The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - August 29, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: British Army's Challenger 2 pierced by an Iraqi insurgent (goverment coverup)
    5/19/2007 12:17:16 PM
One of the British Army's Challenger 2 tanks was pierced by an Iraqi insurgent missile more than eight months earlier than the Government has previously admitted.

The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier's foot and injured several others.

The injured soldier's family has accused the Government of a cover-up and demanded to know why soldiers manning Challenger 2 tanks had not been warned of the failings with the tank's armour.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said he would challenge the government on why the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had apparently misled the public over the timing of the first incident in which the hugely robust defences of the Challenger had been breached.

He said: "Obviously, no armour is indestructible and there is no doubt that the insurgents have increasingly sophisticated technology but it is important in maintaining public confidence that the MoD and the Government tell the truth to the -British public."

The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull.

The MoD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons.

In the August attack, which occurred during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the Challenger was damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade, known as an RPG-29, defeated the ERA and penetrated the driver's cabin.

The RPG-29 is a much more powerful weapon than the common type regularly used by insurgents to attack British troops. It is specifically designed to penetrate tank armour, although this is the first occasion on which it has managed to damage a Challenger.

During the attack Trooper Sean Chance, a 20-year-old serving with the Queen's Royal Hussars, lost half of his left foot; two other crew members were injured.

The unit's commander described the moment the tank was hit by the missile in a letter he wrote to the wounded soldier in March. The officer wrote: "I recall seeing it [the RPG-29 being fired] and thinking, 'Oh Christ, that's bad.'

"As it slammed into the hull, I was picked up by the shock wave of the blast and thrown against the back wall of the turret. The explosion singed my eyebrows and burnt my face slightly. The tank was full of acrid smoke and fumes. I became aware of you screaming, 'I'm hit, I'm hit. My foot's off.'

"Daz [another crew member] and I looked at each other in slight disbelief - after all, what could possibly breach a CR2's [Challenger's] armour?"

Tpr Chance's mother Kay, 49, from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, said her son had been told that the Challenger was the best in the world and essentially impenetrable to any weapons the insurgents possessed.

She said: "Sean often told me he felt totally safe because he was in the best tank in the world. But we now know that is not the case. The Government has covered it up.

"If I was the mother of the poor soldier who lost his legs last month I would be horrified to think that an earlier attack like this had happened before but none of the soldiers were told about it."

His brother Luke said that Tpr Chance had been "abandoned" by the Army following his injury. He said: "Sean has been forgotten about. He hasn't received his Iraq medal. He's been told he is going to be medically discharged because of his injury but no one has told him when and what sort of pension he might get. It's a disgrace."

A spokesman for the MoD said: "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable. There is no question of a cover-up. Any suggestion that this was the first successful attack against a Challenger 2 tank was given in good faith based on the information available at the time.

"We would like to reassure the family that lessons were learnt from the incident last August and measures were taken to enhance the protection of our personnel."

On April 6, a Challenger was damaged by a roadside bomb in Basra. In that attack a soldier lost both his legs. Details of the incident were not made public until April 23, when

the MoD claimed: "This was the first successful attack on a Challenger 2. It's the first bomb to have damaged it."

Source
link

 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
      5/19/2007 12:20:07 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/19/2007 12:49:01 PM
What?

You mean all our soldiers arn't like Superman, and our tanks arn't protected by Jesus?

Who would have funk it.


 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/19/2007 3:27:44 PM
I am more interested as to why the CR2 armor package failed in its FRONTAL ARC, Yimmy.
 
I was under the mistaken impression that the only vulnerable areas were the usual ones, the hatches, the vision blocks the sensor throughputs etc.
 
Herald
 
.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2007 7:03:33 PM
Herald :
""I am more interested as to why the CR2 armor package failed in its FRONTAL ARC, Yimmy.""

Any Tank can be penetrated by a nice double tandem warhead in the front hull .
The Dorchester is on the turret only .
Even the mighty Swedish Strv 122 is not RPG-proof on its glacis ...

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/19/2007 7:49:59 PM
It depends on the angle also.If you fire from an elevated point for example.
No tank is unvulnerable.It is a physical impossibility today.
Now to say Challenger is the best in the world because it has a good armor...LOL.
Its mobility is quite under average.
A tank is good not because it saves its crew but because of cost effectiveness.Crew survivability is first an economical parameter even it impacts also moral.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/19/2007 8:09:05 PM

Herald :

""I am more interested as to why the CR2 armor package failed in its FRONTAL ARC, Yimmy.""



Any Tank can be penetrated by a nice double tandem warhead in the front hull .

The Dorchester is on the turret only .

Even the mighty Swedish Strv 122 is not RPG-proof on its glacis ...



Cheers .



Since you don't know how the British armor the Challenger, I'm going to give the value of your opinion exactly what it is worth in this case. ZERO.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Military families and OPSEC   5/19/2007 11:44:06 PM
Despite the sarcastic comment, I have to agree with Yimmy on this one.  Did the British people, much less the British armored troops, really believe that the Challenger 2 was inpenetrable?  This is war, and no aircraft is invisible, no ship is unsinkable, and no tank is invincible.  Every once in a while a "golden BB" will find its mark and put a tank out of action.  We had the same issue with the M-1 Abrams.  It was nearly invincible during Operation Desert Storm.  Very few, if any, were put out of action by the Iraqis, but by the time we invaded Iraq again twelve years later the weaknesses of the M-1 had been examined and disseminated to our enemies.  Suddenly Iraqi infantry were able to disable a few M-1s with well placed shots from anti-tank missiles to the rear of the M-1s .  The US Army quickly tried to find out what was happening and fixed the problem. 
 
I'm sure the Ministry of Defense is doing the same thing with the Challenger.  I'm sure within days (or even hours) of the tank in the above story getting hit MoD officials were scrambling to find out what happened and how the tank was breached.  This was by no stretch of the imagination a catastrophic failure of the Challenger's armor, but it was a failure nonetheless and I'm sure the MoD will make modifications if they are needed.  It is only through combat that a weapon can truly be evaluated and tested. 
 
What irks me about this story is that once again we have the family of a wounded soldier screaming about a "cover up" when the military or government fails to go public about everything that goes wrong during this war.  I wish someone would talk to these families about operational security and the need to keep certain details quiet.  I can understand why they might want the soldiers to know about possible deficiencies of the Challenger, but what purpose would this really serve?  Surely the soldiers know that the tank is not invincible.  If they don't then they are fools.  The real reason that the MoD didn't release any possible deficiencies in the Challenger's armor was because they don't want the enemy to become aware of any possible weaknesses in the Challenger.  The crew that fired the missile that damaged the Challenger may have very well been killed in their mission, and whatever expertise they gained would have died with them.  Another Iraqi anti-tank crew would have to get just as lucky and hit the same exact spot in order to gain the same results, which is unlikely.  By releasing information declaring that the Challenger has a possible weakness the family of the wounded soldier may have provided the insurgents invaluable information that could place other British soldiers in danger. 
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       5/20/2007 8:36:21 AM
The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier's foot and injured several others.

The injured soldier's family has accused the Government of a cover-up and demanded to know why soldiers manning Challenger 2 tanks had not been warned of the failings with the tank's armour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
They survived an RPG hit on their tanks and are angry now ?   They should be glad to have served inside an Challenger and not in one of those Ami-Coo err Humvees.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/20/2007 8:38:55 AM
Herald :
""Since you don't know how the British armor the Challenger, I'm going to give the value of your opinion exactly what it is worth in this case. ZERO.""

You couldn 't be more wrong Herald . I know a lot in Armor , do not forget that I worked for a Company who does Tank simulation Warfare for crew training purposes :
h*tp://www.esimgames.com/

We worked a lot with World specialists ~we had to~ to provide realistic ballistics based on hard data .
I obviously cannot give armor secrets on a public forum , so I 'll give you this :

""The front turret thickness of the Challenger-2 seems 870mm along side the
gun, narrowing to ~740mm at the turret corner. Since the Challenger 1 & 2
have the same weight there’s no change in the armor mass all round, except
for the „Dorchester“ armor. Its been reported ‘Dorchester’ is ‘dU nuggets’
probably suspended in a elastic medium, and 12 inches of this armor stopped
the M-829. The new mass figures should be ~5.6g/cm³. If we transfer mass
from rear turret to front turret, that’s 5.25 g/cm³, and since the Challenger 2
turret has a smaller surface area than Challenger 1 [by about 1.06 times], the
density goes up to 5.6g/cm³. If we assume 1 part steel, 1.5 parts UO² ‘dU
ceramic’ [11g/cm³] and 2.5 parts Kevlar [1.44 g/cm³]/5, that’s 5.59 g/cm³,
close enough!. Based on UO² that’s a TE of 1.17 KE & 1.96 HEAT. Finally
‘Dorchester’ elastic effect should be similar to the advantage NERA offers, so
the TE value should be 1.17 x 1.17= 1.36 KE.""
Paul Lakowski .

Not long ago , Australia tried the Challenger II ( before to get the Abrams) and the Man in charge , Andrew R. , gave us some good insight of the Brit MBT . Nevertheless , to this day the British MoD refused to give us hard datas about the real quality of Dorchester , but our experts have made some really clever guess  .
When it comes down to Tank , I may say that I can be trusted .
If you have some expertize on the subject , please specify which one . If you haven 't , I might teach you a couple of interesting things .

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    I stand corrected.   5/20/2007 12:55:15 PM
Your opinion is worth 50%.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       5/20/2007 4:34:18 PM
CR2's armour is good.
RPG-29 is a bit of a monster.
When one consideres the variation of shaped charge/armour interaction, a single sample doesn't really prove much. It could be a normal, repeatable occurance or it could be an absolute fluke shot. Making it public doesn't seem to help anyone save the enemy. I remember being astonished to see those pictures of the M1 that had been golden BBed by a PG7 a while back

CR2 is also very mobile. I think that the French are trying to sell LeClerc again and claiming that 10kph in certain situations actually makes a difference in combat.

What CR2 is as well, is expensive.
Only 400-odd were ever made, to order. None have been released to the second-hand market. They are the only tank in the world to use a 120mm rifled gun.

When comparing it to the popular M1 and Leopards, these were bought in large quantities for the Cold war, and subsequent sales have frequently been obsolete war reserves (it being the war reserve that is obsolete, not the tank). Therefore, they are comparitively cheap.

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/20/2007 6:05:04 PM
Herald :
""Your opinion is worth 50%.""

Thanks , that 's better than "ZERO" .

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/20/2007 6:08:27 PM
and claiming that 10kph in certain situations actually makes a difference in combat.
While top speed is limited for every tank due to tracks, real speed is not the same in rough terrain for every tanks.
French army claims a 30 kph advantage in average speed in rough terrain since less bouncing for the crew which make the speed sustainable, and also no slowing to fire since it can fire on the move at long range at its top speed and reload whatever movement of the hull.
Believe it or not.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/20/2007 6:20:41 PM
""CR2 is also very mobile. I think that the French are trying to sell LeClerc again and claiming that 10kph in certain situations actually makes a difference in combat.""

The Chally is indeed very mobile (excellent hydropneumatic system) but a wee bit slow . Give it a 1500hp engine instead of a 1200 as the Tank is heavy , up to 64 T.
The Leclerc is faster and accelerate like mad for a Tank (56 T. , 1500hp Hyperbar + Gas turbine) but it doesn 't give much of a advantage in combat really . The difference comes from the excellent FCS , the best in the World IMO .
The autoloader , well , I think it works great , it 's fast and reliable but that means a crew of 3 . Some may say that 4 onboard is better and it does make sense .
France never tried hard to sell the Leclerc  , I do not know why  ...

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/20/2007 6:24:20 PM
What FS says is true , but it is better to keep a good ratio between speed and accuracy . Sure the Leclerc can ride very fast over very rough terrain , and it is why it is the only Tank where all the crew members have safety belts !

Cheers .


 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy