Discussion
Looks like the German 's MBT isn't doing so well in combat operations against ISIS and the Kurds. It could be bad tactics on the part of the Turkish forces but given that these tanks were a contender to augment the Challenger 2's I don't think the MOD will be impressed. As the Leopards are due replacement the Germans may have to look at the Abrams and Challenger 2's designs when looking for a Tank that can stand up to the Russian Armata, (although I have to say the Armata looks like a Toy version of a Tank, Another Mig-25 perhaps),
The German Arms industry isn't looking that hot especially after the G36 Assault rifle debacle.
The German Arms industry isn't looking that hot especially after the G36 Assault rifle debacle.
What exactly is the issue. Leopard 2 being spanked by ISIS? Against what weapon systems? How are the Leopard 2s being employed?
MBTs are a large target on the battlefield. The employment of MBTs on the battlefield should not be in isolation but as part of combined arms maneuver warfare. An MBT in isolation against dismounted infantry with anti-armour capability will not end well for the MBT, particularly in an urban environment.
If the manufacturers of Leopard 2 are pissed off, it probably is because the Turks are pitting MBT vulnerabilities against an enemies strengths. But, I suppose the seller can't dictate how the end user employs the hardware.
MBTs are a large target on the battlefield. The employment of MBTs on the battlefield should not be in isolation but as part of combined arms maneuver warfare. An MBT in isolation against dismounted infantry with anti-armour capability will not end well for the MBT, particularly in an urban environment.
If the manufacturers of Leopard 2 are pissed off, it probably is because the Turks are pitting MBT vulnerabilities against an enemies strengths. But, I suppose the seller can't dictate how the end user employs the hardware.
telecat said:
It could be bad tactics on the part of the Turkish forces
Thats it in a nutshell. Plus the Turks use the 2A4 version, when the latest is the 2A7.The Germans will not be looking at Challanger 2; it has the wrong gun for starters. We stuck with a rifled gun, when the rest of the world went smoothbore. We use two piece amo, everyone else uses one piece. Challanger is stuck in a very British niche that no one elses wants to buy. They are working on the next version of Leopard, which we should be getting in on.
The Rifled Gun was to fire HESH rounds which unlike the rest of NATO we prefer to maintain a capability for. It does limit the Ammo we can fire as the Rheinmetall used in the Leopard and Abrams is smooth bore. Even if the Turks are using an older design the Germans themselves are not happy with the Current Leopard and are looking at a clean sheet design to replace it. Given they have different requirements I would not have thought they would Buy Challenger especially as the MOD are looking at a major upgrade to the tank and I suspect BAE would have problems building them.
smac said:
What are the arguments for / against smoothbore and two part ammo?
Yes I'd quite like to know this too. I always imagine smoothbore to be just like a big lump of pipe like a primitive cannon, whereas our rifled barrels are more like... rifles, and therefore more accurate. But surely it's not that simple.The Smooth Bore allows for a tight fit and the Gases drive the Projectile up the barrel with greater force. That has implications for range and penetration of the target. The Two part load allows the Challenger to have a smaller turret as the all in ones take up a considerable amount of room. Just look at the size of the Leopard and Abrams turrets compared to the Challenger 2. Also a single load allows auto loaders which British Tank experts did not want due to loading Speed and issues.
Yertis said:
So do the smoothbore guns actually have greater range and punch, or is that a theoretical advantage? Also, can guns be manually loaded faster than autoloaders?
The smoothbore guns are more effective in some cases, but they can't fire the HESH (High Explosive Squashed Head) rounds which we like for building/bunker demolition compared to conventional HE rounds. They're also better for soft-skinned vehicles and for old armour vulnerable to spalling.They converted one C2 to a smoothbore gun from a Leopard, and found that the penetrating AT round was more effective. Not sure if it's cancelled in terms of continuing the conversion, suspect the budget isn't there. It means a bit of a redesign because the 1-piece NATO rounds are much bigger.
Autoloaders give you an edge on reload speed, but in terms of reliability they're a disadvantage.
The main advantage of one part smoothbore amunition is there a lot more suppliers to buy it from. With two part, you can store the propellent low down in the tank, meaning a hit to the turret is less likely to destroy the tank.
Challanger 2 has been left behind due to a lack of funds. It needs a new gun, and new targeting software; and ideally hard and soft kill systems to defend again incoming missiles. However its armour remains world class. To date there has not been a K Kill of one in combat (Out right kill, as opposed to a mobility kill from blowing the tracks off) by enemy action (one was destroyed by another Challenger in a blue-on-blue).
Challanger 2 has been left behind due to a lack of funds. It needs a new gun, and new targeting software; and ideally hard and soft kill systems to defend again incoming missiles. However its armour remains world class. To date there has not been a K Kill of one in combat (Out right kill, as opposed to a mobility kill from blowing the tracks off) by enemy action (one was destroyed by another Challenger in a blue-on-blue).
They're already on it with the Challenger Life Extension Program: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-awards-46m-...
Gun change is optional if funding is there, everything else will be addressed.
Gun change is optional if funding is there, everything else will be addressed.
I think part of the reasoning behind rifled versus smoothbore is the lessons learned from WW2 when allied tanks were dramatically outgunned by the German "Panther", "Tiger" and late Mk IV.
We decided never to get caught out again so firepower and protection were prioritised with mobility suffering to a degree (partly poor engines like Leyland L.60).
We decided never to get caught out again so firepower and protection were prioritised with mobility suffering to a degree (partly poor engines like Leyland L.60).
- Rifled barrels promote accuracy but wear (factored in by fire control computer)
- Two part ammunition is more compact to stow, and easier to handle both in loading and replenishment.
- The bagged propellant charge is easy to dispose of (not sure whether smoothbore ammunition has combustible propellant cases?)
The disabled challenger was hit by 15 at rpgs afik and was back in service the next day, change to the armour section that got damaged, is now Chobham.
Challenger (1) has the longest range confirmed kill of any tank.
But frankly tanks are not really meant to fight other tanks and we've not had a significant level playing field tank battle, unlikely to happen too. Which is why UK likes hesh rounds and the flexibility of 2 part ammunition
Challenger (1) has the longest range confirmed kill of any tank.
But frankly tanks are not really meant to fight other tanks and we've not had a significant level playing field tank battle, unlikely to happen too. Which is why UK likes hesh rounds and the flexibility of 2 part ammunition
I don't think the Leopard 2 is really fit for what they are using it for. IMO the ideal vehicles for the job are small, light and agile troop carriers with basic armour against small arms, and equipped with machine guns. Or big ass trucks such as the Mastiff.
Tanks are not a great asset against guerrilla fighters from Taliban or ISIS. As mentioned above, they are a large and relatively slow target, although they do make up for that with the ability to quickly and accurately fire on targets with high powered ordnance and projectiles. I think the only country to deploy them in Afghanistan were the Danish.
As for the merits of each Tank, MBT main armaments are so powerful now, that i really think that in a battle, the winner would generally be whoever fired first and continued to do so, which I guess would suggest target acquisition and tactics are the most important elements of Tank warfare. Regardless of whether it was Leopard or Challenger, I doubt you'd last long being a crewman in a Tank V Tank battle if you were hit more than once, although against smaller firepower such as RPG's, survivability in a tank is high. They are also at rather high risk from IED's, a Challenger 2 was penetrated by a shaped charge in Iraq and the driver lost his leg, although despite the hull penetration, I think the tank was mostly OK.
I think the British Army plans to not replace or upgrade them much, in favour of spending money on more medium armour stuff.
Tanks are not a great asset against guerrilla fighters from Taliban or ISIS. As mentioned above, they are a large and relatively slow target, although they do make up for that with the ability to quickly and accurately fire on targets with high powered ordnance and projectiles. I think the only country to deploy them in Afghanistan were the Danish.
As for the merits of each Tank, MBT main armaments are so powerful now, that i really think that in a battle, the winner would generally be whoever fired first and continued to do so, which I guess would suggest target acquisition and tactics are the most important elements of Tank warfare. Regardless of whether it was Leopard or Challenger, I doubt you'd last long being a crewman in a Tank V Tank battle if you were hit more than once, although against smaller firepower such as RPG's, survivability in a tank is high. They are also at rather high risk from IED's, a Challenger 2 was penetrated by a shaped charge in Iraq and the driver lost his leg, although despite the hull penetration, I think the tank was mostly OK.
I think the British Army plans to not replace or upgrade them much, in favour of spending money on more medium armour stuff.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff