Author Topic: Challenger II tank (Read 2467 times)

Furball · « **on:** December 25, 2005, 09:58:38 AM »

watched a programme about this tank the other night...

Hasn't suffered a single loss to enemy action in Gulf War II, its predecessor destroyed 300+ tanks in Gulf War I without loss, the Challenger II holds the record for the longest successful tank vs tank engagement (2.5+ miles) and one also suffered mechanical breakdown in a city, was hit by 8 RPGs and an Anti Tank missile before rescue without a single scratch to the crew.

wow.

moot · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2005, 10:01:33 AM »

Looks a bit like a late Panzer..
The Mk. III was a WWII model, right?

Furball · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2005, 10:03:19 AM »

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2005, 10:11:39 AM »

The M1, the Challenger, the Leopard and the Le Clerk are battlefield kings... the T80 is nice but on paper only so far, the turbine has to be more perfected for what I eard.

Suave · « **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2005, 10:37:52 AM »

Don't forget the new merkava and type-90.

Leopard 2a5, 2a6, challenger II, and type-90 are the three best MBT's ever. It's a scientific fact.

Shouldn't poopoo the russian t-90 either.

Clarification: Of course I'm talking about the japanese type90, not the chinese type90.

moot · « **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2005, 10:41:25 AM »

I guess this is a typo

Or it wasn't produced.
(Nevermind, it's a 1 - mark III)

Nilsen · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2005, 10:41:39 AM »

Some of those silly Discovery top10 lists had the Leopard 2A6 as the number one. The Challenger2 and Merkva was also pretty high up on the list... and the M1A2 ofcourse.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 25, 2005, 12:19:31 PM »

It's a scientific fact

... that's the undisputable truth statement right there. (Just picking on the choice of wording, no offense).

Hey I still like my Leclerc:p, it's one of the best.

Does the Merkva has a stabalized gun? I though only the US/Brit/Germ/Fr had it on operational tanks.

Nilsen · « **Reply #8 on:** December 25, 2005, 12:50:47 PM »

I think it does..

The LeClerc is a good tank (no combat data ofcourse), but didnt they opt for speed over armor on that one?

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #9 on:** December 25, 2005, 01:34:37 PM »

Not at all, I think the front armor is the thickest of the M1/Challenger. The Leclerc is much lighter. Let me Google and see.

Here this guy seems like what he is talking about, to be verified since I don't know crap about tanks except for my 2 days course in the Intel 8 years ago:eek:

---------------------------------
RE:How good is the French Leclerc? 12/31/2004 12:16:43 PM
Few people on that thread are mistaking somehow .

To start with ---> : When designing a new Tank you tend to think about 3 things :

1) Type of landscape where the tank is most likely to fight .
2) What is going to be the task of the Tank .
3) What kind of threat the tank is most likely to encounter .

Then , you do your best to come up with a winning formula which includes available technology and cost . Then you think "Futurproof" for at least 10-15 years .

So , what the Leclerc has been design for ?

To put it simply :

To Defeat all T-XX series.
And to fight in a European landscape , from -25c to +35c .

To this extent , it has been made light (56T combat ready for the T5 to T10 versions) , and fast . In fact , really fast ...
So the 3 Men crew +autoloader and very high power to weight ratio .
"Light" does NOT have to mean "less armored" . Because of the relatively small numbers of Leclerc in France (under 500) , the French were able to choose the most expensive steel as well as the latest Plastics/Ceramics available . The Leclerc is tough , real tough ...

All western tanks boost more or less the same thickness of armor up front .

The difference is how the armor react to KE and HEAT , and the quality of the materials employed .
In that department , I believe the Leo 2A5/6 and the Leclerc leads the pack by a good margin . The Brit Challenger 2 with its Shobham being very close behind .

Usually , Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA) appears in 3 forms :
Armored steel(RHA) Value :270-300 BHN
Semi Hardened steel (SHS):400-450 BHN
High Hardeness steel (HHS):500-600 BHN

The M1 steel is "High Yield Steel" (HYS):320-380 BHN .

All western Shobham armored Tanks feature Semi Hardened Steel as a part of the layered structure .
Shobham is assume to use ceramics 4 times harder than RHA and much lighter .

High Hardened Steel (HHS) 500-600 BHN , offer 30-35% more resistance than RHA , but its twice the price , difficult to weld .
The Leclerc and Leo feature this armor as a part or the layers .

On the other hand , the M1 has "added" DU layer to "cope" better against hits due to the average steel quality of its armor . Without it (DU) , the latest ammo would probably go straight through with a laugh .

Leo and Leclerc do NOT need it YET .

Now , keep in mind the Leclerc armor , while being TRIPLE High Hardened Steel , include ceramics and a classified Plastic .

The believed Armor values are the following :

M1A1HC/M1A1HA+/M1A2

Turret: 880-900 KE
Glacis:560-590 KE
Lower front hull:580-650 KE
Turret: 1310-1620 HEAT
Glacis:510-1050 HEAT
Lower front hull:800-970 HEAT

M1A2 SEP

Turret: 940-960 KE
Glacis:560-590 KE
Lower front hull:580-650 KE
Turret: 1320-1620 HEAT
Glacis:510-1050 HEAT
Lower front hull:800-970 HEAT

Leclerc

Glacis 580-600 KE , 1040-1060 HEAT,
Hull side: 90 KE, 420 HEAT,
Turret Front 890-910 KE , 1220-1420 HEAT,
Lower front hull : 780 KE , 850 HEAT

We can see that the latest Abrams have a small advantage , but look at the weight of the Tanks !!
Leclerc can archive almost the same protection level while weighting 15 tons less .

I don 't want to turn my post into a book , so I 'll be brief now ...
Leclerc ' FCS is without a doubt one of the best around . Added to the very fast autoloader and its extreme agility and speed , it makes the Tank a excellent Hunter/Killer platform , hard to kill and even harder to hit .

But if there is a downside (and there is) it has to be the main gun and the ammo employed . During joined testing with the Brits , the 120mm French smoothbore (F1) caliber 52 was as accurate as the Brit riffled gun but less powerfull .
The ammo currently employed is the Tungsten OFL 120 F1-A which is on the par with the German/US LKE-1 or DM44 or KWA-1 . A DU round is in service (OFL 120 F2) which ~performance wise~ is almost equal to the US M829A2 .
That DU round is still fielded in very small numbers .

I for one believe the Leclerc is an excellent fighting platform able to win any fight versus any T-xx Tank , even when outnumbered .
And it is its main purpose .

Now , to answer the usual bull question "who 's got the best Tank" , the answer is pretty simple in fact :

As long as you have a very good Tank , the crew will make the difference .

Cheers .
-------------------------------

And if you want to learn a bit more from their makers : Giat's web site

Nilsen · « **Reply #10 on:** December 25, 2005, 01:40:23 PM »

You are prolly correct.. I knew it was a fast tank so i ASSumed.

Im navy so tanks and planes are not really my thing.

Furball · « **Reply #11 on:** December 25, 2005, 01:49:27 PM »

its Chobham not Shobam.

and the Challenger II uses the classified second gen Chobham armour codenamed Dorchester

Nilsen · « **Reply #12 on:** December 25, 2005, 01:51:06 PM »

mmm...chobham

bad for your teeth kids

Suave · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2005, 01:32:42 PM »

Ninja Leopard

http://www.tamiyaclubdata.com/movies/1965/m0Z8OKSRZQ0.mpg

VOR · « **Reply #14 on:** December 26, 2005, 10:18:26 PM »

Autoloaders don't do so well when it comes time to help pull watches or change track or refuel/ upload ammo. They also don't make a very good cup of coffee. On the other hand, that's one less set of farts to put up with in the turret.