BIG BOYS GUNS

As an ex Paratrooper we spent thousands of hours recognising tanks from every nation and learning every aspect of them, especially the Soviet ones obviously.
227 tanks remain out of the original 376. The British Army require the conversions to be finished by 2025. It is assumed that Challenger 2 will remain in service until 2035. However it will be a big task for BAE or it's competitor Rheinmetall Defence.

The tank shape seems to being going back to WW2 with more and more reliance on Chafe to deter missile strikes from the air, or have I a skewed view of tanks.
Being half German half Irish, I have always rated the LEOPARD German tank as one of the best, what does your country have U.S and Canada that compares on upgrades?

Below images left to right: CHALLENGER 2 - LEOPARD - M1 ABRAMS

The problem is that, as I see it, tanks are a status symbol of the past. If you thought that MILAN spelled the end of the road for tanks, then JAVELIN certainly has put paid to them. Look at it this way....... An old chieftain, towed out on the ranges as a hard target would last a couple of months on a range until it was destroyed to a semi recognisable mass of steel. The same tanks used as hard targets against the Javelin last for weeks.

When they were live firing Javelin against the targets you might see the missile turn over and look down as it searched out the target you aimed at. In that millisecond it took to hook on, a synthesized voice in the missile radioed back to the control point '........it's not their lucky day'. Valhalla was about to come..........

Very true Peter, but what's all this I heard from a serving Tank Regiment RSM at the Airborne Soldier unveiling on Saturday at Aldershot, that MOD have bought the Isreali Chaffe launchers fitted to the outside of the Challenger 2 upgrade.

Is everybody doing that, surely its only useful against Air attack not Javelin type weapons, and presumably only useful just before the missile strikes anyway, and how would a tank crew know they were on the radar so to speak??
Must be some experienced ex tankies on here!!

JAVELIN VIDEO MOD

FGM-148 Javelin In Action • Man-Portable Anti-Tank Missile - YouTube

Canada wouldn't have any tanks if the rat offspring of unmarried parents Liberals got their way. The CPC isn't any better either.
Our Leopards are Leopard 1's bought in the 1970's and we have no way of moving them anywhere anyway. (At one time our NATO tasking was to reinforce Norway. We couldn't get there with any heavy kit. Trudeau the Elder used it as his excuse to pull us out of Europe.)
When our guys went to Afghanistan in 2007, we had to rent some Leopard A6M's because our's were out if date and we have no way of transporting pretty much anything bigger than a case of beer.
Rumour has it The CF bought some used Leopard 2's from the Dutch. Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, thought he could replace a tank with an LAV Dinky Toy. Idiot.
"...An old Chieftain..." The old Chieftain in question was a W. W. II designed tank with W.W. II vintage armour. The Challenger 2, upgraded or not, is a typical Brit PBI tank design. Very slow in comparison to other tanks. 40 km/h (25 mph) off road vs the Leopard 1's 65 KPH. Still has a Point blank range of 1,000 meters though. See the Javelin/Milan crew. Kill the Javelin/Milan crew. From away over there.

Mmmmmm....., Re your last para, I'm not quite sure that you are on the same page as me regarding our tanks Sunray. I'm sure that they both use the same main L7 Ordnance

What about the M1A2 Abrams? How does it compare? I was never a tread head so I'm admittedly ignorant about the performance. I did work as a contractor for GDLS who build them in Lima, Ohio but never heard much about the goings on in that world they're so diverse. I do remember something that was mentioned a lot when I was in the Airborne Infantry, "When you're in a tank, EVERYONE knows where you're at!" When I was in a line platoon, I was also qualified on the old Dragon wire guided AT missile and was quite proficient with it but knew sure as God made little green apples that if i missed, my arse was going to be toast in a real world scenario which fortunately never came to pass.

Would love to know from somebody what this Chaffe idea is all about?? I could understand a little if they used jamming technology, but Chaffe!!!

This is interesting, not sure what happened to the LEOPARD on this list, The ABRAMS is apparently more maouverable than the CHALLENGER and can fire more accurate rounds!!:

Currently top 10 best tanks in the world are these:

M1A2 SEP (USA) ...
Challenger 2 (United Kingdom) ...
Armata (Russia) ...
Merkava Mk.4 (Israel) ...
Type 90 (Japan) ...
Leclerc (France) ...
Oplot-M (Ukraine) ...
T-90 (Russia) The T-90 is currently the only tank produced in quantity in Russia.

Here's the Israeli Chafe system fitted to CHALLENGER 2 now called the "BLACK KNIGHT" on the rear of the turret where the smoke used to be

Tanks are going to remain a status symbol and combat tool. For ever might be a long time but worth considering.

Remember what happened after the Israeli tank forces met their equal with wire guided anti-tank missiles about 40 years ago? All tank nations immediately upgraded their tanks' anti missile capabilities and incorporated such technology into future tanks. Stalemate. We are still in the never ending competition of countering improvements in technology with further technology, and then further countermeasures.

I don't see tanks going out of favour anytime soon. Yes they can be more vulnerable than before but the reality is it is still a important tool. Ultimately it is Arty which wins battles.

With modern technology the battlefield is terrifying (more so than the past). Drones that can kill you without even knowing they are there, the ability to track people based off their cellphone (and since its a addiction all it takes is one guy in the platoon to smuggle one to know where you all are), the ability to dismantle or listen into the communications grid, guided munitions which will adjust their aim in flight to hit you, etc. I am personally afraid to see what they shall come up with next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

Ultimately it is Arty which wins battles.

---

And of course Arty is the one that walks onto the objective and holds it. Arty roots out the defenders from their holes and keeps them out. You sure have visions...

Now this latest FORCES TV "Lets tell every enemy know what we have" video answers all my questions I think, but not quite sure what they are going to destroy incoming missiles with??
The laser detector is useful.

‘Black Night’: Could This Upgraded Challenger 2 Battle Tank Transform Warfare? | Forces TV - YouTube


Love the BBQ 50 Gallon drum on the back on this video ha ha!!

These Are The Upgrades Soldiers Chose For Their Dream Battle Tank • CHALLENGER 2 | Forces TV - YouTube

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Challenging The Challenger 2: The British Army On Exercise In Oman | Forces TV - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

And of course Arty is the one that walks onto the objective and holds it. Arty roots out the defenders from their holes and keeps them out. You sure have visions...

---

90% of the Land casualties in WWII were caused by Arty, 8% by Armoured, 2% by Infantry. The balance has shifted even more in recent years thanks to advancement in Arty tech (the stuff the Russians are doing in Ukraine is truly proving the value of it).

Everything is needed at the end of the day, no element is particularly valuable on its own. Without supply you don't have equipment to fight a battle, without Infantry you can't hold terf, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

no element is particularly valuable on its own.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

without Infantry you can't hold terf,

---

You see? You answer yourself. Lots of fights have been won without arty or armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

Would love to know from somebody what this Chaffe idea is all about?? I could understand a little if they used jamming technology, but Chaffe!!!

---

Surely "Chaff" is a form of "Jamming Technology" for radar? It may be old technology but if it still works why not use it if there is nothing better available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Surely "Chaff" is a form of "Jamming Technology" for radar? It may be old technology but if it still works why not use it if there is nothing better available?

---

Hey! Didn't you guess from the Islands used to call that "window?"


Bob

Transgender and Pride seems to be the main focus of our current Gov't, not tanks!!!!! Just a minute...have to go to the washroom!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bros

Just a minute...have to go to the washroom!!!

---

Which one ?:lol::lol::lol:

Back to Tanks, I had an introduction by one of the "gunners" of a Challenger when I was in Batus, some bit of kit, lots of room compared to others but still cramped, give me a workbench and a vice any day.

Me next to a proper tank in Bordon, the big stuff was getting ready to go to RAF Lyhnam
(the gun is facing backwards)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../KBmKQQk-1.jpg

The one inherent weakness of all tanks is they are tracked lose a track and your like a submarine with an open sash window!

This has been around for a while all you need is to get the troops to paint the targets and there you go no tank an anti aircraft missile won't get this round,
M712 Copperhead - YouTube

Gather that is a Chieftain BD6:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Gather that is a Chieftain BD6

---

Yep, It seemed to be doing a few laps of Bordon.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

As an ex Paratrooper we spent thousands of hours recognising tanks from every nation and learning every aspect of them, especially the Soviet ones obviously.
227 tanks remain out of the original 376. The British Army require the conversions to be finished by 2025. It is assumed that Challenger 2 will remain in service until 2035. However it will be a big task for BAE or it's competitor Rheinmetall Defence.

The tank shape seems to being going back to WW2 with more and more reliance on Chafe to deter missile strikes from the air, or have I a skewed view of tanks.
Being half German half Irish, I have always rated the LEOPARD German tank as one of the best, what does your country have U.S and Canada that compares on upgrades?

Below images left to right: CHALLENGER 2 - LEOPARD - M1 ABRAMS

---

"BAE or it's competitor Rheinmetall Defence".

Both have now amalgamated for the Challenger deal Gil...

With only 225 in the fleet, you have to wonder if there is much point?

Consider that the only time the UK has deployed armour in strength since WW2 is Gulf Wars 1 and 2.

Both of these depolyed 100 plus MBT's in a cohesive Armored Division...

The question is, can we with a total fleet of 200 odd tanks deploy 100 of them again?

If the answer is no, then I can't see the point in keeping them really...

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Further to this, weapons like Brimstone and the follow on SPEAR 2 will make tanks little more than easy battlefield targets in the future.

I doubt Challenger 2 will be replaced post 2030, that's for sure.

"...L7 Ordnance..." Chieftain did and the Leopard 1 does. Challenger 2's do not. They have a rifled 120. Either way, Point Blank Range on an L7 is 1,000 yards.
The M1A2 Abrams is mostly about its armour. That being the Chobham armour developed by the Brits. It also uses a 120mm smooth bore gun. It's downside is its weight(71.2 tons) and size(Hull length: 26.02 ft. Width is 12 feet.) It needs to be able to use existing European bridges.
The real issue with tanks of any flavour is their cost. Each one of those Abrams runs $6.21 million USD each and are estimated in 2016 dollars at $8.92 million US each. That being Hillier's reasoning even though it wasn't mentioned. The CF doesn't have the budget, the political will or the means of transporting tanks anywhere anyway.
"...the LEOPARD on this list..." Usually more about who created the list than anything else.

How many tanks on the ground in relation to having one Apache gunship in the air, worth on the battlefield? Or to put it another way, how many tanks would you trade for one Apache gunship?

There must be a figure/ratio, but has anyone ever figured it out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunray

Our Leopards are Leopard 1's bought in the 1970's and we have no way of moving them anywhere anyway. (At one time our NATO tasking was to reinforce Norway. We couldn't get there with any heavy kit. Trudeau the Elder used it as his excuse to pull us out of Europe.)
When our guys went to Afghanistan in 2007, we had to rent some Leopard A6M's because our's were out if date and we have no way of transporting pretty much anything bigger than a case of beer.
Rumour has it The CF bought some used Leopard 2's from the Dutch. Lt.-Gen. Hillier, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, thought he could replace a tank with an LAV Dinky Toy. Idiot.

---

A little convoluted there Sunray. Yes, tanks were about to leave the CF inventory back around 2006. At that time, Crown Assets was selling good running Leo hulls (turret and gun removed) for between $11,500 and $16,000. They were referred to by the then CDS as relics of the cold war. But Afghanistan really started to turn sour, and a quick decision was made to send in the tanks. At that time, there was a large excersize scheduled for here in Shilo, and pretty much all the units participating were already here, including the armoured. The ex was cancelled just two days before it was to begin....my guess was that the armour was going to Afghanistan and sure enough, within a month the LDSH was there. Our C1s were past their prime, so tanks were leased while another fleet of newer ones were run through Germany to be upgraded and things like air conditioning added. I made it over as contractor in time for the changeover, and was there when we shipped the rentals, along with the dutch tank transporters back to Europe in whatever condition they ended up in. Those C2s now remain as Canada's main battle tank. Any C1s have been relegated to monument, target, or just plain scrapped.

Previous to the Afghanistan use, the only other operational use I saw of the leos were as a show of force when we were peacekeeping in Kosovo.I believe a whopping 2 of them were there as part of our contingent. I was in Bosnia around 2000 and suddenly heard the unmistakeable rumble of a Leo as it passed our position heading back to the North. Aside from that, of course the Leos were part of the cold war in Germany.

The Leos are here to stay for the time being. Their opportunity to serve may be limited to use against the insurgent type militaries like the Taliban or the Kosovo mafia, but in that role they still have a place taking the heat off the infantry and providing good fire power against fortified defenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Consider that the only time the UK has deployed armour in strength since WW2 is Gulf Wars 1 and 2.

---

John, They even had Centurions in Gulf 1, I remember seeing one getting some restoration on Salavage Squad, they managed to track one of the crew down and was on the programme, He climbed in and found the letter he had written home........ they weren't expecting that.

I've always been fascinated with the way Germans utilized anti-tank tactics in WW2. I would like to know how many tanks before the invention of the panzerfaust how many tanks were destroyed by artillery, bundle charges, anti-tank mines etc. I think a lot of the modern anti-tank weapons can trace their lineage back to the panzerfaust to a degree. Anti-tanks grenades were utilised in the 50s-60s by many NATO countries. I wouldn't have like to have been that soldier charging a t34 78 years ago with a bundle charge and magnetic anti tank mine... We've come a long way for a reason... To make things easier. There's always going to be something to counteract the newest anti-tank technology. I don't see tanks going out of favor anytime soon but I'm not an expert.

Sadly, Tanks scare the **** out of me.
Remember in Germany on exercise once when a group of lads had bivoaced against an embankment when a tank came over the top crashing down on the kit.
Luckily noone was asleep otherwise it would have been catastrophic! :madsmile:

Thank You for the post and Thank You for your service

I remember being told in the cadets that the deep rut left in soft ground was a good place for a soldier to sleep when out in the field. I remember thinking to myself, "but what if the tank decides to retrace it's tracks or another vehicle follows the same route while you're asleep?". I didn't say anything at the time but has anyone actually slept in the rut left in the ground after the passage of a tracked vehicle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

the deep rut left in soft ground was a good place for a soldier to sleep when out in the field.

---

Well, if you think about it...that's where the water gathers first also... But, no sleeping on tracks or roads. Nor...under vehicles or inside them.

You don't hide under trucks either, well that's what my b/inlaw and a mate did when the VC dropped a few mortar rounds into their parking area the two of them legged it under this truck and went sorta a deathly grey once the rain of steel had stopped sure the truck did not get hit neither had they but had it been then they both would have been vaporized as it was chockers full of munitions. Fate is the Hunter for sure......

I was told that the reason for not getting under a vehicle, when under attack, was the vehicle's fuel tank but if it's carrying a large amount of ammunition, it's a doubly bad idea, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

getting under a vehicle, when under attack,

---

They're a target...that simple.