Author Topic: Challenger II tank  (Read 2616 times)

Offline ATA

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 555
Challenger II tank
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2005, 12:53:16 AM »
Russian t90 sound  good,the real minus is a lack of combat data.
Is there any info on a t94 by any chance?

Offline 1K3

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3449
Challenger II tank
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2005, 02:36:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ATA
Russian t90 sound  good,the real minus is a lack of combat data.
Is there any info on a t94 by any chance?


T-94 was scrapped

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
Challenger II tank
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2005, 03:28:26 AM »
i think we are all forgetting the most important factor of what is the best MBT: the challenger II has a tea maker, nuff said.

 i hear the latest brit tank camo will be plaid, the hull made of the finest mohogany and have lounge chairs with rich people discussing the economy on top of the tank. the idea is to blind the enemy with luxury.

Offline Harry

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Challenger II tank
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2005, 05:13:14 AM »
The T-90s main problem in this comparison is that it's only a medium tank of 46 tons, only 2/3rds the weight of an M1A2. However it does match it's western rivals in many important aspects such as gun power, agility and frontal armor. The Russian tanks are designed for mass assaults, and not really meant to go toe-2-toe against western MBT's.






Offline Harry

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Challenger II tank
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2005, 06:31:45 AM »
One curious fact about the T-90 and T-80 is that they are not part of the same design family, but two separate line of tanks. The T-90 is derived from the T-72 which itself was derived from the T-55. The T-80 however was based on the T-62/64. The two design-lines have sort of piggybacked each other through history.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Challenger II tank
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2005, 06:56:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
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.


Turbine was perfected 20 years ago. Tank falls down from a pontoon into the river, they tow it to the ground, let the water pour away from the engine, start it and go. Fish and frogs were not a problem :)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Challenger II tank
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2005, 06:58:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Harry
One curious fact about the T-90 and T-80 is that they are not part of the same design family, but two separate line of tanks. The T-90 is derived from the T-72 which itself was derived from the T-55. The T-80 however was based on the T-62/64. The two design-lines have sort of piggybacked each other through history.


It's not true. T-72 is technologically simplified T-64, T-80 is a T-72 with a turbine, T-80 - improved diesel T-72.

Main difference is that tanks were designed and prodused in Leningrad, Kharkov and Nizhniy Tagil. Now Kharkov is in the Ukraine, and they made their own version of T-80.

Offline Harry

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Challenger II tank
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2005, 07:24:43 AM »
The T-64, introduced in the late 1960s, was the first of a sophisticated new family of Soviet main battle tanks developed as successors to the T-54/55/62 family, the T-64 featured an innovative design incorporating both an autoloader and advanced armor. The T-64 entered production in 1966, was fielded in 1967, and was first seen in public in 1970. Numerous variants were produced during a very long production run.





The T-72, which entered production in 1971, was first seen in public in 1977. The T-72, introduced in the early 1970s, is not a further development of the T-64, but rather a parallel design chosen as a high-production tank complementing the T-64. The T-72 retains the low silhouette of the T-55 series, featuring a conventional layout with integrated fuel cells and stowage containers which give a streamlined appearance to the fenders. While the T-64 was deployed only in forward-deployed Soviet units, the T-72 was deployed within the USSR and exported to non-Soviet Warsaw Pact armies and several other countries. In addition to production in the USSR it has been built under license in Czechoslovakia, India, Poland and former Yugoslavia.





The T-80, manufactured by Transmash of Omsk, appeared as production model in 1984, retaining the basic features of the T-64 series (including the 125mm smoothbore gun with autoloader). Major innovations included the first Soviet use of a gas turnine engine, providing increased speed and power, and the first use of a laser rangefinder providing major improvements in fire control. The T-80 is very similar in appearance to the T-72. It incorporates features common to both the T-64 and T-72, especially in weaponry. Easily distinguishable features of this tank as compared with the standard T-72 are the attachment of side skirts and twelve turret-mounted grenade launchers with seven on the left side and five on the right side.




The T-90 main battle tank, the most modern tank in the army arsenal, went into low-level production in 1993, based on a prototype designated as the T-88. The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Vagonka Works in Nizhniy Tagil. Initially seen as an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series. The T-90 features a new generation of armor on its hull and turret. Two variants, the T-90S and T-90E, have been identified as possible export models. Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced with T-90s by the end of 1997, subject to funding availability. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District.
Derived from the T-72, the GPO Uralvagonzavod T-90 is the most modern tank currently in service with the Russian Army. Of conventional layout, the T-90 represents a major upgrade to every system in the T-72, including the main gun. The T-90 is an interim solution, pending the introduction of the new Nizhny Tagil MBT which has been delayed due to lack of funding. Produced primarily mainly due to its lower cost, the T-90 it will probably remain in low-rate production to keep production lines open until newer designs become available. Several hundred of these tanks have been produced, with various estimates suggesting that between 100 and 300 are in service, primarily in the Far East.




So the family line looks like this:



............................. ..T-62/64----------------->T-80
T-55--------------------^-------->
............................. ..................T-72--------------------------->T-90
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 07:38:23 AM by Harry »

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Challenger II tank
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2005, 07:41:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SMIDSY
i think we are all forgetting the most important factor of what is the best MBT: the challenger II has a tea maker, nuff said.

 i hear the latest brit tank camo will be plaid, the hull made of the finest mohogany and have lounge chairs with rich people discussing the economy on top of the tank. the idea is to blind the enemy with luxury.


LOL so it's not a joke about a tea-maker? :rofl

I have heard that M-60 had a coffee-maker, and it didn't start engine when coffee-machine was on, so hot coffee won't spill and hurt the crew :)

Shermans were called "the best tank for peace-time service" in USSR.

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Challenger II tank
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2005, 07:44:30 AM »
the challenger has a water boiler which can be used for tea or boil in the bag food.

the loader has been trained as a gunner/driver also so if any of these crew are incapacitated for whatever reason the loader can take over, kind of a benefit over an autoloading system ;)

its interesting that the Challenger I had something like 80% commonality with the Chieftan MBT that came before it, whereas the Challenger II has only 5% with the Challenger I, it is very much a new tank over its predecessor.
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Challenger II tank
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2005, 07:55:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Harry
So the family line looks like this:


............................. ..T-62/64----------------->T-80
T-55--------------------^-------->
............................. ..................T-72--------------------------->T-90


Well, T-80 indeed has features of T-64 as D-81 cannon with autoloader, but T-72 also has it.

T-62 was a last tank with manual loading, it had a smooth-bore 115mm D-61 cannon. It was a different design, in between 55 and 64.

I'd draw it like this:
............................. .........................->T-80
T-54/55 -> T-62 -> T-64 -> T-72<  ->T-90


Some version of T-80 is designed and produced in Kharkov, Ukraine.

T-64 suffered of inreliability of suspension and IIRC engine overheating. I don't pretend to tell the "final truth", but 72 was introduced as a more reliable and significantly cheaper alternative to 64. Again, there were at least three design-bureaus working on tanks in USSR, each one having it's own factory (or a factory had a design-bureau), and designing tanks having their own technological lines in mind.

Offline Harry

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Challenger II tank
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2005, 07:56:32 AM »
The russians opted for an autoloader because of simple arithmetic:

56,000 tanks x 4 trained crewmembers

or

56,000 tanks x 3 trained crewmembers

;)

Offline Harry

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Challenger II tank
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2005, 08:07:00 AM »
No Boroda, the T-72 is not related to the T-64, but a parallel development. The T-64 and T-72 were both developed as successors to the T-55. The advanced T-64 evolved into the T-80 (just look at the similar running gear), while the T-72 evolved into the T-90 (again, look at the running gear). Naturally there are a lot of similar technology being used in both design lines (armament, electronic equipment etc.) since they were being developed to serve the same army.

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Challenger II tank
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2005, 08:31:32 AM »
T90 looks like a t72 dipped in glue and then rolled around in a scap metal heap.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Challenger II tank
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2005, 09:08:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Harry
No Boroda, the T-72 is not related to the T-64, but a parallel development. The T-64 and T-72 were both developed as successors to the T-55. The advanced T-64 evolved into the T-80 (just look at the similar running gear), while the T-72 evolved into the T-90 (again, look at the running gear). Naturally there are a lot of similar technology being used in both design lines (armament, electronic equipment etc.) since they were being developed to serve the same army.


There are at least two different T-80s, made by different factories, two different tanks.

Maybe the factory that made 64 then switched to 80, while UVZ switched to 72 from T-55 or 62.