Military Review

The UK is open to upgrading options for the Challenger 2 tank.

42
The UK is open to upgrading options for the Challenger 2 tank.


The last time the Challenger 2 tank participated in operations in Iraq in 2009, there it fired with practical ammunition and HESH (high-explosive shells with a crushed head). Very limited amount of ammunition types available for this tanklimits the scope of his participation in current and future battles


Despite official statements, today the door is still ajar for the program to enhance the firepower of the British tank Challenger 2.

Speaking at the Defense IQ International Armored Vehicles 2013 conference in Farnborough, British Army Commander Lieutenant General Adrian Bredsho recognized the usefulness of tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan. There, they successfully and quickly reduced the enemy’s attempts to engage in a battle with the Allied forces to zero, dominating on the battlefields, including through their own long-term functional self-sufficiency and by conducting continuous observation and high-precision fire at elevated ranges.

The British army deployed a Challenger 2 tank with an 120-mm L30A1 rifled gun in Iraq in 2003-2009. At one time, Bredshaw in Afghanistan argued that the British army did not need to deploy the tanks itself - due to the fact that "the coalition partners provided their tanks."
Here he referred to an example with four Leopard 2A5DK tanks, first deployed in Afghanistan by the Danish contingent in the British area of ​​responsibility in 2007. (According to the Danish armored officer invited to the conference, this deployment was carried out despite the initial objections raised by the British Joint Staff, presumably due to the overly aggressive appearance of the tank.)

Like the Leopard 2A6M CAN, deployed by the Canadian army, and the M1A1 Abrams, deployed by the US marines in various provinces of Afghanistan, the Danish tanks are armed with X-guns from the Rheinmetall 120. Between themselves, these tanks could "exchange" programmable high-explosive fragmentation, cluster and inert fragmentation shots in addition to standard universal cumulative (HEAT-MP) and armor-piercing ammunition with a tungsten core.

With the restructuring of the 2020 Army, the British army intends to leave three regiments of Type 56 Challenger 2 tanks, one for the rapid response brigade, and in the future is going to introduce a life-extension program for the LEP (life-extension program) of the Challenger 2 tank, which planned to reach its initial alert in 2022. This LEP program, along with the Warrior BMP life extension program, the Scout reconnaissance vehicle program, and the Utility Vehicle general purpose vehicle program, are generally described as “the cornerstone of the British program for an advanced armored vehicle.”

Recent reports from the British Ministry of Defense and industrial circles suggest that, due to savings, money for upgrading either armor-piercing lethality or weapon systems of the Challenger 2 tank will not be allocated. Such an approach will be necessary to maintain its long-term superior capabilities against the most dangerous threats while maintaining its relevance to the modern battlefield. This correspondence, as shown by Iraq and Afghanistan, is now determined more likely by the relevance of the tank to the tasks of supporting the infantry than by its super armor-piercing characteristics.

Ironically, one of the reasons for choosing Britain at the end of the 70 for their tanks, stabilized with feathering, was a much larger choice of available types of ammunition for rifled guns compared with the choice for a smooth-bore alternative that was just beginning to appear (while crews could choose only of two types: HEAT-MP and armored-pierced feathered with a separable pallet [APFSDS]). After 30 years of reduced resources and the need to act as the sole Western sponsor of ammunition development for the 120-mm rifled gun, the British actually had to reduce the choice of used ammunition to two types: HESH and APFSDS (the British stocks of the latter were not suitable for traditional war because of political considerations, because its core included depleted uranium). On the other hand, at present dozens of types of ammunition are available for users of smooth-bore guns, and from numerous manufacturers.

When asked whether the costs of the Challenger 2 LEP program were pointless, if its principal component, its “meaning”, its weapon system ultimately is not modernized, Bredsho said “this is one of the issues currently under consideration” , but at the same time I would not like to comment on which way the decision can be taken.

One of Bredsho’s advisors, Colonel Harry Fullerton, Assistant Head of the Close Tank Combat Department, told the participants of Defense IQ that although “we should never forget” the traditional (tank-to-tank) threat from enemy armored vehicles, however, became less prevalent in areas where British forces were deployed in the last decade. However, he said that “ultimately we must match our tanks against the threat of a high level,” further noting that the armored capabilities of some non-Western countries are beginning to enter new levels.

Having received the status of the “cornerstone” of future British armored capabilities, the Challenger 2 tank is expected to remain in service until the 2035-2040. However, Colonel Fullerton noted that it would be necessary to wait "a little time" (namely, 2022 of the year) before the means to modernize his combat capabilities will be found.

In the meantime, his obsolescence is “completely controllable,” including by updating the stockpiles of ammunition and modernizing its undercarriage and transmission in order to maintain its mobility. As part of the LEP program, I would like to equip this tank with its electronic architecture to simplify further upgrades (including new surveillance and guidance systems). At the same time, Fullerton acknowledged that for LEP (the program entered the conceptual stage in 2012) there are means that allow us to consider the issues of increasing firepower along with the mobility and protection of the Challenger 2 tank.


The layout of the tank Challenger 2




The most probably significant drawback of the Challenger 2 tank is its rifled gun.
Author:
Originator:
Jane's IDR March 2013
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 26 December 2013 08: 52
    +1
    Let them put the arrogant Saxons smoothbore gun and calm down!
    1. Siberian German
      Siberian German 27 December 2013 04: 55
      +1
      nea that's cool - an aggressive type of tank - interestingly scared of the Taliban ...... they
  2. Evgan
    Evgan 26 December 2013 09: 13
    +3
    According to a Danish armored forces officer invited to the conference, this deployment was carried out despite initial objections raised by the British Joint Headquarters, presumably due to the overly aggressive appearance of the tank.


    What kind of nonsense ???
    1. Rex
      Rex 26 December 2013 09: 52
      +13
      Tolerance however smile
      You can kill the Taliban, but to scare the appearance of the tank is not humane laughing
  3. makarov
    makarov 26 December 2013 09: 16
    +8
    "(According to a Danish armored forces officer invited to the conference, this deployment was carried out despite initial objections raised by the British Joint Headquarters, presumably due to the overly aggressive appearance of the tank.) "

    God forbid more such specialists in NATO !!! laughing
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 27 December 2013 08: 22
      +1
      Yes, no, it cannot be, most likely this is an excuse for the British for the sake of some interest.
      Maybe they wanted somewhere specifically to test their technique, and the Danes were rivals in this.
      For this excuse in the style of European delusional explanations of the causes of something.
  4. white_f
    white_f 26 December 2013 09: 40
    0
    Dear experts, tell us why this element is needed?
    1. Rex
      Rex 26 December 2013 09: 58
      +2
      Mushka smile
      In general, as far as I remember, this is some kind of device for aligning the sight
    2. Russian sniper
      Russian sniper 26 December 2013 11: 11
      0
      Perhaps to balance the gun after the shot. recourse
    3. Nick_1972
      Nick_1972 26 December 2013 11: 55
      +5
      This is the barrel curvature sensor.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 26 December 2013 12: 50
      +6
      Quote: white_f
      what is this element for


      It will be logical if this is a reflector of the CID (bending meter) of the barrel channel. The sensor itself (receiver) is located on the mask of the gun.
      1. svp67
        svp67 27 December 2013 19: 45
        0
        Quote: Aleks tv
        The sensor itself (receiver) is located on the mask of the gun.
        and it is clearly visible in the attached photo ...
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. ebrd
      ebrd 26 December 2013 14: 06
      +2
      Quote: white_f
      What is this element for?

      This is the entire device for aligning the zero line of sight
    8. Professor
      Professor 26 December 2013 19: 27
      +8
      There is also a purpose for all of the above, a substance containing phosphorus and glowing in the dark is applied to the upper back part. The commander and / or gunner leaning out of the tank use this "front sight" to determine the direction of the barrel in complete darkness. When I asked why this is needed, the gunner answered me: "This is very important." I could not get the details.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 26 December 2013 20: 20
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        The commander and / or gunner leaning out of the tank use this "front sight" to determine the direction of the barrel in complete darkness.

        Oleg, is it on Merkava?
        Two assumptions about this:
        - inside there is no direction indicator (there, except for 60-00, the attitude of the tower to the hull is just noted.
        - in order to avoid sticking the gun barrel in urban conditions during movement and turns (shows the location of the muzzle), there is such a ... ahem ... experience.

        These IMHO, can someone more accurately figure out what kind of "important".
        1. Kars
          Kars 26 December 2013 20: 24
          +6
          Quote: Aleks tv
          These IMHO, can someone more accurately figure out what kind of "important".

          English tradition. For them it is important.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 26 December 2013 20: 27
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            English tradition.

            laughing

            Andrei, welcome, I have not seen for a long time.
            hi
            1. Kars
              Kars 26 December 2013 20: 38
              +2
              Quote: Aleks tv
              have not seen for a long time.

              soldier
        2. Professor
          Professor 26 December 2013 21: 39
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Oleg, is it on Merkava?

          On the scale, they also mark with a white line. By the way, the "fly" is not always put.



          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 26 December 2013 21: 52
            0
            Quote: Professor
            On the scale, they also mark with a white line. By the way, the "fly" is not always put.

            Interesting ...
            Senks for Old, Oleg.
            1. Professor
              Professor 26 December 2013 21: 58
              0
              No problem


              PS
              Do you see the radiation icon?
              1. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 26 December 2013 22: 10
                0
                Quote: Professor
                Do you see the radiation icon?

                Yeah. And what is he doing there?
                Is there some kind of luminous byak?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 26 December 2013 22: 11
                  +3
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  Yeah. And what is he doing there?
                  Is there some kind of luminous byak?

                  I say, the infection shines. wassat
                  1. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 26 December 2013 22: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: Professor
                    the infection glows.

                    laughing
                2. AGM-114
                  AGM-114 27 December 2013 10: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  Is there some kind of luminous byak?

                  Yes. This flickering bak is called tritium and every 8 years this bak is changed.
              2. Rex
                Rex 27 December 2013 07: 37
                0
                It looks interesting in the context of articles about satellite guidance, remote control and other "trends in modern warfare" ...
                Thanks for the photo - it was informative
                1. Professor
                  Professor 27 December 2013 08: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Rex
                  It looks interesting in the context of articles about satellite guidance, remote control and other "trends in modern warfare" ...

                  tendencies, tendencies ... after all, a person in a tank with two arms and two legs wants to live. And if the white line helps him survive, then there will be a white line on the trunk, on ... hi
                  1. Very old
                    Very old 27 December 2013 22: 40
                    0
                    Oleg, are you tired of garbage?
                    Everything is clear about you
                    God grant you
            2. Kars
              Kars 26 December 2013 21: 59
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              On Merkava, they also mark with a white line

              interesting and why white rings.
              1. svp67
                svp67 27 December 2013 18: 27
                0
                Quote: Kars
                interesting and why white rings.

                Old GERMAN tradition of marking the number of destroyed targets ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 27 December 2013 18: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  Old GERMAN tradition of marking the number of destroyed targets ...

                  The version is interesting but not believable.
                  I would suggest something related to the company number.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 27 December 2013 19: 13
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    The version is interesting but not believable.
                    I would suggest something related to the company number.

                    There is only such a thing ...
                    Tactical markings testifying to which battalion inside the brigade also appears in two places. The first is the number of rings on the gun barrel. The rings are applied with white paint, there are companies where they are also emphasized with black shading. One ring corresponds to the first battalion, two rings to the second and three rings to the third, respectively
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 27 December 2013 22: 31
                      0
                      What are the goals? What are you talking about? In AOI, the markings on the trunk have a much more pro-random character, its pricing is Hail Avir.
                  2. shasherin_pavel
                    shasherin_pavel 29 December 2013 10: 23
                    0
                    or company number.
                2. shasherin_pavel
                  shasherin_pavel 29 December 2013 10: 22
                  +2
                  Many photographs show that the crews do not bother installing external track rollers, most often in the first pair, but there is also no skating rink in the second pair. The tank commander is a member of the Nazi party (greeting in the form of an upraised hand) to the group commander. The rest of the crew stand on the hood.
        3. svp67
          svp67 27 December 2013 18: 17
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Two assumptions about this:
          - inside there is no direction indicator (there, except for 60-00, the attitude of the tower to the hull is just noted.
          - in order to avoid sticking the gun barrel in urban conditions during movement and turns (shows the location of the muzzle), there is such a ... ahem ... experience.

          These IMHO, can someone more accurately figure out what kind of "important".

          Question - from what place will this luminous mark be visible? I will assume that ONLY from the place of commander and gunner, so everything becomes even more confusing:
          -
          Quote: Aleks tv
          there is no direction indicator inside (except 60-00, the attitude of the tower to the hull is just noted.

          And how does this tag help the crew? Are they already sitting in the direction of the trunk?
          Quote: Aleks tv
          in order to avoid sticking the gun barrel in urban conditions during movement and turns (shows the location of the muzzle

          But for this, one must also see where one should not bury oneself ...
  5. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 26 December 2013 09: 42
    +1
    There is no fluff, but they don’t want to put German, like everyone else :-D
  6. Kars
    Kars 26 December 2013 09: 59
    +2
    The very limited number of types of ammunition available for this tank limits its scope in current and future battles.

    APFSDS L23. It has a long rod penetrator of a monoblock tungsten nickel-copper, and used a combustible case of the L8 board, although it can use a modified L14 charge. Muzzle velocity 1534 meters per second (5030 ft / s). It was used in the Persian Gulf War, but is now probably removed.
    APFSDS L26 (alias CHARM 1). It has depleted uranium (DU) long penetrator rod and uses L14A1 or L14A2 fuel themed charges.
    APFSDS L27A1 (alias SHARM 3). It also has a DU projectile, but with a larger L / D ratio and thus "significantly more efficient". The round uses L16A1 combustible case board.
    CHARM 3 training round (C3TR). Because DU rounds are usually fired only in wartime, a tungsten-based projectile is used for training purposes. Opposition to the use of depleted uranium even in wartime led to the further development of the study tour, as did the L28 round.
    DS / T Prac L20A1 This is a relatively inexpensive training projectile with a subprojectile penetrator made of steel with light alloy nose. It is lighter, but matches the L23 trajectory up to 2000 meters (6600 feet). Its use also increases barrel life.
    HESH L31 This is used as a general purpose high explosive round, although it also has good anti-armor performance and is effective against fortifications and structures. HESH L31 is fired using a bag of L3 charge. The initial velocity of the bullet is 670 meters per second (2200 ft / s).
    SH / Prac L32A6 training projectile that matches the trajectory of the HESH L31. It is available as a completely inert form, or can be filled with an inert HE substitute (composition of calcium sulfate and castor oil) or an inert OH substitute plus a live fuse and flash granules for spotting purposes.
    WG Smoke L34 Conforms to HESH L31 in ballistic performance. It is the same shape, although it comes in different colors to avoid confusion. [ 1 ]
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 26 December 2013 12: 19
      +1
      The translation is certainly gorgeous, but still a plus.
      1. Kars
        Kars 26 December 2013 13: 57
        +4
        Quote: cth; fyn
        The translation is of course gorgeous

        Google rules. For which many thanks to him. Probably one of the most useful media.

        in fact, the availability of ammunition for a given tank depends only on the desire of the British military themselves. At the same time, separate charging and storage of charges in special armored boxes with extinguishing liquid below the tower’s shoulder strap impress me.
        1. GastaClaus69
          GastaClaus69 26 December 2013 16: 23
          +3
          The British have some kind of fad about shells. At one time, plenty of shot at the German infantry with armor-piercing shells.
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 26 December 2013 18: 37
          0
          And they say that a unitary shell allows you to make a longer core at BOPS which increases armor piercing.
          The question is why our brains from UVZ do not make such basins of life? They, in my opinion, are still being made with the Centurions, and this is the first post-war tank in Great Britain.
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 December 2013 19: 33
            +1
            Quote: cth; fyn
            And they say that a unitary shell allows you to make a longer core at BOPS

            Vryatli is a restriction on unitarity. The restrictions are more on the design of domestic MOH / AZ
            Quote: cth; fyn
            from UVZ do not make such basins of life?

            for additional bk not in AZ, the question is interesting.
            Quote: cth; fyn
            ? They are also in my opinion with the Centurions

            for the British I don’t remember exactly, but even on the Sherman, despite the unit’s, wet .. laying was applied.
  7. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 26 December 2013 13: 01
    +2
    I always considered Leopard 2, Merkava and the 2 Challenger worthy opponents in the oncoming battle ...

    Challenger is a serious tank.

    Thanks to the author for the translation. Infa about this car is not so much.

    For a smile:
    "English delicacy"
    1. Prapor-527
      Prapor-527 26 December 2013 15: 48
      0
      And the driver didn’t have trifles? laughing
    2. Rex
      Rex 26 December 2013 17: 15
      +3
      Yes, maybe not scrupulousness, but a necessity.
      A story went in print a few years ago - in Europe, a tank was fined somewhere during maneuvers for speeding
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 26 December 2013 20: 52
        +1
        Quote: Rex
        Yes, maybe not scrupulousness, but a necessity.

        That does not matter ...
        .............
        For a smile about the toll road:
        I tell a real case -

        On the German Autobahn, they always arrive at the payment point in a dignified manner, all passengers in their seats, fastened, pay mainly with a card.

        ... At the payment window, the camper with Russian numbers was inhibited.
        A driver’s window opened and Tsoi’s rock hit the cashier’s ears, his nose was filled with the smell of fried potatoes and meatballs, and his eyes were filled with children running screaming around the cabin.
        A hand popped out of the window and poured a handful of coins:
        - girl, there should be enough, we drove, otherwise we are in a hurry!
        The window closed and the Russian camper darted off the autobahn with an arrow ...
        The dumbfounded German did not utter a word ...
        wink
        1. Rex
          Rex 27 December 2013 07: 44
          +2
          An article was still circulating in the 90s - the driver came paying for the excess with a photo, and there the speed recorded by the radar was more than 1000 km / h.
          The police didn’t get confused by the unreality - the radar showed - pay.
          The article assumed that the radar somehow fixed the speed of a fighter flying at a very low altitude (there was a military airfield in the area of ​​events)
    3. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 26 December 2013 19: 49
      0
      Mobility is not a strong point of these machines Alexey (although you may know better). wink
      If the tank biathlon will take place in the 14th year, then let’s see if they can ride our mechanics. wink
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 26 December 2013 20: 25
        +3
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Mobility is not a strong point of these machines Alexey (although you may know better).

        Alexander, frankly speaking, the 2 Challenger, I respected after Iraq because of the general survivability complex ... And before that I had hardly noticed him.
        Only because of this.

        Something like this. IMHO, of course.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 26 December 2013 21: 14
          +4
          Glad to welcome you personally. hi
          Looking at Challenger 2 in its current form, my opinion is:
          this machine, of all the structural advantages, only protection remained, the fundamentals of the design of any tank should have at least 3: firepower, mobility, and protection when the tank has all these advantages, then this is a really cool tank.
          I made my conclusions by reading the article. If the British were fussed about the gun, then it means they are not satisfied with the ballistic data.
          In terms of mobility, the British tank, even with such a powerful engine, is not ice (the suspension is really good hydropneumatic), the power reserve is small in all types of terrain (400 km-highway, 250 km-intersection), which is understandable with such a mass of 62,5 tons.
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 December 2013 21: 25
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            If the British were fussed about the gun, then it means they are not satisfied with the ballistic data.

            I don’t see any fuss. Can I quote from the article?

            Challenger 2E is an export version of the tank. It has a new integrated weapon control and combat control system, which includes a gyro-stabilized panoramic SAGEM MVS 580-day / thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM Savan 15 gyro-stabilized day / thermal imaging sight for the gunner, as with the eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter / killer operations with a common engagement sequence. Platform additional servo-controlled overhead weapons may be subordinate to the commander's eye to allow operations dependent on the tower.
            The power supply has been replaced with a new 1500 hp. (1100 kW) EuroPowerPack with a transversely mounted MTU MT 883 diesel engine coupled to a Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The increase in vehicle efficiency is significant. The smaller the volume, but the more powerful the power supply includes a cooling system as standard and the air intake filtration system is proven to use the desert. Free space in the hull is available for laying ammunition or for fuel, increasing the range of the car up to 550 km.
            BAE in 2005 announced that development and export marketing of 2E would stop. It was due to the media that the failure of 2E to be selected for the Greek army in 2002, the competition won at Leopard 2
            Quote: wanderer_032
            , the power reserve is small for all types of terrain (400 km-highway, 250 km-intersection), which is understandable with such a mass of 62,5 tons.

            Range: 280 miles or 450 km (road); 156 miles or 250 km (cross country). (Domestic fuel)
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 27 December 2013 07: 49
              0
              When asked whether the costs of the Challenger 2 LEP program were pointless, if its principal component, its “meaning”, its weapon system ultimately is not modernized, Bredsho said “this is one of the issues currently under consideration” , but at the same time I would not like to comment on which way the decision can be taken.

              Please, everything is for you! yes

              And more:

              Recent reports from the British Ministry of Defense and industry suggest that, due to cost savings, money will not be allocated to upgrade either the armor-piercing lethality or the weapon system of the Challenger 2 tank.
              Read carefully! wink
              1. Kars
                Kars 27 December 2013 10: 37
                +3
                Quote: wanderer_032
                that due to cost savings, money will not be allocated for the modernization of either armor-piercing mortality or the weapon system of the Challenger 2 tank.

                Simply put, OBS.
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Read carefully!

                It’s not enough to read, you also try to think.
                By the way, what do you think is armor-piercing lethality?
                and under weapons systems, you can also consider replacing machine guns, aiming systems, etc. That I didn’t see in you highlighted mention of ballistic data, just some kind of assumption.
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 28 December 2013 08: 58
                  +1
                  Maybe some cant translate the article (something often such blunders began to be met and honestly, annoying).
                  I can only assume that this was work on increasing the penetration of shells to the standard Challenger-2 gun.
                  Based on this, it can also be assumed that the Challenger-2 gun is unpromising for modernization, and even today it is not fully capable of hitting modern models (modifications) of tanks of a potential enemy.
                  In this regard, for some reason I recall the 2nd World War, there they also encountered similar problems, almost all British tanks had weak artillery armament, as well as ammunition for it.

                  Something like that. yes
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 28 December 2013 12: 58
                    +1
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    I can only assume that this was work on increasing the penetration of shells to the standard Challenger-2 gun.

                    And what over the past 10 years, new reinforced armored objects appeared on the battlefield?
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    Based on this, we can also assume that the Challenger-2 gun is unpromising for modernization,

                    Based on this, we can assume that you simply do not understand what you are writing.
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    even today is not fully capable of hitting modern models (modifications) of tanks of a potential enemy

                    Where did you read that?
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    In this regard, for some reason I recall the 2nd World War, there they also encountered similar problems, almost all British tanks had weak artillery armament, as well as ammunition for it.

                    It reminds you of your poor knowledge of history.
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    as well as ammunition for it.
                    I can imagine how you recall the first valentines with a 2 pound cannon about which they love to be distributed in Soviet memoirs.
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    Something like that.

                    TA-dah
                    1. wanderer_032
                      wanderer_032 28 December 2013 18: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      And what over the past 10 years, new reinforced armored objects appeared on the battlefield?


                      All world tank builders in recent times have been working to strengthen the protection of tanks, including armor, and I think that progress does not stand still.
                      Such information is not published in open sources, because these parameters are secret around the world. As well as the parameters of ammunition. If you do not know about this, then you are worthless.

                      Quote: Kars
                      Based on this, we can assume that you simply do not understand what you are writing.


                      I just understand what I'm writing about.

                      Show me at least one British tank from WWII with a good gun. Only purely British, and not as in the photo where we see the American "Sherman", albeit with an English Mk-2 cannon (their tanks, they are until the end of the 4nd world could not be produced with normal guns, and if it were not for the Americans with the supply of "Shermans", they would not have done it at all).
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 29 December 2013 10: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        I think that progress does not stand still.

                        Think? Strange, Abrams’s armor has not increased for many years, and the main emphasis on the development of modern armor protection is protection against cumulative charges.
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        .If you do not know about this, then you are worthless.

                        More expensive than you, and of course in the Carbon Monastery 10 years ago they talked about electromagnetic bronb.
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        I just understand what I'm writing about.

                        You do not understand completely, and this concerns not only this topic, but also where you met before.
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Show me at least one British WWII tank with a good gun.

                        Yes, almost everything, they corresponded to their time period, and the only thing they can be blamed for is not just armor penetration, but high-explosive shells.

                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Only purely British, and not as in the photo where we see the American "Sherman", albeit with an English Mk-4 cannon

                        the first time I see that QF 17 was called simply MK4
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        see the American "Sherman"

                        It turns out that the Americans had guns even worse?

                        And the English 2 and 6 pound pt guns have very decent characteristics.
                        for interest
                        The U.S. Army also adopted the 6-pound slightly modified form as the main anti-tank gun under the designation 57-mm anti-tank gun M1
                      2. shasherin_pavel
                        shasherin_pavel 29 December 2013 21: 28
                        +1
                        In 1941, at the request of the British government, a Fri 57-mm Zis -2 gun with BC was sent by plane to Britain to study its armor penetration. Prior to this, the British guns did not differ in the quality of armor penetration.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 2 January 2014 15: 34
                        +1
                        Quote: shasherin_pavel
                        The Fri 57mm Zis -2 gun with BC was sent to Britain to study its armor penetration

                        What can I say about this I have not heard.
                        But this has nothing to do with 6 pounds of English.
                  2. sapran
                    sapran 2 January 2014 15: 48
                    0
                    dear wanderer_32. Please just imagine a situation in which it is necessary to distribute the "cake" like the material resource of the country. And it will become clear to you what and in what place is the priority of the state. before the war, the French were responsible for the tanks according to the agreements, after which the Americans took over the responsibility. And with regards to the guns, the 17-pounder was a contagion from the infection and the earlier 57 mm guns in the fight against the OSI tanks were quite sufficient (the exception is the squad of cats, but this is exclusive)
                2. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 28 December 2013 18: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  not fully capable of hitting modern tank models (modifications)

                  This was indirectly confirmed by the British themselves at a press conference about which the article writes:

                  One of Bredsho’s advisors, Colonel Harry Fullerton, Assistant Head of the Close Tank Combat Department, told the participants of Defense IQ that although “we should never forget” the traditional (tank-to-tank) threat from enemy armored vehicles, however, became less prevalent in areas where British forces were deployed in the last decade. However, he said that “ultimately we must match our tanks against the threat of a high level,” further noting that the armored capabilities of some non-Western countries are beginning to enter new levels.

                  In addition, it is interesting (if this is not another newspaper nonsense) to find out why the British started this whole conversation. Maybe they were going to export tanks?
                  What do you say about this?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 29 December 2013 10: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    This was indirectly confirmed by ourselves.

                    It turns out you and read poorly
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    emanating from enemy armored vehicles, however, it has become less prevalent in areas where British forces

                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    then the armored capabilities of some non-Western countries begin to reach new levels.

                    and can you tell me what you thought that it relates to a gun? Maybe it's about a Chinese tank laser? Israeli KAZ? Ukrainian DZ?
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    By the way, read this material here: http: //www.modernarmy.ru/article/302/tank-challenger-2
                    and what prompted you to speculate in such a small and superficial article? moreover, it was written not by a representative of the English army, who has neither SECRET knowledge nor even operational experience.
                    If I correctly think that you were embarrassed, it was mainly for the sake of standardizing NATO.
                3. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 28 December 2013 19: 24
                  0
                  By the way, read this material here: http: //www.modernarmy.ru/article/302/tank-challenger-2

                  Information for consideration.
  • wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 26 December 2013 19: 38
    0
    It looks like in Britain "good old" bureaucratic red tape rules.
    While they will judge and row, there’s no sense in upgrading the tank (time is swallowing ears, which for Britain has ended more than once in its favor). lol
    God help them.
    PS Onega sits there under the viskar, throwing it in the cards. It reminds this not of any state organization solving an important problem, but of the English gentleman's club of interests. laughing
  • Serjant
    Serjant 26 December 2013 22: 29
    +3
    Still, probably, in such articles it is necessary to cite the performance characteristics of the monitored equipment ...
    I understand that "specialists who are in the subject do not need this ... and the rest can google it", but for integrity it would be nice)
  • kplayer
    kplayer 29 December 2013 17: 20
    +2
    Not such a tangible consumption of ammunition for a conflict of "low" intensity, given that the tank was created for a full-scale war in Europe, so the problem with the interchangeability of 120-mm tank ammunition smooth-bore and rifled guns "sucked out of hand", otherwise it would emerged immediately with the appearance of the Challenger-1 (with a rifled L11 gun), Leopard-2 and M1A1 Abrams (the latter two had the same smooth-bore cannon). It would be better if they didn’t do bullshit and stupidly replaced the L85 with another rifle (say, the Canadian one used in SAS), it would be a step towards standardization.
  • Jager
    Jager 9 January 2014 22: 26
    0
    Challenger 2 is one of the strongest tanks and my favorites. But the blunders in the article are sea. A reasonable question arises - "successfully and quickly brought enemy attempts to engage in battle with the allied forces to zero, dominating the battlefields, including due to long-term own functional self-sufficiency and due to constant surveillance and high-precision fire at increased ranges." Replace the Challenger with the T-34/85 with modern sights and ... the result will be the same. What kind of armored vehicles do the forces of the Kaolitsa face ??? With machine guns based on jeeps or with a firing point in the village? Do not make me laugh. NATO's cries about "thousands of burning Iraqi tanks" are essentially stupid propaganda, because to compare the export UG in the form of the T-72 for the Arabs without remote sensing, combined armor, modern ammunition and with the Paleozoic fire control system without supplies and missing data on the enemy with his complete domination in the air with Abrams and Challenger is not appropriate. In essence, the more or less "fired" vehicles in service are our T-62 and T-72. And that's all.
    The British never had problems with guns, the Valentines of the first issues and Matilda who came to us do not count. Yes, there was a "joint" with the absence of a high-explosive 40-mm projectile, but a year later Matilda appeared with a 76-mm howitzer.