M1 Abrams vs Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2 vs Leclerc

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

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°.

I'd have to measure it, but I think there is a large chance it would still  hit the front edge of the mantlet. I'll try and measure it on my models, if I can figure out an easy way to do it. The point is, the episcope and the turret ring is further back than it looks. To some extent, its probably going to depend on gun elevation. In elevation, yes, I believe it could. Horizontally, or with the gun pointing downhill, no, I don't believe it would.

Tell me, in the 14 years or so that SB has featured Challenger 2, how many screenshots has anyone posted on the forum illustrating a hit on the episcope? I dont mean a stale test where someone puts a t90 downrange against a C2 with no ammunition. I mean the multiplayer server. If it was that easy, someone would have demonstrated it on a multiplayer debrief. Right? Shot like that, I'd be sure to make a screen cap. So would anyone.

Ive even slummed it by looking on the warthunder forum, and god help me that's not an experience I want to repeat. There are a large amount of complaints they gave it a large turret and a glass mantlet (the main reason the british tankie leaked those documents). Not one shot illustrating the glass jaw, of a shot going through the episcope and into the fighting compartment. And they should, in theory, be doing this every week, right?

We did this to death years ago. Imho it ranks up there with the discussions about the TOGS box on the gun taking the thermal sight off target with long range shots, and the VDS boys had a real good chuckle about that one too.

 

Edited March 28 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

58 minutes ago, old_goat said:

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

Assuming they don't intend to drive it backwards, that looks like an excellent way to roast a tank driver. Nice one. 👍

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

The idf have had a history of not being great at integrating infantry with tank battlegroups as far back as 1973. It cost you a lot of tanks in 1973, and they seem to have forgotten the lesson again by 2006.You also don't have ifvs with firepower and with the infantry on hand to contain them. Compare to Iraq from 2003 to 2008. In that we had one tank damaged by an efp, and no warriors written off. combined arms work. The British Army is not tank centric and never has been. Arguably they should probably have been more so, but you can't argue with what works.

Will drones change that? Perhaps. Perhaps like very new weapon system it will prove overvaunted and be swiftly combated, again by combined arms work. We shall see.

 

 

Edited March 28 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

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.

72 hours in Iraq in 1991, 5 years in Iraq from 2003. Come on Nils, this is a considerably larger sample size than just Ukraine. There was a pretty wild battle in Al Faw in 2003 where a British tank company demolished a company of Iraqi tanks. They had plenty of chances to illustrate how vulnerable  the tank was. In fact Basra was tailor made for it to happen, because it was ambushes all over the place. Just because these things are not read about on Tanknet, doesn't mean they didn't occur.

Yes, absolutely,of course dispersion can produce wild results. My argument was not that it couldn't happen, just that it isn't likely. No tank is invulnerable everywhere, we know this.

[old_goat]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Assuming they don't intend to drive it backwards, that looks like an excellent way to roast a tank driver. Nice one. 👍

You are still clueless? I'll help a bit. The glacis armor array is the key... 

[Mike1158]

Tiger 131.

 

Battle Damage

The most important strike, which is clearly visible today, saw a 6-pounder round scrape the underside of the Tiger’s 88mm gun, before hitting the gun mantlet and lodging itself in the turret ring. This jammed the turret and effectively prevented the Tiger from fighting. It also split the weld on the top plate and, according to a contemporary report, shattered the radio. It was surmised that this shot could have “incapacitated the driver and front gunner”.

Evidence of a second 6pdr strike can also be seen on the right hand turret lifting stud, but a third 6pdr hit the open loader’s hatch, smashing it and deflecting the round to hit the hatch rim, again potentially injuring crew members inside.

Whatever happened, the evidence shows that Tiger 131 was literally fought to a standstill by 48 RTR’s Churchill tanks. The damage caused by their 6pdrs indicates an incredibly high standard of gunnery as they were almost certainly firing on the move. The fact the tank was captured at all proves that, despite its clear but often overstated strengths, the Tiger was not invincible.

Behind the myth and hyperbole with which it is often associated, Tiger 131 tells an important story about the human element in tank warfare: the role of the crew.

 

Gunnery and the things that effect it from temperature to atmospherics etc demonstrate the 'bastard factor' and if something can happen, it will.

 

I doubt the crew on certain ships in the North sea thought they would get theirs in such a manner but history tells us different, Mr Beatty.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The idf have had a history of not being great at integrating infantry with tank battlegroups as far back as 1973. It cost you a lot of tanks in 1973, and they seem to have forgotten the lesson again by 2006.You also don't have ifvs with firepower and with the infantry on hand to contain them. Compare to Iraq from 2003 to 2008. In that we had one tank damaged by an efp, and no warriors written off. combined arms work. The British Army is not tank centric and never has been. Arguably they should probably have been more so, but you can't argue with what works.

Will drones change that? Perhaps. Perhaps like very new weapon system it will prove overvaunted and be swiftly combated, again by combined arms work. We shall see.

 

 

Yet I'm not referring to 1973 but to conflicts such as 2006, 2014, and 2024. In 2006 infantry-armor cooperation was not an issue. Geography was. Valleys, narrow passages, areas dense with objects and obstacles. In 2014 that cooperation was good. In 2024 it's excellent, yet in 2024 it's also when known weakspots are targeted the most, and most precisely.

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Assuming they don't intend to drive it backwards, that looks like an excellent way to roast a tank driver. Nice one. 👍

Driver has emergency turret traverse (ever since firts T-64), as well as bottom escape hatch.

PS. If gun is depressed more than a fed deg (IIRC 3 or 4) C1/2 driver also can not exit using his hatch.

Edited March 28 by bojan

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tell me, in the 14 years or so that SB has featured Challenger 2, how many screenshots has anyone posted on the forum illustrating a hit on the episcope?

I simply don't obsess about any tank in particular, much less track who posts how many screenshots of which tank and where they got hit.

I said what I had to say, as an engineer, and for me that's the end of the discussion. I have no emotional investment in this, except maybe that the message of my product is that no tank is "safe" against all threats.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I simply don't obsess about any tank in particular, much less track who posts how many screenshots of which tank and where they got hit.

I said what I had to say, as an engineer, and for me that's the end of the discussion. I have no emotional investment in this, except maybe that the message of my product is that no tank is "safe" against all threats.

Its not about obsessing about any tank in particular. Yes, I have a long standing interest because I saw one of the prototypes at Bovington right at the start of its gestation. Yes, Im fascinated by it. As Ive illustrated, well over a decade ago actually, at least one of its major flaws, I think Im fairly immune from being classed obsessed by it. Its made by man, and like everything made by man, its got flaws. The question is not whether it has flaws, the question is what the nature of those flaws are, and how likely it is they to be are exploited.

 Its not about emotion, its about fairness. Over 270 challengers have seen combat to some degree over the past 33 years. That I believe is a large enough tranche to form some kind of conclusions about its vunlerablity in combat. The only conclusions we can safely draw is that without uparmour, the bow is vulnerable to EFP, a HESH round entering an open hatch is fatal, and being shot in the ass by an Ataka missile is really bad news. The rest has to be classed as speculation, no matter how well informed it might be.

I respect what you say as an engineer, and I know perfectly well you are qualified to make the comments you do. But It doesnt mean I have to agree with all your conclusions. No disrespect intended.

 

Edited March 29 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, bojan said:

Driver has emergency turret traverse (ever since firts T-64), as well as bottom escape hatch.

PS. If gun is depressed more than a fed deg (IIRC 3 or 4) C1/2 driver also can not exit using his hatch.

But what about mine vulnerablity? Because the British a very long time ago decided that it wasnt worth the cost of weaking the hull to have an under hull hatch. We even have the hull shaped in a boat shape to mitigate against antitank mines.

[lucklucky]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There was a pretty wild battle in Al Faw in 2003 where a British tank company demolished a company of Iraqi tanks.

That is peanuts. Besides what was the range capability of that combat for both sides?

How many tank rounds hit Challengers in its history?

Edited March 29 by lucklucky

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yet I'm not referring to 1973 but to conflicts such as 2006, 2014, and 2024. In 2006 infantry-armor cooperation was not an issue. Geography was. Valleys, narrow passages, areas dense with objects and obstacles. In 2014 that cooperation was good. In 2024 it's excellent, yet in 2024 it's also when known weakspots are targeted the most, and most precisely.

 

If you were losing tanks, no, the cooperation was not good. Maybe in 2014 you hit a high, but if you were losing tanks to them in 2006, its not just tactics. It means you were doing the combined arms team wrong.its a problem that resurfaced in this war as well.

[Mighty_Zuk]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

If you were losing tanks, no, the cooperation was not good. Maybe in 2014 you hit a high, but if you were losing tanks to them in 2006, its not just tactics. It means you were doing the combined arms team wrong.its a problem that resurfaced in this war as well.

You can't prevent the loss of infantry entirely by putting them around tanks, and you can't prevent the loss of armor entirely by putting them around infantry.

Losses occur. It's just a matter of statistics. Even the best combined arms tactics will only just lower your losses, not prevent them all. But that's not the point. The point is not how the IDF operated but rather what Hezbollah was capable given its own tactics and weaponry. 

If it matters that much to you, we can look at the contrast between 2014 and 2024. 

Adversaries rather quickly went from being able to generally aim for the center, top, sides, and rear, to being able to target specific hatches, specific areas of the side (Hamas AT teams are instructed for example, when shooting at the sides, to aim specifically at the rearmost skirt), and now even very specific modules like engine, ammo, crew, etc.

 

Edited March 29 by Mighty_Zuk

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

That is peanuts. Besides what was the range capability of that combat for both sides?

How many tank rounds hit Challengers in its history?

As far as I know, one.

Which is the point Im trying to make. Exactly HOW do you get to a point where you can penetrate the damn  thing, if its got thermal sights, and can reach out 5 klicks? Yes, conceivably if it was operated badly, independent of a battlegroup, you might get in a position to do it. You then still have to hit it, and IMHO at least, its a difficult shot. Go build a 1-35 scale model of one, and tell me the path it goes through. Other than a direct shot in the face (which is precisely how it was hit on that occasion) you are getting into Kennedy magic bullet territory. I dont dispute it could happen, I only dispute how likely it is.

As far as infantry hits, the best known example (I think this happened in Al Faw as well) was the Challenger 2 that was immobilized on the peninsular. I can remember back 21 years ago, certain individuals on this site rejocing at that. 'Hey the British lost a challenger, guess the abrams isnt as shit after all' I vividly remember one such poster related with some glee. Which illustates to my mind some of the venom thats been directed at this machine down the years, for few very clear reason I can find. It also illustrates why ive tried to make sure the machine is presented fairly, honestly if I can. If I dont do it, it just trampled underfoot on tanknet, by people whom really cant be bothered to read up on what its done, or how its been used.

I remember an interview with the commander. They reversed off the causeway, pulled a track off it. Then the Iraqis opened up on all the sights with RPG's and milan. There was one small penetration (in the turret I believe) that caused sparks and debris to enter the fighting compartment, but causing no damage or crew injury.They were like that for some time with the Iraqis jumping up and down on the turret trying to get in with a crowbar, before at length the rest of the squadron arrived and drove them off. Damage was minimal, and it was back ins service a couple of days later.  When i say the sights, yes, all the sights. I believe including the drivers epsicope, though im not certain of that (Bojan has a selection of photos of the vehicle, perhaps he might be so good as to post them up, that I think showed episcope damage, though I wont swear to that fact).

Which to me illustrates a basic fact. The only likely way you are going to hit the damn thing is make sure its imobilized and cant shoot back first. And even then, they still didnt kill it.

What am I supposed to do? Reject actual testimony of the machine in combat, in exchange for someone looking at a photo and saying 'well that proves its vulnerable'. How much more combat does the damn thing have to be in, before people face up to the idea its actually a pretty solid design for the most part?

 

Understand, I disgree. Its not a referendum on people, its not about a top trump game of my tank wins. I just disagree. Thats all. Take it or leave it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You can't prevent the loss of infantry entirely by putting them around tanks, and you can't prevent the loss of armor entirely by putting them around infantry.

Losses occur. It's just a matter of statistics. Even the best combined arms tactics will only just lower your losses, not prevent them all. But that's not the point. The point is not how the IDF operated but rather what Hezbollah was capable given its own tactics and weaponry. 

If it matters that much to you, we can look at the contrast between 2014 and 2024. 

if the infantry and the tank is operating in a mutually supporting team, Id argue its very difficult to eliminate one or the other. Yes, it gets more difficult in awkward terrain. Yes, you sometimes get things wrong.  But you lost what was it, 6 merks in Beiruit If I remember rightly? There is nothing wrong with it as a tank. It does no good to say the enemies tactics were superior. What you are really saying is your tactics were not as good.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

if the infantry and the tank is operating in a mutually supporting team, Id argue its very difficult to eliminate one or the other. Yes, it gets more difficult in awkward terrain. Yes, you sometimes get things wrong.  But you lost what was it, 6 merks in Beiruit If I remember rightly? There is nothing wrong with it as a tank. It does no good to say the enemies tactics were superior. What you are really saying is your tactics were not as good.

 

Not Beirut. They were lost in open areas and on the roads.

Again, you're missing the entire point. I edited my post, re-read it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

Tiger 131.

 

Battle Damage

The most important strike, which is clearly visible today, saw a 6-pounder round scrape the underside of the Tiger’s 88mm gun, before hitting the gun mantlet and lodging itself in the turret ring. This jammed the turret and effectively prevented the Tiger from fighting. It also split the weld on the top plate and, according to a contemporary report, shattered the radio. It was surmised that this shot could have “incapacitated the driver and front gunner”.

Evidence of a second 6pdr strike can also be seen on the right hand turret lifting stud, but a third 6pdr hit the open loader’s hatch, smashing it and deflecting the round to hit the hatch rim, again potentially injuring crew members inside.

Whatever happened, the evidence shows that Tiger 131 was literally fought to a standstill by 48 RTR’s Churchill tanks. The damage caused by their 6pdrs indicates an incredibly high standard of gunnery as they were almost certainly firing on the move. The fact the tank was captured at all proves that, despite its clear but often overstated strengths, the Tiger was not invincible.

Behind the myth and hyperbole with which it is often associated, Tiger 131 tells an important story about the human element in tank warfare: the role of the crew.

 

Gunnery and the things that effect it from temperature to atmospherics etc demonstrate the 'bastard factor' and if something can happen, it will.

 

I doubt the crew on certain ships in the North sea thought they would get theirs in such a manner but history tells us different, Mr Beatty.

But they stacked the deck, in that they had ammunition handled in a way that avoided the safeguarding proceedures. HMS Tiger did not,and survived an explosion that lifted the turret roof.

Well dispersion certainly comes into the capture of tank 131.They got very lucky as a result. But there was other factors. The engine had not been properly maintained (perhaps it was the filters), so it was running hot. It was believed the vehicle could still have run away, if it was performing rightly. Even before the action it as overheating, and that may have contributed to the crew abandoning it.

We also have the legend of the Panther shot trap, so extensive was it that Germany went the route of reengineering the mantlet to eliminate it. I remember seeing a documentary of a Canadian tank gunner, that boasted they could knock panthers out by bouncing a shot off the mantlet through the crew roof. Fair enough. The only problem is, im damned if Ive ever seen a photograph of that ever happening.  And how many Sherman gunners are going to be cool under pressure to stare down a panther and shoot that accurately when it came to it?

We can all use examples of random chance playing a factor. Absolutely, and Ive never denied it. My own criticism is there are two factors that have to be negotiated for this to happen. you have to get a tank within range of the Challenger 2 to take the shot without it noticing and dispatching the T72 or what have you first. Then you have to chance that your shot actually hits where you are aiming, assuming you are aiming directly at that episcope, and that dispersion doesnt work against you.

Yes, if you fling shot at one all day, I daresay you will get lucky at some point. The question of course comes, how are you flinging shot at it all day, and the damn thing isnt firing back? How come the rest of the battlegroup isnt firing back? How exactly does an enemy tank sit in the ideal position to engage the Challenger, without, and this has consistently happened in the vehicles history, getting killed first?

Im sorry, it just doesnt hang right to me. It never has. There is random chance, and there is the outright fantastical.

 

Edited March 29 by Stuart Galbraith

[lucklucky]

Sniper anti tank fire.

[Stuart Galbraith]

You mean 9M119M Svir/Refleks I guess, yeah?

Sure, that could do it. But as the latest version can reputely go through 900mm of armour, it would go through the bow armour comfortably, perhaps even the turret in several places . The drivers scope at 5km is probably going to be an unobtainable target in any case.

Its worth noting, such a weapon would probably kill most western MBT's in various hits on the frontal arc. Challenger wouldnt be unusual in that.

 

 

Edited March 29 by Stuart Galbraith

[old_goat]

@Stuart Galbraith so, since it seems you are still clueless why did I post a picture about the Object-187, I'll tell you why:

T-64/72/80 series have a weakspot on the front plate, where the driver's periscope is located. It is very very similar to the one on the Challenger series, although it is somewhat smaller. Soviets identified this as a serious design flaw, thats one reason why the Object-187 had that altered glacis armor layout, eliminating the weakspot. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Except its not, because it does not have a mantlet above it, does not have a turret overhanging it, and its not semi recessed in the hull, or surrounded by Chobham armour. So its a lot like Challenger 2, but really, wholly unlike Challenger 2.

And thank you for your civility. Remind me to return it someday.

 

[GJK]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:25 PM, Harkonnen said:

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this.

Would be interesting if there was some more available to add context.  The 18 km MDBF is without question poor (TN37 the most likely culprit), but interesting that it equates to 89% mission reliability.  I believe the decrease in reliability of turret systems from BAOR use to Op GRANBY was due to heat related failures.

Also would be useful to have similar data for other MBT for comparison.

Best,

Greg.

[Harkonnen]

23 hours ago, old_goat said:

@Stuart Galbraith so, since it seems you are still clueless why did I post a picture about the Object-187, I'll tell you why:

T-64/72/80 series have a weakspot on the front plate, where the driver's periscope is located. It is very very similar to the one on the Challenger series, although it is somewhat smaller. Soviets identified this as a serious design flaw, thats one reason why the Object-187 had that altered glacis armor layout, eliminating the weakspot. 

Combat shown that Leopard 2 has the comparable weakspot where the driver's periscope is located.

[Ssnake]

...which is why the 2A5 and later received the new sliding hatch.