warrior vs. Bradley: how much better protected?`

#1
Hearing that the bad guys say that the WR must be blessed by Allah ( as they cannot destroy it ) makes me wonder, is it because our Chobham is better than their Chobham?

Why else would it seem that WR is more survivable to eg. RPG?
 
#3
are the yanks
using the side protection we use, the stuff that looks like chicken wire?
 
#4
I have a photo of an Arty OP Warrior just after it had drove over a doubled up TMM1 in Bosnia in 1996 - it took off two road stations and loosened the chobam a wee bit. The crew were fine, not a scratch. I think the protection is outstanding for the class of vehicle.
 
#5
Bravo_Bravo said:
Hearing that the bad guys say that the WR must be blessed by Allah ( as they cannot destroy it ) makes me wonder, is it because our Chobham is better than their Chobham?

Why else would it seem that WR is more survivable to eg. RPG?
If you'd been there, you'd know differently.
 
#6
From what I hear from tankers, Our chobham IS better than the export version the Amricans use, hence why they put layer of DU in it in later versions of the M1.
 

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
I have the dubious honour of working on these things from an engineering viewpoint.

Yes, the armour is much better but also the seam welding regime is so over the top as to be ridiculous....until they start taking hits then it makes sense.
Basically the US butt weld at corners, the UK have a stepped joint like old style drawer carpentry where the two sheets partially wrap around each other. This is then multiple welded to form a fat seam welded and then ground back to shape producing a stronger weld.
 
#8
JacketsOfGreen said:
If you'd been there, you'd know differently.
Ah yes, WR only ever being used in Iraq and no other source of info available to anyone than the Mk 1 Mod 1 eyeball.

:roll:

MIB - thank you. I am aware that the WR took account of the South African experience in making eg. Roikaat safer against mines.
 
#9
Bravo_Bravo said:
JacketsOfGreen said:
If you'd been there, you'd know differently.

MIB - thank you. I am aware that the WR took account of the South African experience in making eg. Roikaat safer against mines.
Ah yes, the v-shaped hull of Warrior! :wink:
 
#10
As for the story about 'Chobham', the theory about what it consists of crops up from time to time...

Ask the PWRR how they got in in Amarah....not pretty
 
#11
It is really annoying that it is called Chobham armour, yes the boffins came from there but all the work, the testing, making up the new "menus" of armour were done at Kirkcudbright. So really it is "Kirkcudbright " Armour.
 
#14
Paymaster said:
It is really annoying that it is called Chobham armour, yes the boffins came from there but all the work, the testing, making up the new "menus" of armour were done at Kirkcudbright. So really it is "Kirkcudbright " Armour.
I would beg to differ on that... Kirkudbright was the test range alright, but the design and initial manufacture (before it went to industry) was done at FVRDE Chertsey, including integration on the first 'Chobham' tank, FV4211.
 
#15
I thought the stuff was made out of uneaten treacle pudding.
 
#16
Design! It wasn't designed, it was "taste rested". Each day we would try a new menu, fire at it, look at it, change the menu and try again. Some of the materials we tried were bizarre, some of the trials total failures but it was at Kirkcudbright (note spelling!) that the correct menu was developed. Any fool of a manufacturer can produce it given the specs and we could have tried on a Rhino rather than an FV.

Therefore ...... Kirkcudbright armour!
 
#17
Paymaster said:
Design! It wasn't designed, it was "taste rested". Each day we would try a new menu, fire at it, look at it, change the menu and try again. Some of the materials we tried were bizarre, some of the trials total failures but it was at Kirkcudbright (note spelling!) that the correct menu was developed. Any fool of a manufacturer can produce it given the specs and we could have tried on a Rhino rather than an FV.

Therefore ...... Kirkcudbright armour!
You were there in the early 60's with the Army?

Without getting too much into the sensitive stuff, there is a design principle behind it, which isn't just a matter of any old materials. This design has been refined over the years, and the current spec certainly isn't 'Kirkcudbright Armour'!

As with most trials, the correct recipe is virtually never derived on paper, but even the most 'poke and hope' trial always has some 'boffins' idea behind it. :wink:
 
#18
It's called "Dorchester" because the secret ingredient, unknown until noe, is fagbuts from those cheap Dorchester cigarettes. I know this to be true because the bloke from the Cr2 desk at MSG (who smoked Dorchester fags) told me so!
 
#19
Interestingly, I watched a programme on Chally last night. They talked to the RTR crew of a Chally 2 that took 7 RPG hits, a round from an anti-tank missile ( unspecified ), and a 100mm MBT round.

Minimal damage to CR2, no hull penetration, good on the boffins.

BB
 
#20
You sure it wasn't "Battlestations" on Discovery/Ch4? That featured Sgt B****'s Cr2 from the SDG. That one took several RPG hits and a couple of MILAN (captured from the Royal Marines) hits when it got stuck and REME had to come and recover/rescue it (in their un-up-armoured CRARRV). That op took 8hours (coz the reccy mechs were at the back of the queue for PE4) and earned the reccy mech Cpl an MC and Sgt B**** "persona non grata" coz he just sat inside, shut the hatches and let the REME and the Dorchester do the work. All supporting fire was given by the CRARRV Crew with pers wpns and the CRARRV GPMG (which you have to stand out of the cupola to fire!)
 

Latest Threads

Top