Breach of challenger 2 armour.....

[Waylander]

Old school infantry MOUT tactic for tank hunter teams.
The problem is not that much using tanks in citys but the patrols.
They can be used in a reasonable way.

The nature of patrols (Small units, not supported, slow moving with tighter ROEs) give attackers more possibilities for successfull attacks.

In the end the casulaties of tank crewman are still among the lowest of the combat troops and all the talking about the vulnerability of tanks is often overrated because there are enough other units out there which have much much bigger problems.

 

[jaffo4011]

This is not the first Challenger that has been lost in Iraq due to a IED, plus the areas that they are deployed in Iraq are not as intense as to what Americans are facing.

i believe it is.in fact its the first challenger thats been breached since a blue on blue incident by another challenger in gulf war 2........unless of course you have the sources to correct me on this.....

 

[Waylander]

The british MoD releases no news about incidents without wounded or dead soldiers.
So there might be incidents were Challis have been breached but if nobody is really wounded we don't get to know through official sources.

 

[Manfred]

Im a little frustated with those dinkey little thumbnails. It looks more like a fracture, like a piece of it was sepperated at the welds, but I cant be sure.

 

[jaffo4011]

The british MoD releases no news about incidents without wounded or dead soldiers.
So there might be incidents were Challis have been breached but if nobody is really wounded we don't get to know through official sources.

true,but the m.o.d have specifically stated that this is the first incident which breached the armour of a challenger 2...at all.i understand that the vehicle was still usable and will be repaired fairly quickly........

also the challenger and abrams are the ony western tanks to have seen real combat of late so thats all we have to go on....the challengers were involved in intense combat during the assault on basra with one tank being repeatedly struck with rpg,s to no ill effect...so i think that thats fairly representative.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have been informed that a new tactic for the insurgents is to fire RPG - 7s from 2nd and 3rd story windows to hit the tops of the tanks and Bradleys.

Thats an old trick that the chechyans were doing a few years back.

as for hi rpg nests, thats probably why you see more vehicles with ballistic sensors mounted as part of a convoy.....

 

[eckherl]

Thats an old trick that the chechyans were doing a few years back.

as for hi rpg nests, thats probably why you see more vehicles with ballistic sensors mounted as part of a convoy.....

Yes - they most likely got the know how from them.

Do you really think that these sensors are that good and reliable.

 

[eckherl]

true,but the m.o.d have specifically stated that this is the first incident which breached the armour of a challenger 2...at all.i understand that the vehicle was still usable and will be repaired fairly quickly........

also the challenger and abrams are the ony western tanks to have seen real combat of late so thats all we have to go on....the challengers were involved in intense combat during the assault on basra with one tank being repeatedly struck with rpg,s to no ill effect...so i think that thats fairly representative.

Thats because the majority of hits were to the front of the tanks, the RPG 7s are not what is destroying the majority of U.S tanks. You hit a Challenger in the ass with a RPG 7 it will penetrate.

 

[eckherl]

The british MoD releases no news about incidents without wounded or dead soldiers.
So there might be incidents were Challis have been breached but if nobody is really wounded we don't get to know through official sources.

They are alot more secretive in vehicle losses and most definetly in vehicle penetrations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do you really think that these sensors are that good and reliable.

An australian company that I used to contract to sold systems to US Treasury a few years back. You'd be aware of who are assigned to US Treasury

also, refer to http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=99927#post99927

 

[eckherl]

An australian company that I used to contract to sold systems to US Treasury a few years back. You'd be aware of who are assigned to US Treasury

also, refer to http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=99927#post99927

In built up areas arent these sensors only good after the first shot is fired.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In built up areas arent these sensors only good after the first shot is fired.

well, its a sensor system, so yes. its not designed to be a pre-event detection solution. for that kind of work you'd try and send in the cleaners, which is obviously not always possible.

the point is, that if you are hooked up, you can dump stuff on the shooter before they can get away.

 

[Waylander]

And one should remember that numerous RPG hits over the frontal area say not that much about the ability of a tank to survive a belly IED/mine attack.

If Challis would have been confronted with some of the really big IEDs the Yanks have seen they would also have some more damaged Challis.

NO vehicle in the world is going to survive three 152mm rounds under its belly or something with similar power.

As said before I don't want to rule out that the Challi 2 is also good armored against IEDs/mines but the situation in the british sector is not that intense like in some US sectors and there are much more Abrams in Iraq than Challis.
A question of statistics.

 

[Ares]

Not to complain but these pictures are very small to see anything.

 

[eckherl]

Not to complain but these pictures are very small to see anything.

Here is some other ones that should be a little bigger, the damaged Challie picture from a IED did not cause any crew loss or else I would not of posted it

 

[Ares]

Was it an AFP IED ?

 

[Waylander]

What does AFP mean?

 

[Ares]

I dont remember exactly but it was some kind of IED that has been in the news for some time that Iran has been supplying Shiite insurgents with. I remember it means ...... formed penetrator the a i forgot.

Edit:its actually EFP I apologize for that. Explosively Formed Penetrator.

and a small picture i found:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/af/EFP_IED.JPG

 

[eckherl]

I dont remember exactly but it was some kind of IED that has been in the news for some time that Iran has been supplying Shiite insurgents with. I remember it means ...... formed penetrator the a i forgot.

Edit:its actually EFP I apologize for that. Explosively Formed Penetrator.

and a small picture i found:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/af/EFP_IED.JPG

It was most likely a more traditional set up that the insurgents are using, if was Iran`s new introduced device the damage would of been more concentrated in one given area on the vehicle versus blowing off both tracks.

 

[Waylander]

Maybe you mean a plain normal AT-mine?
Or a HEAT-mine like DM-12 PARM (I really don't know the english term for it) but those nice ones are fired into the sides of a tank.

Normal AT-mines are shaped charges or produce projectiles like the M93 "Hornet".

For me the it looks like you mean a conventional AT-mine.

Edit: Eckherl you are too fast.