Military Review

Is it worth the candle "game" with a deep modernization "Challenger 2": the British "armored" in the XXI century

52

The “desert” modification of the Challenger-2 is the clearest example of a possible upgrade of the entire tank fleet of the Great Britain. Lattice protivokumulyativnye screens, elements of RS ROM and additional booking of the lower frontal parts of the body - the business card "Desert Challenger". Strengthening NLD is an additional security measure in case the frontal projection fires from a short distance and the terrain screen cannot cover this vulnerable part of the hull with 100 mm armor plate thickness



Modernization programs for modern armored vehicles today occupy almost the first place in the lists of updating the technological potential of the armed forces of most countries of the world. AND Tanks are still the main units in need of regular improvement of armor protection equipment, active defense, tank information and control systems, increasing the power, accuracy and resource of guns, as well as the development and introduction of a series of new armor-piercing and cumulative ammunition. After all, anti-tank missile systems are improving before our eyes, and the BPS of standard anti-tank guns continues to pose a serious threat in a network-centric war. But on BMP and other BBM classes you can’t argue against tungsten and uranium cores. For this reason, no matter how much progressive circles of military experts trumpet about the diminishing role of MBT in the 14st century land theater of operations, the main battle tanks will continue to remain the basis of any offensive or defensive operation. As examples: the appearance of a promising Russian MBT with an uninhabited T-2 Armata tower, the creation of a promising Turkish Altay tank, the constant modernization of German Leopard-6A7 / XNUMX tanks, and a whole series of similar programs.

Today we will focus on the review of the ambitious British program "Life Extension Challenger 2", the results of which should be upgraded the entire tank fleet of MBT "Challenger-2" of the Great Britain. Let's start with the fact that the basic version of the Challenger-2 is not distinguished by maximum survivability on the modern battlefield due to the lack of additional funds that increase the level of body armor of the hull and tower. At the same time, the standard multi-layered armor of the Chobham-type tower, together with several steel armor plates, forms a physical envelope with a thickness of about 725 mm, the equivalent resistance from armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles (BOPS) reaches 800 mm. Protection is provided against BOPS of the type ZBM-42M “Lekalo” (at distances more than 1000 m) and from ZBM-48 “Lead-2” at a distance more than 2500 m. Destruction of a British tank in battle with our T-72B3, T-80U and T -90С can occur either starting from 5-kilometer distance with tank guided 9K119М “Reflex-M” missiles, or from 2000 m with standard BOPS, but you should still be able to get to 2 km to “Challenger-2” because you need to be able to get 120 km-hawk to the XMNUMX-30. L4E72 has a high accuracy of fire and armor penetration, which for the T-3B80 represents a huge thunderstorm. Only T-90U and T-2C can effortlessly fight a Challenger 72 at close range. The issue of a weak T-3B72 armor protection lies in maintaining the previous design of the T-540B serial tower's armor protection, the equivalent resistance from the BOPS of which is only 5 mm, and the DZ Kontakt-72 has a lot of open gaps in the front projection. For some reason, the more advanced T-XNUMXB “Slingshot” project was simply forgotten, and it remained only as a single prototype.

The Challenger-2 is unlikely to withstand the hits of the more advanced BOPS developed for the Armata, its frontal projection is not protected either from the Kornet-E, Chrysanthemum-S ATGMs, as well as the Javelin ATGMs attacking the tank in the upper, thinnest, armor plates of the hull and turret. The lack of an active protection complex (KAZ) turns the tank into an excellent target for aviation tactical missiles and other guided munitions. The first thing the British Army wants to update with its 227 tanks in service is the aging turret. As a matter of fact, it is not entirely logical to call it “obsolete”: the size of the turret's side armor plates is 360 mm, which in the safe maneuvering corners of +/- 30 degrees gives an increase in thickness to the same 725 mm as the frontal armor plates. On the right "cheekbone" of the turret (in front of the tank commander's seat), this dimension reaches 900 mm. For example, the French AMX-56 "Leclerc" side dimensions in similar safe maneuvering angles do not exceed 400 - 450 mm and can be penetrated even by the outdated Soviet ZBM-29, ZBM-32, or American 105-mm BOPS M833. "Challenger-2" becomes vulnerable only when fired from angles of +/– 35-45 degrees from the normal of the frontal projection, this can be clearly seen on the turret section drawings. A rather vulnerable section of the tower is the section of the massive gun mask, hitting which can cause the mask to inevitably jam in the narrow space between the frontal armor plates: the gun will not be able to aim in the elevation plane.


Drawing of the OBT "Challenger 2" tower with markings of armor dimensions


Increasing the security of the entire frontal projection (including the cannon mask) and on-board armor plates can be achieved by installing compact modules of modern dynamic protection, providing protection against tandem cumulative ammunition, as well as increasing resistance to BOPS on 20-50% and against CS on 70-90%. The right solution would be to equip the Challengers-2 with the Polish built-in dynamic protection ERAWA-1 and ERAWA-2. Considering the rather high durability of the Chobham armor, as well as a large angle of inclination of the frontal armor plates of the British MBT, even ERAWA -1 "could protect the tank from some modern tandem ATGM," ERAWA-2 "can protect the British machine even from promising ATGM with a long-term margin (up to 1200 mm from BOPS and up to 1550 mm from the COP). The two most important advantages of the Polish dynamic protection of the “ERAWA” family are the compactness of the EDS and the parallel arrangement of the plane of the dynamic protection element to the surface of the armor plate to be protected.

1. The ERAWA-01 Square EHD TX1 has dimensions of 150 x150 x26 mm and can be installed at a distance from 30 to 50 mm from the surface of the armor. Thus, the elements are issued above the armor design of the tank, all on 56 — 76 mm, which is very advantageous when installed on the MBT with large-size massive towers, which are Challengers-2. Larger elements will seriously violate the overall standards of the machine and can reduce the field of view of optical-electronic thermal sighting sights. The mass of one element of the DRA ERAWA-1 is 2,9 kg, and therefore 200 elements TX01 increase the mass of the tank by just 580 kg (up to 630 with attachment points). This amount of EHD can safely cover most of the frontal projection of the tank “Challenger 2”. EDS TX02 “ERAWA-2” has dimensions 150x150x42 mm and weight in 4,7 kg. The installation distance from the surface of the armor is identical to the “ERAWA-1” modules, but these modules are able to withstand tandem CS, as well as in 1,4 — 1,5 times reduce the action of BOPS. The explosive in EHL TX01 / 02 is TNT or TNT-hexogen; In the process of detonation, a sharp displacement of steel plates of the EDZ case, which have a destructive effect on both the working fluid of the cumulative jet and the armor-piercing cores of the BPS, occurs; a high-explosive effect of the explosive creates a decent amount of stopping effect. In the EHL TX02, unlike the TX01, under the 6-millimeter steel cover there is also a ceramic envelope, which protects from freelance explosive detonation from a single hit of machine-guns and small-arms bullets. The TX02 module is represented by two layers of TNT-hexogen, separated by a thin steel sheet.

2. The fastening of the ERAWA-1 / 2 EDS parallel to the armor surface also helps to reduce the overall dimensions of the tower structure within the normal range. It is worth noting that after the participation of British tanks in military companies in Iraq, the media witnessed a change in the configuration of the external armor protection of the tank: additional heavy modules of spaced armor appeared on the SCE, as well as on the lower frontal part (NLD) of the corps. It is assumed that these may also be elements of the new ROMOR RS. Such modules are also installed on the zygomatic parts of the sides of the tower, where the size of the side armor plates varies from 360 to 420 mm. The back of the turret received anti-cumulated lattice screens to protect the tank’s containment from penetration of the cumulative RPG and ATGM of the 2 generation.

In the XXI century, 2 Challengers are in dire need of installing active protection complexes (KAZ), without which they will turn into easy “mining” of modern assault and tactical attack aircraft, attack helicopters and ATGM operators of 3 generation, where ATGMs with EKGSN are capable to attack the target from the shelters, and even in the dive mode after the completed slide, stitching the roof of the tower and the armor plates of the logging equipment, like a “oil needle”.

The second part of the Life Extension Challenger 2 program includes an increase in the firepower of British tanks. The main instrument of the "Challenger 2" today remains the very controversial 120-mm rifled gun L30E4. Despite the increased diameter of the trunnions and nests under the gun, in comparison with the L11A5, the accuracy of the L30 increased slightly, which was confirmed by the Greek tender in 2002-th year. During firing from the scene, the Challenger 2 showed the highest accuracy of shooting, hitting 10 from 10 targets, while performing the shooting stage on the move with simultaneous detection of new targets (for the crew equivalent to intense tank combat) all 40% of targets were hit (8 of 20 targets), the tank was driven by a Greek crew firing missiles. The cumulative accuracy of the British machine for the execution of all the tasks of the tender was 69,19%, which is slightly lower than that of the OBT Leopard 2A5, Leclerc and M1A2 Abrams, which is slightly above average. The L30E4 gun has a length of 55 calibers (L55), but the initial BOPS speed in the rifled bore is slightly less than that of the smooth-bore guns (of the order of 1550 m / s), which affects the L27 CHARM 3 projectiles, which are normal, and can be normalized by the L700 CHARM 120 projectiles, which can be normal, and the normal cannons are normal. 55 mm steel dimension. The Great Britain is not very happy with this situation, and therefore all interest has long been riveted to the more punchy and durable German smooth-bore tank gun Rh-XNUMX / L-XNUMX.

Back in 2005, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense signed a contract with BAE Systems for the TDP program, according to which a German tank gun will be installed on one of the 2 Challengers. The Rh-120 / L55 cannons manufactured by the German Rheinmetall should gradually completely replace all the L30E4 rifled. The parameters of the German gun are much more expressive than the British product. Firstly, these guns are unified with LAHAT tank guided missiles capable of firing at the enemy at distances up to 6-8 km, which already moves them closer to our 125-mm 2XXXX and 46XXXX guns. Secondly, the initial DM-4 / 5 BOPS speed is 2 m / s, which provides armor penetration from 82 to 53 mm, and taking into account more advanced projectiles - all 63 — 1750 mm. The resource of the German gun is at least 720 shots. With this gun, the British OBT "Challenger 780" will become a much more formidable fighting machine than it is now.

The power unit “Challenger-2” is represented by an 12-cylinder V-shaped diesel CV-12 “Condor” with an 1200 hp power, which gives it a speed of 56 km / h on highways and 40 km / h over rough terrain. Despite the low power density of the tank in the 19,2 hp / ton, on the test sites it looks very decent: in the first gear it climbs on very steep climbs, gaining speed very actively. The tank’s permeability is very high: 30-degree lifts, meter walls, 2,8-meter ditches and meter fords are easily stormed, and all this with the old hydropneumatic suspension and TN-54 transmission. Later, all the machines can be upgraded following the example of the desert modification «Desert Challenger», which is equipped with the German transmission Renk HWSL-295TM and more powerful 1500-horsepower diesel engine MT-883 Ka-500, able to give a little potyazhelevshy (up to 63,5 t) "Challenger-2 »Specific power in 23,6 hp / ton and speed around 67 km / h: the survivability of the tank on the battlefield will increase by 7 — 10%.

Consideration is being given to the development of a charging machine for the modernized “Challendger 2 +”, similar to that installed on the French “Leclercs”, but it is not yet known whether the conservative BAE Systems circles will do this. After all, since the development of the tank from the company's specialists, there is a perception that AZ can fail in combat conditions, and even a small collision can end in tragedy for the crew. The tank's fire control system is built around the Abrams’s ballistic computer version M1A1, and the tactical information exchange system is around the Mil Std 1553 data bus, which allows you to exchange information with any other units equipped with a similar interface, and therefore, in a major update of the TIUS Challengers-2 ” need The program to extend the operation to 2035 year is absolutely not subject to criticism.
Author:
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. smokyrabbit
    smokyrabbit 23 June 2016 06: 43
    +3
    the overall size of the tower’s side armor plates is 360 mm, which in the corners of safe maneuvering of +/- 30 degrees gives a thickness increase up to the same 725 mm as the frontal armor plates.


    As I understand it, the "side dimensions" and the thickness of the turret side armor are not the same. I don't think that in that place on the tower there is as much as 360 mm of monolithic armor ... and it is not acceptable to talk about the reduced armor in this case ... after all, we are only talking about the dimensions seen. And the mythical increase in thickness "right up to" 725 mm (the thickness of what is asked?) Does not mean anything ... and to compare all this with "frontal armor plates" is quite Delitanian.

    P.S. The projectile does not pierce millimeters (especially BPS) but armor, and the penetration depends not so much on the thickness of the armor as on the properties of this armor (i.e. armor resistance), although the thickness plays an important role ...
    1. Forest
      Forest 23 June 2016 09: 46
      +5
      Now it is not the physical dimension of the armor that is given, but its reduced thickness relative to the homogeneous armor.
      1. Kars
        Kars 23 June 2016 10: 13
        +6
        buy Trophy from the Jews, put and fight for another 20 years)
        1. Forest
          Forest 23 June 2016 14: 32
          +5
          Only a tank so 74 tons weighs, fasten DZ, KAZ, strengthen passive protection in places, other weapons - and the tank will be under 80 t. At the show, the tanks are not fully equipped, so mobility will drop sharply to the bottom. The mechvod DZ on the forehead of the case will be cut off in general. Yes, and weapons under a huge question.
          1. Bronis
            Bronis 23 June 2016 17: 03
            +2
            Quote: Forest
            At the show, the tanks are not fully equipped, so mobility will drop sharply to the bottom.

            On the one hand, yes. But on the other ... The British have a little bit of order 250 - 300 tanks. And that’s all. In principle, it corresponds to their very few NEs, aimed at maximizing stripping of children of different degrees of beard. The tank here does not need dynamics with mobility, but protection. which they choose.
            Moreover, even though the British had the first production tank, they have not been a tank power a long time ago.
          2. Kars
            Kars 23 June 2016 19: 53
            +1
            Quote: Forest
            Only a tank so 74 tons weighs

            You would cut the sturgeon)
            And KAZ does not weigh so much)
            1. Forest
              Forest 23 June 2016 20: 27
              +2
              In a complete set, with grilles and remote sensing. There is not our ERA, but semi-active protection, and that’s decently. 80 t - this is taking into account the strengthening of mine protection (which is fashionable now), DZ on the forehead and, in fact, KAZ.
            2. Paranoid50
              Paranoid50 23 June 2016 21: 48
              +2
              Dear Kars, can you tell me - a hermit is no longer entitled to a "long skirt"?
              1. Kars
                Kars 23 June 2016 22: 07
                +1
                Quote: Forest
                In a complete set, with grilles and remote sensing.

                )) Let's already 90 Th trifles)

                Quote: Paranoid50
                Isn't the "long skirt" supposed to the ranger?

                Must rely) to reduce dust formation. But most likely it is put before combat use.

                64 tons
          3. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 26 June 2016 09: 57
            0
            Quote: Forest
            The mechvod DZ on the forehead of the case will be cut off in general.

            It is unlikely. The main part of the frontal projection of the Challenger case is the lower, and not the upper (like ours) armor plate, and don’t hang on it, the driver’s review will not hurt. And by the way, the thickness of the armor of this sheet itself, as it were, is not less than ours (T-72) side thickness. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the case of breaking this sheet from RPG-7 in net can be found.
  2. pofigist_26_rus
    pofigist_26_rus 23 June 2016 07: 09
    +11
    Destruction of a British tank in battle with our T-72B3, T-80U and T-90S can occur either from a 5-kilometer distance with 9K119M Reflex-M tank guided missiles, or from a distance of 2000 m with standard BOPS, but 2 km to Challenger 2 still needs to be able to get close

    For your information, in the conditions of the European theater of operations, a distance of more than 1-1,5 km is rare. And in the desert, we are unlikely to be at war with the "Europeans".
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 23 June 2016 07: 59
      +8
      In general, I doubt that our tanks will fight the English, unless we land on the Islands laughing . Very rarely they are found on the mainland.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 24 June 2016 08: 13
        0
        And transporting them is problematic. Let them buy Leo2A7
    2. vomag
      vomag 23 June 2016 08: 37
      +1
      For your information, in the conditions of a European theater of war, a distance of more than 1-1,5 km rarely comes across. Hmmmm, I would not rush to make such a statement ... as for Germany, such distances are normal there and there are enough "lumbago" far beyond 2 km ...
      1. yehat
        yehat 23 June 2016 10: 13
        +4
        it's not just about the availability of open spaces
        any hollow makes the tank either invisible or invulnerable (the part of the tower sticks out where the armor in the forehead of many has 700-1200 mm), and it’s not easy to get into it.
        Forest cover, mountains, urbanization, etc. add shelters, as a result of which it turns out that tanks often see each other only point blank.
        As an example, one can take shots from the latest large-scale exercises of the Warsaw Pact - it is clear that there is quite a place in the open field where to hide from the fire with direct fire.
    3. Verdun
      Verdun 23 June 2016 11: 20
      +3
      Quote: pofigist_26_rus

      For your information, in the conditions of the European theater of operations, a distance of more than 1-1,5 km is rare. And in the desert, we are unlikely to be at war with the "Europeans".

      Go to the Ukrainian or Volga steppes, take a ride on the M-4 Don highway or on some autobahn ... I believe your opinion will change. As for the modernization of Challenger 2, this is a normal and understandable phenomenon. The proposed measures make it possible to significantly strengthen a fairly good tank, since the transmission and dimensions allow it. Moreover, such modernization does not mean that new machines are not being developed.
    4. Petrik66
      Petrik66 23 June 2016 14: 21
      0
      On the territory of southern Ukraine there are steppes - there the distances correspond.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 12 December 2016 23: 07
      0
      There, they will most likely be destroyed by aviation or nuclear weapons together with the whole of Great Britainlaughing
  3. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 23 June 2016 07: 49
    +1
    . these cannons are unified with LAHAT tank guided missiles capable of firing at the enemy at distances of up to 6-8 km

    And this is already very interesting, because this gun is on the abrams, and when installing the necessary additional equipment, he will be able to fire missiles?
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 23 June 2016 07: 58
      +3
      It will be necessary to replace the guns on all Challengers, because they went their own way and installed a rifled gun of their own design, while almost all modern bourgeois tanks use variations on the theme of the German smoothbore Rh-120 / L55 “Rheinmetall”. There will be a smooth barrel - there will be missiles.
    2. Come on
      Come on 23 June 2016 13: 50
      +3
      Here is Leo2, shooting LAHAT. This video is not visible, but in another service video the distance, if not mistaken, is about 4km.
  4. AUL
    AUL 23 June 2016 08: 13
    0
    Actually, surprisingly little has been said about the modernization of "Member-2"!
  5. Engineer
    Engineer 23 June 2016 08: 20
    0
    The question was strangely posed: England retained the production of its tanks, although it could, like most, simply buy from the allies in the block and was not steamed. This is an example of how to maintain your defense industry, to save jobs.
    Quote: inkass_98
    There will be a smooth trunk - there will be rockets.

    Is Leopard or Abrams a rocket?
    1. IImonolitII
      IImonolitII 23 June 2016 09: 18
      0
      the SLA needs to be slightly modified and Israeli or French can be used
    2. Come on
      Come on 23 June 2016 13: 59
      +2
      Yes, LAHAT is called, tested and adopted. It’s just that the Germans, and in particular those who use the Rh120, considered that the power of the OBPS was enough to make tanks of possible opponents hole up to 5 km, so they didn’t use it. But LAHAT has some advantages over such TOURS as Reflex, firstly, a range of up to 8 km, secondly LAHAT can target a third, that is, a reconnaissance, or UAV, or a helicopter, etc., while the tank itself is behind the hill, for example, located, that is, not in direct line of sight. I also noticed the almost noiselessness of the rocket when leaving the trunk, a weak unmasking factor.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 23 June 2016 23: 27
        +2
        At 105 mm Israeli Lahat, armor penetration is not enough for a tank-against-tank battle.
        Only from above it can reliably hit the tank.
        The method that you described requires a bunch of tank-helicopter or tank-drone which is not easy
        arrange in battle.
        In Israel, they do not bet on Lahat.
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 23 June 2016 09: 08
    +8
    At the Britons, if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, a little more than 200 Challengers are armed ... what’s the conversation about? I generally doubt that the British will be able to do something significant with their tank, because the tank fleet is small, and in fact England is an island nation, to which the development of the fleet, and not the land component, is much more important.
    Just, I believe, the British, like many other countries, after the advent of Almaty, plunged into this race, so as to at least keep up with everyone else.
    1. spech
      spech 23 June 2016 17: 55
      0
      At Britons, if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, a little more than 200 Challengers are in service ... what is the talk about?

      Heard, for a long time it is true that the Brits have more generals than "Challengers".
  7. Tsoy
    Tsoy 23 June 2016 09: 19
    +2
    Xnumx tanks? mdaa ... in a large-scale conflict for a long time they will not be enough. Only for local limited operations or defensive operations.
    1. yehat
      yehat 23 June 2016 10: 15
      0
      they are needed for local cleansing of the Papuans, and not for war
    2. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 23 June 2016 23: 43
      0
      Quote: Choi
      Xnumx tanks? mdaa ... in a large-scale conflict for a long time they will not be enough. Only for local limited operations or defensive operations.

      So Great Britain is on the island, they do not need more tanks.
  8. Vadim237
    Vadim237 23 June 2016 09: 28
    +1
    "" ERAWA-2 "will be able to provide protection of the British vehicle even from promising anti-tank systems with a long-term reserve (up to 1200 mm from BOPS and up to 1550 mm from the COP)" - It turns out that this dynamic protection can hypothetically protect against RPG 30 and in general against all RPGs what are produced in the world.
  9. Berkut24
    Berkut24 23 June 2016 10: 49
    0
    The song about the modernization of the "Challenger" reminds me of the modernization of the T-64 by the Ukrainians: "we will attach it here, here we will fasten this in two layers and paint it like this."
    A generation has changed in armored vehicles - and that’s it. If Russia is modernizing the T-72, then this is only a temporary measure - until the commissioning of 2500 T-14. For the British, this is a temporary measure, and if so, then what next? As the previous generation does not upgrade, a serious competitor to the new generation will not come out in any way. For a new gun, new ammunition, new defense systems, etc. Accordingly, a new tactic of application on the battlefield.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 24 June 2016 19: 00
      0
      Quote: Berkut24
      If Russia is modernizing the T-72, then this is only a temporary measure - until the commissioning of 2500 T-14.

      An interesting temporary measure is in the warehouses and troops of the order of 8000-10000 T-72. And compare this with the PROPOSED procurement of T-14 - 2300.
      Also, you forget that a tank is not just a cannon on tracks, but a system that can be upgraded and upgraded. The same T-72 has a whole range of versions and its modernization potential has not been exhausted, but the promised UVZ for MO "Terminator-3" (based on the 72nd), which has already caused a howl in the foreign press, together with the B3M version, will allow this AFV to operate for a very long time ...

      Quote: Berkut24
      The increase in the combat distance due to the increased armament power and the capacity / effectiveness of the new generation of MBT ammunition.

      Increasing the distance is an evolutionary process and MBT during its life cycle can change several guns with different distances.
      You are right that, in principle, the Challenger did not receive any significant changes, except for DZ: there is no KAZ (though, unfortunately, they are not yet on serial 72B3), there is no AZ (charging, no matter how many disputes, but this is an anachronism). This BBM develops only along the path of increasing armor (though the statements of its creators that it will withstand the hit of Lead cause serious doubts).
      In fact, on the example of Challenger, we can observe one of four modern ways of developing BBM: increasing only (or first of all) protection (we can say that the Western version and, oddly enough, it is largely dead-end), unlike the complex one (armor and firepower - T-72B2 and 72B3M, the latest versions of Leo2 and Abrams), or of principle, when the role of the BBM on the battlefield changes (Terminator and Israeli Onagr).
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 23 June 2016 10: 54
    +4
    They change the gun correctly. Something they made up
    with its rifled with separate charge.
    They previously had a legendary 105 mm rifled, of which
    tankers hit the bull's-eye from 4 km. But 105 kumma stopped punching
    frontal armor from the late 70s.
    The USSR switched to T-62 by 115 mm with a powerful OBPS, and urgently in the west began
    also replace 105 with 120 mm smoothbore. German, who turned out to be the best, with whom everything
    took a license. The British developed their own and flew.
  11. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 23 June 2016 14: 51
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    They change the gun correctly. Something they made up
    with its rifled with separate charge.
    They previously had a legendary 105 mm rifled, of which
    tankers hit the bull's-eye from 4 km. But 105 kumma stopped punching
    frontal armor from the late 70s.
    The USSR switched to T-62 by 115 mm with a powerful OBPS, and urgently in the west began
    also replace 105 with 120 mm smoothbore. German, who turned out to be the best, with whom everything
    took a license. The British developed their own and flew.

    A T-62 with a 115mm gun appeared back in 1959, and the west rolled out its 120mm gun in the late 70s - somehow they were not in a hurry. They probably didn’t see the special advantage of our 115mm 2-a21 compared to their 105mm.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 23 June 2016 19: 13
      0
      10 years is not so much considering the Iron Curtain and the level of our special services then. How could they do something if they did not know?
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 23 June 2016 23: 35
      +2
      Until the war of 1973 was seen.
      115 mm OBPS pierced Israeli tanks.
      It was assumed that the main tank of the USSR would be the T-80, and not the T-72.
      He was very afraid, and forced the transition to 120 mm.
      Against the T-72, in principle, 105 mm rifled with cumm shells was sufficient.
      But Israel, for example, did not want to take risks and repeat large
      losses of the 73rd year.
  12. Hauptam
    Hauptam 23 June 2016 19: 20
    +1
    The article is informative but also useless, it’s not tanks fighting, people are fighting. How did the Greek crew shoot ??
    How the 70-ton colossus will behave after a week of heavy rains on the roads, and bridges, etc., etc. Some questions, but no one raises a question about trained personnel, these battles are already tired of Mars.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 24 June 2016 00: 27
      +5
      The most remarkable tankers in a bad tank will die, no matter how they turn.
      Conversely, the average crew in a tank with powerful armor has good chances to survive.
      NATO troops regularly train at training grounds in Germany - in rains, mud, snow.
      learn to overcome ravines and rivers on special tank bridges and ford.
      So the answers are not so lacking.
      How tank dueling can turn out is really unknown.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 24 June 2016 13: 54
        -1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The most remarkable tankers in a bad tank will die, no matter how they turn.


        And to clumsy ignoramuses, give at least that. They will die anyway.
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 24 June 2016 19: 05
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Conversely, the average crew in a tank with powerful armor has good chances to survive.

        Tell this to the Egyptian and Syrian tankmen during the Six Day War, when they managed to lose to Israel with a mostly morally and technically outdated tank fleet having heavy tanks and new generation tanks in the trash.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 25 June 2016 01: 32
          +1
          In the Six Day War - not so simple ...
          The Egyptians were poorly prepared, not average, but
          for example, there was a problem with their IS tanks - they pushed forward, they could not be knocked out - armor,
          the ISs themselves did not have time to knock anyone out because of the low rate of fire, but izr. tanks from
          they scattered around.
          But Israel has already received super-tanks - Centurions. They drove them against the ISs.
          And out of 105 mm guns, the ISs knocked out in turn.
          So it's not just about the crews.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 25 June 2016 18: 49
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            So it's not just about the crews.

            I’m talking about that. A trained crew in a good car is more dangerous than a crank, but in the newest one.
  13. Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 23 June 2016 19: 31
    0
    Is the game worth the candle
    It would be nice if only candles, and not the jackpot that can be obtained during perturbations.
  14. Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 23 June 2016 21: 03
    -3
    Only our RUSSIA - armored force!
  15. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 23 June 2016 22: 07
    0
    After all, anti-tank missile systems are improving before our eyes, and the BPS of standard anti-tank guns continues to pose a serious threat in a network-centric war. But on BMP and other BBM classes you can’t argue against tungsten and uranium cores.

    SPTRK "Chrysanthemum" is made on the tracked chassis of the BMP-3. SPTRK "Shturm-S" - on the tracked chassis MT-LB. All Soviet / Russian BMPs and BMDs have ATGMs. BMP-1 and 2, BMD-1, 2 and 3 as separate armament, BMP-3 and BMD-4 as KUV. The ATGM also has the Sprut tank destroyer as the KUV.

    So - arguing. If circumstances turn out so, that will have to.
  16. Paranoid50
    Paranoid50 23 June 2016 22: 20
    +3
    IMHO, after all, some insular isolation of the brits plays a cruel joke with them. The current result of the British tank industry is ... a well-protected ARV. Small batch. All. Considering the moment that they will re-equip at Rheinmetall, plus the Abrashkin FCS, etc. , then in the form of a full-fledged MBT it is already - "Euromix". Somewhere in the depths of their souls, the British tank builders are a little sorry. At one time, they, unwittingly, gave a powerful impetus to the emergence and development of the Soviet, as well as the entire world tank industry. But in the end they themselves came to stagnation, and now they may even be "zeroed out". Are you going to change the doctrine? request
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 24 June 2016 00: 14
      0
      As you rightly noted, the British islanders are doing unevenly. request
      At first they invented tanks, and the first massively (and successfully) used them.
      Then they made good Vickers (T-26), ... and fell asleep.
      They made up the entire 2nd World War, but only in the 50s did they create an excellent tank -
      Centurion. And then they fell asleep again.
  17. gallville
    gallville 24 June 2016 16: 32
    0
    Equipping the Challengers-2 could be a fairly correct solution. Polish built-in dynamic protection "ERAWA-1" and "ERAWA-2".

    Choke but will not buy. Most likely they will communicate with Israel on this topic.
    In the 2st century, Challengers XNUMX are in dire need of installing active protection systems (KAZ),

    That's just what they’ll buy as a kit.
    The Rh-120 / L55 guns produced by the German Rheinmetall should gradually completely replace all rifled L30E4.

    Those. finally, complete unification by NATO standards. They also have requirements for common ammunition.
    Later, all machines can be upgraded following the example of the Desert Challenger desert modification, which is equipped with German Renk HWSL-295TM transmission and more powerful 1500-horsepower

    Hi leopards?

    In general, there is a case when "show-off is more expensive than money." Objectively, with such a volume, it is easier to buy leopards of the latest modification.