The curator of the tank museum in Bovington has made a list of ten tanks that have helped to shape history. I'm sure FSN will be pleased to note that the Centurion Mark 5 is included.
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/bc83b66b#/bc83b66b/46
Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!
I told them, I told them all! The Centurion is a fine tank, a lovely tank, a STRONG tank, a GREAT TANK .....
5 Brit, 2 Red, 1 yank, 1 French, 1 Israeli: Anyone surprised our good friends from the Rhine have been excluded? Ignore the Panther which is an upversioned T34, and the Tiger which is just a big old mobile pill box, wouldn't you include the Pz IV as an example of an all purpose tank that was designed to be upgradeable, and was the only major vehicle that fought from 1939 to 1945?
YEah the fact that someone from the UK chooses half of the tanks from the UK armoury is not surprising =)
You can never deny that german tanks shaped history, i am not talking about a particular model but talking about the german tank lines itself. They where an essential part of the blitzkrieg tactic, wich was a new and effective tacic that changed the way battles where fought. Now if that didn't shape history then i don't know.
Not surprised there are no japanese tanks in the top 10 though ;D
Quote from: fsn on 13 September 2013, 07:13:50 AM5 Brit, 2 Red, 1 yank, 1 French, 1 Israeli: Anyone surprised our good friends from the Rhine have been excluded? Ignore the Panther which is an upversioned T34, and the Tiger which is just a big old mobile pill box, wouldn't you include the Pz IV as an example of an all purpose tank that was designed to be upgradeable, and was the only major vehicle that fought from 1939 to 1945?
I hadn't noticed the lack of Germans, but it's an interesting point. As for the Panzer IV, I hadn't realised it was designed to be upgradeable - that's an interesting nugget. Given that the list is ten tanks that have "helped to shape the history books", I'd say there really should be a WWII German tank, though it's arguable which one it should be. I'd argue that the Tiger has a claim, simply because of Allied tank crews' obsession with it - at one time, almost every enemy tank that was spotted was reported to be a Tiger. I'd probably go with the Panzer IV, though, because in various incarnations it was present in every campaign the Germans fought, and so clearly it "helped to shape the history books".
Interesting that the Abrams doesn't feature. I have to say I've heard some odd rumours about its vulnerability to RPG fire. :-\
Quote from: Hertsblue on 13 September 2013, 08:31:15 AM
Interesting that the Abrams doesn't feature. I have to say I've heard some odd rumours about its vulnerability to RPG fire. :-\
Bear in mind that it's a list of "ten vehicles that have helped to shape the history books". I'm not convinced that the Abrams fits that criteria, or at least not more so than some others.
On the other hand, I'd have listed the T-55 rather than the T-72. It's been produced in larger quantities, been exported to more countries, and seen more combat. On those grounds, I'd say it's done more to shape history.
Maybes some a rubbish tank that changed Tank developement could have been included?
Anyone think it odd that the article illustrates the T34/76 with a picture of a T34/85!!!?? :o :o
Mollinary
Got to agree with the T55 as a major player in shaping history and maybe the JS3 in 1945 a bit of a shock to the west. The lack of a German ww2 tank was also a bit strange. But mistaking a T34/85 and a T34/76 not unusual for a magazine, even Soldier.
Yeah, i wasn't sure about that picture myself
Quote from: mollinary on 13 September 2013, 03:26:14 PM
Anyone think it odd that the article illustrates the T34/76 with a picture of a T34/85!!!?? :o :o
Mollinary
Speaks for the "quality".
Not to mention the German Panther was the base for many post war designs of both east and west.
Panzer IVs were still used in the 60s (70s?) in the Arab/Israeli Wars.
For WW2 tanks I would only mention the M4 Sherman due to its vast numbers for the western allies and of course the T34 for the Soviets. Germans must be Panzer IV, Panther and Tiger had much lesser quantities. Interestingly the 75mm gun of the Panther was vastly superior to the Tigers 88mm gun :-\
Post War there is of course the Centurion, the M60 (USA) and the Leopard for the West and the T55 for the East.
The biggest joke is the Challenger tank, arguably the worst current tank. Besides a fantastic survivability the number of comparisons and trials the Challenger lost to even older Leopards (L2A4s!!!) surpasses the number of Challengers built. It simply failed to hit anything smaller than an aircraft carrier when moving. Not to mention anyone except the Iraquis would actually USE the firing computers AND move their bloody T55s in combat.
Absolutely unbelievable revanchist. >:(
Hmmm. I'm also a bit iffy about the Vickers 1
and the 6 tonner.
So I think I'd have to go for:
- Mk IV - mass produced
- FT17 - Turret and mobility.
- Vickers Medium Mk 1 - Post WWI developments in thinking
- T34/76 - design classic
- Pz IV - Adaptability and upgrades
- Sherman - Production
- Centurion - just dreamy! Truly modern tank.
- T54/T55 birth of the distinctive Soviet tank
- Merkava - radical design change
... then I'm stuck. Churchill? Early Christie suspension? Panther or Tiger?
Once again the Tzar tank is shamefully overlooked
Largely, I would suggest because of its non-appearance in the Pendraken catalogue.
Quote from: fsn on 13 September 2013, 06:26:20 PM
Largely, I would suggest because of its non-appearance in the Pendraken catalogue.
Once again the Tzar tank is shamefully overlooked
Quote from: Fenton on 13 September 2013, 06:26:52 PM
Once again the Tzar tank is shamefully overlooked
;D
Quote from: Fenton on 13 September 2013, 06:24:25 PM
Once again the Tzar tank is shamefully overlooked
Actually overlooking the tsar tank would lead to neck problems. As you would have to look immensly high not too see it :P
Quote from: Fenton on 13 September 2013, 06:26:52 PM
Once again the Tzar tank is shamefully overlooked
Well, if we're going for fantasy tanks, where's the Land Raider or the P1000 Ratte? :P
Quote from: Ithoriel on 13 September 2013, 11:11:47 PM
Well, if we're going for fantasy tanks, where's the Land Raider or the P1000 Ratte? :P
For the P1000 use a 28mm T34-85 with a 1/300th scale Bismarck turret (the actual turret looks like suspiciously like an 8" Hipper one), add 88 on rear hull. I built one out of a spare 20mm T34 for 1/300th.
That explain why Leon don't want it?
IanS :D
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 13 September 2013, 06:04:22 PM
The biggest joke is the Challenger tank, arguably the worst current tank. Besides a fantastic survivability the number of comparisons and trials the Challenger lost to even older Leopards (L2A4s!!!) surpasses the number of Challengers built. It simply failed to hit anything smaller than an aircraft carrier when moving. Not to mention anyone except the Iraquis would actually USE the firing computers AND move their bloody T55s in combat.
Absolutely unbelievable revanchist. >:(
Then how do you explain the world record 5.2 Km knockout by a Challenger during the Gulf War? And has the Leopard (of any type) ever been actually tested in combat? I don't think so.
I guess the Abrams and other modern tanks are missing as this is a list about tanks that shaped history. Modern tanks are in essence secondary, if not obsolete from a military perspective, and therefore don't really shape history anymore. Do they?
Is it meant to be tanks that have shaped history through their design or through the actions/battles they have taken part in
Quote from: Leon on 17 September 2013, 01:55:07 AM
Coming soon.... ;)
If only. Though I'd sooner have a Goliath team tbh.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 17 September 2013, 02:00:12 PM
If only. Though I'd sooner have a Goliath team tbh.
The Ratte 'tis indeed on the way, we saw some preview pics from the designer at Colours this past weekend. It's an absolute beast as well, massive piece of kit!
8)
I guess I need to start saving! I only want/ need one and that's really only to scare the bejeezus out of my regular opponents the first time I put it on the table :)
Is there a Maus coming to the Pendraken range too? I need two of those .... though possibly only one turret :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 17 September 2013, 02:38:14 PM
I guess I need to start saving! I only want/ need one and that's really only to scare the bejeezus out of my regular opponents the first time I put it on the table :)
Is there a Maus coming to the Pendraken range too? I need two of those .... though possibly only one turret :)
Yep, we've already got the Maus here, we just need to figure out the best way to produce it. The hull needs to be in resin, so it'll have to go away to be moulded up and cast.
Quote from: Leon on 17 September 2013, 02:40:07 PM
Yep, we've already got the Maus here, we just need to figure out the best way to produce it. The hull needs to be in resin, so it'll have to go away to be moulded up and cast.
Issue 12 of the SOTCW Journal (now available as part of a compendium) included a scenario featuring up to three Maus (as well as, potentially, X-7 ATGMs and JS-IIIs). It includes rules, and I've played it a couple of times, it gives a good game. There's a certain amount of randomness involved in the forces, so neither side can be completely sure what they're up against.
The "Steel Panthers : World At War" computer game had a neat little scenario with a couple of Maus tanks and a varied assortment of other German stuff fought the Russians at Kummersdorf. I played it a lot, usually as the Germans. Normally I ended up like this:
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y464/G84KD2/Tanks/destroyed_maus_at_kummersdorf_02_zps070d8fcf.jpg)
QuoteThe Ratte 'tis indeed on the way, we saw some preview pics from the designer at Colours this past weekend. It's an absolute beast as well, massive piece of kit!
just did the math on this. The Ratte was suppose to be 115 ft long on the hull so that'll be about 20cm in 10mm scale, about 8cm wide and 6cm high. Just drew it on a peice of paper holy feck!
I want one, I want one, I want one.
I will never use it ever, but I want one, hell I'll have 2.
Those Germans were clever weren't they? The "Goliath" was tiny and the "Mouse" and "Rat" were designed to be HUGE.
Cunning dastards! Just not sporting.
I'm hoping we might be able to pick it up at the Warfare show in November, and we can get it sorted for the new year. There'll be a 1946 range coming for the Sci-Fi section, so it'll be going in there.
8)
I think in the artical there are too many early and inter-war tanks. Gotta have the Brit lozenge for starting the whole thing and probably the FT for turrets, but the others I do not think their influence warrents a mention.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 13 September 2013, 06:04:22 PM
Not to mention the German Panther was the base for many post war designs of both east and west.
Panzer IVs were still used in the 60s (70s?) in the Arab/Israeli Wars.
I'd be interested in the "many" post war designs based on the panther. As for PzIVs used by Syria in the Mid-East, so what, Cromwells and Shermans were also used.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 13 September 2013, 06:04:22 PM
For WW2 tanks I would only mention the M4 Sherman due to its vast numbers for the western allies and of course the T34 for the Soviets. Germans must be Panzer IV, Panther and Tiger had much lesser quantities. Interestingly the 75mm gun of the Panther was vastly superior to the Tigers 88mm gun :-\
I would agree on Sherman and T34 for turning the factory and its production techniques into a sides primary weapon.
I think the Germans should have an entry because of their influence on tank design and I would pick the PzIII. I pick the PzIII because it is the first tank to get the crew roles correct and because it is the first tank to have internal and external communications, therefore making it able to operate at peak efficiany. Because of this the PzIII was able to defeat the "on paper" superior tanks such as Char B and T34.
I would not pick the PzIV because it was developed beyond its capabilities as a stop-gap and in later G and H/J versions was front heavy, because of this only the hull and not the turret front could be brought up 80mm thickness. I would also not pick the Panther which on balance is the best WW2 tank, simply because although good it did not alter history.
Interestingly the Panther was relativly cheap to build considering its power:
Panther 117,100 Reichmarks (RM)
Panzer III 96,163 RM
Panzer IV 103,462 RM
Tiger I 250,800 RM
StuG III 82,500 RM
These figures exclude armement radios etc.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 13 September 2013, 06:04:22 PM
Post War there is of course the Centurion, the M60 (USA) and the Leopard for the West and the T55 for the East.
Centurian changed history as influencing in the west at any rate the "main battle tank" approach to tank design. M60, Leopard and AMX30 for that matter, not sure what they influenced. The M26 Pershing seemed to influence all post war "Patton" tank designs and the T54 all post war Soviet designs.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 13 September 2013, 06:04:22 PM
The biggest joke is the Challenger tank, arguably the worst current tank. Besides a fantastic survivability the number of comparisons and trials the Challenger lost to even older Leopards (L2A4s!!!) surpasses the number of Challengers built. It simply failed to hit anything smaller than an aircraft carrier when moving. Not to mention anyone except the Iraquis would actually USE the firing computers AND move their bloody T55s in combat.
A post war tank that has changed history but no one has mention would be the T62 for introducing smooth-bore guns, auto-loaders, and fin stabilised rounds. Challenger should also get a mention because it enabled tanks to carry on being the foremost battlefield weapon by enhancing the tank attribute of protection in the form of CHOBHAM armour, that had been eroded so much by HEAT missiles and FIN rounds.
Won't comment on the Challenger 1 (as opposed to Chally 2) competition results as essentially your comments seem a little uninformed :) and this nice place is not the for that. Try Tanknet, Harkonnen loves Leopards, mention your theories to him :d
Is there a dichotomy between "changed history" and an innovative design that did not itself distinguish itself on the killing ground at the precise game changing moment?
As has been claimed in an above thread, M4 Sherman was not a great tank, but mass production meant that it was there in the numbers and thus changed history - the DD models on D Day and Hobart's funnies.
It is possible to argue that M3 Grants were the tanks at Alamein, and that that desert victory changed history as psychological proof that the until then invincible Nazi war machine could be beaten in battle.
Similar arguments could be made about the Burma campaign where tanks that were inferior on the European theatre opened up the road to Mandalay.
Likewise in the early days of history changing blitzkrieg - the humble PzII and the Czech 38(t) were at the cutting edge of the new style of warfare
Or in the final days of WW2, the bitter Berlin battles that crushed the Nazi regime thus "change history" with the debut of JS2 and JS3?
None of the above are great tanks in the classical sense.
Quote from: Sunray on 22 September 2013, 10:11:42 AM
It is possible to argue that M3 Grants were the tanks at Alamein, and that that desert victory changed history as psychological proof that the until then invincible Nazi war machine could be beaten in battle.
Could argue this but I think it's not great history. The Nazis were defeated the moment the US entered the war regardless of any perceived psychology. The desert war was won on numbers alone. Monty was not a great general and the M3 was not a great tank IMHO.
Quote from: Rob on 21 September 2013, 10:41:34 AM
Won't comment on the Challenger 1 (as opposed to Chally 2) competition results as essentially your comments seem a little uninformed :) and this nice place is not the for that. Try Tanknet, Harkonnen loves Leopards, mention your theories to him :d
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2
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. The results of "live fire" exercises you can google yourself. I am too lazy to find the link where on day one the British crew had to continously fix the fire control computers and on the second day they finished with 48 % of targets neutralized compared to 68% for the Abrams 74% for the Leclerc, 80 something for the Leopard 2A4 and stunning 92% for the K2.
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. Just as a note the latest version is the Leo2A7+ and the German army deploys the A5 version - both superior to the A4. It seems my uninformed theories are the basis of multiple rejection the Challenger (bot 1 and 2) has received.
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.... :-\
This goes so far that no Challenger 3 will be developed quoting the MoD "in lack of conventional threats". Possibly ther high cost, poor comparison to other (older!) designs has played a role in this decision as well.
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. Whether you like the Germans or not, we do build better tanks than the Brits.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AM
Whether you like the Germans or not, we do build better tanks than the Brits.
Unless they need to function in snow or mud ;)
Quote from: get2grips on 22 September 2013, 10:17:38 AM
Could argue this but I think it's not great history. The Nazis were defeated the moment the US entered the war regardless of any perceived psychology. The desert war was won on numbers alone. Monty was not a great general and the M3 was not a great tank IMHO.
We actually lost the moment when Adolf decided to go for it. Even if Germans had successfully completed Sealion the Brits would have come back from Canada. No need for American help but it was certainl useful to speed up the downfall.
Mora of story: never let a Private do the job of a Fieldmarshal (or politician).
Quote from: get2grips on 22 September 2013, 11:11:26 AM
Unless they need to function in snow or mud ;)
Thats the Russian domain 8), although the Leo2s of Sweden perform quite well I have heard...
Alas the British vehicls have one advantage after all: Built in kettle :P
Quote from: get2grips on 22 September 2013, 10:17:38 AM
Could argue this but I think it's not great history. The Nazis were defeated the moment the US entered the war regardless of any perceived psychology.
Sorry "Get to Grips", but simply cannot let this myth sit unchallenged. The act of the Americans entering the war did not in itself defeat the Nazis.
The German war machine had plenty of fight and spirit left in it. As the Americans were to find at Kasserine, Omaha, the Ardennes. Indeed the Master Race dismissed the Yanks as an assortment of racial mongrels with no sense of destiny. You only have to listen to the commentary to German war film of the Bulge offensive as US prisoners are paraded past.
I suspect you suffer from post modernity present mindedness . The Suez canal alone justified the Desert War, and as the son of a Desert Air Force Veteran , I recall my late father recalling the significance of the watching the "master race" troop into the bag. That is how the DAK perceived themselves - read the contemporary literature - beating them in the desert was a game changer to British morale.
It is not mere declarations of war that beat the evil of Nazi Germany it was Russian blood, US dollars and British Intelligence......along with a lot of lives lost in the killing fields. - often with inferior kit such as the M3 Grant at el Alamein....
You missed Polish decoding skills...
Quote from: Sunray on 25 September 2013, 12:12:10 PM
Sorry "Get to Grips", but simply cannot let this myth sit unchallenged. The act of the Americans entering the war did not in itself defeat the Nazis.
The German war machine had plenty of fight and spirit left in it. As the Americans were to find at Kasserine, Omaha, the Ardennes. Indeed the Master Race dismissed the Yanks as an assortment of racial mongrels with no sense of destiny. You only have to listen to the commentary to German war film of the Bulge offensive as US prisoners are paraded past.
I suspect you suffer from post modernity present mindedness . The Suez canal alone justified the Desert War, and as the son of a Desert Air Force Veteran , I recall my late father recalling the significance of the watching the "master race" troop into the bag. That is how the DAK perceived themselves - read the contemporary literature - beating them in the desert was a game changer to British morale.
It is not mere declarations of war that beat the evil of Nazi Germany it was Russian blood, US dollars and British Intelligence......along with a lot of lives lost in the killing fields. - often with inferior kit such as the M3 Grant at el Alamein....
Still disagree.
Without "lend / lease" and US involvement: the Nazis could have triumphed. The UK was propped up by the US at a time when it was on its knees. Had this not happened, with the effect of the "happy time" as the u-boat captains called the early Atlantic battles beginning to bite, the UK couldn't have supported Russia to any significant degree. If this hadn't happened Russia may have been unable to resist the Nazis.
We will, of course, never know and, thank god the most evil regime the world has ever seen was defeated. I am English, patriotic and acutely aware of the sacrifice made by all of the armed services on all sides BUT
Without US intervention the war WOULD have continued longer and COULD have gone in an altogether more unpleasant direction.
Quote from: get2grips on 26 September 2013, 05:36:46 PM
Still disagree.
That's your privilege in a world free of Nazi domination. We are back to that issue I see in undergraduate essays- the question posed must always shape the context of the answer.
The question is "tanks that have helped shape history" not the impact of US intervention. The impact of which I do not contest.
So in that context, the battle in the Western Desert that saw Rommel defeated and the master race in retreat (the bells rang through out England that night) was indeed history...and the inferior M3 Grant was the tank - along with 200+ M4 Shermans that led the break through.
So lets celebrate our freedom to have a good forum debate, agree to differ and leave it there.
Kindest Regards Sunray out.
Quote from: Sunray on 27 September 2013, 05:37:53 PM
So lets celebrate our freedom to have a good forum debate, agree to differ and leave it there.
Kindest Regards Sunray out.
All good :-bd
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.
Quote from: fsn on 27 September 2013, 06:13:07 PM
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
Quote from: Fenton on 27 September 2013, 06:17:56 PM
I dont like your group hugs
I'm only hugging if Fenton does :D
*Teacher stare* Now get on and hug!
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. ;) :P)
Cheers - Phil
I'm permanently greased up.
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.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMQuoting 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. :P
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.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMThe 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. :o 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.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMI 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.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMSome 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. 8)
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. :o 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.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMThis 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.
8-} Why are you taking a sensible statement and trying to fool everyone that it is a criticism of the Challenger tank.
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMSo 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. <:-P
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. :)
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 22 September 2013, 10:54:31 AMWhether 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. m/
And do make sure to have a lovely day. :) ;)
Whatever you do, don't mention the Challenger...I said it once but I think I got away with it :D
Nothing wrong with a good debate, but let's keep this friendly please.
8)
Friendly ! The voice of reason can be such a spoilsport. ;)
I think we should just all agree that the Centurion is the best tank of all time ... ever and be done at that. :D
Quote from: Leon on 30 September 2013, 04:04:26 PM
Nothing wrong with a good debate, but let's keep this friendly please.
8)
It was being accused of being a back stabber that caused my reply to have an element of robustness attached to it. :-[
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 (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8521.0.html)
Quote from: Leon on 01 October 2013, 12:18:18 AM
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 (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8521.0.html)
Fully approve Leon. The posts read much better now. 8)
Hmm, saw this and had to comment. For a supposed objective list, it's very subjective - I definitely think that if you are going to put the Chally in there as the first Western composite-armoured production tank, then at least an honourable mention should go to the T-64 for having the very first composite armour (not counting experimental or prototype tanks), even if it wasn't exactly Chobham! =)
Quote from: fsn on 27 September 2013, 06:13:07 PM
Now let's group hug.
You only want a group hug because you imagine us all as Totty in Bikini's :D
Quote from: Rick on 08 November 2013, 11:48:15 PM
Hmm, saw this and had to comment. For a supposed objective list, it's very subjective - I definitely think that if you are going to put the Chally in there as the first Western composite-armoured production tank, then at least an honourable mention should go to the T-64 for having the very first composite armour (not counting experimental or prototype tanks), even if it wasn't exactly Chobham! =)
Hi Rick and welcome to the forumn. I think what you are suggesting is very sensible. ( ;D :D)
I put in my post the T62 as a Soviet game changer, but my memory served me wrong as I quoted it as being the first to have an auto-loader which was wrong; it was the T64!
The T64 did have composite armour later used on all Soviet tanks. They also use reactive armours and seem to be moving to the more sophisticated reactive armours like Shtora which to me is positivly space age technology.
Cheers, Rob :)
With apologies for the necro. Note the link in the bottom right of the article to the effect of: "If you disagree - comment on our board" Soldier Magazine looking for traffic? Mission accomplished I would say. ;)
Oh and for a top 10, I would swap out the 6 ton for Panzer IV or maybe a 38-T which was the backbone of the blitzkrieg......
(http://s14.directupload.net/images/140104/temp/yiarys23.jpg) (http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3492/yiarys23_jpg.htm)
I'm usually no big fan of such "my country did xyz better than your country"-lists, but in the context of the title of this article ("helped to shape history books" ??? ... "crucially influenced tank design and warfare" would be fitting though) I really can't take this list seriously. So how exactly did the Chalenger 2 "change the shape of history" more than any (!) German tank of world war 2? Even the humble Panzer II would have been a better choice here. After all this was the tank which made up the bulk of the German forces that conquered Poland and France.
I'd agree to include the Sherman and the T-34. Those tanks definitely helped to decide ww2. Not sure though whether ww1 wouldn't have had a smiliar outcome with no tanks at all (some of the most successful offensive operations like Caporetto 1917 or the Spring Offensive 1918 were accomplished without the help of tanks). I guess the main achievement of the Mark IV was to get this whole tank thing started after all.