Challenger tank (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series



Message

MTTODD -> Challenger tank (12/20/2014 9:27:16 PM)

Hi, What be great if someone on the forum could explain to me the relatively low armour protection level of the Challenger (37) compared to the Leopard 2 A4 (41)

They both have advanced composite armour. The Challenger is intact 6 tons heavier and has sloped turret armour compared to the vertical Leopard frontal armour.

So I would actually of expected the values to be the other way round.

Would most appreciate a proper explanation as to why this is.

Many thanks.







CapnDarwin -> RE: Challenger tank (12/20/2014 10:13:08 PM)

Our numbers are based on the best estimations and non-classified info we can find. We skipping all of the math the real answer is composition and volume of protective material. From the front the Leo 2A4 has roughly 60mm or so of calculated additional protection (about 4 points in our system). Additional weight and sloping do not translate directly to better protection in modern tanks. Length of catch boxes, layering of materials, types of materials, all play a part. Hope that helps.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Challenger tank (12/20/2014 11:53:08 PM)

A quick back of the napkin calculation based on a technical paper on armor values hit 38 for Challenger 1 and 42 for Leo2A4. I'm probably a bit high in my frontal summations being away from home.



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/21/2014 5:25:41 PM)

Hi,

Thanks for your quick reply.

I do understand it is a difficult task given the secrecy of data available.

Just thought that the Challenger 1 had at least as good protection as the Leopard 2A4.

Many thanks.



Jakerson -> RE: Challenger tank (12/22/2014 8:46:58 AM)

btw turret of Leopard 2A4 is actually sloped if you look front of it it is sloped sideways or at least 2/3 of the turret hit area is sloped sideways when round comes directly front of tank. It is just sloped differently than tanks witch are sloped from down to top.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#mediaviewer/File:Leopard_2A4_Singapore_Airshow_2008_rectified.jpg

Here is pretty comprehensive data about protection rates of Leopard 2A4 armor ageinst different type of ammo. Data is from Steel Beast training simulator what many real world militaries use when they train their tank crews:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Leopard_2A4

Weak spots were fuel or ammo compartments are of the tank is also marked.



Jakerson -> RE: Challenger tank (12/22/2014 8:59:33 AM)

For comparsion purpose here is armor rates of T80U:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-80U

M1A1 Abrams:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1A1_%28HA%29
Abrams seem to be pretty well protected against HEAT rounds but not againt kinetic energy rounds.



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 8:11:40 AM)

The front of the Challenger looks a lot more sloped than the Leopard, but then a previous post says that Sloped armour v modern weapons is not such a big factor ? So who knows!

Just seems that given the Challenger 1 weighs at least 6 tons more than the Leopard and the main design goal of the Challenger was armoured protection, that either the British did a bad job or the Germans a good one!

Added to the fact they the AP is only 28 compared to the Soviets 38 AP, the Challenger is a lot less impressive tank than I expected it to be.

Many thanks for all the replies to my question.



battlerbritain -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 9:09:58 AM)

The sources I have show the Challenger armour to be at least equivalent to that of the Leo2.

Isby quotes in 'Armies of NATOs Central Front' that the Leo2 had an armour protection in the front of 33.75cm with the Chieftain having 45cm. Challenger protection exceeded that of Chieftain.

I have come across some websites that claim to show armour protection levels and ammo penetration ratings but how much you can trust them is open to debate. One site that was pretty comprehensive and seemed accurate was at: http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm , but that site was back in 2008 and had a lot of nasty viruses popup whenever I went there, so be warned. Not even sure if it's still there.

The best source I've come across for modern data is, in fact, in the FFOT3 ruleset. They give armour ratings for a vehicle at a specified time and do the same for ammo.

For the 1985 time frame they quote:
Vehicle, Armour Front, HEAT-mod, Side, Ammo Type, Pen rating, 'Real' ammo values
Leo2A4, 14, B, 8, DM-23, 14, 470mm at 2km 1983
Leo2A4, 14, B, 8, DM-33, 15, 550mm at 2km 1987
Leo2A4, 14, B, 8, DM-43, 15, 590mm at 2km 1994

Challenger 1, 13, D, 8, L23, 14, 450mm at 2km 1983
Challenger 1, 13, D, 8, L26, 15, 530mm at 2km 1991

M1A1, 12, E, 8, M827, 14, 450mm at 2km 1986
M1A1, 12, E, 8, M829, 15, 552mm at 2km 1988
M1A1, 12, E, 8, M829A1, 16, 610mm at 2km 1991

The values of 12 to 16 relate to FFOT3 game values that do relate to a real armour thickness range, eg 13 = 520 to 610mm. The pen ratings are adjusted up by a couple of values, so a pen rating of 16 = 610 to 710mm.
The Heat modifier is better the further down the alphabet you go, ie E is better than D.

So a Leo2A4 has better fin protection than a Chally1 but slightly worse additional HEAT protection but against HEAT Chally1 would have the thicker armour.

M1 didn't get as good armour until M1A1HA.

Hope this helps,

B

PS I wish this forum software wouldn't get rid of formatting [&:]



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 10:51:34 AM)

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes the data you showed indicates that the Challenger 1 is not well represented in the game.

With soviet tanks having far superior AP value and many having at least equal or superior armour.

Is there a editor where you can change these values for the scenarios ?

Many thanks.






battlerbritain -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 11:39:12 AM)

I'm not sure if you can change the values for the scenarios that come with the game but I think you can use the scenario editor to make your own version of the scenario and use the player editable spreadsheets that come with the game, and then point the edited scenario at those. Then you'd be free to edit the spreadsheet to whatever values you like and see what effect it has.

I've not done that myself yet but I'm sure others here can direct better than me if I'm mistaken.

Hope this helps,

B



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 12:36:31 PM)

Thanks for the info.

Don't want to be to geeky about this, so probably won't change the scenario values (where do I stop)

Just a shame that the Challenger values are what they are.

Especially the AP of 29 which is 32% less powerful than the soviet 38 AP value, that does not seem right.

Still appreciate the effort that has gone into designing this game.






Mad Russian -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 1:32:02 PM)

It wouldn't be inconceivable that out of the thousands of pieces of data we collected that we got some wrong.

Of course, the one that will bother every gamer is if it affects 'their' own personal favorite.

Good Hunting.

MR



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 2:46:03 PM)

No it's not my personal favourite, it just looks incorrect.

The Leopard 2A4 is my favourite.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 3:38:40 PM)

Even the FFOT data shows what we have is in the ballpark for the time frame for both armor and pen. If I get a few free minutes I'll post the data breakdowns I was talking about above. As for modding, you can use the User files to make your own changes and then your own scenarios.



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 4:22:52 PM)

Hi,

Yes that info would be good.

Thanks for your help.




MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 4:27:21 PM)

Hi,

Sorry another question regarding the 120mm, given that the AP is relatively poor, would it not fire its HESH,HEAT ammunition first when meeting soviet tanks ?





Panzer_Leader -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 5:47:14 PM)

Interestingly, that's exactly what British Challengers did during Operation Granby (Desert Storm). They found HESH was sufficiently destructive against the T-55s they encountered and obviously better against unarmoured targets than APFSDS, making it a much more versatile round to have in the breech. Unfortunately I can't remember the source - I've done a lot of reading on Challenger 1.



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 5:51:18 PM)

Yes I have read that to.

Is that what the game does ?



Panzer_Leader -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 6:11:38 PM)

I can't answer that but Challengers during Operation Granby were issued with 12 depleted uranium L26A1 APFSDS rounds and an improved bagged charge specifically to tackle the T-72, if encountered. Crews were instructed not to use these rounds against any other targets. Given the tanks British forces would have faced in Northern Germany were primarily of T-64/T-80 type I don't think using APFSDS as default ammunition is problematic.

Also, the source for this and my previous post is Kagero's 'Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank, Volume II' by Robert Griffin.



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 6:24:28 PM)

It might not be problematic, but might make more sense to use HESH/HEAT instead of AP given the low AP value.

So my two questions are:

1) How does AI decide to use what ammunition ?

2) And is HESH modelled in the game for 120mm rifled gun ?

Many thanks.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Challenger tank (12/23/2014 10:19:14 PM)

The AI looks at the all weapons and for main guns the AP and HEAT based on the range (range impacts AP only). We take a singular AP and HEAT value in the data. In the case of the Brits that would be the HESH round as they don't carry a rifled HEAT round.



Jakerson -> RE: Challenger tank (12/24/2014 10:27:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

No it's not my personal favourite, it just looks incorrect.

The Leopard 2A4 is my favourite.


Everybody have their favorite tanks but most of NATO countries that don’t have their own tank production have chosen Leopard as their main battle tank after extensive testing and analyzing all available NATO tanks on the market. NATO countries that have their own tank production have to favors their own tanks from political reasons. [8D]

If you look the data almost all western countries have chosen Leopard as main battle after very extensive testing and analyzing by their countries top military experts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country

Almoust all western countries could have buy Abrams, LeClerc, Challenger if they wanted but they wanted Leopard instead.





battlerbritain -> RE: Challenger tank (12/24/2014 11:01:54 AM)

Yep, each to their own.

I think Abrams / Leo2 / Challenger 2 are all superb tanks.

I've only worked on Challenger 2 but all I can say is: it's a truly 'awesome' tank [:D]

I worked on gunnery accuracy and US / UK / WG all co-operate extensively in that area, as they do in armour capabilities as well. The place I worked at was called Chertsey and has now been closed down. Chertsey is not far from a place called Chobham [;)].

By the way Chally1 was a good tank for the Brits. It did what they wanted (mostly). It did pretty good in DS1, so I think it would have been OK in Central Front as well. From those experiences Chally2 was born.



kemmo -> RE: Challenger tank (12/24/2014 11:07:10 AM)

I think cost has to be factored in as well,some of the countries using Leopard are smaller countries with limited defense bugets,and if I understand correctly the Leopard is the least expensive of the Western and American MBT'S.



battlerbritain -> RE: Challenger tank (12/24/2014 11:09:11 AM)

Oh, and the reason the Brits didn't go for either Abrams or Leo2 was the fact that HM Treasury had spent vast amounts of tax payers money on HESH rounds, which have to be fired from a rifled gun.

HESH is a pretty good round, a sort-of monkey wrench ammo, in that it does nearly all jobs. It's really useful as an anti-infantry weapon and it did well against old-style Sov tanks of the T-55 and T-62 style. How good it would be against newer Sov tanks with layered armour I don't know, but against, say, APCs it would just demolish them.

And a Chally1 did get the all-time record of a hit at 5,400m in DS1 against a T-55 with a HESH round. Not bad [:D] Probably couldn't do it again though.



MTTODD -> RE: Challenger tank (12/24/2014 3:34:52 PM)

HI,

Firstly thanks for taking the trouble to answer my queries, are really enjoying the game.

Just to clarify, the AI will use the ammunition which has the best chance of penetration at the engagement range ?




IronMikeGolf -> RE: Challenger tank (12/24/2014 6:10:19 PM)

MTTODD,

This questions touches on abstraction and simplification. AFV main guns have a value for hard targets and one for soft targets. When the gun is used to engage, the value used is the one that goes with that type of target. Types of rounds are not tracked and neither is an ammo mix. Also not tracked is battlecarry. In a tank that fires combustible cases, you do not unload the gun unless it is cold (30+ minutes of not firing). So, in a battle, if a HEAT/HEP/HESH round is loaded and the tank commander wants to fire SABOT, he'd command the gunner (in the US Army, anyways) "FIRE, FIRE SABOT".

So, the game assumes perfect ammo usage and uses the "best case" armor pen value for hard targets.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.015625