• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Challenger 1 CAT Cup debacle

#1
Anyone know what the improvements to the gunnery electrictronics on the Challenger in the CAT cup debacle? I know they tried to improve the loading time by making the breech close when the loaders guard was made. I also know they had a dot which followed the comanders sight? What else did they do?

I was the Colonels operator, Twiggy Thompson a thumping good chap and he was 'shot' following the poor show. Never knew what the improvements were though
 
#2
Anyone know what the improvements to the gunnery electrictronics on the Challenger in the CAT cup debacle? I know they tried to improve the loading time by making the breech close when the loaders guard was made. I also know they had a dot which followed the comanders sight? What else did they do?

I was the Colonels operator, Twiggy Thompson a thumping good chap and he was 'shot' following the poor show. Never knew what the improvements were though
We stopped entering the CAT Cup for one!
 
#4
No real changes to the Chally 1 FCS. We went to Gramby with bulk standard tanks as per pre CAT Cup. Nothing really happened FCS wise until CR2. Also bear in mind thatthe CAT Cup failure was not all down to FCS issues although they didnt help. There were rules for 3 and 4 tank troops that contributed and the issues with split ammo over single piece ammo. At the end of the day CR1 was an up engined Chieftain so was never really going to do any better than before, it wasn't a new tank. Performed well on Gramby though. You would have crewed CR1 post CAT Cup surely (although not on Gramby as i remember) ..............did you take no notice of what was going on in the turret titch!
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#5
We stopped entering the CAT Cup for one!
I was SO2 Training and Ops at CRAC in 1992, we looked at re-entering CAT at that time, my job was to write the paper as to why we should not. CR1 was sadly not a good gunnery competition tank. The original block 1 CR1 the RH used in CAT had aluminium turret rings that, simply, made it impossible to be accurate to the requirements of CAT. CR1 that deployed to GW1 was a very different tank from the block 1's to the extent that no block 1's were deployed.

CAT was a bit of silly competition but our abject failure in it was not good.
 
#6
I thought those tanks that went to Gramby were different in as much as they had the Armoured charge bins and some 'Desertisation' but basically the same tank with the TOGS upgrades (Different form the TOGS that we used on CAT and the original issued version). I didnt do CAT, that was down to the poor guys in B Sqn who took the rap for it unfairly but I would have thought that 'very different tank' was a bit of an overstatement.
 
#7
Just to be pedantic.....Granby not Gramby.

And while I'm at it...CAT, Canadian Army Trophy therefore not the CAT cup cos that just wouldn't make sense, the trophy cup?
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#8
There were basically 3 blocks of CR1 manufactured, the first batch, that would have been delivered to Iran were not very good and had a lower grade of armour and technical specification than the 2 later batches.

Hence with Granby only block 2 and 3 were deployed, that is why at 14/20th in second deployment we could not take all our fleet and that is why entire CR1 fleet was disabled to produce the deployable ones, 3 RTR had the brand spanking block 3 but they were in NI, when they got back they had no tanks left.
 
#9
Just to be pedantic.....Granby not Gramby.

And while I'm at it...CAT, Canadian Army Trophy therefore not the CAT cup cos that just wouldn't make sense, the trophy cup?
yeah yeah yeah, happy with the pedantic stuff, all i had to do was go there and get well and truly fucked about by LG. I didnt really care what it was called but i take the point. At the end of CAT were the winners presented with a cup because that would then give me the opportunity to be pedantic back which would be nice.......................
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#10
yeah yeah yeah, happy with the pedantic stuff, all i had to do was go there and get well and truly fucked about by LG. I didnt really care what it was called but i take the point. At the end of CAT were the winners presented with a cup because that would then give me the opportunity to be pedantic back which would be nice.......................
Sadly no one in British Armoured Corps would know that.... we never won it!!!!!!
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#11
Sorry I was factually incorrect, last time RAC won was in 1970, still on Cent, after that we had CH and then CR with 2 piece ammo and never won again.

And here it is:
 

Attachments

#13
Sorry I was factually incorrect, last time RAC won was in 1970, still on Cent, after that we had CH and then CR with 2 piece ammo and never won again.

And here it is:
16th/5thL were the last British Army unit to win - On Chieftain.

Look at.

www.mihalko-family.com/Canadian-Army-Trophy-Competition.htm]Canadian Army Trophy Competition

The main problem we encountered was not the that the crews or the tank was no good. It wasn’t, Challenger proved itself to be very good, particularly at long range during Granby. The real problem was that the 90% dispersion zone of the L11 was bigger than most of the targets. The competition kept having smaller and smaller targets that suited the smaller zones of all the competitors. A conspiracy? No I don't think so, the organisers were just adjusting the competition to make it more "interesting". We withdrew because we had no real chance of doing well let alone winning using a vehicle with the L11. Simples
 
#16
I think we have proved that you dont need to hit targets under strict competition standards to be a good tank. CR2 has more than shown its worth and capabilities during GW2. There's an old saying 'targets dont shoot back' hitting them quick isn't that important, hitting them first is the priority. CAT was always going to be a single piece ammo 4 tank troop competition, and with single piece ammo it is much easier to achieve the required hit times.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#18
I think we have proved that you dont need to hit targets under strict competition standards to be a good tank. CR2 has more than shown its worth and capabilities during GW2. There's an old saying 'targets dont shoot back' hitting them quick isn't that important, hitting them first is the priority. CAT was always going to be a single piece ammo 4 tank troop competition, and with single piece ammo it is much easier to achieve the required hit times.
Agreed, hence my earlier comment that it was a bit of a silly competition in the first place.

We wanted it changed to a more realistic environment and requirements (such as NBC shoots), strangely the winning teams of the 80's were not that interested in changing the rules so that we could win.
 
#19
I can't reply with quotes but thanks for the replies. I've tried to PM Crimsonhussar after he outed me the swine, hope it works. CAT cup was always a very silly competition I completely agree. We were always going to be on the back foot with split case ammo dont know if anyone else has tried to explain it to a civvie, they can't grasp it.

The Spams took the cup very seriously I remember seeing the Abrahams driving round the Hohne range road with big boards saying exactly what they were 2 years before the competition was held there. The rules were a Sqn was taken out of the line and plonked on a range that they didn't know. We cheated by stuffing the Sqn with gunnery instructors made no difference in the end as we were taken to the cleaners
 
#20
We had a SQN lined up for it in the 80´s just after we got Chally I.Luckily we lost the toss and the Cavalry "got it" in the true sence of the word
 

Latest Threads