chieftain Mk5/2, however this was later changed to FV4211 and nick named the Aluminium Chieftain, as it was to be constructed of aluminium instead of steel.

FVRDE completed the construction of the first aluminium hull with its armoured skirts within 13 months. A ballasted (filled with sand bags) Windsor turret was added to represent a fully weighted turret yet to be built, so the vehicle could complete its 12000 mile automotive trials and development. These presented some cracks from stress which were rectified.

This vehicle was designated MTR-1 and demonstrated the vehicle could support the new turret. MTR-1 was chopped up for further testing while a second hull was built at the Leeds Royal Ordnance Factory and fitted with the new turret.

The turret was designed to use No21 cupola and Advanced Integrated Fire Control System. Trials of the vehicle proved successful and it was decided to build a further 9 prototypes for trials by selected Regiments of the RAC. When the project was cancelled, the 9 prototypes were in various state of completion.'

 

Granted the photo says ATR-1 and its apparently from 1978.  However, the above vehicle seems to look nothing like ATR-1 component of MBT80, which supposedly looked like this (and very like ATR-2, or 'MBT80' that resides in the Bovington reserve collection). Or like Shir 2 for that matter.

https://tanknutdave.com/the-british-mbt80-project/

If its using Chieftain subcomponents, it seems likely that it must be the first prototype of Aluminium Chieftain, the one that got chopped.

[Wiedzmin]

17 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for the photos, I still think this is more related to FV4211 than MBT80, for the following reason.

if you interested here is Ed Webster post about it on FB

 

Quote

This is the elusive ATR-1 (Automotive Test Rig) from the MBT-80 development program dated 13th of November 1978.  Built at Christchurch out of Aluminium alloy to help investigate new materials to FV.1318 which had been used previously on the FV.4211 and found to be unsuitable to sustained ballistic strikes. This hull used MVEE Spec 570 alloy and K74S for the side plates.
Other than the materials the hull is built to the same layout and design as the FV.4211 with minor differences. The turret remained a Windsor ballast type. The use of an aluminium alloy structure would influence the next vehicle ATR-2 which was made of half steel and half aluminium explosively welded together. ATR-1 would end its days being tested on mines with its front effectively destroyed the rest was scrapped. ATR-2 gathers dust at the VCC in Bovington. No MBT-80 was ever made. 
Specs.
Weight: 56 tonnes
Length: 7.72m 
Width: 3.91m
Height: 3.07m
Crew: 2
Main armament: none
FC system: none
Engine: Leyland L60
Trans: TN12

 

Edited October 27, 2024 by Wiedzmin

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

if you interested here is Ed Webster post about it on FB

 

 

Thank you, that does explain a great many things.

So we have a problem. Either they reused the designation 'ATR-1' twice, or Tanknut dave is wrong and ATR-1 he pictured is... somthing else.

Agreed MBT 80 never existed in prototype form. The one at Bovington is elements they cobbled together from elements of the test program. Its not clear they would ever have been used.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Could be awkward in some circumstances.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Could be awkward in some circumstances.

 

The presentation refers to Trophy's previous generation, where it was simply a radar with no added sensors. Since then, Trophy received a silent operation capability that switches the radar on and off depending on the situation. 

So right now it's more of a race to see how and if other vendors can eat into the Trophy supply chain, rather than a process of replacement.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Have you got a source for the latest versions that can do that? I should like to read up on that.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Have you got a source for the latest versions that can do that? I should like to read up on that.

It's not really the latest. It was just late to arrive in Europe. By 2021 Israel had a full brigade operational with the system. Tanks fielded with the Silent Mode Trophy are named Merkava 4M-400, a midlife upgrade before the Barak.

Since then Rafael has also added capabilities against UAVs, which require further tinkering with the sensors, particularly with how the radar operates.

https://euro-trophy.de/news/eurotrophy-introduces-trophy-aps-silent-mode/

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thanks for that.

[Damian]

45 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thanks for that.

Here is video where Trophy destroys a drone.

Also I was present during presentation of Trophy by Rafael here in Warsaw, where for the first time, they shown how Trophy defeated a quadcopter.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Wow. I REALLY hope that is the version we are getting.

Presumably this has a real chance of working against Lancet?

Edited November 11, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Mighty_Zuk]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Wow. I REALLY hope that is the version we are getting.

Presumably this has a real chance of working against Lancet?

Yes of course. It was tested not only against small quadcopters but proper LMs.

Edited November 11, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[North_Eleanor]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:36 PM, alejandro_ said:

Thanks for your impressions, if you were using a translator the result was very good, as there was no problem understanding your message. In terms of issues, do you find the thermal camera using the gun stabilization to be a problem? It is usually one of the things that Challenger 2 crews would improve, and Vickers did offer a more advanced version for export with a camera with independent stabilization.

Hello! Sorry for the long delay in my response. The thermal imager on the Challenger 2 tank is excellent, with no issues at all, very high resolution, and overall, it has impressive functionality. As for its positioning above the gun, it's not a serious problem. The thermal imager is generally used at ranges up to 2.5 km, and in most cases, even closer. Shooting issues while using the thermal imager only arise beyond 4 km, but that distance is very rarely used for firing.

[North_Eleanor]

On 24.10.2024 at 17:25, Wobbly Head said:

Це скоріше міжнародний танк, оскільки більшість британських компаній були викуплені.

The fact that a company has been acquired does not mean it ceases to be British. Typically, only the ownership changes, while its facilities remain in place, as does the original legal address. A name change is one way for parent companies to make their brand more prominent. For example, there is MBDA UK, which is a British company that conducts production within the UK, using local expertise. However, this approach is not used for all companies.

[alejandro_]

22 minutes ago, North_Eleanor said:

The thermal imager on the Challenger 2 tank is excellent, with no issues at all, very high resolution, and overall, it has impressive functionality. As for its positioning above the gun, it's not a serious problem. The thermal imager is generally used at ranges up to 2.5 km, and in most cases, even closer. Shooting issues while using the thermal imager only arise beyond 4 km, but that distance is very rarely used for firing.

Hello, no problem. Thanks for the answer, Challenger 2E had a more advanced sight with independent stabilization, but in Ukraine it probably does not matter. This is from a former crew member I interviewed a few years ago:

Challenger 2 is equipped with thermal sights. Can you comment on the use, especially in night conditions? Did you also use it during the day? At what distances you could detect and identify vehicles and personnel?

Again, specific capabilities are still classified, however the TI on challenger is very similar to that of Abram. We do use it during the day, as well as at night, to pick up targets, particularly well camouflaged targets in wood lines.

The thermal camera for the gunner is placed on top of the mantlet and uses the gun stabilization. Do you think this configuration is a disadvantage against independently stabilised sights?

It is absolutely a disadvantage and one that is has been addressed on the new concepts, along with the smoothbore gun. The main reason being that you lose the hunter-killer capability that you have during the day; the commander picking up targets and handing them off to the gunner, while the commander continues scanning.

Again, I think its another sign of the platforms age and something that is high on the list of things to upgrade.

https://alejandro-8en.blogspot.com/2021/02/interview-with-former-crew-member-of.html

[Stuart Galbraith]

They should have updated them a decade ago, and its only treasury parsimony and MOD stupidity meant they dragged their feet for so long. Mind you, they have been conspiring to get rid of tanks for the past 24 years, and now its starting to bite them on the ass. Couldnt happen to more deserving people.

As far as thermal range, the minimum you can take is 3.5km, because thats what it says in the manual about Togs fitted in challenger 1. Supposedly it was a little refined for Challenger 2, so 4 km sounds entirely believable, but you arent going to id anything at that range, clearly.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith