M1 Abrams vs Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2 vs Leclerc

[Stuart Galbraith]

It's funny, I completely  don't remember that in the Haynes book, but I'm convinced you are right. But 25 percent? That seems extraordinarily  high.

[GJK]

25% doesn't sound that extreme when one considers that power pack failure is the most likely cause of a failure on a road march.  Improving a major source of unreliability should give a decent return.

Best,

Greg.

[Harkonnen]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:13 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Was it really that bad? Ive not read of any particular problems in Operation Granby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26 by Harkonnen

[Stuart Galbraith]

Which is interesting, but should be refered to whilst reading pat cordinglys book saying serviceability improved when they fitted the sideskirts, because the dust ingestion  went down. Could all that dust affect turret components? Don't know, but I would suggest it's at least a possibility. I can imagine TOGS right out there on the turret edge being hit hard.

It's also been suggested serviceability in BAOR was impaired due to lack of spare parts. I remember in one of Bob Grffins books he said availability in Operation  Granby was relatively good.. But they had to strip all the Challenger 1s in BAOR to do it.

 

[Interlinked]

Parts replacements happens after failure occurs. A tank might have been very well serviced with plenty of spares and operational availability might be high, but the tank would still be junk that has to go through the ship of theseus treatment twice a day.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, I dont disagree. But im illustrating that lack of spare parts in BAOR may have contributed to that apparently high failure rate. Were they always replacing parts that warranted it, or just running them till they broke?

And track miles. With Chieftain its been stated reliablity went up the more it was run. If they were leaving the tanks in a shed for x months and then doing a major exercise, it cant be surprising that they show up all kinds of faults they didnt know they had. Which say more about the funding BAOR got, then it says about how reliable the tank was.

It still doesnt address the fact that the report was compiled during the exercise period, before dust suppression occured due to the side skirts. If it was still suffering the same failure rate at that point, yes, its concerning. But still seems at variance at what patrick cordingley wrote in his book, that reliability improved when they put the uparmour packs on.

So, who do I believe? An MOD Bureaucrat justifying funding the next generation Challenger 2 entering prototype phase? Or the guy commanding 7th Armoured Brigade, whom presumably would be in a position to know best?

 

 

Edited March 27 by Stuart Galbraith

[Interlinked]

Well, if it's normal for parts to break after a trip down to the corner store, that also doesn't say good things. I'm sure that if you had a warehouse of brand new tanks and drove a new one each day, you would never encounter a breakdown. But you wouldn't conclude that the tank is reliable. The suggestion that it needs that many parts replacements on a regular basis is, on the contrary, extremely suggestive that the reliability was extremely bad, which it was.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, im sorry, that is not what im saying.

If you leave a tank sitting a long time, the seals break, stuff stops working. Things corrode. If there were limitations on track miles in BAOR, and I know at certain times there were, then leaving tanks to sit in barracks, as opposed to sitting in a maintained dryclad shelter in reserve, is not good for them. This was certainly the case for Chieftain. I dont know this was the case for challenger 1, but knowing the way BAOR was treated for funds, It strikes me as at least a possibility that should be considered.

Its very clear to me there was not enough spare parts bought for Challenger 1, something that is also crippling Challenger 2's availability at the moment. So if you dont run tanks often because you dont have enough spares to operate them very often, and just sit in a shed being polished, what happens when you go to use them? Thats right, they break.

I should add, no, Im not sure of this, its speculation on my part. But when you read books by the guys using them, that dont reveal what they think are excessive breakdowns in service (and by service, I predominatly mean being in the desert or the former Yugoslavia) then Ive got to believe them. Challenger 1 was a step up in reliablity, from what is seemingly shown here, Chieftain levels of reliability. That simply wasnt the perception in service, at least automotively.

Granted, they ARE judging it against Chieftain, after which even a Bob Semple would probably seem to be a step up in reliablity, but...

You cant simply yank a piece of paper out of MOD files, completely out of the context of when it was written or why it was written, and say 'proved'. Yes, Its very interesting, but is it case closed? Ive got to say no.

 

 

Edited March 27 by Stuart Galbraith

[Sardaukar]

I wonder who came up with driver's vision block and (lack of) armour in Challenger 3...it just screams "shoot me here!"

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well, they have tried in 3 wars, and its not happened yet. I can only put it down to the mythical 'shot trap' that some folks ascribe to the Leopard 2. Yes, in theory, but has it ever happened? No. Its a tiny area to hit, particularly when the uparmour is fitted to the hull glacis.

Funny thing, I was looking at a photograph of the latest prototype, and if anything, it looks a little narrower. Perhaps its just  perspective doing it, but look on the right hand side and you will see what I mean.

 

[Sardaukar]

Well, it definitely is a weak spot. 

Some think that Leopard 2's additional wedge armour would cause ricochets downwards, but that is just complete ignorance how modern APDSFS works. 

[old_goat]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, in theory, but has it ever happened? No. Its a tiny area to hit,

Thats because CR2 barely fought in any wars... Its a massive weakspot, not a tiny area. Why am I saying this? Check combat experience with T-72s in ukraine. You could say that the gap between Kontakt-5 blocks on T-72B turret is tiny, (it definitely is, compared to the huge weakspot on CR2)  insignificant. In reality, there were multiple cases when this gap was hit by ATGMs and caused the destruction of the tank. It even happened with ukrainian Bulats, with tighter ERA coverage. 

Edited March 27 by old_goat

[Stuart Galbraith]

So we are actually basing an evaluation of Challenger 2, based on the performance of T72?

 

[bojan]

He is basing it on the size of the weakened zones, and on Chally series those are even larger than on T-xx.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Which again, still doesnt explain why it doesnt actually seem to exhibit this problem in combat. Because you know, this is Challenger's 3rd war now. Still waiting for those prophets of doom to be proven right.

In 2003 the Iraqis had 2 chances to make it happen. They had that example you already know about, where they trapped a Challenger 2 on a causeway. You know what happened, the vehicle survived, and was returned to service inside 48 hours. And that was despite being plugged with all kinds of weapons, including Milan.

Another occasion  in Basra a Challenger 2 came up to what it thought was a derelict T55, that was in fact still manned. It was a near point blank shot, possibly the best chance the Iraqis had of hitting the 'weak spot', and they still missed. Left a big scorch mark on the glacis plate, and took a headlight out. And that was pretty much that. Got a picture of that too somewhere.

Because you know, its not actually as big as you think, particularly when they put the uparmour on. I know, Ive stood in front of one, have taken photographs of it. Its so damn small, im pretty sure my ass would get stuck climbing into it. Granted that probably says far more about my fat ass than it does the drivers hatch, but still, its not quite as big as you think. The hatch area, not my ass that is.

Is it   possible? Yes. Its also vaguely possible a round could skip under the turret armour and go through the turret ring.  I got photos of that too. That hasnt happened yet either.

For the past 25 years on this grate site, I keep hearing this. Well ok, show me evidence of it actually happening, and Ill agree.  Im more worried about the vehicles vulnerability to drones, than I am a shot trap that never seems to pay off.

 

Edited March 28 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

I am afraid that you are missing a point, there was not enough times that Cs were subject to enough attacks for it's weakened zones to really show. Like Ukraine showed issues with practically every tank involved, despite lot of them being through other wars where such issues either did not show or were marginal cases. It is not a blow toward C in particular, as all tanks have such compromises, only question is how C's weakened zoned would affect it in high intensity war vs at least near peer opponent and not vs disorganized 3rd world army.

[Interlinked]

It's hopeless...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, here is my reasoning. Im sure it will make little impact, but here we are.

The only time I think this could reasonably be caused a problem is a close range infantry threat. They need accurate weapons, and they need to be near directly in front of the vehicle at close range to be sure of a hit. That isnt particularly likely, and probably wont be likely, because tanks dont like to get that close to infantry for obvious reasons. It didnt turn up in Basra or Al Amarah, which was the best opportunity infantry had of making it happen. So you are left with the question, if it didnt happen with months of combat duty in iraq (including attacks with Iranian EFPs incidentally) when precisely is this going to happen?

The only other chance of it happening is long range tank fire. I think we can probably rule out HEAT, because thats plunging fire. So you are left with APFSDS, say 1000-2000 metres, within 10-15 degrees of centreline of the tank. And yes, the further you go out, the wider that zone is. But the further off you are, the more likely its to be plunging fire, which I believe the vehicle is well protected against. So you need to be in a tank, 1000-2000 metres directly in front of Challenger 2, direct fire with APFSDS, with the C2 stood out in the open, not hull down. Yes, you can do that, if you wish. I submit this is a really lousy place to be engaging the tank from, particularly one equipped with thermal sights and a gun that can reach out 5km, equipped with DU ammunition. But yes, someone with a deathwish will probably get lucky that one time if they try it. I submit he probably isnt going to be around to brag about it on the internet if that tank isnt operating alone, but never mind, im sure all the warthunder players will be finally vindicated.

There is of course long range missile fire. I cant rule that out. OTOH, the vehicle in C3 guise is going to be getting israeli APS. I submit if that doesnt solve the problem, then worrying about the drivers vision episcope is going to be the least of their problems, because there is a more vulnerable area than the episcope. Could it be a problem for challenger 2? Sure, if the gun is traversed to the side, though again, seeing as the turret side isnt well protected, id be more worried about it hitting that instead. if the turret is directly in front, you have, in my view at least, more chance of hitting the barrel and the mantlet than the episcope. Yes, conceivably its just about possible. Is it likely? Not really, no. Try playing with a 1-16 scale model and you will see what a small area it is. You would do better to take a flank shot at the turret. Manoeuvring for a frontal shot in the hope you can put one through the drivers scope is just wierd reasoning.

'Hasnt seem much combat'. So that was 48 hours of high intensity combat in Granby, we can count that because its largely the same hull, several weeks of high intensity conflict in 2003, several years of medium and low intensity conflict. I honestly think the people that think Challenger didnt see much conflict, really should go back and read some of the books im reading. Im hardly a great reader these days, but one can look at Niall Edgeworthys MBT for a start, at the very least the Osprey book Yes, its seen combat, and yes, it should have shown up by now. Until the Ukraine war, Challenger was lauded as the most battle experienced tank from Europe. Are we supposed to forget that now, just because the Leopard 2 has been bloodied? This is retroactive reclassification, and its very strange.

No, Im not going to be arrogant and say 'it can never happen'. Strange stuff does on a battlefield.  I still remember reading about that dateline article showing an RPG saying 'This thousand dollar weapon can kill this 2 million dollar Abrams tank'. And it remains true. How often ultimately did that prove true either?

I think you all are worrying about a problem that, to my mind at least, is not really there, and have never really discussed the one that is, the bow. There is a reason why the British army keeps throwing armour at that area. Its the only place the Challenger 2 has been successfully penetrated by enemy fire, and im far from certain int he C3 upgrade whether its been much rectified. We shall see. I measured it on the Challenger 2 prototype that had the power plug missing at bovington, and I was alarmed by what I read. Well, as Bob Griffin said, it WAS a prototype. I still think they could have done better though.

Ill leave it there, because he more I post the more I sound like a disgrunted middle aged keyboard warrior, and lets face it, its boring. Respectfully to you all, and as always its respectful, I dont agree.

 

Edited March 28 by Stuart Galbraith

[Mighty_Zuk]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which again, still doesnt explain why it doesnt actually seem to exhibit this problem in combat. Because you know, this is Challenger's 3rd war now. Still waiting for those prophets of doom to be proven right.

In 2003 the Iraqis had 2 chances to make it happen. They had that example you already know about, where they trapped a Challenger 2 on a causeway. You know what happened, the vehicle survived, and was returned to service inside 48 hours. And that was despite being plugged with all kinds of weapons, including Milan.

Another occasion  in Basra a Challenger 2 came up to what it thought was a derelict T55, that was in fact still manned. It was a near point blank shot, possibly the best chance the Iraqis had of hitting the 'weak spot', and they still missed. Left a big scorch mark on the glacis plate, and took a headlight out. And that was pretty much that. Got a picture of that too somewhere.

Because you know, its not actually as big as you think, particularly when they put the uparmour on. I know, Ive stood in front of one, have taken photographs of it. Its so damn small, im pretty sure my ass would get stuck climbing into it. Granted that probably says far more about my fat ass than it does the drivers hatch, but still, its not quite as big as you think. The hatch area, not my ass that is.

Is it   possible? Yes. Its also vaguely possible a round could skip under the turret armour and go through the turret ring.  I got photos of that too. That hasnt happened yet either.

For the past 25 years on this grate site, I keep hearing this. Well ok, show me evidence of it actually happening, and Ill agree.  Im more worried about the vehicles vulnerability to drones, than I am a shot trap that never seems to pay off.

 

I agree with the goat here. The CR2 simply did not see enough combat. It was said already, so I'll clarify - The CR2 did not see enough RELEVANT combat. 

Until recently, a modern tank design could get away with some weakspots. Actually, not that recently. In one interview about the Merkava 4 I read they removed the loader's hatch specifically because they wanted armor continuity. Eventually they added that hatch because it wasn't worth it, but it demonstrates that it's not really a small matter. Naturally, the top part of a tank would be more likely to be hit than something like the driver's hatch, but we have seen in both Ukraine and Gaza that the paradigm has changed.

20 years ago an adversary probably couldn't afford to aim for weakspots, but today that's very different.

In Ukraine we can see that drone operators can afford to linger around a tank and aim for open hatches, armor gaps, and critical unarmored areas like the engine deck.

In Gaza we've seen Hamassies sticking magnetic charges on weakspots such as the turret ring area and rear hatch. 

Both involve a strike capability that allows the attacker to choose the area of attack and angle of penetration. 

But wait - you might ask - the Gaza experience could have been easily replicated in Iraq. It's not hi-tech. Well, theoretically yes. But Hamas's tunnel warfare strategy and infrastructure, which took over a decade to build, are unparalleled in any past conflict, and are only likely to proliferate to other theaters. 

If we look for example again at Ukraine, we can see that Bradleys appear, at least superficially, to be more survivable than the average western tank, despite being quite old itself. They don't have nearly the same level of frontal protection as an MBT, but from the sides and top they're better armored when equipped with BRAT. This demonstrates all around protection being superior to ultra directional protection. But it's not enough. The Bradley still has exploitable weakspots which are indeed exploited.

Edited March 28 by Mighty_Zuk

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The only other chance of it happening is long range tank fire. I think we can probably rule out HEAT, because thats plunging fire.

Aside from the dubious claim that the sole alternative to an RPG to the face is tank fire (e.g., FPVs, as already mentioned, are a thing now), your ballistic analysis is demonstrably incorrect; at 3,500m range, the fall angle of a not atypical Russian HEAT round is far less dramatic than it may look like from a gunner's point of view:

 

You still need to hit that weak spot, of course, but just like shot dispersion may help the target in case of accurately aimed fire, Lady Luck may help the shooter if his aim is not absolutely perfect, particularly at longer ranges.

The absence of known anecdotes where a Challenger was hit in this place cannot negate a rather simple geometric fact.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Sure, I already mention the FPV's. But I was hearing this story LONG before they were an actual thing. Way back  in 1998 I heard prophets of doom predicting instant death through the episcope from gunfire and RPGs. And yet still we wait.

  I have to suggest if you want to knock one out with a drone, far easier to do it through the bow if you have a warhead that can do it, or just plunge the damn  thing through the engine deck. The cooling fans are right there. it would be easy to start an engine fire (as indeed happened when someone put a ATGM through the hull rear). So why are we fixated on this epsicope, which is going to be  difficult to target if the tanks is on the move and the stab is moving?  As you can see from the video below.

On the move, the vast majority of the attacks from drones would seem to come from the rear. Statically, the majority I have seen have come from the sides or the rear.  One thing is for sure, you are easily not going to drop a RKG3 grenade on it, because If you are in line up with the drivers hatch, you have the mantlet overhanging the scope. You also have the gun in the way. if you traverse something like 45 degrees, you still have the edge of the turret roof in the way.

I also do not understand how a 125mm HEAT shell is likely to traverse both those obstacles, and go in the episcope. APFSDS? No argument.  My point about getting there to take the shot still stands. I think the only likely circumstances I could see that happening is ambush, and thats why we have recce, yes, and drones.

 

 

But we arent talking about luck. The narrative has always been the tank is  vulnerable because there is a big Death Star style shot aperture, just waiting for a skilled opponent to put a shot in it. As said, there has been more than enough opportunity for someone to do it in Iraq. It was there 5 years, patrolling nearly every day. What are we supposed to conclude from that, the Army used them intelligently and used proper tactics to negate any vulnerablities? Well yes, thats how they are supposed to be used, right?

 

 

[Ssnake]

It objectively is a weak spot, particularly in a duel situation. Duel situations may be less frequent than was assumed for a long time, but it simply is a matter of statistics. If the tank is oriented with the front towards the enemy and the aim is center of the tank, there's an about 20% chance that the shot dispersion will make the round hit that particular location. In practice the chance is maybe just half of that as often the tank isn't fully exposed; 60% of all hits are, statistically, on the turret front area.

From other angles, other parts will be vulnerable, of course. But to say that this isn't a weak spot because there are other weak spots makes no bloody sense.

>90% of combat time is spent in static positions. The defense that the spot can't be hit while the vehicle is on the move will therefore, on average, apply to only 10% of all engagements.

 

The sample size of Challengers in direct fire combat, particularly in Ukraine, simply isn't big enough to draw sweeping conclusions such as that it's not vulnerable in the driver's hatch area. And my inner statistician cannot see a convincing reason why shot dispersion would not occasionally land a round in this area.

[Ssnake]

57 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I also do not understand how a 125mm HEAT shell is likely to traverse both those obstacles, and go in the episcope. APFSDS? No argument. 

Well, look at the bloody picture I posted, and tell me with a straight face that an APFSDS trajectory has such a bigger chance with a fall angle of 3..5° vs a HEAT rounds' 5...8°.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But we arent talking about luck. The narrative has always been the tank is  vulnerable because there is a big Death Star style shot aperture, just waiting for a skilled opponent to put a shot in it. As said, there has been more than enough opportunity for someone to do it in Iraq. It was there 5 years, patrolling nearly every day. What are we supposed to conclude from that, the Army used them intelligently and used proper tactics to negate any vulnerablities? Well yes, thats how they are supposed to be used, right?

I've already covered the Iraq angle. Weapons, and more importantly tactics, have evolved since then.

If in 2006 we saw Hezbollah firing ATGMs with intent to hit center of mass, and at best have aimed for sides and rear when possible, then today we're seeing in both Ukraine and Gaza how tanks are targeted on very specific weakspots. 

If in 2014 we saw in Gaza how APS block every shot, then in 2024 we see in Gaza how APS can be overcome and how important passive armor still is.

[old_goat]

I think I'll just leave this picture here for Stuart to think about...