CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Actually, both have done a fair bit of work to develop engineering plans for integration of smoothbore - with Rheinmetall explicitly stating that their baseline offer is a new turret which ‘smoothbore ready’...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I know - but ‘baseline’ and ‘spare money’. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see it. It’d put CR2 right back in the game. The armour package is still good and the updated sensors go a long way.
 
A new turret would be fantastic, something I'd certainly like to see. Keep it far from BAe, however, and give the option to Rheinmetall; a company with experience on MBT's. I don't trust BAe enough to redesign the turret of the CR2, reckon they'd make some monumental design flaws, as Vickers did with the original design. Example being: Original design isn't very future proof, nor kind on redesigns.

Not to sound like a cnut and step on anyones dreams, but I genuinely doubt we'll see any significant upgrades to challenger until something kicks off and, god forbid, lives are lost inside a CR2 on operations. Even then, it won't be a reworked body. Some UOR bullocks to satisfy the media and civvies, like a new round or hard kill APS.
 
A new turret would be fantastic, something I'd certainly like to see. Keep it far from BAe, however, and give the option to Rheinmetall; a company with experience on MBT's. I don't trust BAe enough to redesign the turret of the CR2, reckon they'd make some monumental design flaws, as Vickers did with the original design. Example being: Original design isn't very future proof, nor kind on redesigns.

Not to sound like a cnut and step on anyones dreams, but I genuinely doubt we'll see any significant upgrades to challenger until something kicks off and, god forbid, lives are lost inside a CR2 on operations. Even then, it won't be a reworked body. Some UOR bullocks to satisfy the media and civvies, like a new round or hard kill APS.
Care to explain what design flaws CR2 had when it was originally designed or entered service? Just asking because as far as I can see the amount of work it's done in some pretty dodgy parts of the world as well as some not so dodgy and the number of losses to enemy action, direct or indirect, compares extremely well with it's peers.

Original design not being very future proof is an absolute screamer and no-one ever designs an MBT for future re-designing.
 
Last edited:
Care to explain what design flaws CR2 had when it was originally designed or entered service?
Rifling of the gun, incredible difficulty maintaining power pack on the field, relatively slow (though can scrap that to doctrine), TC hasn't got 24hr visibility and this is only just being fixed, lfp is steel rather than composite armour (which has been fixed, mind you, with TES but still a design flaw), layout of dorchester blocks in the armour gives virtually no access to change armour package (I.e if we developed Dorchester level 3, we can't put it in the composite blocks because of the lack of space and the general layout) position of driver's viewport gives a narrow view and little to see to the left and right fields of arch, armour surrounding the gun mantle is also steel and lacks any dorchester, bagged charges are stowed all around the turret rather than one compact area so surviveability is at a serious low if the vehicle gets slotted (in armoured and watered containers, mind, though Vickers really should have taken a note from the James' Abrams and Fritz' Leopard with having ammunition be stored in a single, segregated compartment with blowout panels for crew to evacuate the tank if it's ever catastrophically hit).

Don't take this as me pissing on CR2, I adore the vehicle and think it's fantastic, though you still need to look at it's flaws and hope it's fixed. The armour package is outstanding, and incredibly effective even to this day. The way it's used, I can't say the same.

Designing and developing an MBT for the future is a red flag of the vehicle, in itself. However, that's not to say there's vehicles that haven't got that much to bend and move around. Both Abrams and Leopard have had significant upgrades since their introduction, meaning that both vehicles seem to be relatively futureproof.

Challenger seeing combat is a no-brainer, was used with great efficiency on Telic, at the start and until whitehall decided basra was too much of a ballsup to maintain. Though, you have to take into account of the outdated vehicles it faced compared to it's American counterpart.
 
1. Rifling of the gun, 2. incredible difficulty maintaining power pack on the field, 3. relatively slow (though can scrap that to doctrine), TC hasn't got 24hr visibility and this is only just being fixed, lfp is steel rather than composite armour (which has been fixed, mind you, with TES but still a design flaw), 4. layout of dorchester blocks in the armour gives virtually no access to change armour package (I.e if we developed Dorchester level 3, we can't put it in the composite blocks because of the lack of space and the general layout) 5. position of driver's viewport gives a narrow view and little to see to the left and right fields of arch, armour surrounding the gun mantle is also steel and lacks any dorchester, 6. bagged charges are stowed all around the turret rather than one compact area so surviveability is at a serious low if the vehicle gets slotted (in armoured and watered containers, mind, though Vickers really should have taken a note from the James' Abrams and Fritz' Leopard with having ammunition be stored in a single, segregated compartment with blowout panels for crew to evacuate the tank if it's ever catastrophically hit).

Don't take this as me pissing on CR2, I adore the vehicle and think it's fantastic, though you still need to look at it's flaws and hope it's fixed. The armour package is outstanding, and incredibly effective even to this day. The way it's used, I can't say the same.

Designing and developing an MBT for the future is a red flag of the vehicle, in itself. However, that's not to say there's vehicles that haven't got that much to bend and move around. Both Abrams and Leopard have had significant upgrades since their introduction, meaning that both vehicles seem to be relatively futureproof.

Challenger seeing combat is a no-brainer, was used with great efficiency on Telic, at the start and until whitehall decided basra was too much of a ballsup to maintain. Though, you have to take into account of the outdated vehicles it faced compared to it's American counterpart.
1. Only if you believe smoothbore ammunition is superior to ours, and for many years the MoD haven't.

https://www.quora.com/Between-the-B...inmetall-smoothbore-gun-which-one-is-superior

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/rifled-vs-smoothbore-barrels.161751/

Challenger 2: Compared to the Competition

2. As an ex Artificer Vehicles, I'd love to know what is so difficult about maintaining the CR2 in the field compared to it's peers.

3. I'll give you that, but it's not by much and MBTs in modern times rarely use maximum speed either cross country or on road and if they do it's normally a burst and not prolonged.

4. Ill not get into a discussion on armour but will suggest you read the 3rd link in my point 3.

5. You've got to be kidding, right? (what are fields of arch BTW?).

6. Can be argued it is a design flaw but considering why it was designed that way, and it had nowt to do with Chieftain or CR1, it isn't a bad compromise. Besides, remind me again just how many CR2 we've lost compared to it's peers?

As for CR2 being behind the curve because it's main rivals have already received updates, so has CR2 albeit minor in comparison but that's a government/MoD finance thing not lack of willingness by the Army. The current programme is intended to bring CR2 back up to the level of it's peers and will keep CR2 competetive for a long time.
 
Better get a move on, peers are quite far ahead and increasing the distance the sngle jump of the LEP will have to make to catch up with the continual incremental improvements others have been doing

The Abrams Tank Next Generation

Leopard 2A7 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com
I can’t say that I’ve been keeping up with the respective programmes as well as I might, but I’m reasonably confident that there is no M1A3 and that the Leo 2A7 isn’t all it might be. Certainly there isn’t an insurmountable upgrade save perhaps firepower that the CR2 is facing.
 
I can’t say that I’ve been keeping up with the respective programmes as well as I might, but I’m reasonably confident that there is no M1A3 and that the Leo 2A7 isn’t all it might be. Certainly there isn’t an insurmountable upgrade save perhaps firepower that the CR2 is facing.
You're quite right, my bad.
It's the M1A2 SEPv.3 they have released, under an extension of existing modifications, with a SEP V4 already being talked about.
I'm trying to dig out the commentary on this, as they managed to get some serious upgrades funded with out having to go through a full version upgrade procurement process
 
You're quite right, my bad.
It's the M1A2 SEPv.3 they have released, under an extension of existing modifications, with a SEP V4 already being talked about.
I'm trying to dig out the commentary on this, as they managed to get some serious upgrades funded with out having to go through a full version upgrade procurement process
I'm not so sure the M1 is a massive leap ahead of what the CR2 LEP is likely to introduce, except, as incendiarycutlery says, for firepower but we've yet to find out if the CR2 is going to get a new gun at some point in the process with all that entails. Having seen the pictures of Leopard 2 and it's lack of survivability and read many articles I'm very far from convinced in it's present form it is anywhere as good as CR2 is now, again perhaps for the main armament and possibly ammo storage.

The USA can afford an MBT that burns fuel for fun and can afford regular upgrades to (supposedly) keep it ahead of it's peers because Congress is not averse to borrowing huge amounts of money despite their gargantuan deficit, we aren't (quite) that stupid and consider there to be higher priorities than Defence. The Germans have seemingly neglected their Armed Forces quite badly over the recent past but upgrading Leopard 2 will be happening as there is a market for Leopard that doesn't exist for CR2. The US clearly has an export market too.

Strange how the latest upgrade to the M1 has introduced a battery charging engine to limit the time the ME is kept on idle burning up the worlds supply of fuel, don't we have one on CR2 and had one it's predecessors? Maybe we were ahead of the game there.
 
Well, well, well. New Thermals and APS.
Theres a quick win. If all else comes to nowt, this should be mandatory imho - be a very worthwhile improvement.
 
Strange how the latest upgrade to the M1 has introduced a battery charging engine to limit the time the ME is kept on idle burning up the worlds supply of fuel, don't we have one on CR2 and had one it's predecessors? Maybe we were ahead of the game there.
Centurion had a donkey engine for that, we were well ahead of the game.
 
A very long argument that has been had many times before.

relatively slow (though can scrap that to doctrine),
Speed does not equal mobility. Often being able to do a lower speed across any terrain is better than doing a high speed across perfect terrain. This has pretty much been our approach to matters since the late 1940's.

armour surrounding the gun mantle is also steel and lacks any dorchester, bagged charges are stowed all around the turret rather than one compact area so surviveability is at a serious low if the vehicle gets slotted (in armoured and watered containers, mind, though Vickers really should have taken a note from the James' Abrams and Fritz' Leopard with having ammunition be stored in a single, segregated compartment with blowout panels for crew to evacuate the tank if it's ever catastrophically hit).
Someone who knows will correct me, but I'm pretty sure the bagged charges are all below the turret ring, so out of the likely line of fire, also the charge bins are only armoured. This thinking ties into the lower glacis being steel.
But consider one important point the glacis (hull roof?) on an M1 is only about 2" of steel, albeit heavily sloped.
The gun mantle maybe steel, however there is an awful lot of stuff behind it, which I suspect is deemed to provide a lot of protection.

You say that M1 and Leopard 2 are more survivable, combat losses to date would show that to be wrong.
M1 is well over 80 losses, Leopard 2 has around 10-20 if memory serves, Cr2 is on three.

Though, you have to take into account of the outdated vehicles it faced compared to it's American counterpart.
Can you explain that? I'm pretty certain in 2003 we all faced the same usual grab bag of antique Soviet tanks. But there's not much between a T-72 and a T-62, they're both horribly outclassed by any western tank, simply because the western tank has 20 odd more tons of stuff.
 
Speed does not equal mobility. Often being able to do a lower speed across any terrain is better than doing a high speed across perfect terrain. This has pretty much been our approach to matters since the late 1940's.
One might also consider the relative merits of the different suspension systems in terms of being able to cross terrain swiftly. Absolute top speed isn’t the only metric to consider. CR2 comes out pretty well against its torsion bar-equipped peers.
 
On Black night I am curious why the OHWS got pulled, although its looking a bit crowded on top of the turret at the moment so that might be the reason. I'm also curious about what the black box is they've stuck on top of the turret rear.
Also the arc on the Laser warning receivers seems limited, when you compare it to Ajax which has them glued everywhere.
 
Just to add my 2, reasonably well informed pence. The M1A2 SEPv3 is still lighter than the CR2, especially with the weight gain from LEP (more pronounced difference when they are both in a "TES" spec). They also use a marginally larger track, so they have lower ground pressure. This makes the terrain accessability of the M1 better than the CR2 and the CR2 is only getting worse at the moment.
Whilst we were hugely ahead of the US Army wrt the APU and that has helped with the overall fuel consumption, especially during silent watch, the turbine is on par or slightly better when actually running at combat speed (peak turbine efficiency). the CV12 is an extremely old thirsty beast, the proposed Europack would have been a massive improvement, so much so that they could have removed the external fuel tanks. Plus the turbine gives it 1500hp, lower transmission losses and a significantly higher top speed, road or cross country. Torsion bars whilst giving a poorer ride, require less maintenance and are not affected by environment or usage. Whereas the hydrogas is susceptible to overheating and mis-management/maintenance but it does give a more "plush" ride in comparison

The bag charges full protection relies on the charges being stored correctly with the caps in place, and regardless the warheads are exposed, personally I would feel better if they were stored akin to the M1 in a nice armoured, blow out box. Plus then we could use NATO standardised ammunition with the longer APFSDS ammunition, STAFF and MPAT rounds, or even the M1098 canister round. Nothing like a shotgun lethal to 500 m.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top