Talk:Challenger 2/Archive 1

Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight II (TOGS II)
I am a Control Equipment technician in the British Army and have taken the full CR2 course and have worked on them for 2-3 years. TOGS was the term for the system used on the CR1. TI is controled by the Thermal Imaging Prosessing Unit (TIPU) and the Thermal Imaging Sensor Head (TISH). This image is fed into the Gunners Primary Sight (GPS) and the Commanders Primary Sight CPS). Both are controlled by electronic units. The CPSEU and the GPSEU. Its also important to know that the gunner and commander do not have separate TI like on some other MBT. The TISH is on top of the gun.

Lopex

Copyright Problem
The basis for this article was originally Some sentences are still directly or neerly completely copied from the article. I almost listed this as a copyright problem but thought best of it since it has changed so much. Rewrite this article or it will have to deleted. BrokenSegue 14:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Things are happening GraemeLeggett 13:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rate of Fire
If possible, please include the initial and sustained rates of fire. I'd help, but most of my sources here are badly outdated. I imagine rates of fire with the separate/semifixed ammo aren't the greatest? -L 4 April 2005

The bagged charge system is not at an disadvantage here. Rates of fire are in the region of 10/12 rounds per minute.

It is often the case that tanks using loaders (manual loading) can fire more quickly and sustain that rate for longer than tanks with auto-loaders. Rob cowie 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked around and some suggest that russian autoloaders are capable of about 8 rounds per minute.Rob cowie 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that the operational limit on rate of fire is accurate laying of the gun, and it is rare for the loading to cause delay. Having been a commmander of one of these, I doubt that a rate of fire of much over 6 rounds a minute could be achieved even on a range Busted Flush 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Busted Flush Any rate of fire above 6 rnds per min is unrealistic, particuarly when on a range (and therefore not short cutting handling drills) soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

I served in the USMC in the initial invasion as a gunner on an Abrams. I for one can not agree with the 6rpm statement. Maybe for a two part round that the Challenger uses, but for a good Marine Abram crew it is expect and trained to be able to load 8 or 9rpm. And yes that is at a range. So I would deduct 2rpm off both tanks rpm fired in combat. Thats only due to target acquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmatkin (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Challenger2 can fire 10 shots in 50 secs on a range with perfect conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.51.140 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to be a gunner on a Leopard, my loader was able to load a new shell in 6-7 seconds on the range, but the smoke had rarely cleared the sight by the time the loader had completed the reload, so reload time was irrelevant in regards to rate of fire, at least under low wind conditions wims 04:23 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slew Rate
It would be great to see slew rates listed for the main turret on all of the MBT articles in wikipedia. Elevation/depression rates would be icing on the cake. -L 4 April 2005

The Slew Rate for one complete traverse is 12 seconds +-2 seconds

Is the Slew Rate 12 +/- seconds or 9 seconds. The article says both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Elevation rate is not tested and is difficult to ascertain as there are limit switches in the elevation gearbox which operate under certain critea. Its quick enough to crush your head though.

soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

Challenger 2E
The article seems to say the 2E is superior (fire control and power pack) to the original. It also says it's an export-only version? Is the armor the same, worse, or better?
 * Better.--MWAK 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's my U.S. bias to be surprised at the export version possibly being better (in the U.S., the government almost never allows export of a version that's superior to what the U.S. military has). Call us paranoid.  We may want to reconsider that policy in order to keep important and expensive weapons systems in continued factory production for longer periods, in these days of rising weapons systems costs and harder to find money in defense budgets.  Still, it would be terribly galling to one day get shot at by people with stuff better than our own, and stuff that we sold to them.  In short, it would be a boon to the defense industry, a political nightmare domestically, and at the minimum infuriating for the troops.  -L  4 April 2005


 * Remember that the original Shir-2 was developed for Iran and that the British would have been unable to fit any tanks with Chobham if development and production of the ceramic modules hadn't been funded by the Shah :o). Also remember that the Americans didn't develop Chobham. :>}--MWAK 14:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing I read anywhere (including the Alvis Vickers site) mentioned that the 2E was "export only". Indeed, everything I read said that the 2E is superior to the 2, although I would think the armour is probably the same. I have therefore altered the article to reflect this. If anyone (e.g. a Vickers employee!) can confirm the facts it would be great. As a side note, I suspect if the British Army could afford to replace all the Challenger 2s they just got to the 2E, then they would. Bobbis 17:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I was always under the impression that the armour on the 2E is identical to that of the 2. Of course, if the customer is willing to pay, applique armour kits could be fitted as standard to the 2E, but the underlying armour is Chobham. Rob cowie 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer is very simple. New forms of ceramic composites are developed constantly. But the British army obviously can't afford completely refitting their existing tanks constantly; they slowly use up available stock, replacing the modules when on major overhauls they are discovered to be fractured beyond an acceptable limit. That stock is then replenished with new types. So it can take a while before new armour reaches the tanks themselves. A completely new export version would however be offered with the best armour. This doesn't mean that the actual prototype of the 2E is fitted with it, but that is immaterial. It is the virtual 2E that matters. :o)--MWAK 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer MWAK's question the challenger 2 does not use Chobham Armour,it uses the next step up from Chobham-Dorchester Armour. And no, niether armour is used on the 2E or any other export versions...only tanks to feature either are the Challenger 1's (Chobham) and the Challenger 2's (Dorchester) and Abrams (Chobham). —Preceding unsigned comment added by English n proud (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ton or 1000 kg
This is a very minor point, but I notice GraemeLeggett changed 62,500 kg to 62.5 t. The reason I changed this in the first place was because the ton/tonne is a bit ambigious (see the Ton entry and this page). The metric ton is not a true SI unit, although I appreciate it is widely treated as such. Just thought I would explain my reasoning, but I am perfectly happy to go with the majority opinion on this. Bobbis 18:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Its not an SI unit, but it is the common use unit, and worthy if only for ease of readability. The diferrence between the Imperial ton and metric makes little difference when dealing with a large vehicle, especially in this case as the actual weight could vary depending on loading with stores, ammunition, fuel, crew etc. GraemeLeggett 08:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Compare to the M1 Abrams?
How does it compare to the M1 Abrams? Which is better?
 * It lost several competitions agains M1(AFAIK M1A2) and some more against Leopard 2 (AFAIK Leo2 A6). --Denniss 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A brief conversation with a few friends of mine who operate these things yielded only surprise at this statement. Any details would be appreciated as we cannot think of any competition ever lost by British Army tank crews. Rob cowie 12:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

It certainly lost out in several competitions for various NATO and foreign armies looking to buy new tanks. The usual reason was the 120mm rifled gun - NATO standard is a smoothbore - and not any inferiority of the tank in terms of reliability or battleworthyness. As for which is better the M1 or the Challenger then there's no question that the Challenger is more survivable, its gun is more versatile (though not quite as good at firing APFSDS as the smoothbore on the M1) and its diesel engine has some advantages over the M1's too (uses less fuel and doesn't fry any infantryman who gets too close not to mention shining like a beacon to anyone with a thermal imager). Of course the M1 is probably cheaper because the yanks have turned out many more of them and when you're looking for a new tank for your army price is always important.


 * True: there are many who think that the use of a gas turbine in the M1 was a mistake. The point about the gun is an interesting one; there has always been disagreement amongst experts about the smoothbore/rifled question. The British Army chose it primarily (I think) to allow accurate firing of HESH rounds. Rob cowie 14:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there was a time when 120mm smoothbore was limited to HEAT and APFSDS. However, fin-stabilised HE with different fuzes has already been fielded, allowing for delay fuze as well as air-burst. 120mm Canister-rounds have also been fielded. and the Danish have made Pele-rounds(Penetrator with

Enhanced Lateral Effect) for their tanks. With the NATO standard being 120mm smoothbore, it would be a fair assumption that more variants of ammo are going to be fielded for the smoothbore than for the rifled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.96.8 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I have been able to work out it is substantially tougher than an Abrams, easier to support logistically due to eating less fuel, shows up less on IR and the rifled gun with HESH rounds is much better for breaking up fortifications or blowing apart Russian tanks at long range. On the other hand the Abrams is subsantially cheaper, its smoothbore gun has better armour penetration at short to medium ranges, and it goes a LOT faster. Different design philosophies, if you have the logistics (and American does) then for taking on an equivelent technology enemy in large scale manouver warfare Abrams are no doubt wonderful, for taking on lower tech enemies while supplied with less extravagent support and smaller numbers Challenger II's seem better suited. Of course for situations like Iraq I would -definitely- prefer Challengers. They seem to be immune to older man portable anti tank weapons and speed is not so important for urban warfare.

The Abrams is not faster! it depends on what surface you're going on. On a road the Abrams is faster but off road the challenger 2 is supposedly the fastest in the world! Also i'd rather have a proper diesel motor rather than a bloomin' jet powering my tank. --89.241.159.253 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is whole heartedly not true. It is well known most tanks can go faster than the challenger 2, including the M1 Abrams. AloDuranium (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is you really can't look at two tanks and say "which one is better", its rather like looking at two different plates of food and saying "that one is better". Its really down to personal taste and individual requirements. Whilst one may have more technical equiptment and higher performance from a tank - it may as a result be much heavier than ones operational requirements allow and so a lighter more reduced model is needed. However I think one can say that the Challenger 2 MBT can be considered to be either 'the' or one of 'the best' tanks in the world taking into account things such as its weight, NBC, speed and weaponry performance. NATO tests are not conclusive of which tank is 'better' because they themselves look for specific features, one of which is price - and of course the challenger 2 is immensley expensive as tanks go. Its safe to say its also one of the most expensive tanks available. But it fits in with the british design philiosophy of a small but elite group of units rather than massed numbers of cheaper inferior models.

Thats a very good point. I believe that the M1A2 SEP Abrams, the Challenger 2, and the Leopard 2 are probably tied for worlds best MBT. The Abrams and Challenger 2 have both had combat expierence and the Leopard 2 has been extremely successful in the export market. To the point were the manufacturers are calling it the Euro Leopard. I can't say the Leclerc because it hasn't been around very long and has seen no combat or export success  -jnunn2

The SEP is only mildly upgraded. No major increase in armor, only gadgetry as most of my fellow Marine tankers call it. When comparing tanks there are four things to take into account. Firepower, movement, communication, and crew survivability. First, firepower, the main gun of the Abrams is now a bit under powered compared to the Challenger, Leo2a5, and the Leclerc. Second, movement, again the Abrams suffers compared to the others. Third, communication, the US Army's SEP package I think brings the Abrams up to par with the rest in that area, as well with all the new digital enhancements. Last, crew survivability, this is the hardest to tell. The Leo2 and Leclerc have yet to face real combat. And the Challenger is prone to the same kind of attacks that Abrams are, but is does seem to fair a bit better. But in the Abrams defense the Challenger2 is ten years younger and has a newer armor package then the Abrams. The Leo2a5 is also newer with the Germans being very pro-active in keeping thier tanks up to par. Something that America has let slip. They have made no major changes to the armor, gun, or fire-control sysytems in years. And the Leclerc, its anybodies guess. Its newer, faster, and has a bigger gun but I just dont know about that armor package. All in all the Abrams is showing its age and without a major overhaul it maybe time to retire it for something that can take its place. And a note the US Army has added a lot of bells and whistles with the SEPs package but the somehow forgot the sights when the where upgrading. The Abrams current sights are rated out to 4000m, comparable with the others. But the USMC has tested but yet to fit a 25x sigh that would let their tanks push the range out to 8000m. I can stand by that my unit tested it. But I think it unlikely to be used due to the rising opinion that the Abrams is ending its service life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmatkin (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the Challenger is a better individual tank, but that is balanced out by the reasons pointed out in the comments of the post two above. - GodlyAvatar

I disagree with most here... the M1A2SEP is better in NEARLY all aspects: > It's main gun is not the best, BUT, the M829A3 anti-tank round is THE best anti-armour round in existence. > Frontal defence is best in the world, due to the 3rd generation steel encased depleted uranium mesh plating. The side armour is good but with ERA in TUSK upgrade becomes excellent. > Abrams can go to 42mph while Challenger 2 can only go up to 37 mph. > FCS is where the Abrams really excels, allowing it to kill from EXTREME range.

So, please get your facts straight next time. Challenger 2 is a great tank, but it can't compare to the M1A2SEP... - 93.97.255.48 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect the Abrams M256 is pretty inaccurate at medium to long ranges when compared to the L30 rifled ordnance. As mention further down the discussion this is due to gust response on the finned rounds. At such ranges a smoothbore piece will always lack accuracey compared to its rifled counterpart, so I don't understand your "kill from EXTREME range". If of course you refer to the complete process of acquiring, tracking and engaging a target, then I ask you to remember at main-gun altitude the horizon is well within your EXTREME range!. As for speed you may wish to reread my comments below on the relative merits of the Challenger ", in particular the difference between "speed" and "agility". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Gulf War, the M1A1s there destroyed tanks from ranges exceeding 4000 metres. The disadvantage of smoothbore is made up for with the fire control system. - Heaney555z (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The longest ranged confirmed kill ever achieved by a tank was made by a British Challenger 1 during operation Desert Storm, the range was just over 5100 metres. The Chally 2 has an improved gun and FCS which may or may not not perform better at extreme range, but this example certainly disproves the idea that the M1A2SEP possesses fundamentally superior long ranged firepower to any other tank.  There is nothing wrong with the M1A2SEP - it's a very good tank and superior to the Challenger 2 in a number of ways - but not in all ways...  Getztashida (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some one should remind you that the challenger 1 has the longest recorded kill at 5.1 km static T62.
 * point 2 abrams is fuel thirsty. you'll get there fast but you will have no fuel to perform evasive maneuvers.
 * point 3 isn't it true that you had to repatriate 300 m1's for refurbishment?
 * point 4 the chall2 has second generation dorchester armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.145.118 (talk)

Safe Cracking
As far as the story about blowing open a safe is concerned it is eiter false or falsely reported. The British army does not field a HEAT round for the challenger - as far as I'm aware there isn't a 120mm HEAT round available for the 120mm rifled gun. The British Army uses the more versatile HESH round.

The story is from the Brainac series on SkyOne, I believe it was a sabot round, or at least reported as such.

I agree, the ammunition was a discarding sabot round of unidentified warhead. Likely a dud if I remember correctly. A highly dubious source either way for accurate information.

(note, a Sabot round does not have an exploding warhead. It relies completely on penetrating power to destroy it's target)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tungtvann (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the safe story is true ive seen that episode like 10000489375934759437502042 times.

Off-road speed
the article mentions the on road speed of the challenger 2, but it does not mention the off road speed which in many ways is more important. i was under the impression the over rough terrain the challenger 2 was the fastest MBT in the world, but i could be wrong. Pratj 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't tell what the offspeed road is - but I would have thought it unlikely that the Challenger 2 is the fastest simply because it weighs 62 tons - there are a lot of 40 to 50 ton tanks with similar powerpacks - see T-80, T-90 or 50 to 60 tons tanks with more power Leclerc, and 60 ish ton tanks with the same or greater power - i.e. M1 Abrams, Merkava (III).
 * The lighter tanks with similar or better hp/ton are probably going to be the fastest over true rough ground simply because they weigh less and are less likely to bog down (lower ground pressure). Megapixie 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoted figures of "off-road speed" don't mean much anyway. There isn't a single kind of off-road terrain, and I've seen no published standards on how to measure it consistently.


 * Power-to-weight ratio and ground pressure help determine an AFV's off-road performance, as well as the strength of its components. I think most modern MBTs have their top speed governed, to prevent excessive wear or failure of the drivetrain, suspension, and track.  —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 00:20 Z 

i know this is a crap source but i was watching re runs of the TV show top Gear in which he was being chased by a challenger 2 in a range rover sport. and he said that the challenger 2 was the fastest tank in the world over rough terrain. Pratj 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

over some terrain yes, soft mud/grass i believe. but judging off-road performance from speeds taken at different tests in different countries is hopelessly inacurate. - steve

The C2 is the 2nd fastest tank over rough terrain, due to it's highly advanced hydro-gas suspension. The Leclerc takes 1st for the fastest off-road speed, it also uses hydro-gas suspension comparable to the British. There are two types of terrain the C2 would get beat on this area, 1/ very hilly terrain(power to weight ratio disadvantage) 2/ on a road(where tanks spend less than 10% of their time)

Best protected?
According to http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm, "The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO". I'd include this, but not sure of the reliability of the source. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.13.131 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Many other wikipedia articles use the FAS military analysts network as a source, however this page may be out of date as it says it was written in 1999 78.148.111.197 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Most heavily armoured"
It was previously stated on the Royal Army website that it was the most heavily-armoured tank in NATO, as it was always intended to be. It was (unoficially) designed to be a better version of the M1A2, and, in 198 out of 232 trials, it was. The Ministry of Defence has since changed their web-page and reduced the amount of history available about the Challenger 2 and, as such, I cannot offer proof any longer. 194.80.32.8 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please provide a citation for this: The Challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured western made tank It's becoming slightly onerous to keep reverting rather questionable edits to a rather contentious assertion that has no supporting evidence when I can't tempt user 68.66.105.9, who seems to have the biggest problem with it, to discuss his/her changes. &mdash; Chris ( blather  •  contribs )  01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a postscript, I've tracked down the initial assertion to an undocumented change made by an unregistered AOL user, so my inclination is that it probably should be removed... &mdash; Chris ( blather  •  contribs )  01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You see, I don't want someones elses opinion on whether or not someone thinks it's the most heavily armored tank. According to this site:

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

The M1a2 sep is slighty better protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.105.9 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Unfortunately, someone's personal website isn't a reliable enough source ("Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources"). However, since the original claim seems to have been rather arbitrary, I'm going to change it back to the original wording until some further evidence materialises. &mdash; Chris  ( blather  •  contribs ) [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|20px]] 08:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see some proof that the challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured western tank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.105.9 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC).


 * As have I, which is why the article no longer claims that it is. I would be quite interested to find out one way or the other, though, if anybody knows anything more. &mdash; Chris  ( blather  •  contribs ) [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|20px]] 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That claim probably comes from the fact alot of online articles claim it is the best protected tank fielded by a NATO member. I dont know if this is true but going by its performance in Gulf war 2 (3 if you say iran/iraq war was gulf war 1) I would say it is likely to be true. It is much more durable than the abrahms variant the yanks are using there. There was a case of one being mobility killed, and then barraged by 30 something RPG-7VLs, a considerable number of RPG-22 warheads (cant remember which varient though) and 1 Russkie made ATGM and surviving (they were stuck for a while). It was then relieved by another platoon of challengers. I would have a look around the internet for more accurate info (The weapons that were fired on it I have remembered properly, just possibly not the amounts of them fired on it. I do know it was a bizzarely large amount though.  When I saw about it on tv I was surprised it survived it all) but I cant be bothered.


 * I remember seeing a similar claims made during the Challenger 2 episode of the TV series "Mean Machines of War" shown on Channel 5 in the UK. Certainly the Challie 2 is widely credited as being the best protected tank in NATO, not least upon account of it's alledged use of the highly Classified "Dorchester" armour.  Apparently this is an improved form of Chobham armour which has not (yet) been adopted by other nations. Getztashida 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A contact in Scots DG, who shall remain nameless, informed me that the ATGM in question was a 3rd generation MILAN obtained from a WMIK vehicle captured from 3 Commando Brigade in southern Iraq. The "mobility kill" was in fact result of the driver reversing into a ditch/trench causing the tank to get thoroughly stuck. First assertion is unconfirmed fact (and not likely to be confirmed by MoD anytime soon), the second is made by crewmember in question from the abovementioned CR2 documentary. See Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqaVIcUafgE (Part 1) - and subsequent parts.


 * Perhaps I can give some rough impression of the situation as regards the relative protection values. The early Challenger 1 was at the moment of its introduction certainly the best protected tank. After all it was basically still a Chieftain, complete with the Chieftain's cast armour; and added to this a very fat layer of Chobham. The M1 at the time had only a cheap alumina version of the Chobham, Burlington, as basically its  only armour. So the Challenger was far better protected against KE-ammunition and considerably better against hollow charge attack. Now the original Leopard 2 equalled the Challenger 1 in KE-protection — but the Challenger 1 had inherited the old Chieftain trick of reclining the armour in a hull-down position giving it an extra 140mm and of course even without this its HEAT-protection was much better as the Leopard had no real Chobham.


 * Now today things have changed a lot. The M1A2 is far better protected than its forefather. However it is according to official sources equipped with a relatively cheap uranium mesh, which would have a mass equivalency of about two, whereas the Dorchester armour of the Challenger 2 is widely assumed to consist of an expensive titanium-tungsten system, which should have a mass equivalency of over three. The inevitable conclusion seems to be that the Challenger 2 is the better protected tank. Now the Leopard 2A5 also has a tungsten system, but instead of a Chobham outer layer it uses a spaced armour appliqué, which to the British mind is simply cheating — why, it is nothing more than air isn't it? So the Brit might well feel justified in thinking he has the best protected tank. Alas, an unexpected contender has in the meantime arrived: the French Leclerc. As its armour modules are a third thicker than those of the other tanks, its titanium system is superior to both Challenger and Leopard 2 against KE; so thick in fact it needs neither Chobham nor spaced armour to be safe against hollow charges.--MWAK 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately these things are difficult to quantify without getting varuiuos interesting guns and missiles to hand and actually testing them against tanks. the term "heavily armoured" doesn't really do modern armour systems justice - it presumably dates from the time when you could measure the armour proteciton on a ship or vehicle by how much it weighs. GraemeLeggett 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and even then it would not be easy to give an exact number with real meaning, as most weapons simply do not penetrate. So, as the joke goes, the protection equivalence value is "impenetrable" :o). In any case not less than 1400 mm against KE for the European types.--MWAK 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I ask where you got all that info from?

Yes. These are some seriously dubious assertions here. Kensai Max 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WOW, I actually never thought that wikipedia will regress to that level. Accepting as reference fprado website, which references the website of some unknown person who estimated tank protection levels probably without any nowledge of tanks whatsoever. Good job there wikipedia. How can anyone claim that some tank is one of the most protected if noone knows how other tanks are protected, an information which is a classified data. Until wiki gets rid of those childish things, it will never be considered anything more than an opinion forum. And after that single RPG-29 penetrated Challenger 2 frontally, and through ERA, come on boys and girls, best protected? 99.231.51.82 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

The Challenger 2 is most definitely not the most heavily armoured in NATO...

M1A2 SEP

vs HEAT: 1470 + 700 (DU) = 2170mm

vs APFSDS: 950 + 700 (DU) = 1650mm

Challenger 2

vs HEAT: 1470mm

vs APFSDS: 950mm

- Heaney555z (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for the data? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please, considering that that is supposed to be classified information... Getztashida (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder that nobody in this controversial discussion so far has noticed nor hinted (some seem even suggest this being the case) at the fact that Challenger 2 - unlike Abrams and Leopard II, which were entirely new designs by the time they started their military service life - indeed has never been an all-out new tank but an albeit much improved Challenger 1, with the latter being a largely modified design of the old Cheftain. I am no tanker, but it seems to be quite obvious to me that the shortcomings of the Chieftain - mainly a lack of speed and mobility - were necessarily inherited by the Challenger, despite improvements of the engine which mainly helped to get it on a contemporary level of performance. Even though there are some weak points in the Challengers 2 design, it also seems to have inherited the technical virtues of the Chieftain, mainly the Chieftains very heavy armour, resulting in a good protection for the crew and high survivability on the battlefield (however in modern warfare against an enemy technologically at par this probably does not mean so much, yet in most conflicts since the end of WWII technological balance has not been the case). Another flaw in the Challengers design seems to be its main gun, obviously a late version of the initial Chieftain type which is now due to be replaced by the Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore gun. Very much the same, I have somtimes red the Challengers rate of fire being somewhat disappointing compaerd with the Abrams and the Leopard II. But I still think Challenger 2 is notably superior to the Abrams, which is flawed by its fuel-guzzling gas-turbine,a poor heat profile necessarily related to this type of engine and an overload of doubtful electronic gadgets and which provides a less perfect protection against hits. Also the Abrams armour which in part consists of depleted uranium is a very serious risk for the health of the crew rather than an ingenious solution of armour protection (and pherhaps a cheap way to get rid off nuclear waste). The Leopard II achieves a better degree of protection with Wolfram enriched armour which does not represent a possibly lethal long-term danger to the crews physical integrity (v. Mudra 20/12/2011 20:52 CET). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.32.121 (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Whilst the Challenger is based on the Chieftain, the two tanks are not as closely related as you seem to think. The Challenger received a more or less entirely new power train.  Further, the Challenger 2 is about as different from the Challenger as the Challenger was from the Chieftain - In truth the Challenger 2 could easily have got a new name, but it was easier to get an "upgrade" past the Government than a whole new design.
 * 2) The Challenger 2 has a different weapon to the Challenger and Chieftain.  It's performance is on a par with the Rheinmetall 120mm and there is no plan to replace it.  Nor does not have a disappointing rate of fire, and nor does the weapon from the Challenger or Chieftain.  The Challenger acquired a bad reputation after a disappointing performance at the CAT competition, but that was attributed to crew training and it performed well in the Gulf.  The Challenger 2 weapon is extremely lethal, very accurate and fires as fast as any rival.
 * So... What was your point again? Getztashida (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it is the most heavily armoured tank in the world, but we can never really know as the maked up the Dorchester armour is classified, so as far as we know it is, or is marketed as such. So no Challenger II's have been lost, only one has been penetrated and by a shaped charge (according to the MoD this area has now be strengthened) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Challenger 2 got frontally penetrated by RPG-29, russian anti-tan kinfantry weapon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml

Looks like russian made 1989 weapon defeated armor of a 1993 western made tank, which are supposed to be made "for quality". Do you know what it is called? Failure of a tank, when older RPG penetrates newer tank.

WEstern tank experts estimated Challenger 2's armor protection on hull at 1000 mm, while same experts estimated RPg-29 at 750 mm suggesting that russian made weapon will be a long way before penetrating Challenger 2, while it penetrated. Puts western experts in a bad position, looks like they overestimate the ratings for western tanks.

This has already been emtioned. Those expets might not have been wrong if it hit any sort of weak spot.

From reading the above link, the reactive armour didn't react, no system works 100% of the time 100% efficiently. Shit happens I guess, poor guy, respect to his bravery.
 * The C2 that was hit by a rpg-29 was hit on the belly, the rpg29 bounced of the floor..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.44.126 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Source? 195.98.64.69 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some sources I have read put the lower front hull armor of the Challenger 2 at about 860mm against HEAT weapons. It may have been closer to 810mm but when you consider that the RPG-29 may have hit a weaker spot at a good angle (for the RPG) this seems about right. Awhile ago however I ran into another guy who claimed the RPG-29 "bounced" and hit the belly somehow. Also the turret armor on the Challenger 2 is more than twice as strong as the lower hull armor. Currently a new composite armor package is in development to replace the hull ERA. 99.162.178.224 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

^^^The new armour package has been fully developed and is entering service, C2 also has new add-on armour package for the rest of the tank including greatly improved ied protection. C2 also has a countermeasure upgrade and a remote controlled turret mounted weapon platform. Pics here just copy and paste then remove brackets: (http)://img153(.)imageshack(.)us/my.php?image=chll2il8(.)jpg (http)://img263(.)imageshack(.)us/img263/6868/challenger2upgradedec20dj3(.)jpg (http)://img401(.)imageshack(.)us/img401/2638/challenger2upgradedec20iw3(.)jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.51.140 (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, there is no source whatsoever to that excuse that it bounced off. Also, according to the same site, protection at lower hull is 860 mm, and RPG-29 is estimated at 750 mm, so, anyway.... Also, as for new package, do you have any other links, because just pictures do not do the job. 99.231.51.82 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Are there any other sources to back up this claim? I mean it is the Telegraph after all... --86.151.75.55 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we please stop this bounced off argument, it is next to physically impossible and is absolutely irrelevant. Also, frontal hull is in no way the weakest spot on a tank, as was claimed. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Pictures
I seem to remember there being more than one image on this article, where have the rest gone? -- Climax-Void   Chat  or  My Contributions


 * Removed due to inappropriate licensing. We need free images. Chris Cunningham 07:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Any better pictures than the one thats up please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.204.128 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements, the current picture is terrible, there must be a better one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.28.131 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly the most flattering image... there must surely be a better one out there. 194.247.53.233 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a better one and added it to the article template 8-) -- Climax-Void  [[Image:Hammer and sickle.svg|35 px]] Chat  or  My Contributions

Unsubstantiated claims by the manufacturer worthy of an encyclopedic article?
I think the following sentence diminish the encyclopedic value of this article as the source doesn't back up the claim with any data or facts:

"The manufacturer claims that it is the world's most reliable main battle tank."

The source contains this passage: "The world’s most reliable main battle tank, Challenger 2 has exceeded the most stringent reliability targets ever set by the UK Ministry of Defence and has completed a more rigorous reliability development programme than any other tank in the world."

Sorry, but this sounds like pure advertising and thus isn't worth mentioning IMO. If the claim was at least part of a slogan (like Carlsberg is "probably the best beer in the world" ;-) ) then its relevance would be debatable, but in this case it just sounds awkward.

I'm aware that the sentence is clearly expressed as the opinion of the manufacturer, but I believe this alone doesn't justify an inclusion. It's just POV or trivia unless there are other sources which bother to deliver some data.

I removed the sentence a few times (with short explanations in the edit summary) but it kept coming back. ;-) I would be interested in your opinions. 80.144.192.166 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree - Leave the information in the article or take it to Rfc. The statement is factual and backed by a citation. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * POV is not factual and the citation does not validate the claim. To mitigate the POV I left the information and added a factual statement backed up by a BBC citation. Source: "It has a good reputation for reliability, although it has experienced significant problems during military exercises in desert conditions." And by the way, there are lots of factual statements about the C2, good and bad. Do you want to include them all? This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. 80.144.192.166 (talk)


 * Where exactly do you think the BBC get's its information for its statement "has a good reputation for reliability"??? Do Autotrader do a section on tanks?MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stay calm. There's a difference between "good reliability" (quite a few modern MBTs are reliable or they wouldn't be around in the field) and "world's best". If you check the source you will notice that it's not Jane's, but an advert directly from the manufacturer. Let's hope BBC doesn't blindly depend on that. :-) Many manufacturers advertise their products as the best in the world. Maybe we should add this vital information to all wikipedia articles in question. ;-) 80.144.226.99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also a difference between stating the claim has been made and including the claim as fact. You can add whatever properly sourced claim to any article you like if it is relevant, the factual statement that the claim has been made is not POV. Reliability claims for a tank are hardly trivial. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the claim wasn't camouflaged as a fact in the article, and I already stated that I'm aware of that. But that's not the point. This should be an encyclopedic article and not a collection of adverts. A marketing statement by the manufacturer is not a "properly sourced claim" IMO, unless it's validated by data. And I think it's POV because of its arbitrariness and the advertising nature of the source. I agree that reliability facts are not trivial, but (unsubstantiated) adverts are. I see your point but I doubt that adding any factoid we can find about the C2 will increase the quality of the article. 80.144.226.99 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly-fire incident
This article states that the attacking tank's second round entered the open commander's hatch and killed two tank crew members. While this is technically true, it makes it look like the other two crew members who survived were inside the tank when it was hit, when infact they were thrown out of the tank by the first round fired by the engaging tank which was a near miss. 91.153.26.217 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing mistake
I edited a part of the service history to state that the Challenger 2 served in the Gulf War. Sorry about that! --86.151.75.55 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

classified ?
if infomation is not known dont say it's classified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.124.195 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

120mm rifled ammunition production lines closed?
A recent article in the Mail on Sunday's "Live" magazine, (Nov 15 2009) "The Machinery of War" about the revival of ammunition making in the UK, (after the Treasury persuaded the MoD that small arms and ammunition were commodities that could be traded, like wheat, and didn't need UK production. Sadly, bad people sell you dud rounds) states that the BAe (ROF) plant at Galscoed is making "120mm tank ammo" in addition to 81mm mortars (an awful lot) and 105mm, 155m and naval 4.5" shells. New production facilities are going in shortly.

However, since there is no mention of a new 120mm production line, and the old one is for the 120mm rifled rounds, one is forced to conclude that production of the old ammunition has restarted at some point. This may make some sense: the ramp-up of production in mortar and artillery rounds must have transformed the economics of restarting 120mm ammunition production, and this is probably not the time to tell the Treasury that all the tanks need new guns, simply to enable the MoD to buy German ammunition in a deep recession and keep a UK plant in mothballs!

The friendly fire incident, above, suggests that the HESH round is lethal enough for the time being -if fired against enemy tanks. It would be the HESH round and the propellant charges that Glascoed would make. Penetrators might be bought in and packaged appropriately.

One suspects that the long term thinking may be towards a smaller gun, with a hyper-velocity missile as the main killer of enemy heavy armour. Thales are working on a Starstreak derivative, to be launched by everything from small vehicles, through helicopters, to UAV drones. This combination would allow a tank to hide from air attack, whereas ever huger 120mm or even 140mm guns, not only increase the tank's radar signature, but also stop it squeezing into discreet gaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.221.189 (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notes on the Challenger II
Speed versus acceleration:

The vexed issue of how fast a tank should be able to go is very much dependent on the overall design and equipment fitment of that tank. High speeds tend to produce harmonic vibrations on flat surfaces and stressful knocks over rough ground. And that is just for wheeled vehicles; factor in steel caterpillar tracks and you start to suffer from severe vibrational damage at much over 20-25 mph. The wow! factor of the Abrams alleged 45mph+ maximum speed counts for very little in real combat. Even during the Baghdad thunder runs the tanks needed to keep their speed low enough for other vehicle in the group, and of course you want to be SEEN doing this, not look as though you're running for your life.

The British (I'm am a little partisan here I admit!) probably got it right decades ago with the Cheiftain where they stressed less importance on outright speed than on actual acceleration. Simply put, high acceleration and fast braking are more conducive to survival on a modern battlefield than straight-line maximum speed; the fact is, with todays gunnery technology a tank moving at a constant 45 mph is no more difficult to enage than a stationary tank. The type of war for which all British armoured vehicles from the Chieftain ownards have been designed to fight and survive has been the armoured defensive battle on the plains of northwest Germany, where the ability to quickly move from one firing position to another was deemed the defining factor for mobility. Events in the 21st century would seem to validate the British model of armoured mobility, even if for different reasons.


 * Plenty of evidence around for the slowness of the Chieftain, but is there any for its "high" acceleration? I'm also interested in the notion of running from firing position to firing position (suggesting some form of Hindenburg Line garage), rather than firing on the move, and the necessary investment in stabilisation for sight and gun to permit that. Isn't the openness of the German plains what did for the S-tank in British service? These really did need their firing positions (chosen, if not prepared) and whilst that's OK in close country, it's not so good on a plain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From wikipedia: In BAOR 1973, the 103 was tested against the Chieftain tank. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated, "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move.". If this is what you're referring to I think you misunderstood the gist of this section of the report. The Army found the fact the Stridsvagn 103 could not fire on the move was NOT a disadvantage for the type of battle BAOR expected to fight on the Central Front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.141.229 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several sources which maintain the Chieftain, whilst not the fastest of tanks, was certainly nimble enough over short distances for its weight. As for your comment on a Hindenburg Garage I think you need to look again at the nature of the terrain and the type of battles Northag were preparing to fight, which would have been staged withdrawals under fire. Each unit, each division, each corps had its own area of responsibility and each unit was expected to know its area like the back of its hand. Natural features such as slopes, rises, hummocks, hillocks, ditches, brooks, small rivers, copses, woods, all were noted and catalogued. Where there were no natural defensive features then they were built. You would be surprised how many West German buildings, factories, bridges, etc, all stemming from the fifties, were designed with a secondary ability to provide some form of military defence, from school playgrounds built in hollows to bridges with spaces built into the supports for demolition charges. By the time of the first of the reforger exercises Northag had become the Master of the phased-withdrawal-under-fire; from individual tanks accelerating in reverse two-hundred yard to the rear into a pre-laid hull-down firing position all the way up to entire brigades being used to cover the withdrawal of an army corps from encirclement. (I might also point out that by the early seventies the North german plain was becoming more and more like the North German urban sprawl - plenty of buildings to hide behind, or in!)


 * Northag units, in particular due to the relatively short route from the Inner German border to Antwerp, really did excel in that sort of tactical thinking, and the Chieftain was perhaps the best tank with which to fight that sort of war: delay, withdraw, delay, withdraw, delay, counter attack, delay, withdraw, delay. withdraw, delay, counter attack; bleed the enemy of fuel and ammunition, and most importantly time. Remember Northag was only expected to delay the Soviet onslaught for 2 weeks, three at most, until the Amercian troop convoys arrived at north sea ports. Or until someone decided to use the nuclear option.


 * You have mentioned the ability to fire on the move rather than from hull-down stationary positions. While I did note that with todays technology a tank moving at a constant 45 mph is no harder to hit than a stationary tank, a stationary tank will have some protection from its surroundings, presenting the bizarre possibilty that a moving tank can in fact be more vulnerable to modern tank killers than a stationary one. Of course a staionary tank is also less likely to be seen until it is too late; nothing attracts the human eye more than movement. BAOR doctrine was to fire from hull-down positions wherever possible, and when withdraw to firing positions toward the rear, whilst providing as little time as possible for an enemy to see, track, and engage. A moving target by definition has to expose itself more than a stationary one. That is where the philosophy of high acceleration and that somewhat nebulous concept of "battlefield agiligy" rather than high sustained road speed was developed. I would be very interested to know the acceleration times for 0-20 for a Chieftain, Leopard 1 and M60, with full combat load and over rough terrain; a slow vehicle that can hit twenty in ten seconds is preferable to a fast vehicle that takes 15 seconds to hit the same speed. Certainly on a 'typical battlefield', for example Medicine Hat (BATUS) or Sennelager, the Chieftain has shown to be more nimble than either its contempories the Leopard 1 or M48A3/M60A1, in spite of its greater weight and lack of engine horsepower. Whether this is because its transmission is more efficient or not I wouldn't know.

Loates Jr (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Andy LoatesLoates Jr (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of acceleration is affected by the rotational inertia of the driveline, which adds to the true mass of the vehicle creating an effective mass. The effect is greatest in the lowest gears. Chieftain, despite a power to (true) mass ratio of only about 12 bhp/ton, was nippy because it had a centrifugal clutch rather than a torgue converter, a low swept volume engine, relatively light single-pin tracks (which have rotational inertia too) and a relatively light weight transmission. The downside was of course reliability. Leo 1 had about 20 bhp/ton, but from a massive engine of nearly 3 times Chieftain's swept volume, a torque converter and fewer gears. Chall 1 and 2 have about 20 bhp/ton, but also a much heavier driveline than Chieftain. When I did a project on this in the early 70s, people were hypothesising ultra-agile MBTs of 48 or even 70 bhp/ton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldreem (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Smoothbore versus rifled main gun:

While smoothbore ammunition for the German Rheinmetall L/44 and its US M256 counterpart are far more widley available than the CHARM ammunition for the Challenger's L30, the latters ordnance is considerably more accurate at medium to long ranges than the smoothbore rounds. The reason for this is simple; rifled rounds are far less succeptible to gust response than finned rounds, and it is this tendancy for rounds to weathercock over longer ranges that reduces the inherant accuracy of the smoothbore piece compared to that of the L30. However given current combat operations and upcoming advances in battlefield technology, we may well have seen the last tank versus tank engagements at long range using conventional "gunpowder" shells.

Three-man versus four-man crew:

The modern automatic loader for large main tank guns offer an irresistable lure to tank designers, offering reduced manning, theoretically smaller hulls and turrets, and faster sustained firing rates. On the other hand by reducing the crew by a quarter you are limiting the sustainability of that crew during combat, reducing the crew cohesion by lowering morale (ie three mates are better than two!) and of course reducing the ability of that crew to maintain tank vehicle effiency and effectiveness. I am not an expert in tank gunnery so I will leave the discussion to those far better qualified than me, however it is interesting to note that a Challenger 2 crew maintained a higher rate of manual main-gun fire than the automatic loader in the LeClerc, even though they were using three-piece ammunition; this is mentioned in the Osprey New Vanguard book on the Challenger 2. Loates Jr (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Andy LoatesLoates Jr (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you present a source that says that DS (CHARM) fired from a rifled gun is more accurate than from a smoothbore, which seems to be what you are asserting. It's counterintuitive to me since it seems to me that DS rounds should be more accurate when totally isolated from rifling.
 * I can understand it for HE, HESH, HEAT warheads - for which, AFAIK, is why the British kept rifling this long. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I deliberately didn't differentiate between types of round for precisely this reason; I was trying not to compare like-for-like in terms of ammunition effectiveness but was in terms of ordnance capability. In terms of L30 APFSDS verses M256 APFSDS accuracy there is little to choose, and there will be little difference in muzzle velocity because of the use of silk bagged charges for the L30 which can utilise up to three for any round. However the smoothbore M256 cannot use HESH because HESH requires spin to work effectively. Therefore in a long-range (ie 3,000 metres plus) engagement the smoothbore M256 APFSDS (note 'fin-stabilised') will lose out considerably in accuracy compared to the rifled L30 HESH, which obviously dispenses with any external protuberences. In simple terms the L30, indeed the older L11 of the Challenger and Chieftain TOGS, can accurately target at ranges in excess of 3,000 metres, whereas by all accounts the M256 cannot except under ideal conditions, according to public and professional sources I have come across.

Andy Loates Jr
 * So, no source. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not to hand but I will find one. I forgot that Wikipedia seems to demand out-and-out 3rd party "sources" irrespective of common sense, and that the laws of physics, (esp basic aerodynamics and the phenomenae known as 'gust response' and 'wing-loading') are no substitute for something written down in a book in direct response to someones question, irrespective of whether that source is itself trustworthy! (no offence hohum). Can I ask though that you DO understand what I mean by 'gust response'? I am not trying to be condescending here but in the past many otherwise 'reliable' souces have tendend to discount it when discussing high velocity main tank gun fire, the (faulty) assumption being the round would not lose momentum to any significant degree over its flight path and therefore gust response would have no noticable effect. (The reason for this was presumably long-range tank fire would not figure in any modern tank battle on the heavily urbanised Central Front.) Please note I did say "In simple terms the L30, indeed the older L11 of the Challenger and Chieftain TOGS, can accurately target at ranges in excess of 3,000 metres, whereas by all accounts the M256 cannot except under ideal conditions" - not quite the same as saying the L30 was more accurate full-stop.

Andy Loates Jr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument(s), but we still need sources. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * he he, by 'we' you mean 'you' would like a source other than myself! OK fair enough. I would first suggest Janes Ammunition Handbook, the Bible for anyone interested in the finer points of ordnance rounds. I would second suggest Tony Williams' Military Gun and ammunition website. Third I would suggest reading this thread: http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=431. Read it all the way to the end, the effective range of the HESH round fired by the RoF L30 is over twice the 'implied' effective range of APFSDS; implied in that Mr Williams states " . . . . the APFSDS shot (the standard anti-tank round) are so long and narrow that they have to have fin stabilisation anyway - spin stabilisation doesn't work once the length of a projectile is more than about 5 times its diameter. In fact, spinning an APFSDS shot hurts its accuracy, which is why the sabots of the rounds fired from the Challenger have slipping driving bands to minimise the amount of spin. So it's logical to use a smoothbore gun to fire APFSDS, and also enjoy the benefit of lower pressures. The theoretical lack of accuracy doesn't matter much with APFSDS, because they are fired at short distances (<4,000m) and travel so fast they don't have time to get much off-line." He considers that anything less than 4,000m is a relatively short distance, taking this argument to its logical conclusion then the reason they aren't fired at longer ranges is their accuracy falls of dramatically above that, thus chancing a wasted shot (they are rather costly!), otherwise they would be fired at much longer ranges. Janes' states the maximum effective range of HESH is in excess of 8,000 metres, this extended accuracy presumably due to the rifled spin allowing a more accurate ballistic trajectory than the purely flat trajectory that APFSDS rounds offer. Cheers and respects,

Andy "Loates Jr" Loates12:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)~

No, I mean we, as in wikipedia (which also includes you since you are an editor). As one of it's core policies it requires verifiable sources. See WP:V. Threads on forums are completely unusable. We need WP:Reliable sources, referenced with page numbers, with no original research. It is up to you to provide them for your contributions per WP:BURDEN. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OH why didn't you say so!! In that case:
 * Janes Ammunition Handbook
 * http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2
 * (Yes, thats right, this very article!!! to which btw, I have NOT contributed.)
 * A plethora of Vanguard (Osprey) books: www.osprey.com


 * "I" am not an editor as I have no interest in editing the article. I am merely entering into a discussion. The Rules you quote apply to the article itself, yes? I did not realise they also apply to the discussion as well. So it seems cannot even enter into a discussion without quoting book, author, ISBN no, page, paragraph and sentence. Am I also to assume that no original research means I could not even quote my own published works? (Fair enough not that I have any....!) Perhaps thats why Stephen Zaloga et al don't appear to contribute! Cheers and Respects Loates Jr (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy "Loates Jr" Loates


 * Thanks for naming sources. hI believe Janes and the Osprey Vanguards are good sources; I personally feel the Anthony G Williams website reasonable but wikipedia cannot rely on its own articles for verification. Now to the second related point. Without knowing where that which you are putting forward in discussion comes from we have no way of looking it up for ourselves and then putting it into the article (or challenging an interpretation). If we know exactly where it comes from we can do that much quicker. You are welcome to quote your own works in discussion. Putting the content into the article yourself could be seen as a Conflict of Interest and needs to be taken carefully. Better to mention the works exist and let other editors add the material if they so wish. Some authors do contribute to wikipedia eg user:Rif Winfield (British Warships in the Age of Sail). GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rules I linked to are about article content. The main rule for article talk pages is that they are intended for discussing ways to improve the article (WP:NOTAFORUM)- however, it's common to ask for sources when people make assertions there. WP:COI gives sensible advice about quoting your own works. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that much of the criticism of Chieftain's 'slowness' only occurred after the end of the Cold War when surplus Chieftains finally arrived in civilian hands. Simply watching civilian-owned and operated Chieftains on YouTube proves that few people know how to drive them properly. In order to get an as-compact-as-possible power unit that also allowed multi-fuel use the designers chose a two-stroke engine that gives its power over a narrower range of power bands than the equivalent four-stroke engine - which is a far more common type of engine to be found on heavy vehicles. In addition, due to the difference in characteristics over a four-stroke engine, the engine needs to be given 'plenty of welly' in order to get it to the rev range where power is produced. Unfortunately, to a driver used to a four-stroke this makes the engine sound as if it is revving its guts out, and so they tend to back off just when the engine is about to produce power. They also change gears at the wrong times, so it is unsurprising that the Chieftains operated today seem slow. IIRC, you expected to be out of first gear before the vehicle had travelled its own length.


 * Two-stroke engines have the advantage of a better Power-to-weight ratio than a four-stroke, but with the disadvantage of a greater fuel consumption. They are also much less fussy in fuel used. That's why most two-strokes are only usually used in small things like small motorbikes, mopeds, outboard motors, etc. For the Chieftain the increased fuel consumption wasn't important, for the reasons stated relating to the BAOR 'fighting withdrawal' tactics mentioned earlier in this post by Andy Loates. A two-stroke's unfussiness over fuel is one of the reasons a two-stroke diesel was chosen for Chieftain, as the engine was required to be a multi-fuel, e.g., to be able to run on any fuel that was available, petrol (any octane, Mogas, Avgas), diesel, paraffin (kerosene, Avtur, Jet A, etc.,), almost anything that would burn.


 * The main 'Raison d'être' behind the Chieftain design was for the vehicles to be able delay any Warsaw Pact advance into West Germany long enough for any possible - and very politically difficult - decision to use tactical nuclear weapons to be made. That's really what it was optimised for, defending West Germany against an overwhelming conventional armoured advance by the Soviets. As such, it was basically a replacement for the Conqueror (which was intended for knocking out advancing enemy vehicles at as long a range as possible in just this scenario) but with the battlefield mobility - not the same as road speed - of the Centurion. The earliest Chieftains had engines that were unreliable and down on power, so they weren't perhaps as 'sprightly' as they should have been but once these had been corrected it was far better than the Centurion in almost every way. But you did need someone who knew how to drive it.


 * BTW, just for anyone curious, IIRC the price of a new Chieftain in around 1977 was roughly £1,000,000 sterling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A 1963 Pathe News clip; Meet the Chieftain, here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.183 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not so 'slow' Chieftain being properly driven here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Frontal armour and the RPG -29 ?
When has the armour been breached, where on the armour was this, and what was the weapon? – with reliable citations.

There is a big difference between lucky shots through thin points in the armour (behind the upper track is the obvious one), and the frontal armour. This is an MBT after all, it's designed for the German plains, not CQB or IEDs made of big artillery shells.

Using the Daily Fail for a RS is just about acceptable that a British AFV was attacked and the crew injured, probably for the date and location too, but a tabloid like this is never going to care about tech details like weapon or attack location details. I wouldn't even trust them to distinguish between a Warrior and a Challlenger, let alone a factory RPG or a home-made.

The edit-warring needs to stop right now. It's already at the WP:AN & blocking level. Although I'd support the IP's general point (and why I haven't been reverting them), this added section is only just relevant on this article, certainly not on the others all the way up to tank. The sense of what's being added (frontal armour penetration by an RPG) has nothing to support it, and certainly not the refs that are being used. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - while the Telegraph mentions the RPG-29, the Daily Mail does not, so the email reference cannot substantiate that it was a RPG-29 that penetrated the tank in question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * this added section is only just relevant on this article, certainly not on the others all the way up to tank. Since british jingoists have pushed the info about the near invincibility and overall uberness of the Ch II armour in all the wikipedia related articles, i think the discussed fact deserves as much spreading. After all the butthurt it gives to the aforementioned category of people is priceless! :) 84.52.101.196 (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that the frontal armour was penetrated? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that there was an infographic with the Telegraph article - it's no longer available - that in preview form showed a hit somewhere on the lower front plate rather than the glacis. Possibly supposition and not RS as such. Now I've added the detail as to where the driver was injured perhaps it can be left to the reader in lieu of more info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The telegraph says it penetrated through ERA. So it must be the upper plate. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW the RPG-29 was in the East German Army arsenal. Which was carefully examined by US and British military. So those who brainwashed you all the years, about the uber might and invincibility of the GB armoured force did know the truth about its real qualities 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ERA can be found on the top plate, lower plate and side plates. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't see it on the provided photos of the Ch II at all. The article says "fitted as necessary". From photos of the other tanks, they don't normally fit it on the bottom plates. Though technically of course it could be fit even to the belly. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is also fitted to the bottom plate of the british wunderwaffe. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)