Challenger 1 vs 2

[Maj.Hans]

Have a few questions about these...

 

First, why the change from having the TOGS in a pod on the turret to having the goofy above gun setup that makes you have to fire HESH blind?

 

Second, how does the armor compare on a relative basis?  I'm surprised they didn't update Challenger 1 further rather than just jump to the 2, so I assume there's a reason somewhere...

[Gibsonm]

You don't fire HESH blind.

 

You acquire and lase the target just like Fin, its just that when the FCS applies the super elevation, the sight moves.

 

[IrishHussar]

Hi may I please comment as I do have experience on CR and CR2.

Firstly there was no Challenger 1 it was just Challenger. It was first brought into service early to mid 80s as a replacement for the ageing Chieftan. Pre Challenger we had no thermals, no hyrdro gas suspension, no composite armour and a powerpack that was very much under powered. What Challenger did have was an extremely powerful and accurate main armament in the form of the 120mm rifled cannon. This was inherited from the previous Chieftan and compared to other nations who were still using the 105mm gun, at the time, was still class leading.

The Challenger 2 (CR2) was an improvement on that design with too many improvements to list in this discussion. The main improvements in my opinion were the main armament, the fire control system, the gearbox and the overall electrical system. The CR2 was brought into service in the late 90s therefore is approaching 30 years of service, with a good crew and correct application it is still up there ranking with the best tanks in service.

Edited November 28 by IrishHussar

[Hedgehog]

There was another Challenger the WW2 era A30 but that was long gone by Irish's time.

 

Challenger (1)

And

Challenger 2

 

Are very different vehicles

They only share the name

 

It's like the Leopard (1) and Leopard 2

When the sequel came out they added a 1 to the original.

[Stuart666]

3 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Have a few questions about these...

 

First, why the change from having the TOGS in a pod on the turret to having the goofy above gun setup that makes you have to fire HESH blind?

 

Second, how does the armor compare on a relative basis?  I'm surprised they didn't update Challenger 1 further rather than just jump to the 2, so I assume there's a reason somewhere...

 

The reason why is that they had problems combining the sight picture and the gunners sight with the TOGS right out there on the flank. Gun horizontal paralax correction Is I believe the reason the Haynes guide points to. Thermal sights were bit bulky at the time, and if you had it semi recessed in the turret, it would probably have compromised its armour protection. Looking back on it, it might have made more sense to have mounted it above the turret ala Leopard 2A5, but then it would have made it look a bit like a lighthouse if they did perhaps.

 

There should be a Challenger 2 gunnery video coming out at some point, but basically, you dont entirely fire HESH blind. You observe the target, lase, gun goes to superelevation and takes the TOGS off target, you dump lead, you fire (effectively blind at this point, but its a static target), enter battlesight range by pressing backspace, and observe fall of shot. Rinse and repeat till they meet the L37 of consequences. This only looks a problem if you think you are going to be firing at a moving target at 2500 metres range. Well, you arent. The mv of the HESH round is only something like 650mps, so between the vehicle moving, dispersion and environmental effects, you are going to miss at that range (even static targets probably will require multiple rounds and manual adjustment). Anything under 1500metres against a moving target is fair game, but most times, simply because of the speed of the round, you are going to be better off firing APFSDS which is twice as fast, and being a DU round, probably no less fatal to a BMP anyway. Save HESH for infantry, those little buggers cant run faster than a HESH round.

 

Its a complicated story, but basically the replacement for Chieftain was going to be MBT80. By 1980 it was clear that it was going to be lucky to arrive by the 1980's, so they embarked on Challenger, which was a Shir1 upgrade. The MOD were very happy, we dont need MBT80, stop work on it (they actually did that before the first Challenger was delivered in 1983).

 

Everyone was happy till CAT1986 when everyone became apparent Challenger was not very good at quick draw engagements. The reason for that is its fire control was an adaption of Chieftains, whcih was itself an upgrade system to the existing fire control system. it worked, as long as you were static, and didnt mind taking some time about the calculation. (It would generate range on the move, but forget about solutions on moving targets, you had to figure that out yourself). it didnt help that the stab was basically the same as Chieftain, and probably could have done with replacement with something more modern.

 

At this point Vickers Defence Systems, which had been working on a new turret that could fit on the Leopard 2, pointed out they could mount it on Challenger hull, keeping parts commonality.  Would MOD like them to try? MOD would like that very much, so in 1989 we got Challenger 2 as a prototype. Which had a few teething problems, but by the time they got them figured out the cold war was long over, and the Russians packing up for the Urals.  In fact there is a good case for saying it might have been better to have kept working on MBT80 and we might have got something completely revolutionary. Or more likely the Army would have soldiered on with upgraded Chieftains perhaps. Who can tell.

 

Well, challenger 1 got dumped by 2002. I can remember them going as early as 1996 going down the M4 motorway on the back of a Scammel Commanders, being 'given' away to Jordan. The initial plan of course was originally to update the fire control to that fitted to Challenger 2, and retrofit them with the C2's L30 gun, which of course would have given them a DU round. Unfortunately the Soviets were too unsporting to keep the cold war going, and the Chancellor too unsporting to thinking of the future Warthunder tanks of tomorrow, and nothing came of it. Chieftain was also similarly to be upgraded, and there is rumours that one Chieftain was fitted with an L30 gun, though ive never seen a photo of it. The Chieftain user manual has Mk12 for Upgunning, and Mk13 for upgunning and fitting with TOGS IIRC.

 

TBH, for a 1980's tank, Challenger 1 was reasonably well armoured already, at least on the turret and upper hull, supposedly slightly ahead of a Leopard 2A4. Presumably they would have made an attempt to uparmour the turret, perhaps even fitting Dorchester armour as with Challenger 2, but im not aware any design study was ever made. After all, it took 10 years to uparmour Chieftain, and they knew about the T64 with its 125mm gun as early as 1976. TBF they didnt quite appreciate how good that gun was till 1982 and they got reports back from Iraq about its effectiveness against Chieftain. But its still disappointingly slow going. Mind you it was a minor miracle the director of AFV's managed to impose TOGS on MOD at all, particulary as the MOD tried to block it at every point as unnecessary, so we should be grateful for what we got.

 

Hope that answers your questions.

Edited November 28 by Stuart666

[Stuart666]

2 hours ago, IrishHussar said:

Hi may I please comment as I do have experience on CR and CR2.

Firstly there was no Challenger 1 it was just Challenger. It was first brought into service early to mid 80s as a replacement for the ageing Chieftan. Pre Challenger we had no thermals, no hyrdro gas suspension, no composite armour and a powerpack that was very much under powered. What Challenger did have was an extremely powerful and accurate main armament in the form of the 120mm rifled cannon. This was inherited from the previous Chieftan and compared to other nations who were still using the 105mm gun, at the time, was still class leading.

The Challenger 2 (CR2) was an improvement on that design with too many improvements to list in this discussion. The main improvements in my opinion were the main armament, the fire control system, the gearbox and the overall electrical system. The CR2 was brought into service in the late 90s therefore is approaching 30 years of service, with a good crew and correct application it is still up there ranking with the best tanks in service.

 

Yes, I keep forgetting about the gearbox/transmission upgrade, but there was supposedly a few issues with that in Challenger 1, which disappeared with Challenger 2. I think they fitted a Milstd bus on it, iirc? Must have made it a bit easier installing new things like the selex enforcer and the jammers.

 

 

[Stuart666]

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

There was another Challenger the WW2 era A30 but that was long gone by Irish's time.

 

Challenger (1)

And

Challenger 2

 

Are very different vehicles

They only share the name

 

It's like the Leopard (1) and Leopard 2

When the sequel came out they added a 1 to the original.

 

Yes, arguably we are on Challenger 4 by this point...

[Maj.Hans]

5 hours ago, Stuart666 said:

The reason why is that they had problems combining the sight picture and the gunners sight with the TOGS right out there on the flank. Gun horizontal paralax correction Is I believe the reason the Haynes guide points to. Thermal sights were bit bulky at the time, and if you had it semi recessed in the turret, it would probably have compromised its armour protection. Looking back on it, it might have made more sense to have mounted it above the turret ala Leopard 2A5, but then it would have made it look a bit like a lighthouse if they did perhaps.

Makes me wonder then how they managed to squeeze it into the M1 series tanks of around the same time frame.  Unless the M1 turret is substantially smaller and I am simply mistaken in thinking they are of similar size.

[Maj.Hans]

6 hours ago, Stuart666 said:

After all, it took 10 years to uparmour Chieftain, and they knew about the T64 with its 125mm gun as early as 1976

The "Stillbrew" armor package I take it.  An interesting addon that I don't actually know terribly much about.

[Maj.Hans]

This is probably a question for @Ssnakeas much as anyone else but would L15 APDS have worked in the Challenger or Challenger 2 gun?

[Stuart666]

12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Makes me wonder then how they managed to squeeze it into the M1 series tanks of around the same time frame.  Unless the M1 turret is substantially smaller and I am simply mistaken in thinking they are of similar size.

 

By most accounts on tanknet, the crews regarded the TIS in the first Abrams as not very good. The narrative is, the money ran out when they reached the turret roof (the cupola MG mount wasnt very clever either). Ok, it was compact, but most accounts say it wasnt even as good as that fitted to the M60A3.

 

People forget this, but TOGS was state of the art when it started to appear in the early 1980's. Im not saying it was world leading, but it was up there in contention, certainly no worse than what was on the German 2A4 at the time. Its the familiar British story, we get something really good, world class, dont spend money on it it for decades, then everyone deprecates it as being no good. True, it was a little bulky, and likely a lot more could have been done about that. OTOH, we could have bought the V580 sight for the commander with the Thermal channel fitted, then nobody would have any cause for complaint about the TOGS going off target. You pays your money, you makes your choice.

 

12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

The "Stillbrew" armor package I take it.  An interesting addon that I don't actually know terribly much about.

 

Neither do I. There is still some debate about whether it was just rubber flaps, or there was some secret 'ingredient x' that was going to be poured into it the day before WW3 started. Probably the former. It was really only meant to defeat HEAT.

8 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

This is probably a question for @Ssnakeas much as anyone else but would L15 APDS have worked in the Challenger or Challenger 2 gun?

 

L15 would have been the main service round on Challenger 1 early on. I dont think L23 even appeared till 1984/85 timeframe. They would likely have been firing it for years on the range. So the preproduction Challengers, and the intial service tranche dellivered in late 1983 should have been firing APDS.

 

Challenger 2, It might have been theoretically possible (after all they were firing the same HESH rounds), but the main training round for Challenger 2 was L23. in fact, it was the dearth of that that led the British Government to start developing L28 so they would have something to fire. Nobody seemed very keen to start using DU penetrators on training ranges in the UK, for obvious reasons. L15 should have all been expended by the time Challenger 2 entered service in 1996/1998.

[Maj.Hans]

38 minutes ago, Stuart666 said:

cupola MG mount wasnt very clever either). Ok, it was compact, but most accounts say it wasnt even as good as that fitted to the M60A3.

Sadly that seems to be accurate.

 

This has been rectified on the later A1 variants with the SCWS, stabilized commander weapon system, which either includes or can include a thermal optic as well, but AFAIK does not function to designate targets.

 

It makes me wish that the solution for the A2 had been a fully stabilized cupola with thermals rather than CITV and view screen.  Essentially to have the view screen as it is now but to have the CITV also be the primary sight for a low profile stabilized .50cal MG cupola.

 

Edit: Apparently that's exactly what they got with the SCWS, it COULD be used like a CITV to point the gunner at a target.

 

https://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/922605/marine-corps-to-deliver-capability-trifecta-to-tank-commanders/

 

38 minutes ago, Stuart666 said:

Neither do I. There is still some debate about whether it was just rubber flaps, or there was some secret 'ingredient x' that was going to be poured into it the day before WW3 started. Probably the former. It was really only meant to defeat HEAT.

I was under the impression that it was more than rubber.  I heard it described as large steel blocks spaced from the main hull with rubber, or multiple layers of steel and rubber, sometimes with the addition of claims that the rubber was held under compression and the armor was supposed to slough or shear off when hit either all together or in layers, or just as "composite" armor.

 

 

As for TOGS, seems like it works just fine but I'd be curious to see it as mounted on the original Chally 1.  I wonder if parallax could have been solved with computer programming to account for that?

 

I think the M60A3 has issues with parralax and it's LRF.

Edited November 29 by Maj.Hans

[Stuart666]

4 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

Sadly that seems to be accurate.

 

This has been rectified on the later A1 variants with the SCWS, stabilized commander weapon system, which either includes or can include a thermal optic as well, but AFAIK does not function to designate targets.

 

It makes me wish that the solution for the A2 had been a fully stabilized cupola with thermals rather than CITV and view screen.  Essentially to have the view screen as it is now but to have the CITV also be the primary sight for a low profile stabilized .50cal MG cupola.

 

Edit: Apparently that's exactly what they got with the SCWS, it COULD be used like a CITV to point the gunner at a target.

 

https://www.marcorsyscom.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/922605/marine-corps-to-deliver-capability-trifecta-to-tank-commanders/

 

I was under the impression that it was more than rubber.  I heard it described as large steel blocks spaced from the main hull with rubber, or multiple layers of steel and rubber, sometimes with the addition of claims that the rubber was held under compression and the armor was supposed to slough or shear off when hit either all together or in layers, or just as "composite" armor.

 

 

As for TOGS, seems like it works just fine but I'd be curious to see it as mounted on the original Chally 1.  I wonder if parallax could have been solved with computer programming to account for that?

 

I think the M60A3 has issues with parralax and it's LRF.

 

Could be. Ive never seen stillbrew sectioned to give you any answers Im afraid.

 

Well, it was the 1980's man. A computer back then was loaded by a tape drive, and had about 48k (or 64K if you could afford a commodore). With luck you got your favourite game installed in 20 minutes...

 

And the fire control in Challenger 1 did indeed have a tape drive, at least if the user manual is any guide. It was to be fair, pretty primative. Yes, It worked, and  IMHO worked somewhat better than the Soviet system on T72B which just told you how many mils to aim off for lead. But its in that kind of ball park. It would never win awards for elegance.

 

I guess the point to remember, the fire control here was an adaption of an upgrade. It was not well integrated with the tank. Then someone goes and hangs a thermal sight on the tank, mounts it way the hell off to the side and has to figure out the parallax issues, then has to figure how to make  the fire control talk to IFCS or CCS depending on what installation, and then create a fire control solution. Im amazed they got it it to work, but im not surprised they found they had issues along the way.

 

All that said, Britain got a tank with Chobham, good mobility, it had thermal sights and a relatively modern fire control system, and it got it by the amazingly early date of 1983. Sure, it had its issues, but it did perfectly well in 1991. The real issues with it were MOD support skimping on spares, less the tank. It worked considerably better than we had a right to expect. So I guess throwing components already utilized in past vehicles did work out in the end, even if they were mainly Chieftain bits.

[TSe419E]

7 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

I wonder if parallax could have been solved with computer programming to account for that?

 

I think the M60A3 has issues with parralax and it's LRF.

It seems to me that the M1 series doesn’t have a parralax error problem so the computer must be adjusting for the problem, something I had to do on the fly in M60A1s.

[Ssnake]

In principle, sorting out the parallax error isn't so much of a problem. In practice, well, ...

After knowing the disaster of the Warrior's main weapon's mount requiring to re-lay the gun after every. single. shot. I wouldn't rule out that it was manufacturing tolerances and/or limitations of 1970s (British?) electronics that caused the trouble, and they might have been unwilling to spend the necessary money to fix it. Later on, mounting the sight on the gun may have appeared as a charming low-cost solution. Which caused its own set of problems -- but isn' it surprising how much good training can compensate for, uh, reductive design?

[Damian90]

Quote

This has been rectified on the later A1 variants with the SCWS, stabilized commander weapon system, which either includes or can include a thermal optic as well, but AFAIK does not function to designate targets.

 

Not true, SCWS can act to designate targets when AIDATS system is installed. Polish M1A1FEP's have this feature, and SCWS is now controlled with TC joystick and not separate controlers. So SCWS becomes equivalent to CITV. Below image of M1A1FEP TC station. Small display above GPSE is sight for SCWS, and you can see that TC only have single control joystick, which seems to be identical to the one in M1A2SEP. Also notice that M1A1FEP do not have anymore, optical sights for SCWS, everything is digital and sights view is displayed on a flat display.

 

 

Ukrainian M1A1SA-UKR do not have AIDATS system, and only basic SCWS, so TC controls look different. Also basic SCWS still have optical sight.

 

Edited November 30 by Damian90

[CR2_Commander]

On 11/30/2024 at 11:03 AM, Ssnake said:

In principle, sorting out the parallax error isn't so much of a problem. In practice, well, ...

After knowing the disaster of the Warrior's main weapon's mount requiring to re-lay the gun after every. single. shot. I wouldn't rule out that it was manufacturing tolerances and/or limitations of 1970s (British?) electronics that caused the trouble, and they might have been unwilling to spend the necessary money to fix it. Later on, mounting the sight on the gun may have appeared as a charming low-cost solution. Which caused its own set of problems -- but isn' it surprising how much good training can compensate for, uh, reductive design?

That wasn't due to the electronics. It was the RARDEN main armament and the slack within the system with it being manual elevation/depression. It was the same with Scimitar, "always end in elevation to take the slack out of the system"

[Gibsonm]

1 hour ago, CR2_Commander said:

That wasn't due to the electronics. It was the RARDEN main armament and the slack within the system with it being manual elevation/depression. It was the same with Scimitar, "always end in elevation to take the slack out of the system"

 

Yep.

 

From the zeroing drill that were smashed into me:

"Relay

End your lay in elevation."

 

[dejawolf]

7 hours ago, CR2_Commander said:

That wasn't due to the electronics. It was the RARDEN main armament and the slack within the system with it being manual elevation/depression. It was the same with Scimitar, "always end in elevation to take the slack out of the system"

 

i have read it was also caused by the RARDEN being slightly off-center to the turret center-of-rotation, along with center-of-elevation instead of perfectly aligned. 

if both are perfectly aligned, theoretically there should be no movement, and no extra strain on these systems, even with slack in the manual elevation/depression. 

arguably, the slack in the elevation/depression could have been caused by the misaligned gun over years of use.