CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

They’re mad keen on describing it as a new turret, when there are a lot of features that suggests that it’s an old one done over.
It is entirely new.

Looks externally very similar, as the baseline configuration required the fitment of the ‘old’ turret armour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mantlet, including mounting point for TOGS barbette, location of optics, particularly secondary systems like the gunner’s secondary and the loader’s periscope, the lifting points either side of the mantlet are the obvious ones.
Seeing as the original turret was cast and the new one is welded, surely all they've done is create a turret that not only fits CR2 but can fit the smoothbore in and house the one-piece ammo safely, something that was not possible with the original. I think it would have been structurally weakening to cut a hole in the back of the turret to extend the bustle for the one-piece ammo and they may just have added the bits you mentioned in case the MoD, for some strange reason, wanted the smoothbore but not the new sights and electronics.
 
Seeing as the original turret was cast and the new one is welded, surely all they've done is create a turret that not only fits CR2 but can fit the smoothbore in and house the one-piece ammo safely, something that was not possible with the original. I think it would have been structurally weakening to cut a hole in the back of the turret to extend the bustle for the one-piece ammo and they may just have added the bits you mentioned in case the MoD, for some strange reason, wanted the smoothbore but not the new sights and electronics.
Or, if MoD ran out of cash, and wanted to fit to old L30 rifled gun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Only 148 to receive upgrade package, whatever that one is.
I’d say that’s probably good news, as it’s likely to mean a real upgrade for the tanks that get it (and bear in mind, we’re only established to man 2 Regts under current plans) rather than 225 portions of warmed-over potato...

Ranking nations according to number of tanks owned means absolutely nothing if you don’t take into account capability - as the Iraqis found to their cost.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I’d say that’s probably good news, as it’s likely to mean a real upgrade for the tanks that get it (and bear in mind, we’re only established to man 2 Regts under current plans) rather than 225 portions of warmed-over potato...

Ranking nations according to number of tanks owned means absolutely nothing if you don’t take into account capability - as the Iraqis found to their cost.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree with the Top Trump's Assessment, ours are certainly one of the most capable tanks in the world, and we are one of the few that can easily deploy them anywhere in the world, can't see Burma doing that, but there dies come a pint where you go hang on.
 

Only 148 to receive upgrade package, whatever that one is.
So we're 56th for tanks.

Does it take into account the actual tank?

Serbian M84AS against CR2, peer to peer?
Cambodia seems to be equipped with tanks from the '60s to 70's.
And Myanmar seems to have a core of tanks from the '90s but a lot seem to be earlier unimproved older models.

These tanks also seem to be three man crews. Does it take into their training?

What are we for apachees and brimstone?
 

Only 148 to receive upgrade package, whatever that one is.
Didn't we go through this some pages back? That what with training units, surplus and the like that's about the upper limit of our deployable vehicles? Equally in 2003 we only brought armour kits for 137 vehicles just before charging into Iraq. Anyone want to recount the stories of Cr2's stripped of all their parts to support the logistics chain of 116 tanks deployed? I've only heard that from one source before, and that was second hand.

Also lets look at the headline.
'British Army outgunned by Cambodia after tank cuts'
Cambodia are equipped with 350 T-55's you blithering idiot.

Also, for comedy, IIRC this was taken in Cambodia:
 
I suppose the decision, if correct, reaffirms that money trumps UK Defence capabilty particularly for Land platforms.

Not a surprise really as the Conservatives have rarely supported Defence apart from the occaisional press release.
 
Didn't we go through this some pages back? That what with training units, surplus and the like that's about the upper limit of our deployable vehicles? Equally in 2003 we only brought armour kits for 137 vehicles just before charging into Iraq. Anyone want to recount the stories of Cr2's stripped of all their parts to support the logistics chain of 116 tanks deployed? I've only heard that from one source before, and that was second hand.

Also lets look at the headline.
'British Army outgunned by Cambodia after tank cuts'
Cambodia are equipped with 350 T-55's you blithering idiot.

Also, for comedy, IIRC this was taken in Cambodia:
isn't that a ww2 Japanese tank?
 
Didn't we go through this some pages back? That what with training units, surplus and the like that's about the upper limit of our deployable vehicles? Equally in 2003 we only brought armour kits for 137 vehicles just before charging into Iraq. Anyone want to recount the stories of Cr2's stripped of all their parts to support the logistics chain of 116 tanks deployed? I've only heard that from one source before, and that was second hand.

Also lets look at the headline.
'British Army outgunned by Cambodia after tank cuts'
Cambodia are equipped with 350 T-55's you blithering idiot.

Also, for comedy, IIRC this was taken in Cambodia:
Those are Cambodian numbers on the plate: 0387. In all my time working out there I only ever saw T55/T59 or PT76. They never moved. Never, ever saw one of these!

When they had their little scuffle with Thailand a few years ago they made a big thing about their first live firing of BM21 in 19 years! I don't think a top trumps list that includes Cambodia on a list of 'who has the most tanks' means anything.
 

Latest Threads

Top