Iraq, Challenger 2
-
Rivetcounter
- Sergeant
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:04 pm
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
Think that idea has been shelved
They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
WE WILL REMEMBER THEM
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
From Janes Defence
The US Army's M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) top side, and rear armour "remains susceptible to penetration" and needs improving, according to the Tank and Automotive Command's (TACOM) Abrams programme manager office (PM Abrams).
In a report into the US Army's principal MBT's performance during Operation 'Iraqi Freedom', however, PM Abrams said the tank's frontal turret and hull armour continues to provide excellent crew protection.
"The tank performed extremely well providing excellent manoeuvre, firepower and overall crew protection", concluded the report, which has been seen by JDW. "Engines typically outlived expectancies and transmissions proved to be durable."
PM Abrams personnel deployed forward with US Army divisions during the war and collected first-hand feedback from tank crews to compile the report. There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems. US Army sources told JDW that the report was only "preliminary observations" rather than a definitive study and more work was continuing to further refine the exact causes of US tank losses in Iraq.
Other US Army sources report that 14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed during the war.
John
The US Army's M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) top side, and rear armour "remains susceptible to penetration" and needs improving, according to the Tank and Automotive Command's (TACOM) Abrams programme manager office (PM Abrams).
In a report into the US Army's principal MBT's performance during Operation 'Iraqi Freedom', however, PM Abrams said the tank's frontal turret and hull armour continues to provide excellent crew protection.
"The tank performed extremely well providing excellent manoeuvre, firepower and overall crew protection", concluded the report, which has been seen by JDW. "Engines typically outlived expectancies and transmissions proved to be durable."
PM Abrams personnel deployed forward with US Army divisions during the war and collected first-hand feedback from tank crews to compile the report. There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems. US Army sources told JDW that the report was only "preliminary observations" rather than a definitive study and more work was continuing to further refine the exact causes of US tank losses in Iraq.
Other US Army sources report that 14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed during the war.
John
HE/HL Leopard 2-A5, HL Pz IV-F1, HL Jagdpanther (WIP), M26A1 Pershing (WIP), HL Pz III M (WIP), Bandai Hummel (WIP)
-
Ex_Pat_Tanker
- Warrant Officer 1st Class
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:24 am
- Location: Wixom MI USA
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
there's footage available on line that shows a (presumably) p*ssed-off Bradley gunner nailing the Abrams in front of him at point blank with his 25mm bushmaster...
Also it seems that the US army policy is to destroy knocked out vehicles rather that retrieve them - it seems that many Abrams got blown up 'Tiger/King Tiger style' rather than being recovered.
I'm not sure how much damage was done in each case, but I'm pretty confident that if it was a British or Isreali tank, they would have made more of an effort to drag it home for repair...
I'm also supprised about the durability of their turbines - during the first gulf war I was relieably informed that the Abrams' gas turbines suffered terribly due to sand contamination wearing the blades at an alarming rate - the Perkins V12 Diesels of the Chally 1's were able to cope with the desert conditions much better. Maybe they fixed the air cleaners in the meantime?
"14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed" - pretty sure this is bullshit, maybe if this was "14 damaged and we blew them up in situ, and we lost 2 outright in combat" I would believe it...
Skeptical Mart!
Also it seems that the US army policy is to destroy knocked out vehicles rather that retrieve them - it seems that many Abrams got blown up 'Tiger/King Tiger style' rather than being recovered.
I'm not sure how much damage was done in each case, but I'm pretty confident that if it was a British or Isreali tank, they would have made more of an effort to drag it home for repair...
I'm also supprised about the durability of their turbines - during the first gulf war I was relieably informed that the Abrams' gas turbines suffered terribly due to sand contamination wearing the blades at an alarming rate - the Perkins V12 Diesels of the Chally 1's were able to cope with the desert conditions much better. Maybe they fixed the air cleaners in the meantime?
"14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed" - pretty sure this is bullshit, maybe if this was "14 damaged and we blew them up in situ, and we lost 2 outright in combat" I would believe it...
Skeptical Mart!
-
BIGMIG
- Warrant Officer 2nd Class
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:42 pm
- Location: AMBOY WASHINGTON
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
According to wikipedia==the U.S. has built over 9,000 abrams tanks.
BIGMIG
P.S. it says the army has 5,567 Abrams tanks not counting the 403 MIAI 's the USMC has.That means we could lose 5 tanks a day for over three years and then we would have to make some new one's,if we don't count the one's the USMC has.Then it would be close to four years.
BIGMIG
P.S. it says the army has 5,567 Abrams tanks not counting the 403 MIAI 's the USMC has.That means we could lose 5 tanks a day for over three years and then we would have to make some new one's,if we don't count the one's the USMC has.Then it would be close to four years.
Last edited by BIGMIG on Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
Hi,
Tanxalot - would these be the same NATO gunnery tests that placed the Chally bottom?
Funny, I seem to remember that the Chally holds the world record for a tank to tank kill at some huge distance.
Peter
Tanxalot - would these be the same NATO gunnery tests that placed the Chally bottom?
Funny, I seem to remember that the Chally holds the world record for a tank to tank kill at some huge distance.
Peter
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
I believe the chally came last becasue on the last day it rained and the course got too muddy. The drivers windscreen wipers and the wipers on the targeting system weren't up to the job so the tank couldn't drive fast enough and the gunner had trouble finding the targets. And as this was a timed trial the crew dropped a ton of points. They were top of the table until then.BigPanzer wrote: Hi,
Tanxalot - would these be the same NATO gunnery tests that placed the Chally bottom?
Funny, I seem to remember that the Chally holds the world record for a tank to tank kill at some huge distance.
Peter
Anyway that was the Challey 1, The Challey 2 is a completely different beast.
-
Ex_Pat_Tanker
- Warrant Officer 1st Class
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:24 am
- Location: Wixom MI USA
Re: Iraq, Challenger 2
true, but surely engaging at combat range on a dusty night in the desert is less than the distance required on the firing range in Germany (or where ever) under ideal conditions?
under ideal conditions the Abrams had better speed and mobility than the Chally 1, until they operated in the sand during "Desert Storm" - when their turbines suffered major wear due to dust contamination(!) I read elsewhere that the rifled gun on the chally also fired HESH rounds with deadly effect at closer ranges - smoothbore guns are definetly less accurate when firing large calibre shells (HE, HEAT, HESH). Both the British 2pdr and the the fabled '88 were great armour piercing guns in their day, but ineffective against infantry when firing high explosive.
A friend of mine used to be a trials engineer on the the Challenger 2e program - he insisted that once they dumped the Perkins V12 and David Brown gearbox (which I heard that Perkins weren't happy with either...) and fitted the MTU powerpack from the Leopard II it was a world beater! shame nobody bought it :(
Mart
under ideal conditions the Abrams had better speed and mobility than the Chally 1, until they operated in the sand during "Desert Storm" - when their turbines suffered major wear due to dust contamination(!) I read elsewhere that the rifled gun on the chally also fired HESH rounds with deadly effect at closer ranges - smoothbore guns are definetly less accurate when firing large calibre shells (HE, HEAT, HESH). Both the British 2pdr and the the fabled '88 were great armour piercing guns in their day, but ineffective against infantry when firing high explosive.
A friend of mine used to be a trials engineer on the the Challenger 2e program - he insisted that once they dumped the Perkins V12 and David Brown gearbox (which I heard that Perkins weren't happy with either...) and fitted the MTU powerpack from the Leopard II it was a world beater! shame nobody bought it :(
Mart
