Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

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.
 
Rifling of the gun,
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Though, you have to take into account of the outdated vehicles it faced compared to it's American counterpart.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.
 
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.
You may be well informed I can't confirm or deny, but if at 24 (according to your profile which also shows this is your first post having only joined 39 mins ago) you may not have gained your in depth knowledge of CR2 and other MBTs from personal experience. Unless your profile is wrong that is.

Total weight of the latest ver of the M1 has been obtained by lightening several components. As the M1 has not shown anywhere near the survivability of CR2 (and before LEP is rolled out) the changes may not improve the survivability. It remains lethal but I'd personally prefer to be heavier and survive rather than be lighter and not.

Ground pressure, as you've mentioned it, would not make the M1 much more manoeverable cross country than CR2 and Leopard 2, it depends on many other things with suspension already mentioned. Besides, a marginally wider track isn't going to hugely affect the M1s ground pressure is it? At best it may affect it marginally with a bonus of being lighter overall.

You mention CR2 being a thirsty beast, compared to the M1 it's tea total :)

Torsion bar suspension isn't the greatest but does tend to be fairly long lasting but when one goes, others tend to follow quite soon after and that increases with age. Hydrogas requires maintenance but is a far superior ride adding to the manoeverability of CR2. You can't criticise CR2s hydrogas suspension because crews may or may not maintain it correctly, the criticism should be directed at crews or policy in force at the time.

Why, if you spent money we don't have on a replacement power pack we don't actually need would you also remove the already removable external fuel tanks? Greater fuel gives greater distance/operating time on the ground irrespective of which PP you have installed.

I could go on but the remainder of your post merely shows you've been reading other recent threads.
 
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

(...)
There was a previous discussion, either on this thread or a related one, of turbine versus diesel engines. The Americans have said they would prefer to get rid of the gas turbine in the M1 and switch to a diesel across the board, but didn't have the money to spend. Diesel offered better fuel economy overall and that in turn had a major effect on the amount of logistical support required.
 
There was a previous discussion, either on this thread or a related one, of turbine versus diesel engines. The Americans have said they would prefer to get rid of the gas turbine in the M1 and switch to a diesel across the board, but didn't have the money to spend. Diesel offered better fuel economy overall and that in turn had a major effect on the amount of logistical support required.

And the Russians went further, with the "me too!" gas turbine in the T-80 reverting back to diesels for later models and the T-80UD.
 
And the Russians went further, with the "me too!" gas turbine in the T-80 reverting back to diesels for later models and the T-80UD.
Gas turbines were also installed or trialled in other tanks, dating back as far as WWII, but none saw extensive service except for the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 where it was used to supplement the diesel.

They were also extensively tested in heavy commercial trucks from the 1950s to the 1980s, where they were heavily promoted as being "the future" and were sometimes paired with "futuristic" truck styling. I would not be surprised if this had a major cultural influence on the decision for the US to use a gas turbine in their M1 tank.
 
Gas turbines were also installed or trialled in other tanks, dating back as far as WWII, but none saw extensive service except for the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 where it was used to supplement the diesel.

They were also extensively tested in heavy commercial trucks from the 1950s to the 1980s, where they were heavily promoted as being "the future" and were sometimes paired with "futuristic" truck styling. I would not be surprised if this had a major cultural influence on the decision for the US to use a gas turbine in their M1 tank.
//thread drift on
Rover-BRM - Wikipedia
Thread drift off//
 
Top