Soldier Magazine: ten top tanks that have helped to shape history

[Fenton]

It's one of those great debates to which there are no right answers only opinions. Of course, my opinion is the most right.

It's like "which is the best British regiment?", "best battle?", "toppest totty?" We all bring out own agendas and our own viewpoints, which we can share and debate in a spirit of enlightened enquiry and honest discussion in which we can all learn from each other.

Now let's group hug.

I dont like your group hugs

[get2grips]

I dont like your group hugs

I'm only hugging if Fenton does 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

*Teacher stare* Now get on and hug!

[Techno]

Yeauuugh !
I'm not hugging FSN after he's been greasing his centurion.
(I presume you do have to use that on parts of tanks ?.....I ask purely for information. )
Cheers - Phil

[fsn]

I'm permanently greased up.

[get2grips]

I'm permanently greased up.

Head...image...

[Rob]

I apologise in advance to readers for this post if you think I am being harsh. I like this forum and all its members a great deal. It is not an academic forum where we hold great debates; we usually just talk about toy soldiers and associated stuff. However in this case Mr SBB79 deserves a reply which is not in the normal spirit of this forum. However in the hope I am wrong with my original assumption about SBB79 I give a choice of  2 different endings to this post.  

I write this reply with some reluctance   mainly because it takes a bit of effort, but Mr SBB79 has decided that he should be able to spout utter boll## and no one should dare to point this out. Well we shall see.

Mr SBB79's point is that in his opinion backed up by something he has (as far as I can make out) heard and not researched (as he says he is too lazy to do the research) Challenger (this is a generic statement covering two tanks as he doesn't seem to realise there is a difference between Challenger and Challenger II) is a bad tank(s) because it failed many, many competitions (without naming any of the competitions but stating there are 3).

Before addressing this I would point out that the tanks chosen in my original reply are those that changed history in my own humble opinion. Often these were superseded quickly and also were superseded by better vehicles so although changing history it does not follow that they should always be taken as best in class.

Trying to assert these days tank A is better than tank B in a "my country's tanks are the best in the world" or "my country's tanks have by far the biggest penis" type of argument is almost impossible as well as being puerile and only followed by numpties. Most of the technical information is classified and the criteria by which the tank's success within its role is measured, will vary depending on what the manufacturing country sees as that role therefore making most comparisons worthless. This last is important as Germany and US have similar requirements. Israel and Britain have similar requirements that are different from the US/German. The Russians have criteria specific only to themselves and France can be grouped as an extreme version of the US/German requirements.

Quoting high weight, smaller radius of action, outdated gun (was upgraded with the Leopard 2 gun now) for all 3 lost procurement initiatives and one quoted to prefer the 3 crewmen Leclerc tank.

I presume English is not your first language so you must realise this sentence doesn't make any sense as it stands.  However I will attempt an answer to its various parts:

Point 1 procurement) As a general rule foreign procurement of tanks by any country is a political transaction and has very little to do with vehicle efficiency so should not be taken as such. Indeed most acquisition of Leopards seem to be because Germany has had such a surplus after the collapse of the Soviet Union and has virtually given them away. To be fair so did Britain with its original Challengers and remaining Chieftains going to Jordan. The only country that seems to think keeping 5000+ MBTs in service is desirable is the US and this is probably more a statement of the importance of the arms industry to the US economy.  

Point 2 gun) In a drive to cut costs the MoD did look at buying ammunition from abroad because the production runs for the ammo on our small number of L30 gun equipped tanks meant round for round extremely high development and production costs. The U.S. and Germans were using the same gun and can share ammunition making their rounds a great deal cheaper than ours. The British army did not want this gun as it only shoots FIN and HEAT rounds. HEAT rounds are a poor replacement for HE rounds, are no longer effective against modern armours and are only retained as a second rate HE and to shoot at light armour because FIN can pass right through light armour and the vehicle can survive.
The British L30 rifle gun shoots FIN and HESH. HESH negates the need for HE because it is as good, it is very good for defeating light armour and also buildings. It is also brilliant as a long range round against MBT beyond the effective range of FIN. HESH is fired at a low velocity and spun so that the round lands on top of the target vehicle to get the optimum shape for the resulting pat formed. If you fire it without spinning or at high velocity you get a poor pat shape and poor results. Hitting the top of a vehicle is also very good as regards modern tanks because they are thinly armoured on top.  In effect HESH becomes a top attack round making it very effective against any MBT as proved ON OPERATIONS in IRAQ. (Incidentally the glacis plate of the M1 is 50mm approximately but so angled as to be impossible to penetrate with a conventional round from the front, unless using a top attack HESH.)

All of that is moot really because it is impossible to adopt the large single piece rounds used in the M1 and Leopard to the Challenger as it currently stands. The M1 and Leopard store their large rounds in the turret. They prevent the catastrophic explosions caused by any minor penetration of the turret as seen in Russian style tanks, by storing the turret ammo in a bustle that is separate and if it explodes, it explodes outwards, and will not take the tank with it. The L30 uses bagged propellant. In practice this means the loader loads the round and then the propellant. Because of this the complete rounds are in two parts (3 including the primer), this gives a high loading speed of up to 8 rds a minutes for the first few minutes which is higher than automatic loaders and also the US/German 120mm smoothbore with their big one piece rounds. The big smoothbore rounds will not fit in the tank other than by a big reduction in their number (6 will actually fit) and are almost impossible to load in the current turret which would mean a completely redesigned new turret for the Challenger which would be so expensive it defeats the original point of cheaper ammo.

The British gun is L55 calibres long as opposed to the L44 calibre length of the German 120mm. It has greater power than the L44. The Germans are only now introducing an L55 version of the 120mm on their A6 Leopards. In conclusion the L30 rifle is not outdated, and very definitely not replaced now and never will be by the 120mm smoothbore.  

Point 3 "high, weight, smaller radius of action") You make no point here, but let me help you out. I think you are trying to say because of the figures somehow this makes a Leopard tank superior.

Lets look at the criteria used by some different countries for their tank designs.

Russia and Ukraine: Their tanks are primarily designed to defend Western Russia and Ukraine so it is no surprise they are optimised for the conditions to be expected; Winter snow, Spring and Autumn mud, Summer dust. Relatively poor road infrastructure with a reliance on rail for strategic movement.  Many rivers but with the main bridges unable to support vehicles over 50 tons.

Tanks therefore must be small to be well armoured to be transportable by rail for strategic mobility and keep down the weight to enable the use of existing bridges. To achieve this Soviet design pioneered and embraced auto-loaders to get rid of a crewman which enables a smaller overall vehicle envelope. The price paid is an increased vulnerability caused by ammo stored in a carousel within the turret which means any minor penetration is likely to result in a catastrophic explosion blowing the turret off and killing the crew.

US and Germany (and France): Their tanks emphasis survivability through firepower and mobility. Tactically very mobile at some cost in lighter armour illustrated by the number of M1s that continue to be lost. France could be added to this group with greater emphasis on mobility through even less protection.

Israel and Britain: Their tanks emphasis survivability through firepower and protection. Less mobile tactically as they are primarily defensive tanks.

The results of "live fire" exercises you can google yourself. I am too lazy to find the link

Really helpful in this sort of conversation.

The competitions I know of were Cat '87 (ch I) which was from the British side a complete organisational and planning shambles and in the Greek trials (ch II) the ammunition charges supplied were for the Chieftain L11 gun not the L30.   Never underestimate the British capacity for a cock-up.   The Russians had similar problems with their ammunition also, they supplied only practice rounds.   For the Swedish competition team Challenger never even got there!  

From the tests: "in CAT '87 the Challenger 1 was by far the slowest to complete the test, and thus came last. However, it was actually the most accurate, and had the highest percentage of hits. Obviously, accuracy won't do you much good if you're last to shoot, but it shows that it's important to know the format of the shooting tests before you can draw a conclusion
Greek trials "For Challenger 2E firing trials in Greece last year, L23 projectiles and charges were supplied from UK stocks. Because of the relatively low hit rate achieved, checks were subsequently run on both the ammunition and the fire-control system (FCS). It was found that the FCS had not been at fault and that a major contributor to ammunition inconsistency had been the use of L14A2 charges. It is understood the UK Ordnance Board has since recommended that the remaining stocks be withdrawn from service."

It can be seen that although the tank did not cover itself with glory quite a lot of fault must be laid at the door of the preparation and planning (or complete lack of it) that went into these tests.

I sincerely cannot see how the Challenger 2 can be argued to be among the greatest tanks when the almost 40 year old Leopard 2 outperforms it.

The original Leopard II introduced in 1979 is not 40 years old.  The A4 used in these competitions was introduced in 1985, 2 years later than the Challenger I.  Challenger I was the Shir2 tank that Iran had been allowed to order and much to the disgust of the British army was going to be a better version of Chieftain than they had. Shir1 was a Chieftain with a new engine; Shir2 was a Chieftain with Chobham armour added and a new engine. It was accepted by the British army as a new tank when Iran imploded. This tank served with Nato alongside existing Chieftains through to the 90's when both were replaced by the Challenger II. During the 80's both received Chieftain upgrades although of course the original Chieftains kept their engines and had a ROMOR armour upgrade rather than CHOBHAM. Challenger I had 3rd generation armour and a good engine but it was still however a 2nd generation tank regarding its gun and targeting computers. Challenger II was a almost a completely new tank with redesigned turret, new DORCHESTER armour, new gun, new comms, new digitised targeting, thermal imaging, stabilised sights and gun and a new family of ammunition. Calling it Challenger II was probably a mistake as there was less than 5% that could be interchanged with Challenger I.

No one in this thread is arguing the Challenger is the best tank in the world. You alone with your obvious overpowering level of intelligence   have decided that the original article not only meant tanks that have changed history, but also meant tanks that are best in the world, and as no Germans are mentioned you need to throw your toys out of your pram!.

The original Challenger introduced in 1983 was a very good tank that changed history with its 3rd generation armour, which is also used in other western tanks the British have chosen to share the design with. Up to this point it had been accepted that RHA type armour could not keep pace with HEAT ammunition developments, especially in the field of ATGW. CHOBHAM not only changed this it made most HEAT projectiles obsolete overnight, and put MBTs firmly back in place as the queen of the battlefield.

Some non-academic links:

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17459
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

40 % targets hit is actually worse than my uninformed self suggested

Read the whole thread, not just one statement that fits you're argument.  

I wouldn't term Tanknet as non-academic. You will find tank designers, authors, scientists and real eastern and western tankmen contribute to their threads giving the most informed non-industry view on tanks available anywhere on the net.  
Why don't you try reading the whole Tanknet post you quote and the dozens of other posts on Tanknet which cover this subject? While there you will discover a more rounded view of tank design and you may also be able to spot the problems with Leopard 2 tanks up to an including the A4 versions. Their armour was known by the West and Russians to be frontally defective.   Read Harkenon's posts for more.  

The Telegraph non news is in relation to the frontal armour on the lower front of the tank. This plate is actually 80mm thick and is not covered by Chobham armour. This is the same on Chieftain and both Challengers. The reason is these tanks are defensive tanks and that part of the hull should always be "hull down" in an engagement. If exposed during insurgency/guerrilla type operations it is now covered with add-on appliqué armour.

This goes so far that no Challenger 3 will be developed quoting the MoD "in lack of conventional threats". Possibly their high cost, poor comparison to other (older!) designs has played a role in this decision as well.

Why are you taking a sensible statement and trying to fool everyone that it is a criticism of the Challenger tank.

So in summary I think your little attempt at backstabbing is out of place and a bit more uninformed than my theories. As the place is indeed very nice I suggest you do not go further on this matter.
The Challenger is maybe not the worst tank of all times and admittedly among the best protected fighting vehicles but certainly offers less than optimal performance.

So in Summary I will give you a choice of a close to my reply.  

Choice 1 – Mr SBB79 I understand English is not you're first language and you do not realise how insulting your post is so after you have apologised we can all have a laugh about lederhosen and go off for a grosser bier and a hug.  

Choice 2 - I said you were uninformed, and adding a lot of bluster and noise does not alter that fact. If you wish to make a point please make it clear, check your sources and have the decency to hold a debate and not descend to insults because somebody questions your hasty pop-news sourced, hastily thought out, naive and superficial opinions. I am not a back stabber I am more of an eyeball to eyeball tell you what I think type of person.

Pick the ending you prefer.  

Whether you like the Germans or not, we do build better tanks than the Brits.

I really do like nearly all Germans.  

Whether you like it or not British tanks see action and have never lost a single tank to enemy action.  

And do make sure to have a lovely day.  

[get2grips]

Whatever you do, don't mention the Challenger...I said it once but I think I got away with it 

[Luddite]

[Leon]

Nothing wrong with a good debate, but let's keep this friendly please.

[howayman]

Friendly ! The voice of reason can be such a spoilsport.   

[fsn]

I think we should just all agree that the Centurion is the best tank of all time ... ever and be done at that. 

[Rob]

Nothing wrong with a good debate, but let's keep this friendly please.

It was being accused of being a back stabber that caused my reply to have an element of robustness attached to it.

[Leon]

I've edited a couple of posts just to keep things on topic.

In a similar vein to this thread though, how about: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8521.0.html

[Rob]

I've edited a couple of posts just to keep things on topic.

In a similar vein to this thread though, how about: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8521.0.html

Fully approve Leon. The posts read much better now.