M1 Abrams vs Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2 vs Leclerc

[Mighty_Zuk]

I'm sure if a Challenger 3 hull was designed today from scratch, it would look different from what it is today. 

Unfortunately the turret has to be designed around the hull, so if they decide to upgrade the hull as well some day, it will end up being quite a modest upgrade. Which isn't really that bad considering the CR3 is supposed to be just a stopgap.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im sure if ANY tank was designed from the ground up today, it would look different. The ONLY really new tank today is the Armata, and im sure they have some misgivings over that, in light of where they are with experience of Ukraine, and how damn hard it is to build.

You work with what you have. There isnt a tank today you cant find SOME misgivings with. They are a compromise between competing design, political and cost aspects. Always have been.

Here is something to remember. The South Africans in the 1980's had something like 50 Centurions. They couldnt get a modern tank, so they worked with what they had. They slapped a brand new turret on it, called it Olifant, and embarked on a rolling programme to upgrade it. And in the end, about the only Centurion bit left was the main hull.

And I bet if there was a Tanknet int he 1980s, we would have had some smart alec shaking their head and saying 'Well of course it would be so much better if it wasnt a Centurion hull.

 

Edited March 31 by Stuart Galbraith

[Sardaukar]

Well, I am not a tanker, almost always more of light infantry, but...

Chally 3's drivers vision slit is right where all gunners and automatic tracking systems would put aiming point. 

Thus, in "real war" between remotely competent armoured formations...it's concern me.

Iraqis and such don't count.

[Mighty_Zuk]

If I'm in a tank and feel like I can't be proactive about my protection on a personal level through mobility (e.g. running), then at least I'd want to be assured that every piece of metal around me is there to block any threat. And I'd feel quite worried had I known one of these pieces of metal is actually very thin and I'm only safe by chance. Doubly so when I hear that tanks around the world are destroyed by those specifically hunting such spots.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Well, I am not a tanker, almost always more of light infantry, but...

Chally 3's drivers vision slit is right where all gunners and automatic tracking systems would put aiming point. 

Thus, in "real war" between remotely competent armoured formations...it's concern me.

Iraqis and such don't count.

If they fire 100mm and 125mm shells, RPG  and Milans, they absolutely do count.

After all, I see many folk on this grate site rating Chieftain by its performance against the Iraqi Army. Ditto Abrams, Bradley, and sundry other pieces of military equipment, even Patriot. Its curious every time Challenger 2 comes up, its suddenly 'ah well, the British never saw much combat, the Iraqi's couldnt fight yada yada yada'.

I mean come on, give a frigging break, right? Grab a book fellas, its all well documented.

 

 

 

[Interlinked]

Maybe Challengers have improbability drives that make them immune from the laws of statistics. Either that, or...

[Stuart Galbraith]

And you will note, at no point have I ever said that either.It has imperfections. I even was the first on this grate site to point out the bow armour problem, nearly 2 decades  ago now, before it was even penetrated by the EFP. Before many of you people even dragged your heels in here.

Look, you will just have to face up to the fact I actually got off my arse and bothered to read up on how the tank performed in 2003. And yes, im sure it could have done better. Yes, im sure there impefections in the design that arent as polished as X country. Yes, it should have been armed with a 20 megawatt particle projectile cannon instead of the stinky rifle. Yes, its British, so inherently it starts 2 strikes down because reasons. But the present attempt to paint it as an abject failure based on a photograph  is completely out of place with how well it actually performed in combat.

And yes, It saw plenty of combat, and did well. And contrary to belief, the Iraqis did actually know how to fight on occasions, just as they did when they fought against the Americans. These are the basic facts and you will just have to deal with them, and reconcile it with your basic assumptions.

Here, I have done your work for you. Get off your butt and do some reading. Im bored with arguing with you all, do some research, come back and argue with a base of actual knowledge.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Battle-Tank-Niall-Edworthy/dp/0718155130/ref=sr_1_1?crid=TNVQ0V4DOEKS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ptFc2uLCPv7Gr30WWnJmlw.ALRh6wK65NG4YOGkfediTrnuwF1q75cX20hM6MlpLUM&dib_tag=se&keywords=main+battle+tank+niall&qid=1711959585&s=books&sprefix=main+battle+tank+niall%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-1

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And you will note, at no point have I ever said that either.It has imperfections. I even was the first on this grate site to point out the bow armour problem, nearly 2 decades  ago now, before it was even penetrated by the EFP. Before many of you people even dragged your heels in here.

Look, you will just have to face up to the fact I actually got off my arse and bothered to read up on how the tank performed in 2003. And yes, im sure it could have done better. Yes, im sure there impefections in the design that arent as polished as X country. Yes, it should have been armed with a 20 megawatt particle projectile cannon instead of the stinky rifle. Yes, its British, so inherently it starts 2 strikes down because reasons. But the present attempt to paint it as an abject failure based on a photograph  is completely out of place with how well it actually performed in combat.

And yes, It saw plenty of combat, and did well. And contrary to belief, the Iraqis did actually know how to fight on occasions, just as they did when they fought against the Americans. These are the basic facts and you will just have to deal with them, and reconcile it with your basic assumptions.

Here, I have done your work for you. Get off your butt and do some reading. Im bored with arguing with you all, do some research, come back and argue with a base of actual knowledge.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Main-Battle-Tank-Niall-Edworthy/dp/0718155130/ref=sr_1_1?crid=TNVQ0V4DOEKS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ptFc2uLCPv7Gr30WWnJmlw.ALRh6wK65NG4YOGkfediTrnuwF1q75cX20hM6MlpLUM&dib_tag=se&keywords=main+battle+tank+niall&qid=1711959585&s=books&sprefix=main+battle+tank+niall%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-1

None here argued it was a failure. It was pointed out that its traditional weakspot is more relevant and vulnerable than ever considering that weakspots are targeted very frequently in today's battles. That was all. You were defensive about it, which is understandable - but that created the "debate". 

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

None here argued it was a failure. It was pointed out that its traditional weakspot is more relevant and vulnerable than ever considering that weakspots are targeted very frequently in today's battles. That was all. You were defensive about it, which is understandable - but that created the "debate". 

On the contrary, that has been the precise argument, and always has been. It took me over 10 years of being on tanknet to convince people that that, contrary to what Americans learned at CAT86, Challenger 2 was fire control wise, a wholly different vehicle. It actually uses the same fire control computer from the Abrams. We even had an argument on this grate site in 2003 about whether the vehicle was easy to destroy, based on a million to one shot going down the commanders open hatch whilst bombing up. Something that would have killed any tank in any Western military.

Its not about being defensive. Ive spent some 25 years on this great site trying to promote some better understanding of what the vehicle as done, why it was designed, its flaws, and the site gets fill up with people whom have based an opinion from looking at photographs, frequently taken with wide angle lens, and address me as some arch contrarian simply because I dont instantly come to the same opinion they did based on 10 minutes study.  Ive stood in front of one, 2 feet away, and formed my own opinion. Ive read how the vehicle performed. ive actually watched on the gunnery range at larkhill shooting up targets several thousand metres away. You can take my opinion or disregard it, but Im frankly bored with being labled as an idiot or arch contrarian simply because I respectfully disagree with other peoples take. And believe me, Ive had 2 decades worth of this shit at this point. I hope that illustrates my exasperation.

Here is the flaw of Challenger 2, and it missing what you haved all missed. If that shot went through the episope, it would, in my view at least, likely go through the fighting compartment,most likely missing all the crew, through the hull rear, almost certainly destroying the engine but, in my view at least, quite possibly doing little other damage other than soiling the crews underwear. This happened with an Israeli centurion, so yes, it does happen. Ok, so if it was a DU shot, maybe it would set fire to the fighting compartment. Maybe, its outside my area of knowledge. A HEAT round has more chance, but even so, if it doesnt immediately hit one of the HESH shells, then im not entirely convinced even that would be immediately fatal. maybe you have better knowledge of post armour effects, I really dont.

But if you REALLY want to criticize the vehicle, here is the real problem. You can read it from the Challenger 1 manual I posted up, which seemingly nobody among you has bothered to read, despite laboriously scanning the several hundred pages 17 years ago to inform discussion on this grate site. But no matter. If you look in it, you will see where the bagged charges are kept. Either side of the driver. So if enemy shot penetrates the bow to either side, there is an excellent chance of not just killing the driver (or shooting his toe of as the EFP did) but of penetrating the bagged charge containers on either side, starting a fire that will inevitably destroy the vehicle. Perhaps not catastrophically destroying the vehicle immediately, but, other than the driver, possibly giving the rest of the crew a chance to debus.  And you can tell the British Army has been worried about this a long time, because they keep uparmouring the bow, and they keep uparmouring  either side of the driver, from the fairly insubstantial uparmour in Challenger 1 to the much weightier armour in Challenger 2.

Here you go, this is how Challenger 2 would be destroyed in combat. Notice anything? Yes, the crew all debussed before this chieftain went up.

Im not against contentious discussions, I welcome them, but if we are going to rehash the same old arguments, decade after decade, then what frankly is the point?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1 by Stuart Galbraith

[Sardaukar]

I don't think anyone disagrees with fact that Challenger 2 is a good tank (and probably Chally 3 too).

Brits seem to always have the tendency to go for "unconventional solutions". E.g. 120mm rifled gun and that driver's hatch, both being quite unique in MBTs of today. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

51 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

On the contrary, that has been the precise argument, and always has been. It took me over 10 years of being on tanknet to convince people that that, contrary to what Americans learned at CAT86, Challenger 2 was fire control wise, a wholly different vehicle. It actually uses the same fire control computer from the Abrams. We even had an argument on this grate site in 2003 about whether the vehicle was easy to destroy, based on a million to one shot going down the commanders open hatch whilst bombing up. Something that would have killed any tank in any Western military.

I thought it all started with @Sardaukarsaying the driver's hatch was an obvious weakpoint. 

I had a similar experience when some people who claimed to understand AFVs, said the Merkava 4 had cardboard armor because the layers looked a bit brown. But it's not the same right now. 

Anyway, anyone up for a "best MBT in the world" debate?

[Sardaukar]

Yea, it was probably me...again bringing consternation to British.

Obviously Leopard 2A4 has big weak spot where the optics are in turret (remedied in later models):

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, it wasnt you that pissed me off Sardaukar. Dont sweat it.

You know, im not even going to deprecate the Leopard 2. I saw one at Bovington near 30 years ago, and I fell in love with it. Its a hell of a tank. Still is.

 

[methos]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If they fire 100mm and 125mm shells, RPG  and Milans, they absolutely do count.

How many Challenger 2 tanks were hit by those? How many of those hit the front of the tank?

In Gulf War, there was one Abrams with recorded hits from enemy tanks, one hit by an anti-tank gun and one hit by a BMP-1. All of the other lost/damaged tanks were hit by artillery, infantry-carried anti-tank weapons, mine, secondary explosions or friendly fire.

Three tanks of 1,225 Abrams tanks that took part in Gulf War. So the CR2 surviving hits a small sample size of hits at different locations doesn't really make the weakspot in the hull disappear. Even before the CR2 program was started, RARDE wanted to completely redesign the hull to eliminate the driver's weakspot...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Which is very curious, because with MBT80, they were clearly going to use almost exactly the same hull design, as you can see in the tank museum reserve collection. Arguably if they had redesigned it, they would have taken another 8 years, and by the time they got something we could have used, the cold war would have been over. Judging by Vickers Valiant, it probably would have been crap anyway. So another 8 years to remove a single design flaw, in favour of having the perfect tank that would have been cancelled anyway. Does that really make any sense at all?

 

 

[old_goat]

And again, the soviets were also aware to the weakspot on T-64/72/80, which is very similar to CR1/2, and they also redesigned the front armor on the Object-187. Please dont repeat the same thing again with the mantlet, it was proven before that it doesnt provide any protection there. If the hit can be obtained, it isnt a problem even for the 100mm 3BK5 HEAT shell, which had relatively poor ballistics at long range. Only 5 degrees fall angle at 3 kilometers. 

And finally, I also repeat, nobody said here that the CR2 is a bad tank, it just has a significant weakspot, like other tanks, for example the T-64/72/80 or the Leopard-2. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The soviets, those inspired tank designers, whom worried incessently about a weakspot on their hull, but somehow didnt recognise they sat the entire crew on a ticking time bomb, just waiting to go off. Maybe they would have done better to build T80 with a hand loader and bagged charges, they would assuredly had a worldbeater  on their hands that even I would applaud. Although I doubt the loader would.

If the hit can be obtained. There we go. Exfuckingactly. And nobody has because, as ive been saying for the past several days, its not the easy shot you think it is. And even a HEAT shell hitting that mantlet will detonate it. Nobody said anything about its stopping APFSDS. I never said it was immune, I just said it was  very difficult to hit.

 

So lets observe the dataset we have of Challenger being destroyed.

120mm HESH shell through the hatch. Not much you can do about that. Other than done fire HESH shells at your own tanks perhaps?

Immobilized by a mine, and then shot through the ass with a long range ATGM. Well, dont drive over a mine then. Use proper route recce and dont be silly boys. And dont point your ass at the enemy, its very rude.

Penetrated throught the bow plate by a EFP, in a weakness in the design that I and Bob Griffin pointed to something like 18 years ago. Do I we get any credit for this? No, of course not.

Its curious everyone keeps banging on about data sets, but the only failure of the armour of Challenger 2 validates a weakness I pointed out long ago, but not the 'obvious' one everyone keeps pointing out that has never happened.  So whats that, random chance? Voodoo? Survivorship bias? or a basic recognition its much easier to hit the large area of the bow place, than the drivers episcope?

Ill leave you to ponder that one.

 

 

Edited April 1 by Stuart Galbraith

[methos]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The soviets, those inspired tank designers, whom worried incessently about a weakspot on their hull, but somehow didnt recognise they sat the entire crew on a ticking time bomb, just waiting to go off. Maybe they would have done better to build T80 with a hand loader and bagged charges, they would assuredly had a worldbeater  on their hands that even I would applaud. Although I doubt the loader would.

Pretty much all Soviet "next-gen" tanks even as early as the (inofficial) T-74 fixed the "ticking time bomb" by separate crew from ammunition. T-64, T-72 and T-80 were all designed before blow-off panels became a thing in NATO MBTs. The CR2 meanwhile remained a ticking time bombs despite being a late 1980s design...

[Interlinked]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Which is very curious, because with MBT80, they were clearly going to use almost exactly the same hull design, as you can see in the tank museum reserve collection. Arguably if they had redesigned it, they would have taken another 8 years, and by the time they got something we could have used, the cold war would have been over. Judging by Vickers Valiant, it probably would have been crap anyway. So another 8 years to remove a single design flaw, in favour of having the perfect tank that would have been cancelled anyway. Does that really make any sense at all?

What you're thinking of is the ATR-2, which stands for Automotive Test Rig. The MBT-80 proposal had a hull that wasn't a Chieftain hull nose adapted with composite armour.

[methos]

The same applies to the ENT (Evolutionary National Tank), a concept for the CR1 follow-up (with autoloader and 140 mm gun):

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, Interlinked said:

What you're thinking of is the ATR-2, which stands for Automotive Test Rig. The MBT-80 proposal had a hull that wasn't a Chieftain hull nose adapted with composite armour.

Im unsure what he exact relationship that the hull is with MBT80. it certainly was among a number of concepts they were investigating at the time of developing MBT80, and I think its significant that it was the only one that was actually built. When Bovington classed what they have as'MBT80' , they are probably wrong, but its the only remnants of that program that still exist, so they arent entirely wrong in displaying them together.

Yes, thats a great concept. But firstly it was not built, and was seemingly years away from being built, which is why they picked up Challenger 1 off the shelf in 1980. They knew it was at least a decade away from service. Secondly its a much less acute angle than the Challengers hull, so whilst you would lose the episcope, you end up with a hull front that would require more armour for the same level of protection.

 

 

If we had another hull, I think almost inevitably it woudl have turned out to be Vickers Valiant based. From what few photographs ive found of it, it had its own hatch/episcope configuration problems. Moreover, there are people whom watched its trials commenting on arrse whom were not impressed, whom said that it seemed very slow, and it was mechanically unreliable. Its telling that they took the same turret and plonked it on a Leopard 2 Hull and marketed as Vickers Mk7. Which would have been the best solution all along, except that concept only came out in 1985/86, long after Challenger 1 entered service. And, as we saw, the Leopard 2 has its own issues witht he drivers hatch, so we would have had to mod it at some point to change it to the configuration we see with Leopard 2A5.

The only realistic alternative I can see to buying the Shir2 Hull is Chieftain 900. I hardly see the Army being enthusiastic about that, and again, has exactly the same hull/episcope configuration problem.

Basically, Shir2 was the best offer we had at the time. We didnt really have the luxury of waiting around for the best solution, or the British tank industry would have gone tits up in the interim.

Edited April 2 by Stuart Galbraith

[Mighty_Zuk]

On the topic of Chally weakspots, here's one for the Leopard

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, methos said:

Pretty much all Soviet "next-gen" tanks even as early as the (inofficial) T-74 fixed the "ticking time bomb" by separate crew from ammunition. T-64, T-72 and T-80 were all designed before blow-off panels became a thing in NATO MBTs. The CR2 meanwhile remained a ticking time bombs despite being a late 1980s design...

And yet,somehow, it still hasnt detonated 40 years on.  Hence my incredulity about why you guys are still all over this problem, and have consistently missed the bow, which certainly HAS actually shown up in combat.

As for  Soviet tanks, they were still building in this problem in as late as T72BM, T80UD (which was supposed to be the next standard tank) and T90 through T90AM. Thats despite knowing they had an issue in 1990, and had it forcefully pointed out to them in 1994. Say what you will about the British MOD, when they recognised they had a problem with the bow, they had a solution introduced as a bolt on in months. The Soviets/Russians have only contrived a solution to theirs in 2010, and its still years away from combat service. Yes, they did have a solution in T95. But they didnt buy it, and from what ive read, there was never any realistic chance of getting it into service.

So thanks, but for all the flaws of the MOD, they dont put tanks into service that are flamible deathtraps. We did learn something from the Sherman saga.

[alejandro_]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And yet,somehow, it still hasnt detonated 40 years on.  Hence my incredulity about why you guys are still all over this problem, and have consistently missed the bow, which certainly HAS actually shown up in combat.

But this is because it has not been deployed in the numbers of T-64/72/80. As others have mentioned ammunition is an issue. Maybe it does not blow the turret away but it will destroy the tank anyway. It was seen in Iraq when one was hit by another Challenger 2 and in Ukraine.

[methos]

32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the topic of Chally weakspots, here's one for the Leopard

You are aware that the driver's escape hatch also get its mine protection plate qualified to the same level of protection?