Бронетехника и Артиллерия Великобритании

#1
Английский Challenger

Abrams в различных модификациях тут неоднократно обсуждался, и сравнивался с Меркавой.
А я предлагаю, для разнообразия (и по мотивам Иракской кампании) обсудить английский Challenger.



Ну и, как всегда, немного фаллометрии - предлагаю сравнить его с тем же Abrams-ом и, скажем 4-й Меркавой. Например, применительно к действиям на Ближнем Востоке. Ну и вааще, типа, кто круче m/m/ (пальцы веером).

Вот инфа для затравки:


CHALLENGER 2 MAIN BATTLE TANK, UNITED KINGDOM
Challenger 2 is an advanced main battle tank built by the UK company, Alvis Vickers Ltd (formerly Vickers Defence Systems). Challenger 2 is in service with the British Army and with the Royal Army of Oman. The UK placed orders for 127 Challenger 2 tanks in 1991 and an additional 259 in 1994. In 1993 Oman ordered 18 Challenger 2 tanks and an order for a further 20 tanks was placed in November 1997.

Challenger 2 entered service with the British Army in June 1998 and the last of the 386 tanks was delivered in April 2002. Deliveries for Oman were completed in 2001. Challenger 2 has seen operational service in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Challenger 2E, the latest development model, has been designed for the export market and is suitable for harsh environmental and climactic conditions. The 2E has been extensively trialled in Greece, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

ARMAMENT

Challenger 2 is equipped with an L30, 120mm rifled tank gun from the Royal Ordnance division of BAE SYSTEMS. The gun is made from electro-slag refined steel (ESR) and is insulated with a thermal sleeve. It is fitted with a muzzle reference system and fume extraction. The turret is capable of 360° rotation and the weapon elevation range is from -10° to +20°.

There is capacity for 50 120mm projectiles, including armour piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS), high explosive squash head (HESH) or smoke rounds. The L30 gun can also fire the Depleted Uranium (DU) round with a stick charge propellant. With the DU round, the L30 is part of the Charm 1 gun, charge and projectile system. A Charm 3 system is under development in which the DU projectile has a higher length to diameter aspect ratio for increased penetration.

The gun control is provided by an all-electric gun control and stabilisation system from BAE SYSTEMS. Challenger 2 is also equipped with a Boeing 7.62mm chain gun, which is located to the left of the main tank gun. The loader has a 7.62mm GPMG L37A2 anti-air machine gun, mounted on the cupola.

SELF-PROTECTION

The turret is protected with second generation Chobham armour. A nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection system is located in the turret bustle. On each side of the turret are five L8 smoke grenade dischargers, from Helio Mirror Company. Challenger 2 can also set a smoke screen by the injection of diesel fuel into the engine exhausts.

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The digital fire control computer from Computing Devices Company (now General Dynamics – Canada) has capacity for additional systems, for example a Battlefield Information Control System.

The commander has a panoramic VS 580-10 gyrostabilised sight from SAGEM (formerly SFIM Industries). A laser rangefinder is incorporated into an intermediate assembly. Elevation range is +35° to -35°. The commander's station is equipped with eight periscopes which provide 360° vision.

The Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight II (TOGS II), from Thales (formerly Pilkington) Optronics, provides night vision. The sensor is based on UK TICM 2 common modules. The thermal image, with magnification x 4 and x 11.5 is displayed in the gunner's and commander's sights and monitors. The gunner has a Thales Optronics stabilised Gunner's Primary Sight, consisting of visual channel, 4Hz laser rangefinder and display. The laser rangefinder has a range of 200m to 10km.

The driver is equipped with an image-intensifying Passive Driving Periscope (PDP) from Thales Optronics, for night driving.

PROPULSION

The Challenger 2 has a twelve-cylinder, 1,200hp Perkins Caterpillar CV12 diesel engine and a David Brown TN54 gearbox, with six forward and two reverse gears. Second-generation Hydrogas suspension and hydraulic track tensioner are fitted. The maximum speed by road is 59km/h and 40km/h cross country. The range is given as 450km by road and 250km cross country.

CHALLENGER 2E

Challenger 2E has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580 day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The powerpack has been replaced with a new 1500 hp Europack with transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The smaller but more powerful engine allows more space for fuel storage, increasing the vehicle’s range to 550km

(взято из http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/)[/quote]
 
#2
У "Челлендера" и "Меркавы" обший предок - "Центурион". Мне эта машина нравится. Меркава чуть повыше и шире (15-20 см), зато довольно существенно короче, особенно с пушкий вперёд (1-2.5м). СУО примерно одинаковая. Пушка у "Челленджера" нарезная, мне больше нравится. Повеска у "Челленжера" более совершенная - гидропневматическая vs пружинная у "Меркавы", хотя динамический ход катков примерно одинаковый. Движок у "Меркавы" мощнее, зато она и тяжелее, так что в целом, подвижность примерно одинаковая. Защищённость: ИМХО, у "Меркавы" сильнее защищена башня, у "Челленджера" - корпус. У "Меркавы" более уязвим МТО и ведущие колёса, зато более защищён экипаж и БК. Ещё плюсы "Меркавы": полуавтомат заряжания, миномёт, модульная броня. Вцелом - на вкус и цвет.
 

Олег Грановский

Модератор
Команда форума
#3
Нарезная пушка уже разонравилась и самим английчанам. У них уже есть планы её замены на гладкоствольную.

К тому же применение раздельного заряжания снижает скорострельность.
 
#4
А что плохого в нарезной пушке? Снаряды дешевле и более разнообразные. Раздельное заряжание? o_O Как в ИС-2? o_O. Ужас, я не знал :rolleyes: .
 
#5
Раздельное заряжание наверное связано с наличием слишком тяжелых ОФ снарядов, которых нет в гладкоствольных пушках. ИМХО гладкоствольная пушка сделана ради оперенного подкалиберного снаряда, а в современных условиях борьбы против устаревших советских танков его еффективностью можно пожeртвовать ради преимуществ нарезной пушки.
 
#8
Да нет там обычное раздельное заряжание из двух частей - снаряд и заряд. "Изюминка" английской смстемы - заряжание "с колен" когда заряжающий держит следующий снаряд буквально у себя на коленях, для ускорения процесса. :D

Ammunition is of the separate loading type, that is projectile and charge, with all explosive ammunition being stowed below the turret ring for increased battlefield survivability. The charges are stowed in armoured bins
 
#10
На Танкнете Челленджер постоянно ругают за "three-piece loading" - как это там реализовано, аллах ведает.
 
#11
А как на ИС-2 обходились без пыжа?
А зачем там собственно пыж? Это же не охотничье ружжо. :D
У ИСов было раздельное заряжание из снаряда и снарядной гильзы. Так что пыж там не к чему.
 

Олег Грановский

Модератор
Команда форума
#14
А что плохого в нарезной пушке? Снаряды дешевле и более разнообразные.
При малом боекомплекте разнообразие снарядов только мешает. Сейчас есть тенденция ограничиваться 2 типами - бронебойно-подкалиберным и универсальным (К-О-Ф).

Снаряды может и дешевле, зато ствол дороже.

О снарядах к L11 и L30 я напишу в теме "Танковые боепприпасы".
 

Олег Грановский

Модератор
Команда форума
#15
Нарезная пушка уже разонравилась и самим английчанам. У них уже есть планы её замены на гладкоствольную.
Вот статья по этому вопросу:

Is British Army tank gun thinking now poised for 180 deg traverse?

INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW - MAY 01, 2002
Date Posted: April 16, 2002


A radical shift in the strategic direction of British direct-fire weapon policy is in prospect, following the restructuring of the British large- caliber ordnance production industry, the outcome of recent tank competitions, and the public release of a new UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) position paper.

The latter, issued on 14 March, includes an umbrella proposal "for a research program on depleted uranium [DU]". Among its many aspects, this program would cover not only operational analysis of, but also practical research into, the use of alternative materials (to DU) in gun-launched kinetic-energy (KE) long-rod penetrator projectiles, and also into alternative weapon concepts (including non-gun solutions).

In the 'military considerations' section of the MoD document (www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_ uranium/du_research/military.htm) overt stress continues to be laid on the fact that defeating the armored capability of tanks produced by the former Soviet Union (viz Russia and Ukraine) "remains a formidable challenge; indeed that capability has been widely exported to many areas of the world where UK forces might operate". Today at least, choosing between the obsolete L23 tungsten KE and the newer L27 DU KE rounds available to British units, "DU ammunition remains... the most operationally effective capability". In operations against any relatively modern (or up-armored) tank threat, "use of non-DU ammunition would significantly threaten operational success and potentially could lead to increased UK casualties".

Nonetheless, in an earlier section it is acknowledged that "the world has changed substantially since DU was first proposed for use in an anti-armor role. Key changes include the fall of the Soviet Union, the move away from priority addressing (sic) only all out war to include peace support operations as part of a coalition, as well as the worldwide concern over environmental and health issues" [relating to DU].

The document goes on to say, "Studies were conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s on alternative materials and penetrator designs but, since that time, work has been directed mainly towards DU penetrator performance improvement although some effort has been directed towards alternative materials. No detailed cost and effectiveness comparison of radical alternatives to DU KE penetrators to defeat threat tanks (eg guided missiles) has been carried out recently. This is an area which warrants further study.

"Advances in materials and design technology also warrant a renewed study into alternatives to current DU ammunition [viz the Challenger 2 tank's L27 CHARM 3 projectile]. This latter study would extend the scope of the current research effort on alternative materials and designs for KE penetrators being undertaken within Technology Group 6 (TG6 - energetic materials and terminal effects) of the MoD Corporate Research Program (CRP)."

The UK MoD has yet to state openly whether these proposals are to be acted upon in their entirety, and certainly it remains to be seen whether it would be sufficiently encouraged by the results obtained to abandon DU in favor of an alternative penetrator material (of which tungsten remains the most favored). However, economics and logistics, as well as politics, may lead it to make an even more far-reaching change - namely the abandonment of British rifled-bore gun technology in favor of smoothbore designs.

It is for the latter that the greatest investment in tungsten ammunition development has been made (as it has also for DU). Certainly the immediate commercial imperatives for sustaining the technology base associated with the Challenger 2's L30 rifled gun have been substantially reduced in the light of the Greek Army's recently announced decision to buy a version of the German Leopard 2 tank, armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun.

A key catalyst for this volte face may be the British Army's Future Rapid Effects System (FRES - see IDR 4/2001, p3), the first examples of which will desirably see service from 2007. Among the associated vehicle types is expected to be a direct-fire platform, specifically intended to provide fire support for dismounted infantry operations.

Its likely target array will include hostile tanks, as well as infantry armored vehicles and bunkers, for operations in close country and urban environments where fleeting targets predominate. The latter would tend to preclude the use of conventional guided weapons because of their relatively long reaction time, and favor gun or medium-caliber cannon solutions because of the very wide choice of ammunition natures and (hence) the diversity of target effects they are able to generate.

Another requirement is to maintain commonality with other systems likely to be deployed alongside it - and in the case of FRES this can be expected to include the Challenger 2 until 2025.

While logic might suggest putting a Challenger 2 gun on to FRES, this would be unattractive because of the L30's mass, substantial dependence on DU, and limited choice of ammunition natures. An alternative would be to select a gun (capable of tank killing) for FRES, and to retrofit the same gun to Challenger 2. MoD sources suggest that one way to meet such a requirement would be by adopting a lightweight 120mm smoothbore gun.

This would have the merit of improving ammunition commonality with the US Army's legacy force (if not with its interim brigade combat teams, which use 105mm guns) and other NATO armies, and give British forces ready access to a much wider range of ammunition types and sources than they have today, increasing flexibility and reducing whole-life costs.

Preliminary studies indicate that the RUAG 120 CTG L50 120mm smoothbore gun, originally designed as a drop-in replacement for the British L7 105mm rifled gun and since adopted for the Swedish CV90120 and Jordanian AB9B1/C4 projects (see pp38-42 of this issue and IDR 7/2001, pp12-13), could be installed in the existing Challenger 2 gun mount and turret with minimal modification.

Retaining the existing three-man turret crew and manual loading, it is surmised that an adequate number of stowed kills could be maintained without forcing an uneconomic redesign of the existing stowage arrangements. In terms of penetration capability, RUAG engineers have successfully demonstrated the capability of the experimental jacketed tungsten penetrator designs they have been propounding since the mid-1990s to perforate almost a meter of rolled homogenous armor, a performance at least on a par with in-service DU rounds.
 

Vadim

Лучезарный колёс
#16
Чифтен

В начале 1966 г. Великобритания выразила предварительное согласие продать Израилю танк "Чифтен" и даже организовать его изготовление в Израиле (вначале - сборка из импортных частей, затем постепенный переход к полному собственному производству). В ноябре 1966 г. в Великобританию выехали две делегации - бронетанковых войск и службы вооружений - для всестороннего изучения танка. В начале 1967 г. два танка "Чифтен" прибыли в Израиль и началось их всестороннее испытание. После выработки моторесурса их поменяли на два новых танка. В общей сложности испытания продолжались два с половиной года, были внесены многочисленные предложения по изменению конструкции для приспособления танка к работе в пустыне. 17.10.68 Израиль официально обратился к Великобритании с просьбой купить "Чифтен". В апреле 1969 г. израильская делегация приступила к изучению технологии производства "Чифтен" в Великобритании. В этот период в английском правительстве шла борьба за и против продажи танка в Израиль. Министерство обороны было за, МИД - против. В конце концов, в декабре 1969 г. Великобритания официально отказала в продаже "Чифтен" Израилю. В конце этого же месяца два находившихся в Израиле танка были отправлены назад в Англию.
http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Armor/merkava.html



Остальные фото из Израиля и Англии и прочее (из журнала бронетанковых войск) М.Масс постил здесь.
 
#17
А когда Чифтены были поставлены Ирану? Вероятно, израильские специалисты помогли Ирану получить более совершенный танк? Внесли многочисленные предложения по приспособлению к местному ТВД, а плоды труда достались Ирану?
 

Олег Грановский

Модератор
Команда форума
#19
А когда Чифтены были поставлены Ирану?
По Джейнз:

About 900 Chieftain MBTs were built for the British Army, with production completed early in the 1970s. In 1971, Iran placed an order for approximately 707 Chieftain MBTs: the Mk 3/3(P) and Mk 5/3(P) plus a quantity of ARVs and bridgelayers, all of which were delivered by 1978.

Iran also took delivery of 187 improved Chieftains called the FV4030/1. These carried more fuel than the Mk 5/5P, had improved mine protection and additional shock-absorbers on the rear station. They also incorporated electronic control of the now David Brown Engineering TN12 transmission to permit automatic operation and easier driver training.

In 1974, Iran ordered 125 Shir 1 and 1,225 Shir 2 MBTs for delivery from 1980 but the order was cancelled in 1979 before deliveries could begin from Royal Ordnance Leeds.
Вероятно, израильские специалисты помогли Ирану получить более совершенный танк? Внесли многочисленные предложения по приспособлению к местному ТВД, а плоды труда достались Ирану?
Видимо да. А также Иордании и Оману.
 

Олег Грановский

Модератор
Команда форума
#20
Наконец-то посмотрел фото. Реально там только 1 фото собственно "Чифтен" - то что Вадим привёл выше.

Кстати, "Чифтен" успел получить в Израиле название - "Абир" ("Рыцарь").